From the New York Times and not Buzz Feed or one of Fly, Surt and Sable's sites.Let’s discard the fiction that President Trump wasn’t placating white supremacists by responding so weakly to the neo-Nazi violence that killed Heather Heyer, a 32-year-old counterdemonstrator in Charlottesville, Va., on Saturday. The neo-Nazis heard his message loud and clear.
“He didn’t attack us,†crowed The Daily Stormer, a white supremacist website, about Mr. Trump’s statement after the two days of racist demonstrations. “Refused to answer a question about White Nationalists supporting him. No condemnation at all. When asked to condemn, he just walked out of the room. Really, really good. God bless him.â€
Originally posted by Surturhmm
Don't feed that beast. Do not give them *any* excuse to justify themselves.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
There are different levels of stupidity on the POS scale. Comparing two sides in attempt to equate them is idiotic. For example: If a thread was made about violent BLM riots, anyone who tried to justify with the police brutality infecting law enforcement would be an idiot imo and just full out wrong. Like **** those guys, I can understand the frustration but breaking into a grocery store solves nothing.
Let's cut the crap. He condemned both sides. Everyone was wrong to commit violence, was the point. Should he have not at all mentioned the violence from one side? Should he have said "Side A and Side B were both horrid, side A totes more than side B though".
I get the feeling folk would whine no matter what. I also see a narrative being pushed by some, setting this up as "everyone on one side was foaming mouth racists, everyone on the other side just love liberty and freedom".
Which is kind of the point here and why I'm so confused how people are mentioning Obama and Trump in the same sentence. If Obama pulled this bullshit, he'd definitely be getting rail roaded.
Lol...what? Let me clarify your confusion: Obama avoided calling radical Islamic terrorism...radical Islamic terrorism. People on the left didn't throw a fit over it. Some even defended it, saying "what do we get from naming it?". I don't mean random liberals on the internet btw. Actual democrats, etc. on TV said this.
You can say there is hypocrisy on both sides, both people seem to not want the truth called out when it suits them. But the leftist amnesia is utterly tiring.
Trump has a duty to come out and tel those Nazi's to go f*ck themselves, he isn't polite about anything else. Now he's towing the line and bring graceful to both sides? **** that guy. He can tell the violent extreme liberals to stop being jackasses and picking fights or scum will run them over. He can also tel the Nazi's that their whole ideology is f*cked up, they are idiots and unAmerican af, and to drop dead.
Lol dude, no he can't. He can't tell the violent liberals to stop or call them out, even if he immediately called out nazis too. People would *still* whine over it because he dared to call out the violence of the left. Do not say Trump can "do" things when the history of liberals during his presidency says nah, that shit wouldn't have been okay either.
Let me explain to you what they wanted: "White supremacists are horrible people". The end. That is what they want, they do not want the truth about the situation, or at least not the whole truth. To quote a line from a famous film...they can't seem to handle the truth.
Notice they are whining over Trumps reaction almost as much as the *actual domestic terror event*. Because he hurt their fee fee's by calling out both sides violence.
Originally posted by Surtur
Let's cut the crap. He condemned both sides. Everyone was wrong to commit violence, was the point. Should he have not at all mentioned the violence from one side? Should he have said "Side A and Side B were both horrid, side A totes more than side B though".I get the feeling folk would whine no matter what. I also see a narrative being pushed by some, setting this up as "everyone on one side was foaming mouth racists, everyone on the other side just love liberty and freedom".
Lol...what? Let me clarify your confusion: Obama avoided calling radical Islamic terrorism...radical Islamic terrorism. People on the left didn't throw a fit over it. Some even defended it, saying "what do we get from naming it?". I don't mean random liberals on the internet btw. Actual democrats, etc. on TV said this.
You can say there is hypocrisy on both sides, both people seem to not want the truth called out when it suits them. But the leftist amnesia is utterly tiring.
Lol dude, no he can't. He can't tell the violent liberals to stop or call them out, even if he immediately called out nazis too. People would *still* whine over it because he dared to call out the violence of the left. Do not say Trump can "do" things when the history of liberals during his presidency says nah, that shit wouldn't have been okay either.
Let me explain to you what they wanted: "White supremacists are horrible people". The end. That is what they want, they do not want the truth about the situation, or at least not the whole truth. To quote a line from a famous film...they can't seem to handle the truth.
