That's the difference between you and I in regards to this situation. I reject all violence and you excuse some violence based on politics.
Two incidents of domestic terrorism in two weeks...
- Thread starter lbodel
- Start date
That's the difference between you and I in regards to this situation. I reject all violence and you excuse some violence based on politics.
lol strange interpretation from what I posted.
Yes, I do believe murder and racial beatings are more egregious and serious than an occasional punch thrown as a result of ideological instigation. The dwelling on the actions of counter protesters (local people standing up to an invasion of terrorists in their town), when Nazis murdered someone, is quite revealing.
Nobody would be dwelling on it if you weren't trying to justify it. All violence is wrong. Literally nobody is here trying to justify the guy hitting people with the car so there's not much to discuss there. You reject it. I reject it. The whole world rejects it. It's the violence that you seem to be ok with that concerns me.
That's a staw man if I've ever seen one. Nobody said it's ok. And anyone who is saying it's ok isn't representative of anyone (queue someone posting a video of some previously unknown liberal commentator and then claiming that this person is influential and representative of all liberals).
The issue is folks like you trying to make them equivalent and trying to hijack the narrative.
Can you imagine if these groups were jihadists and tea partiers? Would you *really* be dwelling on tea partiers who may have thrown a punch or two at jihadists? Really?
Here's the thing: it's legal to make "peaceful" hate speech. It is illegal to oppress the right of someone else to make that speech in a violent manner. IMO when you have the moral, ethical, and legal high ground, there is no reason to lower or make yourself criminal in confronting these groups with violence. In that vain, ignoring them is perfectly acceptable and reasonable.
We do this all the time in the Navy, in particular. Iran goes out of their way to provoke us, however they're not a real threat to actually DO anything - we know that and they know that. Their only recourse is to hope that one of our Commanders makes a mistake and takes out an Iranian vessel so they can use that as propaganda. So we don't. It's risky, but the cost is much higher if we make a mistake.
It may behoove groups who wish to oppose the white nationalist/supremacist to simply ignore them and conduct counter rallies at different times. In that case, no one can spin their actions as illegal or dangerous, and the media doesn't tend to grab hold of small KKK (and the like) rallies unless some shit breaks out.
IMO, there's a lot of validity to the "ignore it" mindset, even if morally that's a hard thing to do.
More succinctly put: when you have the moral, ethical, and legal high ground, you don't further your cause by willfully surrendering it.
Who said that they were okay with violence? Sympathy for those who committed violence against the abhorrent group in Charlottesville? Absolutely.
If the same group of hate-filled extremists came marching with helmets, clubs, torches, shields & an arsenal of firearms into West Lafayette shouting things like "Jews will not replace us" or "**** you, ******s", you can bet that there would be confrontations & violence. I would never condone violence, but I damn sure would sympathize with those who were instigated by such violent rhetoric.
Your insistence on dwelling on it is quite disproportional to any outrage you've expressed about the most egregious acts that occurred.
I'm open to the argument but I generally think it's the wrong choice to sit idly by while racists and fascists attempt to enter the public sphere.
Nobody is condoning violence or giving up the moral high ground. Counter demonstrations are fundamentally fine.
By physically engaging in violence, they are certainly ceding the legal high ground. Whether they cede the moral and ethical high ground by engaging in violence is up for debate. Do you think provocative hate speech and symbolism is worse than actual physical violence?
I don't. MLK certainly didn't. MLK held the moral high ground, and was supremely effective as a leader because he never gave it up.
An aside: there's an interesting parallel here to Muslims who don't strictly condone the actions of groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS, but who sympathize with them, and even some who think that occasional violence is OK in order to further the cause of creating a Caliphate. I sympathize with Antifa's cause, but I cannot condone their actions in that light.
I'm sure it's a lot easier to ignore torch, club, and gun wielding nazi's walking down your hometown streets as you sit there in your middle-aged white bubble preaching non-violence
Generally, no, I don't feel that way.
I'm mostly taking issue with folks who are dwelling on something that is a secondary or tertiary concern from this weekend.
Sure, I agree and even said in this thread that the root cause of this stuff is the existence of white nationalist/supremacist ideology. That said, counter violence is not a secondary concern, IMO, because it does not further the anti-supremacist cause. Rather, I think it rallies more people to it who might otherwise not be aware of opportunities to do so. They are far more likely to see counter-violence to an ideology they tacitly support as a call to action/arms than the other 99.5% of us.
As I said, the right answer here is for counter protests to be held at different times, or at least organized in such a way as to not cause physical conflict.
