Do I think some leftist protesters were violent? Yes. Do I oppose such violence? Yes.
Do I care who started it? Not even a little bit. One side is clearly, explicitly, without question more wrong than the other one. The Nazis could have behaved like angels and they would still be more in the wrong, because they are fucking Nazis. Their ideology is inherently violent. I consider them no less ethically culpable of violence than if they had started a riot.
The President’s statement clearly draws a false equivalence between counter-protesters and fucking Nazis. This is not the time to blame the left. This is the time to forcefully, loudly, aggressively condemn racism. There is no other responsible course of action.
Let me see if I can make it even more clear before someone twists my words.
Group A: Nazis
Group B: Counter-protesters.
Group A is 100% bad. There is not a single redeemable person in Group A. Group A espouses an inherently violent ideology and is ethically bankrupt, completely and totally. Every single person.
Group B is mostly good. Most of the people in Group B are there because they don’t like racism. Some people within Group B are assholes and resort to violence, but on the whole Group B is driven by a peaceful ideology predicated on standing up for the oppressed.
At this event, someone from the 100% bad Group A murdered a person from the mostly good Group B and wounded 19 more.
As a result, Trump is shifting the blame to make Group B, as a whole, look violent.
There is no comparison. It is utterly fucking inexcusable.
It’s 2017; Modern nazis and confederates are not identifying as such because of family history or societal expectations. These people choose to identify as such because they are violent individuals. There are plenty of identities besides nazi and confederate that are compatible with non-violent ideas commonly found on the right. However, and once again, these people choose to identify as nazis and confederates because they are simpatico with slavery and genocide.
We can hem and haw about why they identify with political-violence but there is no denying that they are. They could have been your average mainstream racists. They’re emphatically not.
When they break the law arrest them. And that applies to all violent mobs. We have violent mobs on the west coast preventing speakers from speaking. Where are the 2193828 threads on that? Here’s the deal violence is obviously now an acceptable part of politics. Isn’t it unfortunate when people ignore warnings to peacefully respect the rights of those they disagree with before it escalates? Nah! Let’a all scalp and punch and kill those we disagree with. Brave words until the wooden shield of a LARPer meets a car.
Seriously. This forum alone has many people advocating violence directed towards political opponents. That is just not wise in the long term.
I learned yesterday that the (adult) child of someone I know was one of the 19 people injured when white supremacist James Fields drove his car into the crowd.
I mention this not because I’m looking for personal condolences – I don’t know the parents very well, and had never met the child – but as a reminder to you all that this is not an abstract intellectual issue. Defending free speech does not require you to defend the white supremacists who gathered in Charlottesville this past weekend, because it wasn’t free speech that killed Heather Heyer and injured 19 others. Including the child of someone I know. Including the spouse of one of our fellow Dopers.
The victims of this terrorist attack were people exercising their First Amendment rights. Anyone genuinely concerned about protecting freedom of speech should be worried about what happened to them, not the delicate feelings of white supremacists.
What I write is simple to understand. Violent suppression of civil rights is a stupid tactic. Now you may be for violence directed at others based on speech or a flag. I’m not. The Supreme Court isn’t. The ACLU isn’t. I’d rather side with them than with psychopaths on a message board.
Are people with bladed shields, clubs and guns only there for the “Free Speech”?
I’ve given my opinion of Free Speech in this thread. I’m all for it. But well armed and armored men are not there for free speech. They’re there for violence.
Lets see these bastards show up unarmed and following directions. If they are violently assaulted by others, then I fully support the prosecution of the people who do this.
The fine upstanding Antifa group has attacked groups who want to hear speakers at college. Why wouldn’t real Nazis anticipate conflict?
Historically speaking iiandyiiii is correct. White supremacists have been terribly damaging to the country. That’s why I think racial identity politics is dangerous in general. It leads to unnecessarily fracturing.
Yeah, ok, Nazi Sympathizer. They’re just peace loving racists who want to defend themselves by being armed to the teeth. That whole bit with chasing a guy into a stairwell and beating him or the incident with the car were just aberrations. Sure.
Not too surprised to see преЦАРдент Trump flip-flopping on his Charlottesville assessment. Probably escorted by the ear to the corner of the room by Bannon to get put back on message again.
This week-end could be potentially fucking hairy, in nine certain cities.
I know this was way back in the thread and yeah I realise he’s not the most responsive of posters (maybe he was sleeping?:rolleyes:) but that would be nice if Clothahump could get around to actually addressing the following. (not that I’m really holding my breath on this)
I looked at the list to see if any were within a couple of hundred miles of me, up here in flyover country. Nope. Otherwise I’d have planned on packing up my car and going (unarmed, no mask, no bullshit, just me) to counter-protest.
Note this post. This was a terrorist attack by a terrorist group and no matter what the Nazi In Chief says, it was a terrorist attack by a terrorist group.
