Beauty and brains

[Vlad]

Help for those unable to come to terms with the fact that there were 2 parties to blame in Virginia.

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-24-2017, 01:50 PM)Vlad Wrote: Help for those unable to come to terms with the fact that there were 2 parties to blame in Virginia.

   


In terms of the media blowing things up this is pretty much what I've been talking about. The saying that "White supremacy/nazism etc.. is on the rise" is funny to me because it suggests that there's this big racist movement going on amongst the white community to exterminate non-whites (especially blacks and jews). People compare Trumps random "divisive rhetoric" to the carefully thought out leadership of Hitler and dare to say "look it's happening all over again". Give me a break.
 
Trump is nothing close to what Hitler was, and America is definitely not turning into some clone of Hitler's Germany. Like I've said, the media loves to take things like Charlottesville and act all "outraged" and try to make people believe that there's this huge division and that people should be afraid of the racists out there. Some jackass got into a car and ran into a crowd of people and killed someone and they started yelling "oh my god terrorism".
 
It’s obviously sad that someone died, but the fact that they tried to turn this into some terroristic event is also sad. Ironic that the media (especially CNN) likes to complain about false equivalencies being put forth by the Right when they do the same thing with situations like this. Here’s something to think about, had no one showed up looking for a fight in the first place no one would have died and there would be no talk of “oh my gosh terrorism!”. This was an isolated incident in reaction to what was going on that particular day in the heat of the moment and not some carefully thought out and planned attacked like you would see when dealing with something like Islamic terror.
 
But that’s the type of thing the media tries to plant in the minds of the public. Be afraid, be very afraid. The white man is coming to kill you. Trump is Hitler. Racists are rising!!! Oh the humanity!!! 

[THE Bigzoman]

She's really not all that attractive.

Just saying.

[Belsnickel]

Several racist groups came to Charlottesville anticipating violence. They attacked non-violent counter-protesters, and there were counter-protesters that attacked them. The police did not do a good job of handling the situation, and then a racist drove a car into a crowd of peaceful counter-protesters.

Those are the facts of what happened in Charlottesville. No video needed.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-26-2017, 07:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Several racist groups came to Charlottesville to protest, anticipating violence. They attacked non-violent counter-protesters, and there were counter-protesters that came to Charlottesville expressly for violence and attacked them. The police did not do a good job of handling the situation, and then a racist drove a car into a crowd of presumed peaceful counter-protesters.

Those are the facts of what happened in Charlottesville. No video needed.

You failed to mention that the racists were the original legally permitted protestors, only mentioning they came anticipating violence (which was also true).

You also specified the racists anticipating violence, and you specified that there were some counter protestors that were non-violent, but you failed to mention the existence of "counter protestors" who specifically showed up there for violence and nothing else.

A slanted, but otherwise fairly accurate assessment.

[Belsnickel]

(08-27-2017, 10:15 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You failed to mention that the racists were the original legally permitted protestors, only mentioning they came anticipating violence (which was also true).

You also specified the racists anticipating violence, and you specified that there were some counter protestors that were non-violent, but you failed to mention the existence of "counter protestors" who specifically showed up there for violence and nothing else.

A slanted, but otherwise fairly accurate assessment.

1. The counter-protesters also had permits. The permit statement is inane.

2. This is why I specified that there were counter-protesters that attacked them.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-27-2017, 10:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 1. The counter-protesters also had permits. The permit statement is inane.

2. This is why I specified that there were counter-protesters that attacked them.

1. Yes, but you never mentioned the racists being the original protestors, just that they showed up anticipating violence, while the other group got the title of protestors in your summary.

2. Once again, you mentioned it after the racists anticipating violence and attacking non-violent protestors, and never mentioned that those counter-protestors also showed up armed, armored, and with the express intent of violence. Your way made it seem like the racists showed up, attacked peaceful protestors, so counter-protestors attacked the racists. In reality, it was more like racist protestors both attacked and were attacked by violent "counter-protestors"... and some peaceful counter-protestors got caught in the crossfire.

You can't have a battlefield with only one side, man. Look at some of those pictures and both sides are wearing helmets, carrying shields, eye protection, carrying sticks and such. It's two groups of almost exclusively shitheads, with a sprinkling of peaceful protestors caught in the middle.

