Blame on both sides

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jono8 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The president was commenting on the violence, I don't believe he's attempted to make a moral equivalence between the ideologies despite the press trying to spin it that way. As far as the violence is concerned the ideologies don't matter, like it or not the US has strong free speech laws.

Mr Badger said:
Indeed - which takes us back to:

1zgdu13.png
Click to expand...


While the virtue singling about Nazis is all great, after all I'd hope that all of us dislike Nazis, the idea that you can't comment on the violence from the counter protest side because there were Nazis present on the protest seems pretty dubious and leads to these rather silly analogies being made such as the one you've shared above.

While I think that ideologically the Nazis are clearly the more abhorrent and could have done with specific, immediate condemnation from Trump when the vehicle attack took place, antifa (with its anarcho/communist roots) is pretty cancerous too- they're both extremists, one isn't a 'cure' for the other but if anything exacerbates the problems caused.

Also if talking about the violence separate from the ideology it is pretty fair to say there was plenty of violence from both sides. Just because one side is universally accepted as being beyond the pale isn't an excuse to absolve the other from criticism.
 
dowie said:
While the virtue singling about Nazis is all great, after all I'd hope that all of us dislike Nazis, the idea that you can't comment on the violence from the counter protest side because there were Nazis present on the protest seems pretty dubious and leads to these rather silly analogies being made such as the one you've shared above.

While I think that ideologically the Nazis are clearly the more abhorrent and could have done with specific, immediate condemnation from Trump when the vehicle attack took place, antifa (with it's anarcho/communist roots) is pretty cancerous too- they're both extremists, one isn't a 'cure' for the other but if anything exacerbates the problems caused.

Also if talking about the violence separate from the ideology it is pretty fair to say there was plenty of violence from both sides. Just because one side is universally accepted as being beyond the pale isn't an excuse to absolve the other from criticism.
Click to expand...

Exactly, he is right to criticise both sides, I agree entirely. Protest all you want, when it turns to violence you lose the moral high ground.
 
Jono8 said:
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.
Click to expand...
But moral equivalence isn't the ultimate arbiter, is it.

If in that bar fight, one bloke had slept with the other's wife, but he didn't start the fight, the other chap did... does that mean the guy who'd been cheated on had the moral right to attack the other and the law should look the other way?

That's basically what people in this thread are asking us to do. "We should stand with the AntiFa," we're told - any use of violence by them is justified because they have the "moral high ground", allegedly.

The point is... we don't get to use violence when we feel we're in the right. We just don't. People who use violence as their go-to tool of choice should be condemned by all sides. Whether they call themselves AntiFa or Nazis doesn't make it "morally right".

Let's face it, you and I both know that some of these AntiFa will just have the football hooligan mentality. "Let's go get in a fight!!" The fact that some people here want to protect them because they fight the "Nazis" is leaving the door open for violence to become acceptable.
 
Jono8 said:
FoxEye said:
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?
Click to expand...
Quite possibly. Ultimately you or I will never know.
Click to expand...

Not really, we've got examples of their behaviour at other demos with no Nazis or KKK present, for example when some student Republicans invited the internet troll Milo to come and speak at Berkley or the disruption at various Trump campaign rallies.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/milo-yiannopoulos-uc-berkeley-event-cancelled

Basically they're happy to attack whether actual 'Nazis' are present or not, if they're not present they're happy to just scream 'Nazi' at those they attack anyway.
 
FoxEye said:
The point is... we don't get to use violence when we feel we're in the right. We just don't. People who use violence as their go-to tool of choice should be condemned by all sides. Whether they call themselves AntiFa or Nazis doesn't make it "morally right".
Click to expand...

...and herein lies the crux of the issue. "when we feel we're in the right" just again sounds like it is just a point of view. This is not a clash of reasonable points of views! One is actively protesting (but I agree wrongly taking the law into their own hands) against racism, anti semitism and hatred. The other is just a horrible poisonous message of hate.

This is not a case of shutting down freedom of speech. Freedom of speech should not mean being able to march along a street inciting hatreds toward jewish and black communities.

I don't think this antifa group should be taking the law into their own hands. I do however think the government and police should be doing more to shutdown such demonstrations. However, it is a horrible situation that America has, as they have a leader who is perceived to support the white supremacist side, who does very little to remove this perception with his stupid comments on it all.

