Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

[caveman1917]

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

So, on command of the "right" (who exactly?), this "left" (who exactly?) starts talking about how horrible Antifa is, to then point out how they helped the "right" dominate the narrative by doing so? Sounds more like an unscrupulous "left" than one with scruples to me.

 

[The Don]

So, on command of the "right" (who exactly?), this "left" (who exactly?) starts talking about how horrible Antifa is, to then point out how they helped the "right" dominate the narrative by doing so? Sounds more like an unscrupulous "left" than one with scruples to me.

All talk about President Trumps inadequate response to neo-Nazis, white supremacist and racists has slipped from the media and instead we have a long-running debate about exactly how bad Antifa are.

Who's to blame ? I don't know but I can see whose interests it serves, and it ain't the left.

 

[quadraginta]

That's cool I guess. I mean, I really hadn't taken the aerosol-spray-on-fire-device-holder's extensive and highly accurate ESP into account, I suppose.

How much ESP do you need to see someone pointing a gun at you?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

All talk about President Trumps inadequate response to neo-Nazis, white supremacist and racists has slipped from the media and instead we have a long-running debate about exactly how bad Antifa are.

Who's to blame ? I don't know but I can see whose interests it serves, and it ain't the left.

Now that I'm familiar with the rhetorical tactics, it's been fascinating to watch. An unstated refusal to discuss, condemn or even acknowledge the presence of actual Nazis at this rally, while harping on antifa and demanding all of the above until it dominates the conversation.

 

[quadraginta]

I believe the legal jargon is "Improvised Incendiary Device."

<snip>

Sure.

And any kid who has taped a few firecrackers together has made an "improvised explosive device".

Such hyperbole reeks of desperation, though. When you have to try so hard in efforts to manufacture a false equivalence it is clear evidence of argument failure.

 

[quadraginta]

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.

Add "and hold the door open for them while they come in".

Then your analogy fits better.

 

[jimbob]

Add "and hold the door open for them while they come in".

Then your analogy fits better.

Whilst singing the Horst Wessel

 

[phiwum]

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

One cannot be said to support a political movement (or similar stuff) unless he has a positive attitude towards the movement.

Your proposal was the following: "one is considered to 'support' neo-nazis if one's actions help them in their cause, irrespective of self-declaration."

It would follow that a person who loathes Nazis but happens to inadvertently help them in their cause (slowing down to allow a Nazi to cross the street, not realizing he is a Nazi, say) "supports" the nazis.

If we read your proposal as definitional (i.e., as iff), then it would also follow that a newly turned racist who agrees with every value expressed by Nazis but who dies before his newfound philosophy could influence his behavior does *not* support the Nazis.

I paused today and allowed a driver to turn left in front of me. He might have been a Nazi on his way to Kinko's to photocopy some propaganda. Hence, per your definition, I might support Nazis, but darn the luck, I just don't know.

 

[Meadmaker]

How much ESP do you need to see someone pointing a gun at you?

I didn't understand the ESP reference either, but at the time he started spraying the flames, no one had pointed a gun at him.

 

[phiwum]

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.

Then take it to others and stop insinuating the Delphic Oracle has done something wrong.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Sure.

And any kid who has taped a few firecrackers together has made an "improvised explosive device".

Such hyperbole reeks of desperation, though. When you have to try so hard in efforts to manufacture a false equivalence it is clear evidence of argument failure.

Was the child taping together firecrackers in the middle of a street brawl after they were tossed in his direction?

Another example of explaining an act away by removing all the relevant parts that made it provocative.

ETA: let's take the premise that he picks up the can and is merely overcome with an impulsive desire to be dazzled by 'pretty fire' for a minute in the midst of doing battle with nazis and racists.

Actually, you know what? Upon writing out the actual description, I've changed my mind. Let's not consider that remotely credible on its face.

AETA: I still don't think it should be pursued, though.

 

[phiwum]

Add "and hold the door open for them while they come in".

Then your analogy fits better.

Purposely holding the door in order to help Nazis is arguably a form of support. I'd buy that, but you misunderstood my point.

Per Caveman1917's definition, anything one does which furthers the cause of Nazis, intentionally or accidentally, counts as "supporting" Nazis. My point is that this is a pretty silly notion of support.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Then take it to others and stop insinuating the Delphic Oracle has done something wrong.

"I heard just the other day..."

"People are telling me all the time..."

on the other side,

"unnamed senior officials confirm..."

"(dubious) polling suggests..."

We're post-factual.

It is what it is.

 

[jimbob]

Now that I'm familiar with the rhetorical tactics, it's been fascinating to watch. An unstated refusal to discuss, condemn or even acknowledge the presence of actual Nazis at this rally, while harping on antifa and demanding all of the above until it dominates the conversation.

Yes. Neo-Nazis follow a violent ideology - you *don't* get that many advocates of genocide who are committed to nonviolence.

As a result, whilst it might be mildly regrettable if some neo-Nazis get attacked when they are otherwise being peaceful (especially if it provides a narrative that the Nazis are somehow victims), I can't shed very many tears over it.

Saying that some Antifa are bad is missing the point. Some undoubtedly are, just because some will be violent anarchists, and willing to harm non Nazis. However *all* Nazis are bad.

That is the problem with Trump saying that there were good people on both sides. There weren't.

Similarly, saying that there were bad people on both sides is trivial and misses the point. One side was 100% bad, the other probably had a majority of good people.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

We're post-factual.

It is what it is.

I've heard many people say that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

Your logic is beyond flawed.

At one point, Prima Nocte was perfectly legal. Do you think it's appropriate to selectively apply Prima Nocte NOW, because at one point in the distant past and in a different country, it was legal?

Let's get even clearer: At this point in time, in some other countries, it is illegal for a woman to show her hair in public. If she shows her hair in public, she can be stoned to death for it. Do you think it's appropriate to start stoning women in the US ,on the basis of it being legal somewhere else?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Yes, it gives whatever number you feel like pulling out of your backside whenever it suits you to slide that around. It's a perfectly subjective definition that lets you move people in and out of the "bad guys" category at your whim.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

5% of white people, 11% of Hispanics, and 6% of African Americans.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11979405&postcount=305

You might want to dig in on some of the stuff you regurgitate, and make sure you are't being fed blatantly cherry-picked fecal matter.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Who?

Note that you and others have been asked essentially this question multiple times now, and have failed to provide an answer.

 

[Emily's Cat]

How much ESP do you need to see someone pointing a gun at you?

Given that he had his makeshift flamethrower out BEFORE the asshat nazi pointed a gun at him, I'd say quite a bit.