[Closed] Charlottesville

I think Ninfan should get himself a VPN and go for a wander through some UK and US far right websites and chat rooms.

If he can do that without the need to shower, then try some European and Russian ones.

The pure, visceral hatred makes your soul die, and they walk among us.

The community is nazis. They hold nazi beliefs. They're not a group who collectively like flower arranging. They want to eradicate people that are different to them and hold different beliefs. One of them achieved that

replace Nazi with Muslim.. you could even use quotes from the Koran to "prove" it

Wow. Are you suggesting that being a Muslim is inherently bad, in the same way that being a Nazi is inherently bad? If so you need to learn the difference between 'a Muslim' and 'a Muslin terrorist extremist killer'. There is a big difference :roll:.

There is a relationship between American postal service workers and mad killing sprees (the phrase 'going postal'), but it would be pretty stupid to think all American post office workers are potential insane mass murders, don't you think?

Are you suggesting that being a Muslim is inherently bad, in the same way that being a Nazi is inherently bad?

I'm saying that once you begin to treat people differently on the basis of whom you perceive to be "inherently bad" or allow government to censor views, opinions, free speech or protest because you don't like what people are saying, or because it might upset somebody, then we're all ****ed

Nazis have as much right to speak, march and protest, as communists (or any other group) do, even though I profoundly disagree with both of them. Both should be able to do so without fear of being physically attacked by their opponents - it's not a difficult concept.

I'm saying that once you begin to treat people differently on the basis of whom you perceive to be "inherently bad" or allow government to censor views, opinions, free speech or protest because you don't like what people are saying, then we're all ****ed

To clarify, do YOU 'perceive' Muslims to be inherently bad in the same way that Nazi's are perceived to be inherently bad?

replace Nazi with Muslim.. you could even use quotes from the Koran to "prove" it

Nazis have as much right to speak, march and protest, as communists (or any other group) do, even though I profoundly disagree with both of them. Both should be able to do so without fear of being physically attacked by their opponents - it's not a difficult concept.

So you don't think the UK "incitement to racial hatred" law is a good thing when applied to Nazism?

Both should be able to do so without fear of being physically attacked by their opponents - it's not a difficult concept.

Sure, resorting to violence is not a good solution in any way, but ignoring Nazi's is even worse. Surely the only way to improve the situation (without violence or imprisonment) is to try and teach Nazis why their beliefs are inherently wrong. That won't happen by ignoring them.

To clarify, do YOU 'perceive' Muslims to be inherently bad in the same way that Nazi's are perceived to be inherently bad?

Which is worse, the Daleks or the Cybermen?

I perceive Muslims to be [b]as[/b] inherently bad as christians, Hindus, Jews and any other sky-fairy following religion.

In just the same way as I perceive Nazis to be as [i]inherently[/i] bad as Communists

So you don't think the UK "incitement to racial hatred" law is a good thing when applied to Nazism

To be honest, I don't support it in the slightest (when applied to any group, not just Nazi's), nor do I support the laws on incitement to religious hatred, in both cases I don't support them due to their chilling effect on free speech - as opposed to the laws prohibiting incitement to violence, which I support 100%

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

'Merica is mental!

Mind you, I suppose you could consider it a nod to multiculturalism that the killer then chose to use his car to kill people, which is a bit... you know... ISISy, instead of the more time honoured 'Merican tradition of going postal with a massive bag of guns

Or maybe he was being ironic?

Both should be able to do so without fear of being physically attacked by their opponents - it's not a difficult concept.

Remind us who was physically attacked by whom in this case.

I "perceive" Nazis to be "inherently bad" on account of the killing 6 million Jews thang. But hey, that's just me - judgemental.

Seems to me that those white supremacist types seem pretty keen on (parts of) the 1st and 2nd amendments, but seek to challenge the 13th (slavery and servitude), 14th (equal protection of the law) and 15th (right to vote regardless race, colour or servitude).

Not to mention the good old Declaration of Independence which says [i]"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"[/i].

Seems odd that they style themselves as 'patriots' when they are so at odds with the fundamentals of their country.

I'm saying that once you begin to treat people differently on the basis of whom you perceive to be "inherently bad" or allow government to censor views, opinions, free speech or protest because you don't like what people are saying, then we're all ****ed

I actually agree with that ninfan.

But the exception is always that incitement to violence is not permitted. and it's pretty easy to argue that folk flying nazi flags, chanting nazi slogans and making nazi salutes are saying they approve of nazi methods of dealing with opponents. Likewise the KKK guys.

I "perceive" Nazis to be "inherently bad" on account of the killing 6 million Jews thang. But hey, that's just me - judgemental.

Muslims, Christians, Hindu's, Communists and Mongol Hordes have all done much the same

I perceive Muslims to be as inherently bad as christians, Hindus, Jews and any other sky-fairy following religion.

Muslims, Christians, Hindu's, Communists and Mongol Hordes have all done much the same

Yes, the major religions have resulted in a lot of 'bad' things.....but some good too. Have the Nazi's ever done anything 'good'? That's the difference. The religions do not teach hatred (beyond the misinterpretations of extremists/terrorists, who are a tiny minority).

Muslims, Christians, Hindu's, Communists and Mongol Hordes have all done much the same

Not really. The Nazis existed for - what - 20 years? And killed 6 million. Quite a hit rate. Plus - it was an essential element of their philosophy - the mob at Charlotteville were shouting anti-Semitic slogans, not "let's build more autobahns". It wasn't a side project like,say, inventing algebra.

I understand the attraction of looking for some sort of simple universal rule, but in this case it leads you to attempting to justify the murder of an innocent young woman. Is that where you want to be?

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

The aqueduct?

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