[GMDino]

Nazis.  They are self proclaimed Nazis.

And people are STILL saying "well, they had a permit and were attacked!!!1!!!1!!!"

Really people?

No one with any sense has condoned the violence.

But they are NAZI'S.  Can we stop finding ways to make them look like victims?  

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-27-2017, 10:33 AM)GMDino Wrote: Nazis.  They are self proclaimed Nazis.

And people are STILL saying "well, they had a permit and were attacked!!!1!!!1!!!"

Really people?

No one with any sense has condoned the violence.

But they are NAZI'S.  Can we stop finding ways to make them look like victims?  

I don't think the point is to make them look like victims, but rather to make the point that the counter protesters only made a bad situation worse by obviously looking to clash with them.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-27-2017, 10:33 AM)GMDino Wrote: Muslims.  They are self proclaimed Muslims.

And people are STILL saying "well, they had a permit and were attacked!!!1!!!1!!!"

Really people?

No one with any sense has condoned the violence.

But they are MUSLIMS.  Can we stop finding ways to make them look like victims?  

They're US citizens, with rights. Just because they're shitty wastes of people, doesn't change that. Once they start being violent though, they do lose that, but that doesn't mean I have to also ignore the wrongs of a second violent group of people who, while attacking Nazi in this instance, also call for the targeting and killing of police along with pretty much anyone else who disagrees with them.

I can manage to hate both groups. I can't manage to ignore one group getting basically a free pass in this all.

[GMDino]

(08-27-2017, 11:07 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: They're US Muslims, with rights. Just because some Muslims are shitty wastes of people, doesn't change that. Once they start being violent though, they do lose that, but that doesn't mean I have to also ignore the wrongs of a second violent group of people who, while attacking Muslims in this instance, also call for the targeting and killing of blacks and jews along with pretty much anyone else who disagrees with them.

I can manage to hate both groups. I can't manage to ignore one group getting basically a free pass in this all.

Secondly:  Not all Muslims are bad/evil.  All Nazis are.

But hey, if making them look like victims helps people sleep at night just to be "fair" to "both sides" I guess that's okay cause...freedom.

[*jason*]

(08-27-2017, 10:32 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 1. Yes, but you never mentioned the racists being the original protestors, just that they showed up anticipating violence, while the other group got the title of protestors in your summary.

2. Once again, you mentioned it after the racists anticipating violence and attacking non-violent protestors, and never mentioned that those counter-protestors also showed up armed, armored, and with the express intent of violence. Your way made it seem like the racists showed up, attacked peaceful protestors, so counter-protestors attacked the racists. In reality, it was more like racist protestors both attacked and were attacked by violent "counter-protestors"... and some peaceful counter-protestors got caught in the crossfire.

You can't have a battlefield with only one side, man. Look at some of those pictures and both sides are wearing helmets, carrying shields, eye protection, carrying sticks and such. It's two groups of almost exclusively shitheads, with a sprinkling of peaceful protestors caught in the middle.

This is entirely true. For me what tips the blame toward the Nazis was the fact that it was THEIR rally. The locals didn't want them there. The ACLU stepped in and forced Charlottesville's hand. Of course the other hooligans showed up to fight too... Antifa or whoever doesn't show up if the will of the local people was upheld.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-27-2017, 11:32 AM)GMDino Wrote: Secondly:  Not all Muslims are bad/evil.  All Nazis are.

But hey, if making them look like victims helps people sleep at night just to be "fair" to "both sides" I guess that's okay cause...freedom.

Who's killed more innocent people in the last 50 years out of the two?


But hey, if ignoring a violent group like Antifa and absolving them of any wrongdoing with a simple "oh, I don't support violence" while simultaneously defending everything they do, helps people sleep a night, I guess that's okay cause... 72 years ago negates the Constitution. Than again, I guess I can't expect much else from "people" who idolize and cheer for a rapist.

(08-27-2017, 11:38 AM)jason Wrote: This is entirely true. For me what tips the blame toward the Nazis was the fact that it was THEIR rally. The locals didn't want them there. The ACLU stepped in and forced Charlottesville's hand. Of course the other hooligans showed up to fight too... Antifa or whoever doesn't show up if the will of the local people was upheld.

