Charlottesville

[tarcone]

I didnt hear about it. Had no clue this was going to happen.
But now we are wasting time on nazis.
Seems like they won this one.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Are you actually saying that marching with torches and riot gear was peaceful?

I'll say it. Being peaceful has nothing to do with what you wear. It has to do with your actions. I've seen no reporting so far that doesn't indicate both groups are responsible for it ceasing to be peaceful vis a vis the fighting(obviously the driver of the car alone is culpable for what he did).

Originally Posted by whomario

their get-up should fall under "Freedom of Speech" the same way as running around waving Slave-chains or pictures of Child pornography would. Not.

Here is where my problem to the reaction to this is. Is freedom of speech a thing that is now reserved for speech we approve of? Rather pointless thing to put in the First Amendment if that's the case.

[ISiddiqui]

They only 'won' this one because people like you are excusing their behavior or, like the President, are saying there is violence on 'both sides'. People have been counter-protesting Nazi marches since the 1970s (in the aftermath of the Skokie decision), but only now are people excusing them.

[JPhillips]

Look at how many GOP elected have made public statements against the alt-right. That wouldn't have happened without the counter protests. This weekend has made it toxic to play footsie with the alt-right. Even the WH is feeling the pressure to distance itself from them.

You can't be fearful of evil. The only way to stop it is to stand up and refute it.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by sabotai

"I'm not blaming the victims. I'm just saying it's their fault."

If the Jews would have left Germany they wouldn't have died.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'll say it. Being peaceful has nothing to do with what you wear. It has to do with your actions. I've seen no reporting so far that doesn't indicate both groups are responsible for it ceasing to be peaceful vis a vis the fighting(obviously the driver of the car alone is culpable for what he did).

I should have left this hidden, instead of looking at it, but thanks for confirming just how brazenly dishonest and despicable you really are. I'm sure it's everybody's fault that asshat racists were marching around carrying torches and spewing epithets about killing everyone that isn't white.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Yeah, I dont think that is happening anytime soon. Sure they think they are nazis, but really are they?
And the 2 groups are promoting violence, so I think they are about the same.
The only difference is one is a conservative authoritarian organization, while the other is a liberal authoritarian organization.

Both the Axis and Allies promoted violence during WW2. Do you think they are about the same? I don't think being opposed to Nazis is strictly a liberal position.

Originally Posted by tarcone

So we have highlighted the nazi movement in the US by antagonizing them.

75 years ago we were killing them.

[JPhillips]

This, "both sides" stuff is absolutely incorrect. This was an alt-right, neo-confederate, white supremacist march. Perhaps there were a few people there not directly connected to those movements, but by attending you publicly and consciously aligned yourself with them.

The counter protesters, on the other hand, came for a variety of reasons and represented a variety of viewpoints. Yes, there were antifa and black block idiots there that wee looking for violence, but there were also plenty of peaceful protesters with a multitude of agendas. The poor young woman who died was protesting peacefully, as were many others.

Saying both sides not only makes a repugnant moral equivalence, but lumps everyone opposing the marchers into the same violent, illegitimate group.

[Brian Swartz]

One, there's nothing dishonest in what I posted. I stand ready to make any retractions or apologies needed if I'm shown otherwhise. Two, the rancid stuff they spewed is entirely their fault. Of course, saying stuff that is reprehensible != violence.

The actual violence(aside again from the guy in the car who is already being charged, as it should be) was, according to all reports I've seen, indeed a product of both groups of protestors.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Saying both sides not only makes a repugnant moral equivalence, but lumps everyone opposing the marchers into the same violent, illegitimate group.

It does neither. I can observe the fact that it appears that both groups were involved in fighting each other without saying one single thing about the relative value of their POVs. When it comes to that, obviously the counter-protestors are the ones in the right. Saying some of the counter-protestors were involved in said fighting doesn't lump anyone who wasn't actually fighting in with anything either.

