|Community >> View Post|
Subj: Re: Let me get a few things straight here...
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 at 09:22:10 pm EDT (Viewed 272 times)
Reply Subj: Let me get a few things straight here...
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 12:14:02 pm EDT (Viewed 299 times)
Quote:I am going to go through the points here that I see. You replied to many others but going back to the original point and some of the things you are saying here. As in part at least you are missing why people are upset totally.
Quote:You are utterly accepting of the Neo-Nazi's and the like showing up and marching, despite having no permits for doing so at that point in time.
Yes. I am okay with anyone speaking their opinion in public. I believe in free speech for *all* speech, not just for speech I agree with.
Quote:They had torches and weapons at that point. They surrounded a group of counter protesters at the Lee statue. The counter protesters were maced, beaten and even sprayed with lighter fluid. That happened. Any fighting back there was self defense. Neither side had a permit for this. Both sides had permits for Saturday.
I'm not doubting that happened. I never said only Antifa was to blame. Nor did I ever say that none of the fighting was started by the nazi group.
Quote:Your article itself said that the counter protesters were mixed in terms of ideology with most being non-violent but anti-Nazi etc. That there were some that were violent is fair, but to pretend there is a moral equivalency is false.
Why is making an equivalency false? Other than repeating "Nazis!", explain why the cases of violence started by Antifa is not as bad. It is a case of people using violence to shut down free speech. It was the tactics used by real nazis in Germany. Inflicting violence upon someone because you disagree with their opinion is as anti-American as anything else.
I don't believe in "thought crime". I believe violence is wrong against anyone not causing violence on others. I have no problem believing in some cases Antifa's violence was to protect themselves against violence started by the nazi group. But by their own admission, they also started some of the violence. This is the same group that was throwing rocks and urine at police in Boston a few days later. I have a hard time granting them any moral superiority.
Quote:I mean I notice only that you make this sort of argument against certain groups, which I find interesting.
Please explain further. If you are accusing me of sympathy to the nazi group, then say so. Otherwise your vague statement of finding my statements "interesting" needs to be clarified.
Trump lied his butt off in those press conferences and at the least made himself come off as somebody who is saying the two sides were equal. When they were not by any account. You ignore that the far right side showed up heavily armed with guns, riot gear and clubs and there are countless examples of them doing harm.
This is absolutely false. I have never ignored that the nazi group showed up armed. You are either trying to purposefully misstate my past posts, or you have not been paying attention. I said multiple times that both sides that both sides came looking for violence. I have said multiple times both sides are responsible for violence that day. Never have I ignored that the nazi group showed up armed.
Quote:But let us go over what Trump said for context.
Quote:“I think there is blame on both sides,” the president said in a combative exchange with reporters at Trump Tower in Manhattan. “You had a group on one side that was bad. You had a group on the other side that was also very violent. Nobody wants to say that. I’ll say it right now.”
Quote:Now the message here is not that clear. Trump is not a very good public speaker and that makes things harder. Trump is making it clear that Nazi's are bad but the counter protesters are violent. This is not true. Not even technically true.
It's not true that nazis are bad and Antifa is violent? I assume we agree nazis are bad, so I can only infer your disagreement is regarding Antifa being violent. Do any search of the two words "Antifa" and "violence", you'll fund plenty of examples. They were just in Boston throwing rocks and urine at police. How can you claim they are not violent?
Antifa set fires at UC Berkley as they chanted "burn it down". They broke windows and destroyed property because they didn't agree with a speaker that was scheduled there that night. They are not violent?
They are violent. And nazis are bad. So when you say "This is not true. Not even technically true.", then I think you are wrong.
Quote:It is true that both sides had violence in it, but depending on what websites you want to go to the Nazi groups say they were victums. Most other news sources have most counter protesters as non violent but many of them getting beat up too.
Quote:“I’ve condemned neo-Nazis,” he said. “I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists, by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue, Robert E. Lee.”
Quote:This is a little surprising because the groups marching were chanting slogans that neo-Nazi and white supremacists groups use.
There are people who believe the statues are part of this country's history, and should not be taken down, but instead they should be used as lessons of the past's errors, and examples of how far we've come, and how much we have still to achieve. Trump condemned neo-nazis, and he condemned the KKK. He said hatred and bigotry are horrible, and we should all love one another. But because he believes not everyone there that day who wanted to keep the statues was a neo-nazi, that means he's secretly on the side of the neo-nazis? That day was a mess. There were many groups, and many individuals unconnected to groups. Trump believes non-nazi people were there that day who disagreed with removing the statue. He might be right. At worst he's wrong about who showed up. That doesn't mean he's sympathetic to neo-nazis.
It is clear from his text that he is sympathetic to the statue stuff. Fine. And if he would have made the argument that not all people with those views were Neo-nazi's than fine. He did not.
Your own quote provided above shows that he did in fact say that. "Not all of those people were white supremacists, by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue, Robert E. Lee.”
He does believe there were also non white supremacists there, as the quote above shows, which you provided. So your statement above that he did not say that is not true.
Quote:He defended the people there. Even if there were people there not in one of the groups, they were willing marching with them.
Quote:This is a major problem and one that he repeated and saw no issue in.
Quote:That is what should get everybody mad.
Quote:I also note you mention blame the driver. That is true, the guy should go to jail for good. That said, I have seen you and others take very different stances against Immigrants or against say other sorts of rights depending on the source. And that disturbs me a little bit.
I'm not sure what this has to do with immigration. Let me just say that citizens on non-citizens are under different sets of laws. To be honest, I have my hands full making time for replying to posts on this topic, so let's pick up immigration at a much later time if you would like. But if it's agreeable to you, let's not branch off on such a different topic here.
Quote:I am also not saying that they cannot have their rallies. But people are allowed to counter rally too. It is both speech. On Saturday both sides had permits.
And both sides were there looking for violence.
Quote:And your last argument is a pretty poor one. If the other side does not show up than there would not be violence by definition without infighting but it is also a violation of speech. That is like blaming the victim for a crime. They have the same rights to show up.
I never said they didn't have a right to show up.
Quote:Nobody should go out looking for a fight and I think anybody that does should be punished, but you are also ignoring, either just for convenience of not stating everything or some other reason that Saturday the right wing groups were showing up ready to fight and in some footage coming out of it many were talking about worse coming.
I have said in multiple, multiple cases that both sides showed up looking for violence, and that both sides are to blame for violence. For you to say that I am ignoring that the nazi group showed up ready to fight is either completely dishonest, or you are not paying attention.
Quote:The left groups are also not organizing these rallies but responding to them. Which is another difference between the two.
Quote:I just have major issues with people throwing up their hands on issues like this and saying what have we become. It is a pitty party for the white nationalists. For the most part they are celebrating right now. There has been a rise in sympathies to those groups since Trump was elected and that is not good at all.
I don't know anyone having a pity party for white nationals.
So, I will concede that there was violence, but at the same time you are not taking in much of the context at all of the events or the response. You are saying he is right about one thing but ignoring the context. So both sides are equal in terms of morality etc. Which looks great. Mostly non-violent counter protesters against Neo-nazis.
I think I have all context considered. None of my comments are referring to any of the non-violent counter protesters. I think I've made that clear. Antifa threw rocks and urine at police officers this week. They verbally assaulted a black police woman for her race. They set fires and destroy property at universities if they disagree with speakers. I grant them no moral superiority over any other group of violent idiots.
Quote:You know, both sides do it.
Quote:I am not sure what you are going on about there. Counter protesting white supremacists groups is now radical left? I missed the part where the counter protests killed anybody. Or surrounded those against them with torches and guns.
Quote:Look at the picture of armed Antifa members in the NY Times story below.
Quote:The president has claimed there was a radical left fraction there in order to make it a both sides do it situation. I am sure there were tussels. But not sure how this can be made out to be anything but horror at what a fair number of white supremacists did.
Quote:I have only heard Trump and his defenders in the media make any claims like that.
Quote:Then you have not been paying attention.
Quote:The fact that one hateful person one side proved to be more deadly does not change the fact that both sides were violent. The Antifa group showed up with helmets, clubs and other weapons. Both sides were spoiling for a fight, and they got what they wanted. Antifa are in many cases violence junkies. Violence for many of them is the preferred method of enacting change. Before the outrage against Trump, this was an accepted fact.
Quote:See here from the AP:
Quote:And here from the NY Times:
Quote:Neither article is from what anyone could consider a right-wing source, yet both frame the two groups similar to Trump.
Quote:The AP story says "Adversaries fought", and they "beat each other with clubs". There is no weight of blame placed on the pro-nazi group. Similarly the Times story places no weight of blame on the pro-nazi group. And they recognize the frequent violence of Antifa.
Quote:Members of Antifa have assaulted journalists. Such as this one from a local CBS station who was sent to the hospital and needed stitches in his head:
Quote:CNN's Jake Tapper's twitter feed also notes multiple "unprovoked assaults on journalists doing their jobs -- by those marching *against* the hateful racists".
Quote:That Antifa is very violent is a fact. That there was violence on both sides is a fact.
Quote:The nazi morons are horrible, ugly, disgusting people. We can agree on that. But when they have a permit to gather and speak, then they need to be allowed to do so. Counter groups are certainly also allowed, but violence on either side is wrong. When a counter group showed up in helmets, with guns, and clubs, and bottles of urine to throw at people, that's a problem. And when violence does break out, yes, if both sides come armed and looking for violence, then both sides are to blame for the general violence.
Quote:Blame for the death of that poor woman is on the man driving the car.
Quote:It would have been such a preferable situation if the ignorant nazi group were mocked or ignored, instead of confronted violently. They love this attention. I never heard the name Richard Spencer until he was punched on the street. Now he's become a hero to these hate-filled ugly people. We would have been better off if he had not been assaulted on film.
Posted with Google Chrome 60.0.3112.101 on Windows 7
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software|