Blame on both sides

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well I'm not sure that's a great argument, definitely one I hadn't considered though!

Nazi's who mostly did not suggest they believed in genocide as they gained/took power in Germany and western Europe then went on to kill millions in genocide, were typified by wearing the swastika and showed their allegiance to their leader Hitler through a specific form of salute!

People wearing the swastika doing the Hitler salute at a rally with white supremisists and members of the KKK may not have any genocidal positions as they are the reformed brand of Nazi, honest!

One of their number killed a person protesting at their presence!

It's feasible!
 
So again, do you actually have any evidence that they're in favour of genocide?

Do you apply the same argument re: genocide to people opposing them carrying the soviet flag?
 
So again, do you actually have any evidence that they're in favour of genocide?

Do you apply the same argument re: genocide to people opposing them carrying the soviet flag?
What evidence did we have of the Nazi genocidal position pre wwii?

On soviet symbolism support, context would be key, As said I wouldn't support a stalinist rally/stallinists due to atrocities, but genocide is likely an incorrect term!
 
What evidence did we have of the Nazi genocidal position pre wwii?

On soviet symbolism support, context would be key, As said I wouldn't support a stalinist rally/stallinists due to atrocities, but genocide is likely an incorrect term!

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?

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)?

Is context not key in both cases? For starters it isn't the 1940s!
 
Everything you have posted to me thus far on this topic is in response to my position that it is correct for Arnold to suggest standing with Nazis supporting a failed ideology is wrong and should be condemned!

No it isn't and that isn't your position anyway.

It's almost definitional of a Nazi apologist to stand along side actual Nazi's!

Do you really believe that "My position is against violence, hatred, irrational prejudices, authoritarianism, etc." is Nazism? Seriously, that's really what you believe? Also, I've never been within a thousand miles of Charlottesville so you're wrong about that too. But that's a minor detail in comparison to believing that "My position is against violence, hatred, irrational prejudices, authoritarianism, etc." is Nazism.

You have yet to condemn Rallying alongside Nazis

I've yet to agree with you that the only two possibilities are two slightly different varieties of fascism. Since you're apparently convinced that those are the only two possibilities, you can't understand me being opposed to both.

Or are you arguing that Nazism isn't fascist, that it isn't authoritarian, that it isn't based on irrational prejudices and hatred and that it is opposed to violence? Since you're claiming that condemning those things is being a Nazi apologist, it follows that you think that Nazism is about condeming all those things. Of course, that would require your position to be even internally consistent and I certainly wouldn't assume that it is.

and so far Dowies position is Nu Nazi may be different and the KKK dont say they support genocide (historically I suspect neither did the Nazi's).

That subthread started when you linked genocide to the idea that authoritarianism, irrational prejudice and discrimination are not justice and went on to make wild and unsubstantiated claims about who is advocating genocide.

Craziest discussion ever!

Quite possibly. Your insistence that only the two farthest extremes exist and that everyone who opposes all forms of fascism is Nazi apologist a is bizarre.
 
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
Notice the Nazi scum Nazi scum being shouted at the end? Someone who is pro life is apparently Nazi scum.



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...

No, you're misunderstanding my replies to your posts.

And apologies, I could have sworn you mentioned someone being spat on holding a flag. Got that wrong, but the berated works fine as well. The point is still that people aren't just being targeted because they're holding American flags or signs, they're being targeted because of the what the sign says and/or the reason they are there. It's likely to have nothing to do with the flag itself.

Yes some people call people nazis with no real association, but what is the scale of the problem? Again, it's relatively minor, with a small number actually doing so. Should they? No, probably not, is it really a big issue? Not really, any more than people calling others ********** or SJWs.

I understand your post was about the wider issue, and I replied about that. Twice. In reply to the general premise of shutting down debates, yes there have been some prominent events cancelled. But again - these are few and far between in reality. To use the Milo example again, he did a tour to multiple locations, only one of them being cancelled.

No, that single event shouldn't need to have been cancelled and yes, the people using violence to stop the event should be stopped. But to claim it's some massive issue is again making a mountain out of a molehill. It's certainly not justification for neonazis and white supremacists to decide to march somewhere - that's more related to emboldenment due to the comments of people like Trump than anything to do with shutting down free speech IMO.

I'm not focusing on Charlottesville, that part of the post is in direct response and discussing the evidence you put forward (the link to the cancelling of a specific event) for the issues discussed above.

No one is deliberately misinterpreting your posts...

And again, how do you feel about the likes of Milo specifically naming and "shaming" protesters to make their lives hell because they protest against him? Do you not consider that another form of shutting down debates? And how do you rectify that against your claim that the "left" are doing it? Perhaps both sides have a similar problem..?
 
Still funny that people think that "social justice" is some sort of all encompassing evil.
At this point, "SJWs" are as much about social justice as the Nazi party was about actual socialism.

It's a generic term for people who take PC to its logical (and perverse) extreme. Where being "colour-blind" is bad, because of things like "cultural appropriation."

SJWs don't stand for social justice. They stand for being perpetually offended by almost anything.
 
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.

So you agree then, the counter protest may have started as whatever you think it may have been, but it evolved into something far greater.

TBH I have little idea what the original protest was actually about and who organized it - presumably there was a reason people decided to protest against it, perhaps the people that set it up?* - but it evolved into something much bigger than that.

*A cursory glance didn't really bring much up because of the rest of the media attention.

Edit:
Boston Free Speech, a conservative activist group that organized the midday event, had publicly distanced themselves from the neo-Nazis, white supremacists and others who fomented violence in Charlottesville on 12 August.

