The First Amendment covers free speech, even “hate speech”. **Violent attacks and incitement to violence are not protected. It also does not protect terrorist groups. **
The Thirteenth Amendment covers slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment of a crime, abolishing slavery. And ???
The Fourteenth Amendment covers citizenship, and guarantees **due process of law. ** And ???
So, something CAN be done.
Both sides showed up with weapons? Both sides got the fight they wanted.
So if Jews armed themselves during Kristalnacht, they “got the fight they wanted”? If slaves armed themselves in preparation for an escape, they “got the fight they wanted”? If some Civil Rights protesters decided they wanted a weapon just in case something went wrong during a march, and something did, then they “got the fight they wanted”?
This is bullshit. Being prepared for violence around Nazis might be a pretty wise move. Nazis and the KKK have a pretty violent history.
Don’t be disingenuous iiandyiiii. You are usually better than that. 
I’m not being disingenuous. I don’t think you actually agree with those examples, but I think they’re illustrative of my point – that the presence of Nazis and white supremacists really does change the game. I think it’s probably reasonable to think they’ll be violent, and maybe to be prepared for violence. And even with this, it’s still important to directly oppose them. I wouldn’t be for starting fights, but being ready for a fight isn’t the same thing as starting one… and with Nazis and white supremacists, being ready for a fight might be necessary for life and limb.
iiandyiiii is simply speaking the truth.
It’s the truth.
I’ve never heard of Stone Mountain. I’ll look it up.
The inscription, for example, on the monument that was toppled today (violence and vandalism) read, “For the boys who died wearing the Grey” or something very similar.
It didn’t read, “For those who died for slavery.” It was a monument to those who died for their way of life.
It would be hard to argue that the result of the civil war was that the South suffered and suffered significantly. What states are mocked as backwards, poor and stupid? The southern ones. What states had their economy and population shattered by the civil war? The southern ones.
What states are still the poorest and behind on every marker?
Why is it so hard to believe that people from states like that would look back to the days when they were prosperous and venerate those who, in their minds, were fighting to preserve prosperity?
Of course slavery and racial oppression are wrong - to my mind. But if you are living in Mudlick Kentucky, on Wal-Mart wages,if you are lucky, why is it so hard to believe that you would look back to “the glory days?”
The North has certainly thrived while the South, mostly, has gone backwater. Now there are some economic reasons for that but I’d be willing to bet that a lot of their current problems can be tied to vindictiveness from North to South following the end of the civil war (Treaty of Versailles?)
I don’t honestly know. We don’t study the American civil war that deeply here until university. I will accept if I’m wrong but my suspicion is that I’m not.
Yeah, in the same way that plantation owners collected and systematically starved their slaves and set up an infrastructure to incinerate them in order to completely remove them from the populace for all time.
That is exactly what the plantation owners wanted to do. It was certainly good sense to import slaves (at non insignificant financial risk) so they could buy them at auction so that they could eradicate them, so they could import more so they could buy more.
In no way am I suggesting that plantation owners were anything approaching decent to their slaves but to equate a system founded on free (after an upfront cost) labour to a system explicitly designed for eradication is lunacy.
Slaves were livestock to them. Would a farmer go and but cows for the explicit purpose of driving them off a cliff?
Slavery was capitalism, not genocide.
Much more apt.
No. They absolutely had to fight and show mass strength and solidarity. And they had to fight when needed.
But now, the laws are on the side of equality, public opinion is on the side of equality. Everything in mainstream society is on the side of equality. This is a fight that has been largely won.
Treating these monkeys (nazis) like they are vile beyond tolerance only serves to reinforce their beliefs and will only give the disaffected a place to call home.
If you are going to paraphrase me please try to understand what I am saying first.
The basics are:
1)Life was better for white people before the civil war
2)The southern states are behind on every single marker of progress there is since the civil war
3)They are hurting and looking for something to blame and the easiest and most obvious is the effects of the civil war - specifically blacks being treated like humans and the punitive measures inflicted upon the south after “the war of northern aggression.”
“Listen to” does not mean “abide by” or “agree with” it means “hear what they are saying and address it.”
