• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

CaptainHowdy said:
I don't think anybody on the alt-right wanted and hoped for violence. I think 100% of them expected thereWhen the world is divided into the "ANTIFA" and the "Nazis" anybody who values nonviolence and freedom of speech is forced to side with the Nazis.
Click to expand...

Maybe you don't keep up with current events, but the peace-loving Nazis in Charlottesville killed someone and sent a bunch more to the hospital.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
I don't think anybody on the alt-right wanted and hoped for violence.
Click to expand...

I haven't heard the audio, but the articles describing the alt-right chat rooms say that you are wrong.

When the world is divided into the "ANTIFA" and the "Nazis" anybody who values nonviolence and freedom of speech is forced to side with the Nazis.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, it isn't.

Most of the people who were in Charlottesville weren't there for violence. Enough were there looking for violence that violence was inevitable, but I don't have to side with either one of those groups.
 
uke2se said:
What charge?
Click to expand...
Attempted arson. Or assault with a deadly weapon. Pretty sure trying to set people on fire is a crime ;).

uke2se said:
How about firing a gun at someone? Do you the two are equivalent?
Click to expand...

Did I claim they were equivalent? Or even hint at such? Noting that the flamethrower aimed at people is also a crime doesn't mean that I think they're equivalent.
 
Okay, the statement: "group x has a history of violence and criminal activity."

if true, suggests that: "members of group x have engaged in violent and/or criminal acts."

which means that: "members of group x should be in jail for their violent and/or criminal behavior."

If that is not happening, out of all the potential solutions in that could possibly be brought to bear to increase the number of people who have already committed violent and/or criminal acts who are being arrested, charged, convicted, sentenced, and punished for those misdeeds (have I mentioned the presupposition enough, yet?)...

you're going to go with "enact (or broadly expand in a populist frenzy) censorship laws in the midst of a hostile takeover of our civil bureaucracy by forces who would absolutely love to play with that nice blunt authoritarian instrument."

Bravo.

This is the kind of stupid I can't stand on the left any more. We have the moral high ground and squander it on winning the point so much that we forget to think about what the right solution to insist needs to be enacted right now should be and go with whatever feels emotionally satisfying.

"Those people are violent and hurt people....we...we...we should like...tell them they can't say those words any more!"

Yes, someone died.

The response to that isn't wagging a finger in their face, it's a sharp slap of a gavel and a cold slam of the bars.
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, I went looking to see what has become of James Alex Fields Jr. (the driver/murderer). Nothing from this week except a local station mentioning a hearing postponement. He's mentioned in hundreds of stories about the new charges and legal extradition battles going on, but that's fresh blood to the game.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Okay, the statement: "group x has a history of violence and criminal activity."

if true, suggests that: "members of group x have engaged in violent and/or criminal acts."

which means that: "members of group x should be in jail for their violent and/or criminal behavior."

If that is not happening, out of all the potential solutions in that could possibly be brought to bear to increase the number of people who have already committed violent and/or criminal acts who are being arrested, charged, convicted, sentenced, and punished for those misdeeds (have I mentioned the presupposition enough, yet?)...

you're going to go with "enact (or broadly expand in a populist frenzy) censorship laws in the midst of a hostile takeover of our civil bureaucracy by forces who would absolutely love to play with that nice blunt authoritarian instrument."

Bravo.

This is the kind of stupid I can't stand on the left any more. We have the moral high ground and squander it on winning the point so much that we forget to think about what the right solution to insist needs to be enacted right now should be and go with whatever feels emotionally satisfying.

"Those people are violent and hurt people....we...we...we should like...tell them they can't say those words any more!"

Yes, someone died.

The response to that isn't wagging a finger in their face, it's a sharp slap of a gavel and a cold slam of the bars.
Click to expand...

The oracle speaks sooth.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
I don't know if I've run across FAR more cries for killing White people. But since I've NEVER run across any cries for killing any other race except for White people, all you need is one homeboy shouting "death to Whitey" to beat calls for genocide of any other people.
Click to expand...

Funny, the only time I've ever heard a white person have cries of death directed at her was by a white nationalist & it was because she was married to me.
 
Emily's Cat said:
uke2se said:
I just wanna do a double-take here - a Nazi fires a gun at warning shot at the ground in the direction of a black man wielding a makeshift flamethrower at other unarmed people on an open street, but it's the counter-protesters that scare you?
Click to expand...

Let's try some accuracy.
Click to expand...


Marissa Alexander got sentenced to twenty years for firing a warning shot.

I wonder how much time she would have gotten if she used a can of spray paint and a match to keep her abusive husband at bay.
 
If a group of bigots march to advocate their disgusting view that some of their fellow human beings are inferior scum then of course some of those "inferior scum" (and even a few decent people of the same ethnicity as the bigots) are going to turn up to disagree with them. If violence results, who do you blame?

When I was younger I was sure that freedom of speech was an absolute right, but then I read about how American civil rights groups were arguing in favour of allowing Nazis to stage a march which would take them pass the homes of concentration camp survivors, and I realised that sometimes different rights conflict. Yes, Nazis have the right to freedom of speech, but concentration camp survivors have the right to live the rest of their lives free from fear and intimidation. Both rights cannot be granted, society has to choose whose right is going to be given priority. I know what my choice would be.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Attempted arson. Or assault with a deadly weapon. Pretty sure trying to set people on fire is a crime ;).
Click to expand...

He wasn't trying to set anyone on fire. In order to do that, you need to hold the can of aerosol quite a bit closer than 10 feet. He also wasn't trying to put anything else on fire.

That is, unless you Think it's illegal to light the spray from an aerosol can on fire.


Emily's Cat said:
Did I claim they were equivalent? Or even hint at such? Noting that the flamethrower aimed at people is also a crime doesn't mean that I think they're equivalent.
Click to expand...

Imagining it's a crime, you mean.
 
Pixel42 said:
When I was younger I was sure that freedom of speech was an absolute right, but then I read about how American civil rights groups were arguing in favour of allowing Nazis to stage a march which would take them pass the homes of concentration camp survivors, and I realised that sometimes different rights conflict. Yes, Nazis have the right to freedom of speech, but concentration camp survivors have the right to live the rest of their lives free from fear and intimidation. Both rights cannot be granted, society has to choose whose right is going to be given priority. I know what my choice would be.
Click to expand...

This is something a lot of "free-speech absolutists" on this forum and elsewhere simply don't get.
 
uke2se said:
In that case, you shouldn't have made those edits, because they make it less accurate.
Click to expand...

Only if you consider the baseline for comparison to be what actually happened. OTOH if your baseline for comparison is the preferred neo-Nazi/White Supremacist/Racist narrative then the edits made it more accurate (for limited values of accurate)

In these days of alternative facts, I guess that's valid :rolleyes:
 
johnny karate said:
Maybe you don't keep up with current events, but the peace-loving Nazis in Charlottesville killed someone and sent a bunch more to the hospital.
Click to expand...

They shouldn't have showed up black near a nazi rally. Totally their fault and it earned them the beatings. You can't blame nazi's for such respectable actions as beating black men, that is after all a favorite pastime of the police and other respected professions.
 
Pixel42 said:
If a group of bigots march to advocate their disgusting view that some of their fellow human beings are inferior scum then of course some of those "inferior scum" (and even a few decent people of the same ethnicity as the bigots) are going to turn up to disagree with them. If violence results, who do you blame?
Click to expand...

The lesser races for existing of course. That seems quite clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom