Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

[Giordano]

Yes but what about if you didn't realise that the uniformed thugs with Swastikas and torches were Nazis?

Who amongst us hasn't inadvertently found themselves marching alongside people espousing a morally repugnant cause who hid it except for wearing uniforms and shouting Nazi slogans and antisemitic chants?

Happened to me just a week ago! At first I thought that they we just an unusually militant group of adult scout leaders displaying ancient Indian symbols. It took me an hour of marching before I realized that the arms on the Swastika were in the wrong direction, and that what they were shouting was not a pro forestry chant of, "Till the Yews."

It could happen to anyone!

 

[BobTheCoward]

In large part, yes. You do realize that's the primary means by which bias is manifest in the media, right? Actually I guess you don't. Until very recently, my complaint against the mainstream media was the liberal bias in news curation, not so much the number of baseless or incorrect assertions which were made. Of course, that has changed recently. Even the news that is reported can't be trusted.

That is risible paranoia.

 

[BobTheCoward]

What good things did Confederate generals/politicians do that are meaningful enough that we should memorialize them to this day?

Some of the general conducted military operations very effectively.

 

[paulhutch]

"'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1331&pictureid=11388[/qimg]

Both sides isn't new.

IIRC, the cartoon was from a Birmingham newspaper after the Birmingham riot of 1963. It promoted the idea that MLK's previous non-violent protests should be held partially responsible for provoking the KKK bombings that led to the riot.

 

[sunmaster14]

What's the point of posting an article as evidence of your claim when, by your own admission the key information which allegedly supports that claim isn't in it

It works well for readers who are good critical thinkers.

I'm finding it very disturbing that people are really arguing that the anti-Fascists are the villains of this particular tale.

That's not what I'm arguing, and I think you know it. However, the lionizing of these violent and fascist "anti-fascists" is far more dangerous to our freedoms than the failure to condemn white supremacists with sufficient vehemence and absolutism. At least no reasonable and moderate people are lionizing the white supremacists for their rally, let alone for their violence.

 

[BobTheCoward]

It works well for readers who are good critical thinkers.



That's not what I'm arguing, and I think you know it. However, the lionizing of these violent and fascist "anti-fascists" is far more dangerous to our freedoms than the failure to condemn white supremacists with sufficient vehemence and absolutism. At least no reasonable and moderate people are lionizing the white supremacists for their rally, let alone for their violence.

They are not fascist.

 

[sunmaster14]

That is risible paranoia.

Risible? Not trusting the news? I think the word you're searching for is "skeptical." Have you ever heard of the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect? I am unfortunately a chronic sufferer.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

That's not what I'm arguing, and I think you know it. However, the lionizing of these violent and fascist "anti-fascists" is far more dangerous to our freedoms than the failure to condemn white supremacists with sufficient vehemence and absolutism. At least no reasonable and moderate people are lionizing the white supremacists for their rally, let alone for their violence.

"I'm not saying the Nazis aren't bad, just that both sides are at fault here."

[ETA] No, not even that. You're just not praising the Nazis, and trying to pass that off as good enough.

 

[sunmaster14]

They are not fascist.

Well, it depends on your definition of fascism. I'm using the colloquial definition which is the doctrine that it is proper and good to violently suppress certain expressions of speech.

 

[varwoche]

Also, by my count, this marks the third time in this thread someone has proclaimed left wing extremism more dangerous than right wing extremism based on "feelings".

The requested data to factually support such an assertion remains in a state of nonexistence.

Sunmaster avoids this question for good(?) reason. His feelings are devoid of a factual basis.

 

[sunmaster14]

"I'm not saying the Nazis aren't bad, just that both sides are at fault here."

[ETA] No, not even that. You're just not praising the Nazis, and trying to pass that off as good enough.

I do not feel it necessary to criticize the neo-Nazis to establish my anti-Nazi bona fides. That others do is their business.

 

[sunmaster14]

Sunmaster avoids this question for good(?) reason. His feelings are devoid of a factual basis.

No, I don't respond because it is too much work and won't do any good. Most conservatives are well aware that almost all political violence is coming from the left side of the spectrum. If you want to believe we're wrong or deluded, that's fine with me. I am open to a contrary argument if you want to present your evidence, however. I just don't want to do the work.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Well, it depends on your definition of fascism. I'm using the colloquial definition which is the doctrine that it is proper and good to violently suppress certain expressions of speech.

I like this one

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[8] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[8] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[9][10][11][12] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[13]

 

[The Don]

No, I don't respond because it is too much work and won't do any good. Most conservatives are well aware that almost all political violence is coming from the left side of the spectrum. If you want to believe we're wrong or deluded, that's fine with me. I am open to a contrary argument if you want to present your evidence, however. I just don't want to do the work.

Got any actual evidence for the highlighted ?

Is this going to be one of those "yes the evidence is there but the fake media never presents it" arguments ?

Is this going to be one of those arguments where the key phrase is "political violence" and then go on to argue that killing people in church is the act of a madman, driving a car into a crowd is someone's foot slipping off the brake and so on ?

 

[sunmaster14]

I like this one

My guess is that roughly 10% or less of self-described anti-fascists have anything resembling that definition in mind, much less are they able to articulate it. Furthermore, I think there are probably a goodly number of self-described anti-fascists whose political ideology fits that definition.

 

[Giordano]

In large part, yes. You do realize that's the primary means by which bias is manifest in the media, right? Actually I guess you don't. Until very recently, my complaint against the mainstream media was the liberal bias in news curation, not so much the number of baseless or incorrect assertions which were made. Of course, that has changed recently. Even the news that is reported can't be trusted.

News articles that run counter to one's one existing conclusions are evidence of ridiculous media bias? Reported news therefore can't be trusted? Presumably you must trust some reported news to have formed your conclusions about Anti-fa in the first place. How do you decide which news to believe and which not? Could at least some of your decisions in this regard reflect which news supports your political viewpoints and which news question it? That would be a fairly human thing to do, you know, consciously or subconsciously.

There are obvious dangers in buying too much into this concept of fake news, a favorite political strategy of Trump, and one with historic precedents: Lugenpresse.

 

[sunmaster14]

Got any actual evidence for the highlighted ?

Is this going to be one of those "yes the evidence is there but the fake media never presents it" arguments ?

Is this going to be one of those arguments where the key phrase is "political violence" and then go on to argue that killing people in church is the act of a madman, driving a car into a crowd is someone's foot slipping off the brake and so on ?

Consider how many times conservative speakers have been shut down by violence: Look up Ben Shapiro, Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, Charles Murray. Hell, even Donald Trump has had campaign rallies shut down through the use of violence. Now ask yourself how many leftist speakers or rallies have been disrupted by counter-protesters on the right.

 

[BobTheCoward]

My guess is that roughly 10% or less of self-described anti-fascists have anything resembling that definition in mind.

I don't care.

 

[sunmaster14]

News articles that run counter to one's one existing conclusions are evidence of ridiculous media bias? Reported news therefore can't be trusted? Presumably you must trust some reported news to have formed your conclusions about Anti-fa in the first place. How do you decide which news to believe and which not? Could at least some of your decisions in this regard reflect which news supports your political viewpoints and which news question it? That would be a fairly human thing to do, you know, consciously or subconsciously.

There are obvious dangers in buying too much into this concept of fake news, a favorite political strategy of Trump, and one with historic precedents: Lugenpresse.

There are ways of confirming (to an acceptable level of confidence) what one reads in the news. One way is to search out an independent source for the same claims. Another is to read between the lines, so to speak, and think about how the reporter may be spinning the testimony of eyewitnesses. Also, you can critically examine available video. For example, there are claims that the white nationalist who killed Heather Heyer was simply panicking in response to having his car surrounded by violent protesters. The video shows that such claims are ridiculous, as the car was clearly speeding into a densely packed crowd from an area where there were only scattered protesters (amongst other pertinent evidence).

 

[sunmaster14]

I don't care.

I guess I have learned at least one thing today. And it's only 10am. I feel blessed that the "E" in JREF still stands for education.