Charlottsville

[LetterRip]

Seriati,

The .3% is the acquittal rate for California apparently,

Pled .58%, Succeeds 45.3% -> .3% Acquital

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c36a/91be5e8b7714a6a42d59a94755185badeaba.pdf

Success and rate ran vary a lot by individual states.

Also here are the standards by state, some allow a 'guilty but mentally ill/insane' verdict (These states have it looks around 15% success rate when ran).

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html

[Seriati]

LR, the success rate is 45.3%.  The 0.3% is a highly misleading statistic.

Remember, a success here, means everyone agrees the person charged committed a crime, generally a very serious crime, but that they can not be held culpable because they were incapable of forming the intent necessary to be punished for the crime.  They are, even more than an straight up criminal, likely to be a hazard to society that needs to be removed for the safety of all.

In any event, why do you think that rate is low?  What is the incidence of people with an inability to understand they are committing such a serious crime in the general population?

[TheDrake]

they can not be held culpable because they were incapable of forming the intent necessary to be punished for the crime.

Let's note that "not guilty" doesn't necessarily mean they are going to be free to kill again.

Hinckley was in a hospital for 35 years after being found "not guilty"

I would speculate that a very high number of the "not guilties" are sent straight to mental hospitals for extended time.

[slipstick]

In reply to TheDrake, the fact Lee opposed erecting statues commemorating the leaders in civil wars does seem a very good reason not to erect one. But it seems doubtful he would have approved people getting killed as a result of trying to tear one down. Surely that perpetuates the continuing bitterness and violence he deplored?

But I have never even read a biography of Lee, so I can say nothing useful about his motivations or actions. My chief connection to the Civil War is that one great-grandfather commanded a Union infantry company in combat. He was also a white supremacist, meaning he thought blacks too stupid to usefully employ the privileges of citizenship. So far as I remember, Abraham Lincoln thought much the same. Some blacks I have met have convinced that is not universally true, among them Malcolm X, but even my great-grandfather would have probably admitted there were exceptions. The difference between us is that the scientific opinion of his day generally believed that racial differences in intelligence were large; the scientific consensus of our day is that they are insignificant.

[LetterRip]

Seriati,

In any event, why do you think that rate is low?  What is the incidence of people with an inability to understand they are committing such a serious crime in the general population?

mental illness, particularly schizophrenia, is quite common among violent offenders

A 2014 study by Fazel and colleagues examined 24,297 patients with schizophrenia and related psychoses in Sweden over 38 years (discharged from hospitals between 1972 and 2009). Within five years of first being diagnosed, 10.7% of men and 2.7% of women had been convicted of a violent offense (i.e., homicide, attempted homicide, assault, robbery, arson, any sexual offense or illegal threats or intimidation). The rate of violent offense by the patients with psychotic disorders was 4.8 times higher than among their siblings and 6.6 times higher than among matched controls in the general population.

http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/evidence-and-research/learn-more-about/3633-risk-factors-for-violence-in-serious-mental-illness

Estimated rates of schizophrenia disorders, substance abuse, and criminal convictions found among the 435 homicide offenders evaluated were compared with estimated rates in two composite comparison samples. Thirty-eight of the 435 offenders (8.7 percent) had been diagnosed with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder.

http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/pn.46.17.psychnews_46_17_20_2

For comparison schizophrenia rate in the public is 15 per 100,000.

Other mental illnesses are far more common among offenders than non-offenders as well for a variety of crimes.  So I suspect that there are far more serious crimes committed.

I'm not sure what the 'proper rate' would be.  It isn't clear to me what the various numbers being used are implying - is it per 1000 crimes; per 1000 violent crimes; etc.

[TheDeamon]

Frankly I am still unclear as to what, if anything, is going on. So far as I can see, the helicopter could have as easily crashed while observing the results of a vehicle pileup on another day entirely. The protest was shrewdly chosen because Lee is an American military hero whose campaigns will continue to be studied at West Point and elsewhere, and because he denounced slavery and strongly urged Southerners to forget any bitterness associated with losing the war.

Yet he was still a slaver and traitor. Words are lovely but he still went to war in support of slavery.

He went to war in support of his home state of Virginia. That Virginia did so over the issue of Slavery was immaterial to Lee. (Due in large part to his being a slave owner no doubt, but still)

You're applying today's ethics and views to a time period that was very different. Back then, in particular for "the Original 13" You were a citizen of your state FIRST, US citizenship came second to that. You know, part of the reason why States are called States (as it was another word for "nation" at the time, and why the States had authority to select Senators at their own direction.

[TheDeamon]

There are certainly fact patterns and arguments the defense could make - my personal belief is that it might have been essentially road rage, or it might have been to instill fear, or it might have been both.  I'm just pointing out that it is certainly a charge that the prosecution could reasonably assert and have some hope of successfully prosecuting.

A strong possibility is that he was previously involved in an altercation involving some of the 20 people he hit(or some of the people he almost hit) and that it basically was a variant of "road rage" in that he was intending to just go home. Up until he noticed "those *censored*" from earlier, saw red, floored the accelerator and we now have headline news coverage.

[TheDeamon]

Agreed, it(AntiFa) is being waged as a "guerrilla warfare" style, so it is organized not much unlike what ISIS wants and tries to do with the "lone wolf attackers."

Just to clarify, this is not a comparison I would make. So you're on your own with this corollary!

Well, there is an adjunct to it that's even more "fun" to consider. Given the decades that the old USSR spent infiltrating the US in particular in pursuit of longer-term "social engineering" endeavors largely managed by the KGB. We currently have a former KGB guy leading the Russian Government who while he would love a restored "Russian Empire" I doubt he much actual interest in a restored Socialist Republic, except in so far as it could help create such a Russia-centric empire.

It is possible that the Russians are "stirring the pot" on this front as well, and using some of those older resources to do so, as it:
1) Helps "create Chaos in the West"
2) It helps groups of "certain persuasions" that Putin seems to be catering to (anti-Gay, Anti-Muslin, etc) gain ground in their own circles of influence respectively.

However, I doubt they're playing instrumental roles in what is going on in AntiFa, but I have little doubt that they'd be encouraging it where possible.

But more generally I do think there are a number of leftist groups that are running more peaceful facades while making full use of AntiFa in particular to "push things along" on their own agendas because they do not want to be exposed to the blowback that could otherwise happen if caught. The leaked Hillary Clinton e-mails already have demonstrated that the Democratic Party and its auxiliaries are very familiar with running those kinds of operations.

[Wayward Son]

The Nazis, true to form, had all the paperwork in place and were issued a permit to be there and do their demonstration. The antifa mob did not, antifa just invaded the space illegally.

Just a small correction.  The counter-protesters had a permit, too. 

You probably just fell for some Fake News from our national Faker-in-Chief, Crunch.

[Crunch]

If it's fake news, and at this point a source like politifact is insufficient to prove that, the i was fooled by NYT, ABC, Fox, and NPR. 

Of course, i assume the college professor that obtained the antifa permit, should it actually exist, will be fired for arranging the mayhem and prosecuted.   

[Seriati]

Seriati,

In any event, why do you think that rate is low?  What is the incidence of people with an inability to understand they are committing such a serious crime in the general population?

mental illness, particularly schizophrenia, is quite common among violent offenders

Which doesn't address the question.  The mentally ill can be convicted of a crime that requires specific intent.  In order for them to be entitled to this defense, it has to be shown that their mental illness directly relates to an inability to understand their crime in a way that prevents them from having been able to form that intent.  Pretty much, it literally translates into someone having not being able to understand that murder, for example, is wrong or that what they did was murder.  That's a tiny subset of the mentally ill.  And it's a subset that literally should have been committed before they had a chance to commit a crime.

You have to be careful not to conflate those who are at greater risk of being violent because of mental illness but that can understand their actions with those that can't.

[Wayward Son]

Of course, I assume the college professor that obtained the antifa permit, should it actually exist, will be fired for arranging the mayhem and prosecuted.

So long as they lock up all the Anti-fa reprobates that he got the permit for, like the group pictured here.

I'm sure we'll all feel much safer once they're off the street...

[Seriati]

I think the ACLU once again came out pretty well.

I guess I spoke a little too soon.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/aclu-changes-policy-on-defending-hate-groups-protesting-with-firearms-1503010167

Seems like a mealy mouthed way to back off their traditional stance on free speech, particularly when the guns involved were not used by anyone.  The ACLU's position on fire arms was already embarrassing for a group that claims to support civil liberties.

[cherrypoptart]

This seems like a pretty good story on antifa from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/08/17/antifa-unmasking-anti-facists-orig-nws.cnn

[cherrypoptart]

From the permit story:

"The permit was issued to Walt Heinecke, an associate professor of educational research, statistics and evaluation at the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education. The "special events certificate of approval" for a public demonstration at two parks in Charlottesville, McGuffey Park and Justice Park. Those are located within one and two blocks, respectively, of Emancipation Park, the location of a Robert E. Lee statue and the destination for the Unite the Right march."

So who violated their permit? The groups should have been separated if they had each adhered to their permits. 

[Wayward Son]

I don't think anyone "violated" their permits.

Per the article:

Dicker of the city of Charlottesville said that counter-protesters would have been permitted even outside of the two park locations specified in the permit.  "A permit does not bar other individuals from entry to a public park (such as Emancipation Park), nor does it restrict who can be on streets or sidewalks outside of and/or adjacent to the park."

Yes, the Anti-fas were looking for a fight.  So were the White Nationalists.  And whaddya know, they both found it.

But the protesters had a permit, and did not "invade the space illegally."

[cherrypoptart]

I should have kept reading. But... this seems like it can be parsed more. So if people didn't need permits to go where ever they wanted then why did they have to get permits at all?