More succinctly: Two wrongs don't make a right.
can you preach the ignore approach on the basketball board?
that logic seems to fail, as the pro/con painter crowds continually address each other and repeat the same arguments month after month, year after year.
ironically, those in the pro painter crowd have argued that dissent should be addressed and not ignored
By the way, racists and fascists have always been in the public sphere. This isn't new.
The scope and brazenness of this weekend's rally was something quite unusual in recent decades.
It also likely dissuades certain folks.
Anyway, I agree that nonviolent counter protest is the best outcome. I think our only disagreement is whether it's a "secondary" concern. I stand by that conclusion when comparing it to the terror attack itself and the weak/abhorrent comments from Trump Saturday and yesterday.
White nationalism in US - ignore, violence isn't the answer, get permit
Iraq - bomb
Afghanistan - bomb
North Korea - bomb
Syria - bomb
Iran - bomb
Iraq - bomb
Afghanistan - bomb
North Korea - bomb
Syria - bomb
Iran - bomb
I wonder why white nationalists all the sudden feel so empowered?
Good point.
An excellent example of this point is the talking points in today's news. Had people just turned their head to the rally and allowed it go on unfettered (or counter-protested peacefully on a different day) the only headline on Monday would have been "Nazis suck, they stand for hate, their viewpoint is unacceptable." Instead, violence breaks out between the two groups and all these secondary issues (some argued on here) regarding first amendment issues, ANTIFA, moral high ground, who started it, etc. come into play.
The counter-protesters, unfortunately, muddied the water and turned an otherwise black and white issue into something less straight forward and that hurts the anti-supremacist cause.
Because people will do and act in such a way to show they aren't a racist. By taking the side of BLM they are in fact a racist against their own race. They don't think or believe that they are racist in nature, but they are what they are.
Interesting that you bring this canard up. The report below was summarizing CY 2015. Trump didn't announce his candidacy for President until June 16, 2015.
Some interesting information in there. To the naked eye it looks like the election of a black man as President was a motivating factor, and increased Klan activity was tied to the removal of Confederate monuments and flags, similar to what was happening in Charlottesville. It appears that this activity is a carryover of, as I said, something that's been there all along.
I surmise that the drop in known hate groups under Bush II was likely due to an external focus on Iraq/Afghanistan/and Al Qaeda, but can't back that up with any facts.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2016/year-hate-and-extremism
What? So believing that one race has been culturally oppressed and wanting to bring attention to it makes you "racist against your own race"? That doesn't even make any sense. It is possible to support Black Lives Matter without being Anti-Cop or Anti-White. This isn't binary.
Again if you or anyone else believes BLM when they protested and chanted " pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon" isn't racist, I don't know what is.
All cops aren't white. The broad majority of the BLM movement isn't represented by the one march in Dallas to which you're referring, kinda like you and I aren't represented by the white guys in Virginia who were talking about Jews being Satan's children. See how that works?
I think they feel more challenged than empowered.
I say let the minorities march. It has had some good results. Gays can get married, although I don't think their way of life should be forced on anyone.
Let the immigrants complain about Trumps policies. From my conservative point of view this exposed the liberal judges and their disregard for the existing laws.
I completely disagree with the BLM movement. Any group that encourages the killing of our Police won't get my support.
To break it down very simple with little to no doubt, they were referring to white policeman.
I'd like BoilerJS and SKYDOG to find an official Black Lives Matter platform that includes advocating of killing cops, and specifically "white policemen". Not one march (which was renounced by BLM, by the way). Not one group of people chanting those things. An official source document published for public consumption that proves your assertion is true.
It's a lot easier to just sit around and spout nonsense you saw on Fox News based on one or two marches and associate that with the entire group than it is to learn WTF they actually advocate and believe.I picture this
or
It's like I'm tempted to say, "BoilerJS and SKYDOG hate Jews and black people and want to bring a Nazi party to power because they're white, just like those guys I saw at the march in Charlottesville."
I'm none of those. Also I don't think BLM are racist. Although the ones interviewed stated that ONLY BLACK lives matter. BLM just hate cops. Their chants were not isolated instances. Whether it's 'Fry em like bacon, We want them dead, Hands up don't shoot' . A new slogan should be 'Do what the officer says and than go on your way' .
Just like the Neo-Nazis, those guys are idiots.
huh?
And what could you possibly have against "Hand Up - Don't Shoot"? Seems like a reasonable request to me.
It was a fabricated story to portray a punk being shot by a cop for no reason. It was a lie, eye witnesses debunked the false narrative. BLM knew this and still made the thug out to be a saint.
It was done to support an agenda. The agenda, kill cops.
So no luck on the official BLM platform about killing cops and white people then?
What's hilarious is the crowd that always says this is the same "they can take my guns from my cold dead hands" crowd. Who do you think will take your guns? Will you just comply?
