Author Topic: Charlottsville  (Read 12749 times)

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #150 on: August 17, 2017, 01:24:06 PM »
If the right is supposed to denounce their extremists, shouldn't the same apply to the left?

These aren't the right's extremists.  The right rejects racism and nazism just like the left, and totalitarianism even more than the left.

With their strong belief in identity politics and complete rejection of the merits of individuals they actually have more in common with the left and it's insistence on identity politics.  It's not like you can draw a distinction based on their belief in authoritarian solutions with the way the left has been lately (unwaivering support for Obama admin executive authority, blind eye to Antifa and violent suppression of "wrong" speech).

Which beliefs do you think they hold that are clearly right?  Their voting preferences are based on their impression of race issues, not any valid commitment to a political philosophy.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2017, 01:26:43 PM by Seriati »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #151 on: August 17, 2017, 01:26:17 PM »
Which beliefs do you think they hold that are clearly right?  They're voting preferences are based on their impression of race issues, not any valid commitment to a political philosophy.

I was comparing the neo-Nazis, as described by the media as being right-wing extremists, with Antifa, who appear to be left-wing extremists.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #152 on: August 17, 2017, 01:29:18 PM »
I was comparing the neo-Nazis, as described by the media as being right-wing extremists, with Antifa, who appear to be left-wing extremists.

I know, but I'm objecting to "as described by the media" as being a valid classification standard.  The media's goal is to paint Republican politicians and their supporters as racists without regard to facts.  Attaching "right" to a group is just a trick to put into the house to allow it to taint others that are in the house.

We're smarter than that here.  Tell me why they should be considered right wing. 

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #153 on: August 17, 2017, 01:31:30 PM »
We're smarter than that here.  Tell me why they should be considered right wing, historically they are left wing.

I'm not considering them as anything. My comment above was to ask why there appears to be a double standard within the point of view of those who insist they are right-wing extremists and that Trump should denounce them. I don't care what we call them here, I'm asking why the same people who demand sanctions against the "right-wing" extremists seem ok with the left-wing ones.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #154 on: August 17, 2017, 01:58:10 PM »
Quote
Affinity groups are resistant to infiltration because all members share history and intimacy with each other, and no one outside the group need be informed of their plans or activities.

Once assembled, an affinity group should establish a shared set of security practices and stick to them. In some cases, you can afford to be public and transparent about your activities. in other cases, whatever goes on within the group should never be spoken of outside it, even after all its activities are long completed. In some cases, no one except the participants in the group should know that it exists at all. You and your comrades can discuss and prepare for actions without acknowledging to outsiders that you constitute an affinity group. Remember, it is easier to pass from a high security protocol to a low one than vice versa.

Sounds a lot like a terrorist cell, doesn't it?

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #155 on: August 17, 2017, 02:00:23 PM »
That jives with what someone "corrected me" with when I said the Antifa was a box the far right was trying to put people in.

The more I read, the more likely it seems that this group is going to cause some serious heartburn for the left, who are just glad people are standing up to right wing extremists....

And by "Standing up to them" they're making things worse not better.

The majority of the media loves it right now because it plays up their own desires for "social justice" so they're cheering these guys as discretely as possible as they going about smashing faces in. The problem is the media is in turn helping drive a narrative that is going to both terrify and energize those some "Trump Voters" from 2016. They're now seeing "proof positive" of what they feared in 2016, as anti-Fa brings their nightmares to life. They'll be certain to vote again in 2018.

Anti-fa's "zero-tolerance" towards dissenting views from their own also spells trouble in other ways, such as the false dichotomy/limited choice fallacy being presented in the press as regards Chalottsville, and likely a number of future incidents. Either you support AntiFa, or you're a Nazi. My earlier comparison to this being basically Neo-Stalinists vs Neo-Nazis is also likely  to be quite apt on this regards. Stalin was to my understanding much more paranoid, and thus far prone to "purges" than Hitler was.

Given the general alignment of AntiFa as it stands, as a Straight White Male, who particularly detests their methods, this doesn't leave much "choice" for me in such a Fallacious scenario, and in some respects it pisses the hell out of me at the same time. Side with Anti-Fa, against my own interests, and potentially find myself in some future iteration of Gulag for my own personal pleasure later in life... Or stand in support of the Neo-Nazi's and Racists who I find morally repugnant, but don't pose any serious threat to myself and those I care about(or really anybody else outside of certain isolated areas and other fairly rare circumstances).  But at the same time, there is the whole "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" which I've tried to support throughout my life to date.

So AntiFa is putting me a VERY awkward situation because from a personal ethics standpoint, I do think the Supremacists have a right to have public pow-wows as they desire without fear of violent consequences. Much as I think AntiFa does. However, it is the behavior of AntiFa which is putting me in the position of potentially looking at a future situation where I may have to intervene on behalf of freaking Neo-Nazis. I don't blame the Racists for this, I blame AntiFa.

Mynnion

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #156 on: August 17, 2017, 02:02:21 PM »
Quote
I don't agree. The brawls are very much the issue. Obviously murder is worse than brawling but you have to look at the context. Thus far there is no evidence that this was a premedidated or planned attack. He hit people with his truck. Until further facts come out, it is logical to conclude that this truck attack was related to the other violence. In other words this wasn't some pre-medidated "attack" but a deadly escalation of violence that was already occurring. I blame antifa and hold them (at minimum) equally at fault as the nazis in respect of the underlying violence. This guy didn't just run a truck into some Sunday shoppers or machine gun a night club. It is disingenuous to look at the truck attack as some kind of isolated event. I don't even think it clearly qualifies as "terrorism" frankly.

First you obviously have not looked at the footage.  It was a charger not a truck.  It was purposely driven into a crowd of people. One was killed nineteen were injured.  Whether he came to the rally with the intention of carrying out the attack has nothing to do with it.  He saw a group of individuals and made the choice to plow into them.  Again I am not excusing those who were involved in earlier violence on either side.  I find both groups involved in the violence reprehensible.  My view is obviously not isolated since the vast majority of the GOP members of Congress also called it an act of domestic terrorism.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #157 on: August 17, 2017, 02:07:42 PM »
First you obviously have not looked at the footage.  It was a charger not a truck.  It was purposely driven into a crowd of people. One was killed nineteen were injured.  Whether he came to the rally with the intention of carrying out the attack has nothing to do with it.  He saw a group of individuals and made the choice to plow into them.  Again I am not excusing those who were involved in earlier violence on either side.  I find both groups involved in the violence reprehensible.  My view is obviously not isolated since the vast majority of the GOP members of Congress also called it an act of domestic terrorism.

That's the political response. Legally this is probably vehicular manslaughter at best, as to which degree, one of the lawyers would have to chime in, but decent odds it was "in the heat of passion" which is going to further mitigate things for the assailant. His mental health issues are probably to mitigate things even further from there.

It is very highly unlikely this vehicular attack was "premeditated" much beyond about 4 minutes before he climbed in his car. A crime of passion/rage does not constitute a terrorist attack, no matter how terrifying it may be for those that become involved.

Of course, by that same logic, let us discuss some certain Islamic Shooters (at least two come to mind handily -- Ft Hood and one in Oklahoma) where their mass shooting rampages were classified as "workplace violence" rather than domestic terrorism.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #158 on: August 17, 2017, 02:17:20 PM »
Quote
His mental health issues are probably to mitigate things even further from there.

They rarely do, mental health defenses almost never work in the US, contrary to tv court dramas.

