[Closed] Charlottesville

Apparently Mussolini would have sorted Southern Rail out

Have the Nazi's ever done anything 'good'?

Fanta.

The aqueduct?

I think that was the Romans or the Communists, actually.

Fanta.

Harappans. Nazi's did Sprite. Not sure about Quatro.

Nazi achievements:
Rocket science, medical science, nuclear science, chemical warfare.

All done without any human suffering. Oh, wait...

Harappans. Nazi's did Sprite. Not sure about Quatro.

They definitely did Fanta.

They definitely did Fanta.

Belated :wink:, in case you thought I was being serious.

Ninfan's point is that freedom of speech and the other freedoms associated with modern democracy are worthless if the freedom is limited to expressing views that other people don't find offensive ("I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"). If you try to argue with that and make exceptions, then you will twist yourselves into knots justifying the indefensible, and if Ninfan winds you up by exposing such double standards, you have only yourself to blame.

The issue for governments and societies is how they respond to such hate speech etc. In the case of governments, they can pass legislation prohibiting incitement to violence/terrorism, but the key test is probably how wider society responds.

Some elements of the extreme left and extreme right probably relish the opportunities for confrontation, aggression and actual violence, and they are little more than football hooligans who are looking for a fight, with the match (or the politics) just being an excuse. Take a look at the photographs of both sides: both predominantly young men looking for a confontation. Football hooligans are at least more honest: they don't tell themselves that they are better people fighting against evil, they just want a scrap.

I am not familiar in detail with the rise of the Nazis in the 1920s and 1930s, but I think that Hitler and the other Nazi leaders postively welcomed violent confrontations between their followers and the communists: it brought publicity, more followers, it polarised politics in Germany and left the centre/moderates looking weak and irrelevant.

So I agree with Ninfan that violent counter protests against the Nazis/white supremacists in Charlottesville are wrong both for the absolutist reason that it's a free democracy and they are exercising their freedoms, but also because it's counter-productive and exactly what extremists want.

What the extremists probably fear the most is ridicule and shunning, and being exposed as a bunch of socially inadequate losers. Nick Broomfield's documentary 'The Leader, His Driver and the Driver's Wife' was far more effective in damaging Eugene TerreBlanche than any violent protest.

The other important part of society's response is the action and statements of its leaders, and Trump has shown himself to be weak and lacking in the moral authority that the USA expects in its Presidents.

Interestingly, it's said that Hillary Clinton lost the election because not enough of the historically Democrat voting groups and minorities, like black people, voted for her, and instead cast no vote. In other words, they did not feel that Hillary Clinton offered them a sufficiently positive message to get out and vote. I wonder how many of those non-voters regret their action, because in failing to vote [i]for[/i] her, they failed to vote [i]against[/i] Trump.

So I agree with Ninfan that violent counter protests against the Nazis/white supremacists in Charlottesville are wrong

The vast majority of protesting (on both sides) was non-violent.

Violent counter-protesting is wrong - but I see nothing wrong in counter-protesting.

More locally to me (Newcastle) it was remarkably effective in lessening the impact of the EDL/BNP lot when their marches were dwarfed by peaceful counter-protest sending the opposite message.

[url= https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/politics/trump-charlottesville-left-right-react.html?referer=https://www.google.co.uk/ ]NYT links to several articles about Charlottesville from a wide range of writers[/url]

Ninfan still waiting for any evidence of your claim that the driver was trying to get away from the counter protesters.

I believe that every person has the right to free speech and assembly so long as they're not inciting hatred or violence. To gather in the southern states of America with burning torches chanting white supremacist slogans, with all the memories that invokes, and to do so whilst carrying arms is clearly inciting hatred and is likely to put people into a state of alarm.
I support everyone who turned out to peacefully protest against the white supremacists.

Ninfan still waiting for any evidence of your claim that the driver was trying to get away from the counter protesters.

You might be waiting a while

GrahamS - Member

So I agree with Ninfan that violent counter protests against the Nazis/white supremacists in Charlottesville are wrong

The vast majority of protesting (on both sides) was non-violent.

