Yes. There are actually NAZI supporters amongst them this time. But typically the word gets thrown around far too much.
EDIT: It's a long video, there might be a swear in there. There's at least a "Bloody". Hope that's okay.
Last edited:
Blame on both sides
- Thread starter Felon
- Start date
- Status
Yes. There are actually NAZI supporters amongst them this time. But typically the word gets thrown around far too much.
EDIT: It's a long video, there might be a swear in there. There's at least a "Bloody". Hope that's okay.
well yes, obviously they weren't impartial, that was kind of hinted at in my post, they just tried to pretend they were and acted as a barrier between both groups as seemingly the local police didn't
he wasn't shown with them at the rally, he was shown with them at his hotel room
The whole controversy stems from the fact that he deployed absolute equivalency between both groups at Charlottesville when that just isn't the case. The white supremacists were objectively much worse in their behaviour as well as the personal views they held and were marching in support of. One group were marching in support of the confederacy and Hitler. The other was counter-protesting in support of universal healthcare and equality.
Not to mention you know, the murdering a woman bit.
One side is calling for ethnic cleansing and the other isn't? One side is quoting Hitler and the other isn't?
It was the Republicans who pushed for Emancipation, actually. And 'pogrom' is a term from Soviet Russia, not Nazi Germany. Also, both the Italian Fascist party and the NAZIs had heavy socialist strains to them. And no, I'm not just confused by their names. They were pretty socialist in fact as well as name.
Well their views/politics are a bit different, I think the violence/behaviour depends on whether you separate the individual who ran over the woman or not - that incident aside, the actual rally, they do seem to have been as bad as each other in terms of violence. Though including that incident/individual they're far worse. (this is ignoring the rather abhorrent views/politics from the actual nazis present)
The nazis and other right wing protestors had a permit for their protest, had to get through a larger group of antifa and counter protestors, various scuffles/mace incidents... both sides armed with shields/bats etc.. and using them. The whole point of the antifa presence was to try and forcibly disrupt the protest that had a federal court order allowing it to go ahead, the local police and the mayor didn't want it to go ahead and unsurprisingly the local police didn't do a whole lot to separate both sides - a state of emergency was then called forcing the previously permitted protest to disperse, of course then there was more violence.
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 3,783
I think this thread and the past while has shown that we are all too happy to present our opinions without the full facts (ironically what Trump said).
We were not there and we are getting biased information from all media regarding both sides. We don't know exactly what happened, but last time I looked, we kind of waited for the courts of law to decide before the President idiotically calls him a murderer. What if severely mentally I'll? Diminished responsibility? What if he acted deliberately? Terrorist? What if he panicked? Manslaughter?
Both sides are becoming severely polarised. Which suits the real "neo Nazi" side rather than just white nationalists (which last time I looked was still legal..in spite of its conflagrations) and suits the "blm" and "antifa" side rather than the other side concerned about institutional racism etc
We were not there and we are getting biased information from all media regarding both sides. We don't know exactly what happened, but last time I looked, we kind of waited for the courts of law to decide before the President idiotically calls him a murderer. What if severely mentally I'll? Diminished responsibility? What if he acted deliberately? Terrorist? What if he panicked? Manslaughter?
Both sides are becoming severely polarised. Which suits the real "neo Nazi" side rather than just white nationalists (which last time I looked was still legal..in spite of its conflagrations) and suits the "blm" and "antifa" side rather than the other side concerned about institutional racism etc
That doesn't actually work as a counter-argument unless one of us is secretly Donald Trump. (Is it Scorza? My money is on Scorza). Otherwise it's merely symptomatic of you seeing this as two sides (and deciding Trump is a representative) rather than individuals debating our own views which we are.
Last edited:
There, fixed it for you.
They both have a lot to do with socialism. The Italian Fascist Party which is the group that reintroduced the term to the modern world and defined it, were an offshoot of the Italian Socialist Party. They retained numerous socialist policies and attitudes such as wage control, universal health care, state interference with companies and were a heavily working-class backed party. The Nazis were similar in many ways as well, though not as much. They weren't as Left Wing as the Communists with whom they had repeated clashes, but the largest ideological difference between the two was that the Nazis were nationalistic whilst the communists sought union with communists abroad. Both Nazis and the Italian Fascist Party were broadly Left Wing. Fascism as a political ideology is something of a fusion of Right and Left, but essentially Left Wing with Nationalist doctrine. The confusion over where it sits on the political spectrum is primarily because there are a lot of Left Wing people in Academia and they want Fascism to be a Right Wing philosophy even though its origins and practice are quite socialist.
he hasn't flip flopped, by specifically condemning one group (the nazis) he at no point inferred the other group were fine
Take a look at this photo, the liberal left with his "peace" stick bashing the guy in the head while hes on the floor, honestly how sick do you have to be in the head do do that? Where the hell is the police?
Ignore the yellow circle, there is some debate if that is an undercover police officer who didn't do anything or some sad git with a CCJ badge.
looks fake to me grinning press guys at the back, cop to the right
He did say that the people on the march included many fine people
Now, if you are happy to walk side by side with people in your own march carrying swastikas and chanting hate speech then I'm not sure you can be called 'fine'
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,187
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I wonder what some people here will say if the tables are turned, say a group of Afgan holding a rally, dressed with burkas holding ISIS flags, carrying guns marching down the streets of Charlotteville shouting “Down with the whites” and then run people over with a car?
Free speech?
Is it okay if you are white, and carrying Nazi flags?
Free speech?
Is it okay if you are white, and carrying Nazi flags?
This is utter nonsense! Of course it is a political ideology. State control of business, central party, necessity of revolution. Have you ever even read Marx? An economic theory is something like Keynesian about how demand relates to production. Communism is a political ideology of how to control a country. You're just like Trump saying whatever pops into your head as something that sounds good regardless of accuracy or long-term implications of the view.
You just go to No True Scotsman as a reflex. You've already had Left Wing totalitarian regimes listed out for you. Pretty large and destructive ones.
As you know yourself, the left-right dichotomy is a flawed & laughably simplistic way of boiling down political views.
We have the statism vs corporatist aspect. (strong state vs weak state)
Socially liberal vs traditional conservative (pro gay marriage, equal rights vs 'traditional' views) .
Economic left vs capitalist right (high taxes, welfare state vs low taxes no welfare state).
The likes of Hitler, Mao & Stalin all had strong statist elements, most certainly not socially liberal & economically did nothing for the poorest in society.
Regarding the thread, the people who seem to think the murder of a young women is no worse than the back and forth protesting violence for such opposed groups really do highlight the bias they hold.
Saying that, the bottom-feeders in question in this thread who do, don't surprise me one bit (if you had asked me to write a list, the worthless filth in this thread would be at the top).
Excuse me, which of us has argued that running people over with a car was okay?
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,187
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
But you are okay if ISIS marches down the street with flags, in front of your house?
If the tables are turned, Trump would be the first one calling those people a terrorist for running that girl over on Twitter.
I recall walking down the street protesting with Stop the War and a large group of people shouting "Allahu Ackbar" marched along side us for a bit. There was a lot of other stuff they shouted which I didn't understand. I find it more than plausible from their attitude and look that they were espousing views I would disagree with. They just showed up. I couldn't stop them nor did I try.
- Status