Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

[BobTheCoward]

Right, because there is absolutely no evidence of those neo-nazis in Charlottesville intending to suppress opposition...

There is no evidence fields did.

 

[caveman1917]

There is no evidence fields did.

Except for him being a neo-nazi at that rally? What evidence exactly are you requiring here?

By this logic lynchings weren't racial, the KKK was just upset about black people.

 

[NoahFence]

Killing someone because they make you upset? That is in service of an emotional goal.

Evidence that it's an emotional goal rather than a political one?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Evidence that it's an emotional goal rather than a political one?

I have no position on what his motivation was.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Except for him being a neo-nazi at that rally? What evidence exactly are you requiring here?

By this logic lynchings weren't racial, the KKK was just upset about black people.

Some lynchings we're not terrorism. Most probably were.

Him being at that rally would be a sign that he hates people. If he killed them because he hated them and was upset or to affect a political agenda is a different question.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Stop playing Bob's game people. That's his angle in every discussion. He acts like evidence that events are linked to motives isn't a thing because they can't be "proven" to his satisfaction.

Oddly this standard only seems to apply to his opponent's arguments and not his own.

 

[caveman1917]

Him being at that neo-nazi rally would be a sign that he hates people is a neo-nazi. If he killed them because he hated them is a neo-nazi and was upset about the existence of anti-fascists or to affect a political agenda is not even a different question.

ftfy

 

[NoahFence]

I have no position on what his motivation was.

You certainly raised the possibility that it wasn't political.

Which is pretty : laughable. Here, have a dog:

 

[BobTheCoward]

ftfy

It is a different question. A new Nazi can kill people he hates politically for other reasons than to affect a political outcome.

 

[Giordano]

Sure. But Trump did make an immediate fuss about the event, when he called it "hatred, bigotry and violence".

It certainly was a hard hitting clear rejection of the white supremacists and Nazis: which is why Richard Spencer quoted Trump's statement and wondered whether the president had just denounced antifascists instead of them, and why the Daily Stormer interpreted Trump's remarks as an endorsement ("Trump comments were good. He didn’t attack us. Nothing specific against us. So he implied the antifa are haters. There was virtually no counter-signaling of us at all. He said he loves us all").

 

[BobTheCoward]

You certainly raised the possibility that it wasn't political.

Which is pretty : laughable. Here, have a dog:

Skeptic ginger raised the idea, caveman asked a question about it, and I responded.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The Daily Stormer has now wrestled back control from Anonymous with help of the Nigerian government.

yes, caveman1917, I also had to learn the lesson that there are funny Nazis through that guy. Which makes him all the more dangerous.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Stop playing Bob's game people. That's his angle in every discussion. He acts like evidence that events are linked to motives isn't a thing because they can't be "proven" to his satisfaction.

Oddly this standard only seems to apply to his opponent's arguments and not his own.

When do I ever make falsifiable claims?

 

[Giordano]

Stop playing Bob's game people. That's his angle in every discussion. He acts like evidence that events are linked to motives isn't a thing because they can't be "proven" to his satisfaction.

Oddly this standard only seems to apply to his opponent's arguments and not his own.

Indeed!

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Are you really that dense, or are you looking for any excuse to let Trumpy off the hook.

Uncalled for.

 

[caveman1917]

The Daily Stormer has now wrestled back control from Anonymous with help of the Nigerian government.

yes, caveman1917, I also had to learn the lesson that there are funny Nazis through that guy. Which makes him all the more dangerous.

I did not see that one coming

I thought it was likely a hoax but considered it undecided because the theory (blaming hacking for the shutdown of the site) would be unlikely given the value of the site to the alt-right and the ease of putting it on a different server. I had not considered this turn of events though.

 

[mgidm86]

Stop playing Bob's game people. That's his angle in every discussion. He acts like evidence that events are linked to motives isn't a thing because they can't be "proven" to his satisfaction.

Oddly this standard only seems to apply to his opponent's arguments and not his own.

I agree. I don't know if this is getting too personal but I've had it with the constant derails. Really tired of it. That's just my opinion.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

It certainly was a hard hitting clear rejection of the white supremacists and Nazis: which is why Richard Spencer quoted Trump's statement and wondered whether the president had just denounced antifascists instead of them, and why the Daily Stormer interpreted Trump's remarks as an endorsement ("Trump comments were good. He didn’t attack us. Nothing specific against us. So he implied the antifa are haters. There was virtually no counter-signaling of us at all. He said he loves us all").

Who cares?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Who cares?

I do.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

You should really know better then to think that statement was sincere.
You are playing right into's Trump's hand pal.
Thought you were less nieve then that.

Of course it wasn't sincere. No one who has to be talked into denouncing murderous Nazis is going to do it with anything approaching sincerity. But even an insincere, half-hearted condemnation is better than the mealy-mouthed license he had been providing.