Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

[Checkmite]

The transcript in its entirety paints a somewhat different picture of Trump.

No, it paints a very well-known and tired (if honest) picture of Trump as either clueless or a pandering liar, or both. Yes, everyone there to protest the removal of the statue as "erasing white culture" was either a neo-nazi or a white nationalist. Every one of them.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I agree and made a similar point a few pages back for which, of course, I was instantly called a racist.

But I thought I'd just provide the quotes CapelDodger was looking for.

Seems to be how it goes. Unless you go full-on frothing-at-the-mouth ranting about how bad every single thing about Trump is all the time with no break for breath... you're a racist, or a bigot, or you're stupid (only dressed up with fancier words). You'd think that self-proclaimed skeptics might look at my body of work and see a consistent pattern of arguing for social recognition of privilege, overhaul of the justice system to remove institutional racial bias, consideration of social expectations that factor into career limitations for women and minorities, the importance of fully-funded post-secondary education made available to all citizens regardless of wealth, and a redesign of the welfare system to address root causes of poverty rather then just perpetuating the cycle by barely shoring up the holes after the damage has been done to developing children. But you know, I don't absolutely hate Trump without consideration for fact, so clearly, I'm a racist bigot sexist deplorable scumbag, rethuglican, bad person...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How is that if you blame both sides in a violent clash of opposing viewpoints, you are somehow implicitly supporting one side?

The simple truth is the tired, old-but-apt cliche: It takes two to tango. Why is that wrong to say and how does it support the Nazis?

In a case like this, someone has to start it with the first aggression. There is no way to tell from the news clips of people fighting who started what. Half the time you can't tell which side is which.

Bottom line, we don't know how much aggression was initiated on the counter-protesting side. It is likely the most aggressive members on both sides got into each other's faces with insults and taunts before blows started.

 

[The Big Dog]

That's why I wished I had a bit more detail on the violence that came from the left.

did you look for it? because reports saY it all started when the antifa/black bloc scum blocked the entrance to the park.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-charlottesville-witnesses-20170815-story.html

VIOLENCE ON BOTH SIDES

 

[phiwum]

How is that if you blame both sides in a violent clash of opposing viewpoints, you are somehow implicitly supporting one side?

The simple truth is the tired, old-but-apt cliche: It takes two to tango. Why is that wrong to say and how does it support the Nazis?

First, let's admit the obvious: one side could be the victims, defending themselves from attacks rather than instigating them. This could be the case even if the "defenders" came armed (for self-protection, say).

Now, I'm sure not claiming that none of the counterprotesters initiated violence, though I haven't seen reputable reports to the contrary. In any case, there's another point to be made here: even if some counterprotesters were at fault for initiating violence, it wouldn't be worth discussing unless the violence initiated by each side was roughly comparable.

Finally, of course, there's a difference between the moral worth of the issues fought for. Fighting against racism is more understandable and morally forgivable than fighting for it, even if both acts of violence are wrong.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's why I wished I had a bit more detail on the violence that came from the left.

I think it's safe to say Trump saw the same news clips the rest of us saw. There was no evidence of any antifa charging at the peaceful permit-marching alt-right.

If it happened, it's impossible Trump saw it.

See also my post #1448.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, it paints a very well-known and tired (if honest) picture of Trump as either clueless or a pandering liar, or both. Yes, everyone there to protest the removal of the statue as "erasing white culture" was either a neo-nazi or a white nationalist. Every one of them.

Are you sure of that? You're certain that this is what they believe and consider themselves to be? Or you DEFINING them as such after the fact based on nothing other than that they opposed the removal of a piece of history?

Let's see how this logic works: If you disagree with the removal of a piece of history related to the civil war... then you're either a neo-naxi or a white supremacist. Nothing is quite as uplifting to the righteous soul as shaming people into thought conformity by condemning them as sinners, I guess.

 

[Emily's Cat]

First, let's admit the obvious: one side could be the victims, defending themselves from attacks rather than instigating them. This could be the case even if the "defenders" came armed (for self-protection, say).

Now, I'm sure not claiming that none of the counterprotesters initiated violence, though I haven't seen reputable reports to the contrary. In any case, there's another point to be made here: even if some counterprotesters were at fault for initiating violence, it wouldn't be worth discussing unless the violence initiated by each side was roughly comparable.

Finally, of course, there's a difference between the moral worth of the issues fought for. Fighting against racism is more understandable and morally forgivable than fighting for it, even if both acts of violence are wrong.

Violence is bad... but violence in the name of something you find morally laudable is okay?

I guess those abortion bombers are excusable, since they were committing violence in defense of a truly held moral belief, right? Or is it only morals that YOU hold that allow violence to be excused?

