Author Topic: Charlottsville  (Read 27332 times)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Charlottsville
« on: August 14, 2017, 11:41:37 AM »
Anyone have a source that summarizes what happened and in what order?  All I can find is aftermath and reports about what people think or follow up on the driver of the car.  I'd like something that addresses, relative crowd sizes, different groups involved, violence that occurred, injury reports.

Mynnion

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #1 on: August 14, 2017, 02:20:37 PM »
I have to agree.  The coverage of the actual protest/counter protest were extremely vague.  I am still trying to figure out how the helicopter deaths are the result of the rally.  Even if they were monitoring connecting the accident to the event seemed weird.

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2017, 02:27:34 PM »
I would consider any news from mainstream sources on this story suspect. The mainstream media organizations seem very lax with the truth where the subject of the story is merely an unpopular target (see the "Google anti diversity screed" for a recent example) and it doesn't get any less popular than a bunch of Nazis. They'll lie without shame and without restraint because almost nobody they care about will call them out on it. They have pretty much carte blanche.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2017, 02:28:35 PM »
Mayor was interviewed this morning.  He said no shots fired, no property damage.  He didn't get into their being any other physical violence or injuries other than the car driving into the crowd. 

I haven't heard anything suggesting the helicopter crash was a result of anything done at the rally.  Other than maybe the assertion that it wouldn't have been up that day observing the event... if not for the event?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #4 on: August 14, 2017, 02:43:48 PM »
There were reports of early violence, leading to the event's cancellation. Both sides showed up with some proportion of participants including baseball bats, pepper spray and some firearms (unused). A general melee did occur at some point. Critics from both sides think the police were slow to intervene and keep the groups separate - although the police also point out how if they had gone it too quickly it might have been considered an over-reaction.

I don't have a specific source, I pieced this understanding together from various sources (spotty as it is).

The chopper crash is weird.

Quote
Knudson said there was no distress call from the helicopter before it crashed. The chopper took off from the Charlottesville airport about 4 p.m., he said, and crashed in a heavily wooded area about seven miles southwest. The helicopter caught fire when it fell, he said, with the bulk landing on the ground and some wreckage in the trees.

Quote
Witness Ben Ward told CBS News' Bo Erickson that he saw the plan "circling unnaturally" before it went down "in a tail spin."

Not entirely clear what's going on, or why CBS can't tell the difference between a helicopter and a plan (sic).

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #5 on: August 14, 2017, 03:07:21 PM »
I just find the lack of specifics suspect.  When the specifics are favorable to the media story they come write out.  I'd view the situation very differently, if the counter protesters started the violence (which given media coverage I suspect is true) than if the protesters did so.  Anti-fa's presence makes me inherently suspicious.  I'd also find it material if one side outnumbered the other substantially - which I also suspect is the case.

I find the immediate media narrative of Trump - racist, to be too pat as well.

And I'm mindful of how during the election, paid activists provoked violence at Trump rallies and the media dutifully reported on the violence of Trump rallies.

Racist rallies are bad, and we should all oppose their ideology, but it used to be that the ACLU defended their right to speak cause we understood that everyone has the right to free speech.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #6 on: August 14, 2017, 03:13:02 PM »
What makes you think the ACLU stopped doing those things?

Quote
For representing Yiannopoulos, the civil liberties group was widely accused of defending and enabling fascism. But the ACLU wasn’t “defending Yiannopoulos” as much as it was opposing a rule that allows state censorship of any controversial political messages the state wishes to suppress: a rule that is often applied to groups which are supported by many who attacked the ACLU here.

The same formula was applied yesterday when people learned that the ACLU of Virginia had represented the white supremacist protesters in Charlottesville after city officials tried to ban the group from gathering in Emancipation Park where a statue of Robert E. Lee was to be removed (city officials tried to move the march to an isolated location one mile away).

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #7 on: August 14, 2017, 03:20:42 PM »
Lack of coverage.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #8 on: August 14, 2017, 04:03:49 PM »
The thing that concerns me is the social media / petition retribution to those who went to this event. 

Now in this case, I'm all for scum getting "what they deserve", but it's a terrible president to set.  (Not that it's anything new.)

Pictures of the event go out. 
"If you can ID any of these people please post."
<people ID'ed>
"So and so works here!  Lets all bombard employer with calls for their dismissal!
<so and so swiftly fired>
"So and so goes to school here!  Lets all bombard staff with calls for their dismissal!
<no expulsions yet as far as I know, but schools forced to say, "Umm Nazis are bad!">

We've seen the same tactics used regarding firearms as well.  I don't believe free speech means you have to let someone spout what they want unopposed, but seeking to ruin someone's lively-hood or put them in danger of some (equally) extreme nut going to their now public address?  That doesn't sit well with me.

I get it, when common decency fails people want harder options.  I just think "internet warrior vigilantism" may not be a good place to land.


And whether or not the president himself is a racist or a bigot is almost immaterial.  I personally guess he's just pandering for votes and doesn't want to upset his fan club...  But he did, today (Monday) call out those groups specifically.  And while other presidents may not have to "state the obvious" and condemn these groups, he made the decision to place among his staff people with reputations more than a little tarnished on these subjects. 

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #9 on: August 14, 2017, 04:16:25 PM »
There were reports of early violence, leading to the event's cancellation. Both sides showed up with some proportion of participants including baseball bats, pepper spray and some firearms (unused). A general melee did occur at some point. Critics from both sides think the police were slow to intervene and keep the groups separate - although the police also point out how if they had gone it too quickly it might have been considered an over-reaction.

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. Results were predictable:
Quote
Both the white nationalists and left-wing counter-protesters fought and beat each other with blunt objects for most of the morning.
What were police doing?  Not much:
Quote
Law enforcement was on hand at the dueling demonstrations on Saturday, decked out in riot gear and looking prepared for the worst. Except they weren’t allowed to do their job. Police on the scene were reported to have been ordered to “not intervene until given command to do so,” according to the ACLU. That kept them from suppressing the numerous scuffles that broke out.

