Ignoring white supremacists has literally never worked in the history of human kind. That doesn’t mean start physical fights with them, but terrible ideas must be addressed and confronted in order to be defeated.
I support this perspective too. At some point, when one is constructing his / her own personal riot shield or assembling their home-made body armor for the upcoming rally, I would hope it would dawn on most of them that perhaps it isn’t an event worth attending anymore.
The difference is between speech and action.
Saying “I hate Jews and I wish they were all dead” is legal. It’s abhorent to me, it’s disgusting to a lot of people, but it’s legal to hold an unpopular or eve reprehensible opinion and even to speak of it. It is NOT, however, legal to act on such a statement. The moment a Nazi goes from “I hate Jews” to assaulting or attempting to kill Jews (or anyone else - they certainly hate more than just Jews) THAT becomes illegal. Likewise, a KKK member can say blacks are inferior and should still be slaves and as abhorrent as that is, stating that is legal. ACTING on it is not.
Symbols like the swastika are considered speech, not actions. Therefore, wearing one or displaying one is legal. It can also be stupid at times, but it’s legal.
Free speech is not unlimited, of course, but it’s a very high bar set to have it limited in the US in most cases. Carrying a swastika on a banner into a Holocaust museum might be seen as sufficiently provocative as to be illegal. Displaying one in a public park not so much.
Actually it’s on point. When people use words, unjustifiably, as rhetorical weapons eventually they lose their meaning. This is precisely the danger in rhetorical hyperbole.
That’s fine, it’s just like criticizing the rain. Hyperbole is going to happen – always has, always will – and doesn’t change public opinion any more now than it did in the past. There’s no special new hyperbole.
I agree. But when you have a political environment, including this Google thing, where people are openly advocating specific acts of violence, it is hard to see it not escalating. This is why I think the strategic genius of Martin Luther King, Jr. is hard to overstate.
Untrue. I’ve seen more than one shot of the car in question and it very much does have a license plate at least the back end. GVF 1111 to be exact.
Okay, but this doesn’t dispute what I said. There’s a lot in the middle between advocacy for violence and ignoring white supremacists.
Where’d those people go?
This is ridiculous. This is attempting to put the blame for the violence not on those advocating for it but on the response. The people to blame here are the Nazi supporters and white nationalists. And just like MLK, I think it’s tremendously important to stand and say, “No, we don’t all think that”.
In one of the videos (shot from behind the car) it appeared to me that the car slowed a bit as it first approached the section of street where there were more people (but I didn’t see brake lights). A split second later it seemed the car sped forward toward the car directly ahead of it.
These are just observations from a clip I saw. I don’t have any idea or opinion on what those actions might mean.
I am blaming those advocating and doing specific acts of violence. I have been warning about how threatening and attacking political opponents would lead to escalation. There is nothing surprising about the events today.
Communist or fascist? Both have the right to assemble and speak. I don’t agree with either but that’s irrelevant. If people would ignore, or at the very least not physically attack, the radicals, they’d be a non-issue.
Huh? Most counter-protesters aren’t starting fights.
I extend my sincere condolences to Sailboat’s family.
Most of your condemnation isn’t for the driver of that car or those who are traveling to deliberately intimidate or starting fights but for the folks on the other side. Ignoring hatred hasn’t ever made it go away. You may not have meant it but it is a clear deflection of responsibility.
It’s also a false equivalence to label or imply that both sides are communist and fascist. But I suspect that you knew that.
No, but a significant mi nority of them are
How do you know that at least some of them weren’t just reacting in self-defense? It could be just 2 guys who started fights, but they got on TV, and any other violence by counter-protesters was in self-defense.
Oddly enough the folks in Virginia are under no delusions of what is occurring or who is to blame.
And what did the damage? A car.
Speaking of which is it a fascist or antifa driver?
I’m not implying anything.
It should be obvious that my continuous support of free speech free from violence is actually anti-violence. What other logical conclusion can be made from a statement advocating free speech? It’s not a difficult concept. It really isn’t.
It’s also no surprise to see things escalate. Smashing heads with locks and throwing explosives into crowds wasn’t going to go unchallenged forever. What are people expecting?