Notice they are whining over Trumps reaction almost as much as the *actual domestic terror event*. Because he hurt their fee fee's by calling out both sides violence.
🙄
Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
I have no problem with people airing their views, they just have to accept the consequences of their actions. I also feel Trump has to take responsibility for this "going mainstream" Alt right. He has given people like Bannon platforms to spread the rhetoric of hate. Idiots, hate by nature they are afraid of the different and need a whipping boy to feel good about themselves. Post 9/11 you have ready made whipping boys to get the people who are easily swayed to hate. Breitbart etc, have been putting this hate out their, poisoning the stupid and shifting the Overton window till what 15 years ago would have seemed radical is now the norm.These idiots need confronting, people need to choose what they stand for and who they stand with.
Originally posted by Steve ZodiacI agree, Nazi ideology is corrupting people, and needs to be confronted. So I am nonplussed as to why despite expressing that opinion, you still have "no problem" with them being given a platform to fester and grow. When you say "confront" what exactly are you suggesting, in what why do you plan to impede them?
Every view has a right to be voiced no matter how abhorrent, people have to accept the consequences of those views, in life and history.Triggered neo nazi's driving cars into people are a result of people standing by too long and not confronting the twisted rhetoric which got him in that state. People should have been saying to him when he started becoming radicalised, just like with Anders Brevic, are you sure you understand what's triggering you.
The people who propagated these views and made them the norm also have to be confronted or I see Trump in his bunker taking a suicide pill as the allies roll into Washington and I include in the Allies, the 50% of good Americans and 25% of the people who voted for him who will realise they are wrong.
Originally posted by BeniboyblingInitially confronting how it always has been, by people bringing them up on their hate speak and counter demo's etc. Eventually, I fear people will have to stand in front of them more regularly.
I agree, Nazi ideology is corrupting people, and needs to be confronted. So I am nonplussed as to why despite expressing that opinion, you still have "no problem" with them being given a platform to fester and grow. When you say "confront" what exactly are you suggesting, in what why do you plan to impede them?
And risk their safety in the process yeah, can you explain to me why this should be their responsibility to stand up to Nazi's when the government isn't prepared to? And furthermore, what you expect such activity to achieve? That they'll just up and leave at the sight of a counter protest? That upon being called Nazi scum they'll look and their swastika armbands and abruptly realise what it stands for? Forgive me if I don't share your optimism, and forgive me for not having faith in the "tried and tested" when in light of Charlottesville, it has evidently proven utterly ineffective.
Originally posted by BeniboyblingWhen a country is divided, usually the politicians are partly to blame, the power to solve problems usually lies with the people. This can create huge problems or solve them, I'd like to think the majority of American's are not Nazi's and will eventually do the right thing. We'll see. Whatever the outcome, this is just the beginning. In the 80's in the UK, we did stand up to them. The National Front learned and became the BNP which led to populist movements like the EDL, Britain First and even UKIP all of which are analogous to the Alt right in the US. As are Combat 18, we must never forget and always be vigilant, because Nazi rhetoric will persuade some types of people.
And risk their safety in the process yeah, can you explain to me why this should be their responsibility to stand up to Nazi's when the government isn't prepared to? And furthermore, what you expect such activity to achieve? That they'll just up and leave at the sight of a counter protest? That upon being called Nazi scum they'll look and their swastika armbands and abruptly realise what it stands for? Forgive me if I don't share your optimism, and forgive me for not having faith in the "tried and tested" when in light of Charlottesville, it has evidently proven utterly ineffective.
Originally posted by EmperordmbPlease spare me your narratives DMB. At no point did I argue that people should be punished for the actions of others. What I remember saying is that Nazi's should not be given a platform, because white supremacism have no place in modern society, and yes, every Nazi is individually responsible for being a Nazi.
Yes and you charge the killer with murder. You charge those who committed violence on either side with assault. You judge people for their actions as individuals and punish them based on the rights of others that they have violated. You do not rescind the rights of others based on some notion of collective guilt. The people who break the law and violate the rights of others should be punished for their actions, anyone associated with their ideology shouldn't have their rights rescinded because of something as absurd as collective guilt or preemptive punishment before they even commit a crime.
The fact that someone was killed in this rally only goes to show the end result of radicalisation.
