No thread needed, Radical Authoritarian Nationalism is a good summation for fascism. Between sacking everyone, replacing those investigating him, stirring up ethnic hate and threatening the free press The current president in the states is having a good go at making a definitional example!
Blame on both sides
- Thread starter Felon
- Start date
- Status
So would you rally alongside a Nazi?
I sure as hell wouldn't rally alongside a stalinist!
He's triggered. Not so many people anti Soviet and genocide though.
nope I'd not
stalinist on the other hand are a bit different, you'll see a commie flag at a major demo where the vast majority of people are not... ditto to socialist workers taking stuff over
on the other hand actual Nazis are a bit of a special case and not many people would march alongside them, doing so would likely mean you're surrounded by them and other white supremacists/unsavoury types
like the KKK? who you a moment ago suggested I was using hyperbole / misrepresenting, Arnie made the obvious point well, you join a rally there are bunch of Nazi supporters and KKK on the rally too, either go home or explain why they should drop the failed ideology and then go home!
It's not about blame on both sides it's about not emboldening morons of any political persuasion, Trump struggles with that, but then a large portion of his brain is devoted to moronism!
Last edited:
I've read the posts, it appears to be you that's not understanding the point of them.
Regarding the flag, to reiterate the point. Context is important. I asked you to provide examples of people being spat on just because they are holding a US flag. You provided the Boston example as your evidence - as you say a pro lifer waving it in front of a protest march. Do you not think perhaps the fact she was a pro lifer may have been more of the issue than her just holding a US flag?
So can you provide any evidence that just holding a US flag makes you be seen as an enemy, without any other controversial context?
You're right, signs and "things" being "ripped away"/stolen at protests happens all the time, and have likely happened since the first protests occurred hundreds/thousands of years ago. How that's related to the "left" and "right" issue I don't know. A bit like the "shutting down of free speech" comment, to proclaim it's only one side doing it is rather bias don't you think?
Why do I think Charlotteville may have been a problem? I don't know - perhaps because the event organizers specifically stated that was one of the main reasons they decided to cancel it.
Again, to completely ignore the context as to why that particular event was cancelled (by the organizers own admission, largely because of tensions caused by the events at Charlottesville - they didn't want to run an event lead by a controversial figure when emotions were running high because of an increased chance of violence) is to ignore most of the reason behind it. The fact you're completely ignoring that also suggests a rather blinkered/bias viewpoint don't you think?
And where have I stated they just started to happen? I didnt. I said they are relatively rare and isolated incidents. Sure, it's important that people can speak freely, and they can in the vast majority of cases. In some isolated cases that wasn't allowed to happen, and that's a shame on those protesters that crossed the line. It doesn't negate the fact that just because you can provide a few new articles it's some massive issue.
As an example of that point I showed earlier that while Milo couldn't do one of his events, he had an entire campus tour that he subsequently went on to do.
I think let of the issue is when discussing "Are both sides to blame?", are we discussing:
- The specific events at Charlottsville, which was broadly a bunch on Neo Nazis and supremacists vs a mix of locals and some professional protestors, where there was some violence on both sides, culminating in one of the protestors killing a counter protestor. Or
- The actions of the "left" and the "right" in general, unrelated to specific incidents or events
For Charlottesville there pretty much is no debate IMO, one side was significantly worse than the other.
For the more philosophical debate of whether the "left" or "right" as a whole are more to blame, then it's a much more complex story.
So the majority of the 30,000 people there knew it was a free speech rally and decided to go and protest against it?
Alternatively were the majority there because they saw (social?) media reports of what people like the mayor said, and decided that after Charlottesville they would make their voice heard against what they assumed would be there?
There's a reason the "where are the Nazis?" question summed up the rally. It was a protest against the events of Charlottesville and the people at that event (the Nazis), not a protest against free speech. To position the protest as a protest against free speech is just a way of trying to make political capital out of it.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
It developed into the wider picture, mostly just because there's been another rally, and there's another today so it'll probably move on again.
Not "left" vs "right", that's too broad. More like "antifa/blm" vs "kkk/nazi/alt-right". But "kkk/nazi/alt-right" weren't at boston, so that was more about how "antifa/blm" managed to find nazis even in the absence of nazis.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
You can't have watched the video footage surely? Both sides were talking about free speech - with antifa/blm telling people what is okay to say - basically with nothing being okay unless it's them saying it.
The problem is the definition of Antifa/blm varies so much depending on the person discussing it it needs to be framed as a "left" vs "right" debate unfortunately.
The issue with Boston is there was a perception that the KKK/Nazis/alt-right were going to be at Boston, so it's not a particularly clear case for or against anything, especially if all the "counter" protestors are going to be lumped in as Antifa (as many have done in the Charlottesville counter protest as well).
Again, all 30,000 or just a vocal few?
We're all 30,000 there to protest "against" free speech? Or were there multiple reasons for people going there?
nope, I didn't say that, I said:
You could perhaps counter that by citing one of the prominent people at that rally and show me where they have advocated for genocide?
this seems to be the list of prominent speakers:
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
Antifa - the people dressed in black, covering their faces. e.g. https://assets.change.org/photos/5/kk/wx/MlkkWxdYoDUKgps-800x450-noPad.jpg?1486222088
BLM - the people chanting "black lives matter", typically wearing clothing or holding signs saying "black lives matter". e.g. https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/blacklivesmatter.jpg
But you posted the following statement:
Directly after I posted the below
Whilst I was quoting and clearly questioning a forum member, if they would join in with a bunch Nazis on the Rally.
You really are the context swapping king!
By the way, it's not obvious that the people standing shoulder to shoulder with Rallying Nazis are Anti-Nazi, though as Arnie says it should be!
Huh? are you saying i'm not understanding my own posts?
Spat on? I don't understand. Do you mean berated or something?
You're miss understanding my earlier posts. The woman in that video, i've no idea if she is a pro lifer. This is a separate case
I provided you with the link, i know why it was shut down. My post was about the wider issue of the shutting down of debates that certain people don't like. Call them a fascist and whatnot!! you were the one focusing in on Charlottesville when in reality Charlottesville is the product of a long line of problems that have been boiling up.
I get the feeling you are deliberately misinterpreting my posts...
And yet Charlottesville seems important in that it's the first terrorist attack I remember the president suggesting blame on both sides, no?
Are you saying you'd rally alongside violent fascists who advocate things such as thoughtcrime?
See, I can do it too.
I am curious about one thing, though. Are you genuinely unable to understand the existence of anything apart from the two extremes which are similar in nature or are you knowingly using false dichotomy as a rhetorical device?
I suggest you do some reading about what authoritarianism is. I also suggest that you consider the long recognised problem of being so wrapped up in fighting an enemy that you become like them. Sure, there are some differences between the fascists on each side. But they're very similar.
My position is against violence, hatred, irrational prejudices, authoritarianism, etc. Is yours? Or are you only opposed to some variations of those things?
I literally just said one of the only two marches I ever went on I peeled of for a cheeky burger in full sight of the the meat is murder masses and I wouldn't march with stalinists! At what point do you and Dowie stop being apologists for people standing shoulder to shoulder alongside Nazis, literally wearing swastikas and drop making trite remarks about the KKK being against genocide?
Maybe, maybe not. No way of knowing.
That's exactly what it was. The presence of useful idiots is irrelevant, regardless of how many of them there were.
- Status