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the accuracy of the term "white nationalist" either. Is that someone who doesn't want the Confederate monuments removed?

So if a black person doesn't agree with removing the Confederate monuments are they are a white nationalist?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/17/poll-most-black-americans-dont-want-confederate-statues-removed/

"Most black Americans do not think Confederate statues should be removed because they are offensive, a Marist poll released Thursday found.

Forty-four percent of African Americans believe the Confederate statues should stay in place, while 11 percent said they’re unsure. The remaining 40 percent of African Americans polled said the statues should be removed."

[TheDeamon]

From the permit story:

"The permit was issued to Walt Heinecke, an associate professor of educational research, statistics and evaluation at the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education. The "special events certificate of approval" for a public demonstration at two parks in Charlottesville, McGuffey Park and Justice Park. Those are located within one and two blocks, respectively, of Emancipation Park, the location of a Robert E. Lee statue and the destination for the Unite the Right march."

So who violated their permit? The groups should have been separated if they had each adhered to their permits.

That doesn't mean the named professor is part of anti-fa, I'm sure there were non-violent protesters present as well, as per usual when supremacists turn up. The sad thing about this event in particular, and one that hasn't been brought up yet, is because of the actions of maybe a few dozen antiFa types, future Supremacist rallies are likely to see lower turnouts on the part of the non-violent counter protesters as they're going to be a bit "gun shy" about getting between the two groups.

Although it'd be awesome if some third group turned up and forcefully inserted themselves between those other two. We're probably some months away from such an effort being sufficiently organized, even without the negative PR that AntiFa and SJW alike would be giving them from the onset.

[yossarian22c]

Although it'd be awesome if some third group turned up and forcefully inserted themselves between those other two. We're probably some months away from such an effort being sufficiently organized, even without the negative PR that AntiFa and SJW alike would be giving them from the onset.

There aren't many groups that would have the moral standing and clearly identifiable "uniform" that could pull it off. I could potentially see large groups of organized clergy plus monks and nuns as potentially having a "uniform" that clearly marks them as non-violent and people who shouldn't be shoved aside. The other group would be unarmed (but in uniform) off-duty military and veterans, they could probably pull off keeping the groups separated. I can't really think of any other groups of people where both sides could clearly identify their relative neutrality and not shove past them to get to the people they want to fight.

I just don't see a large group of regular civilians (even if they are organized) being able to insert themselves between the two opposing sides effectively. Because if either side starts attacking the "separators" they either have to defend themselves (start a fight) or step aside and let the two sides duke it out.

[TheDeamon]

There aren't many groups that would have the moral standing and clearly identifiable "uniform" that could pull it off. I could potentially see large groups of organized clergy plus monks and nuns as potentially having a "uniform" that clearly marks them as non-violent and people who shouldn't be shoved aside. The other group would be unarmed (but in uniform) off-duty military and veterans, they could probably pull off keeping the groups separated. I can't really think of any other groups of people where both sides could clearly identify their relative neutrality and not shove past them to get to the people they want to fight.

Technically, non-retired military are not any more authorized to wear their uniform than a regular civilian would be to put one on(outside of certain very narrowly defined circumstances, where the legal fiction is basically created where they're "back on active duty" or somesuch thing -- Exception being Military Officers, who short of a dishonorable discharge remain in IRR for life as I recall). They DO have special carve outs that make provisions for the wear of awards obtained during their military service however. Basically even with 8 years of Active Duty in the Navy, I could no more go and put on a US Navy Uniform than you could, legally speaking at this point.

That being said, the ones who could wear the uniform would likely be prohibited from doing so because of proximity to "A political rally or event." Of course then there is the "demilitarized uniform" which exists in a bit of a grey area--basically every patch removed that would otherwise identify it as being military in nature.

Which isn't to say there aren't other ways around it, such as the American Legion having a "uniform"(or uniforms) of its own as I recall. A few other veterans groups do the same. It also helps in the case of the older vets where some of the uniforms they did wear are no longer being worn, so they're no longer "protected" in the same way.

I just don't see a large group of regular civilians (even if they are organized) being able to insert themselves between the two opposing sides effectively. Because if either side starts attacking the "separators" they either have to defend themselves (start a fight) or step aside and let the two sides duke it out.

The bigger problem is two fold, the military veteran who did try to intervene would likely be branded as "racists" themselves for "trying to protect fascists" by the AntiFa crowd(And likely have the backing of some other (minority) veterans in asserting said claim). As well as the matter that I don't think too many of the people that are DEEP into SJW/AntiFa territory hold the Military in much respect in the first place, so they'd be fair game to them anyhow.

It certainly would stop the Racists though, that is one hornets nest they wouldn't want to stick their skinners into. They'll let the AntiFa people kick it all they want and laugh at the fallout the ensues for them.