On the other hand, banning rallies that are likely to descend into violence and run the risk of causing fatalities is just down right practical and in the public interest. God forbid that people are made to stay indoors for fear of their safety because the white supremacists are coming to town.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
It's called having principles. One of the liberal principles western civilization is largely based around is individualism and the protection of individual rights.
If your principles mean allowing those who glorify death cults to rally an organise then you can keep them. 😘
On the other hand, yes I happen to stand on principle when I say these people should be made to go home. I do not see the benefit of pretending they have any place in modern society, when they don't.
I'll say this much, it wouldn't have been allowed in Canada. 🙁
Regardless of how disturbing someone's personal views are, if they have not violated the rights of another person then it is unethical to violate or rescind their rights.That's a faulty premise, there are a number of things you can get done for that don't directly or even indirectly violate the rights of other people.
It is not ethical to punch a neo-nazi who has not broken the law and violated the rights of any other person, it is not ethical to rescind a person's sovereignty over their own thoughts and speech because you disagree with them. They are certainly not my friends and do not share my values, but this is liberal western society, and I have principles I don't rescind from people just because I dislike them. If somebody has not violated anyone else's rights, regardless of their values or morality they deserve the protection of their rights and violence or threats of violence to suppress their speech is unethical.No it's not OK to punch people, even Nazis, that only makes you as bad as them, which is why I only opposed your assertion that these people deserve have their rights to assembly protected, please bear in mind that that is the only thing I'm opposing. On the other hand no. I again fail to see the unethical nature of refusing public spaces to people who worship Hitler or chant "f*ck you f*ggots" in the streets. And I do much more than disagree with them, like a radical Islamists giving anti-western speeches in a mosque, I see them as a threat to safe society, who should be cracked down upon. They are far more than disagreeable, they are down right evil. And their attempts to organise and radicalise others as they have been should be confronted as far as is reasonably possible. As far as I'm concerned, it is the responsibility of all Western nations to confront and reject this virulent ideology that millions of people died to put a stop to.
And holy shit, the government rescinding somebody's rights or punishing them at gunpoint for what amounts to a thought or speech crime is a whole hell of a lot more immoral and unethical than holding or speaking disgusting viewpoints without actually violating anyone else's rights.Uh-oh here we go with the extremes again. Kindly cease your hysterics or I shall resort the same, and considering someone has been just been murdered by a Nazi I have a lot more to work with than you. I don't assert that white supremacists should be punished at gunpoint, or have their thoughts policed. But I do recognise that thinking Hitler is rad is not the same as forming a rally, or hosting a convention, or creating a group around his Nazi ideology, those are called actions, and they impact society as a whole, in a dangerous and negative way.
So far, I haven't encountered a coherent argument from you against this notion that fails to resort to sensationalist spiel or downplaying white supremacists as simply "disagreeable."
Yes, it is good to protect their right to assembly to prevent it from happening to someone with a less disgusting ideology. But it's also the ethical thing to protect their right to assembly because it would be extremely unethical to threaten government or vigilante force to prevent their assembly because you disagree with what they're saying, in fact it crosses a moral and ethical line that law-abiding white supremacists don't cross. As much as the word gets thrown around, to shut down their speech with force or threat of force would be an actual fascist tacticThat's a false equivalency, white supremacists are not in government (well, not entirely), they don't possess political authority, so you don't know what lines they'd cross. However if you insist on making a comparison I'm happy to use Nazi Germany as a hypothetical substitute. 🙁
On the other hand, no, I don't perceive it as an inherently fascist tactic. And I reject the use of the word "tactic" as if this were some kind of political ploy to suppress those I "disagree with". This is about protecting the public, and protecting society from a hostile and radicalising movement, that, among other things, is transforming the States into a lethal shit show.
Let's imagine for a moment that this white supremacist explosion goes on, as you recommend, unimpeded, and they grow exponentially in number. At what point would you suggest something be done? When they start Nazi con? When they elect their supremacist buddies into government? When they hijack the Republican Party or start their own? These are of course, hypotheticals, but I'm nonetheless interested to know at what point your principles would be abandoned for common sense.
And if that's actually your non-trolly opinion that you think white supremacists should ideally be executed, then you should do some serious reexamination of your moral character.The moon thing was a joke yeah, they would obviously be fitted with space suits. 🙁