Whilst I do not condone the violence in response to these white supremacists marches , I can perhaps understand the helplessness that some may feel, due to the lack of support from their own government and president.
 
Last edited:
Jono8 said:
Freedom of speech should not mean being able to march along a street inciting hatreds toward jewish and black communities.

I don't think this antifa group should be taking the law into their own hands. I do however think the government and police should be doing more to shutdown such demonstrations. However, it is a horrible situation that America has, as they have a leader who is perceived to support the white supremacist side, who does very little to remove this perception with his stupid comments on it all.

Whilst I do not condone the violence in response to these white supremacists marches , I can perhaps understand the helplessness that some may feel, due to the lack of support from their own government and president.
Click to expand...

It think this is a bit confused/flawed, that the march can take place has nothing to do with the government or the president, the local authorities certainly didn't want it and the local police didn't make much effort to stop it from being disrupted and violence occurring

the US has strong protection for freedom of speech, that includes speech that lots of people don't like (speech that people are generally fine with doesn't tend to need this sort of protection), the organisers got a court order from a federal judge, the government (federal or local) has no right to stop them from exercising their right to freedom of speech

for what you want/advocate above you'd need a change in the US constitution removing freedom of speech or a drastic change in the interpretation of freedom of speech from the Supreme Court which has ruled multiple times that hate speech is protected
 
I could equally have said, "We don't get to use violence when we are undisputedly 'in the right'. We don't get to use violence regardless."

Either statement is true.

Nobody is defending the "Nazis" or the views they hold. You don't even need to know who they are or what they're about to make the argument I am. The fact is, if they stay within the confines of the law, nobody has the right to use violence against them. And if they break the law, any group attacking them for reasons other than self-defence/defence of property/others is also breaking the law."

The tools for dealing with the Nazis exist, in the form of state-sanctioned police forces and the legal process.

I am saying... "Do we need vigilante mobs, and should we call them "heros" or "protectors"? Will they turn on other groups they don't like besides the "Nazis"? Will they damage free speech by using violence to suppress all viewpoints they find objectionable? What if they start attacking people who aren't as universally despised as the "Nazis"? Will we see them as a threat then?"

If the law needs changing to add additional protections against hate speech, then change it. But the law and the police should be sufficient to protect citizens. I am saying we don't need "AntiFa" to bring/add to violence on the streets.

It's mostly football-hooligan level engagements, between two groups with entirely too much anger. These people are loons, not saviours.

Lastly... you know that part of the Anti-Fa mission statement is "We're against the capitalist state and the police."

Anti-Fa don't just hate Nazis... they're are also opposed to western capitalism and some of them even have tattoos saying "My heros kill cops." These people are dangerous loons, and I'm really surprised at how many people are taken in by them.
 
Jono8 said:
...and herein lies the crux of the issue. "when we feel we're in the right" just again sounds like it is just a point of view. This is not a clash of reasonable points of views! One is actively protesting (but I agree wrongly taking the law into their own hands) against racism, anti semitism and hatred. The other is just a horrible poisonous message of hate.

This is not a case of shutting down freedom of speech. Freedom of speech should not mean being able to march along a street inciting hatreds toward jewish and black communities.

I don't think this antifa group should be taking the law into their own hands. I do however think the government and police should be doing more to shutdown such demonstrations. However, it is a horrible situation that America has, as they have a leader who is perceived to support the white supremacist side, who does very little to remove this perception with his stupid comments on it all.

Whilst I do not condone the violence in response to these white supremacists marches , I can perhaps understand the helplessness that some may feel, due to the lack of support from their own government and president.
Click to expand...
We're all on the same page as far as morality is concerned. None of us here think the Nazis are anything but a hate group. None of us would want them in power. That's why they are an insignificant blip with a tiny following.

But there is real danger from the Anti-Fa mobs. Real danger. These people are attacking police, smashing property, burning buildings...

Th Anti-Fa literally is not a group that opposes just the Nazis and fascism. They are also against capitalism and the police. They are against the rule of law. They are pretty much a terrorist group, and none of us should stand with them either.
 
dowie said:
It think this is a bit confused/flawed, that the march can take place has nothing to do with the government or the president, the local authorities certainly didn't want it and the local police didn't make much effort to stop it from being disrupted and violence occurring

the US has strong protection for freedom of speech, that includes speech that lots of people don't like (speech that people are generally fine with doesn't tend to need this sort of protection), the organisers got a court order from a federal judge, the government (federal or local) has no right to stop them from exercising their right to freedom of speech

for what you want/advocate above you'd need a change in the US constitution removing freedom of speech or a drastic change in the interpretation of freedom of speech from the Supreme Court which has ruled multiple times that hate speech is protected
Click to expand...


