Blame on both sides
- Thread starter Felon
- Start date
- Status
It does seem like you are saying if you think they are morally right they can live by a different set of standards? Morally being the subjective bit here. If I were of the Nazi persuasion then I'd think I was morally right - the law is there to set the standard everyone must adhere to.
I meant in the terms of our exchange. I am not talking about the legalities of this. I am simply saying I can sympathise with the actions of those that opposed the white supremacist march.
Put it this way.
Do you agree that what Rosa Parks did in 1955 was correct? Perhaps not. Understandable, as she broke the law.
Do you sympathise with the reasons for her doing what she did? I hope so.
There should be no subjectiveness to racism being wrong.
Of course i agree with Parks, as the state was infringing on her ability to live and there was a clear difference in social mobility for different "kinds" of people, the law being broken here is sound.
The law nowadays has taken account of all of this, what could you POSSIBLY have against it other than "hurr durr it protects people i don't like now"?
You know what message that sends? The wrong one.
The law nowadays has taken account of all of this, what could you POSSIBLY have against it other than "hurr durr it protects people i don't like now"?
You know what message that sends? The wrong one.
What you don't get though is not everyone has your view - I know what you are saying but I'm sure those on the other side will have similar view how they have been wronged etc.
your basic argument is "I'm right so I can act differently because I am and everyone will understand"
Our moral compass is defined by our upbringing and our experiences.
Racism is wrong, but there are circumstances where a normal person might reasonably end up with racist viewpoints. I won't attempt to justify racism as I don't agree with it. I'm just saying morality is coloured by your life experiences.
Changing attitudes is best accomplished by dialogue and patience. Setting a good example. I doubt very much that racism can be cured by mob rule, vigilantism and administering beatings. Do you agree or disagree with that?
No it isn't. I have said countless times that breaking the law is not the answer. All I am saying I can sympathise with some peoples reasons for doing so, as laws are ever changing and evolving things (hence my Rosa Parks example).
When the "useful idiots" make up the majority of the protest, and those "useful idiots" are protesting against something else then it evolves from a protest against freedom of speech tbh.
Edit: although to be fair, much like many protests there wee probably a multitude of different reasons people went. Some people may well have gone there to "suppress freedom of speech", the majority however almost certainly didn't.
Last edited:
The irony of it all is if these weren't Nazis, but someone with the views of Abu Hamza or similar, many in this very thread would be spitting blood that the police didn't stop them and allowed the protest.
Im pretty certain Trump would have been up all night tweeting bile at them and praising "Antifa" for their actions.
As with pretty much everything in this thread "both sides are just as bad as each other", yet so many people refuse to see that when it's on the "other side".
sure the response from Trump, the verbal condemnation, that could have been different
however what you were previously proposing re: the rally, regardless of what the UN thinks, isn't something the US government can stop. It is a right guaranteed by the constitution, it has nothing to do with the executive branch whether some Nazis want to march or not.
that's fine I'd not want Nazis coming to my town and what the local police should have done is to keep, as best as possible, both groups separate - the protestors had a permit to protest in the park so having people block the entrance is an obvious thing to avoid, have a separate area for the counter protestors. Instead they didn't, the local authorities didn't want the protest to go ahead, they stood back and allowed violence to happen, tempers to increase and a bunch of injuries to occur on both sides, culminating in one angry individual crashing into people with a car and killing someone
apparently there were groups on the protestor side who weren't Nazis either - freedom of speech groups etc..
That doesn't really work If people are condemning 'both sides' with regards to the violence then they logically are condemning, erm, both sides - it doesn't matter which way around this was - whether it was Nazis counter protesting antifa or antifa counter protesting Nazis or some other groups involved... fact is two groups of people were violent here and condemning violence on both sides can't really be flipped around to be something else.
The irony perhaps is that some of the antifa crowd who supposedly hate fascism are, at least in Europe, happy to march alongside islamists.
Last edited:
It wasn't a comment on the violence, rather the free speech argument.
There are issues on both "sides" with the advocacy and condemnation of free speech depending on which what the speeches at about.
That's a bit odd, most people condemning both sides are mainly doing so in terms of the violence. The Nazis are quite clearly beyond the pale ideologically whereas among the counter protestors ordinary people protesting their presence in their town aren't necessarily being condemned from that perspective just antifa and their communist flags.
There's also a free speech discussion going on as well, hence why I quoted Jonos post, which was discussing access to public spaces and free speech.
as far as the US is concerned free speech is pretty broad, I'm not quite sure what double standards you're referring to?
Absolutely. If only people weren't allowed to preach racism and hate, especially publicly....
Quite, but I'm not talking about US law, I'm talking about this forum.
I'm also not commenting on everyone in this thread, rather a general observation.
There's this commentary that continually comes up (on both sides to some extent), but most prevalently on this forum that the "left" are bad because they do x,y and z - whether that be suppressing free speech, violence or a multitude of other things (including the constant rumble that the "media" is some left wing behemoth) - yet there's a tendency to completely ignore that when it's going on on their "side".
That's everything from the occasional comment in the thread about how free speech to the absolute lack of terms like "scum" and "they should be locked up" etc, to everything in between.
Perhaps in part it's because there's just a more eloquent crowd on one side that can hide the same intent in longer paragraphs and tend to post less one line wonders, or other reasons?
It isn't a general observation really, it is just an unsubstantiated argument that adds very little aside from reflecting your own views/biases regarding others. You'd be better off actually dealing with what people have posted than attacking some imagined position you've attributed to non specific posters.
Why do you assume a supernatural ability to state someone else's position and tell them their own description is not their position, it is literally the position I laid out in the post you first replied to me on!
No which is why that is nothing like my posts, Rallying alongside Nazi's throwing Hitler salutes is apologist, failing to condemn Nazi's and those on a Rally with Nazi's who go on to commit terrorist murder is apologist!
Hear hear on positions against violence hatred and authoritarianism, see above though for apologists who wont condemn those Rallying under the banner and motions to salute those who historically did exactly those things.
Can you show where I said anything like the above? Clearly Trump doesn't consider himself a Nazi but seems pretty definitional to Radical Authoritarian Nationalism, the list of styles of fascist leaders is long!
Oh so youve changed from telling me what my position is to asking questions alongside 2+ 2 = 5 assumptions!
Failing to condemn rallying Nazi's and dodging that, is apologist, claiming those republicans suggesting its easy to go home when Nazi's take over your rally are, making political capital is apologist too!
No that's where Dowie first responded not you, you came in suggesting republicans who call on others to walk away from Rallying Nazis are wrong, that is Nazi apologist!
On that point though, suggesting modern neo Nazi's are not genocidal but moderate reformed Nazi's even as they throw salutes to the fuhrer and kill someone in an act of terror is laughable.
Worst rebranding launch ever!
It would be, had that not been just in your head as it's certainly not in my posts!
Moderate Nazis, lack of evidence of genocidal beliefs 2nd time around from those literally saluting a leader who committed genocide within living memory and were the primary enemy of the USA / allies in the last world war is the sort of rubbish I hope is internet only apologist behaviour!
Don't forget suggesting those who salute Hitler are genocidal is hyperbole!
- Status