Violent counter-protesting is wrong - but I see nothing wrong in counter-protesting.

Unfortunately antifa have been pretty vocal about how they will attack anyone they perceive to be racists, fascists, bigots etc and their (loose) definition includes Trump supporters. Prior to Trump's election they took to "counter protesting" Trump rallies, and Republican gatherings, anything they disagreed with.

The threat of violence from Antifa towards Republicans and Trump supporters resulted in various civil authorities withdrawing police coverage from said gatherings, they then turned to groups like the oathkeepers - armed militia groups made up of serving and former police and military.

More locally to me (Newcastle) it was remarkably effective in lessening the impact of the EDL/BNP lot when their marches were dwarfed by peaceful counter-protest sending the opposite message.

Wouldn't it have been better to ignore them completely?

The issue for governments and societies is how they respond to such hate speech etc. In the case of governments, they can pass legislation prohibiting incitement to violence/terrorism, but the key test is probably how wider society responds.

Germany seems to get on fine, despite going so far as banning fascist imagery and is ranked higher than the UK on the Press Freedom Index.

Freedom of speech can be curtailed when it impacts the ability of others to live a life free from implicit or explicit threats to their human rights.

Ninfans view of free speech is that of an American right wing libertarian - it's not the European model. In the UK it's almost exclusively used by Mail readers to defend racists - but you almost never hear them using the same argument to defend Islamists. Have you ever heard Ninfan or Jamby using a similar argument to defend Islamists? No, because neither of them truly believe in the model - it's just a useful tool for them to defend their own agendas.

More locally to me (Newcastle) it was remarkably effective in lessening the impact of the EDL/BNP lot when their marches were dwarfed by peaceful counter-protest sending the opposite message.

Wouldn't it have been better to ignore them completely?

No, absolutely not. Ignore them and they might go away, or ignore them and they think what they are doing is okay as they are not opposed? I concede that if the racists are simply looking for a fight, ignoring them might be the best way to avoid violence, but that is not the whole issue.

kingforaday

Ignore them and they might go away, or ignore them and they think what they are doing is okay as they are not opposed?

Seriously?

Either way, one creates publicity. The other doesn't.

Wouldn't it have been better to ignore them completely?

Seriously?

Either way, one creates publicity. The other doesn't.

Ignoring it is not a long term solution though is it. They will just continue to be racists, and pass that on, unless better educated etc. Amazed you are unable to see that.

kingforaday

Ignoring it is not a long term solution though is it. They will just continue to be racists, and pass that on, unless better educated etc.

People always change their minds when you show in large groups to shout at them.

People always change their minds when you show in large groups to shout at them.

Do you think ignoring them will help change their minds more than complete condemnation of their actions?

And yes, I would say the overall media reaction to the racists (which is what most people will be exposed to) approaches 'complete condemnation', despite Trump's reluctance to comment.

Wouldn't it have been better to ignore them completely?

Good men doing nothing?

The feeling in Newcastle after those marches was one of slight disquiet, but pride that the city had stood up and said take your racist bollocks elsewhere.

What would it have said if the marches went through uncontested?

How would the people who suffer the most under racist policies feel to see those groups proudly marching through the streets with no one challenging their viewpoint? Dignified silence could easily be taken as tacit approval.

Ninfans view of free speech is that of an American right wing libertarian - it's not the European model. In the UK it's almost exclusively used by Mail readers to defend racists - but you almost never hear them using the same argument to defend Islamists. Have you ever heard Ninfan or Jamby using a similar argument to defend Islamists? No, because neither of them truly believe in the model - it's just a useful tool for them to defend their own agendas.

Well put!

kingforaday

Do you think ignoring them will help change their minds more than complete condemnation of their actions?

Do you imagine that eleven pages worth of people shouting and shaming and even encouraging ninfan to kill himself has done anything to change his mind?

I'm not sure why there's an encumbrance on you to change people's minds. Disagree with them yes, but you can't dissuade someone by shouting at them or punching them.

Wouldn't it have been better to ignore them completely?

Good men doing nothing?