[TheDrake]

Private security forces could be hired, like the old timey Pinkertons. Fits with the general theme of rolling back to the 19th century.

Found this page from a private security company.

The right to protest is constitutional. At the same time, in order to preserve order and crowd control, local restrictions are placed on gatherings of large groups. Permits are often required, and the police are called upon for guardianship. The reason a protest needs protection is to prevent it from becoming dangerously overcrowded, inciting, or worse – escalating to violent rioting.  Throughout US history, rioting has caused death and destruction in both urban and suburban neighborhoods, and for this reason authorities put security protective measures into place for protests.

With the recent Ferguson riots fresh in our minds, individuals, building managers, and business owners are wondering what they can do to prevent or handle a riot in their midst. One of the most successful ways to be prepared for security against riots is to look into taking private security measures.

link

[TheDeamon]

"Private security" only takes you so far, and its utility is going to near useless for most businesses in a riot scenario. Deadly force will, or should never, even enter into the equation(as in the Ferguson scenario, the private security forces would likely have evacuated unless they were in "hardened positions" to start with, which doesn't describe the typical strip mall or convenience store for example). In this respect, the Charlottsville events should have sent a clear message to the militia groups that showing up at a protest sporting rifles isn't going to provide any meaningful kind of "security" for those they're allegedly trying to protect. Because of how many steps exist between some guy with a set of brass knuckles or a baseball bat, and them with their "assault rifle." Unless they're intending to use that rifle to bludgeon people, it's the wrong tool for the job.

That isn't even getting into the matter that rifles are best suited for fighting at range, which is going to be the last thing that's going to happen when it's some guy in your face with a club. Wrong tool for the job.  There is a reason why when most LEO's are armed, they're carrying handguns, among other things.

Reality is, if someone wants to be "civic minded" and help their community in "a time of crisis" the modern incarnation of "the militia" when it doesn't pertain to the National Guard, is probably the local county Sheriff or equivalent and any such reserve force they may maintain. So rather than running off to play fantasy soldier in the woods as part of the unit that is unaccountable to the people. Go to the local Sheriff's office and ask if you could volunteer to be of assistance in an emergency/crises scenario, and let them make that call. Even better, see if you can get other people to raise funds(read: donations) to help fund the establishment or expansion of such forces/units.

[cherrypoptart]

If you hired the Pinkertons they could infiltrate Antifa like they did the Molly Maguires. Get the ringleaders who are fomenting riots and violence though they probably won't be hanged they could face justice. Antifa operates masked for a reason too (because what many of them are doing is illegal) so unmasking them to law enforcement could be as bad for some of them as the doxxing of the white supremacists.

[cherrypoptart]

https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/colorado-man-stabbed-neo-nazi-haircut-163146326.html

“All I hear is, ‘Are you one of them neo-Nazis?’ as this dude is swinging a knife up over my car door at me,” said Witt. The man proceeded to attempt to stab Witt, who defended himself, suffering a slice to his hand. The encounter could have been deadly, Witt said. “The dude was actually aiming for my head.”

[Gaoics79]

Some Monday morning headlines with more counter "protests" by the downtrodden and marginalized in the face of "fascism".

http://nationalpost.com/news/world/free-speech-rally-cut-short-after-massive-counterprotest/wcm/06fe76c4-7075-4ec5-af5a-f97190250c19

Some counterprotesters dressed entirely in black and wore bandannas over their faces. They chanted anti-Nazi and anti-fascism slogans, and waved signs that said: “Make Nazis Afraid Again,” “Love your neighbour,” “Resist fascism” and “Hate never made U.S. great.” Others carried a large banner that read: “SMASH WHITE SUPREMACY.”

“I came out today to show support for the black community and for all minority communities,” said Rockeem Robinson, 21, a youth counsellor from Cambridge.

He said he wasn’t concerned about his personal safety because he felt more support on his side.

The Boston Free Speech Coalition, which organized the event, said it has nothing to do with white nationalism or racism and its group is not affiliated with the Charlottesville rally organizers in any way.

“We are strictly about free speech,” the group said on its Facebook page. “We denounce the politics of supremacy and violence.” [/quote

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/police-and-counter-protesters-clash-in-quebec-city-outside-right-wing-event/wcm/cdd16435-372e-4b70-9b2b-9c3e71579f48

La Meute said earlier this week that their gathering was to protest the policies of the federal and Quebec governments in the face of “the scourge of illegal immigration” and to call for more resources for officials at the border.

The counter-protest was organized by anti-fascist and pro-refugee groups after at least two Quebecers were identified participating in a white supremacist rally earlier this month in Charlottesville, Va.

[cherrypoptart]

"La Meute said earlier this week that their gathering was to protest the policies of the federal and Quebec governments in the face of “the scourge of illegal immigration” and to call for more resources for officials at the border.

The counter-protest was organized by anti-fascist and pro-refugee groups after at least two Quebecers were identified participating in a white supremacist rally earlier this month in Charlottesville, Va."

Yes, it may well be coming to Canada very soon. Refugees. Illegals. Canadian citizens who support an orderly influx and those who support open borders mass migration of anyone and everyone who can find transportation to get there. Many American conservatives will say that Canada has been asking for it and now they are going to get it. It's one thing to take in tens of thousands but when it gets to tens of millions? That's the real test.

[Fenring]

For anyone here who thinks that Antifa is limiting themselves to neo-Nazis, where you perhaps sympathize with their goals, if not their methods, here's an article that may cause you think otherwise:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/free-speech-rally-fizzles-as-counterprotesters-swarm-boston/ar-AAqkNU1

Here are some highlights:

By their sheer numbers, thousands of anti-racist protesters marching through downtown Boston on Saturday effectively prevented conservative activists from mounting a "Free Speech Rally" in the aftermath of deadly clashes last week in Virginia.

[...]

Many carried signs saying "Love your neighbor,” “Resist fascism” and “Hate never made U.S. great.” Others held a banner reading: “SMASH WHITE SUPREMACY.” One column of marchers carried a sign stretching almost the width of a street that read, "Which side are YOU on?"

Many along a single two-mile line of protesters shouted "shame!, shame!" as they moved toward the rally area.

In the end, the free speech rally itself appeared to fizzle from lack of attendance, either because supporters decided to stay away or were unable to make their way through the massive numbers of counterprotesters.

[...]

Regarding one Trump supporter who was trying to get to the site, she said, "People shouted "Nazi!" at him and sprayed him with silly putty."

[...]

Boston Free Speech Coalition, which organized the rally, said on Facebook that it is not affiliated with the Charlottesville rally organizers in any way. “We are not associated with any alt-right or white supremacist groups,” the coalition said. “We are strictly about free speech.”

Counterprotesters from Black Lives Matter and other groups condemning racism and anti-Semitism marched from the city’s Roxbury neighborhood to the Common while a second group rallied on the steps of the Statehouse overlooking the park.

[...]

Monica Cannon, an organizer of the "Fight White Supremacy" march, tells Reuters that "(i)gnoring a problem has never solved it."

"We cannot continue to ignore racism, ignore white supremacism, ignore neo-Nazis and pretend it's not a problem," she said.

Perhaps we can ask whether a white supremacist rally was being put on in Boston, under the false guise of a free speech rally. However given what I know about Boston that sounds like an unlikely scenario. It seems far more likely that the inevitable has happened, which is that any Trump supporter is now summarily being categorized as a Nazi by the counter-protesters, and any movement, such as free speech, that is deemed to be contrary to Antifa is being called white supremacy and racism. So yes, Antifa's mission statement still seems to be stopping fascists. It's just that anyone who isn't them is a fascist.

[rightleft22]

Something I wish we would all remember

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.
Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.
Through violence you may murder the liar,
but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.
Through violence you may murder the hater,
but you do not murder hate.
In fact, violence merely increases hate.
So it goes.
Returning violence for violence multiplies violence,
adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness:
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

[cherrypoptart]

Speaking of MLK, all of his monuments, statues, and street names need to go away now since he was against gay marriage.

[Seriati]

Yes, the Anti-fas were looking for a fight.  So were the White Nationalists.

Where have you found evidence that the racists were looking for a fight?  Or is this something that it's okay to just assume?

[Seriati]

Although it'd be awesome if some third group turned up and forcefully inserted themselves between those other two. We're probably some months away from such an effort being sufficiently organized, even without the negative PR that AntiFa and SJW alike would be giving them from the onset.

Is that what the Redneck Revolt guys were doing there?  I thought they were the armed group, dressed like militia, that was there to "keep the peace"?  They definitely were not supporters of the racists.  I don't much about them, other than I saw references to them in some of the less scripted accounts of the mess.

Maybe they're just anti-fas with better marketing.

[TheDeamon]

Is that what the Redneck Revolt guys were doing there?  I thought they were the armed group, dressed like militia, that was there to "keep the peace"?  They definitely were not supporters of the racists.  I don't much about them, other than I saw references to them in some of the less scripted accounts of the mess.

Maybe they're just anti-fas with better marketing.

Possible that was what the militia was there to attempt to do, but they have a perception gap issue there brought on in large part by Hollywood specifically, and reality in general. Not all, but a LOT of militia movements ARE racist, or are otherwise populated by "significant numbers" of members who are.

Hollywood makes it worse because whenever they do portray a militia on TV or in a movie, they're usually the bad guys, and to make it even more clear that they're bad guy, they're almost always some kind of radical supremacy group just waiting for their chance to strike out. Ergo, "everybody knows" that Militia = Racist here in the United States.

That they brought the wrong tools to the job just made things even worse. Assuming they weren't actually racist themselves, although I'll give them some benefit of the doubt as I haven't looked into them myself, and don't know of anyone else who claims to have done so.

[rightleft22]

Where have you found evidence that the racists were looking for a fight?  Or is this something that it's okay to just assume?

If you read any of the interviews of ex members to white supremacist groups a goal is to provoke a race war. They have learned that they don’t have to be violent but provoke violence and hate. It’s a perversion of the “turning the other cheek” in that by provoking violence and hate they demonstrate the hypocrisy of the counter protesters and their own “innocence”.  A good example is what happened in Quebec this weekend where the supremacists came out the winner IMA.

‘Turning the other cheek’ by standing up against racism from a place of love and not turning to violence shames the aggressor, revealing their true nature.

The left have forgotten the lessons of why they are left

[TheDeamon]

Where have you found evidence that the racists were looking for a fight?  Or is this something that it's okay to just assume?

If you read any of the interviews of ex members to white supremacist groups a goal is to provoke a race war. They have learned that they don’t have to be violent but provoke violence and hate. It’s a perversion of the “turning the other cheek” in that by provoking violence and hate they demonstrate the hypocrisy of the counter protesters and their own “innocence”.  A good example is what happened in Quebec this weekend where the supremacists came out the winner IMA.

‘Turning the other cheek’ by standing up against racism from a place of love and not turning to violence shames the aggressor, revealing their true nature.

The left have forgotten the lessons of why they are left

Agreed, they're being deliberately provocative hoping for a fight. They learned their lessons well from the 1960's. Initiating violence gets them nowhere, but if they can incite the other side to violence, they can take that several miles. AntiFa deciding to fight them with violence is playing right into their hands. It is what they've wanted to happen for nearly 50 years, and they're getting their wish now.

[Seriati]

Where have you found evidence that the racists were looking for a fight?  Or is this something that it's okay to just assume?

If you read any of the interviews of ex members to white supremacist groups a goal is to provoke a race war.

I see.  So your evidence that these racists were looking for a fight is interviews from the past, by people who weren't there, and have an axe to grind?

I agree with you, that the summation of what could be their strategy makes sense.  But it's still different than claiming they were looking for a fight.  In fact you pretty much just wrote the case for assuming it without proof (which is what I stated in the original quote).

A good example is what happened in Quebec this weekend where the supremacists came out the winner IMA.

So, I'm not terribly familiar with the Quebec situation, but the stories on it say that the group denies a racist motivation.  It's anti-Islam.  Are you conflating the two?  If being against a religion is racism, why aren't aetheists also racists?

The left have forgotten the lessons of why they are left

Not really.  The left's been intolerant for almost 40 years.  Pretty much, they've never understood or agreed with the principles behind what they are fighting for, only the results. 

[rightleft22]

The group looked to provoke violence which is not the same a looking for a fight. They had no intention of fighting
I was referring to strategies and not arguing about what qualifies as racism.
If the group in Quebec were racist or not I don't know, never met them, they were labeled as such by those standing against them and they did employed the strategy effectively.
They knew their flags and such would provoke and they did without them having to say a word. The result was that those who protested against them where the ones that appeared to be full of hate and violent.  They have forgotten that you can't fight hate with hate. (if that's what they were standing up against)

Arnold Schwarzenegger statement "There Are Not Two Sides to Hatred" is correct IMO. Hate is Hate... which is probably not how he meant it.
If you hate me for what I say and I hate you for what you say we are no different. 
I can hate what you say and stand against it without hating you.
Hate may make taping into the energy to stand up for something easyer but it will only lead to violence. 

[TheDeamon]

The left have forgotten the lessons of why they are left

Not really.  The left's been intolerant for almost 40 years.  Pretty much, they've never understood or agreed with the principles behind what they are fighting for, only the results.

Through the lens of history, it also brings up another point. Which "left" are we talking about?

The Socialists, as personified by the National Socialist Party(aka "the Nazi's"; although they tend to often be incorrectly characterized in history as "right wing") were anything but the embodiment of tolerance.  Rather quite the opposite in fact. The Communists likewise are hardly known as paragon's of tolerance, particularly upon assuming power. Soviet Russia, Vietnam, China, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, and the list goes on and on.

Now if we're talking about the more typical association of "the left" with either "Liberalism" or "liberalism" THEN there is a case to be made. Even Classical Liberalism had tolerance as central hallmark of its tenants. Although the specifics of implementation may differ wildly from more modern tastes and preferences. So I guess you could say many left-wing adherents and organizations in the Americas(/"western world" in general) are now basically repudiating the final vestiges of their claim to any iteration of "being Liberals" to any significant degree.

[Seriati]

You know maybe they were looking to provoke violence.  I have a difficult time getting inside the head of a racist to try and figure out their goals.  They are by definition, irrational thinkers, which makes it very likely that their motivations, actions and goals are disconnected in any event.

However, I still think, given their recent history, its hard to make the claim that they were trying to provoke violence.  I suspect, they were once again, out there thinking they had a free pass (strength in numbers) to spew hatred and verbal poison, and that everyone else just had to take it.  I suspect, that if they'd understood that violence was really on the table, the rally would have looked completely different, been less attended and maybe even cancelled.  It seems to be that more of these rallies are popping up, but it looks like attendance is down.  I guess we'll see.

I don't get the idea that we throw away concepts like proof and facts, just cause they are repugnant people.  Even serial killers are entitled to a full defense in court.

[rightleft22]

They are by definition, irrational thinkers, which makes it very likely that their motivations, actions and goals are disconnected in any event.

I would disagree with that statement/definition. The leadership behind the ‘new’ supremacist movement are very intelligent and especially good at physiological manipulation in creating fear.  If such intelligence is rational or not… maybe another question.

I don’t think rationality matters much today. 
Being rational is just a tool of the elites, today its all about the gut and what feels true.   

[TheDeamon]

You know maybe they were looking to provoke violence.  I have a difficult time getting inside the head of a racist to try and figure out their goals.  They are by definition, irrational thinkers, which makes it very likely that their motivations, actions and goals are disconnected in any event.

To iterate rightleft's response in a slightly different direction:

They're perfectly rational. They're just starting from a position that you hold to either be irrational, entirely emotional(and likely reflexive and thus unthinking in nature--so quite literally irrational), or of such a nature that even contemplating that particular starting point is so mentally revolting that your mind just simply rebels at the idea(and thus conclude it is irrational).

It's moments like this where I have to wonder if I'm in the club of people that if placed under a FMRI scanner, I'd turn up with a brain scan that would closely match some of the worst criminals(and politicians/Business execs) in history, as I don't seem to have that particular reflexive mental gag reflex. As disturbing as those lines of thinking are, on personal ethical and moral grounds(never mind external ones), venturing in that territory is almost on par with discussing the weather and its impacts in some respects.

For "leadership" within most Supremacy groups, or really any agenda based organization that seems to be centered around the premise of amassing and accruing influence and power. They're going to determine how to "sell" their particular agenda.

If you're willing to discard personal ethics in pursuit of your goal, the most effective means of gaining and keeping influence quickly(aside from sex) is by means of emotional appeal, as it triggers instinctive responses in people who are then going to be inclined towards making irrational decisions because they let their emotions decide for them.

The next best option for the unethical playbook is appeal to the person's "sense of ego" while also stroking an emotional chord at the same time. This is something that both even the "moderate left"(never mind antiFa, who does it too) and the "Alt-Right" do.

"It's not your fault your life hasn't gone to plan. If only it wasn't for ____ your life would be much better. Join me/us in pursuit of _____ and soon enough all of your problems will be solved because we'll make sure nobody will be able to do ____ again in the future." Because hey, if they're offering to share (some form of) power with you personally, it can't be all bad, right? There ain't no interest like self-interest after all.

[Gaoics79]

It's moments like this where I have to wonder if I'm in the club of people that if placed under a FMRI scanner, I'd turn up with a brain scan that would closely match some of the worst criminals(and politicians/Business execs) in history, as I don't seem to have that particular reflexive mental gag reflex. As disturbing as those lines of thinking are, on personal ethical and moral grounds(never mind external ones), venturing in that territory is almost on par with discussing the weather and its impacts in some respects.

I used to think I was like you. I read Mein Kamph as a student and wasn't bothered at all despite being Jewish. Jerry Falwell bible thumpers, ISIS, none of it offends me or affects me in a vicseral emotional way even if I abhor it intellectually.

But this SJW ideology is something new. It makes me angry, so angry that even reading it or hearing it on tv gets my blood pressure up in seconds and gets me cursing under my breath like a crazy person. I have been contemplating terminating all news reading to get away from it and switching to pure fiction. I can't even watch CNN anymore because of the intellectual residue of this ideology which I can only conclude I am just allergic to. Like an extreme peanut allergy the more I am exposed the worse I get. I truly think I'd be more comfortable talking to a nazi than a radical feminist. Crazy ay?

[TheDeamon]

But this SJW ideology is something new. It makes me angry, so angry that even reading it or hearing it on tv gets my blood pressure up in seconds and gets me cursing under my breath like a crazy person. I have been contemplating terminating all news reading to get away from it and switching to pure fiction. I can't even watch CNN anymore because of the intellectual residue of this ideology which I can only conclude I am just allergic to. Like an extreme peanut allergy the more I am exposed the worse I get. I truly think I'd be more comfortable talking to a nazi than a radical feminist. Crazy ay?

In some respects, not really. The sterotypical SJW is almost literally a sheep, they bleet and bleet and bleet and there isn't much you can do to divert them from their course. They're not really thinking about what they're doing, they're just straight up reaction with no reason(as in critical thinking, rather than without purpose).

Although I'm also somewhat amazed that even the MSM, or more specifically CNN, is reporting on this newfound desire to take down all kinds of monuments across the country, and not just the Confederate Monuments which were more monuments to the groups who erected them than the person on the monument.