[RainMaker]

I don't understand what the violence part of the protests has to do with anything. People from both sides showed up to the event looking to fight. They got to fight. It's what they wanted. The terrorist act doesn't get lumped in with that stuff as it happened after the event and to people who were not engaged in violence.

Outside of that, I will side politically with the group that was not Nazis.

[JPhillips]

By saying, "two sides," you are absolutely lumping everyone that was counter protesting together. Many people could and did counter protest without aligning themselves in any way to antifa.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the clergy involved in the counterprotest weren't allies with antifa.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

By saying, "two sides," you are absolutely lumping everyone that was counter protesting together. Many people could and did counter protest without aligning themselves in any way to antifa.

No I agree. I shouldn't lump the counter protesters altogether.

[RainMaker]

.@GoDaddy you host The Daily Stormer - they posted this on their site. Please retweet if you think this hate should be taken down & banned. pic.twitter.com/fqTtGoTbmn

— Amy Siskind (@Amy_Siskind) August 14, 2017

We informed The Daily Stormer that they have 24 hours to move the domain to another provider, as they have violated our terms of service.

— GoDaddy (@GoDaddy) August 14, 2017

[Brian Swartz]

I shouldn't be surprised, yet I am. That's just about as disgusting as it is possible to get.

[PilotMan]

News broke out today that this guy that drove the car was from Northern Kentucky (had recently moved to Toledo from here). Not surprised. Not saying he couldn't have been from anywhere else with those beliefs, but not surprised that he was from here. Even in NKY things are much more tempered than they are in southern and eastern KY. I've said it before, it's kind of a different world here with some very distinct beliefs among a wide swath of people.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Im not blaming the counter protestors. It was a crazy dude that went off the reservation. But guess what? Had they not shown up, no one would be dead.

Yeah, kind of like the woman that wouldn't have been raped if she hadn't worn that dress right? Do you really believe this shit?

[RainMaker]

If people didn't work in the World Trade Center, they wouldn't be dead. Can't really blame Al-Qaeda for that.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Here is where my problem to the reaction to this is. Is freedom of speech a thing that is now reserved for speech we approve of? Rather pointless thing to put in the First Amendment if that's the case.

I'm not sure how to put this sentiment into context. We have a HUGE history of people gettting organized, angry and violent over another group expressing their first amendment rights.

Freedom of speech means the government cannot deprive a citizen from speaking. A citizen (counter protestor) cannot deprive another citizen of their first amendment right.

So, are you saying it was the police that took away the right? I've heard they did stand down in some cases. At the very least the planning and organization was poor. I'm just not sure how poor city planning proves your macro point.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Freedom of speech means the government cannot deprive a citizen from speaking. A citizen (counter protestor) cannot deprive another citizen of their first amendment right.

Totally agree with this. I was replying to another poster who specifically said(and it's a sentiment that's been elsewhere also) that the rally didn't qualify for free speech protection.

[Noop]

The whole thing is disgusting. The idea that this is their country and all others need to go is laughable. I will never understand why these groups (who are mostly poor) continue to support a party that caters to the rich.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Freedom of speech means the government cannot deprive a citizen from speaking. A citizen (counter protestor) cannot deprive another citizen of their first amendment right.

You're right and not right. It means you can't be arrested by the government. However, a citizen can place limits on another citizen's right to free speech. Specifically, on private property, and that goes from in your own home all the way to a private workplace, to social media. The are not guaranteed equal time, we do not have to accept every opinion as valid and equal, we are able to decide, as a society what we will and won't tolerate.

Being shouted down is not depriving anothers rights. However, openly carrying weapons in a threatening manner, to intimidate others from speaking their minds is, imo.

To this end, the government does have an obligation to enforce the standards of the people who empower it. If it fails, then it is up to private groups of citizens to act accordingly. If the civil rights movement taught us anything it's that sometimes the laws need to be changed to better the society. I'm all for someone declaring their allegiance to Hitler, or any other ideologue who espouses the subjugation of another group, but I will not stand for a government that gives equal voice or acceptance to anyone of those groups. They can be active, law abiding citizens, but they cannot be validated as appropriate in any legal way. To do so violates the very goal of government to protect it's citizens equally.

