But let’s call a spade a fucking shovel here, mmkay? This is all about Trump. The left has tried to portray Trump and his supporters as Nazis ever since he first became a serious contender for the presidency, and that nonsense has been ratcheted up exponentially since he actually won.
[/quote]
There is nothing “nonsensical” about portraying the Trump supporters who marched in Charlottesville as Nazis. Those Trump supporters are being portrayed as Nazis because they are Nazis. They wear Nazi symbols and wave Nazi flags and give Nazi salutes and call themselves Nazis. What kind of hallucinatory denial do you have to be practicing to believe that the problem is with the “portrayal” instead of with who these people actually are?
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Lefties the country over are looking for ways to take out their frustration over Trump’s election and are using the non-threat of Nazism
[/quote]
Phrases like “the non-threat of Nazism” are not terribly persuasive in the aftermath of literal self-identified Nazis literally attacking and murdering people.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Actions have consequences and had your political compatriots not turned to violence to begin with, the tragedy of Charlottesville would never have happened.
[/QUOTE]
Again, I do not share your optimism about the hypothetical nonviolent self-restraint of people who are literally, openly, explicitly, self-identified Nazis and white supremacists.
No one is forgetting that which has 80 or so threads. People are correctly pointing out that prior to that incident left wing radicals have been attacking conservative and free speech advocates for over a year now and that that form of political violence is not only ignored by many on these forums it’s in fact supported and encouraged. And then when that’s pointed out, those doing the pointing are smeared with libelous insults. It’s really a despicable double-standard not only in what behavior is tolerated but in how a discussion is held.
I’m sure Starving Artist can respond for himself. But your ridiculous ad-hominem attacks accomplish what exactly? Do you deny that there is a dangerous contingent of radical leftists who attack groups with deadly weapons merely for exercising fundamental constitutional rights? Are the youtube videos and newspaper articles condemning these groups of thugs just fiction?
Do people who show up for a talk on a campus deserve to have their skull cracked by masked left wing anarchists? We have people on this forum who support violence directed at political opposition and you are going to hurl insults on someone condemning that? People have gone nutty.
You missed my point. While I agree that violent attacks by antifa radicals on people who aren’t actually committing any violence are a bad thing, what I was criticizing was Starving Artist’s assertion in post #320 that conservatives “are traditionally more well behaved”.
As I noted back in post #61, right-wing radicals have been literally murdering dozens of people over the past few years. (Not to mention, for example, the armed takeovers of federal lands and standoffs with federal officials.) That does not count as being “more well behaved”.
You, and Starving Artist, are exhibiting the same kind of partisan blindness and double standard you’re accusing liberals of. When you see a few far-left radicals attacking protesters, you think “Look how awful and violent the liberals are!” When you see far-right radicals terrorizing and murdering innocent people, you think “What? That’s got nothing to do with conservatives. Conservatives are well behaved.”
I don’t excuse or approve of antifa aggression. But you folks are trying to handwave away actual Nazis and white supremacists as victims whose violent acts are all the fault of the meanies on the other side who provoked them. What’s next, calling them “very fine people”?
Jesus Christ, ElvisL1ves, let it go. You’ve made your point, however badly. If you still want to die on this hill, so be it, but the rest of us will bury what’s left of you and move on.
These assclowns are just a bunch of Nazi sympathizers and Nazi apologists.
We don’t need any of that “whataboutism”, or “many side ism” or “fine peopke ism” or any of that fucking Nazi sympathizer bullshit.
You can NOT contextualize or normalize the Nazis.
It wasn’t “many sides” drove that car into a crowd of people, and “many sides” convened to march through the University of Virginia campus shouting Nazi rallying cries such as “Blood and soil” and “Jews will not replace us.” It wasn’t “many sides and fine people” that peppersprayed unarmed counter protesters. It wasn’t “many sides or fine people” that congregated in front of the local synagogue with weapons. It wasn’t “Many sides and fine people” that were filmed shooting into a crowd and then walking right past the police.
It’s all bullshit. There is no “whatabout”, there is no equivalence, and there is no “many fine people”. These are Nazi thugs.
This level of dishonesty is not even rare for this board. It’s just usually not called out to this degree.
Nice loaded question. You can’t find a single post of mine that waves away or excuses fascism. Why do you persist as Elvis does in dishonest posting?
No liberal murders ever? :rolleyes: What’s your post in response to?
Shut up, tard. You still haven’t demonstrated an ability to read for context. You just yap like an annoying little dog in the presence of big dogs. Please learn to read and learn to formulate an original thought.