The feeling in Newcastle after those marches was one of slight disquiet, but pride that the city had stood up and said take your racist bollocks elsewhere.

What would it have said if the marches went through uncontested?

How would the people who suffer the most under racist policies feel to see those groups proudly marching through the streets with no one challenging their viewpoint? Dignified silence could easily be taken as tacit approval.

Agreed. Can't believe we are even discussing it really!

Ninfans view of free speech is that of an American right wing libertarian - it's not the European model. In the UK it's almost exclusively used by Mail readers to defend racists - but you almost never hear them using the same argument to defend Islamists. Have you ever heard Ninfan or Jamby using a similar argument to defend Islamists? No, because neither of them truly believe in the model - it's just a useful tool for them to defend their own agendas.

Well put!

+1

GrahamS - Member

Good men doing nothing?

The feeling in Newcastle after those marches was one of slight disquiet, but pride that the city had stood up and said take your racist bollocks elsewhere.

What would it have said if the marches went through uncontested?

How many BNP or EDL members went home and thought "[i]Well, it seems being a racist isn't as popular and cool as I thought it was - I suppose I'll stop being a racist now"[/i].

Do you imagine that eleven pages worth of people shouting and shaming and even encouraging ninfan to kill himself has done anything to change his mind?

That's one for ninfan to answer

I'm not sure why there's an encumbrance on you to change people's minds. Disagree with them yes, but you can't dissuade someone by shouting at them or punching them.

I thought you just wanted them to be ignored? That's not the same as disagreeing with them. Racism is ignorance. Changing the minds of racists would make the world a better palace. I agree violence is not the answer.

How many BNP or EDL members went home and thought "Well, it seems being a racist isn't as popular and cool as I thought it was - I suppose I'll stop being a racist now".

Do you really think that's the aim?

Those people are already lost to hatred and bigotry. The point of protesting against them isn't to convince them otherwise - the point is to let those that stand against hatred and bigotry know that they don't do so alone and are in fact in the majority.

kingforaday

That's one for ninfan to answer

You could still express your opinion.

kingforaday

I thought you just wanted them to be ignored? That's not the same as disagreeing with them.

That's a fair point. I suppose in an ideal world, our socities wouldn't breed hatred and division. But here we are. I feel like it's pointless to try and police peoples thoughts, and with very few exceptions we shouldn't police their speech, but certainly police their actions if they break the law.

Disagreement on a non violent interpersonal level should be easy - the lines start to blur when one side forms a mob, then the other forms a counter mob. You have diminished responsibility on both sides and a perfect scenario for violence which will only entrench the views of both.

GrahamS

Do you really think that's the aim?

Those people are already lost to hatred and bigotry.

Graham, sorry I can't keep track of you kingforaday, one of wants to change their minds, the other feels they are lost. I agree with you, these men are lost. Therefore you're not going to change their minds by shouting at them.

There's an argument for starving extremist groups of publicity when they are very few in number and don't hold positions of power.
This falls down if numbers grow and the groups get supporters in government. Some of the so called alt right supporters in the whitehouse have encouraged these white supremacist groups.
I believe there is a point at which is best to challenge racism and bigotry where you find it.

ninfan - Member

replace Nazi with Muslim

Why?
Are you suggesting that Muslims who are almost nothing to do with this discussion are as bad as nazis?
Or are you using Muslims to defend nazis?

People often deflect from the subject when they are wrong.

gordimhor

This falls down if numbers grow and the groups get supporters in government.

What are these numbers? Quantify? This is the kind of hyperbole Antifa used to justify attacking republicans at Trump rallies - didn't do much to stop him getting elected did it?

Some of the so called alt right supporters in the whitehouse have encouraged these white supremacist groups.

Conveniently the term "alt-right" has been completely redefined in the last 6 months or so. It used to describe people like Milo Yannopolis (ie a gay, British, republican troll). Now it's used to describe the KKK, Neo-Nazis etc so almost everyone who was a vocal online critic of regressive Leftist tactics is now, by association a Nazi.

Graham, sorry I can't keep track of you kingforaday, one of wants to change their minds, the other feels they are lost.