To carry the argument further, not related to your post or anyone directly, that Nazi's and Black lives are arguing the same thing, is egregious, disingenuous, out and out disrespectful. The only similarity is one group has power and national relevance sees it relatively decreasing, and the other has been fighting for whatever power they can get, uphill all the way, since before emancipation. White men still control the society and laws in the US, but we cannot act as if we have the right to protect that at all costs. Instead, it's our obligation to create leaders from all classes and ethnic backgrounds who will fight for the same ideals and goals. It's all about the end result. If the ethnic makeup of Congress suddenly was the same as the NFL, I'd still have no problem as long as they were committed to the same philosophy and goals of the US. To operate for the best of it's citizens and work to protect them equally. To prevent not only tyranny from governmental oppression, but also from oligarchs who may seek to control it or it's citizens, through massive control of state, or sheer power of money and influence. Good leadership begets good leadership. Leadership isn't about needing constant recognition for a job well done, or even a job done shitty. It's about putting yourself out there in order to rise others up so they can go out and do the same thing.

TL;DR

Private limits on free speech are completely legal. The Government has an obligation to enforce the desires of the collective will of it's people. Sometimes it has to recognize that laws need changed in order do so. If government can't or won't citizens need to fill that gap.

Leadership creates leaders. Good leaders create leaders from all walks of life, backgrounds and social groups. True leaders don't need a constant feed of recognition in order to be effective. It should never be about the one at the top, but who has been inspired and risen to inspire others in his place that determines his success.

[nilodor]

Forgive my ignorance, I've heard that there is some rioting in Virginia, is this kinda what's happened?

University decides to remove a statue of Robert E Lee.
Robert E Lee is bad because he was a confederate hero, confederates are now taken to be synonymous with slavers (not saying true or false here, I've been taught the civil war was loosely about slavery.)
Some people get pissed off about the statue being removed, decide to hold a rally.
Rally gets out of hand and people with tiki torches march through the town and surround a, predominately, african american church (in or out of service?). This is escalated because some neo-nazi/KKK types show up to push their radical views?
At the same time some anti-racism/social justice people show up.
The next day many more people on both sides arrive. Issue is much larger than the original statue and now comes down to a referendum on race and equality in society.
Crazy guy on the white supremacy side runs over a bunch of people. A lady dies.
President condemns everyone? This pissed people off because he didn't come out and say white supremacy is bad.
This sparks another round of red vs blue hate.
More protests are happening around the country.
The national temperature is influenced by the different responses to recent police related violence?

I'm just trying to get a handle on the timeline of events. This whole thing seems nuts to me. Why is there so much hate? This has been a long time coming and this event is just the spark? Does the presidents actions/perceived actions really have that much affect on the country? Or is it more his inaction?

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by nilodor

Forgive my ignorance, I've heard that there is some rioting in Virginia, is this kinda what's happened?

University decides to remove a statue of Robert E Lee.
Robert E Lee is bad because he was a confederate hero, confederates are now taken to be synonymous with slavers (not saying true or false here, I've been taught the civil war was loosely about slavery.)
Some people get pissed off about the statue being removed, decide to hold a rally.
Rally gets out of hand and people with tiki torches march through the town and surround a, predominately, african american church (in or out of service?). This is escalated because some neo-nazi/KKK types show up to push their radical views?
At the same time some anti-racism/social justice people show up.
The next day many more people on both sides arrive. Issue is much larger than the original statue and now comes down to a referendum on race and equality in society.
Crazy guy on the white supremacy side runs over a bunch of people. A lady dies.
President condemns everyone? This pissed people off because he didn't come out and say white supremacy is bad.
This sparks another round of red vs blue hate.
More protests are happening around the country.
The national temperature is influenced by the different responses to recent police related violence?

I'm just trying to get a handle on the timeline of events. This whole thing seems nuts to me. Why is there so much hate? This has been a long time coming and this event is just the spark? Does the presidents actions/perceived actions really have that much affect on the country? Or is it more his inaction?