Nevertheless, some far right activists had at one point been invited to speak at the rally, before later dropping out over fears for their own safety. Asked about this, a spokesperson for Boston Free Speech would not comment, but claimed to have also invited representatives from Black Lives Matter to speak too.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/19/boston-protest-free-speech-rally

Whether or not they actually invited BLM speakers it's another instance where timing is probably as important as anything else.
 
I'm quite authoritarian in my position against Nazis and genocide in general, aren't you?
Here's a question for you and @VincentHanna

Should a person be denied his legal rights based on any opinion that he holds?
She the law be applied differently to a "Nazi" than to anyone else?

Following on from that...

Should the holding of certain viewpoints be illegal? Should identifying as a "Nazi" be a crime in and of itself?

How far do you want to go with this?
 
Here's a question for you and @VincentHanna

Should a person be denied his legal rights based on any opinion that he holds?
She the law be applied differently to a "Nazi" than to anyone else?

Following on from that...

Should the holding of certain viewpoints be illegal? Should identifying as a "Nazi" be a crime in and of itself?

How far do you want to go with this?

Are you joking?
 
Are you joking?

Perhaps more pertinent, is thinking a crime and is speaking a crime? Both are under a fascist state after all. No less that is the direction we are headed, but as long as the Nazi's (who are so incredibly woeful in numbers as to make it a distraction) are hindered somehow, but then they came for the conservatives, but you aren't a conservative, but then they came for the centrists, but you aren't that either, then they came for the ones that aren't "true" believers... a difference of opinion is a dangerous thing in a fascist state.

Nazi's are scum, but you give them power and presence so as to appear "better" in the eyes of moderates, because how could they possibly align themselves with that? Only to get stabbed in the back instead as the wolves run away.

/just a horrid bit of fun really, i don't particularly intend the "you" here to actually be you, but who knows.

One last question do you feel you live in a more free Britain or a less free Britain now than say 10-20 years ago?
 
One last question do you feel you live in a more free Britain or a less free Britain now than say 10-20 years ago?

I've had a few beers so don't really want to enter into a discussion about your first sentence. Thats not a get out either way, its an I'd like to think about it tomorrow morning and come up with a sober answer, with a well worded response.

As for the second part, the one I quoted, I feel that I lived in a more 'free' britain 5-10 years ago, as a right wing liberal (rage inbound)

After 7/7 at age 18 my peer group were devastated at what happened, there were charity events etc and yet being in the 'millennial' category nobody joined any groups, nothing was done, we just cared about what happened. Nobody went on a march either against a group or for, nobody lost any friends.

Fast forward that 10 years, I log on to this exact forum and we have people who have never met arguing over points that they have never proven, against religions they don't understand and for causes they do not understand.

So in all I feel like I live in a less free Britain. Ten years ago I was never accused of being an 'apologist' for not denouncing muslims. I have been 3-4 times in the last 12 months on this forum, after spending 14 months of the last 36 supporting actions overseas, and week in week out direct support of actions in other conflict areas since 2008.

I honestly think I lived in a more free Britain in 2007, and that was because of the people who made it, not the fudgewhallahs that peddle the forum nonsense on here bending the truth and influencing people who read it.
 
So you agree then, the counter protest may have started as whatever you think it may have been, but it evolved into something far greater. [..]

No, I don't agree. How did you get from me saying "That's [a protest against freedom of speech] exactly what it was. The presence of useful idiots is irrelevant, regardless of how many of them there were." to me agreeing that "it evolved into something far greater"?

It was a protest against freedom of speech. That's what it was. That's what it was intended to be. That's what it remained. It was very successful in suppressing freedom of speech, which was its goal. It never evolved into anything else - it started as a protest against freedom of speech, it continued to be a protest against freedom of speech, it remained a protest against freedom of speech, it finished as a protest against freedom of speech, it succeeded as a protest against freedom of speech. It wasn't anything else and didn't become anything else. The presence of some useful idiots who campaigned against freedom of speech without realising what they were doing is irrelevant.

Have I made my disagreement clear enough?
 
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."

Everyone seems to be focusing on the fact that both sides demonstrated violence (unfortunate and regrettable), whilst forgetting what each side actually stood for.

Do I agree that people should take it in to their own hands to stand up and fight against those preaching racism and hate? No. Does that therefore make me think they are all as bad as each other? Absolutely not.
 
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."

Everyone seems to be focusing on the fact that both sides demonstrated violence (unfortunate and regrettable), whilst forgetting what each side actually stood for.

Do I agree that people should take it in to their own hands to stand up and fight against those preaching racism and hate? No. Does that therefore make me think they are all as bad as each other? Absolutely not.

Indeed - which takes us back to:

1zgdu13.png
 
Indeed - which takes us back to:

1zgdu13.png
So you assert that these masked AntiFa would go back to being model citizens if there were no "Nazis"... yes? Wouldn't be making any trouble for other reasons... Peaceful people, really?

The idea that you must have "moral equivalence" do decry both sides for using violence leads to some interesting places. For example, in a bar fight, the police could arrest one person and let the other walk free, if there wasn't "moral equivalence" between them...

You have the law and you either uphold it without bias or prejudice or you don't.
 
So you assert that these masked AntiFa would go back to being model citizens if there were no "Nazis"... yes? Wouldn't be making any trouble for other reasons... Peaceful people, really?

Quite possibly. Ultimately you or I will never know.

The bar fight analogy is stupid as the law absolutely takes into account the reasons for someone using violence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom