Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

[Belz...]

Suppose I'm not.

I can't. You've constructed a scenario in which the person supports them and are asking me to assume he doesn't. Construct a better scenario, then.

 

[caveman1917]

You post is not even wrong.

And yours are inconsistent, making yours the equivalent of the output of a random string generator.

Answer this: Suppose the laws in effect in Nazi Germany were now in effect where you live, would you support a "selective application" of such laws (ie resistance/sabotage/... of it) or not?

 

[caveman1917]

I can't. You've constructed a scenario in which the person supports them

On what basis do you claim he "supports" them, if not his self-declared position?

Construct a better scenario, then.

What about a newspaper publishing neo-nazi propaganda? Does that count as "support"?

 

[Belz...]

On what basis do you claim he "supports" them, if not his self-declared position?

"hey, guys, I found a defenseless stuck ****** here - come beat him up"

 

[caveman1917]

"hey, guys, I found a defenseless stuck ****** here - come beat him up"

So one is considered to "support" neo-nazis if one's actions help them in their cause, irrespective of self-declaration?

 

[caveman1917]

 

[phiwum]

So one is considered to "support" neo-nazis if one's actions help them in their cause, irrespective of self-declaration?

Of course not!

If I unlock a door to let fresh air in, and Nazis come in to beat the folks inside, I've helped them in their cause, but I have not supported them.

You're clever enough to see this is an asinine notion of support.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[The Don]

Your definition of what constitutes "willing to act as apologists..." leaves a lot to be desired.

Of course it does, it gives a number far higher than you're comfortable with.

It appears to consist of anyone who defends the rights of ALL citizens, regardless of their beliefs, as well as anyone who doesn't support the instigation of violence against people that you have classified as "Nazis" regardless of whether your classification makes any sense at all.

If you can find any evidence of me saying anything like that, I'll give you a cookie.

Beyond that... you now "presume" to extend that to the vast majority of GOP representatives, and their supporters and voters?

So let me get this straight - you're essentially claiming that approximately half the citizens of the US are Nazi Supporters? Do I have that right?

No, but don't let me stop you.....

Man, that is one whopper of a hasty generalization.

It is, shame it's not one I made.


Throughout the campaign President Trump made a series of comments and policy announcements which made it clear that he himself held white supremacist or racist opinions and/or he was actively campaigning to groups that did. There was some muted criticism from the GOP about this during the primaries which evaporated once he was a candidate.

Previous GOP Presidential candidates have made it clear that they did not want the support of white supremacists. President Trump broke from that trend by actively courting it.

I suppose people could have voted for candidate Trump thinking that his campaign pronouncements were a piece of performance art which would bear little or no resemblance to what he would try to do once in office - I think it's clear that candidate Trump accurately reflects President Trump so anyone supporting the President at this stage supports a President who actively courts the support of racists and white supremacists, attempts to implement racist policies and, since Charlottesville thinks that there are good neo-Nazis, racists and white supremacists.

Since around 35% of the US electorate think that President Trump is doing a good job then as a first order approximation IMO that's a figure who are also comfortable with his views.

Talking specifically about the GOP's (lack of) response to the President's comments about Charlottesville. A tiny number of senior Republicans criticised President Trump directly and another few did so obliquely. The vast majority remained silent about a US President offering support to racists, white supremacists and neo-Nazis (and it's not just the "librul" media identifying that support, the groups themselves did so).

At the risk of creating a false dichotomy, this failure to criticise must either mean that the GOP representatives own sympathies are so strong in this regard that they are willing to risk losing the support of their constituents in order to continue to support the President in the face of criticism and/or they are reflecting the views of their constituents in this regard.

I tend towards the latter view on the grounds that they got elected in the first place.

 

[uke2se]

Correct. One's a vague statement allowing plenty of shade for those who wish to shelter under it. The other, not so much.

But the different is rather moot if the intent of "both are hostile" is to simply dismiss both sides equally.

This.

 

[uke2se]

Okay, now I'm genuinely outraged. You work in law enforcement, and you're encouraging the selective application of law based on your own bias?

Feel free to feel outraged, but I said no such thing.

What I said is that I never arrested such people, because what they were doing isn't illegal.

 

[uke2se]

Of course it does, it gives a number far higher than you're comfortable with.




If you can find any evidence of me saying anything like that, I'll give you a cookie.



No, but don't let me stop you.....



It is, shame it's not one I made.


Throughout the campaign President Trump made a series of comments and policy announcements which made it clear that he himself held white supremacist or racist opinions and/or he was actively campaigning to groups that did. There was some muted criticism from the GOP about this during the primaries which evaporated once he was a candidate.

Previous GOP Presidential candidates have made it clear that they did not want the support of white supremacists. President Trump broke from that trend by actively courting it.

I suppose people could have voted for candidate Trump thinking that his campaign pronouncements were a piece of performance art which would bear little or no resemblance to what he would try to do once in office - I think it's clear that candidate Trump accurately reflects President Trump so anyone supporting the President at this stage supports a President who actively courts the support of racists and white supremacists, attempts to implement racist policies and, since Charlottesville thinks that there are good neo-Nazis, racists and white supremacists.

Since around 35% of the US electorate think that President Trump is doing a good job then as a first order approximation IMO that's a figure who are also comfortable with his views.

Talking specifically about the GOP's (lack of) response to the President's comments about Charlottesville. A tiny number of senior Republicans criticised President Trump directly and another few did so obliquely. The vast majority remained silent about a US President offering support to racists, white supremacists and neo-Nazis (and it's not just the "librul" media identifying that support, the groups themselves did so).

At the risk of creating a false dichotomy, this failure to criticise must either mean that the GOP representatives own sympathies are so strong in this regard that they are willing to risk losing the support of their constituents in order to continue to support the President in the face of criticism and/or they are reflecting the views of their constituents in this regard.

I tend towards the latter view on the grounds that they got elected in the first place.

Like I posted earlier, according to recent polls, roughly 5% of white people sympathize with neo-Nazis, so I do believe you are right.

 

[The Don]

What the neo-Nazis, white supremacists and racists, with GOP support, have managed to do is to stop criticism for President Trump for his support of neo-Nazis, white supremacists and racists and instead hijacked the narrative to make it all about Antifa and put those on the left on the back foot.

Because the majority on the left have scruples, they feel obliged to criticise Antifa for their violence, creating the false equivalence and handing the narrative back to the GOP who are happy to allow the neo-Nazis, white supremacists and racists off the hook.

 

[Belz...]

So one is considered to "support" neo-nazis if one's actions help them in their cause, irrespective of self-declaration?

While we're using the rule of so, so we should believe people's claims even when they contradict their actions?

 

[Meadmaker]

Because the majority on the left have scruples, they feel obliged to criticise Antifa for their violence, creating the false equivalence and handing the narrative back to the GOP who are happy to allow the neo-Nazis, white supremacists and racists off the hook.

Maybe you didn't mean it this way, but you seem to be criticizing people on the left who have scruples.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

What the neo-Nazis, white supremacists and racists, with GOP support, have managed to do is to stop criticism for President Trump for his support of neo-Nazis, white supremacists and racists and instead hijacked the narrative to make it all about Antifa and put those on the left on the back foot.

Because the majority on the left have scruples, they feel obliged to criticise Antifa for their violence, creating the false equivalence and handing the narrative back to the GOP who are happy to allow the neo-Nazis, white supremacists and racists off the hook.

I love this neat rhetorical device where you place the responsibility of narrative on those discussing the acts in question rather than those who commit the acts themselves.

You think discussing antifa hands them the narrative?

ETA: another example of inconsistent application of a core principle. Exposing the Collateral Murder video was lambasted as handing terrorists a recruiting narrative and liberals rightly pointed out that people in the Middle East are hardly ignorant of our transgressions.

It's just a way to quash dissenting opinions while also shifting blame around.

 

[caveman1917]

Of course not!

If I unlock a door to let fresh air in, and Nazis come in to beat the folks inside, I've helped them in their cause, but I have not supported them.

You're clever enough to see this is an asinine notion of support.

What you call asinine I call objective. But what else would you suggest for a notion of "support"?

 

[uke2se]

I love this neat rhetorical device where you place the responsibility of narrative on those discussing the acts in question rather than those who commit the acts themselves.

You think discussing antifa hands them the narrative?

ETA: another example of inconsistent application of a core principle. Exposing the Collateral Murder video was lambasted as handing terrorists a recruiting narrative and liberals rightly pointed out that people in the Middle East are hardly ignorant of our transgressions.

It's just a way to quash dissenting opinions while also shifting blame around.

If someone where to start talking about how bad the insurgents were in a discussion about the collateral murder video they would be creating just as much of a smoke-screen as you are.

And I don't think discussing Antifa hands the Nazis the narrative. I think declaring that Antifa is just as bad as the Nazis does.

And before you say "I haven't done that", others have.

 

[caveman1917]

Armed Fascists Are Roaming Texas Floods Looking For Looters

Armed right-wing paramilitary groups are patrolling parts of Texas affected by Hurricane Harvey under the guise of helping hurricane victims.

A group of “Proud Boys” — a men’s rights group with fascist leanings — photographed themselves wading through flooded neighborhoods with assault weapons and flashing a hand signal associated with extremist militia groups. They refer to themselves as an “anti looting patrol.”

The image is a stark contrast from depictions of other volunteer responders, who have used their own boats for search and rescue or who are donating and distributing basic necessities to those in need after the tragedy.

 

[The Don]

Maybe you didn't mean it this way, but you seem to be criticizing people on the left who have scruples.

As humans they are admirable, as political operators in the current day US, they are deficient

The right has completely wriggled off the hook and now all people are talking about is how horrible Antifa are and how deficient is the left's condemnation of them - or if the condemnation is full, just how much worse than public art loving neo-Nazis, white supremacists and racists Antifa is

 

[The Don]

If someone where to start talking about how bad the insurgents were in a discussion about the collateral murder video they would be creating just as much of a smoke-screen as you are.

And I don't think discussing Antifa hands the Nazis the narrative. I think declaring that Antifa is just as bad as the Nazis does.

And before you say "I haven't done that", others have.

^ This