Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

[xjx388]

There are thousands of them around the US (and around the world) who have been feeding in the social media echo chamber for years. Now that there is a crowd of them in the White House, a couple hundred came out of their basements and held a public rally that was more than just a handful of locals or an impromptu show of arms over a public lands row.

At what point should we be concerned?

I think we should always be concerned. But what are we talking about as a percentage of the population? Especially in the US? I'd be willing to bet that the number amounts to less than 1%.

For the record, I think a militant response is the least effective means of addressing these idiots.

I agree. I think a non-violent form of protest or outright ignoring them is the best course. How much publicity did they get off this incident?

 

[Oystein]

Sick. Straight out of 1984. Unabashed finger-pointing, Nazi Nazi!!!

You people sound so gawdamn silly it's disturbing. Calling names and filthy accusations to posters who have been here debating with you for years. Nazi Nazi! What is this fifth grade?

You want to know what the problem is with the left's message, Travis (referring to his thread)? Here ya go. Hateful, emotionally driven name calling. This is some scary stuff people. You're acting like children.

Remember the Clinton-Trump debate?
trump called out Clinton for not calling a spade a spade when the spade was "islamic terrorism".

Nazis MUST be called out. Soon, often and loud.
Nazi sympathizers MUST be called out. Soon, often and loud.
Nazi enablers MUST be called out. Soon, often, and loud.
Racists MUST be called out. Soon, often, and loud.

By trying to persuade us to not call out nazis, you enable them.

 

[Shalamar]

I think we should always be concerned. But what are we talking about as a percentage of the population? Especially in the US? I'd be willing to bet that the number amounts to less than 1%.

I agree. I think a non-violent form of protest or outright ignoring them is the best course. How much publicity did they get off this incident?

They seem to have garnered a lot more publicity than some of them wanted. A few seem to have lost jobs over this.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

They seem to have garnered a lot more publicity than some of them wanted. A few seem to have lost jobs over this.

Did you see the video of the rally leader crying? That was bizarre.

 

[caveman1917]

Did you see the video of the rally leader crying? That was bizarre.

No it isn't. If they calculate, correctly in this case, that playing victim will bring them a better outcome then that's what they'll do. It's hardly unheard of, more like tradition.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

I was agreeing with you, well except also pointing out that there were really biased views from both sides of the aisle. But basically, yeah, they were all useless.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

And now we're back to the question of whether morality is either objective or universal. And the answer to both is... No.

 

[caveman1917]

And now we're back to the question of whether morality is either objective or universal. And the answer to both is... No.

Morality is a spook. More importantly, punching nazis works

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Again, it's called a false moral equivalence.

It's not a false moral equivalence. It's ethics in action.

Bob and Jack enter a room, and immediately begin to fight. Which one has the moral upper-hand?

Now let's say that Bob is a racist who said mean things to Jack before they entered the room. Does that mean that Jack has the moral upper-hand?

Now let's say that Jack killed Bob's dog before Bob said racist things to Jack. How does that shift it?

A person is the sum of their actions. The holding of a single belief, no matter how odious you find that belief, does NOT excuse violence against them. If that were the case, then it should be universally acknowledged that muslims are evil people who believe that women should be second-class citizens... and therefore violence against muslims is excusable. Yet that view has been solidly dismissed because it is unreasonable and people aren't defined solely by a single belief.

Apply the same rules. Don't make up new ones depending on how much or how little you personally sympathize with people.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

And I am getting pretty tired of this terming the Calling out of Racism as "Virtue Signalling".

It is a pretty chilling downgrade of basic human decency. "That thing? Pff! A cheap trinket, worth nothing. *throws it in a junk drawer*"

I'm not saying we shouldn't be vigilant against such people gaining power, only that they are nowhere near that level now and NN/WS are a tiny minority.

Umm... The current President of the United States of America seems to be doing all he can to ensure that he comes off as at least sympathetic to white supremacy, even lamenting the loss of statues honoring men who fought to preserve slavery. A number of white supremacists view Trump with admiration and respect for the things he's done that they feel legitimize their cause.

And that's not even mentioning the number of people very close to him that have been even more open about their support for such extreme-right views.

They already seem to be in power. At the very least, the door is open.

What, exactly, is the "level" where you start expressing even a drop of concern?

 

[Garrison]

It's not a false moral equivalence. It's ethics in action.

Bob and Jack enter a room, and immediately begin to fight. Which one has the moral upper-hand?

Which one was waving the Swastika and making anti-Semitic chants?

He's right, He also failed to mention they both fought to defend the systematic oppression and slaughter of a minority in common as well.

They've both been portrayed as tragic figures, noble soldiers who fought for their country even though they disagreed with its policies. Might be a little more credible if they hadn't fought quite so enthusiastically on behalf of those regimes...

 

[dudalb]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1331&pictureid=11387[/qimg]

He's right, He also failed to mention they both fought to defend the systematic oppression and slaughter of a minority in common as well.

I should take history lessons from the man who gave us Al Capone's Vault?



That being said, it is a despicable quote.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Might this be a more successful approach?

http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017...book&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=mattkibbe

It's a worthwhile endeavor, for sure, but I doubt that strategy would have seen much success in Charlottesville this past weekend, even without the more extreme elements of antifa.

Some of the racists who attended the protest may still be "saved".

 

[sphenisc]

I agree. I think a non-violent form of protest or outright ignoring them is the best course. How much publicity did they get off this incident?

While they're all gathered together for a rally, and most of the police are tied up with keeping an eye on them, surely the best form of protest is to go and tear down another statue.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

How do you define what goal is morally acceptable? Are you certain that your assumption of morality is universal and objective? You have just said almost exactly what I said you said, and yet you claim that's not what you said:

violence in the name of something you find morally laudable is okay

without doubt, violence aimed for some goals is acceptable because the goals are morally acceptable

What exactly is the meaningful difference between those two statements?

But I never once claimed that if you think your cause is good, then violence is okay. Not once.

No of course you didn't - you didn't extend that courtesy to others. You've withheld that role to yourself alone. As long as phiwum believes it is a good cause, then it's okay. Whether other people agree with phiwum is irrelevant - their beliefs don't matter, only phiwum's belief matters.

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.

Nazis are fine as long as they take no action. I don't give a crap what they believe. I give enormous craps about what they do. They can think whatever ridiculous and horrifying thing they want. I don't care what they believe any more than I care that people believe that women are inferior to men, or that babies would make really kitchy purses, or that dogs are yummy for dinner. As soon as they engage in an action that is directly causes harm to another person, that's a different story. As soon as they start infringing on the rights of other people, action is appropriate.

But I don't give a crap *why* they're infringing on someone else's rights. I care that they have done so. It could be because they're stupid bigots. It could be because the voices in their head said to. It could be because the color green sends them into a rage. I don't care. I care about the action.

And excusing the infringement of other people's rights because you don't like the things they think is inexcusable to me.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It's not a false moral equivalence. It's ethics in action.

Bob and Jack enter a room, and immediately begin to fight. Which one has the moral upper-hand?

Are you really unaware of how weak this argument is? You're constructing a simplistic hypothetical situation in which the moral equivalence is obvious, then using it to justify your opinion of an entirely different situation.

Surely you can think of far better uses of your time and energy.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There are no good people among Nazis.

Nazis believe white people are superior to black people, and that black people should be subjugated. Therefore, on the basis of that single belief, you feel confident saying that there are no good people among them. They've committed an unforgivable thought crime.

Muslims believe that men are superior to women, and that women should be subjugated. Therefore on the basis of that single belief... do you feel confident saying that there are no good people among them?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Reasons matter. Their expressed reasoning for opposing the removal of the statue was that it was an attack on/attempt to "erase" white culture. So yes, I am sure of that. "X is attacking white culture and we have to stick up for white culture" is a white nationalist talking point.

That's the reason for every single person there? You're sure of that?

 

[johnny karate]

It's not a false moral equivalence. It's ethics in action.

Bob and Jack enter a room, and immediately begin to fight. Which one has the moral upper-hand?

Now let's say that Bob is a racist who said mean things to Jack before they entered the room. Does that mean that Jack has the moral upper-hand?

Now let's say that Jack killed Bob's dog before Bob said racist things to Jack. How does that shift it?

A person is the sum of their actions. The holding of a single belief, no matter how odious you find that belief, does NOT excuse violence against them. If that were the case, then it should be universally acknowledged that muslims are evil people who believe that women should be second-class citizens... and therefore violence against muslims is excusable. Yet that view has been solidly dismissed because it is unreasonable and people aren't defined solely by a single belief.

Apply the same rules. Don't make up new ones depending on how much or how little you personally sympathize with people.

Your argument might be slightly less ridiculous if didn't you didn't compare Nazis to Muslims. But the hilarious part is that in doing so, you engaged in the very same false moral equivalency you think you've successfully argued against.

Nazis are by definition a violent hate group. Muslims aren't. Comparing Nazis to al-Qaeda or ISIS would be more apt.

And when someone proudly identifies themselves as a member of a violent hate group responsible for unspeakable acts of brutality up to and including genocide, not to mention being an enemy of the United States, your argument that they are somehow on the same moral footing as anyone else is woefully misguided.

 

[caveman1917]

Might this be a more successful approach?

Not when they're out on march, no. Think along the lines of: blockade.