The discussion was about the violence in Charlottesville, and other recent incidents involving antifa (and white supremacists). Sorry if it wasn’t clear.
Population wise, which was the context in which I was speaking, conservatives are more well-behaved. Sure, one can go off the rails from time to time and within the umbrella of conservatism you can find a few anti-government or white supremacist crackpots, but 99.9% of them are well behaved. And then we have liberals, who, while also not the majority, have been the ones who are quickest to aggressively confront people, get in their face, and behave violently because ‘OMG, teh other side is evil!’. It was liberals who yelled at and spit upon soldiers who managed to survive their tour and return home from Vietnam, it was liberals who took over university administration buildings and who were behaving so threateningly that they scared National Guardsmen into firing on them at Ohio State University. More recently it’s been liberals who blocked and attacked conservatives and Republicans trying to get to Trump campaign rallies. It’s been liberals who drove one of their own college professors and his family into hiding because he objected to the wrong-headed day of segregation they dreamed up. It’s been liberals who surrounded, beat to the ground and began kicking a peaceful Nazi demonstrator in the confrontation that made Yvette Felarca infamous. It’s been liberals who arrived in masks and began pitching wine bottles and swinging bicycle locks at at what would otherwise have been a peaceful demonstration by both Trump supporters and Nazi supporters (and no, they’re not the same). And of course it’s been liberals who’ve turned the country into a crime-ridden, drug-infested cesspool of inescapable vulgarity and classlessness. So yeah, conservatives are more well behaved!
So stick that in your smipe and poke it! :dubious:
And to reiterate, it’s very unlikely that the events in Charlottesville, which you seem to want to pretend happened in a vacuum, would have happened were it not for liberal interference with and violence toward both Trump supporters and Nazi sympathizers in the recent past, both of which groups both had and have every right to congregate peacefully.
Blaming “liberals”, as a whole, for all that stuff, is as reasonable as blaming “conservatives”, as a whole, for supporting slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, and red-lining (as those were all efforts to “conserve” traditional white supremacy in culture and society).
The first three of the things you mention are things of the past, undone with the support of the majority of the nation’s conservatives who also viewed them as wrong. And so-called red lining is a red herring and the simple result of economics. You aren’t going to sell products as successfully in areas where your threat of robbery and violence is greater and where people are less likely to be able to afford them, and therefore you’re either not going to attempt to do business there or you’re going to have to charge more to offset the extra security measures you’re going to have to employ and to pay the bills while moving less and lower cost merchandise. To label this as ‘red-lining’ and claim that it’s some insidious way of looting or punishing the poor is nonsense.
And may I point out that blaming conservatives as a whole for whatever some poster is on about is all that goes on around here.
I think you’re inaccurately describing these things, but I have no illusion that you are capable of changing your mind on these things.
I’ll just ask you this – are you bothered at all that conservatives in America are much, much more likely (23% to 1% for “consistently conservative” vice “consistently liberal”) to believe that interracial marriage is wrong than liberals?
As I understand the survey, the response was that 23% of conservatives would be “unhappy with an interracial marriage in their family.” That’s not the same thing as saying it’s wrong; I remember that one set of parents to a friend of mine that was contemplating an interracial marriage were concerned not out of a sense that it was wrong, but out of a sense that the union would face difficulties that wouldn’t arise in a marriage between people of similar race. (Indeed their prediction was correct but not determinative: my friends just celebrated their 20th anniversary last fall.) They report that it’s true that they suffered consequences that arose from their mixed race marriage; the husband was once detained by police as he took his daughter off a merry-go-round because he couldn’t possibly be her dad.
Obviously the difficulties did not sink the marriage, and in my view may have made the union stronger; they have a very “us against the world” vibe.
But I say all this only to say that your summary is not precisely fair.
I’m more pleased that 77% have no problem with it, plus I’m cognizant that of the 23% who object many are concerned about negative consequences for mixed couple’s children and/or the treatment of the couples themselves might encounter when out and about. I’m neighbors with a black guy/white woman couple and they’re nice, sweet and loving people. We’ve never talked about it but I worry about the kind of treatment they may experience when going out to eat (which they do a lot) and or are out in public generally. They haven’t mentioned anything about it and don’t seem to hesitate in going out so I assume they do fine but still I worry.
But now you’re changing the subject from behavior to belief and I believe that people are entitled to believe whatever they like so long as they don’t deliberately seek to harm people.