Charlottesville 1 year on, what do I see looking in on America?

Started by Flyattractor18 pages
Originally posted by Putinbot1
As I stated in an earlier post violence breeds violence. The rhetoric of the alt-right is rhetoric people will fight back against.

So what you are saying is that Trump was right when he said that the Left will be Violent after the upcoming Elections?

I agree.

Originally posted by Putinbot1

I love seeing a bigot call others bigots.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]So what you are saying is that Trump was right when he said that the Left will be Violent after the upcoming Elections?

I agree. [/B]

Already said I see violence in America's future regardless of who wins. When.th Nazis are beaten which they will be I how your nation remembers the division Trip and his alt-right Nazi pals caused.

Originally posted by Surtur
I love seeing a bigot call others bigots.
No you just like to deflect away from all your weird hate for women, other races etc.

Yes. It was the Leftist Fascist of Germany that did most of the Violence. I can see your side repeating those same actions in the future. I mean just look at modern day Britain.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
No you just like to deflect away from all your weird hate for women, other races etc.

Your bigotry amuses me, which is why when you call out others for hate is amusing. It will continue to be amusing.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
As I stated in an earlier post violence breeds violence. The rhetoric of the alt-right is rhetoric people will fight back against.

Alright. Now what do you think should happen when someone decides to swing first against someone who said mean things about them?

Originally posted by darthgoober
Alright. Now what do you think should happen when someone decides to swing first against someone who said mean things about them?
I think it depends on many things, you take Ireland 800 years of British rule, then the Potato famine and the English (I'm half English/half Irish about to get an Irish Passport too, because well Brexit) then turfed many out of their houses and watched them starve. They weren't outright killing them but they created a climate where they were likely to die, the IRA was formed. Roll on 200 odd years and it's mainly words now. It wouldn't take much for a bombing campaign to be triggered. Depends on history, depends on circumstance.

What should happen to an Alt-right person who attacks an Antifa member and what about an Antifa person who attacks an Alt-righter?

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I think it depends on many things, you take Ireland 800 years of British rule, then the Potato famine and the English (I'm half English/half Irish about to get an Irish Passport too, because well Brexit) then turfed many out of their houses and watched them starve. They weren't outright killing them but they created a climate where they were likely to die, the IRA was formed. Roll on 200 odd years and it's mainly words now. It wouldn't take much for a bombing campaign to be triggered. Depends on history, depends on circumstance.

Nonsense, selectively enforcing laws is a despicable thing. The law should apply to everybody equally. Anytime it's not is a travesty and is the exact type of thing society as a whole should oppose.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Nonsense, selectively enforcing laws is a despicable thing. The law should apply to everybody equally. Anytime it's not is a travesty and is the exact type of thing society as a whole should oppose.
Who said laws are selectively enforced? However sentencing and mitigating circumstances are things which should always be considered. That's why Judges exist.

I will say, Southern Ireland broke free through resistance as did America from the British. Sometimes issues become bigger than the Judiciary. Just a thought.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Who said laws are selectively enforced? However sentencing and mitigating circumstances are things which should always be considered. That's why Judges exist.

I will say, Southern Ireland broke free through resistance as did America from the British. Sometimes issues become bigger than the Judiciary. Just a thought.


You seem to be avoiding the issue by talking like a politician(IE answering the questions you want to answer rather than the questions that are being asked). What level of consideration does someone who feels marginalized deserve in the case of an assault against an innocent party? Like people who attack Trump supporters outsidet a Trump rally, or a gang of people who pull an old white guy out of a car and beat the Hell out of him for voting for Trump(even though he didn't), or an Antifa member who hits someone in the head with a metal bike lock while the guy's just giving an interview, or a gang of black kids who capture and torture an autistic boy for being white?

