Blame on both sides

[Sankari]

But part of the point is, both sides knew what they were getting into. Both sides brought weapons. Both sides used them.

If you're committed to peaceful protest you don't run around brandishing weapons.

I agree. But the people complaining about being confronted were not the people carrying weapons.

And in the case of protesting against the neo Nazis, one suspects that people committed to peaceful protest avoid the scene altogether.

Where's the logic in that? People committed to peaceful protest often enter dangerous situations for the sake of making their point. It's called courage.

 

[FoxEye]

How are people seriously trying to suggest that the actions of the white supremacists were just them exercising freedom of speech?

Nazi symbols and salutes, racist chants, flaming torches, helmets and shields, automatic weapons on display, deviating from the agreed route to engage in confrontation etc.

I think most of us have said we don't condone those people or their ideology. Just because we support freedom of speech doesn't mean we condone other things that they did, some of which you mentioned.

But what we also don't condone is vigilante action. When these Nazis inevitably break the law, they should be arrested and their protest disbanded by the police. People have said why that didn't happen, but that in itself is a different issue. The police should have the ability to make arrests where needed and disperse Nazi protests which break laws.

But... if they didn't break any laws... what we're saying there is no "right" for Anti-Fascists to attack them.

People have the right to hold and share abhorrent viewpoints if that's what they choose for themselves. That doesn't justify attacking them. I think that's pretty much what people have been saying here.

If you are a peaceful person you'd have stayed the heck away from this protest. Peaceful people would have been sure not to be anywhere near potential trouble.

The people who were there - on both sides - were not peaceful people. That's all we're saying.

 

[dowie]

I'm going to ask you again: are you claiming he did not bring those firearms to the march?

I'm claiming what I've already stated, are you going to answer my question?

 

[FoxEye]

Where's the logic in that? People committed to peaceful protest often enter dangerous situations for the sake of making their point. It's called courage.

In the case of Ghandi et al, sure.

It's not courageous to risk life and limb protesting against a small, inept, universally hated group who are as politically significant as an ant, and also known to be violent.

It's either stupidity or a desire to get into a fight.

Not everyone entering the fray is courageous. Some are simply idiots itching for a fight. The ability to see the context and to differentiate between Anti-Fascist thugs and, eg, Ghandi is very important. One was courageous and committed to peaceful protest against an unjust establishment.

The other are thugs who like to get into fights with other thugs, in my estimation. There are plenty of photos around.

 

[Tunney]

I think most of us have said we don't condone those people or their ideology. Just because we support freedom of speech doesn't mean we condone other things that they did, some of which you mentioned.

Where do you draw the line though? Is Sieg Heil-ing past a synagogue acceptable under free speech?

 

[FoxEye]

Where do you draw the line though? Is Sieg Heil-ing past a synagogue acceptable under free speech?

Probably. Should we start arresting people for making fat jokes? For bullying? For hurting feelings?

Like I said tho, somebody doing what you mentioned should probably be checked for mental illness. It's not normal.

To expand upon that, I think a sensible place to draw the line is this. Any time someone incites violence/hostility/criminal action towards a person or group that is illegal. Ie "Death to xxx!" is an incitement of murder against xxx. Since murder is illegal (obvs!), incitement of murder is illegal.

Thus saluting and saying Sieg Heil next to a synagogue probably would be legal, yes. Repugnant, but protected free speech. If that person kept doing it it they could fall foul of other laws, such as stalking, etc. Or antisocial behaviour.

 

[ultralaser]

I think we need to see what is happening in the USA as a good thing, on both sides, the ability to exercise free speech is essential (ableit painful). Freedom is rare and it should be protected. Non-violent protest is a sign of a functioning democracy.

 

[Amp34]

It seems strange that the people in this thread shouting, "You just don't get it!" have failed to see the obvious truth, which is what you've just nicely summed up.

Violent people on both sides. And they gave the "Nazis" exactly what they wanted, which was a jolly good scrap.

And then the media all stood there and televised the whole thing, giving them the coverage they undoubtedly also wanted.

The violent elements of the "Anti-Fascists" aren't heros - they're just more violent people who only understand the language of violence and violent suppression. Idiots, not protectors.

Who actually started the violence though? Staging a counter protest is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate thing to do yet you seem to be suggesting people shouldn't be doing that just in case the original protestors start beating people up.

Just because you are protected by freedom of speech laws doesn't mean you shouldn't be called outfit your views.

Let's remember here that the reason this made the news is not because of a protest and some scuffling, it was because a Neo Nazi decided to (seemingly) intentionally run over a couple of dozen people, killing one and then the US president somehow decided the other side were just as bad as the side the person that ran over the person in the car was on - a side full of white supremacists and Neo nazis.

Personally I don't like the views of those protesting but would realistically say they should be able to march as long as they stay within the law. I'm not too keen on the removal of historical statues either, but I'm also not against non violent counter protests/marches.

 

[Amp34]

Character assassination is a popular tactic of certain political groups these days to stifle any and all debate that doesn't work with their belief system.

Yep, it's where terms like ********* and SJW came from.