I'm not sure if CNN is actually being honest in their reporting on that, or if they've just simply "jumped the shark" as it were and actually agrees with that agenda and sees nothing wrong with it so see no reason to be shy about reporting on it now.

I refuse to believe the country is that far gone. However, I could fully believe a substantial portion of "the establishment" both in and outside of the media, is that far gone. If all it took was Donald Trump being elected as president to get them to demonstrate just how insane they truly are, thank god it's Donald Trump in the Oval Office and not Hillary Clinton. Talk about a one way ticket on the crazy train.

...And Donald Trump at the helm is freaking crazy enough as it is.

[Seriati]

They are by definition, irrational thinkers, which makes it very likely that their motivations, actions and goals are disconnected in any event.

I would disagree with that statement/definition. The leadership behind the ‘new’ supremacist movement are very intelligent and especially good at physiological manipulation in creating fear.  If such intelligence is rational or not… maybe another question.

I think you are misconstruing what I said.  Racism is inherently irrational thought.  Any thought pattern that exalts an irrelevancy over actual facts is irrational. 

That doesn't mean every racist is stupid, or that they are incapable of crafting other wise rational plans, it just means that fundamentally at their core they have an unjustifiable assumption and they have taken mental shortcuts to incorporate it into their beliefs.

I don’t think rationality matters much today. 
Being rational is just a tool of the elites, today its all about the gut and what feels true.   

I agree it doesn't matter much, that today is all about the gut and what feels true.  Not sure it has anything to do with the "elites".

[rightleft22]

I realized after I posted that I misconstrued what you said. Rational and intelligence are not the same things

What I have noticed is that when a rational intelligent argument is made it is often labeled as elitist by some sectors of society and so dismissed.

[TheDeamon]

And the violence continues to escalate. Yesterday in Phoenix police had to use tear gas to disperse protesters outside of a Donald Trump rally after police started being pelted with rocks, sticks, and other detrius.

Of course, the press report I just read said the Police wouldn't say if it was the pro or anti-Trump crowd which did so. But then at this point, who could be sure as to the identity of all of the persons involved(and it not being "false flag" in nature). Although evidently a few arrests were made in conjunction with all of this, might be interesting to do a deeper dig into the backgrounds of those individuals. Any takers on the odds of their being of the leftist persuasion?

[D.W.]

And the violence continues to escalate.

Is this an escalation in violence, or an escalation only in response?

[Fenring]

And the violence continues to escalate.

Is this an escalation in violence, or an escalation only in response?

Wouldn't you say that being willing to clash with the police is an escalation?

And to the person who asked whether it was the protesters or not who were involved in the violence, the articles I've seen (including on CNN) say that some protesters assaulted police officers and that even gas was released into the air. The police responded with pepper spray and other methods. I don't see how it could be the Trump rally attendees because they wouldn't be classified as protesters, would they? And why would they even be near the police, who presumably were forming a line to keep the protesters away from the POTUS? It doesn't really make sense to suppose that Trump rally attendees walked away from the rally just to attack the police.

[D.W.]

Wouldn't you say that being willing to clash with the police is an escalation?

That assumes the willingness was not present previously, and that the police obliging them was not the distinction... 

Like it or not, I believe the presence of armed individuals in the crowd did serve to reduce violence, and temper/restrain police response in VA.

As for the gas (released by someone other than the police) it was an individual the day before, who was arrested.  Teargas AFAIK

The police were attempting to keep the protesters back from exiting attendes, for fear there would be conflict between the two groups, not safeguarding POTUS.

I can't get into debating any other specifics, as the only report I heard from someone out in the protest crowd, stated he didn't observe any violence from his vantage point.

[Gaoics79]

Despite the media claim that the right has been emboldened by Trump I see only evidence of the exact opposite. Rather, it is left wing organizations that have increased their aggression and influence. Trump is a gift to the far left. They are the ones who are plainly ascendant as is becoming increasingly obvious.

But I will say this: if you ever wanted to give the fading and irrelevent Nazis and KKK a shot in the arm and save them from the abyss tbey've been falling into for the past 50 years, wow, antifa and others sure have found the prescription.

[LetterRip]

And the violence continues to escalate. Yesterday in Phoenix police had to use tear gas to disperse protesters outside of a Donald Trump rally after police started being pelted with rocks, sticks, and other detrius.

You received bad information - someone not part of the protesters nor in the crowd of people making up the protests had thrown a single empty water bottle - there were no 'rocks, sticks and other detrius' and it wasn't the protesters who did the throwing of the water bottle.  Then the police teargassed the protesters.  It was not an initiation of action by the marchers.  Also tear gas was not 'dispersed by the protesters' as claimed by the police, but rather someone picked up and threw back the first tear gas canister that the police had launched at the crowd.

My guess is some police officer had launched a canister without authorization (accidentally or intentionally) and that is what triggered the whole thing.