Yeah, but the thing is the local people don't get to decide when the Constitution is or isn't upheld. If BLM (who recently just sent out a list of incredibly racist demands) is holding a rally and a bunch of white supremacists come in and violently "counter-protest", does that mean it's BLM's fault since it was THEIR rally?

"Antifa or whoever doesn't show up if the local people were allowed to remove group's 1st amendment."
"The KKK or whoever doesn't show up if the local people were allowed to remove black people's 1st amendment."

You simply can't allow groups to dictate when the Constitution is upheld, otherwise the whole system falls apart. Sometimes that means letting disgusting people give their opinions peacefully. If they get violent, have the police crack down on them, but it's not the job of random people to show up with the express intent of violently shutting it down.


Everyone knows Nazis are bad. Racism is bad. It's not news. The problem is there's a group out there that's violently suppressing any and all beliefs contrary to theirs, have a desire to murder police, and they're not getting the recognition that what they're doing is wrong.

[GMDino]

(08-27-2017, 12:45 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Who's killed more innocent people in the last 50 years out of the two?

I'll assume it was Islamic Extremists.

So I'll repeat for the new crowd: When I am presented with moderate Nazis that speak out against such violence by their own kind I'll agree there is an analogy there.

(08-27-2017, 12:45 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: But hey, if ignoring a violent group like Antifa and absolving them of any wrongdoing with a simple "oh, I don't support violence" while simultaneously defending everything they do, helps people sleep a night, I guess that's okay cause... 72 years ago negates the Constitution. Than again, I guess I can't expect much else from "people" who idolize and cheer for a rapist.

I already spoke out against violence by this antifa group. It's also been pointed out that much of the violence "on the left" was self defense.

However I'm not sure which rapist this refers to?

I don't know of any who idolizes a convicted rapist. Maybe just someone who was charged? Like Trump? I dunno.

(08-27-2017, 12:45 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yeah, but the thing is the local people don't get to decide when the Constitution is or isn't upheld. If BLM (who recently just sent out a list of incredibly racist demands) is holding a rally and a bunch of white supremacists come in and violently "counter-protest", does that mean it's BLM's fault since it was THEIR rally?

BLM had nothing to do with this. The point was that everyone knew there was a high possibility of trouble. Everyone agrees the NAZI's have a right as US citizens...the city should have handled it better.

"Antifa or whoever doesn't show up if the local people were allowed to remove group's 1st amendment."
"The KKK or whoever doesn't show up if the local people were allowed to remove black people's 1st amendment."

...sigh...

(08-27-2017, 12:45 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You simply can't allow groups to dictate when the Constitution is upheld, otherwise the whole system falls apart. Sometimes that means letting disgusting people give their opinions peacefully. If they get violent, have the police crack down on them, but it's not the job of random people to show up with the express intent of violently shutting it down.

Yep.

However it is the job of American citizens to show up and show the NAZI's they are outnumbered and their kind of hate speech will not be tolerated.

Violence goes too far.

(08-27-2017, 12:45 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Everyone knows Nazis are bad. Racism is bad. It's not news. The problem is there's a group out there that's violently suppressing any and all beliefs contrary to theirs, have a desire to murder police, and they're not getting the recognition that what they're doing is wrong.

*BUZZZ* Wrong answer.

They are shutting down people who speak of racism and hatred. Sorry about that.

As to the rest violence is wrong. There is no other way to say it.

Sadly NAZI's tend to inspire the worst in even good people because they are NAZI's.

Has that sunk in yet?

I'll guess no and that this will further descend into "but the other side got violent!!!!!1!!!!11!!"

So I'll stop. Again.

[ballsofsteel]

(08-24-2017, 01:50 PM)Vlad Wrote: Help for those unable to come to terms with the fact that there were 2 parties to blame in Virginia.

" Beauty and brains"

By the title I thought you were talking about Melania.

[GMDino]

This entire Charlotteville event should have been covered on these boards like this:

Nazis are scum.

It's a shame that a small group turned violent while trying to shutdown hate speech.  That should not be tolerated and they should be punished for their actions

But Nazis are evil and one of them killed an innocent woman.  It's a good thing that so many came out to oppose racism in America.  We really need to focus on how to handle these Nazis in America.

I guess it was a pipe dream to imagine people could agree Nazis are always the bad guys.  Always.