 

[Elagabalus]

See, that's why I wished there'd be more detail.
I can only imagine that the counter protestor violence was directed at the nazis - but of course I could be wrong and they beat up some grandma or kicked a cat.

Or did you mean to engage in full-blown semantic pedantery by insisting that only an extremely narrow reading of "to charge", "peaceful", "legal"? "White" perhaps? I'd grant that the nazis weren't white, they were more pinkish with a bit of a yellowish hue. So Trump was totally wrong. [/sarcasm]

Yes, quite clearly you can an Anti-Fa protester hit the car with a baseball bat:

http://www.departmentofmemes.com/ar...ked-charlottesville-drivers-car-baseball-bat/

 

[Cavemonster]

did you look for it? because reports saY it all started when the antifa/black bloc scum blocked the entrance to the park.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-charlottesville-witnesses-20170815-story.html

VIOLENCE ON BOTH SIDES

It's a little disingenuous, oh hell a lot disingenuous for you to link the LA times article with "reports say" when the specific reports that say such a thing are quotes from racist bloggers like occidental dissent.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's a little disingenuous, oh hell a lot disingenuous for you to link the LA times article with "reports say" when the specific reports that say such a thing are quotes from racist bloggers like occidental dissent.

Um yeah, pretty much every one of the comments in that link are clearly biased to one side or the other.

 

[phiwum]

No, it paints a very well-known and tired (if honest) picture of Trump as either clueless or a pandering liar, or both. Yes, everyone there to protest the removal of the statue as "erasing white culture" was either a neo-nazi or a white nationalist. Every one of them.

I'd really like to dispute your claim, to give the benefit of the doubt to the quite weak claim that at least some protesters weren't Nazis or white nationalists.

But it's hard to do so. The behavior of the protesters on Friday was abysmal. Now, let's say that someone showing up Saturday really believes that history matters, that we shouldn't airbrush out historic monuments. I can understand that. Now, if he knew about Friday night, then surely he wouldn't want to be associated with that crowd, but let's say he didn't know. So he shows up Saturday.

I wasn't there, but I'm having trouble imagining that a well-meaning fella couldn't see that he doesn't want to be associated with this crowd. I just have trouble imagining more than a very small handful of decent folk overlooking the sins of their compatriots and continuing to demonstrate.

So, despite my best devil's advocate, I believe I agree with you.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's a little disingenuous, oh hell a lot disingenuous for you to link the LA times article with "reports say" when the specific reports that say such a thing are quotes from racist bloggers like occidental dissent.

did you miss the posts from the other side??

 

[Cavemonster]

Um yeah, pretty much every one of the comments in that link are clearly biased to one side or the other.

I'm not the one quoting any of them as a source.

 

[Cavemonster]

did you miss the posts from the other side??

I read them, didn't see them supporting your claim.

 

[angrysoba]

Violence is bad... but violence in the name of something you find morally laudable is okay?

I guess those abortion bombers are excusable, since they were committing violence in defense of a truly held moral belief, right? Or is it only morals that YOU hold that allow violence to be excused?

How about "violence is bad, but violence in the name of something that IS morally laudable can be excusable."

See, for an illustrative example, World War Two.

 

[phiwum]

did you look for it? because reports saY it all started when the antifa/black bloc scum blocked the entrance to the park.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-charlottesville-witnesses-20170815-story.html

VIOLENCE ON BOTH SIDES

If there was an agreed entrance for the right wingers to enter the park and the counterprotesters blocked that entrance, then I don't think that the protesters are all that blameworthy for choosing different routes. That changes my previous comments.

 

[johnny karate]

How is that if you blame both sides in a violent clash of opposing viewpoints, you are somehow implicitly supporting one side?

It's called a false moral equivalence. And when you make it to the benefit of Nazis, people tend to associate you with them. Life's hard.

The simple truth is the tired, old-but-apt cliche: It takes two to tango. Why is that wrong to say and how does it support the Nazis?

Again, it's called a false moral equivalence.

 

[The Big Dog]

I read them, didn't see them supporting your claim.

well they are there, sources from both sides and no side, detailing the violence

 

[phiwum]

Violence is bad... but violence in the name of something you find morally laudable is okay?

I guess those abortion bombers are excusable, since they were committing violence in defense of a truly held moral belief, right? Or is it only morals that YOU hold that allow violence to be excused?

I didn't say that violence in the name of something you find morally laudable is okay. First, I wouldn't relativize it as you do.

Sure, absolutely, without doubt, violence aimed for some goals is acceptable because the goals are morally acceptable. Some wars are just, some are not, even though the actions are the same. This is, to me, a no-brainer.

But I never once claimed that if you think your cause is good, then violence is okay. Not once. With due respect, Cat, this is a stupid strawman you've constructed. It would entail that the Nazis are also morally okay, since they think that racial purity is a worthwhile goal.