Oh I'd love to change their minds if I could, but I recognise that is pretty much impossible (as I think kingforaday does too). Tribalism is, unfortunately, basic human nature.

Likewise I often debate on here with people with no expectation that they'll change their mind no matter how good my argument may be.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
[b]The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.[/b]

W.B. Yeats

Light relief: NewsThump nailing it repeatedly.

http://newsthump.com/2017/08/14/americans-delighted-president-trump-chose-to-sleep-on-it-before-denouncing-violent-racists-as-evil/

http://newsthump.com/2017/08/15/archmaester-under-fire-after-taking-two-days-to-denounce-white-walkers/

http://newsthump.com/2017/08/15/man-photographed-enthusiastically-waving-flaming-torch-at-a-nazi-rally-unhappy-at-people-calling-him-a-nazi/

@jimjam I'll rephrase it then. If the racist or bigoted groups get more popular support then ignoring them becomes ineffective .
I was clear in my earlier post about supporting peaceful counter protesters.

I also referred to the extremist groups having supporters in government. Which is the case in the U.S.
It's not hype at all I just believe that there is a point at which ignoring such groups becomes ineffective.

Edit It's a small per centage of people on the right who are Nazis . Intolerance and bigotry o
comes in many forms. I posted a link to the NYT which in turn linked to an article by John Podhoretz [url= http://nypost.com/2017/08/14/charlottesville-is-why-im-glad-i-dont-support-trump/ ]Clear condemation of white supremacists and Trump[/url].John Podhoretz is a right of centre columnist for the New York Post.

If the racist or bigoted groups get more popular support then ignoring them becomes ineffective .

Which had more of a negative impact on BNP membership;

i) Protests
ii) Prosecuting its leader (unsucessfully) for calling Islam a "wicked, vicious faith"
iii) Putting him on Question Time

ninfan - Member
If the racist or bigoted groups get more popular support then ignoring them becomes ineffective .
Which had more of a negative impact on BNP membership;

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Load of bollocks. Especially this:

The best lack all conviction

I refer you again to the likes of Bernard Kenny. The best are all around us, living ordinary boring lives. The fact that some pretentious poet had his head so far up his own posterior that he didn't recognise that was his loss.

gordimhor - Member

@jimjam I'll rephrase it then. If the racist or bigoted groups get more popular support then ignoring them becomes ineffective .

But Trump is a Nazi isn't he? He's a racist, so same thing. And everyone who voted for him is racist, which means they are basically Nazis. So there's the justification/validation for violently protesting anyone on the right.

ninfan - Member

Which had more of a negative impact on BNP membership

You tell me, you've probably got a black arm band to mark the occasion.

Impossible to say isn't it ninfan?

Seems to me that BNP membership might have grown if they were seen to be proudly marching through cities and holding public rallies completely unopposed.

Likewise I often debate on here with people with no expectation that they'll change their mind no matter how good my argument may be.

his mind would only be changed if we all became right wing [ or we all ignored him]and he had to change his stance to troll us as a Stalinist

he has no opinion to change its an MO designed to offend and provoke a reaction [ including blatantly lying to get this] it is nothing else - its certainly not reasoned debate so given that I am not sure why you bother- its not like he is an actual racist, actually right wing or actually as thick as he acts on here
Its all an act surely everyone has realised this by now

ninfan is trolling so why bother to engage with him?

He's not. Or at least he's not [i]just[/i] trolling IMO.

Certainly he seems to enjoy being controversial and winding up "the lefties", but beneath that he clearly has his own beliefs, a few of which are actually quite "liberal".

Remember though, I also enjoy talking to flat earthers. 😆

jimjam - Member

So there's the justification/validation for violently protesting anyone on the right.

The anti nazi protesters at Charlottesville were not violent.

A nazi drove his car into a group of peaceful protesters, injuring many and murdering one.
These weren't communists or left wing extremists, just normal people.

Normal people don't like, or defend, fascists and neo-nazis. 💡

Remember though, I also enjoy talking to flat earthers.

Really? Isn't it boring? I read another forum on which there is a "discussion" about climate change. 44 pages of ignorant and illogical rubbish. What's the point?

Anyway - on the original subject of statues - ninfan raised the parallel of the Buddhas

What about the statue (is there one?) of Bomber Harris? What about architecture which embodies a political ideology that we now find repugnant eg Mussolini's fascist architecture?

sbob

The anti nazi protesters at Charlottesville were not violent.

Antifa have been pretty explicit about how they are going to stand up to "facism" as they define it. Going back to last year they've promised to storm/rush/charge/confront/etc any gatherings they disagree with including local civic council meetings.

This didn't just happen over night. Their presence is a promise of violence. Masked men wearing helmets and carrying cudgels implies something.

I have little or no problem with ninfan's views on freedom of speech - and indeed incitement to violence. Incitement to hatred is a grey area around which there is always good debating points and interesting stuff on here.

He's been repeatedly asked about his reports that the guy only drove towards the crowd because he was frightened by people chasing him with baseball bats - even posting a further video which purported to support these reports - it didn't. Also after his "reports that..." post, he used this bit of fake news to ask if all the "lefties" would now condemn those that chased him. He has ignored all further questions on this.

A bit of trolling is fine - I think lots of lefties troll the right wingers to a certain extent - no point in getting upset about it - but deflecting debate by posting outright bullshit is a bit of a stretch.

@jimjam At no point did I offer any justification/validation for violently protesting.

Here's what I said on page 10

I support everyone who turned out to peacefully protest against the white supremacists.

And here is what I posted on this page

I was clear in my earlier post about supporting peaceful counter protesters

 

[quote=DrJ ]What about the statue (is there one?) of Bomber Harris? What about architecture which embodies a political ideology that we now find repugnant eg Mussolini's fascist architecture?
There's a massive statue of the Duke of Sutherland on the hill above Golspie. This was the man directly responsible for the forced eviction of his tenants in order to replace them with sheep. Many died as a result, either through homelessness, being forced to work at sea or during the journey to the US/Canada etc. There have been various campaigns to have the statue removed, some official, some involving pick-axes and dynamite. The statue remains. As a result, many tourists ask about it and this offers an opportunity to tell them about the Highland Clearances, something they may not have otherwise come across. By leaving the statue in place, it has therefore become a rather ironic reminder of one mans greed and a system that allowed him to get away with it.

I see a confederate statue has been pulled down in North Carolina

jimjam - Member

Antifa have been pretty explicit about how they are going to stand up to "facism" as they define it. Going back to last year they've promised to storm/rush/charge/confront/etc any gatherings they disagree with including local civic council meetings.

This didn't just happen over night. Their presence is a promise of violence. Masked men wearing helmets and carrying cudgels implies something.

[IMG] [/IMG]

Why are you still talking about people wearing masks?
Is it because, like ninfan, the truth doesn't fit in with your agenda?

Look at the picture.
Normal people.

Why are you still talking about people wearing masks?
Is it because, like ninfan, the truth doesn't fit in with your agenda?

Look at the picture.
Normal people.

I'm not trying to say that the driver of the charger crashed into anyone other than normal people. I'm saying that Antifa have used violence and the threat of violence to shut down or disrupt right wing, conservative and republican rallies.

In some instances this threat of violence has worked, leading to authorities removing policing from said rallies. They in turn have hired armed militia groups to police the rallies, upping the ante considerably and ultimately leading to what you saw happen in Charlottesville.

binners - Member

I don't know about you but I wouldn't be going protesting anywhere where there are loads of squirrel eating nutjobs wandering around with assault rifles

Yup. There's a sick tendancy now to dismiss everyone as extremists- everyone who turns out to oppose a nazi invasion of a town is an "Antifa" , or a communist, everyone on a demonstration is a looter, everyone who supports Jeremy Corbyn is in Momentum, everyone who supports Trump or Brexit is a racist or a nazi or an idiot.

Most people saying "nazis are bad, let's do something", aren't extremists. Standing against extremism isn't extreme- it's the centre, holding. If you come to my university with a burning torch and a swastika, you'll be meeting me and anyone else daft enough to be standing in harm's way, just like in Charlottesville.