[ballsofsteel]

(08-27-2017, 12:45 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Who's killed more innocent people in the last 50 years out of the two?


But hey, if ignoring a violent group like Antifa and absolving them of any wrongdoing with a simple "oh, I don't support violence" while simultaneously defending everything they do, helps people sleep a night, I guess that's okay cause... 72 years ago negates the Constitution. Than again, I guess I can't expect much else from "people" who idolize and cheer for a rapist.


Yeah, but the thing is the local people don't get to decide when the Constitution is or isn't upheld. If BLM (who recently just sent out a list of incredibly racist demands) is holding a rally and a bunch of white supremacists come in and violently "counter-protest", does that mean it's BLM's fault since it was THEIR rally?

"Antifa or whoever doesn't show up if the local people were allowed to remove group's 1st amendment."
"The KKK or whoever doesn't show up if the local people were allowed to remove black people's 1st amendment."

You simply can't allow groups to dictate when the Constitution is upheld, otherwise the whole system falls apart. Sometimes that means letting disgusting people give their opinions peacefully. If they get violent, have the police crack down on them, but it's not the job of random people to show up with the express intent of violently shutting it down.


Everyone knows Nazis are bad. Racism is bad. It's not news. The problem is there's a group out there that's violently suppressing any and all beliefs contrary to theirs, have a desire to murder police, and they're not getting the recognition that what they're doing is wrong.

I'll beg to disagree. That charge that Drumph raped his daughter has never been proven!

[Belsnickel]

(08-27-2017, 12:45 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Who's killed more innocent people in the last 50 years out of the two?

Who's killed more in the past 20 years in the US, right or left wing extremists?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-27-2017, 12:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'll assume it was Islamic Extremists.

LOL, you'll assume?

Quote:So I'll repeat for the new crowd:  When I am presented with moderate Nazis that speak out against such violence by their own kind I'll agree there is an analogy there.

You're carrying his analogy to a place he wasn't taking it.  But I think you're aware of that.

Quote:I already spoke out against violence by this antifa group.  It's also been pointed out that much of the violence "on the left" was self defense.

You equivocate on this issue.  You condemn the violence but out the other side of your mouth you condone it because nazis are evil.  In this instance, yes, I think we'd agree that the right wing party initiated the violence.  The exact opposite has been the case in the vast majority of these instances in the past year or so.  The argument over this issue exists, and is fueled, solely by you, and those like you, appearing ignorant of this fact.

Quote:Yep.  

However it is the job of American citizens to show up and show the NAZI's they are outnumbered and their kind of hate speech will not be tolerated.

Actually, yes, hate speech has to be tolerated, the First Amendment says so.  You can vehemently oppose it, shout counters to it, but you must tolerate it.  If you don't tolerate it that you means you actively seek to stop it, which is antithetical to the idea of free speech.  The only type of speech that we must not tolerate is direct calls for violence.

Quote:Violence goes too far.

In each and every instance, no matter who the speaker, correct?

Quote:*BUZZZ*  Wrong answer.

They are shutting down people who speak of racism and hatred.  Sorry about that.

BUZZZ, wrong answer.  You don't get to "shut down" speech you don't agree with.  Mob veto does not trump our Constitution.

Quote:As to the rest violence is wrong.  There is no other way to say it.

Ahh, so you agree that "both sides" are wrong and that antifa has been the one in the wrong the vast majority of instances over the past year.  Glad to see you waking up.

Quote:Sadly NAZI's tend to inspire the worst in even good people because they are NAZI's.

Sadly, adults don't get to use that kind of excuse.  If you can't adult without using violence then stay your ass home and let actual adults conduct their business.

Quote:Has that sunk in yet?

That you excuse violence against nazis because they're nazis?  You've made that clear for several months.  Sadly, you then contradict yourself by denouncing violence.

Quote:I'll guess no and that this will further descend into "but the other side got violent!!!!!1!!!!11!!"

They do, have and did.  Search through news stories of political rallies or protests turning violent in the past 12-15 months.  I think you'll find a common denominator in the vast, vast majority of instances.  Correctly stating that right wing racists started the violence in C-Ville does not change that fact.

Quote:So I'll stop.  Again.

Chortle, no you won't.

(08-27-2017, 01:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: This entire Charlotteville event should have been covered on these boards like this:

Nazis are scum.