Quote
As a general matter, these defenses are not raised very often and work even less frequently.  I have represented thousands of people before, many of whom have serious mental illnesses or chemical dependency problems.  I have sought mental health opinions in about 50 cases, with about 10 of them with viable mental health defenses.  In some of those cases, we chose to waive the defense for one strategic reason or another.  That said, I raise these types of defenses more often than most attorneys in the State.  Conservatively, I estimate I have been successful raising these defenses in less than 0.3 percent of the cases I have been involved with.  Simply put, these defenses are not common.

http://www.fremstadlaw.com/mental-health-defenses-in-criminal-cases-how-do-they-work-and-how-often-are-they-employed/


Quote
It is very highly unlikely this vehicular attack was "premeditated" much beyond about 4 minutes before he climbed in his car.

That would meet the burden for premeditation.

Quote
Someone premeditates a crime by considering it before committing it. Premeditation requires that the defendant think out the act, no matter how quickly—it can be as simple deciding to pick up a hammer that is lying nearby and to use it as a weapon.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-premeditated-deliberate-conduct.html

Quote
A crime of passion/rage does not constitute a terrorist attack, no matter how terrifying it may be for those that become involved.

If the goal was to cause fear to the broader group, then it was indeed terrorism.  I doubt the burden of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' could be met.


D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #159 on: August 17, 2017, 02:19:58 PM »
Quote
Anti-fa's "zero-tolerance" towards dissenting views from their own also spells trouble in other ways, such as the false dichotomy/limited choice fallacy being presented in the press as regards Chalottsville, and likely a number of future incidents. Either you support AntiFa, or you're a Nazi.
I don't know near enough about them to defend against this characterization.  However, what I've read so far, suggests they have specific targets, rather than "anyone not us" doctrine. 

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #160 on: August 17, 2017, 02:42:26 PM »
Don't worry, they'll get to you sooner or later. History shows that they always do.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #161 on: August 17, 2017, 02:45:37 PM »
I don't know near enough about them to defend against this characterization.  However, what I've read so far, suggests they have specific targets, rather than "anyone not us" doctrine.

It may seem that way if you don't connect the dots. Remember all the threads about university groups demanding things like safe spaces and holding the administration hostage to get it? About how if the President of a school didn't outright submit to their definitions of words and subscribe to their cause they were going to make trouble and get him fired? That is what's meant by "anyone not us." Then there were the incidents of trying to scare people out of attending lectures or talks of various kinds, stealing or breaking signs of protesters they don't agree with, occupying and shouting down designated course lectures they don't agree with, and of course the whole "you're not welcome here" fiasco where they chased away the media. The dots to be connected are between whatever is feeding those groups and whatever is feeding Antifa. The doctrines of both are identical and so is the rhetoric. The only difference is in locale, and to extent the level of aggression they're willing to employ. But both factions (assuming they're even different) employ anger and vitriol as emotional fuel, and have the goal of wanting to stop speech.

If they appear to have specific targets now it may well be because, as others have pointed out, they're getting started with low-hanging fruit. It takes quite a lot of trust in their sense of honor to suppose that they will restrict their application to only extremist targets. In fact we already know this isn't the case, and that people (professors in universities, for example) who don't agree with them are targeted to get them fired or whatever.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2017, 02:52:42 PM by Fenring »

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #162 on: August 17, 2017, 02:50:30 PM »
Quote
His mental health issues are probably to mitigate things even further from there.

They rarely do, mental health defenses almost never work in the US, contrary to tv court dramas.

Quote
As a general matter, these defenses are not raised very often and work even less frequently.  I have represented thousands of people before, many of whom have serious mental illnesses or chemical dependency problems.  I have sought mental health opinions in about 50 cases, with about 10 of them with viable mental health defenses.  In some of those cases, we chose to waive the defense for one strategic reason or another.  That said, I raise these types of defenses more often than most attorneys in the State.  Conservatively, I estimate I have been successful raising these defenses in less than 0.3 percent of the cases I have been involved with.  Simply put, these defenses are not common.

http://www.fremstadlaw.com/mental-health-defenses-in-criminal-cases-how-do-they-work-and-how-often-are-they-employed/


Quote
It is very highly unlikely this vehicular attack was "premeditated" much beyond about 4 minutes before he climbed in his car.

That would meet the burden for premeditation.

Quote
Someone premeditates a crime by considering it before committing it. Premeditation requires that the defendant think out the act, no matter how quickly—it can be as simple deciding to pick up a hammer that is lying nearby and to use it as a weapon.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-premeditated-deliberate-conduct.html

Quote
A crime of passion/rage does not constitute a terrorist attack, no matter how terrifying it may be for those that become involved.

If the goal was to cause fear to the broader group, then it was indeed terrorism.  I doubt the burden of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' could be met.

Letterip whether it is technically terrorism is hard to say. For me the label is not important but what the implication is and how the event is characterized to remove relevent context. Every terrorist attack I have heard of involved premeditated massacre of peaceful citizens. All the facts suggests to me this attack wasn't a premeditated attack but an escalation of violence that was already simmering between two sides. It may be that the persons killed and injured were not engaged in violence at the time they were hit, but their "side" certainly was and was not merely protesting peacefully. In addition, reports are that the anti-protesters vastly outnumbered the protesters, so this was not an even battle.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #163 on: August 17, 2017, 02:51:28 PM »
If the goal was to cause fear to the broader group, then it was indeed terrorism.  I doubt the burden of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' could be met.

I guess the legal definition has to begin and end somewhere, but I still don't agree with any definition of "terrorism" that lacks any greater agenda being expressly stated. Someone doesn't like what you stand for and kills you - that's not terrorism, it's murder, with the motive being hatred. People who submit ultimatums to the government along with the threat of attacks if they don't get XYZ - that is terrorism. Foreign groups that want to force foreign policy to change and state demands - that is terrorism. A guy who hates other citizens and decides to take things into his own hands? That's a whacko. If there is literally no possibility of either capitulating to or refusing a set of demands then I don't see how it's terrorism. I know what the argument could be: the white supremacists have stated their agenda and list of wants, and if any of them decides to do some killing out of their anger then we can automatically assume they were carrying out an implicit threat due to the lack of capitulation to that set of wants. But you know what? Probably almost every single intentional murder carries with it some wants that were not met, but that's not what terrorism means. I don't see how you can be a terrorist in the heat of the moment, it strikes me as being a totally illogical attribution. But I agree with you that it certainly can be premeditated. That is necessary, but not sufficient, for an act to be terrorism in my opinion.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #164 on: August 17, 2017, 03:01:31 PM »
Fenring,

Quote
The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"

The individual was part of a political and social group
Arguably the goal was to intimidate a segment of the civilian population
It was certainly an unlawful use of force

I think that is a reasonably narrow definition that the vasta majority of violence definitely would not meet.

The only part that would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt was if the individuals purpose was "in furtherance of political or social objectives" - which would probably require statements by the individual to prove but is quite reasonable to believe given the time, place, and target of his violence.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #165 on: August 17, 2017, 03:14:01 PM »
The only part that would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt was if the individuals purpose was "in furtherance of political or social objectives" - which would probably require statements by the individual to prove but is quite reasonable to believe given the time, place, and target of his violence.

Heh, yeah, this is the part that's hard to show, and in my view is the entire meat of calling something terrorism. The other clauses are necessary as sort of obvious inclusions, but it being to overtly further a cause is the whole point. If all you're going to look at is that someone is part of a group and intended to do damage to civilians then you're including a ton of things that shouldn't be. For instance, if you're a Democrat and go ahead and gun down some people you've just fit the definition of (a) being "part" of a group and (b) doing harm to civilians. The trouble is there's no obvious link between the group affiliation and the action, and any agenda advanced by doing it. You'd no doubt see an accusation of such an event as being "Democrat terrorism" as totally spurious, so perhaps consider how much more real data you have about the guy in Charlottesville showing the connection. Even if the killer is 'one of them' it does't follow that any stupid thing he does is in their name, done to advance their cause, or furthers some agenda. This is especially true if their group has part of its mandate to hate people. It sort of follows that out of a bunch of people who hate others some few will also be violent and will go off. It doesn't follow from that that the group is a terrorist organization; all it means is that they keep bad company as a matter of course. There are a lot of bad names you could call a group like that, but I don't agree with throwing in other bad names just for the fun of saying how bad they are. Might as well call them pedophiles too, right? Who cares, they're already evil :p

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #166 on: August 17, 2017, 03:19:02 PM »
Quote
It may seem that way if you don't connect the dots. Remember all the threads about university groups demanding things like safe spaces and holding the administration hostage to get it?
In short.  No.  I’ve read of a single incident where this happened.  In it, the “hostage takers” seemed to employ strong language and verbal intimidation as restraint.

Am I wrong here?  Did they physically restrain anyone?  Brandish weapons to that effect?  Assault anyone?

The one I read about / viewed a report on, the dean or president or whatever it was being ‘restrained’ denied he was held hostage at all.

This is part of the problem.  The point here that the main stream media is not reporting on the Antifa, or outlier incidents like this is true.  That however means that exaggeration and mischaracterization is not only possible, but seems frequent. 

I’m not denying what you are saying, but it’s quite easy to be skeptical.  There is no longer a middle ground on trying to remain informed.  You apparently get biased reporting or no reporting at all. 

Maybe you are right, it seems human nature to not relinquish any power you gain.  Maybe after all the KKK and Nazis are gone I’ll start to sound just like Crunch does.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2017, 03:21:05 PM by D.W. »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #167 on: August 17, 2017, 03:31:07 PM »
I’ve read of a single incident where this happened.  In it, the “hostage takers” seemed to employ strong language and verbal intimidation as restraint.

Am I wrong here?  Did they physically restrain anyone?  Brandish weapons to that effect?  Assault anyone?

To be clear I was using the term "hostage" metaphorically, as in, threatening some trouble if their demand was not met. They didn't literally take anyone hostage in the cases I'm referring to, although I do remember the one incident you may be citing where there were literal hostages. The equivalence I'm trying to show isn't in technique but in core beliefs and rhetoric. The university incidents (of which there were many) all belie a belief that anyone who doesn't subscribe to the dogma of the group is effectively an enemy, a racist, part of the problem, etc. That much is clear, that they don't have a middle ground in this sense. While they have restricted themselves to intimidation as a rule (including physical intimidation in many cases) and therefore don't have the same level of aggression as Antifa, I think that fact may have to do with locale, as I said earlier. In a university people of that dogma will use the system itself to get what they want, whereas when it's about fighting Nazis they'll break out the clubs. Maybe I'm wrong and these two groups have nothing to do with each other, but somehow I doubt that.

Quote
This is part of the problem.  The point here that the main stream media is not reporting on the Antifa, or outlier incidents like this is true.  That however means that exaggeration and mischaracterization is not only possible, but seems frequent. 

I’m not denying what you are saying, but it’s quite easy to be skeptical.  There is no longer a middle ground on trying to remain informed.  You apparently get biased reporting or no reporting at all.

I agree with you.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #168 on: August 17, 2017, 03:33:12 PM »
They rarely do, mental health defenses almost never work in the US, contrary to tv court dramas.

Quote
As a general matter, these defenses are not raised very often and work even less frequently.  I have represented thousands of people before, many of whom have serious mental illnesses or chemical dependency problems.  I have sought mental health opinions in about 50 cases, with about 10 of them with viable mental health defenses.  In some of those cases, we chose to waive the defense for one strategic reason or another.  That said, I raise these types of defenses more often than most attorneys in the State.  Conservatively, I estimate I have been successful raising these defenses in less than 0.3 percent of the cases I have been involved with.  Simply put, these defenses are not common.

Not to quibble, because I don't have relevant experience but this math is deceptively off to show they "almost never work."  This guy claims to have represented "thousands of people" and only brought forward 10 with viable mental health defenses (suspect, but okay), but if that's the case he's showed they actually work well.  How so?

He said successful in less than 0.3% of cases.  Let's assume "thousands" means exactly 2000, and that 0.3% rate gets you 6 wins out of 10, or 60% success.  If thousands means more, potentially that number gets higher.

Not frequent sure, not successful, not so clear.

Arguably the goal was to intimidate a segment of the civilian population

I question whether this is true, or provable.  An unprovoked car attack is clearly to intimidate, a rage attack after a day of fighting?  Not at all clear that the goal was to intimidate rather than kill.

Would it sway you if you, for example, found out that in the middle of the attacked group was someone the killer had been in a fight with earlier in the day?

What if the killer's car had been hit prior to the event?  Or if people were throwing things or banging on the car?

What if the killer called his mom and said he was on his way home?

Quote
The only part that would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt was if the individuals purpose was "in furtherance of political or social objectives" - which would probably require statements by the individual to prove but is quite reasonable to believe given the time, place, and target of his violence.

This also goes to motivation.  Not sure it's harder to prove than the prior point.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2017, 03:36:32 PM by Seriati »

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #169 on: August 17, 2017, 05:43:37 PM »
Interesting I don’t totally disagree with what I think Trump is saying once its parsed out...  so for me it appears to be an issue on how the message was communicated. The language used, the choice of language and even body language.   

If Trump Identified the all the groups involved by name that engaged in violence instead of the generic “both sides” are responsible, then I wonder if we would be talking about something else right now. 

Trumps communication style may work for his base but for anyone else the energy it takes to see past his words/style is just to taxing.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #170 on: August 17, 2017, 05:47:25 PM »
Trump's communication style frankly is horrid.  This is yet another in a long line of partially or fully self made problems.  However, on this one the media has been ridiculously over the top in deliberately misconstruing to the point that I'm not sure there  is anything he could have said that would not have been criticized.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #171 on: August 17, 2017, 06:29:44 PM »
Trump's communication style frankly is horrid.  This is yet another in a long line of partially or fully self made problems.  However, on this one the media has been ridiculously over the top in deliberately misconstruing to the point that I'm not sure there  is anything he could have said that would not have been criticized.

That's the ongoing story for the Republican party in general. Most of their policy positions don't translate well into soundbytes, and when they "use shorthand" when talking to "their base" who already have most of that subtext, the media starts inserting their own interpretations into things and start crying all kinds of horrid things.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #172 on: August 17, 2017, 06:52:24 PM »
He could have done one simple thing. He could have gone into his normal attack mode. He doesn't wait 48 hours to criticize a media organization, members of his administration, or anything else. He is using his communications channels to spend more time bemoaning the loss of statues than the loss of life. The level of transparency in his twitter is like his brain unfiltered. What is he thinking about today? Read his twitter. He prides himself on it.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #173 on: August 17, 2017, 07:55:50 PM »
Trump's communication style frankly is horrid.  This is yet another in a long line of partially or fully self made problems.  However, on this one the media has been ridiculously over the top in deliberately misconstruing to the point that I'm not sure there  is anything he could have said that would not have been criticized.

Really? Because while I get what he was trying to say, I have no problem seeing that the way he said it was messed up and spoke volumes about the problems in his own head. If his statement had been along the lines of,

"Today was a tragedy. Every one of us deplore racists, and what they stand for. But in the process of protesting, a very small number of counterprotestors came prepared to use and incite violence. The people they and we look down upon,  whilst vile, still have the same vital protections as the rest of us. Even if they use them to spread filth. So at the end of the day, it was wrong for the counterprotestors to use violence. Most especially when, for the vast majority, all they had to do was speak truth in the face of garbage to gain acceptance.

But the original message was vile. There were a large number of white nationalists attending, and we as a country decided decades ago that we will never stand for that. It is wrong.

A woman died, and others were injured, because a sick man decided the best use of his life was to use it to kill as many people as he could. He was no different then a member of ISIS.

I hope that we can all draw together after this tragedy. I hope that we can band together. But I will say, once and for all, that the United States of America is not defined by race or religion or creed. It is defined by adherence to the principles of the Constitution. And anyone who tries to divide us along those lines is an enemy of our culture and our people."

You think him giving that speech? Even half that speech? Would have met the same vitriol? Come'on.

This *censored* has a public forum that he loves whilst not appreciating the power of. Not in regards to himself, but to our nation.

He could have chided the antfia sihtheads whilst also acknowledging the supreme *censored*ishness of the racists. He didn't. I'm granting him the favor of not assuming he *chose* to due to his age, but it is what it is. You had a weekend of bullsiht between racists and counterprotestors and his response was "Kid's gonna be kids. Be nice kids."

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #174 on: August 18, 2017, 12:26:18 AM »
Yep.  There aren't "two sides".  Antifa doesn't represent normal liberal demonstrators who made up the majority of counter-protesters.  And their tactics HAVE been repeatedly disavowed by groups that aren't antifa. 

Even so, antifa's tactics are deplorable but their aims aren't. 

It's wrong to:
1) equate brawling with vehicular homicide
2) equate violent antifascism with violent neo-Nazi white nationalism.  The violence is wrong but the ideological endgame is vastly different.
3) equate antifa with one of two sides.  Nope.  The left in general doesn't embrace antifa, antifa doesn't represent them, The Left can't control them, etc.  It's also wrong to equate the right in general with the alt-right.
4) ignore the context and impact of the actions of various factions

Also, Fenring, before I hurry up and forget my password again, I want to point out that your definition of terrorism is stupid.  You can figure out the implicit political demands in the alt-right's demonstration in Charlottesville.  You can do it.  You don't have to play dumb about what they want, and the symbolism of their torches.  Don't be so determined to stake out the centrist position that you end up acting dumb like that.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #175 on: August 18, 2017, 03:03:00 AM »
It's wrong to:
1) equate brawling with vehicular homicide

I don't think we did.

Quote
2) equate violent antifascism with violent neo-Nazi white nationalism.  The violence is wrong but the ideological endgame is vastly different.

Are you quite sure you know what their ideological endgame is? I'm not sure we're on the same page about that. Yes, the ideologies between the neo-Nazis and Antifa are different. But because one may be worse than the other doesn't mean we have to start quantifying who's worse. That's a false game the press gives us, that we have to decide which is worse and therefore which to side with. We can squarely condemn them both without needing to hedge.
 
Quote
3) equate antifa with one of two sides.  Nope.  The left in general doesn't embrace antifa, antifa doesn't represent them, The Left can't control them, etc.  It's also wrong to equate the right in general with the alt-right.

This point is a fair one, but I think somewhat incorrect. The right surely doesn't identify with the neo-Nazis, as Seriati mentioned, but I do think that part of the left at least embraces the principles of Antifa, if not their manners.

Quote
Also, Fenring, before I hurry up and forget my password again, I want to point out that your definition of terrorism is stupid.  You can figure out the implicit political demands in the alt-right's demonstration in Charlottesville.  You can do it.  You don't have to play dumb about what they want, and the symbolism of their torches.  Don't be so determined to stake out the centrist position that you end up acting dumb like that.

As I mentioned to LR, it's not sound to cite their list of wants and to then argue that if any one of them does violence it should automatically be interpreted as retaliation for the government (or whoever) having failed to deliver on those wants. No, it's no mystery what their wants are. But you can't go from that to concluding that the wants are actually an ultimatum carried with a threat of attack, and furthermore to conclude that a lone attacker was acting specifically on behalf of the group's list of demands. That's a tough chain of inference to show, and I'm not just being picky when I say that. You really can't have a clue what the motive of the killer was, at least not yet. Maybe it was terrorism; it's not impossible. However we'd need to learn that a credible threat was made and that his attack was a deliberate follow-up to it. It doesn't make sense to just say "Well they're Nazis so of course there's a threat of attack." You might make that argument if they had a history of attacks in America recently, but I don't think they do.

I'm not playing dumb, I'm just trying to use words how they actually mean. I see no purpose in using the term "terrorism" to replace "very bad action". There's no need to use particularly strong labels just to emphasize how bad an action or group is, when there are plenty of other labels to use to get the point across. It's just playing into a meme of late wherein the press wants to dress all sorts of public crimes as terrorism because that's a strong buzzword. Don't be so determined to use the terms they tell you to just because it gets them ratings!
« Last Edit: August 18, 2017, 03:06:52 AM by Fenring »

godsblackestcrow

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #176 on: August 18, 2017, 03:14:21 AM »
...it's also incorrect to assert that "antifa" is a specific organization, or that anti-fascists homogeneously utilize or advocate the use of proactive violence.

Many or most "antifa" are anarchists--they aren't marching with orders, because the kind doesn't follow rules.

These cats clutter in glarings, they don't herd the way sheep do.

Meanwhile, murders are conspired of crows...

godsblackestcrow

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #177 on: August 18, 2017, 03:24:01 AM »
Quote
I'm not playing dumb
...then don't be dumb?
Quote
The right surely doesn't identify with the neo-Nazis, as Seriati mentioned, but I do think that part of the left at least embraces the principles of Antifa, if not their manners.
This is (IMO) the problem in this particular echo chamber of late. Seriati is smarter than most of you--so you all follow along with his biased point of view.

He prints pure spin, and y'all's heads spin right along with what you can't see through.

GodsBlackestCrow: Please see your email. -OrneryMod
« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 04:13:29 PM by OrneryMod »

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #178 on: August 18, 2017, 03:30:33 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/teacher-accused-punching-neo-nazi-212608203.html#mycomments

“They are organizing to attack and kill us,” she said at the time, according to Al Jazeera. “So we have a right to self-defense. ... That is why we have to shut them down by any means necessary.”

Like the Bush pre-emptive strike doctrine. This is the heart of the matter right here. The Supreme Court has said the Nazis have the Constitutionally protected First Amendment right to peacefully demonstrate. Many on the left are saying no they don't. Their free speech will be met with our fists.

And the local politicians though they can't legally stop the Nazi marches because they'd lose the predictable lawsuit can just sit back and not protect them and then use the issue of violence that they let happen as the rationale to shut down future Constitutionally protected exercises in free speech.

I can kind of see where the left is coming from if I give things just one twist. What if ISIS sympathizers wanted to hold a rally and demonstration. Is that Constitutionally protected also? I would say no because we are currently at war with ISIS. So what's the difference? Most of us think the war with the Nazis ended decades ago but for many on the left with plenty of justification the war with the Nazis continues even now.

Edited to add: This is just a train of thought for a moment in time and eventually I'll probably come back around to the importance of the Constitution and free speech being most important for the speech we disagree with but I just thought it would be interesting to wonder how far that goes and if it would apply to ISIS too.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2017, 03:33:42 AM by cherrypoptart »

godsblackestcrow

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #179 on: August 18, 2017, 03:38:08 AM »
Quote
I don't mean "twist words" for you.
Sure you do.

You do nothing but twist words to support your prepossessed point of view.

You're good at it, too.
Quote
Anit-fa is a fascist organization
No it isn't. It's not an organization at all.

You could call it a movement and speak wholly true, but that wouldn't fit your scheme as well, so that's not what you do.

You could suggest that some members of the movement utilize tactics that resemble those of fascism, but it still wouldn't make the anti-fascist movement fascist--so again, you twist words to tangle your series of lies into half-truth.
Quote
I'm sorry you're falling for a transparent propaganda ploy.
I'm not.

If you weren't so busy ordering your reality into the same sequence you always use, you'd have figured out that the problem you sometimes have following my meaning follows from the fact that I see right through you.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2017, 03:46:23 AM by godsblackestcrow »

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #180 on: August 18, 2017, 06:40:05 AM »
That you Kenmeer?

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #181 on: August 18, 2017, 09:10:06 AM »
It's wrong to:
1) equate brawling with vehicular homicide

It's also wrong to fixate on the vehicular homicide and completely white-wash away the brawling and everything else associated with that.

I don't think anyone in here has taken the stance that the vehicular homicide was "OK." In fact, I think I'm the only person who even came remotely close to anything like that when I went into what that act may qualify as under existing law given the circumstances. You're engaging in logical fallacy here, the attack with the car was bad, everybody agrees with that. Nothing much to really discuss there.

What is of "more interest" to discuss are the events that lead up to that particular event, because in the large context of events over the past year, it is part of a much larger and growing trend. Which is what most of us have been trying to discuss, but some people in here seem to want to fixate on introducing the logical fallacy of introducing "but this guy attacked people with a car!" To be honest, the Car attack is a side-issue and distraction from that, and in all honesty, most of my posts on this subject would probably be best read in the context of "the car attack didn't happen" unless I'm actually directly addressing it, because it isn't really relevant to what I've been talking about beyond it being something that will be used to justify retaliation from AntiFa circles.

The vehicular homicide at the end of the long chain of events does not justify or in any way excuse any of the actions undertaken by people on "the other side" of that motorists wrath earlier in that same day. However, it sure does seem that you and some others are bound and determined to make it do so.

Quote
2) equate violent antifascism with violent neo-Nazi white nationalism.  The violence is wrong but the ideological endgame is vastly different.

Not really. Both have authoritarian end games, just the "measuring stick" used is different, but even then not so much.

One will pass judgement based on whether or not you're White.
The other will pass judgement based on how they perceive your views to be in regards to non-White races.

Quote
3) equate antifa with one of two sides.  Nope.  The left in general doesn't embrace antifa, antifa doesn't represent them, The Left can't control them, etc.  It's also wrong to equate the right in general with the alt-right.

The left in general is probably much like a number of people in this forum were. They're largely oblivious to it even existing at this point, because the major media outlets are doing a very good job of burying their existence. Your other issue is that while "the left" may not support the viiolent actions undertaken by antiFa, there is a LOT more agreement between your typical SJW or just "generic hard-core Democrat" and an avid member of AntiFa than there is between a "generic Republican" and a Neo-Nazi.

So at least in the game of false equivalence, we have a lot more grounds to equate AntiFa with the Democrats/"Liberals" than exists in respect to painting Republicans with the "Racist" moniker.

The generic Republican's interest in regards to race relations basically boils down to "equal rights, not special rights." The Racists only nominally support "equal rights" at present because it's the logical "next step" in the progression away from the present system of "special rights" that either exist at present,  or have major efforts underway to implement.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #182 on: August 18, 2017, 09:23:07 AM »
Quote
The right surely doesn't identify with the neo-Nazis, as Seriati mentioned, but I do think that part of the left at least embraces the principles of Antifa, if not their manners.
This is (IMO) the problem in this particular echo chamber of late. Seriati is smarter than most of you--so you all follow along with his biased point of view.

No, he's not "following along" with Seriati, he's simply point out the argument has already been presented, so there shouldn't be much need to reiterate it.

Just because the Racists at present tend to identify with Republicans more than they do with Democrats doesn't therefore mean that all Republicans are racists.

Much like as was just pointed out, just because AntiFa currently tends to identify with the Democratic Party more than it does with the Republican Party, that doesn't mean everybody who identifies as a Democrat is a member and supporter of AntiFa.

Why is this particularly hard to grasp?

Of course, this also gets to be even more "fun" when you do bother to get into "the weeds" with regards to a lot of those "Republican supporting supremacist groups" and what their agendas actually are. Where all things considered, once you remove the racist portions from their agendas, they're going to split one of two ways: They're either cults of personality and someone was building a personal fiefdom, or they're actually left-wing (Socialist/Communistic) organizations that happen to currently be "single issue voters" in regards to racial issues at this time--which makes them vote Republican for now because that gets them closer to their racial endgame than the voting Democrat option does.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #183 on: August 18, 2017, 09:28:43 AM »
You could suggest that some members of the movement utilize tactics that resemble those of fascism, but it still wouldn't make the anti-fascist movement fascist--so again, you twist words to tangle your series of lies into half-truth.

By that standard, who exactly are the fascists they're even being "anti-fascist" towards? Just have to ask as I sit here wondering about the mental hoops and contortions you had to make in order for this to make sense.

edit: And yes, drawing a picture might help.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #184 on: August 18, 2017, 09:41:18 AM »
...it's also incorrect to assert that "antifa" is a specific organization, or that anti-fascists homogeneously utilize or advocate the use of proactive violence.

Many or most "antifa" are anarchists--they aren't marching with orders, because the kind doesn't follow rules.

This is a reasonable point of specification. It might well be more appropriate to call Antifa a dis-organization, rather than an organization. They may well have no central command structure, as it were. However in practice they have the mentality and dynamic of a mob, and while mobs aren't organized they can still be unified. That being said you shouldn't discount the power of the so-called "social media guru" in this. There are people whose specialty is snowballing viral posts and social media frenzies, and when an event like this counter-protest begins to pick up steam I don't think it's fair at all to claim there was no central instigator whipping up support. That isn't quite the same as calling them an organization, where each member recognizes the organizational structure, but that doesn't also mean they are each independently-minded citizens that coincidentally happened to all converge at the same place at the same time. In fact, from what I can see the people who seem to fit under the moniker of "Antifa" seem not to have license to be independent-minded at all, which would be the premiere trait you'd find in anarchists. On the contrary, they subscribe to very rigid dogmas. I've been to anarchist conventions and spoken with many, and let's just say the Antifa crowd are about as far from that as you can get. They are quite far on the authoritarian scale, and possibly further away from being anarchists than any other identifiable group in America I can think of.

This is (IMO) the problem in this particular echo chamber of late. Seriati is smarter than most of you--so you all follow along with his biased point of view.

Wait, so you actually think there is some echo chamber sounding in here? Can you name "the opinion" of that echo chamber that "we all" seem to follow along? It's funny you call Seriati's view biased when you're insisting that people carrying the Soviet flag are really anarchists and can't be labeled as being part of a clear group.

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #185 on: August 18, 2017, 09:54:02 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/teacher-accused-punching-neo-nazi-212608203.html#mycomments

“They are organizing to attack and kill us,” she said at the time, according to Al Jazeera. “So we have a right to self-defense. ... That is why we have to shut them down by any means necessary.”

Like the Bush pre-emptive strike doctrine. This is the heart of the matter right here. The Supreme Court has said the Nazis have the Constitutionally protected First Amendment right to peacefully demonstrate. Many on the left are saying no they don't. Their free speech will be met with our fists.

And the local politicians though they can't legally stop the Nazi marches because they'd lose the predictable lawsuit can just sit back and not protect them and then use the issue of violence that they let happen as the rationale to shut down future Constitutionally protected exercises in free speech.

I can kind of see where the left is coming from if I give things just one twist. What if ISIS sympathizers wanted to hold a rally and demonstration. Is that Constitutionally protected also? I would say no because we are currently at war with ISIS. So what's the difference? Most of us think the war with the Nazis ended decades ago but for many on the left with plenty of justification the war with the Nazis continues even now.

Edited to add: This is just a train of thought for a moment in time and eventually I'll probably come back around to the importance of the Constitution and free speech being most important for the speech we disagree with but I just thought it would be interesting to wonder how far that goes and if it would apply to ISIS too.
An ISIS rally would be protected by the First Amendment provided they avoided outright illegal speech (like uttering threats).

I think there are a number of different groups calling themselves or being called Antifa. I'm pretty sure the antifa that developed from Punks defending their spaces against Nazis isn't really the same group that's rioting against Ann Coulter. Nor do I think people who punch Nazis as a pastime (and to keep those Nazis away from people they might harm) are out to create an authoritarian left-wing state. Nor are they cypto-Stalinists.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #186 on: August 18, 2017, 09:55:18 AM »
Yep.  There aren't "two sides".  Antifa doesn't represent normal liberal demonstrators who made up the majority of counter-protesters.

I agree and disagree.  There shouldn't have been "two sides" in the way Trump said, with each bearing blame.  There were two sides present, but to the average American nothing about the racist/Nazi side deserves anything but criticism.  Whereas the counterprotesters, generally deserve our praise and thanks for going out and confronting the hate filled speech of the racists and Nazis.

The anti-fa activists do not deserve our praise.  Whether you believe they have good intentions (and I don't) or not, their chosen means label them as anti-American, anti-freedom and anti-civil rights.  There is no permitted recourse to violence in our society, we have laws and punishments that exist to control those who believe have violated them and are therefore due punishment.  The recourse within a democratic society is to try and convince the populace to make those laws tougher not to take matters into your own hands.

Trump was flat wrong to claim there were two "sides" sharing blame, when one side is 100% wrong, and the vast majority on the other is 100% correct, but the latter side has a group or ally that is also wrong.  However, your claim is also tough to parse, because the media is near 100% wrong in how they have failed to identify and pull out the anti-fa fascists from the hiding ground of the legitimate protesters.  So long as anti-fa is on "our side" that side is also endorsing wrong.

Quote
And their tactics HAVE been repeatedly disavowed by groups that aren't antifa.

Softly.  Did the media report this as violent anarchists fought violent nazis while innocent counter protesters looked on?  Or did they report it as 2 sides?  We already know the answer.   

Quote
Even so, antifa's tactics are deplorable but their aims aren't.

What isn't wrong about the "aim" of violent suppression of speech?  What isn't wrong about using violence to take away the civil, human and constitutional rights of other people?   

Quote
It's wrong to:
1) equate brawling with vehicular homicide

Agreed.  Do you note how people have been calling for severe consequences for the vehicular homicide, including some for the death penalty.  Meanwhile, we haven't waited to hear anything about why he did it or the specific facts leading up to it (as opposed to the general facts and background).

Quote
2) equate violent antifascism with violent neo-Nazi white nationalism.  The violence is wrong but the ideological endgame is vastly different.

They're both fascists, and more alike than different.  I'm completely willing to concede that for the neo-Nazi's even the non-violent ones are completely wrong.  But did the people killed by Stalin really think as they died, "at least they aren't Nazis"?

This is a very dangerous ideology.  You're really arguing that much good can come from evil.  If you're going there there's a lot of neo-cons that'd like your support on taking out some bad regimes, and whole bunch of ends justifying the means people who can show great results from severe violations of the rights of  'a few' people who'd like your vote.

Quote
3) equate antifa with one of two sides.  Nope.  The left in general doesn't embrace antifa, antifa doesn't represent them, The Left can't control them, etc.  It's also wrong to equate the right in general with the alt-right.

If these guys really represent the Alt Right, it's more wrong to equate them with the right, than it is to equate antifa with the left.

Quote
4) ignore the context and impact of the actions of various factions

Agreed.  I fully praise the non-violent counter protesters.  I think the ACLU once again came out pretty well.

I think the local and state government should face charges and/or impeachment for allowing the situation.  The police maybe too.

The Nazis and Racists are still always wrong in what they believe, still entitled to say it.  Anti-fa is still fascist and still wrong to think they have the right to take away others rights, and dangerously they seem to be gaining support.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #187 on: August 18, 2017, 09:55:51 AM »
This is a reasonable point of specification. It might well be more appropriate to call Antifa a dis-organization, rather than an organization. They may well have no central command structure, as it were. However in practice they have the mentality and dynamic of a mob, and while mobs aren't organized they can still be unified. That being said you shouldn't discount the power of the so-called "social media guru" in this. There are people whose specialty is snowballing viral posts and social media frenzies, and when an event like this counter-protest begins to pick up steam I don't think it's fair at all to claim there was no central instigator whipping up support. That isn't quite the same as calling them an organization, where each member recognizes the organizational structure, but that doesn't also mean they are each independently-minded citizens that coincidentally happened to all converge at the same place at the same time.

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." You have something of a core group that pushes out initiatives and directives, and you let "the crowd" take care of the rest. Further, this also allows "interested parties" to wash their hands of things and claim "total deniability" as to their involvement in it. Yes, it does totally and completely help further their own objectives, it just happened to be a total and complete coincidence that AntiFa happened to turn up and take things in a direction that they found to be "most unfortunate."

Quote
In fact, from what I can see the people who seem to fit under the moniker of "Antifa" seem not to have license to be independent-minded at all, which would be the premiere trait you'd find in anarchists. On the contrary, they subscribe to very rigid dogmas. I've been to anarchist conventions and spoken with many, and let's just say the Antifa crowd are about as far from that as you can get. They are quite far on the authoritarian scale, and possibly further away from being anarchists than any other identifiable group in America I can think of.

BUT! .... They're using Anarchist tactics and methodologies, that must mean they're anarchists, right?

Or wait, isn't there a communist play book that stipulates one of the ways to bring about the glorious revolution is to tear down the existing system in whole, and that as a consequence, a period of total and complete anarchy may be inevitable? Huh. Go figure.

There is a reason why many people have linked Anarchists with Socialists in the past. Although I too will readily agree there are plenty of Anarchists out there who are anything but Socialists. That said, for a number of Socialists, Anarchy is little more than a means to an end, a Socialist endgame. And yeah, most SJW's and AntiFa types are sheep in almost the purest sense of the term. They're following the herd, bleeting away as they do so.

Quote
Wait, so you actually think there is some echo chamber sounding in here? Can you name "the opinion" of that echo chamber that "we all" seem to follow along? It's funny you call Seriati's view biased when you're insisting that people carrying the Soviet flag are really anarchists and can't be labeled as being part of a clear group.

The flag of the German Communist Party, circa 1930, IIRC, not the Soviet Flag, unless you're aware of something I'm not?

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #188 on: August 18, 2017, 10:00:42 AM »

If the goal was to cause fear to the broader group, then it was indeed terrorism.  I doubt the burden of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' could be met.

Under the wide definition, this would be correct.  You can cast the net wider and say that if the Charger Attack was simply done for political reasons it can be labeled terrorism. 

The problem I see is figuring out the exact motive, and how hard that can be.  Was his intent at the time to actually cause fear and terror in a wide group, or just actually kill some of them?  The same can be applied to the San Bernardino attack.  Maybe he did decide to make the attack 4 minutes before he made it.  But as a plan, it's pretty rotten.  What was his escape plan?  Just drive away?  He apparently did not get very far.  Sure, premeditation does not require a good plan, but it also goes to the guy's state of mind and differentiates him from a guy like McVeigh or the Unibomber or the IRA.  You could argue that suicide attack terrorism means that an escape plan is not required.  But these suicide attacks are almost always carried out by particular cultures that elevate such attacks to "holiness".  I'm unsure if the Nazis and White Nationalists are beginning to espouse suicide attacks, or even no-escape attacks. 

None of these are solid arguments that the Charger Attack was not terrorism under the wide definition.  But as I have pointed out, the wide definition creates problems.  Was the Kennedy Assassination terrorism?  It was not called that at the time.  It was unnecessary.  But under the wide definition it probably qualifies. 

I'm not an expert on the history of terrorism, but I believe the word was first used to describe violent attacks carried out and espoused by entire groups. A conspiracy and organization dedicated to political violence.  The Jacobin Club.  The Irish Republican Brotherhood and later the IRA.  The Sons of Liberty could basically qualify, though they were primarily dedicated to vandalism.  But then we started applying the word to attackers that may have been radicalized by a group or organization, but really did not have any contact or planning with that organization.  Church Attacks, the Ballpark Assassination Attempt, the Unibomber, San Bernardino.  Part of this was to, I feel, equate these attacks with the attacks carried out by actual terrorist organizations. 

I have no problem saying that they are all evil, but they are different in certain ways.  It should be obvious that a group like AQ is far more dangerous than lone assassins or lone bombers.  The next most dangerous terrorist attack after 9/11 was the Oklahoma City Bombing.  You can see that there was a conspiracy involving many people, and a dedicated plan, just like 9/11.  These attacks are different in danger and risk to everyone than church shootings and Charger attacks.  I feel we're so desperate to equate evil to evil that we latch on the the most dangerous evil we can imagine and want to spread it as a way of calling it evil. 

If indeed the KKK or White Nationalists are planning or espousing political violence, including murders, as a means of terrorizing and intimidation, then I have no problem labeling them as Terrorists.  Historically the KKK is obviously a terrorist organization.  But I have seen no widespread, organized attacks made by the KKK or White Nationalists.  If they are planning and espousing violence, where is the violence?  Charlottesville is a difficult point to use as proof because it's hard to say how the violence started, or whether it was planned ahead of time. 

That is not to say that people seem to have a great deal of anxiety over the KKK and White Nationalists.  Whether this anxiety is misplaced, and whether all feelings are validated is a separate debate, but it may be part of the reason that people see the White Nationalists and Neo-Nazis as terrorists.  But honestly, in today's Age of Anxiety, I feel that certain degrees of panic are uncalled for.  Honestly, while I can't say it disgusts me, I can say that I find certain degrees of fear and anxiety to be signs of lack of character.  I don't expect everyone to be a Saint or hero, but I feel that when such anxiety is supported it is not good for the National Character.  If one of the chief arguments against the Invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were that the public was motivated to support the invasions by undue fear of terrorism, then you can see where the problem can arise.  The same could be said for opposition to taking in Muslim refugees from Syria. 

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #189 on: August 18, 2017, 10:07:12 AM »
If indeed the KKK or White Nationalists are planning or espousing political violence, including murders, as a means of terrorizing and intimidation, then I have no problem labeling them as Terrorists.  Historically the KKK is obviously a terrorist organization.  But I have seen no widespread, organized attacks made by the KKK or White Nationalists.  If they are planning and espousing violence, where is the violence?  Charlottesville is a difficult point to use as proof because it's hard to say how the violence started, or whether it was planned ahead of time. 

At the moment, they probably don't feel the need to engage in political violence, they're doing way better politically than they have in decades. Organized terrorism would just undo their recent gains.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #190 on: August 18, 2017, 10:19:11 AM »
If indeed the KKK or White Nationalists are planning or espousing political violence, including murders, as a means of terrorizing and intimidation, then I have no problem labeling them as Terrorists.  Historically the KKK is obviously a terrorist organization.  But I have seen no widespread, organized attacks made by the KKK or White Nationalists.  If they are planning and espousing violence, where is the violence?  Charlottesville is a difficult point to use as proof because it's hard to say how the violence started, or whether it was planned ahead of time. 

At the moment, they probably don't feel the need to engage in political violence, they're doing way better politically than they have in decades. Organized terrorism would just undo their recent gains.

Well, that and they know the system in general would need to be almost falling apart before they could do anything. If the Democrats are in power, they'd have their posterior nailed to a wall in next to no time at all. The Republicans aren't much better for them, even under Trump, as the Republicans will go after them too because most Republicans don't like racists either, and for the (more than a) few racist Republicans in power, they'll follow suit as a matter of course to prove how "not racist" they are and that they can be tough of crime.

The KKK and Neo-Nazis really are toothless critter, even their own supporters can't provide them with any meaningful legal cover for overt acts. We're at a significant remove from the 1960's and earlier where such activities could be easily buried on their behalf. Although AntiFa seems to be determined to demonstrate how much that may not be entirely true, by doing so themselves.

This also ignores the matter that most of those supremacist groups are probably monitored by various government agencies and covertly infiltrated on a fairly routine basis(probably a decent training/proving ground for rookies) looking for something to nail them with. If they ever did try something on any kind of larger scale, chances are good the government would step in and stop it before it reaches completion all things considered.  It certainly seems to be the track record post-OKC.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2017, 10:25:47 AM by TheDeamon »

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #191 on: August 18, 2017, 10:37:57 AM »
Quote
At the moment, they probably don't feel the need to engage in political violence, they're doing way better politically than they have in decades. Organized terrorism would just undo their recent gains.

These organisations have learned that if they engage in violence it works against their purposes but if they provoke violence it works for them. The goal is to inflame a race war.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #192 on: August 18, 2017, 10:40:54 AM »
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!

Quote
BUT! .... They're using Anarchist tactics and methodologies, that must mean they're anarchists, right?

I understood godsblackestcrow to be using the term "anarchist" to mean political/social anarchism, not "agents of chaos" which is the popular use of the term. I was using it in the political sense as well; most anarchists are anti-violence.
 
Quote
The flag of the German Communist Party, circa 1930, IIRC, not the Soviet Flag, unless you're aware of something I'm not?

Typo on my part. Communist, yes. Although despite my error I have little doubt the German communists were backed by Russia anyhow.

Honestly, while I can't say it disgusts me, I can say that I find certain degrees of fear and anxiety to be signs of lack of character.  I don't expect everyone to be a Saint or hero, but I feel that when such anxiety is supported it is not good for the National Character.

The Ancient Greeks would argue that one's leaders should be inculcating virtue into the people. I think we can at least say they affect traits of the public, even if not always virtues. Fear and anxiety are peddled by media orgs to make money, and by the government to give it license to do whatever it wants. I agree with you about the characterization of fear and anxiety, however my inclination is to describe people feeling like this as victims rather than as weak. Many people are, in kind of a good way, susceptible to what they're subjected to, and when they're manipulated by interested parties my furrowed brow turns towards them. Should it be any surprise that the nation is more divided than ever in this age of mind games?

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #193 on: August 18, 2017, 11:10:42 AM »
If indeed the KKK or White Nationalists are planning or espousing political violence, including murders, as a means of terrorizing and intimidation, then I have no problem labeling them as Terrorists.  Historically the KKK is obviously a terrorist organization.  But I have seen no widespread, organized attacks made by the KKK or White Nationalists.  If they are planning and espousing violence, where is the violence?  Charlottesville is a difficult point to use as proof because it's hard to say how the violence started, or whether it was planned ahead of time. 

At the moment, they probably don't feel the need to engage in political violence, they're doing way better politically than they have in decades. Organized terrorism would just undo their recent gains.

I think you are correct.  I think that the modern White Nationalists, Neo-Nazis, and KKK are basically using white identity politics and at their core is white victimhood. They grow more powerful the more they are able to push this narrative. 

I think this is why it's so important for more people on the left, leaders and politicians, to disavow Antifa.  They're not helping.  The KKK was previously destroyed by the FBI and by MLK and the SCLC.  It was obvious then who the victims where, to the entire country.  Despite the fact that the KKK and Nazis are still very small, it's true that they seem to be growing, and I understand that this is a cause for concern.  The solution is to undercut their recruitment arguments.  This means attacking identity politics as a whole, which the left has probably been too cozy with over the past 8 years.  Otherwise these people are going to remain swing voters that go for non-traditional Republicans like Trump.  And as long as Trump is around, they will feel emboldened. 

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #194 on: August 18, 2017, 11:20:44 AM »

The Ancient Greeks would argue that one's leaders should be inculcating virtue into the people. I think we can at least say they affect traits of the public, even if not always virtues. Fear and anxiety are peddled by media orgs to make money, and by the government to give it license to do whatever it wants. I agree with you about the characterization of fear and anxiety, however my inclination is to describe people feeling like this as victims rather than as weak. Many people are, in kind of a good way, susceptible to what they're subjected to, and when they're manipulated by interested parties my furrowed brow turns towards them. Should it be any surprise that the nation is more divided than ever in this age of mind games?

This is beautiful.  For reference, see Plato's Republic or Aristotle's Politics.  I don't believe it's necessarily's the government's job to encourage virtue in the public, particularly through law, but I do believe that this is the very definition of a good political leader.  We need more of "The only thing we need to fear, is fear itself", rather than panic mongering in the media or in particular organizations that are strengthened due to fear.  See North Korea.  America has been, and should be, a nation that espouses Courage, as a national virtue, as well as Justice, and in particularly in opposition to the modern Virtue of Safety.  It is imperative to what the Greeks would call the soul of the State, and I think it is very pertinent today.  It can be applied as well to the Immigration debate and to the Free Trade debate.  It should be applied to our foreign policy, in opposition to realpolitik.  There are always two sides.  "Anima sano in corpre sano" is the way the Romans put it.  In this case, there should always be balance between the soul of the nation, and the body of the nation, just as it is applied to the personal body and mind. 

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #195 on: August 18, 2017, 11:53:12 AM »
I think someone (jasonr?) mentioned this before, but I just came across an article about the cancelled event in Toronto:

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/35637/

Yes, that's right, an event called "The Stifling of Free Speech on University Campuses" was cancelled due to a counter-protest by a group called "No Fascists in Our City!" Let that irony sink in.

Quote
The main opposition to the event was a counter protest called “No Fascists in Our City!” Their Facebook page states that “considering the rise of Nationalism here and abroad we need to show these people and their guests that we will not tolerate their backward nonsense in our city.”

[...]

The “no fascists” Facebook page was updated after the cancellation announcement to add: “Everyone!!! We got this shut down! Let’s CELEBRATE! And then we’re still going to rally because the fight is not over. Stay tuned for further updates as we learn more. The people united will never be defeated!”

In an email to the Post, Ryerson spokesman Michael Forbes said the event was shut down because campus officials could not keep everyone safe.

Oh yeah, the Antifa crown will definitely only restrict themselves to fascists  ::) Except that anyone who disagrees with them is a 'fascist.'

slipstick

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #196 on: August 18, 2017, 12:16:26 PM »
Rereading the Charlottsville (sic) comments, TheDrake got my attention with his opinion of CBS coverage of the helicopter crash:

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

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

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.


NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #197 on: August 18, 2017, 12:20:48 PM »
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.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #198 on: August 18, 2017, 01:13:54 PM »
Lee didn't want a statue.

Quote
In his writings, Lee cited multiple reasons for opposing such monuments, questioning the cost of a potential Stonewall Jackson monument, for example. But underlying it all was one rationale: That the war had ended, and the South needed to move on and avoid more upheaval.

“As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated,” Lee wrote of an 1866 proposal, “my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; [and] of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour.”

The retired Confederate leader, a West Point graduate, was influenced by his knowledge of history.

“Lee believed countries that erased visible signs of civil war recovered from conflicts quicker,” Horn said. “He was worried that by keeping these symbols alive, it would keep the divisions alive.”

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Charlottsville
« Reply #199 on: August 18, 2017, 01:25:57 PM »

Not to quibble, because I don't have relevant experience but this math is deceptively off to show they "almost never work."  This guy claims to have represented "thousands of people" and only brought forward 10 with viable mental health defenses (suspect, but okay), but if that's the case he's showed they actually work well.

I'm not sure that the .3% is derive from his own work or what source he used or if he moved a decimal place.

Here is a more reasonable number (26%) based on "when it is ran".

Quote
The facts suggest otherwise. Contrary to popular belief, the insanity defense is used in fewer than 1 percent of all cases and only has about a 26 percent success rate. In 90 percent of the successful claims, the defendants had been previously diagnosed with mental illness. According to the American Psychiatric Association, defendants acquitted by reason of insanity are likely to spend as much if not more time incarcerated in a psychiatric institution as they would have had they had gone to prison for the same crime.

Also of note,

Quote
Indeed, Arizona is one of the states that has made it virtually impossible to advance a meaningful insanity defense at all, partly out of a broad public sense that mental-health experts are all paid charlatans, and because of the widespread belief that every criminal tries to "get off" by pretending to be insane.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/01/the_insanity_defense.html

The perception of law via TV dramas gives all sorts of false impressions to the the public. Forensics, cases being 'thrown out on a technicality', etc.

Anywho - my whole point is that even for those with a clear and diagnosed mental illness, it is rare to be ran (due to lack of success and many states making it essentially impossible to run; and the perception issue above) and when ran it has pretty low success.

Quote
I question whether this is true, or provable.  An unprovoked car attack is clearly to intimidate, a rage attack after a day of fighting?  Not at all clear that the goal was to intimidate rather than kill.

Killing someone is by far the most effective form of intimidation.

Quote
Would it sway you if you, for example, found out that in the middle of the attacked group was someone the killer had been in a fight with earlier in the day?

What if the killer's car had been hit prior to the event?  Or if people were throwing things or banging on the car?

What if the killer called his mom and said he was on his way home?

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.