Blame on both sides

[StriderX]

Primary enemy? You're joking right?

If it were true, they wouldn't have waited until Pearl Harbour, there were plenty of sympathy for Nazism in the US and Britain (perhaps less so realistically, but upper echelons we're most intrigued), rewrite history all you wan't though.

 

[stewski]

I don't know re: the first question, I've not asserted that we have. I'm asking you whether you have any evidence re: this particular group?

I'm saying given the history between the USA and Hitlers germany and the probable lack of evidence of genocide intention by the last group to salute the Fuhrer you appear to be attempting a brand comeback bigger than Atari!

Why do you believe the soviet flag is different in this context? Surely your same argument can be applied re: genocide - if you believe that the mere presence of a nazi flag implies the carrier supports genocide (because Hitler) then why does the same not apply re: a soviet flag (because Stalin)?

Carrying the soviet flag in the context of a rally in the USA or UK is in my opinion fairly different to Hitler saluting, self confessed Nazi's. Diifferent may not make it less controvercial to some, but there are likely far fewer with dead relatives at the hands of Soviets in the USA than Hitlers Nazi's!

Is context not key in both cases? For starters it isn't the 1940s!

Yet similarity to pre war europe seems close enough to modern times for prince Charles and many historians to comment on it!
Good luck with you rebrand.

 

[stewski]

Primary enemy? You're joking right?

If it were true, they wouldn't have waited until Pearl Harbour, there were plenty of sympathy for Nazism in the US and Britain (perhaps less so realistically, but upper echelons we're most intrigued), rewrite history all you wan't though.

From that entire post, that is your single take away?

 

[dowie]

I'm saying given the history between the USA and Hitlers germany and the probable lack of evidence of genocide intention by the last group to salute the Fuhrer you appear to be attempting a brand comeback bigger than Atari!

no I was just asking for evidence for your genocide statement, though as I've asked several times now and you've produced nothing I'll stop as you're just going to keep on arguing for the sake of it even though your statement was unsubstantiated

Carrying the soviet flag in the context of a rally in the USA or UK is in my opinion fairly different to Hitler saluting, self confessed Nazi's. Diifferent may not make it less controvercial to some, but there are likely far fewer with dead relatives at the hands of Soviets in the USA than Hitlers Nazi's!

Of course it is different, they're rather different ideologies, the controversy aspect is a different matter but there is no reason why your unsubstantiated genocide argument couldn't apply to both though - both Hitler and Stalin committed genocide.

Anyway it is clear you've got nothing so I'll not persist.

 

[stewski]

no I was just asking for evidence for your genocide statement, though as I've asked several times now and you've produced nothing I'll stop as you're just going to keep on arguing for the sake of it even though your statement was unsubstantiated

Very odd question, pre war and after the start it's unlikely we had good evidence of Hitlerrs genocidal intentions, post war there is evidence, I guess dressing as a Nazi and saluting him doesn't prove you're genocidal any more than someone pointing a gun at you and shouting Im going to kill you, or strapping a bomb to their body and getting on a plane with others means they want to kill others!

Of course it is different, they're rather different ideologies, the controversy aspect is a different matter but there is no reason why your unsubstantiated genocide argument couldn't apply to both though - both Hitler and Stalin committed genocide.

Anyway it is clear you've got nothing so I'll not persist.

I'd suggest dropping the rebranding Nazi idea!

 

[Angilion]

The apple CEO said it best

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...violence-tech-intel-merck-under-a7897546.html

"I disagree with the president and others who believe that there is a moral equivalence between white supremacists and Nazis, and those who oppose them by standing up for human rights. Equating the two runs counter to our ideals as Americans."

That would be a good point if the president and others had said that.

But they didn't, so it's a strawman.

The moral equivalence was drawn between two different strains of violent fascists. Both are, of course, opposed to human rights rather than standing up for them.

 

[Tosno]

Very odd question, pre war and after the start it's unlikely we had good evidence of Hitlerrs genocidal intentions, post war there is evidence,

No lack of evidence of Stalin's pre war genocide (5 million) WWII genocide (13 million) and post war (15 million) then you make such nonsensical claims "likely far fewer with dead relatives at the hands of Soviets in the USA" Soviet genocide didn't even end with Stalin (6 million post Stalin 1954+)

 

[Angilion]

When the "useful idiots" make up the majority of the protest, and those "useful idiots" are protesting against something else then it evolves from a protest against freedom of speech tbh.

Edit: although to be fair, much like many protests there wee probably a multitude of different reasons people went. Some people may well have gone there to "suppress freedom of speech", the majority however almost certainly didn't.

They succeeded in suppressing freedom of speech. The sole point of the protest was to suppress freedom of speech. All those people took part in a protest to suppress freedom of speech by force and succeeded in doing so and many expressed satisfaction at having succeeded in suppressing freedom of speech.

So no, this protest which existed specifically for the purpose of suppressing freedom of speech by force and which succeeded in suppressing freedom of speech by force did not "evolve" into anything else.

We have no idea how many of the people involved were useful idiots who didn't intend to support what they supported or to do what they did. They might have been the majority, they might have been a tiny minority. It doesn't matter either way - they didn't affect what the protest was for or what the protest did in any way other than making it stronger. That's what useful idiots do. That's why they're useful.

 

[Angilion]

[bunch of ranting nonsense I'm going to ignore]

Don't forget suggesting those who salute Hitler are genocidal is hyperbole!

Don't forget nobody apart from you has said that.

 

[stewski]

Don't forget nobody apart from you has said that.

I'm quite authoritarian in my position against Nazis and genocide in general, aren't you?

I'm not sure even the prominent white supremacists present advocate for genocide, seems like a bit of hyperbole tbh...

Obviously the vast majority of people are anti-Nazis.

 

[stewski]

No lack of evidence of Stalin's pre war genocide (5 million) WWII genocide (13 million) and post war (15 million) then you make such nonsensical claims "likely far fewer with dead relatives at the hands of Soviets in the USA" Soviet genocide didn't even end with Stalin (6 million post Stalin 1954+)

There are many genocidal idiots around the world, political ideology and ideology in general can be and is to this day, used for evil, I'm unsure if the millions of deaths at the hands of soviets or the more recent Rwandan genocide have had the same impact on American lives as the millions at the hands of Hitler!

Standing shoulder to shoulder with people who salute such leaders is an apologist position.

 

[stewski]

[point by point deconstruction of how you have systematically misrepresented virtually everything I have said, which you are going to ignore]

 

[Amp34]

They succeeded in suppressing freedom of speech. The sole point of the protest was to suppress freedom of speech. All those people took part in a protest to suppress freedom of speech by force and succeeded in doing so and many expressed satisfaction at having succeeded in suppressing freedom of speech.

So no, this protest which existed specifically for the purpose of suppressing freedom of speech by force and which succeeded in suppressing freedom of speech by force did not "evolve" into anything else.

We have no idea how many of the people involved were useful idiots who didn't intend to support what they supported or to do what they did. They might have been the majority, they might have been a tiny minority. It doesn't matter either way - they didn't affect what the protest was for or what the protest did in any way other than making it stronger. That's what useful idiots do. That's why they're useful.

I presume the you're against any protest and counter protest then, as that would suppress freedom of speech?

As I said before I have absolutely no issue with people peacefully protesting against another rally. Those that cause violence and intentionally shut rally's down however should be stopped/removed from the location. The vast majority of the people at that protest were protesting peacefully, hence I have no issues with them and would not consider them trying to suppress freedom of speech.

 

[Amp34]

They succeeded in suppressing freedom of speech. The sole point of the protest was to suppress freedom of speech. All those people took part in a protest to suppress freedom of speech by force and succeeded in doing so and many expressed satisfaction at having succeeded in suppressing freedom of speech.