But, and I admit this is patronizing to the Nazis, when your child refuses to go to bed because there are monsters under there do you scream at them, call them filth and ready the slaps or do you try to understand where they are coming from and speak to that at a level they can get?
If you want to beat these people into submission you will lose or win at a super high cost. They are much better armed, more motivated and have less to lose.
Those are labels that are meant to provide allowances to skirt the 1st and by extension the 14th to my understanding of both.
The 1st promises largely unassailable right to free speech (fire in a theatre and all that) and the 14th reaffirms those rights of natural born citizens.
Saying, “I hate niggers and jews and wops and spics” is protected and reaffirmed. Saying that plus, “get them outta my country” is protected and reaffirmed. “Outta kill them all” is not.
Who among the white supremacists there belonged to a group that has been formally labelled criminal as a hate group or terrorist organization? Those people ought to have been arrested on site for belonging to a criminal organization.
I don’t know of any religion that explicitly (or implicitly) in their scriptures, singles out any race or nationality to be subject to persecution. They identify as Christian and Christ would most certainly object to their views - Paul is a different matter.
And no, I am EXPLICITLY NOT going to debate religion with anyone so don’t try.
Hey, self-righteous auto-drooling fuck-for-brains - I acknowledged and apologized to you, specifically and unequivocally for including the 13th 20 minutes before you got around to this.
I know it is difficult having things relayed to you 2nd hand but do try to keep up deary.
I’m talking to at least a few people, you’re talking to one - it should be within your capabilities.
Irrelevant. Its what the shields are doing, as I have already said.
Source: your ass. Shields do not get raised up high like that when you are on the defensive or are extremely well trained. That’s not how people react when they have a shield and are being attack. Doesn’t matter if it is SCA or a fucking Ukraine riot. The SCA is just a place where you can see it more often.
Source again: Your ass. Shields don’t go up like that and at that angle when you are defending yourself. Unless some extremely brave midget lifted up the shield from the bottom (verrrrry unlikely) is in a charge position. You can whine all you want but that’s what shield users do.
Because you are.
Sorry, I am not going to go scouring the web for a Market Quality Video to prove that the violent Neo-Nazi’s are violent.
Damn near every white supremacists came with a specially made shield and some kind of melee weapon. I see much fewer shields on the counterprotester side.
So spare me the Trumpcocksucking ‘both sides’ bullshit.
No, that statue went up in the 20s. It went up when we were starting to have the first conversations widely about civil rights – when lynching was becoming publicly known, and publicly criticized widely, by more than just the black newspapers and journalists.
It went up at the first sign that Jim Crow might not last forever.
We can look back at the history of these monuments – most of them came up in the 20th century. Not to honor valor, but to be a public symbol against the changing values of the country.
Just one example – the inscription on the monument to the Battle of Liberty Place in New Orleans (recently removed):
"[Democrats] McEnery and Penn having been elected governor and lieutenant-governor by the white people, were duly installed by this overthrow of carpetbag government, ousting the usurpers, Governor Kellogg (white) and Lieutenant-Governor Antoine (colored).
United States troops took over the state government and reinstated the usurpers but the national election of November 1876 recognized white supremacy in the South and gave us our state."
For one thing, this is ignoring the many, many black Southerners who suffered both before and after the war. For another, economic hardship doesn’t excuse bigotry. Not one iota. Southerners who still venerate the Confederacy refuse to accept the truth that the South was a monstrous, horrible place for black people up until very recently, and this was because of the behavior of their ancestors and forebears.
They weren’t “glory days” for any but the very rich. Looking back at the facts, plantation owners were very rich, and maybe a few merchants, but everyone else (especially slaves, but also most whites who didn’t own slaves) suffered and struggled.
There has been a lot of progress in the South. And notably, it’s concentrated around urban centers which are the most diverse – Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, New Orleans (despite the hurricanes!), etc. The cities, which embrace diversity and tolerance to a much greater extent, thrive far better than the rest of the South.
Tolerance and diversity isn’t just the goal – it’s also the cure.