When police were ordered to disperse the alt-right rally, that act directed the white nationalists into the antifa demonstrators, leading to further street brawls. Police didn’t seem to try to get in between the two groups or suppress the fights.

Just like in Berkely, police were ordered to stand down so that the antifa mob could freely engage in violence political oppression.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #10 on: August 14, 2017, 04:45:30 PM »
I just find the lack of specifics suspect.  When the specifics are favorable to the media story they come write out.  I'd view the situation very differently, if the counter protesters started the violence (which given media coverage I suspect is true) than if the protesters did so.  Anti-fa's presence makes me inherently suspicious.  I'd also find it material if one side outnumbered the other substantially - which I also suspect is the case.

I don't think there is necessarily a conspiracy going on.  There many reporters on the ground, in the thick of things.  I saw plenty of reports of violence from anti-fa.  But it got drowned out in the bigger message, and the Charger Murder became the big story.  It's not just the media.  The people were generally not interested in specifics from the get go.  And quite honestly, nobody wants to come out and look like they're defending the Nazis and the KKK. 

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #11 on: August 14, 2017, 04:50:52 PM »
Quote
Just like in Berkely, police were ordered to stand down so that the antifa mob could freely engage in violence political oppression.
That's one take.  Another was the mayor mentioning the right wing had militia members better armed than their police, and they felt a softer touch was the reason there were no shots fired or property damaged.

Granted they neglected to mention any brawling, prolonged or otherwise.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #12 on: August 14, 2017, 04:56:19 PM »
ACLU

Quote
Do counter-demonstrators have free speech rights?

Yes. Although counter-demonstrators should not be allowed to physically disrupt
the event they are protesting, they do have the right to be present and to voice
their displeasure. Police are permitted to keep two antagonistic groups separated
but should allow them to be within the general vicinity of one another.

So I think we can dispense with the permit discussion. There was nothing illegal about being physically present or yelling at the rally.

Coming at somebody with a baseball bat - illegal.

As to the motivations behind police positioning - I'm not going to read anyone's mind on that one. It will bear scrutiny. It sounds like you might see Antifa as a government sponsored militia group, but I'm not really there. Maybe they figured it was just as well to watch Nazis and Communists beat each other senseless. It does seem clear that they were somehow bafflingly unprepared, whether through incompetence or design.

Compare and contrast with the clash in Seattle. The police there were prepared and kept violent counter-protesters away from the rally. When the antifa crowd tried to breach a police barricade, they got some pepper spray for their trouble. This is the way to keep things from spiraling out of control, which was not done in VA.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #13 on: August 14, 2017, 05:44:34 PM »
I don't think there is necessarily a conspiracy going on.  There many reporters on the ground, in the thick of things.

Well, if you have a good source for a relatively neutral account I'd be interested.  The writer doesn't have to be neutral just honest about what was going on.

Quote
I saw plenty of reports of violence from anti-fa.  But it got drowned out in the bigger message, and the Charger Murder became the big story.

I take that as evidence of a "conspiracy" by the way.  There are dozens of similar events (from the left) where one violent act, or even many doesn't drown out the message.  Instead we get multiple reports about how that person does not represent the group or the movement.  Here the opposite.  The car attack completely overwhelms any consideration of the event. 

If a hate group has a peaceful protest that is their right.  If other hate groups attack them, then that's the story.

Quote
It's not just the media.  The people were generally not interested in specifics from the get go.  And quite honestly, nobody wants to come out and look like they're defending the Nazis and the KKK.

This is why this is a dangerous situation.  If we accept a pre-conviction of anyone we're endorsing banana republic justice.

Honestly, if the result of the KKK having a rally is that Anti-Fa shows up and attacks them and the media attributes the violence to the KKK, this country has already lost its way. 

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #14 on: August 14, 2017, 06:06:15 PM »
I'm a jew so the idea of being sympathetic is laughable. But the Nazi movement is finished in USA. It is little more than a rump and hasn't been relevent for decades. I literally have zero to fear from them. They are Nazis in name only - a pathetic shadow of their former malevolence. The KKK also is a bunch of nothing, a shadow of a shadow that hasn't had real power since before I was born.

The only reason it gets any airtime now is when the media pushes their Trump=Nazi dictator narrative which they flog at every opportunity. So these sad impotent little nothings are the next incarnation of the Third Reich. Ummm no.

These antifa types by contrast are a going concern so them I take seriously. And it is like them to go ape *censored* and brown shirt anyone they don't like so yeah, I look at this story with an intense skepticism.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 06:09:45 PM by jasonr »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2017, 06:51:16 PM »
Quote
Just like in Berkely, police were ordered to stand down so that the antifa mob could freely engage in violence political oppression.
That's one take.  Another was the mayor mentioning the right wing had militia members better armed than their police, and they felt a softer touch was the reason there were no shots fired or property damaged.

Granted they neglected to mention any brawling, prolonged or otherwise.
It's "one take" by a lot of people that were there, FoxNews Reporter Doug McKelway:
Quote
We have learned from a senior law enforcement source from other county, who was here [in Charlottesville]... that officers were instructed to make no arrests without the explicit approval of the Charlottesville mayor. Our law enforcement source says that he was outraged by that instruction."
The Charlottesville chief of police categorically denied this, but:
Quote
However, McKelway says: "I can say, having been in Emancipation Park from early on that morning, that what I saw with my own two eyes confirms what this law enforcement source told us. At least from all visible apearances. We saw people coming out of that park who had headwounds, who were bleeding from the head, people walking into that park with bats, with sticks -- you saw what they were wearing -- helmets, body armor, they had come -- and this pertains to both sides -- they had come to do damage.. you cannot help but notice from that video that police had been more pro-active, they could have potentially calmed this thing down to some degree."

He was told during the day that if reporters had to, they could retreat to the police staging area. However, when protesters began throwing tear gas and the reporter tried to take shelter in the staging area, he was told he could not come in, the police said "No, don't come in here... we're leaving. It's too dangerous."


Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2017, 09:31:51 PM »
What makes the event most noteworthy is that one crazy person killed one and wounded 19 others. Throwing water bottles is not good, but not on the same scale. The killer happened to have extreme right-wing affiliations, but the vast majority of those with extreme right-wing affiliations who were there did not try to kill people.   This appears to be an act of terrorism in the same way that the San Bernardino shooting was - a crazy person, motivated by ideology and his own inner demons, committing an evil action.

Our President's reaction, on the other hand, is harder to defend (unless you go into fantasy world where any bad thing about the right is the product of a vast conspiracy to falsify everything we see just to score points)
Quote
“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides. On many sides.”

What struck most Americans was not that he was chastising both sides for throwing bottles, but that he looked at an act of terrorism and blamed the injured and the dead as much as the terrorist. And that should not be a surprise, as on the campaign trail he repeatedly spread the libel that he personally saw thousands of American Muslims celebrating on 9/11 (spoiler alert: the only role American Muslims had in the events of 9/11 were as victims of terrorism). 




Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2017, 10:43:08 PM »
Greg, why assume he was 'blaming the victims'? That card is getting a little old, isn't it? Maybe he meant that when multiple sides escalate a situation to fever pitch and then someone (on either side) goes over the edge and does something crazy, the blame might perhaps be properly placed on all involved who escalated and created the steaming pot rather than focusing overmuch on the one who boiled over. It's sort of inevitable in a way that when things get nuts some few will go nuts along with it. There's nothing to do about that, it's like a force of nature. But what we can do is try to prevent boiling hot situations, and neither side is innocent on that front.

Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2017, 12:24:57 AM »
What a bunch of *censored*ing fascist-fronting phonies...

Y'all keep heiilng with them Nazis, yo...
Quote
why assume he was 'blaming the victims'?
Because that's what Trump meant.

*censored* y'all fakers for pretending that the politest interpretation of that fraud's gaudy facade has any value at all.

He meant EXACTLY what he meant, and what's getting "a little old" here is the way you sheep keep denying that this liar's duplicitous doublespeak belies his lies...

« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 12:34:27 AM by godsblackestcrow »

Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2017, 12:47:30 AM »
So y'all know, you don't have twist words too much to see that being anti "anti-fascist" more than kind-of-sort-of means that one might be a fascist--regardless of whatever rose-odored *censored* complicit nitwits convince themselves that they can pull out of their biases...
« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 12:58:44 AM by godsblackestcrow »

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #20 on: August 15, 2017, 01:51:37 AM »
I do not see
Quote
multiple sides escalate a situation to fever pitch

The killing of 1 person and injuring 19 more by driving a car into a crowd of peaceful protesters is escalating things to a fever pitch.

Killing is different from shouting slogans. 

And I am bending over backwards to not draw inference that one of the two sides here takes on the flags of the greatest enemies of the United States in our history (Nazis and Confederates) while expressing a level of bigotry that I hope we can all disavow, while the other group (that still may have some obnoxious people in it) is protesting against bigotry, Nazis, the KKK, and the Confederacy. Even omitting the content of the two sides, when there is a terrorism act the President should be able to condemn that act, immediately and unequivocally even if he doesn't make inferences about the larger group that the terrorist came from (and of course it shows his vast hypocrisy given his position that Islamic terrorism must always be called out by name, and that Muslims are responsible for always condemning any terrorist act taken by someone who also calls themselves a Muslim).

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #21 on: August 15, 2017, 05:53:09 AM »
I do not see
Quote
multiple sides escalate a situation to fever pitch

The killing of 1 person and injuring 19 more by driving a car into a crowd of peaceful protesters is escalating things to a fever pitch.

Killing is different from shouting slogans. 

And I am bending over backwards to not draw inference that one of the two sides here takes on the flags of the greatest enemies of the United States in our history (Nazis and Confederates) while expressing a level of bigotry that I hope we can all disavow, while the other group (that still may have some obnoxious people in it) is protesting against bigotry, Nazis, the KKK, and the Confederacy. Even omitting the content of the two sides, when there is a terrorism act the President should be able to condemn that act, immediately and unequivocally even if he doesn't make inferences about the larger group that the terrorist came from (and of course it shows his vast hypocrisy given his position that Islamic terrorism must always be called out by name, and that Muslims are responsible for always condemning any terrorist act taken by someone who also calls themselves a Muslim).

Hahahah "peaceful" protesters.

I know who the brown shirts are and just cause they're brown shirting Nazis doesn't make them anything but what they are. We see these types frequently now worldwide abd it ain't the KKK.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 06:01:38 AM by jasonr »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #22 on: August 15, 2017, 08:39:12 AM »
The killing of 1 person and injuring 19 more by driving a car into a crowd of peaceful protesters is escalating things to a fever pitch.

Killing is different from shouting slogans. 

And I am bending over backwards to not draw inference that one of the two sides here takes on the flags of the greatest enemies of the United States in our history (Nazis and Confederates) while expressing a level of bigotry that I hope we can all disavow, while the other group (that still may have some obnoxious people in it) is protesting against bigotry, Nazis, the KKK, and the Confederacy. Even omitting the content of the two sides, when there is a terrorism act the President should be able to condemn that act, immediately and unequivocally even if he doesn't make inferences about the larger group that the terrorist came from (and of course it shows his vast hypocrisy given his position that Islamic terrorism must always be called out by name, and that Muslims are responsible for always condemning any terrorist act taken by someone who also calls themselves a Muslim).
This entire post is a perfect example of "gaslighting":
Quote
Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or members of a group, hoping to make targets question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target's belief.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #23 on: August 15, 2017, 09:09:28 AM »
Quote
Well, if you have a good source for a relatively neutral account I'd be interested.  The writer doesn't have to be neutral just honest about what was going on.

The only name that I know of off the top is Sheryl Gay Stolberg, a reporter for the Grey Hooker.  She made a tweet about seeing anti-fa members beating white nationalists over the head with clubs, and making the point that both sides were violent.  She was immediately criticized by members of the left on her twitter feed, and she apologized, and backtracked.  I cursory view of the headlines of her stories mentions nothing about anti-fa violence.  I don't really have the time to read each article.  It's possible she goes into some detail, but I doubt it.  So I have no good sources, and I don't really have the time to look for any. 

Quote
I take that as evidence of a "conspiracy" by the way.  There are dozens of similar events (from the left) where one violent act, or even many doesn't drown out the message.  Instead we get multiple reports about how that person does not represent the group or the movement.  Here the opposite.  The car attack completely overwhelms any consideration of the event. 

If a hate group has a peaceful protest that is their right.  If other hate groups attack them, then that's the story.

The reason I don't think it's a conspiracy, is that I don't think the lords of all media are really consciously burying information.  I think the are simply feeding the beast.  I suspect the producers are editors are not going "we need to bury this, because it does not conform to the message we want to put out".   I think it has more to do with the fact that their audience wants something that confirms their bias, and does not contradict it.  The foundation is simple:  Nazis is bad.  Anti-fa fights Nazis.  Anti-fa must be good.  That's not the decision of the producers and editors.  That's already the consensus the moment the tiki torches were lit.  If they contradict that message, they are going to be attacked by their own.  The Grey Hooker and network and cable news are all scrambling to give their audience what they want.  In some cases, their backs are against the wall.  They make their audience happy or they die.  So it's not "bury this", it's "this is not what the people want or believe, so it must not be true". 

They're not all meeting in a smoke filled room and deciding to bury something.  It's that they're all motivated by the same thing.  Make the audience happy.  The liberal/progressive audience right now wants to hear that Nazis are bad and evil, not that the people fighting them are bad.  The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our media lords, but within ourselves. 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #24 on: August 15, 2017, 09:17:44 AM »
I'm finding it difficult to put together a timeline for all this. How long were the protesters there before the antifa crowd showed up? If not that long, how did they even know this kind of protest would be going on such that they could quickly organize, travel there with signs, and mount a counter-protest? I'm also fuzzy on the nature of the incident with the guy driving a car into the crowd. Was he originally one of the protesters, or just some nut from neither side? And I also can't quickly find whether the people he hit were distinctly from one side; did he target anti-protesters, or protesters, or just randoms?

Offhand I'd ask another question which may sound silly, but what was the intended purpose of the white supremacist "protest" in the first place? What exactly were they protesting? Usually getting people out in the street requires some trigger or active cause. Was there one, or was this some random insano rally? It just seems awfully weird to hold a white supremacist rally out in the open, as I would have though this kind of untoward thing would usually be done more in secret so as to avoid being harassed and surrounded by cameras.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #25 on: August 15, 2017, 09:20:41 AM »
I believe they were upset because the town has decided to stop glorifying slavers and traitors.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #26 on: August 15, 2017, 09:26:46 AM »
Quote
The reason I don't think it's a conspiracy, is that I don't think the lords of all media are really consciously burying information.  I think the are simply feeding the beast.
Not to mention our national propaganda and Hollywood hero worship since before I was born is distinctly "anti-fa". 

How long have our heroes in books, movies and TV been fighting against fascists?  Of that, how many of them used violence to do so? 

While everyone should be protected by and abide by the same laws, it should come to a shock to no one, least of all the alt-right, Nazi, KKK or whatever they call themselves that they are met with outrage and sometimes violence.  They may believe they are being clever in baiting this programmed response., and maybe they are.  How else would they stay in the news?  Short of more domestic terrorism that would hasten their slipping the rest of the way into historical anecdote. 

In the end though, they are promoting either diminishing the opportunities, rights or... population of others.  They may be doing so "peacefully", but they are still enemies of the state.

We apparently did too good a job after our wars convincing people that the other side is vile and deserves no sympathy.  The fascist know it to.  When force and sympathy are not an option, the only thing left to do is to drag the public down to your level.  Make them face that they too are capable of ugliness.  It's not even a tactic, it's just spite.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #27 on: August 15, 2017, 09:35:23 AM »
I'm finding it difficult to put together a timeline for all this. How long were the protesters there before the antifa crowd showed up? If not that long, how did they even know this kind of protest would be going on such that they could quickly organize, travel there with signs, and mount a counter-protest? I'm also fuzzy on the nature of the incident with the guy driving a car into the crowd. Was he originally one of the protesters, or just some nut from neither side? And I also can't quickly find whether the people he hit were distinctly from one side; did he target anti-protesters, or protesters, or just randoms?

Offhand I'd ask another question which may sound silly, but what was the intended purpose of the white supremacist "protest" in the first place? What exactly were they protesting? Usually getting people out in the street requires some trigger or active cause. Was there one, or was this some random insano rally? It just seems awfully weird to hold a white supremacist rally out in the open, as I would have though this kind of untoward thing would usually be done more in secret so as to avoid being harassed and surrounded by cameras.
I can't be sure, but I thought this was popping up on facebook (from I suppose what some would consider anti-fa aligned posters) well before the day of the event.  Now that I think about it, probably on both sides, but I don't follow any pro-fascist groups...   I THINK this was advertised in advance, and the counter protest had an equal amount of time to organize.  As such, I expect (again, don't know, haven't read reports of it) that the counter protest/marchers didn't show up later, they were there from the start.

As for the purpose of the march?  Inciting violence?  :P  This was a white-pride march.  It was a gathering to show that (at least in the participant's minds) the nation was ready for a no-hoods-required, bold statement of their ideals in public.  They probably believed they could bait counter protesters into a fight, and that they could "win" any fight that did occur.  By out equipping/arming their group compared to the police, they could even force the police to act with A LOT more caution than they have in left-agenda marches; and this would be another barb to their opponents.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #28 on: August 15, 2017, 09:41:13 AM »
What makes the event most noteworthy is that one crazy person killed one and wounded 19 others.

If that's the case, what exactly was the network new coverage on every channel, the live blogs, tweets and "live" print accounts that were wall to wall before that crazy person struck? 

Answer honestly, cause there's no way to square it with your claim.

Quote
Throwing water bottles is not good, but not on the same scale.

I have no idea what the truth is, because the media is unwilling to cover it, there are however, accounts of urine bottles, acid being thrown, there are pictures that look as if protesters on both sides were subjected to extreme violence and possibly even weapon attacks. 

Is that what you mean by throwing water bottles?  Cause if it is I don't ever want to be at a sporting event near you.

Quote
The killer happened to have extreme right-wing affiliations, but the vast majority of those with extreme right-wing affiliations who were there did not try to kill people.   This appears to be an act of terrorism in the same way that the San Bernardino shooting was - a crazy person, motivated by ideology and his own inner demons, committing an evil action.

You may be correct, seems like a lot of guess work though about the guy's motivations based on what seems to have been released so far.   

If it is as it appears, then terrorism charges are likely justified.

Quote
Our President's reaction, on the other hand, is harder to defend (unless you go into fantasy world where any bad thing about the right is the product of a vast conspiracy to falsify everything we see just to score points)
Quote
“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides. On many sides.”

What exactly do you object to in that statement?

Again, I've asked for some sources that lay out what happen, you have must have seen one to have concluded that, Anti-fa, for example was above reproach and did not deserve to be called out?

There is nothing about counter-protesters or protesters showing up to commit violence that should be okay or tolerated in a free society. 

I feel the entire concept of justice has shut down in people's minds because this group of protesters is so repugnant that they are "inciting" what ever level of violence is done to them.  That's not justice.

Quote
What struck most Americans was not that he was chastising both sides for throwing bottles, but that he looked at an act of terrorism and blamed the injured and the dead as much as the terrorist.

I must of missed where he blamed the victims of the car attacker. 

Are you really of the view that committing vigilante violence against bad people is okay and should not be condemned?

Quote
And that should not be a surprise, as on the campaign trail he repeatedly spread the libel that he personally saw thousands of American Muslims celebrating on 9/11 (spoiler alert: the only role American Muslims had in the events of 9/11 were as victims of terrorism).

Nice irrelevant non-sequitor.  lol.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #29 on: August 15, 2017, 09:43:48 AM »
So y'all know, you don't have twist words too much to see that being anti "anti-fascist" more than kind-of-sort-of means that one might be a fascist--regardless of whatever rose-odored *censored* complicit nitwits convince themselves that they can pull out of their biases...

I don't mean "twist words" for you.  Anit-fa is a fascist organization.  Their tactics are fascist, their beliefs are fascist, their goals are fascist, and their actions are fascist.  Criticizing them is being anti-fascist.

I'm sorry you're falling for a transparent propaganda ploy.  You'd do well to remember actions speak louder than words. 

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #30 on: August 15, 2017, 09:48:32 AM »

And I am bending over backwards to not draw inference that one of the two sides here takes on the flags of the greatest enemies of the United States in our history (Nazis and Confederates) while expressing a level of bigotry that I hope we can all disavow, while the other group (that still may have some obnoxious people in it) is protesting against bigotry, Nazis, the KKK, and the Confederacy.

I hear Stalinists were anti-Nazi too.  Does that make them  morally superior? 

The truth here is that virtually everyone in this country thinks the Nazis and the KKK are morally repugnant simpletons, but that doesn't give anyone the right to commit violence upon them for their beliefs. 

Quote
Even omitting the content of the two sides, when there is a terrorism act the President should be able to condemn that act, immediately and unequivocally even if he doesn't make inferences about the larger group that the terrorist came from...

Our of curiosity, are you able to condemn acts of terrorism?  What would you call it when counter protesters show up intending through violence and intimidation to scare people expressing their opinion into silence?

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #31 on: August 15, 2017, 09:49:10 AM »
Quote
You may be correct, seems like a lot of guess work though about the guy's motivations based on what seems to have been released so far.   

If it is as it appears, then terrorism charges are likely justified.
Umm, the guy was part of the march.  Several people have commented about his fascination with Nazi historical warfare and politics.  As well as his apparently treated with medication anger issues, which in the past lead to at least one assault on his own mother.  A mother I heard say in an interview that she stays out of his politics.
No guessing required.  The only thing up for debate is how much of it was motivated by pure hate, and how much of it by pure crazy (channeled into hate). 

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #32 on: August 15, 2017, 09:50:23 AM »
Quote
I don't mean "twist words" for you.  Anit-fa is a fascist organization.  Their tactics are fascist, their beliefs are fascist, their goals are fascist, and their actions are fascist.  Criticizing them is being anti-fascist.
Blame StarWars and Indiana Jones man.  :P  We all grew up as anti-fa.  Or at least cheering them on. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #33 on: August 15, 2017, 09:52:52 AM »
What makes the event most noteworthy is that one crazy person killed one and wounded 19 others. Throwing water bottles is not good, but not on the same scale. The killer happened to have extreme right-wing affiliations, but the vast majority of those with extreme right-wing affiliations who were there did not try to kill people.   This appears to be an act of terrorism in the same way that the San Bernardino shooting was - a crazy person, motivated by ideology and his own inner demons, committing an evil action.

Our President's reaction, on the other hand, is harder to defend (unless you go into fantasy world where any bad thing about the right is the product of a vast conspiracy to falsify everything we see just to score points)
Quote
“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides. On many sides.”

What struck most Americans was not that he was chastising both sides for throwing bottles, but that he looked at an act of terrorism and blamed the injured and the dead as much as the terrorist. And that should not be a surprise, as on the campaign trail he repeatedly spread the libel that he personally saw thousands of American Muslims celebrating on 9/11 (spoiler alert: the only role American Muslims had in the events of 9/11 were as victims of terrorism).

I understand that the murder became the big story.  But I'm not sure if it really is.  I'm trying to look at the big picture instead of looking at a single incident.  I'm looking at the forest, not the trees.  And what I see is that violence is becoming more acceptable among more and more of the population, particularly against Nazis and White Nationalist, and generally against Republicans.  I don't think I've seen anybody defend the murder.  Everybody seems to believe he should be imprisoned or put to death. This is healthy and right.  But the acceptance of violence in response to speech I feel erodes the Constitutional fabric.  It erodes the rule of law, and the foundation that we have built that the way we work things out amongst ourselves in the USA is through speech and politics, not violence. 

To me, the forest is the growing trend over the last 15 or so years that politics is war.  The opposition is the enemy, not our countrymen and women.  The enemy must be defeated by any means possible.  The enemy is evil.  Trump is good because "he fights".  It's more important to win elections than it is to maintain good order and enable compromise.  This trend is growing and growing and now we have the perfect enemy.  Nazis and White Nationalists.  Nobody likes them.  The advocacy and incitement to violence against the Nazis and White Nationalists is, IMHO, the most dangerous thing to our country.  The incitement to violence against Republicans and Democrats in general is much smaller, but the line will blur.  The Republican Party as a whole is already connected to Facism and Nationalism due to the election of Donald Trump.  It's a small jump to say that Republicans are Nazis or Nazi sympathizers.  Next thing you know we have snipers and mass assassinations. 

In conjunction with this advocacy of violence, there is the erosion of the 1st Amendment, the amendment that is the bedrock for allowing us and emphasizing that in our country we solve things through speech and politics rather than violence and warfare.  We have already heard the arguments that hate speech is not free speech, hence the Nazis and White Nationalists don't have the right to have their marches and protests. They say it's okay to punch Nazis, it's the American Way.  Whether or not hate speech is free speech, the battle over it should be fought in courts and through more speech, not through violence. 

I understand that President Trump's response and condemnation of Nazism and Fascism was mealy mouthed, and took forever to draw out.  I understand the criticism.  But I also have not heard very many leading Democrats and Progressives come out against political violence and for freedom of speech for the Nazis and White Nationalists.  Since some are now using terrorism to label any political violence, could not violence against Nazis and White Nationalists for exercising their free speech be labeled as terrorism? Is anti-fa not a terrorist organization, because it denies that Nazis and White Nationalists have the right to free speech in the US?  It's possible that many Democrats and Progressives are condemning political violence.  I'm not following that close.  Mainly I'm distracted by all the advocacy and incitement to violence.  I know there were a great deal of peaceful anti-protestors that had come to Charlottesville.  They were mainly church groups, multi-racial, and advocated peace and brotherhood.  Their message was drowned out, and that's another tragedy. 

Since we are on the subject of the definition of Terrorism, I'm still one of those who uses the word very narrowly, and I'm not sure that the term is correctly used in the case of the Charger Murder.  Since you bring up San Bernadino, you will recall that I did not favor it's use in that case either. I argued against it.  I understand that I am in the very small minority now, but I still believe that we are using the word too expansively. 

It's not simply the definition, but what the word and labeling leads to.  Terrorism is the preview of the FBI.  Terrorism is a national threat, a national risk.  As soon as we label something as Terrorism, it means it is a national risk.  It's possible that the KKK and their ilk are terrorist organizations.  They have been in the past, when they actively planned and executed and advocated violence against others.  But in this particular case, I'm unsure if the violence was pre-mediated, planned, or organized.  I have no problem with the DOJ getting involved per say, but if they do not find organizational and planning involved, their only role then was to rule it out as Terrorism.  Honestly, the investigation was probably 99% completed by the VSP.  That doesn't mean that it wasn't terrorism.  But there does not appear to me to be a national threat of violence by the KKK as of yet.  If they can tie any kind of planning or general advocacy of violence to the KKK, then by all means, they are all terrorists and I look forward to the feds tearing them apart. 

There needs to be a distinction between organizations like AQ, and the KKK in the 60s, and lone wolf nutjob attackers.  The threat posed by large organizations, and the evil they represent, is different.  The IRA needs a different national response than nutjobs who decide to shoot up churches or movie theaters one day. They're both motivated by hate.  They are both evil.  But one poses a different kind of danger, and requires a different kind of response. 

 

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #34 on: August 15, 2017, 09:54:08 AM »
I'm finding it difficult to put together a timeline for all this. How long were the protesters there before the antifa crowd showed up? If not that long, how did they even know this kind of protest would be going on such that they could quickly organize, travel there with signs, and mount a counter-protest?

The protest has been announced for weeks.  I had friends in the area who've been trying to arrange counter protests through Facebook for over a month.

Quote
Offhand I'd ask another question which may sound silly, but what was the intended purpose of the white supremacist "protest" in the first place?

It seems to me that they were protesting the renaming of "Lee Park" to "Emancipation Park" and in connection therewith the removal of the statute of General Lee.  Pretty much a highly symbolic affront to the crazy southerners.  While I get why it was done, it's literally difficult to imagine something that could be targeted better to arise the ire of those KKK'ers that are still mad the south lost the Civil War.

But again, hard to say for sure cause the coverage is deliberately vague.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #35 on: August 15, 2017, 09:56:07 AM »
I don't mean "twist words" for you.  Anit-fa is a fascist organization.  Their tactics are fascist, their beliefs are fascist, their goals are fascist, and their actions are fascist.  Criticizing them is being anti-fascist.
How are their goals and beliefs?

Or are you just using fascist to mean "politics which I find odious?"

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #36 on: August 15, 2017, 09:59:24 AM »
Quote
You may be correct, seems like a lot of guess work though about the guy's motivations based on what seems to have been released so far.   

If it is as it appears, then terrorism charges are likely justified.
Umm, the guy was part of the march.  Several people have commented about his fascination with Nazi historical warfare and politics.

Maybe I missed it.  Can you link to the account that establishes what Greg said about him as fact.  I have no reason to doubt you guys, the guy looks guilty as hell, I just have seen anything that establishes a motive for the specific action.

He was clearly there as a member of one of the hate groups, but so were a lot of other people that didn't crash cars into people.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #37 on: August 15, 2017, 10:08:40 AM »
I don't mean "twist words" for you.  Anit-fa is a fascist organization.  Their tactics are fascist, their beliefs are fascist, their goals are fascist, and their actions are fascist.  Criticizing them is being anti-fascist.
How are their goals and beliefs?

How are they not?  Their goal is to forcibly shut down the speech of those they find odious.  They are a mob seeking the power of the autocrat. No dissent is to be tolerated or permitted from their orthodoxy. 

Quote
Or are you just using fascist to mean "politics which I find odious?"

No, nothing to do with politics that I find odious.  I don't disagree with them that racists and Nazis are wrong.

About the only quibble I can see here is the lack of support of an authoritarian government, but that's literally a temporary condition, cause the next step is to replace the government with one that will enforce their will.  It's only a matter of time before they decide not to respect losses at the ballot box (it's not like they are very far from that with Trump).  Once they pitch the last vestige of respect for Democracy (they already don't believer others should be allowed to express "wrong" opinions), they are literal fascists.

Maybe, just maybe, you can walk through why you think otherwise.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #38 on: August 15, 2017, 10:11:14 AM »
It seems like law enforcement pulled kind of a Baltimore and decided they just aren't going to do their jobs. Free for all. Everyone fend for themselves. That's what anarchy looks like, literally Mad Max out there.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #39 on: August 15, 2017, 10:11:35 AM »
Quote
Can you link to the account that establishes what Greg said about him as fact.
Umm...  When he said this?

“The killer happened to have extreme right-wing affiliations,”

Not to sound evasive, but isn't that a bit subjective of a statement?  I heard a NPR interview with a former teacher of his who talked about his fascination with Nazi history.  I've also heard he's posted pro-nazi messaging online.  But is that "affiliated with"?  IDK. 

I couldn't provide a link without knowing what you are looking for.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #40 on: August 15, 2017, 10:17:54 AM »
D.W., I meant about the latter part of the quote.  What convinced Greg that this was the result of the killer's 'ideology and inner demons'?  I mean, it could just as easily have been a rage attack.  By some accounts, again no way to know if they are true, his car was being attacked.  By some accounts, there was violence before the protesters were forced to disperse, this could have been a 20 year lashing out after being attacked.

Or it could have been exactly what it's presented as, an impotent racist using a car to lash out and terrorize counter protesters cause his own position is morally bankrupt and indefensible.

I'm not aware that we have any statements from the guy, or from anyone that talked to the guy at the rally.  And I weight, people remembering him as a violent kid, about as highly as those claiming he was a quite kid.  I was trying to discern if Greg was assuming a fact, or if he had read something informative.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #41 on: August 15, 2017, 10:21:07 AM »
I don't mean "twist words" for you.  Anit-fa is a fascist organization.  Their tactics are fascist, their beliefs are fascist, their goals are fascist, and their actions are fascist.  Criticizing them is being anti-fascist.
How are their goals and beliefs?

Or are you just using fascist to mean "politics which I find odious?"

I think the emphasis was on their methodology, rather than their goals and beliefs.  Since their beliefs are centered around anti-fascism, I'm uncertain if their beliefs could ever be described as fascist.  But if their goal is to silence opposition through violence, then they at least have something in common which we should all agree is not good, regardless of the label.   

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #42 on: August 15, 2017, 10:24:39 AM »
Quote
this was the result of the killer's 'ideology and inner demons'?  I mean, it could just as easily have been a rage attack.
How are they different?

Are you asking if this was a reaction to the conflict between the two groups escalating, or if the kid planned this in advance as one would a terrorist bombing?

While I haven’t heard a medical expert witness chime in, he is or was on medication for anger issues.  He was part of that march.  So… “ideology and inner demons” fits.  But so does, a 20 year old with violent tendencies “getting revenge” upon those he was fighting with.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #43 on: August 15, 2017, 10:34:01 AM »
How are they not?  Their goal is to forcibly shut down the speech of those they find odious.  They are a mob seeking the power of the autocrat. No dissent is to be tolerated or permitted from their orthodoxy. 
Fascism means rather more than that. It means more than just supporting authoritarian government. While Antifa may be co-opted by groups seeking broader political power, the parts which are actually anti-fascist will go away when the fascists do. I'm pretty sure Bush was accused of fascism but I don't recall anti-fascist groups being very prominent back in the day.

I think the emphasis was on their methodology, rather than their goals and beliefs.  Since their beliefs are centered around anti-fascism, I'm uncertain if their beliefs could ever be described as fascist.  But if their goal is to silence opposition through violence, then they at least have something in common which we should all agree is not good, regardless of the label.   
It seems like they are trying to beat the fascist at their own game. Their stated intent is not to silence opposition but to suppress a specific ideology which they belief cannot be quelled through speech alone. That permitting Nazis and fascists to expound upon their beliefs is corrosive to the functioning of democracy and the preservation of rights for all people. To argue with a Nazi is to give them dangerous legitimacy.

To them, it's much more effective to swing a fist, "I refute it thus."

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #44 on: August 15, 2017, 10:36:44 AM »
The protest has been announced for weeks.  I had friends in the area who've been trying to arrange counter protests through Facebook for over a month.

Thanks.

Quote
It seems to me that they were protesting the renaming of "Lee Park" to "Emancipation Park" and in connection therewith the removal of the statute of General Lee.  Pretty much a highly symbolic affront to the crazy southerners.

Ok this brings me to my next question: if the purpose was to protest the removal of a statue of General Lee, do we know exactly what the 'argument' being made against the removal was? This may sound like splitting hairs, but I am so mystified by the idea of a straight-up white supremacist rally that I'm looking for logical explanations beyond that simple answer. Maybe there are none, but here's an example of one, whether or not it was the case:

What if some poor white people, sick of being told they're evil for having been slavers, sick of hearing they're full of white privilege and are racists (just like all white people), find out that a Confederate hero is being removed in favor of an emancipation icon and don't like the idea of Southern history being wiped out as a symbolic act? I saw an image of one of the signs in the rally, which said "We will not be removed." At first glance I sort of assumed this meant "You can't get rid of white supremacy." But then I realized that it's the media narrative that the protesters were a bunch of neo-Nazi white supremacists. Indeed, I have also seen the images of some individuals doing the "Heil Trump!" I thought back to Occupy Wall Street, where it was difficult to parse what "the protest" was about because there was such a divergence of beliefs that all converged in that spot. There was no single idea or cause there; so why should we assume there is one here? Well maybe there is, but you're not going to get liberal media parsing that to try to make sense of the purpose of the rally. But I'm curious enough to ask.

Let's be frank: if some white people from the South got together to protest their history being erased as a political statement, I could sort of sympathize with that. One doesn't have to believe in the values of the South to recognize that they were still Americans fighting for what they saw as their rights. Not every Southerner was a slaver, and in any case I don't think we want to go down the road of suggesting that literally every person who wasn't a Yankee was evil. We're all familiar with black pride marches and events, and these are great. But I think America isn't yet ready for the distinction between white pride and white supremacy. What if "We will not be removed" was meant to mean "we don't want white history erased"? If protesters gathered for the purpose of saying "You know what? We're proud to be white, and don't want our local war heros being called evil and taken down," I have no doubt the media would paint that as "white supremacy" anyhow. Add in a few idiots saluting and then "neo-Nazi" gets thrown in as a group label.

This is all a 'story', right. I'm not stating any of this as fact. But I have no doubt that if these were the facts the reporting would be as we see it now. So that makes me wonder. What were the actual beliefs and purposes of the protesters? Did anyone (like Seriati) hear the actual mission statement being put forward in organizing the protest? 

« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 10:48:07 AM by Fenring »

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #45 on: August 15, 2017, 10:39:42 AM »
My “ideology and inner demons” comments is not 100% scientific - I used ideology because his victims were clearly one side in an ideological conflict and there is evidence he was very interested in the other side (truly random killing would have been some crowd unaffiliated with any political movement) and "inner demons" because in every population there are some people who do evil things. I am trying not to measure a whole movement because of the actions of one person.

That being said, I see real danger as right wing propaganda leads to genuine, sincere fantasies of right-wing victimization.
Quote
And what I see is that violence is becoming more acceptable among more and more of the population, particularly against Nazis and White Nationalist, and generally against Republicans.
That's the same thought pattern that was used by the Afrikaaners to justify their regime; most fascist regimes are built on a suppression of facts from outside the regime and a building up of grievances based on fantasies of oppression.

Only one side at this rally was heavily armed. I have at least heard reports (on the radio, sorry I can't link) that the explanation for why the police did not intervene was that the right-wing protesters were more heavily armed than the police. Similarly, I heard a report that there were weapons caches around the town. If either of these reports turn out to be unsubstantiated, I will withdraw this point, but if they are verified, this is a serious sign of a dramatic imbalance between the two sides.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #46 on: August 15, 2017, 10:45:11 AM »
Quote
if some white people from the South got together to protest their history being erased as a political statement, I could sort of sympathize with that.

I think that is a real and meaningful motivator. Many people were raised to venerate Robert E Lee as a hero, and except for that "fighting for the Confederacy" thing he was in many ways an admirable man (he was a slaveholder, but so was Washington). But at the same time, Confederate monuments embody a specific propaganda effort (more about reinforcing Jim Crow laws and opposing the Civil Rights movement than historical memory from the immediate aftermath of the Civil War).

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #47 on: August 15, 2017, 10:51:01 AM »
Quote
It seems like they are trying to beat the fascist at their own game.

Sounds about right. Except their definition of "fascist" will be expansive, not merely limited to Nazis and the KKK.

This is like a coming out party for them no doubt. For the first time they have a true carte blanche to do what they please and best of all the media will make sure their enemies eat 100% of the blame. The only better target would have been child molesters.

Speaking of the "resurgent" KKK and Nazi movement, which I'm told is now a major force in American politics thanks to Trump, where were they when this happened:

http://nypost.com/2017/08/15/officials-respond-after-mob-tears-down-confederate-statue/

Where's the fearsome white supremacist movement to bust heads? Where are the emboldened racist politicians? Where is the police forming a wall of protection around these monuments?
« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 10:55:04 AM by jasonr »

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #48 on: August 15, 2017, 10:51:43 AM »
It seems like they are trying to beat the fascist at their own game. Their stated intent is not to silence opposition but to suppress a specific ideology which they belief cannot be quelled through speech alone. That permitting Nazis and fascists to expound upon their beliefs is corrosive to the functioning of democracy and the preservation of rights for all people. To argue with a Nazi is to give them dangerous legitimacy.

To them, it's much more effective to swing a fist, "I refute it thus."

I'm unsure if that is the fascists actual game plan.  As of now, it seems that the Nazis and White Nationalists game plan is to simply have demonstrations.  As far as I know, they don't actually plan to go and confront anti-fa or BLM at their own demonstrations.  Their game right now seems to be speech. 

The idea that any ideology, that any speech, no matter how vile, must be silenced, is IMO the most dangerous thing going on.  Far more dangerous than then threat posed by the White Nationalists, the majority of whose goals are pipe dreams.  It's not only unconstitutional, it is evil and corrosive to the public good.  Once we start down the road of silencing certain ideologies, we legitimize the action throughout the nation.  It dissolves one of the glues through which we are able to create "one from many".  It is antithetical to basic freedom.   It only strengthens the enemy when his speech is given so much power that it must be hidden and destroyed.  It's book burning.  And we all know who likes to burn books, other than fundamentalist Christians. 

To fear that speaking out against fascism gives it legitimacy is to concede defeat.  It means that your arguments are no longer powerful enough to convince.  It means you have already lost and it means you advocate the end of modern politics, and the return to the dark ages. 

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #49 on: August 15, 2017, 11:01:23 AM »
It's not about the vile-ness of the ideology, it's about how dangerous it is. Their plan might be speech for now but, since they're Nazis, it ends in genocide. One can also lose elections against racists, theocrats, and other pernicious ideologies but you might not get a chance to vote Fascists out of office. If Trump were an outright fascist, and not just a useful idiot, by 2020 he could do much to subvert the system's checks and balances. Especially given how compliant Congress is. By 2024, he could be President for life. He won't because he isn't a fascist but your system doesn't seem particularly resilient at the moment.