So no, this protest which existed specifically for the purpose of suppressing freedom of speech by force and which succeeded in suppressing freedom of speech by force did not "evolve" into anything else.

We have no idea how many of the people involved were useful idiots who didn't intend to support what they supported or to do what they did. They might have been the majority, they might have been a tiny minority. It doesn't matter either way - they didn't affect what the protest was for or what the protest did in any way other than making it stronger. That's what useful idiots do. That's why they're useful.

I presume the you're against any protest and counter protest then, as that would suppress freedom of speech?

As I've said before I have no issue with people counter protesting a protest as long as they do it peacefully. That's what the majority did. Those that didn't should have been removed from the location.

 

[Trusty]

It's starting to happen here people..


https://www.theguardian.com/comment...statues-nelsons-column-should-be-next-slavery

Whoever is the chief editor at the Guardian needs to be taken to the side and had a word with..

 

[Amp34]

It's starting to happen here people..


https://www.theguardian.com/comment...statues-nelsons-column-should-be-next-slavery

Whoever is the chief editor at the Guardian needs to be taken to the side and had a word with..

Worth looking in the other thread that's as started about this subject.

And it's also worth nothing the bit at the top, where it says "Opinion". Generally that means it's an opinion piece unrelated to the editorial content. Opinion pieces are usually pretty inflammatory (both "left" and "right" topics) and related generally to opinions on current events.

Also would you like to answer the question I had about suppressing free speech I asked you twice earlier?

 

[Angilion]

I presume the you're against any protest and counter protest then, as that would suppress freedom of speech?

As I said before I have absolutely no issue with people peacefully protesting against another rally. Those that cause violence and intentionally shut rally's down however should be stopped/removed from the location. The vast majority of the people at that protest were protesting peacefully, hence I have no issues with them and would not consider them trying to suppress freedom of speech.

They were there specifically to protest against freedom of speech in general and to prevent anyone hearing those people speaking in favour of freedom of speech in particular. They also went to great lengths to portray the very idea of freedom of speech as being white supremacy/fascism/Nazism.

As a result, I consider them to be trying to suppress freedom of speech (and having significant success in doing so).

Not all protests are about suppressing freedom of speech, but a protest made explicitly for the purpose of suppressing freedom of speech is about suppressing freedom of speech.

 

[Trusty]

Worth looking in the other thread that's as started about this subject.

And it's also worth nothing the bit at the top, where it says "Opinion". Generally that means it's an opinion piece unrelated to the editorial content. Opinion pieces are usually pretty inflammatory (both "left" and "right" topics) and related generally to opinions on current events.

Ah ok, didn't notice that. Still not good for the guardian i feel..

Also would you like to answer the question I had about suppressing free speech I asked you twice earlier?

Ask me again, i've obviously not seen it amongst all the other posts or something, there's a lot going on..

 

[Amp34]

They were there specifically to protest against freedom of speech in general and to prevent anyone hearing those people speaking in favour of freedom of speech in particular. They also went to great lengths to portray the very idea of freedom of speech as being white supremacy/fascism/Nazism.

As a result, I consider them to be trying to suppress freedom of speech (and having significant success in doing so).

Not all protests are about suppressing freedom of speech, but a protest made explicitly for the purpose of suppressing freedom of speech is about suppressing freedom of speech.

All 30,000 were there to protest against freedom of speech? Nothing to do with the events in Charlottesville?

If by "they" you mean a small minority then perhaps I'd agree with you.

 

[Amp34]

Ah ok, didn't notice that. Still not good for the guardian i feel..

I thought you were all for freedom of speech? Why is it not good for the Guardian posting someone's opinion on a current affair?

Ask me again, i've obviously not seen it amongst all the other posts or something, there's a lot going on..

I asked you how you feel about Milo "doxxing" protestors to make their lives hell (his words) and how that fits with your opinion on the supressing freedom of speech. It's basically another form of supressing freedom of speech - threatening protestors with hell if they protest against him.