Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

Were you keen on McCarthy's attack on Communists as well?

You're blinded by this one comparison. I've heard you use it over and over this entire discussion and it does not work.

People do get that the main reason McCarthy was a problem was that the "Communist Threat" he was trying to root out didn't exist. There never was some massive subversive takeover the United States government by the Communist. The reason they call these things "A Witch Hunt" is because witches don't exist.

The people out in the streets calling for racial genocide aren't figments of our imaginations.

You just can't go "Back in the 40s there was this one senator who went nuts hunting commies... therefore now we have to let Nazis run us over in the streets."

"But were do we draw the line" is a thought terminating cliche. You could say it about literally anything. You're hiding behind ambiguity so you don't have to take a stance.
 
Last edited:
You're blinded by this one comparison. I've heard you use it over and over this entire discussion and it does not work.

With due respect, I think you're confusing me with someone else. I sure haven't mentioned either McCarthy or Communism prior to the post you're responding to.

People do get that the main reason McCarthy was a problem was that the "Communist Threat" he was trying to root out didn't exist. There never was some massive subversive takeover the United States government by the Communist. The reason they call these things "A Witch Hunt" is because witches don't exist.

The people out in the streets calling for racial genocide aren't figments of our imaginations.

You just can't go "Back in the 40s there was this one senator who went nuts hunting commies... therefore now we have to let Nazis run us over in the streets."

Certainly, the fact that McCarthy was a lying scumbag was part of the problem, but only part. If, in fact, every person accused were a Commie at that time, it would still have been a dark period in U.S. history (though not quite as dark). Attacking a group of Americans purely for their political beliefs (and not their actions) is frankly unAmerican.

Same goes for Nazis. So long as they don't actually attack minorities, but merely express racist views, I think they have and ought to have the right to do so. This is not to say that their views are morally acceptable, of course.

"But were do we draw the line" is a thought terminating cliche. You could say it about literally anything. You're hiding behind ambiguity so you don't have to take a stance.

I thought I'd taken a stance and you were opposed to it.
 
With due respect, I think you're confusing me with someone else. I sure haven't mentioned either McCarthy or Communism prior to the post you're responding to.

You are correct. It was used by other people who were making somewhat similar arguments and I had a brain fart. I withdraw that statement with no excuses and a sincere apology.

Certainly, the fact that McCarthy was a lying scumbag was part of the problem, but only part. If, in fact, every person accused were a Commie at that time, it would still have been a dark period in U.S. history (though not quite as dark). Attacking a group of Americans purely for their political beliefs (and not their actions) is frankly unAmerican.

Same goes for Nazis. So long as they don't actually attack minorities, but merely express racist views, I think they have and ought to have the right to do so. This is not to say that their views are morally acceptable, of course.

Okay and here is the problem. You can't separate Nazis into "good" and "bad" or "opinions" and "actions." You can with other groups, even other extremist groups but we aren't required as a fair and just society to extend the courtesy of letting them pretend they'll be non-violent "This time" in perpetuity.

If a group's "opinions" turn into violent "actions" every single time, we can stop pretending they are capable of expressing them non-violently.

Saying you are okay with Nazis as long as they aren't violent is like saying you are okay with pushing boulders off of cliffs providing they don't fall down. It's gonna happen, we don't have to give them infinite chances.

These are Nazis. It's not a few bad apples ruining it for the rest of them.

Here's basically what you are saying:

Bob: Ted can I say something?
Ted: Of course you can Bob.
Bob: *Punches Ted in the face*
Ted: Owww!
Bob: Sorry about that. Can I say something?
Ted: Sure I guess.
Bob: *Punches Ted again*
Ted: Owww!
Bob: Sorry, sorry. I mean it this time, can I say something.
Ted: Promise you aren't going to punch me?
Bob: Promise.
Ted: Sure... go ahead and say something.
Bob: *Punches Ted again*

That at this point Ted can't just tell Bob to shut up because it's a slippery slope to stifling free speech.
 
Last edited:
You are correct. It was used by other people who were making somewhat similar arguments and I had a brain fart. I withdraw that statement with no excuses and a sincere apology.



Okay and here is the problem. You can't separate Nazis into "good" and "bad" or "opinions" and "actions." You can with other groups, even other extremist groups but we aren't required as a fair and just society to extend the courtesy of letting them pretend they'll be non-violent "This time" in perpetuity.

If a group's "opinions" turn into violent "actions" every single time, we can stop pretending they are capable of expressing them non-violently.

Saying you are okay with Nazis as long as they aren't violent is like saying you are okay with pushing boulders off of cliffs providing they don't fall down. It's gonna happen, we don't have to give them infinite chances.

These are Nazis. It's not a few bad apples ruining it for the rest of them.

Here's basically what you are saying:

Bob: Ted can I say something?
Ted: Of course you can Bob.
Bob: *Punches Ted in the face*
Ted: Owww!
Bob: Sorry about that. Can I say something?
Ted: Sure I guess.
Bob: *Punches Ted again*
Ted: Owww!
Bob: Sorry, sorry. I mean it this time, can I say something.
Ted: Promise you aren't going to punch me?
Bob: Promise.
Ted: Sure... go ahead and say something.
Bob: *Punches Ted again*

That at this point Ted can't just tell Bob to shut up because it's a slippery slope to stifling free speech.

Yes we do have to give them infinite chances. Those who are able to be prosecuted for violating the law should be. If an individual is not currently incarcerated or on probation, they get a chance.
 
You are correct. It was used by other people who were making somewhat similar arguments and I had a brain fart. I withdraw that statement with no excuses and a sincere apology.

No offense taken. Easy to make that kind of mistake.

Okay and here is the problem. You can't separate Nazis into "good" and "bad" or "opinions" and "actions." You can with other groups, even other extremist groups but we aren't required as a fair and just society to extend the courtesy of letting them pretend they'll be non-violent "This time" in perpetuity.

If a group's "opinions" turn into violent "actions" every single time, we can stop pretending they are capable of expressing them non-violently.

Saying you are okay with Nazis as long as they aren't violent is like saying you are okay with pushing boulders off of cliffs providing they don't fall down. It's gonna happen, we don't have to give them infinite chances.

These are Nazis. It's not a few bad apples ruining it for the rest of them.

Here's basically what you are saying:

Bob: Ted can I say something?
Ted: Of course you can Bob.
Bob: *Punches Ted in the face*
Ted: Owww!
Bob: Sorry about that. Can I say something?
Ted: Sure I guess.
Bob: *Punches Ted again*
Ted: Owww!
Bob: Sorry, sorry. I mean it this time, can I say something.
Ted: Promise you aren't going to punch me?
Bob: Promise.
Ted: Sure... go ahead and say something.
Bob: *Punches Ted again*

That at this point Ted can't just tell Bob to shut up because it's a slippery slope to stifling free speech.

My point is quite narrow: insofar as a Nazi or anyone else is engaging in a political speech without inciting violence or otherwise directly harming public safety at that time[1], then he has a right to do so. The fact that the speech is racist, Nazi, Communist, Rastafarian, whatever, has no direct bearing, so long as the actual situation does not constitute one of the exceptions to free speech (none of which are based on political content).

Now, supposing that you're right that every single speech act by a Nazi is in fact inciting violence, accompanied by a violent act, what have you. Then it would turn out that my argument defends none of those speech acts, not because the content is Nazi political statements but because of the inseparable violence. I don't think this is so. Indeed, it's plainly not so; many occasions of Nazi public demonstrations have not incited violence nor involved violence. Thus, it cannot be the case that all Nazi speech falls under a free speech exception.

Fairly simple, I think.

[1] I may be missing other exceptions to the right of free speech.
 
No offense taken. Easy to make that kind of mistake.

Thank you for understanding.

Thus, it cannot be the case that all Nazi speech falls under a free speech exception.

Fairly simple, I think.

I'm not arguing per se that we... outlaw an idea. That's silly and doesn't work.

I'm just saying that if we know a certain group rallying is pretty much always going to lead to violence we don't have all pretend we don't.

Long story short a woman is dead because a bunch of Nazis assured "Oh we'll be good this time we promise" and we believed them.

I'm not 100% sure what we should have done, but we probably shouldn't have believed them.
 
I'm not cool with counter protestors macing the bigot.

Based on what? That bigot's account of what happened, that he didn't provoke an attack? These guys claim that they aren't starting the fights, but that is just a lie. They are out there to beat down minorities and race-traitors wherever they think they can get away with it. That same bigot described the car ramming as "self defense."
 
Thank you for understanding.



I'm not arguing per se that we... outlaw an idea. That's silly and doesn't work.

I'm just saying that if we know a certain group rallying is pretty much always going to lead to violence we don't have all pretend we don't.

Long story short a woman is dead because a bunch of Nazis assured "Oh we'll be good this time we promise" and we believed them.

I'm not 100% sure what we should have done, but we probably shouldn't have believed them.

I already said that if we have good reason to think that a particular event is likely to lead to a public safety issue, then it's reasonable to cancel the event preemptively. Obviously, the devil's in the details when it comes to avoiding abuse of this sort of principle, but that's another matter.

So, are you sure that you and I disagree on this matter?
 
Based on what? That bigot's account of what happened, that he didn't provoke an attack? These guys claim that they aren't starting the fights, but that is just a lie. They are out there to beat down minorities and race-traitors wherever they think they can get away with it. That same bigot described the car ramming as "self defense."

Whether the event happened or not, I'm not cool with counter protestors macing bigots unprovoked. That position isn't dependent on if it happened or not.

But I do find his account believable. I seriously doubt he initiated any violence. He strikes me as far too much of a coward for that.
 
Last edited:
Whether the event happened or not, I'm not cool with counter protestors macing bigots unprovoked. That position isn't dependent on if it happened or not.

But I do find his account believable. I seriously doubt he initiated any violence. He strikes me as far too much of a coward for that.

I have a very hard time believing he did not provoke a mace defense from a "communist." This is the same guy that described the car ramming incident as a person just trying to get away from the crowd; that the protesters should not have gotten in his way.

This guy is a loud mouth and a bully, and I'm sure he would attack anyone smaller than him. Heck, the macing indicates that he probably did provoke an attack from a smaller person than him.

I feel no sympathy for the guy at all.
 
I have a very hard time believing he did not provoke a mace defense from a "communist." This is the same guy that described the car ramming incident as a person just trying to get away from the crowd; that the protesters should not have gotten in his way.

This guy is a loud mouth and a bully, and I'm sure he would attack anyone smaller than him. Heck, the macing indicates that he probably did provoke an attack from a smaller person than him.

I feel no sympathy for the guy at all.

And if he didn't provoke it?

I feel more sorry for him if he did provoke it.
 
Don't have the time to catch up with this whole thread but I will just weigh in:

Having paid a lot of attention to the last several such conflicts between the alt-right and antifa types, and having paid close attention to this event in particular - I feel confident in saying that the violence is primarily the fault of antifa and police (deliberate) mismanagement of the situation.

I think it's clear that after their attempts to shut the rally down in other ways failed (because of the federal judge doing the right thing) and after being upset at the successful torchlight march on Friday, the local officials decided they simply would not permit the rally on Saturday to go as planned. I think they deliberately failed to keep antifa at bay and deliberately forced conditions under which antifa could and would attack the alt-right, the alt-right would defend itself (and yes I acknowledge some in the alt-right like a fight and go too far, beyond just self-defense though this is rare) so that this could then, in turn, be used as justification to shut the whole thing down and prevent the rally itself.

Because I am convinced this was a deliberate strategy to prevent the rally, I would say that Heather Hayer's blood is on the local government's hands.

It's also obviously on the hands of Fields himself, who I do not believe made a deliberate choice to try to mow down antifa, but rather panicked and probably didn't see the cars in front of him and thought he could escape by plowing through. To the extent he was even thinking at all, at that stage. I've heard he has mental problems and I suspect he isn't exactly the alt-right's finest specimen. I suspect between his issues and being only 20 and being keenly aware of things like the bike lock attack at Berkeley, and what antifa always does (some really heinous stuff, they bring feces and rocks and literally try to kill people and blind people, etc.) he was probably totally terrified of being surrounded by them and having his car hit (it's been proven this was taking place to some degree before he'd hit anyone.)

I understand why he wanted to get out of there. I suspect his car was receiving particular attention because they could see in the windshield and see he was a white male in a white polo shirt. They knew what he was and he knew they knew. I get why he would take drastic measures to try to escape that situation once they started focusing in on him and hitting his car with bats and such, which did happen.

However, his approach was awful and particularly so because of the other blocked cars in front of him. If he didn't see those, though, and I doubt he did... it makes it a bit more understandable. I think that's why he backed up, he thought he was going to go through and then he couldn't. I wish he'd just backed up to begin with and I'm sure he wishes that too.

Frankly I sort of wish he'd been pulled out of the car and beaten badly before he ever hit anyone. That would keep everyone pretty clear on who the violent ones were, though of course plenty of people would still be cheering on the video of a "racist nazi getting dragged out of a car and beaten! serves him right for going to that rally!" etc.

The cops crashing in the helicopter is tragic. The woman losing her life in the car situation is tragic.

People shouldn't block streets and they definitely shouldn't surround and attack cars. It can induce panic in the driver as we have seen MANY times.

If he weren't alt-right and if this didn't have such attention on it, and especially if Hayer had survived with injuries, I think there'd be a decent chance he'd get off or get off very lightly. As it stands, I suspect he's toast. Can't help but feel bad for the guy, to have his life ruined at such a young age because of a situation he was put in by irresponsible authorities with an axe to grind and no respect for the federal judge's order or the first amendment + violent antifa leftists surrounding him and beating his car with weapons (images show several points of damage on the car already before he accelerated and hit anyone.)

I think he reacted very stupidly by driving through them like that... but if he really didn't realize there were other cars blocked up ahead, and if he really was in a full panic... well, I can't necessarily say what I'd do under the same conditions. It would certainly be scary to think you were about to be dragged out of a car and possibly murdered (I do think there's a decent chance they'd have killed him. Certainly there's a very good chance of that after the initial impact before he backed up.)

Note how they are INSTANTLY smashing his back window and attacking the car from all sides when it halts movement. And I do mean INSTANTLY. Several people with weapons, with masks, bashing the car.

That's not just a reaction to him hurting people. The normal reaction to an unexpected horrific thing where several were just injured is:

1.) Stunned shock and anguish
2.) Helping the injured / checking on peoples' condition
3.) At most, seeking to disable the vehicle and grab hold of the driver to neutralize their ability to cause further harm.

To *instantly* be bashing the car the moment it stops moving (and actually before, come to think of it) with weaponry reveals the truth of the matter:

Though they were not the entire crowd, the crowd there contained numerous hardened, violent antifa thugs who were fully prepared to destroy his vehicle and viciously attack him even prior to him hitting anyone, on the basis of who he was and how he was dressed. They would've been smashing his windows in the same way if all he'd done was nudge his car forward 4 feet and lightly knock a few of them down. Of that, I'm certain. I'm also certain some degree of this same sort of attacking was taking place before he did anything with the car they could see as a threat, and we have video and photo evidence to that effect.

All in all, a real cluster. Lots of tragedy. All could have been avoided by the authorities and the counter-demonstrators simply being decent, law-abiding people. If the cops had done their job and kept the two groups separate. If they'd gone in with a mindset like Pikeville and others have had of "we may not like this rally, but it's their right to have it and our responsibility to make sure it takes place and takes place safely" and if the counter-demonstrators had had a mindset of "we hate these white nationalists and are going to loudly make our disapproval known" instead of "we are going to bring acid, bleach, concrete filled water bottles, bladed weapons, bike locks, rocks, bricks, knives, guns and socks full of batteries and we are going to commit attempted murder on any white nationalist we get access to while wearing masks to avoid accountability" ---- then this all could have been fine.
 
They would've been smashing his windows in the same way if all he'd done was nudge his car forward 4 feet and lightly knock a few of them down. Of that, I'm certain. I'm also certain some degree of this same sort of attacking was taking place before he did anything with the car they could see as a threat, and we have video and photo evidence to that effect.

None of this is legitimate, skeptical opinion. None of this is knowable from the evidence you present.
 
Don't have the time to catch up with this whole thread but I will just weigh in:

Having paid a lot of attention to the last several such conflicts between the alt-right and antifa types, and having paid close attention to this event in particular - I feel confident in saying that the violence is primarily the fault of antifa and police (deliberate) mismanagement of the situation.

I think it's clear that after their attempts to shut the rally down in other ways failed (because of the federal judge doing the right thing) and after being upset at the successful torchlight march on Friday, the local officials decided they simply would not permit the rally on Saturday to go as planned. I think they deliberately failed to keep antifa at bay and deliberately forced conditions under which antifa could and would attack the alt-right, the alt-right would defend itself (and yes I acknowledge some in the alt-right like a fight and go too far, beyond just self-defense though this is rare) so that this could then, in turn, be used as justification to shut the whole thing down and prevent the rally itself.

Because I am convinced this was a deliberate strategy to prevent the rally, I would say that Heather Hayer's blood is on the local government's hands.

It's also obviously on the hands of Fields himself, who I do not believe made a deliberate choice to try to mow down antifa, but rather panicked and probably didn't see the cars in front of him and thought he could escape by plowing through. To the extent he was even thinking at all, at that stage. I've heard he has mental problems and I suspect he isn't exactly the alt-right's finest specimen. I suspect between his issues and being only 20 and being keenly aware of things like the bike lock attack at Berkeley, and what antifa always does (some really heinous stuff, they bring feces and rocks and literally try to kill people and blind people, etc.) he was probably totally terrified of being surrounded by them and having his car hit (it's been proven this was taking place to some degree before he'd hit anyone.)

I understand why he wanted to get out of there. I suspect his car was receiving particular attention because they could see in the windshield and see he was a white male in a white polo shirt. They knew what he was and he knew they knew. I get why he would take drastic measures to try to escape that situation once they started focusing in on him and hitting his car with bats and such, which did happen.

However, his approach was awful and particularly so because of the other blocked cars in front of him. If he didn't see those, though, and I doubt he did... it makes it a bit more understandable. I think that's why he backed up, he thought he was going to go through and then he couldn't. I wish he'd just backed up to begin with and I'm sure he wishes that too.

Frankly I sort of wish he'd been pulled out of the car and beaten badly before he ever hit anyone. That would keep everyone pretty clear on who the violent ones were, though of course plenty of people would still be cheering on the video of a "racist nazi getting dragged out of a car and beaten! serves him right for going to that rally!" etc.

The cops crashing in the helicopter is tragic. The woman losing her life in the car situation is tragic.

People shouldn't block streets and they definitely shouldn't surround and attack cars. It can induce panic in the driver as we have seen MANY times.

If he weren't alt-right and if this didn't have such attention on it, and especially if Hayer had survived with injuries, I think there'd be a decent chance he'd get off or get off very lightly. As it stands, I suspect he's toast. Can't help but feel bad for the guy, to have his life ruined at such a young age because of a situation he was put in by irresponsible authorities with an axe to grind and no respect for the federal judge's order or the first amendment + violent antifa leftists surrounding him and beating his car with weapons (images show several points of damage on the car already before he accelerated and hit anyone.)

I think he reacted very stupidly by driving through them like that... but if he really didn't realize there were other cars blocked up ahead, and if he really was in a full panic... well, I can't necessarily say what I'd do under the same conditions. It would certainly be scary to think you were about to be dragged out of a car and possibly murdered (I do think there's a decent chance they'd have killed him. Certainly there's a very good chance of that after the initial impact before he backed up.)

Note how they are INSTANTLY smashing his back window and attacking the car from all sides when it halts movement. And I do mean INSTANTLY. Several people with weapons, with masks, bashing the car.

That's not just a reaction to him hurting people. The normal reaction to an unexpected horrific thing where several were just injured is:

1.) Stunned shock and anguish
2.) Helping the injured / checking on peoples' condition
3.) At most, seeking to disable the vehicle and grab hold of the driver to neutralize their ability to cause further harm.

To *instantly* be bashing the car the moment it stops moving (and actually before, come to think of it) with weaponry reveals the truth of the matter:

Though they were not the entire crowd, the crowd there contained numerous hardened, violent antifa thugs who were fully prepared to destroy his vehicle and viciously attack him even prior to him hitting anyone, on the basis of who he was and how he was dressed. They would've been smashing his windows in the same way if all he'd done was nudge his car forward 4 feet and lightly knock a few of them down. Of that, I'm certain. I'm also certain some degree of this same sort of attacking was taking place before he did anything with the car they could see as a threat, and we have video and photo evidence to that effect.

All in all, a real cluster. Lots of tragedy. All could have been avoided by the authorities and the counter-demonstrators simply being decent, law-abiding people. If the cops had done their job and kept the two groups separate. If they'd gone in with a mindset like Pikeville and others have had of "we may not like this rally, but it's their right to have it and our responsibility to make sure it takes place and takes place safely" and if the counter-demonstrators had had a mindset of "we hate these white nationalists and are going to loudly make our disapproval known" instead of "we are going to bring acid, bleach, concrete filled water bottles, bladed weapons, bike locks, rocks, bricks, knives, guns and socks full of batteries and we are going to commit attempted murder on any white nationalist we get access to while wearing masks to avoid accountability" ---- then this all could have been fine.

He could have prevented it by not being a nazi piece of trash.
 

Back
Top Bottom