But we'd be facing shitty British nazis. In Charlottesville they're facing militias with long arms, the klan with burning torches, they're getting killed in the street, and all the time they're getting death threats and publically denounced as public enemies, communists, anarchists, and of course they're all in Antifa. The exact same thing would happen if Peterloo or Kristallnacht happened today. So much of the internet chat is "but why did they have sticks?" Well one of them got [i]murdered[/i]. Apparently they had reasonable cause to doubt their safety. And yet there they are. Not just standing up to evil but doing so in the face of public condemnation.

And free speech? Yes it's essential. But if the only argument you have in favour of what someone's doing is "they have the right to free speech" you're just saying what they're doing is OK because it's not literally illegal. That's not a high standard; it's not a standard at all. But we hold it up like a rallying cry. "That's not illegal!" Legality is not morality, it's a bare minimum, and not everything on the right side of the line is fine.

(Just for clarity, the nazis are definitely nazis, and the guys in KKK robes are probably the KKK. Not all lines are blurred)

jimjam - Member

In some instances this threat of violence has worked, leading to authorities removing policing from said rallies. They in turn have hired armed militia groups to police the rallies, upping the ante considerably and ultimately leading to what you saw happen in Charlottesville.

I'll quickly quote this in case he changes his mind.
It is a common tactic of the right wing extremist to create trouble and then use that as justification for more trouble.

I'm not trying to say that the driver of the charger crashed into anyone other than normal people. I'm saying that Antifa have used violence and the threat of violence to shut down or disrupt right wing, conservative and republican rallies.

Again, this wasn't Antifa vs right wing, conservatives and republicans.
This was neo-nazis and normal people.

sbob

I'll quickly quote this in case he changes his mind.

Yeah, you better do that quickly because look.... someone who disagrees with you......you've almost found another Nazi 🙄

[img] https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/tebN4WaPvqfMq6sMbfMxVQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/9f308cc9695bf172bbad4b690a84838a [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Is chanting "Punch a Nazi in the mouth" incitement to violence?

https://twitter.com/ACLUVA/status/896381031552618498

So much of the internet chat is "but why did they have sticks?"

Which is odd given that there are lots of photos of the right wing groups also carrying sticks and flaming torches, batons, shields, helmets and body armour.

And of course people carrying semi-automatic rifles (on both sides) - to the point that the Virginia governor pointed out that the militias were better armed than the police.

Oh yah. "Why do they wear masks". Well, after this terrorist murdered someone with a car, alt-right groups created a false investigation which within an hour "identified" a completely innocent person, posted their identity and home address which spread across the internet, and led to them getting deluged in death threats. And, you know, I've had death threats but considering these were from people running interference for a terrorist, they're a bit more serious.

So I can't imagine why people who're actually there opposing these people would want to hide their identity.

Is chanting "Punch a Nazi in the mouth" incitement to violence?

Yes. HTH.

Northwind - Member

Oh yah. "Why do they wear masks". Well, after this terrorist murdered someone with a car,

You mean they anticipated that someone would die?

That's exactly what I didn't say, well done.

"Punch a Nazi in the mouth"
"Run over and kill a civil rights activist"

Almost the same when you think about it.

jimjam, no pictures of the right wing groups in similar garb?

Or perhaps more helpfully of the peaceful protesters?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Yeah, you better do that quickly because look.... someone who disagrees with you......you've almost found another Nazi

No, just a point scoring apologist, although you do use the tactics of the right wing extremist, hence the quote.

Which one of those pictures was from Charlottesville?

It's telling that you can google image search any of those pics and they all come up with neo-nazism as the closest match. 💡

sbob -

No, just a point scoring apologist, although you do use the tactics of the right wing extremist, hence the quote.

So, what you're saying is I'm a Nazi appologist or a right wing extremist? Or both? It's ok, you can just say it. No need to dance around it.

Jimjam - just to help us out with making that decision, can you tell us if you see any moral equivalence at all between a Nazi and a civil rights activist however attired?

If the answer is yes then I recommend a brief review of the history of the 20th century. 1939 would be a fair place to start.

DrJ

If the answer is yes then I recommend a brief review of the history of the 20th century. 1939 would be a fair place to start.

I would recommended a brief review of the explosion in identity politics on both sides of the American political divide to go you some context as to what lead to the events in Charlottsville but there is literaly no point. Apparently suggesting that violent anarchists like Antifa have upped the ante in terms of political violence is somehow using the tactics of far right extremists.

It's almost as if some people are taking pleasure in the fact that a "real nazi" murdered someone.

It's almost as if some people are taking pleasure in the fact that a "real nazi" murdered someone.

Kind of a sick accusation wouldn't you say?

DrJ

Kind of a sick accusation wouldn't you say?

Not really. Read the thread again and ask yourself if everyone has comported themselves in the most respectful fashion.

So, what you're saying is I'm a Nazi appologist or a right wing extremist? Or both? It's ok, you can just say it. No need to dance around it.

You've just quoted exactly what I've written. If you're struggling just read it again, more slowly.

Apparently suggesting that violent anarchists like Antifa

You're still doing it.
Talking about Antifa which is completely inapplicable to Charlottesville.

have upped the ante in terms of political violence is somehow using the tactics of far right extremists.

Pretending that the rising of the right is a product of Antifa when the exact opposite is true is a tactic of the far right extremist.

Clue: when did you start using the word "Antifa". 💡

It's almost as if some people are taking pleasure in the fact that a "real nazi" murdered someone.

Classy.
Most people are appalled.
Some people are using the opportunity to erect anti-leftwing strawmen.

sbob

Pretending that the rising of the right is a product of Antifa when the exact opposite is true is a tactic of the far right extremist.

Clue: when did you start using the word "Antifa".

Pretending? You mean lying? Rather than waste anymore of my own time, I would suggest that you, and anyone with a shred of curiosity and a desire to understand the truth as opposed to just digging deeper into their own ideological trench should google "antifa charlotseville" or "rise of antifa".

[img] ?itok=pLnN1Pzb[/img]

sbob

Classy.
Most people are appalled.

So appalled they couldn't stop poking fun.

Read the thread again and ask yourself if everyone has comported themselves in the most respectful fashion.

Respectful to whom? The murder victim? Or to ninfan and his pint-sized sidekick?

Pretending? You mean lying?

Yes.

Rather than waste anymore of my own time

Ignoring valid questions saves you time, that's for sure.

Like where did you source that picture, and where is the picture from?

It's no wonder you have your views if you spend your valuable time trawling right wing websites.

Google image search is a valuable tool... 💡

sbob

Like where did you source that picture, and where is the picture from?

I'm at a loss as to why I have to caveat every statement with the equivalent of "I'm not a Nazi because"....

Anyway the image is from the Daily Wire. Which to you is an alt-right website. IE a Nazi website, run by orthodox Jew, Ben Shapiro. A vocal Trump critic. Confusing isn't it. All this nuance. He must be a nazi if he's critical of Antifa, because Antifa punch nazis.

Google image search is a valuable tool...

Yes. If you google "masked antifa"......

why is jimjam posting images of [url= http://www.fuoriradio.com/2011/10/il-blocco-nero/ ]the black block [/url]at an anti g8 march in 2007 ?

[img] [/img]

Like where did you source that picture, and where is the picture from?

I saw that picture in a BuzzFeed report on Charlottesville, where they described it thusly:

"The area of most intense conflict was on the steps into Emancipation Park. Each side squared off against the other in a schoolyard turf war. At around 11:00, counterdemonstrators deployed a large sign made from plywood spray painted with "alt-right scum your time has come" and a decapitated Pepe the Frog. It doubled as a barrier and quickly became a prize, with each side fighting to gain control of it. Eventually it fell, right-wingers stomped on it, and people continued fighting."

Strangely he didn't include some of the other images from that article showing those nice peaceful white supremacists and nazis:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Decent article. (Though I'm sure some will be quick to point out that BuzzFeed is very left leaning)