Originally posted by Surtur
Lol nope, let me tell you what I think: I think both sides were culpable in the violent clashes that took place. I think both sides had people who came specifically looking to do violence or at least hoping for an excuse to do it.
Really? Because that sounds like a moral equivalency to me.
Originally posted by Robtard
Still curious how Heather Heyer is just as "culpable" in her death as the terrorist that killed her?And before you respond with "I never specifically said those exact words" dodge. You're implying it.
I'm curious how only one side is to blame for the violent clashes? You care to shed any light on that?
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
they don't understand the concept of moral equivalency, so i guess you lose again. tough luck, pal.
This is a great excuse, because then when your arguments fall apart it is just because the other guy didn't understand. It has nothing to do with you and what you are putting forth.
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol@ the triggerdom. But wouldn't it have been sexist or homophobic to say gays can't be terrorists?But more from CNN lol:
Ben Carson says home was vandalized with anti-Trump messages. CNN reporter: ‘Worth a fact-check.’
A black man vanadlized needs to be fact checked now soley because he supports Trump.
Originally posted by Robtard
Anyone who threw a punch, kick, bottle etc. is responsible for the fighting.Now about the murder victim, how is the not murderous side equally responsible for murder?
I said both sides were responsible for the violent clashes. You twisted that into your little narrative.
If two crimes take place, such as say grand theft auto and murder, to call the perpetrators of both criminals is not a moral equivocation between the two crimes, it is a statement of fact.
To say that both sides here are guilty of violence is not to say that making value judgments about different bad crimes and behaviors is unwarranted or false, but it is an important thing to take note of to get to the root of what causes this violence and tension to begin with. The fact of the matter is that many of the alt-right protesters showed up armed looking for a fight, and they are pieces of shit, however it's important to note that many of the counter protesters showed up also ready to engage in a fight and with the intention of escalating tensions between the two groups. It is important to note that the alt-right and as Trump puts it "the alt-left or the regressive left" (be it antifa, black racial collectivists, intersectional social justice, etc.) both have inflammatory and regressive views that incite outrage, activism, and reactionary views and demonstrations on the other side. You think Antifa and the Alt-right aren't both emboldened towards violence by their history of violent clashes in the past at Berkeley? You think the regressive left pushing intersectional identity politics, racialized ideologies on college campuses such as critical race theory and the collective guilt of white people, and diversity programs that discriminate against white people as a matter of principle aren't political activism that is driving people into the clutches of the alt-right? You think this act by the alt-right isn't going to further incite intersectional ideologues and black racial collectivists and retaliatory behavior from groups by Antifa?
I'm not saying both sides in this incident are equivalent, but they are both certainly guilty of violence, and it would be disingenuous to view this disgusting alt-right behavior as some unprovoked manifestation of white supremacy, rather than as part of a reactionary game regressive conversation that has been going on between racial collectivists and ideologues on both sides of the political spectrum, wherein both sides escalate tensions and violence between each other and do shit to provide the other side with support for the claim that their narrative is valid.
Trump addressed what needed to be addressed through his three speeches. There were violent and hateful people from both sides and many groups, white supremacists and neonazis are disgusting and abhorrent, they were violent and one of them committed the horrible crime of murder, and there were regressive parts of the left playing into this violence as well. He should've addressed all of this in one speech, however he didn't say anything that wasn't true, and he didn't condone the actions of any of these groups.
To dismantle and prevent incidents like this from happening, it is important to not only address the disgusting ideology and behavior of the white supremacists, but the larger political context that is escalating political and racial tensions from both sides, and to dismantle political violence and racial collectivism with the liberal values of individualism and civil non-violent society that the United States was built upon.
When Trump failed to address the neonazis and alt-right specifically, he was not expressing support for those groups, but he should've understood how the alt-right would twist that statement into something in their favor and he should've realized how his statement would create political momentum against him as a backlash. When the MSM fails to condemn the actions of both sides and recognize the larger political climate and only promulgate the narrative that the alt-right was exclusively responsible for what happened, they are emboldening the regressive left and allowing them to suggest they are correct in their narrative, and further push the wrong response of racial collectivism against the white supremacists that will escalate the situation, rather than the proper response of racial individualism against both groups that would dismantle the regressive ideas on both sides, and target the root cause of the issue rather than only a specific partisan form that cause takes. The issue with white supremacy is not the race being extolled or the fact that it's people on the right doing it, the issue is that it is racism and racial collectivism, and that while backlash against this is needed, the backlash of racial collectivism and violence from the other side is a completely inappropriate response and should not be welcome.
Insincerity triggers me.
Could be a guy who glorifies the military in public, while privately looking down his nose at a friend of his daughter who married a marine and sarcastically says "She married a winner."
Or could be someone who argues against piracy, while thieving.
Point is, two faced people who are only really honest in private, but try and decieve everyone else for whatever reason.
Yeah, we're all flawed like that, but I'd like to think we all at least "try" and argue in good faith.
I'd think, if I didn't meet one too many slicksters who think an honest man is a sucker, and the only rule of thumb is getting them before they get you.. But I live in CT, home of mobsters, crooked politicians, racist boomers, and morally bankrupt wanna be Trumpsters, union liberals, New York bigshots ect..
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
she doesnt fit their narrative, so we cant acknowledge her or the other peaceful terrorist victims, or they'll screech and self-harm.
What about the victims who were not part of any demonstrations whatsoever? You know, the pedestrians leaving the nearby park? Clearly, Heather deserved it, because she had the temerity to join a law-abiding peaceful protest that hurt Nazi feelz, but what did the pedestrians do to deserve getting hit by a car?