 

[Amp34]

I think we need to see what is happening in the USA as a good thing, on both sides, the ability to exercise free speech is essential (ableit painful). Freedom is rare and it should be protected. Non-violent protest is a sign of a functioning democracy.

I think what has happened here has shown the world that while there is a minority of people like those supremacists the majority of the country certainly aren't in line with them. In fact it's also showing just how out of touch Trump is as well. Ostracized and criticized by both Democrats and Republicans alike.

 

[FoxEye]

I think what has happened here has shown the world that while there is a minority of people like those supremacists the majority of the country certainly aren't in line with them. In fact it's also showing just how out of touch Trump is as well. Ostracized and criticized by both Democrats and Republicans alike.

Except the reality is that what a politician will say and we he/she actually believes can be tenuously linked at best You always have to assume with politicians that everything they say is calculated for political point scoring. It normally is.

In this case it's a safe bet to say that the vast majority of people around the whole world condemn the neo Nazis.

I think what has surprised people ITT at least is that people will also condemn vigilantes. Even those who exclusively attack fascists.

 

[Amp34]

Except the reality is that what a politician will say and we he/she actually believes can be tenuously linked at best You always have to assume with politicians that everything they say is calculated for political point scoring. It normally is.

In this case it's a safe bet to say that the vast majority of people around the whole world condemn the neo Nazis.

I think what has surprised people ITT at least is that people will also condemn vigilantes. Even those who exclusively attack fascists.

Oh I agree, I'm not entirely sure all the republicans condemning the Neo nazis are particularly sincere but at least they've played the game. Trump on the other hand has made it abundantly clear his feelings on the matter.

As to your last point don't think that surprises many people. You however haven't actually clarified what you mean by attacking. It's pretty clear the Nazis started a fight against counter protestors, hence the reason very few of those that don't generally hate anyone different to them haven't mentioned anything about the counter protestors.

 

[FoxEye]

It's pretty clear the Nazis started a fight against counter protestors, hence the reason very few of those that don't generally hate anyone different to them haven't mentioned anything about the counter protestors.

If I'm reading that correctly you're implying something. Care to spell it out?

 

[Tosno]

These neo-nazi cosplayers would continue to be a joke if no one had paid attention to them. And the "anti-fascist" Anitfa (far worse, far more evil, far MORE fascist) and BLM, BROUGHT THE VIOLENCE with them. *THEY* are the ones to blame, they didnt' come to counter protest, they came to hurt people. It's pure luck they actually attacked some real racists (for the first time in their useful idiot cultural Marxist lives I suspect).

 

[sports_brah]

Yep, it's where terms like ********* and SJW came from.

Brb got called *********. Now people are doxxing me in real life, I've been fired from my job, ostracised in the community.

Oh wait that doesn't happen and you know it.

 

[elmarko]

If I'm reading that correctly you're implying something. Care to spell it out?

I believe it's along the lines of that the well know racist (and or) idiot posters are the ones who are most fervently vocally criticising the 'alt-left' protesters equally or more than the actual Nazi protesters who murdered a young women.

I'm not surprised by the people either, hell if you asked me to write a list 99% of the people in this thread who I'm familiar have responded exactly how I would have predicted.

Unsurprisingly people with idiotic views, tend to have idiotic views on everything.

Then you have those (which I'd put you in) who are coming from a free speech direction, which I understand & can appreciate. But in this case, counter protests are legal & the Nazis did head directly into the counter protests (instigating violence) & murdered a women.

If anything you could argue that the Nazi group didn't allow the free speech of the counter protesters.

You then have to accept that brandishing swastikas, waving Nazi flags, performing salutes, waving placards calling for the deaths of jews/blacks & shouting racial hatred is a form of inciting violence. They are not asking for something for them, but for the removal of rights of others.

This is not democratic, protesting to have the rights removed from specific ethnic groups based on Nazi ideology isn't equivalent to another form of protest - either morally or practically (different goals).

 

[VincentHanna]

the "anti-fascist" Anitfa (far worse, far more evil, far MORE fascist) and BLM, BROUGHT THE VIOLENCE with them. *THEY* are the ones to blame, they didnt' come to counter protest, they came to hurt people.

Antifa and BLM are worse than groups that want to exterminate black people and the Jews

You heard it here first people.

 

[Freakbro]

Thankfully the slight blip of resurgence of the ideals of the alt-right scum and their apologist supporters is brief and they will return to just being a stain on the footnote of history.

 

[RoboCod]

Antifa and BLM are worse than groups that want to exterminate black people and the Jews

You heard it here first people.

No doubt there are BLM member's that would like nothing more than the extermination of white people. You're making the naive assumption that there is a wonderful and good side to this whole ugly fiasco.

Mind you, your response is to Tosno. Take everything he says with a pinch of salt. It's 99% twaddle, dribble and bath flatulence.

 

[Tunney]

No doubt there are BLM member's that would like nothing more than the extermination of white people. You're making the naive assumption that there is a wonderful and good side to this whole ugly fiasco.

You're making an assumption on the views of some individuals in a group versus the stated aim of a whole group. It's false equivalency.