Blame on both sides

[Randomface74]

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?

That's pretty much it, as far as the scope of this thread is concerned anyway.
It continues because:
- a lot of people think the violence is self-defence
- there are a lot of underlying issues the sides also disagree on, e.g. equal outcome vs equal opportunity, pro-life v pro-choice, etc.

 

[FoxEye]

Interesting to read the views of some of the residents here -

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

Well this poses an interesting question...

Should ordinary citizens be allowed to bar entry to a public space to any group they disapprove of?

The "Nazis" had permission to hold their rally. But let's forget about Nazis, and assume it was just a group of conservatives holding a conservative rally. Take the emotion out of it.

Is it in fact legal for a group of citizens to bar entry to a person a group from entering a public space? Would it be legal for a group of students to bar entry to "white cis-gender males" to a public park, because they were having a "week of diversity" in that area?

So basically in that article what I'm reading is that a bunch of citizens took it upon themselves to bar the legal entry of another group of citizens to a public space. Shutting them down and preventing their speeches/congregation.

Now like I said, take the Nazis away and substitute for "white cis-males" instead. Does any group have the legal right to bar entry to a public space, for reasons that they simply don't like them?

 

[Randomface74]

oh yeah, and the whole Trump vs the media thing.

 

[Trusty]

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."

What is the alt right? Are you saying Trump doesn't denounce the KKK, Neo Nazi's and stuff?

 

[Randomface74]

Well this poses an interesting question...

Should ordinary citizens be allowed to bar entry to a public space to any group they disapprove of?

The "Nazis" had permission to hold their rally. But let's forget about Nazis, and assume it was just a group of conservatives holding a conservative rally. Take the emotion out of it.

Is it in fact legal for a group of citizens to bar entry to a person a group from entering a public space? Would it be legal for a group of students to bar entry to "white cis-gender males" to a public park, because they were having a "week of diversity" in that area?

So basically in that article what I'm reading is that a bunch of citizens took it upon themselves to bar the legal entry of another group of citizens to a public space. Shutting them down and preventing their speeches/congregation.

Now like I said, take the Nazis away and substitute for "white cis-males" instead. Does any group have the legal right to bar entry to a public space, for reasons that they simply don't like them?

I can see these situations are different, in a way that can be legally defined.
It's like going to your enemy's house to tell them you hate them, vs doing it in the street.

The wording is important though.
They didn't try to enter.
Someone just thought they might.

It's like saying there was an attack because you had to buy security.
Which is indirectly true because it costs money, but isn't legally true.

 

[Jono8]

Well this poses an interesting question...

Should ordinary citizens be allowed to bar entry to a public space to any group they disapprove of?

The "Nazis" had permission to hold their rally. But let's forget about Nazis, and assume it was just a group of conservatives holding a conservative rally. Take the emotion out of it.

Is it in fact legal for a group of citizens to bar entry to a person a group from entering a public space? Would it be legal for a group of students to bar entry to "white cis-gender males" to a public park, because they were having a "week of diversity" in that area?

So basically in that article what I'm reading is that a bunch of citizens took it upon themselves to bar the legal entry of another group of citizens to a public space. Shutting them down and preventing their speeches/congregation.

Now like I said, take the Nazis away and substitute for "white cis-males" instead. Does any group have the legal right to bar entry to a public space, for reasons that they simply don't like them?

What an odd post.

 

[FoxEye]

I can see these situations are different, in a way that can be legally defined.
It's like going to your enemy's house to tell them you hate them, vs doing it in the street.

The wording is important though.
They didn't try to enter.
Someone just thought they might.

Didn't they block all entrances to a public park? Somewhere the "Nazis" had been granted permission to congregate?

I'm not saying they should have let them into the synagogues, naturally!! That isn't a public space.

What an odd post.

You should elaborate on why you feel it's odd.

 

[Jono8]

Didn't they block all entrances to a public park? Somewhere the "Nazis" had been granted permission to congregate?

I'm not saying they should have let them into the synagogues, naturally!! That isn't a public space.



You should elaborate on why you feel it's odd.

You seem to be thinking that calling them Nazis is an emotional label given to them, despite there being people wearing Nazi arm bands, waving Nazi flags and chanting 'seig heil'.

It is also a completely odd hypothetical to even approach. Quite obviously just blocking a white male going about his day from crossing a public park for no reason would be wrong.

 

[VincentHanna]

You seem to be thinking that calling them Nazis is an emotional label given to them, despite there being people wearing Nazi arm bands, waving Nazi flags and chanting 'seig heil'.

It is also a completely odd hypothetical to even approach. Quite obviously just blocking a white male going about his day from crossing a public park for no reason would be wrong.

Lets imagine they weren't Nazis, but T-rex's with lasers for eyes.

WHAT THEN?!

 

[FoxEye]

You seem to be thinking that calling them Nazis is an emotional label given to them, despite there being people wearing Nazi arm bands, waving Nazi flags and chanting 'seig heil'.

It is also a completely odd hypothetical to even approach. Quite obviously just blocking a white male going about his day from crossing a public park for no reason would be wrong.

What if it was a group of white cis-males protesting about the "week of diversity" and demanding their right to enter the park...

What if a group of students had armed themselves to enforce their "week of diversity" and block white cis-male protesters from entering?

Different story then is it?

 

[FoxEye]

Lets imagine they weren't Nazis, but T-rex's with lasers for eyes.

WHAT THEN?!

I'm using this as an example because it's pretty much already happened.

Do you not remember that university that had a "day of absence" not too long ago? It sparked a great deal of controversy. White cis-males were told to stay away from university campus for a day, and some refused. This then caused outrage and violence.

Short memory?

 

[Jono8]

I'm using this as an example because it's pretty much already happened.

Do you not remember that university that had a "day of absence" not too long ago? It sparked a great deal of controversy. White cis-males were told to stay away from university campus for a day, and some refused. This then caused outrage and violence.

Short memory?

But that is nothing like the situation in Charlottesville.

 

[FoxEye]

But that is nothing like the situation in Charlottesville.

One group of people denying entry to a shared public space is totally nothing like another group of people denying entry to a public space because... one of the groups are Nazis.

That's what it comes down to.

It's legitimising holding one group to a different set of standards and doing mental gymnastics so that the law should not protect their rights. Like the right to freedom of congregation and the right to free speech.

What we're doing here is saying that you forfeit your rights when you identify as a Nazi. Just so we're all clear.

 

[Jono8]

One group of people denying entry to a shared public space is totally nothing like another group of people denying entry to a public space because... one of the groups are Nazis.

That's what it comes down to.

It's legitimising holding one group to a different set of standards and doing mental gymnastics so that the law should not protect their rights. Like the right to freedom of congregation and the right to free speech.

What we're doing here is saying that you forfeit your rights when you identify as a Nazi. Just so we're all clear.

One is arbitrarily blocking white males from something for seemingly no good reason (which was discriminatory).

The other is a community trying to stop a hate filled rally shouting racist and anti-semitic comments containing people dressed up as nazi's from entering one of their public parks.

If you had read the account properly as well, they forced their way through a group of people who had simply locked arms (not antifa) with shields and batons:

"It was basically impossible to miss the antifa for the group of us who were on the steps of Emancipation Park in an effort to block the Nazis and alt-righters from entering. Soon after we got to the steps and linked arms, a group of white supremacists—I’m guessing somewhere between 20-45 of them—came up with their shields and batons and bats and shoved through us. We tried not to break the line, but they got through some of us—it was terrifying, to say the least—shoving forcefully with their shields and knocking a few folks over. We strengthened our resolve and committed to not break the line again. Some of the anarchists and anti-fascist folks came up to us and asked why we let them through and asked what they could do to help."

It is a completely different set of circumstances and I can totally sympathise with those (remember, these were not antifa) who do not want people dressed as Nazi's marching through their communities preaching racism and hate.

 

[FoxEye]

One is arbitrarily blocking white males from something for seemingly no good reason (which was discriminatory).

The other is a community trying to stop a hate filled rally shouting racist and anti-semitic comments containing people dressed up as nazi's from entering one of their public parks.

But if both groups are acting within the law? At least before things got violent, I mean.

Do any of us have the right to stop legal gatherings because we don't like the group or the (legal) things they do/say?

Does moral outrage transcend the law?

I read the article, thanks.

 

[Jono8]

But if both groups are acting within the law? At least before things got violent, I mean.

Do any of us have the right to stop legal gatherings because we don't like the group or the (legal) things they do/say?

Does moral outrage transcend the law?

I read the article, thanks.

By law, no. But I sympathise with their reasons for doing so.

By law, black people used to have to give up their seat to white people in America. Rosa Parks got put in prison for not following this law but do you sympathise with her reasons?

History has taught us that standing up to hatred and racism, regardless of the law has led to great things.

Just preaching "law, law, law " is meaningless. I am simply talking about the morality of the situation.

 

[FoxEye]

By law, no. But I sympathise with their reasons for doing so.

By law, black people used to have to give up their seat to white people in America. Rosa Parks got put in prison for not following this law but do you sympathise with her reasons?

History has taught us that standing up to hatred and racism, regardless of the law has led to great things.

Just preaching "law, law, law " is meaningless. I am simply talking about the morality of the situation.

So people are justified in breaking the law to oppose groups they disagree with.

No further questions, your honour

 

[Jono8]

So people are justified in breaking the law to oppose groups they disagree with.

No further questions, your honour

That isn't what I said. I didn't say that is the right way to go about it. I said I can sympathise with their reasons for doing so when morally they are unequivocally in the right.

 

[FoxEye]

That isn't what I said. I didn't say that is the right way to go about it. I said I can sympathise with their reasons for doing so when morally they are unequivocally in the right.

Oh really?

History has taught us that standing up to hatred and racism, regardless of the law has led to great things.

Just preaching "law, law, law " is meaningless. I am simply talking about the morality of the situation.

Seems you are happy for the law to take a back seat to moral outrage.

 

[StriderX]

By law, no. But I sympathise with their reasons for doing so.

By law, black people used to have to give up their seat to white people in America. Rosa Parks got put in prison for not following this law but do you sympathise with her reasons?

History has taught us that standing up to hatred and racism, regardless of the law has led to great things.

Just preaching "law, law, law " is meaningless. I am simply talking about the morality of the situation.

You can't just brush aside the law because you believe one side is morally superior, you realise morals are not objective right?

If the law is ultimately rather neutral (which is bloody well is nowadays), then disrespecting it means you don't wan't to live in this society anymore and are ultimately telling everyone else that it's alright to break the law, because you feel like it.

You can't have it both ways, you either have law or you don't and nothing is protected, funny that.