The Civil War was almost entirely about slavery.
Robert E Lee was completely pro slavery and his actual views far more vile than the revisionist history that came along years after the Civil War.
The rally didn't "get out of control," it was a KKK/neo-Nazi event with torches, people in riot gear looking for a fight, and constant chants against anyone who isn't white.

That's what led to the driver, the fear in the city, and the outcry afterwards. Trump has also been openly praised/supported by white supremacists from the word go and has repeatedly refused to denounce them or even say something slightly negative about them.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Here is where my problem to the reaction to this is. Is freedom of speech a thing that is now reserved for speech we approve of? Rather pointless thing to put in the First Amendment if that's the case.

My point is that hitching your wagon (ideologically and visually) to a system that actively aimed at exterminating human beings based on race (and other indicators) should be classed the same as advocating slavery and child pornography. Aparently it is legal to protest using Nazi symbols and spouting such Ideology, my point is that it should not be. Freedom of Speech does not cover the latter, why does it cover the former ?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

The Civil War was almost entirely about slavery.
Robert E Lee was completely pro slavery and his actual views far more vile than the revisionist history that came along years after the Civil War.
The rally didn't "get out of control," it was a KKK/neo-Nazi event with torches, people in riot gear looking for a fight, and constant chants against anyone who isn't white.

That's what led to the driver, the fear in the city, and the outcry afterwards. Trump has also been openly praised/supported by white supremacists from the word go and has repeatedly refused to denounce them or even say something slightly negative about them.

This.

Also the President has blamed specific groups for things before, so not to blame neo-Nazis for this is pretty notable.

[Easy Mac]

He's about to hold a "speech".

Waiting on Van Jones to say this is when he became President.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Waiting on Van Jones to say this is when he became President.

[molson]

Originally Posted by whomario

My point is that hitching your wagon (ideologically and visually) to a system that actively aimed at exterminating human beings based on race (and other indicators) should be classed the same as advocating slavery and child pornography. Aparently it is legal to protest using Nazi symbols and spouting such Ideology, my point is that it should not be. Freedom of Speech does not cover the latter, why does it cover the former ?

Freedom of speech covers the latter - you have the freedom to advocate for child pornography and slavery under the constitution.

Edit: That's one American value that we've actually managed to hold onto pretty consistently. Purely content-based restrictions on speech aren't going to fly. So the strategy is sometimes to tie in different justifications ("fighting words," criminal solicitation, etc.) But it's always going to be an uphill battle to use the power of the government to lock up people for the views they express. But in 2017, private entities have plenty of power to punish those views in different ways. Like that group that is analyzing photos of the riots and getting people fired. That's fair game, they're just using their own free speech to bring about consequences for someone else's free speech. That's a much better alternative than the government having the power to take sides and draw those lines. Would you really want Trump and Co. having power to draw those lines?

[Easy Mac]

I'll give him credit for saying the words he needed to say, but man it really looked like he didn't want to. But hopefully it gave people in power (i.e. Republicans) the power to do something about it.

But to start off with a riff about the economy kind of took any oomph out of it.

[nilodor]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

The Civil War was almost entirely about slavery.
Robert E Lee was completely pro slavery and his actual views far more vile than the revisionist history that came along years after the Civil War.
The rally didn't "get out of control," it was a KKK/neo-Nazi event with torches, people in riot gear looking for a fight, and constant chants against anyone who isn't white.

That's what led to the driver, the fear in the city, and the outcry afterwards. Trump has also been openly praised/supported by white supremacists from the word go and has repeatedly refused to denounce them or even say something slightly negative about them.

Ok, so right from jump this was people supporting a slaving hero? Then did it become an alt-right rally cry and balloon from there?

Why wouldn't this be condemned from the start?

I was wondering if there were some parallels to what happened in Brazil a few years ago where initial protests over rising bus fair turned into massive protests about government corruption and a referendum on the current government, i.e. the parallel being that the initial rally was about something small and it turned into being about a much larger issue. Apparently not. Just all bad.

[JPhillips]

One of Trump's tells is that when he believes what he's saying he ad-libs short statements. During the economic part of today's statement he ad-libbed, but during the condemnation of white supremacists he stayed entirely on script.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I shouldn't be surprised, yet I am. That's just about as disgusting as it is possible to get.

A 32-year-old woman without children is a burden on society and has no value

i actually browsed the site and others yesterday and it was truly puke-inducing. And living in Germany i naturally have had a fair share of exposure to these ideas, be it "distant" past, past (1990s) or current Neo-Nazi and "no we are not Nazis, just concerned Patriots repeating similar slogans, totally not Nazis" movements.

[tarcone]

In response to all the snarky comments about fault.

In life you have choices and all of those choices have consequences. So when you make a choice, you better be prepared to live with the consequences. If you are going to counter protest an organization based on violence and hate, guess what the consequence might be.

No one is free from fault.

All choices have consequences.

[Easy Mac]

So then you agree the Nazis weren't there to peaceably assemble. So then your snarky comment on the previous page about banning guns from these rallies is retracted.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I'll give him credit for saying reading the words he needed to say read,

Fixed.

[JPhillips]

Does that apply to fighting Islamic terrorism?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Freedom of speech covers the latter - you have the freedom to advocate for child pornography and slavery under the constitution.

Edit: That's one American value that we've actually managed to hold onto pretty consistently. Purely content-based restrictions on speech aren't going to fly. So the strategy is sometimes to tie in different justifications ("fighting words," criminal solicitation, etc.) But it's always going to be an uphill battle to use the power of the government to lock up people for the views they express. But in 2017, private entities have plenty of power to punish those views in different ways. Like that group that is analyzing photos of the riots and getting people fired. That's fair game, they're just using their own free speech to bring about consequences for someone else's free speech. That's a much better alternative than the government having the power to take sides and draw those lines. Would you really want Trump and Co. having power to draw those lines?

In the US, yes. But not in other countries in the world. So one has to realize that not everyone has the US-expansive definition of freedom of speech. Some take the position that hate speech is not valid speed, but are fighting words (a big difference is the immediacy of the violence that the US judges to be fighting words and that other countries do).

[whomario]

A quick google search gave me the Impression that even your backwards-ass legal system clinging to a 200 year old document had progressed to the point that something like Child Pornography is exempted from "Freedom of Speech". Admittedly i did not find any sources for that also covering "Advocating" for it, so might be wrong here. I just assumed in good faith

Originally Posted by tarcone

In response to all the snarky comments about fault.

In life you have choices and all of those choices have consequences. So when you make a choice, you better be prepared to live with the consequences. If you are going to counter protest an organization based on violence and hate, guess what the consequence might be.

No one is free from fault.

All choices have consequences.

How very philosophical of you.

You are basically saying that a killer and the guy trying to stop a killer (and being killed in the process) are the same. Or that everybody being killed in the 3rd Reich due to protesting and/or aiding others is at fault for his or her demise.

There's a reason the world is in the shit can and your way of thinking is part of the problem.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by whomario

had progressed to the point that something like Child Pornography is exempted from "Freedom of Speech".

The act of child pornography, yes, is not considered freedom of speech. Advocating for it, however, is.

[CU Tiger]

I think there is a key definitive difference between the neo-nazis in Charlottesville this weekend and the Nazis of 1930-1940s Germany.

The Neo's havent killed anyone. Sure they've ran their mouth about believing lots of folks should be dead, but they arent actively out there trying to start concentration camps.

Look I think the entire group is a despicable group of human beings. As a Catholic with a black daughter, you'd be hard pressed to find a group I oppose more than the KKK and White Supremacist.

However I feel very strongly in their right to march, say whatever they want, carry torches, dress in whatever get up they want. I feel so strongly that I would fight to defend their right.

I also feel very strongly about the right of the counter protesters to peacefully assemble.

I draw a pretty unpopular line, I suppose, regarding the definition of peace. As I teach my kids, no word- no matter how vile- justifies a physical violent response. Physical violence does justify a physical response.

What's my point?

I think both groups have a Constitutionally protected right to march and scream at each other until they are blue in the face. The moment that either side touches the other, the first to touch is no longer peaceful and their right to assemble just ended. The entire group's right to assemble didnt end, just that individual. And they should be removed and punished for every possible crime they can.

I guess where I am having a hard time with some of the opinions here are I refuse to allow my ideology to bias my belief of whats right.

Yet we have a claim in this thread that everyone who supports Donald Trump is a white supremacist. That is intellectually dishonest. I voted for Trump, I am not sure that I support him today - different thread - but I did support him at one point and I have never been a White Supremacist. But people will support that statement, because they oppose Trump.

And then we have this:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Imagine what would happen if Black Lives Matter had torches, riot gear, and auto weapons in a peaceful protest...

Yeah imagine.
That 'peaceful protest' caused $4.6 MILLION DOLLARS of damage in Charlotte. Imagine f they had brought torches and auto weapons what they could have done.

Yet according to this thread, the Neo Nazis have been having these protests for years. For years. and we haven't seen a $4.6 million dollar bill yet.

This is what frustrates me so much with the current political climate in this country.
I wholly oppose the message and the cause of the WS/WP movement.
I actually support the message and intent of the BLM movement, and the larger anti militarization of police force cause.

Yet I read some of the comments here and feel the need to argue the side of the group I oppose and against the side I support.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

That 'peaceful protest' caused $4.6 MILLION DOLLARS of damage in Charlotte.

Uh...

The city of Charlotte said the Keith Scott protests cost $4.6 million | Charlotte Observer

Protests following the fatal police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott cost city taxpayers $4.6 million, mostly in police overtime

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police spent most of the money – at $3.9 million. Almost all of that was for overtime.

Not saying there wasn't any property damage (and the article talks about that), but c'mon man.

[JPhillips]

It's not at all true that neo-nazis haven't killed people. There have been numerous killings attributed to neo-nazi supporters.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I think there is a key definitive difference between the neo-nazis in Charlottesville this weekend and the Nazis of 1930-1940s Germany.

The Neo's havent killed anyone.

They literally just did in Charlottesville, hence the reason for the outrage.

[JPhillips]

Trump friend Alex Jones says Charlottesville was faked and that Jews fake being Nazis regularly.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

They literally just did in Charlottesville, hence the reason for the outrage.

This is one heck of a circular argument.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Not saying there wasn't any property damage (and the article talks about that), but c'mon man.

Fair enough, Ive heard the $5mm number thrown around and looked it up and didnt read the article.

The article also doesnt seem to include the yet to be completed Interstate repair, which the state will be getting billed for. But your point is taken.

Counter side is how many buildings did those torches burn Friday?

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

This is one heck of a circular argument.

No, it's just the latest incident that shows your take on things to be bullshit.

White extremist murders: Killed at least 60 in U.S. since 1995.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

No, it's just the latest incident that shows your take on things to be bullshit.

White extremist murders: Killed at least 60 in U.S. since 1995.

I am going to assume you didnt read your own source?
(I admittedly was just guilty of the same)
This includes 3 killed in a robery that were to allegedly raise funds for white supremacy.
It includes the Eric Rudolph cases, where he bombed abortion clinics because of a political/religious/moral stance against abortion, not race.
It has 2 murders where anti-tax seminar teachers shot police officers.

And that is in 30 seconds of reading. AT that point I invalidated the entire list.

Do we call every Chicago african american gang murder a Black Panther crime?

I mean what exactly is a White Extremist, anyway?

Someone who is white who is extreme in some view apparently according to this list.

Im not even sure how you tally that count.

But my take on things is bulllshit?
What a productive conversationalist you are. There is your opinion and then bullshit. This has a great chance of generating any positive discussion.

Do you just want to type out your opinions and hear people say, "Yep you are right?"

[Easy Mac]

How about McVeigh. He had extremely well documented ties to white supremacist groups prior to Oklahoma City.