Millions of black people were murdered over the course of slavery. Even more were raped and brutalized. The goal wasn’t genocide, but the moral crime was just as great – it’s no less evil to kidnap and rape someone every day for 50 years than to kill them on day 1.
To say anything else just minimizes the incredible evil of slavery. Rape and brutality were everyday occurrences. There’s no way to maintain such brutal and total control of millions of slaves without the threat of incredible brutality (and accompanying actual brutality for transgressions) – only incredible mortal terror, every single day, could possibly control such a massive number of people for so long in such terrible bondage.
They are vile beyond tolerance. Why treat them better than that? Things have improved greatly, but not so much that we don’t have to worry about the rise of such behavior again. The only way to prevent future Holocausts and lesser atrocities is to be constantly vigilant, constantly aware, and always confront, challenge, and denounce hateful groups and their rhetoric.
1)No it wasn’t – only in Lost Cause fantasies.
2)In the whitest areas, perhaps, but in the more diverse and tolerant areas, much more progress has been made. Diversity and tolerance and openness are the cures.
3)This is not an excuse at all.
They’re lazy pathetic cowards, for the most part. Some of them are motivated killers, but most are losers who joined these groups because no one else would have them.
This is America’s ISIS. The American Taliban. We can’t just let them spew what they want without challenge, any more than any other group spouting violent rhetoric.
It’s not hyperbole. No group has harmed America more, or more Americans, than white supremacists. These are the worst of us, and they must be challenged, confronted, and defeated.
They both came to fight. Stop lying to yourself you delusional potty mouth.
Preparing for a fight against groups with incredible histories of brutality is not the same thing as “came to fight”.
The two sides this weekend were not comparable. As Winston Churchill said: “I decline utterly to be impartial between the fire brigade and the fire.”
Yes. That’s the DOTC’s (Daughters of the Confederacy) sanitized version of the war.
The shattering was nowhere near as bad as post-war Southern propagandists would have you believe. Much of the damage was self-inflicted - the very war itself result in the major markets resourcing cotton for example.
Because they could be doing a lot more than worshipping the past. They could be working to build the future.
Well, for one thing several of the more Western states didn’t really have much in the way of “Glory Days”. The terrain is not suited for plantation life and without that you’re mostly basic farming where slaves aren’t as economical.
You’d be completely and utterly wrong on several levels.
First of all there was almost no vindictiveness. I defy you to find an example of a civil war where the winner treated the losing side with such kid gloves. Go on, I’ll wait.
Second, what little vindictiveness there was was due to the South immediately trying to turn back the clock once the war was over and re-introduce slavery by other means. Look up why the reconstruction happened.
Thirdly, the constant oppression of blacks reduced an effective workforce at a time when labor would be needed for any industrial growth.
In short, there is a constant element of the South shooting themselves in the foot throughout modern history. In areas where they stop or at least reduce these antics they seem to do much better (Atlanta, i.e.)
Finally:
Well,do you even study world history? The Treaty Of Versailles you cite up there is one of the classic Neo-Nazi excuses for the rise of Nationalist Socialism. The truth is the that treaty of Versailles was pretty tame. Want to see a harsh treaty? Look up the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
Oh, right. Gonna take octopus’s assertion as truth. Suuuuuure.
Do you support the violent suppression of speech?
No.
I answered your question – now actually make an effort to address some of my points, please.
Yes, the SCA is absolutely translatable to real life. Now go play WWE with your little friends, suck down a bearpaw and leave me the fuck alone and enjoy your delusionary warriorhood bigman.
Now, just to pretend you are above the mental age that renders pants-pissing normal - I didn’t ask for high quality video. I asked for any media reporting violence from right to left. I had assumed that an opinion piece from the left would not qualify.
I know that objective reporting is frowned on in a place where fighting ignorance is the battle cry but try to indulge me. Have a big person explain the difference between reporting and op-ed.
Now, until you have something to say that doesn’t involve slaying orcs with your costumed buddies, please shut up.
Like World War II, right? Germany invaded Poland, then the Allies invaded Normandy. Violence on both sides. There’s no way to blame the violence on one side. I think the alt-left was heavily involved. Because of socialist FDR. Sad!