So far I don't see any disagreement "on these boards".

Quote:It's a shame that a small group turned violent while trying to shutdown hate speech.  That should not be tolerated and they should be punished for their actions

Still not seeing any disagreement.

Quote:But Nazis are evil and one of them killed an innocent woman.

 
Not sure why the "But" is in there.  Still no disagreement.

Quote:It's a good thing that so many came out to oppose racism in America.

 
Sure, still no disagreement.

Quote:We really need to focus on how to handle these Nazis in America.

Well, we could do what we've done the last 70 years, that seems to have worked as actual nazis are as rare as hens teeth.

Quote:I guess it was a pipe dream to imagine people could agree Nazis are always the bad guys.  Always.

Ahh, I see your problem now!  You think simply by dint of being a nazi that anything done to them is both good and just.  What a sad person you are to think such a thing.  If I see a self proclaimed nazi spewing his abhorrent views on a street corner and some nazi hater comes out of the crowd with a gun to kill him, I am going to kill the guy with the gun.  Not because I think the nazi is right, or good (honestly that I have to include that disclaimer for people like you makes me nauseous) but because, in this scenario, he would be the victim.  If someone attacked them with a bat or their fists I would protect him for the same reason.  If people were allowed to conduct themselves as you propose then Anjem Choudary would have burned at the stake years ago.  Thankfully for him, Western society and the responsible adults who reside in it, he wasn't. 

A link for those not familiar with the sack of assholes I just mentioned.

[GMDino]

(08-27-2017, 05:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: LOL, you'll assume?




You're carrying his analogy to a place he wasn't taking it.  But I think you're aware of that.




You equivocate on this issue.  You condemn the violence but out the other side of your mouth you condone it because nazis are evil.  In this instance, yes, I think we'd agree that the right wing party initiated the violence.  The exact opposite has been the case in the vast majority of these instances in the past year or so.  The argument over this issue exists, and is fueled, solely by you, and those like you, appearing ignorant of this fact.




Actually, yes, hate speech has to be tolerated, the First Amendment says so.  You can vehemently oppose it, shout counters to it, but you must tolerate it.  If you don't tolerate it that you means you actively seek to stop it, which is antithetical to the idea of free speech.  The only type of speech that we must not tolerate is direct calls for violence.



In each and every instance, no matter who the speaker, correct?






BUZZZ, wrong answer.  You don't get to "shut down" speech you don't agree with.  Mob veto does not trump our Constitution.



Ahh, so you agree that "both sides" are wrong and that antifa has been the one in the wrong the vast majority of instances over the past year.  Glad to see you waking up.




Sadly, adults don't get to use that kind of excuse.  If you can't adult without using violence then stay your ass home and let actual adults conduct their business.


That you excuse violence against nazis because they're nazis?  You've made that clear for several months.  Sadly, you then contradict yourself by denouncing violence.



They do, have and did.  Search through news stories of political rallies or protests turning violent in the past 12-15 months.  I think you'll find a common denominator in the vast, vast majority of instances.  Correctly stating that right wing racists started the violence in C-Ville does not change that fact.


Chortle, no you won't.


So far I don't see any disagreement "on these boards".



Still not seeing any disagreement.


 
Not sure why the "But" is in there.  Still no disagreement.


 
Sure, still no disagreement.



Well, we could do what we've done the last 70 years, that seems to have worked as actual nazis are as rare as hens teeth.




Ahh, I see your problem now!  You think simply by dint of being a nazi that anything done to them is both good and just.  What a sad person you are to think such a thing.  If I see a self proclaimed nazi spewing his abhorrent views on a street corner and some nazi hater comes out of the crowd with a gun to kill him, I am going to kill the guy with the gun.  Not because I think the nazi is right, or good (honestly that I have to include that disclaimer for people like you makes me nauseous) but because, in this scenario, he would be the victim.  If someone attacked them with a bat or their fists I would protect him for the same reason.  If people were allowed to conduct themselves as you propose then Anjem Choudary would have burned at the stake years ago.  Thankfully for him, Western society and the responsible adults who reside in it, he wasn't. 

A link for those not familiar with the sack of assholes I just mentioned.

Was that a fun use of time?

I thought about a point by point answer to all the nonsense above but I've got more important things to do.