To quote Chris Rock: “If 10 guys decided to hang out with 1 Nazi, what you have is 11 Nazis.”
What a great summation and quote from Rock.
Yes, it doesn’t matter if their compatriots in the march were or were not chanting nazi chants – that they chose to march alongside such people is an indication of who they are.
An NPR announcer this morning was using an-TI-fuh.
? Ok - it would show that there are at least 50 violent thugs on one side that initiated violence vs. exactly one on the other (if you want to be precise).
Once again, saying the truth (that there are hate-filled violent thugs on the left bashing heads) does not “defend nazis”. There are hate-filled violent Nazi thugs as well. The two statements do not contradict each other.
Only if they knew that they were marching alongside “such people”.
As I said, it was billed as “Unite the Right”, not “Nazis and White Supremacist March”. So it is reasonable to assume that a lot (if not the big majority) of the participants were your garden variety “right” and not Nazis or white supremacists.
But by Chris Rock’s logic, if there are 10 guys hanging out with one “antifa” violent thug, what you have is 11 “antifa” violent thugs. Right?
No it wouldn’t.
Those aren’t the statements I’m arguing against.
Based on those who organized the rally, no, this would not be reasonable to assume.
Sure, if the “antifa violent thugs” are the ones who organized the rally with violent and hateful rhetoric, and chanted violent rhetoric and wore symbols of violence and hate, and the others continued to march beside them.
The Nazis showed up ready to fight with guns and paramilitary equipment. They were calling out threats and making people scared of bodily harm. That some protesters did get scared and attacked doesn’t really matter all that much.
The idea that violence was caused by both sides when the initial protesters armed themselves for violence is silly. It’s a narrative being pushed by the alt-right because these Nazis are eroding their credibility. And possibly an attempt to resolve the cognitive dissonance with Trump.
Had these been Nazis with just signs walking around, maybe they’d have a point. But they weren’t. In these guy’s minds, this is a military operation of reclaiming “their” country.
Yes it would. I would try to lay out the logic for you, but it is pointless, since you would just close your eyes and hum loudly.
Those are exactly the statements you’re arguing against. If you could cite ONE statement of mine (just one) that you think “defends the Nazis” please do.
Because people generally research those who organize the rally, always.
So did the leftist violent thugs.
Trump was right on one part. He said there was violence and hate on many sides.
We’ve got white supremacists, we’ve got Nazis, we’ve got confederates.
Yeah, hate coming from many sides.
If you march with a Nazi, you are correct, that doesn’t make you a Nazi. Just as if you marched in a gay pride parade, that would not make you gay.
What it does mean, though, is that you support what that group stand for. And if you support what Nazis stand for, then I am pretty hard pressed to see how that doesn’t make you a Nazi.
50 incidents does not necessarily = 50 violent thugs. It could be one person doing 50 things, or a million other combinations. I didn’t figure I had to lay this out for you, but here it is.
Violence is bad because it causes harm – i.e. injury and death. Thus the most reasonable measure of violence is injuries and death. We actually have those numbers. Those are the numbers to look at. You don’t even have “numbers of incidents”, an inferior measure, and yet you’re trying to use this inferior measure when we have a superior measure already there in plain view.
When you imply or say that there is anything close to equal blame between the two sides for this incident, then you’re defending the nazis and white supremacists, since it’s very clear that the overhwhelming majority of the blame falls on them.
Yes, people do. If they hear about a rally, they want to know who’s organizing it, and what the cause is for. They don’t hear a vague title and then that’s it.
And this is supported by all the news videos. All the marchers interviewed knew why they were there. It wasn’t a big mystery.
You’re taking one Nazi (or was it white supremacist?) thug who decided to mow down people with his car and you’re extrapolating it to all. There was one “Bernie Bro” who decided to shoot himself some Congressmen recently. Are you extrapolating that to all Bernie supporters?
“Blame” for what? For the violence? No, it is not clear. There were two sides battling it out in the streets. You can’t show me that the Nazis/white supremacists initiated most of that violence and not the violent leftist “antifa” thugs. You just think that it’s “obvious”. No, it’s not.
Some people do. Most do not. Do you think most (if any) “Day without a woman” marchers researched that it was organized by a Palestinian Terrorist, a Maoist and a Stalinist?
And I am sure the journalists 1. didn’t just drop the interviews where people didn’t know it was organized by white supremacists because they didn’t consider that newsworthy and 2. interviewed every marcher.
I would like to think that hearing the people around you chant things like “Blood and Soil” and “Jews will not replace us” would be a gigantic clue, very early on in the first evening, that this was not exactly a GOP-endorsed event. Anyone who voluntarily continued their participation in the event after hearing such chants for more than a few seconds can be fairly regarded as complicit in the cause.
-
Can you show me that the “Jews will not replace us” chants and Nazi regalia were everywhere in the march and not in just some areas?
-
Can you show me that an average right-winger (or, for that matter, an average left-winger) knows/knew what “blood and soil” relates to?
Do you think that people actualyl go to political rallies without having any idea what they are about. I mean, I could see ac ouple few people going along with friends, and not knowing the nature of the rally that they were going t, but their friends certainly would.
People drove from all over the country to attend this rally, and you are trying to claim that they didn’t even know why they went? They just like rallies?
Even for your hypothetical idiot that traveled to charlottesville to attend the rally without being aware of who was organizing it or what it was promoting would have still seen, upon arrival, Nazi and confederate flags, and unless they assumed that it was a hypothetical pre-enactment of confederates vs. axis, they should have gotten a pretty good idea of what they were marching with at that point.
I’m sure you’ve seen the video of the guy that, when he realized that there was a potential that someone may smack him one for being a white supremacist, tore off his shirt, and claimed that he wasn’t there to be a Nazi, he was just there to stir up trouble. Even if you think that the majority of people weren’t there to advocate for genocide, they were still there to stir up trouble. And stirring up trouble in assisting with a Nazi demonstration doesn’t put you even a peg above Nazis.
LOL. The Nazi apologetics are getting worse and worse.
For your amusement, try googling the various flyers for the Charlottesville rally that Okrahoma thinks attracted garden variety Republicans. I challenge you to find one without prominent mention of famous white supremacists, Nazi eagles, people smashing the Star of David, and the like.
Not having “any idea what they are about”, no. Not knowing who the organizers are, yes. The car murderer’s mother, just for example - she just thought that the gathering her son went to was “something about Trump”.
The one incident is not any kind of proof for your last sentence.
Here’s a simple sentiment: “don’t punch people you disagree with”.
I’m not extrapolating anything. We’re talking about who is to blame for the violence. In Charlottesville, most of the violence was the fault of at least one white supremacist, and many others afterwards said this white supremacist did the right thing. Thus many white supremacists were explicitly in favor of violence that occurred and killed one and injured many more.
In the Congress baseball practice shooting, all of the violence was the fault of a Bernie supporter.
Yes, it’s obvious, if we use the clear marker of violence – injury and death. Most of the injuries and all of the non-accidental deaths were the fault of white supremacists. This is a fact.
They knew it was organized by womens’ rights activists. That one of these women (out of probably hundreds involved in organizing) had a conviction from Israel 50 years ago probably was not known to most protesters, but considering that such a conviction had nothing to do with the rally, as opposed to the Charlottesville rally which was advertised explicitly as a white nationalist/white supremacist rally, then it doesn’t matter.
I know of no “Maoist” or “Stalinist” of whom you speak, and such accusations sound like right-wing radio fantasyland stuff. Maybe there were secret Muslim atheist aliens, too?
Ahh, you’re sure. Very convincing argument.
Punching Nazis is exactly the right thing to do.