Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

A non issue means it isn't serious.

I never called it a non-issue.

It is like when talking about a police shooting and never mentioning any wrong actions by the officer, it is perfectly reasonable to take it as assumed that you don't think the officer did anything worthy of criticism.

Do you have an opinion on every issue? I know very little about the agreement made that day, but insofar as there was an agreement regarding the racists' entry intended to prevent violence, and the racists ignored that agreement, then they did wrong. Duh.

On the other hand, I have no opinion on what the authorities should have done at the moment it was clear the agreement was broken.

Forceably break up the nazi's when they showed total contempt for the agreed upon organized protest. But that only happens to groups unpopular with law enforcement so of course nazi's and the KKK are exempt from that.

It's not at all clear to me that ending the protest at that moment is the obviously right way to avoid violence. As I understand it, the cops that were there were not dressed in riot gear and had to change before intervening -- perhaps a bad mistake on the part of the police.

And I sure as hell won't claim that the police in Charlottesville are sympathetic to the Nazis and KKK without clear evidence to that effect.
 
What organized provocations do you have in mind?

The racists spewed some vile dispersions, and these could be called provocative. Insofar as they fell short of threats or fighting words, then I support their right to make such claims, while condemning the claims themselves.

If you mean something that incites violence, then of course I do not accept such tactics.

The ways they violated the proposed route and plan for the protest. That mixed them up with the anti fascists as intended and caused violence as intended. But that is all unworthy of mention because nazi's get a pass when they do such things. Just like no one will condemn them for any violence they committed that day.

There is of course nothing threatening about armed white nationalists, that would be crazy, it is only armed black people who are inherently threatening says the courts.
 
I share the impression that "the left" in the US very rarely goes against the propaganda line in international affairs.

Came across this. Has an interview with Abby Martin. The left in the US seems to be there, they're just being swamped by piles of liberals going around calling themselves "leftists", making that particular self-identification non-informative and useless.
 
I never called it a non-issue.

Yes it never even merited mention as a potential issue.


It's not at all clear to me that ending the protest at that moment is the obviously right way to avoid violence. As I understand it, the cops that were there were not dressed in riot gear and had to change before intervening -- perhaps a bad mistake on the part of the police.

True that was the nazi's who came dressed in riot gear. Like all protestors apperantly should.
 

From a linked article:
Drivers who hit a protester who’s blocking the road couldn’t be sued for injuries if they “exercise due care,” under a bill that passed the N.C. House on Thursday.​


From the article:
The bill, still in committee, would make it legal for drivers to run over protesters who are standing in a roadway, clearing drivers of any liability, as long as their action was “unintentional.”​

Neither bill would make the actions in Charlottesville even approximately legal.

We can argue whether these bills are good or bad (though not in this thread), but they don't have the aim or effect you claimed.
 
The ways they violated the proposed route and plan for the protest. That mixed them up with the anti fascists as intended and caused violence as intended. But that is all unworthy of mention because nazi's get a pass when they do such things. Just like no one will condemn them for any violence they committed that day.

There is of course nothing threatening about armed white nationalists, that would be crazy, it is only armed black people who are inherently threatening says the courts.

False:

On the right, the police's "wait-and-see" approach was perceived as a conspiracy: Cops allowed violence to break out so they would have an excuse to shut down the rally. That claim was bolstered by Virginia's ACLU chapter, which tweeted that the police stood "passively by, seemingly waiting for violence to take place, so that they'd have grounds to declare 'unlawful assembly.'"
 
Came across this. Has an interview with Abby Martin. The left in the US seems to be there, they're just being swamped by piles of liberals going around calling themselves "leftists", making that particular self-identification non-informative and useless.


Thanks, Abby is one of my favorite Americans. I've frequently posted her stuff on Venezuela in the thread dealing with that topic. But it's also from her that I have it that many people she considers to be "real leftists" stay very much away from that topic and even attack her with pamphlets calling her a Maduro troll (or something like that ;)). She has her own radio show together with her brother, which is often pretty interesting.
 
The ways they violated the proposed route and plan for the protest. That mixed them up with the anti fascists as intended and caused violence as intended. But that is all unworthy of mention because nazi's get a pass when they do such things. Just like no one will condemn them for any violence they committed that day.

Unworthy of mention by whom? The media mentioned it.

I didn't mention it to begin with because my point was broadly about free speech rights and not so much about Charlottesville.

There is of course nothing threatening about armed white nationalists, that would be crazy, it is only armed black people who are inherently threatening says the courts.

The fact they were armed was legal. If being armed while making Nazi speeches is threatening, then they don't have free speech rights to do so.

I don't care to discuss your claims of bias regarding the courts. If the courts are biased, that's a bad thing and should be fixed, but that has nothing to do with whether Nazi political speech ought to be protected in the same way that other political speech is protected.
 
I'm surprised that more people aren't concerned about the reports of being being sacked simply for exercising their legal right of free speech. That to me is a very chilling of free speech.
I think I did.
It was dismissed summarily.
Its still wrong-for either side of the issue.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Yes, ought and is are different. No kidding.

What is your point?

That your position can be challenged based on its effect on the is, no matter how good you make it sound in the ought.

In fact, your question makes no sense at all. The same speech acts lead to the opportunities for violence by both sides.

It's not an opportunity for both sides. It's an opportunity for one side and a necessary (because of that one side's opportunity) response for the other. You can see this by how one side tends to be a protest and the other a counter-protest. The names fascist and anti-fascist might also be a clue there.

If I am willing to accept the risk of violence in order to protect speech, then the same risk applies to both sides.

How much violence though? What if I went like: "I'm going to shoot a bunch of people in a public square whilst reciting my political beliefs about why I'm shooting them"?
 
Last edited:
Yes it never even merited mention as a potential issue.

Sorry, I didn't realize you had a litmus test.

Here's my original post on this matter.

Not me. The Supreme Court has decided, quite plausibly, that political speech gets more protection than other kinds of speech. Nazis are a political group. Loathsome as their speech may be, the fact is that one of the primary aims of freedom of speech is to allow disparate voices to engage politically.

As you can see, it is about free speech rights for Nazis, not about Charlottesville. Your insistence that I discuss the entry of Nazis on Saturday is just nonsensical.

True that was the nazi's who came dressed in riot gear. Like all protestors apperantly should.

For what it's worth, some counterprotesters had sticks and shields as well, but I'd wager the racists were better armed.

So what's your point? We are discussing whether Nazis should have free speech rights. They should, in my opinion, but this does not entail the right to engage in violence (other than self defense) or to incite violence. If the protesters on Saturday did either of those, then they did something morally wrong and without a legal right to do so.

Obviously, at least some of the protesters did commit indefensible acts of violence. I don't know about particular acts inciting violence, but I wouldn't be surprised.
 
That your position can be challenged based on its effect on the is, no matter how good you make it sound in the ought.



It's not an opportunity for both sides. It's an opportunity for one side and a necessary (because of that one side's opportunity) response for the other. You can see this by how one side tends to be a protest and the other a counter-protest.

Any violence initiated by the counterprotesters ought to be condemned just as violence by the protesters ought. (The racist component of protesters' violence arguably makes it morally worse, I suppose.)

How much violence though? What if I went like: "I'm going to shoot a bunch of people in a public square whilst reciting my political beliefs about why I'm shooting them"?

The shooting is what's wrong in that case, and not the recitation. Duh.

We're not talking about violence like that. We're talking about the fact that certain kinds of political speech is associated with violence, both by proponents and opponents, such as the events on Saturday. Your bizarre example is an act of violence accompanied by speech.
 
The shooting is what's wrong in that case, and not the recitation. Duh.

Yet if the only way "free speech" for nazis could be upheld is to accept political violence, then that was to be considered a necessary price to pay. Why is my shooting not considered a necessary price to pay for me reciting my political beliefs?

And yes, let's even assume that I get prosecuted after the shooting and all.

We're not talking about violence like that.

We're talking about beatings mostly. The shooting was an extreme example (though definitely not unheard of, see Breivik and many others) but then I was asking you about the level of violence you would consider acceptable so of course I'd make the example extreme.

We're talking about the fact that certain kinds of political speech is associated with violence, both by proponents and opponents, such as the events on Saturday.

It's mostly associated with violence by proponents and self-defense by opponents.

Your bizarre example is an act of violence accompanied by speech.

As are most nazi rallies, and if not in the rally itself then in small groups throughout the city afterwards.
 
I can't believe people are even entertaining the idea of letting actual Nazis bait us into falling for the "Lookit what you made me do" defense.

I get that a large percentage of this board lives and dies under the "I'm a too cool for the squares freethinker because I'm just a kneejerk contrarian about everything" angle but at this point it is so impossible to make any statement that someone is going to argue against just for the sake of arguing that discussions have no context.
 
I can't believe people are even entertaining the idea of letting actual Nazis bait us into falling for the "Lookit what you made me do" defense.

I get that a large percentage of this board lives and dies under the "I'm a too cool for the squares freethinker because I'm just a kneejerk contrarian about everything" angle but at this point it is so impossible to make any statement that someone is going to argue against just for the sake of arguing that discussions have no context.

It's really easy to avoid debate by assuming your opponents are being contrarian.
 
I am.

a. There is a first amendment issue at play. They should not be banned from holding events. Maybe not where and where they choose, but it should be allowed. Legal principles and all that.

b. Don't beat them up. It's illegal and feeds their victim complex. Also, they are people and some can be brought out of their cult. c. Apart from that; get creative! Blast them with show-tunes, cover them in silly string, have a transvestite walk next to their march playing the saxophone etc.

It's not hard to make them look dumb and unappealing.

Go to Reddit's r/beholdthemasterrace and see what utter trash they have amongst their ranks. The spotlight is not their friend.
I agree and the counter attackers defeated their own message as far as I'm concerned, especially the victimhood feeding.

It's one thing to be ready to defend oneself should the 2x4 wielding nazis start to attack a counter protester. But I fail to see how street brawling helped the counter-protesters.
 
The Intercept collected Trump's history of racism into one article.

Consider the first time the president’s name appeared on the front page of the New York Times, more than 40 years ago. “Major Landlord Accused of Antiblack Bias in City,” read the headline of the A1 piece on Oct. 16, 1973, which pointed out how Richard Nixon’s Department of Justice had sued the Trump family’s real estate company in federal court over alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act.

“The government contended that Trump Management had refused to rent or negotiate rentals ‘because of race and color,’” the Times revealed. “It also charged that the company had required different rental terms and conditions because of race and that it had misrepresented to blacks that apartments were not available.” (Trump later settled with the government without accepting responsibility.)

Over the next four decades, Trump burnished his reputation as a bigot: he was accused of ordering “all the black [employees] off the floor” of his Atlantic City casinos during his visits; claimed “laziness is a trait in blacks” and “not anything they can control”; requested Jews “in yarmulkes” replace his black accountants; told Bryan Gumbel that “a well-educated black has a tremendous advantage over a well-educated white in terms of the job market”; demanded the death penalty for a group of black and Latino teenagers accused of murdering a jogger in Central Park (and, despite their later exoneration*with the use of DNA evidence, has continued to insist they are guilty); suggested a Native American tribe “don’t look like Indians to me”; mocked Chinese and Japanese trade negotiators by doing an impression of them in broken English; described undocumented Mexican immigrants as “rapists”; compared Syrian refugees to “snakes”; defended two supporters who assaulted a homeless Latino man as “very passionate” people “who love this country”; pledged to ban a quarter of humanity from entering the United States; proposed a database to track American Muslims that he himself refused to distinguish from the Nazi registration of German Jews; implied Jewish donors “want to control” politicians and are all sly negotiators; heaped praise on the “amazing reputation” of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who has blamed America’s problems on a “Jewish mafia”; referred to a black supporter at a campaign rally as “my African-American”; suggested the grieving Muslim mother of a slain U.S. army officer “maybe … wasn’t allowed” to speak in public about her son; accused an American-born Hispanic judge of being “a Mexican”; retweeted anti-Semitic and anti-black memes, white supremacists,*and even a quote from Benito Mussolini; kept a book of Hitler’s collected speeches next to his bed; declined to condemn both David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan; and spent five years leading a “birther” movement that was bent on smearing and delegitimizing the first black president of the United States, who Trump also accused of being the founder of ISIS.
 

Back
Top Bottom