Originally posted by darthgoober
You seem to be avoiding the issue by talking like a politician(IE answering the questions you want to answer rather than the questions that are being asked). What level of consideration does someone who feels marginalized deserve in the case of an assault against an innocent party? Like people who attack Trump supporters outsidet a Trump rally, or a gang of people who pull an old white guy out of a car and beat the Hell out of him for voting for Trump(even though he didn't), or an Antifa member who hits someone in the head with a metal bike lock while the guy's just giving an interview, or a gang of black kids who capture and torture an autistic boy for being white?
They clearly should be punished the same way white people who beat up blacks for being blacks are etc.

This is why a code of behaviour is so important, political correctness wasn't perfect but it did provide this to a point.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
They clearly should be punished the same way white people who beat up blacks for being blacks are etc.

This is why a code of behaviour is so important, political correctness wasn't perfect but it did provide this to a point.


So in all those instances I listed, there should be no consideration given as to whether or not the perpetrators feel marginalized? Just seeking clarification because I'm not 100% sure as to whether you were talking about everyone or only the one's I specifically listed a white victim.

Originally posted by darthgoober
So in all those instances I listed, there should be no consideration given as to whether or not the perpetrators feel marginalized? Just seeking clarification because I'm not 100% sure as to whether you were talking about everyone or only the one's I specifically listed a white victim.
I donn't think being marginalised is an excuse for beating up a boy.

However the examples you gave are very different to a confrontation between ideologies, when one are Alt-right Nazi's backed and empowered by rhetoric from the POTUS and the others are minority groups confronting these ideologies which is what happened at Charlottesville.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I donn't think being marginalised is an excuse for beating up a boy.

However the examples you gave are very different to a confrontation between ideologies, when one are Alt-right Nazi's backed and empowered by rhetoric from the POTUS and the others are minority groups confronting these ideologies which is what happened at Charlottesville.


There is no evidence, there's no evidence that the numerous people who were attacked outside of Trump rallies were alt right, there's no evidence that the old man who got pulled out of his car was alt right(he wasn't even actually a Trump supporter), and there's no evidence that the guy who got hit in the head with a bike lock was alt right. These were all innocent people who were assaulted over something that would be a legally protected constitutional even if it were true.

By your reasoning, it's ok to attack groups like Antifa and BLM without provocation since they're violent bigots who are empowered by the rhetoric of any number of politicians.

Originally posted by darthgoober
There is no evidence, there's no evidence that the numerous people who were attacked outside of Trump rallies were alt right, there's no evidence that the old man who got pulled out of his car was alt right(he wasn't even actually a Trump supporter), and there's no evidence that the guy who got hit in the head with a bike lock was alt right. These were all innocent people who were assaulted over something that would be a legally protected constitutional even if it were true.

By your reasoning, it's ok to attack groups like Antifa and BLM without provocation since they're bigots who are empowered by the rhetoric of any number of politicians.

There is no evidence Antifa have killed anyone, there is evidence the alt-right have...

Originally posted by Putinbot1
There is no evidence Antifa have killed anyone, there is evidence the alt-right have...

So groups can only be considered bad if they've killed someone? Hell the black kids who tortured that autistic boy didn't actually kill anyone...

Originally posted by darthgoober
So groups can only be considered bad if they've killed someone? Hell the black kids who tortured that autistic boy didn't actually kill anyone...
Black Kids... says it all, were they a Black rights rally? And yes groups "not kids" that kill are worse. because they kill. So the KKK, the alt-right etc are worse as they have killed in the KKK's case many times.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Black Kids... says it all, were they a Black rights rally? And yes groups "not kids" that kill are worse. because they kill. So the KKK, the alt-right etc are worse as they have killed in the KKK's case many times.

But why do you still condemn those kids if they didn't kill?

So in your opinion would it be ok to violently attack a Black Panther rally without any kind of violent provocation on their part?

Also, you're still dodging around the other examples I listed of people who've been assaulted outside of Trump rallies, pulled of of their cars, or attacked on the street.