Well perhaps, as the UN have pointed out, the US needs to reconsider this -

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...eo-nazis-kkk-anastasia-crickley-a7907876.html

"Under its "early warning and urgent action" procedure, the committee also called on the US to ensure the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly are "not exercised with the aim of destroying or denying the rights and freedoms of others.It asked the US government to provide guarantees such rights are not misused to promote racist hate speech and racist crimes."

A much better response from Trump would have been to completely and utterly condemn the Nazis/white supremacists and then say however that vigilantism and violence is not the answer and that the US government will be sure to clamp down and stop marches inciting hatred and violence.
 
FoxEye said:
We're all on the same page as far as morality is concerned. None of us here think the Nazis are anything but a hate group. None of us would want them in power. That's why they are an insignificant blip with a tiny following.

But there is real danger from the Anti-Fa mobs. Real danger. These people are attacking police, smashing property, burning buildings...

Th Anti-Fa literally is not a group that opposes just the Nazis and fascism. They are also against capitalism and the police. They are against the rule of law. They are pretty much a terrorist group, and none of us should stand with them either.
Click to expand...

Well this thread is discussing Trump's response, which lets face it was completely asinine. He should be making sure not to give anyone an excuse for violence and reassure the people of America that the US government will do everything it can to stop racist and hate filled marches such as this. If there wasn't a resurgence of hate filled white supremacist marches, Antifa would not have a cause to be violent and they would perhaps truly be revealed for what they are.
 
A lot of people hold the view that hate speech should be a crime. Nice, peaceful, people. I've been asking people IRL about this stuff and a few people have had this view.

I don't agree with that because it's a slippery slope when you start blaming the speaker for how their speech was received.

But... this is at least a civilized debate. Basically what we should be having, instead of craziness.
 
lol - this thread hurts my head.

All this talk of 'sides'...

People that violently protest when there are peaceful solutions - bad.

People that preach hate / discriminate against others for unethical reasons - bad.

...is there really any more too it?
 
FoxEye said:
Lastly... you know that part of the Anti-Fa mission statement is "We're against the capitalist state and the police."
Click to expand...

Anti-Fa doesn't have a mission statement because it's a movement rather than an organisation. If you've read an Anti-Fa mission statement then it's probably something designed to troll people. Some members or groups within the movement are anti-state but it's not universal. Some are socialists, for example.
 
billysielu said:
A lot of people hold the view that hate speech should be a crime. Nice, peaceful, people. I've been asking people IRL about this stuff and a few people have had this view.

I don't agree with that because it's a slippery slope when you start blaming the speaker for how their speech was received.

But... this is at least a civilized debate. Basically what we should be having, instead of craziness.
Click to expand...

There is no "slippery slope" with this sort of thing happening. Simplifying the Charlottesville incident to even just "hate speech" doesn't begin to describe what went on.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/charl...white-nationalists-neo-nazis-2017-8?r=US&IR=T

"For half an hour, three men dressed in fatigues and armed with semi-automatic rifles stood across the street from the temple," Alan Zimmerman, the president of Congregation Beth Israel, wrote. "Had they tried to enter, I don’t know what I could have done to stop them, but I couldn’t take my eyes off them, either."

Zimmerman said he was forced to hire an armed guard because the Charlottesville police refused to provide an officer to watch over the temple's Saturday morning services.

"Several times, parades of Nazis passed our building, shouting, 'There's the synagogue!' followed by chants of 'Sieg Heil' and other anti-Semitic language," Zimmerman said. "Some carried flags with swastikas and other Nazi symbols."

"This is 2017 in the United States of America," he added.

As written here, many people felt vigilantism was the only way to protect themselves..

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ft_was_actually_doing_in_charlottesville.html

That is immensely sad and embarrassing for the country.
 
And after Trumps 'Rally' last night to his feverish supporters, we have stuff like this:

White Nationalist Richard Spencer tweeted: "Trump has never denounced the Alt-Right. Nor will he."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom