• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

Yep. Charlotteville was the doing of the alt-right and their Nazi fellow travellers. They outed themselves completely during the past weekend. Now the alt-right have no room to claim that they are just "ethno nationalists". They are all Nazis, and now everyone knows it.

They didn't seem to take any Nazi like economic stances. Nazis are more than just their belligerence and ethnocentrism
 
The first and arguably most important way is not the let the alt-right control the narrative. "There are extremists on both sides, they are just as much to blame as we are" is a standard propaganda line of theirs.

So what is the narrative?

That there are only 2 sides and all on the side against alt-right are good?

That we shouldn't care about the alt-right as they are not really humans and they could all die and we shouldn't care?

What? How much hate do you demand of me for me to qualify to be on your side?
 
So what is the narrative?

That there are only 2 sides and all on the side against alt-right are good?

That we shouldn't care about the alt-right as they are not really humans and they could all die and we shouldn't care?

What? How much hate do you demand of me for me to qualify to be on your side?

You can have those positions without hatred. That is a false choice you added.
 
So what is the narrative?

That there are only 2 sides and all on the side against alt-right are good?

That we shouldn't care about the alt-right as they are not really humans and they could all die and we shouldn't care?

What? How much hate do you demand of me for me to qualify to be on your side?

The alt-right narrative is the one you have been pushing: that there are two bad sides. They want us to condemn their opponents whenever we condemn them. They score a victory every time someone goes "yes, Nazis are bad, but so are the "hard left"". That creates a moral equivalence that sanitizes their Nazi ideologies, and lures people towards their ideas because of a flawed sense of "both sides are bad so the best place to be is in the middle".
 
Last edited:
...You go sit down in front of an armed Nazi if you want. I'll bring a baseball bat.

This reminds me of a interview I read many many years ago with singer Joan Baez, a devout pacifist. The interviewer asked her, "Joan if you had lived in the 1940s would you have tried to counter the Nazis and Adolf Hitler with non-violence?" She said, yes, she would have. That meeting violence with non-violence is a powerful weapon which forces the aggressor to question his actions, etc.

My reaction was that this thinking was tragic because it almost certainly wouldn't have worked. The only thing "the aggressor" would have been thinking was: 'Gee I had no idea this was going to be so easy.' That if people had opposed Hitler and the Nazis through non-violent means we'd have all been conquered. We'd be living under the rule of the Third Reich.
 

I don't know. It looks like one guy is beating another guy, but then again, it's a photo, so I don't know what's going on, or the context. If it's one guy beating a guy lying on the ground, no, that's not ok, but that wasn't the issue. The issue was identifying the hard-left in those pictures. Is the guy apparently beating the guy lying down the hard left?
 
The alt-right narrative is the one you have been pushing: that there are two bad sides. They want us to condemn their opponents whenever we condemn them. They score a victory every time someone goes "yes, Nazis are bad, but so are the "hard left"".

No, there are 3 sides. You are so into us versus them, that you can't see that there are 3 sides.

Hard-right: All not really with us are not really humans and we hate them.
Hard-left: All not really with us are not really humans and we hate them.
Moderate: Do you really need to hate?

All versions of hard-X have in common the hate against them.
 
This reminds me of a interview I read many many years ago with singer Joan Baez, a devout pacifist. The interviewer asked her, "Joan if you had lived in the 1940s would you have tried to counter the Nazis and Adolf Hitler with non-violence?" She said, yes, she would have. That meeting violence with non-violence is a powerful weapon which forces the aggressor to question his actions, etc.

My reaction was that this thinking was tragic because it almost certainly wouldn't have worked. The only thing "the aggressor" would have been thinking was: 'Gee I had no idea this was going to be so easy.' That if people had opposed Hitler and the Nazis through non-violent means we'd have all been conquered. We'd be living under the rule of the Third Reich.

I don't demand of you, that you shouldn't fight. But try to do it without hate.
 
No, there are 3 sides. You are so into us versus them, that you can't see that there are 3 sides.

Hard-right: All not really with us are not really humans and we hate them.
Hard-left: All not really with us are not really humans and we hate them.
Moderate: Do you really need to hate?

All versions of hard-X have in common the hate against them.

And you are still doing it, pushing the alt-right narrative.

No. There are two sides, and one has Nazis on it. Either you are pro-Nazi or you are against the Nazis. There is no third option.
 
And you are still doing it, pushing the alt-right narrative.

No. There are two sides, and one has Nazis on it. Either you are pro-Nazi or you are against the Nazis. There is no third option.

So you don't care about the Nazis as humans?
 
I still want to know about my side. What side am I on, Tommy? What do you think my side represents?
 

Back
Top Bottom