Blame on both sides
- Thread starter Felon
- Start date
- Status
This isn't the first incident. We've had anti-government militia take over a nature reserve in Oregon and had other armed demonstrations at statues.
These white nationalists - rightly or wrongly - believes that the president shares their views. They have been emboldened by these events.
You're giving them a gold star for not committing mass murder?
The extreme right doesn't talk to the extreme left, the left in general doesn't talk to the right in general and people are surprised when **** like this happens.
The irony however is that Durden eventually became the very thing he despised. A detail most advocates of the films perceived themes don't seem to understand xD
So you are saying that you dislike the group with KKK members & a murderer in less than the annoying social justice warriors?.
I frankly find this both absurd & hilarious.
If you think what's happening in Charlottesville, should be allowed because it's "freedom of speech within the law" then I think you're being rather gullible. I'd say it's more like a complete hijacking of freedom of speech, to incite violence and racial hatred - because that's exactly what it is, hate speech dressed up to appear like freedom of speech, just so it appears to be legit, because that's allowed under 1st amendment rights.
How do you reach that conclusion from me pointing out that someone's statement was wrong?Do you have Neo-Nazi sympathies? Don't be shy now....
How do you reach that conclusion from the fact I pointed out your statement was wrong?
It would seem from the evidence thus far that you can't 100% silence their rhetoric. Most of it is spoken in small groups behind closed doors or on the internet.
We've had anti-hate-speech laws for years and whilst it may have helped, it hasn't prevented the spread of ideologies of hate. Hasn't prevented radicalisation.
The root problem is discontent, lack of investment in today's society, feeling isolated, powerless, whatever. Lots of people looking for an outlet for their anger. And then falling in with these hate groups because it's really easy to hate something external when you're unhappy with your own life. Whether its "Kafirs" or "blacks" or whatever, hating something is much easier than fixing whatever is wrong with your own life.
So since you can't silence their rhetoric, and it's pretty much pointless to try, the best thing you can do is to have a counter-narrative. To try to empower people to live productive lives. To show that ideologies of hate are not new, and the awful consequences these have wrought upon the world.
And then to acknowledge that some people will always hate us, or hate Jews, or hate blacks... and to deal with them via the legal system.
We have massive counter-terrorism units, we have police, we have laws and a justice system. We need only make sure that these are working properly.
What we don't need is mob rule and vigilante action. Because that can escalate too. We could move from protester on protester action to witch hunts, with people being attacked in their own homes because somebody said they were a Nazi. You've got to crack down on this kind of thing.
Because its easier for that person to attack their idea of your ideology, then it is for that person to address what you've wrote.
If i remember correctly, the Oregon affair was laughably organised and easily dealt with... by the government, as they should, not some packmob who think their version of fascism is better.
I wasn't going to dignify that initial comment with a response, but now with others piling on I feel forced to.
I have never advocated violence towards muslims. You won't find anything in my posting history to back up your opinion, which is entirely without merit.
The worst thing I've said is that I don't trust islam as a whole, and I fear future islamic revolution in Europe.
Fear of violence =/= condoning violence or vigilante action. How you can make that jump I have no idea.
Because you said the words yourself - "we should give freedom of speech to people within the law" I'm saying your gullible if that's what you think all is happening here.
And you haven't pointed out anything whatsoever as being wrong at any point, you didn't even answer the question I asked 4 pages ago, so I'll ask it again;
If white nationalists apply for a "unite the right" protest permit, involving the KKK and Neo Nazis - what do you really expect will happen? why do you think they're going there, regardless of what they said when they applied for the permit?
You're the most gullible person in the world, if you think they applied to make such a protest, and everything would be fine, lawful and within "freedom of speech" ...
Yep
Just posting to clarify. I got the impression they were pro-Islam, anti-Infidel types. It's not a complex idea that people who you don't agree with can and do show up to a march. Go to pretty much any protest in the UK on any local issue and the Socialist Workers Party will show up to try and present it as campaigning for Socialism, for example. There's nothing confusing about the idea that there are multiple voices on a protest nor uncommon about it happening. And to correct you, they didn't join "me", they came to the same protest.
Okay - just clarifying because this was obvious and also a bad re-writing of something I wrote.
So are you saying we shouldn't give free speech to people acting within the law? If thats the case then which groups and ideas should be stopped even if they are within the law? Who decides what lawful activities should not be allowed? How do we decide which completely lawful activities should not be allowed, even if they are completely lawful?
Surely a better idea is to always allow lawful activities but to have a meaningful discussion on which activities should be lawful and which should be non lawful? Why wouldn't you want to follow that approach?
To be fair Screeeech, Hades was technically right on what he picked you up on , they didn't get a permit to espouse hatred and promote the slaughter of blacks and jews
I know what you are saying, but to deny their march for what they did get a permit for (to protest the taking down of the statue) on the basis of what we think they might do (promote hate speech) is a bit thought police wouldn't you say?
We do have to allow them the right to legally protest and only intervene and stop it when they then go on and break the law
What is the point of a far right protest, involving the KKK and neo nazis, other than to promote the hatred and slaughter of blacks and jews?
Could you please point this out for me.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying Hades is technically right, they didn't apply for and get a permit to hold a rally to espouse the slaughter of blacks and jews, even if that was their intention.
The Oregon incident lasted 40 days and resulted in the death of one member of the militia. This was despite there only being 20-40 militia and both the state police and FBI being brought in.
I agree with you though. It shouldn't be the "job" of antifa mobs to stand up to white nationalists. That should be the job of the president.
And when the President is openly tolerant to the far right community and police brutality....where do you go from there
- Status