Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

[phiwum]

Ah, what the hell, I'm game. Beats sniping at each other till page 100.

Nazis are worse than anti-Nazis.

Generally speaking, sure. Bad ol' Nazis!

 

[phiwum]

I'm in. Nazis are bad. Being an anti-Nazi is good. In fact, it is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for being good.


BUT.....here's where it gets tricky.....

Violence against Nazis is _________.

My own answer would be to beg insufficient data, because we need to know the circumstances of the violence.

You blew it! We're supposed to give perspective by just talking about how bad Nazis are. No tricky questions here!

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

About three minutes in, he talks about making himself more capable of violence.

Yeah, I saw that part. That's different than saying they were looking for violence.

Later on he considers that "resisting" is sufficient reason to attack someone.

Ah, I don't remember that part. I'll have to watch it again. Resisting what?

 

[jimbob]

Yeah, I saw that part. That's different than saying they were looking for violence.



Ah, I don't remember that part. I'll have to watch it again. Resisting what?

About 19 minutes in "We knew that we would meet a lot of resistance"

I can't find the quote, but I have seen a clip where he says he wants to be attacked so he can retaliate and claim self defence. (*if* my memory is correct).

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Just for fun: I’m Sick Of Busting My Ass Doing Neo-Nazi Stuff Only To Have Some Masked Antifa Dweebs Get Credit As The Real Fascists

 

[Meadmaker]

You blew it! We're supposed to give perspective by just talking about how bad Nazis are. No tricky questions here!

Yeah. Broke the rules again. Oh, well.

 

[quadraginta]

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

I have seen claims that he lit up before the Nazi actually fired the gun at people, none that he did so before the Nazi started waving the gun around.

Where is your evidence for that?

 

[caveman1917]

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

Well then, if I go around at those events going "Hey guys! I found a ****** hiding in the bushes here, come beat him up!" then I'm not "supporting" neo-nazis if I only do it because I like lynching mobs in general (ie if I would do the same for a black lynching mob going after white people)?

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.

Yes, exactly.

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.

Yes. Although it would be kind of hard to believe that someone who fully agrees with them at no point displays any sort of behaviour to "support" them (even if only as small as defending them in a discussion with the neighbours or something). But assuming that such a person exists, who fully agrees with them yet at no point displays any sort of behaviour in their support (even as small as proposing, let alone defending, those ideas in any discussion) then he would not "support" neo-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.

Yes, basically. I don't see the problem. Is it your moralist ego-centrism which makes you interpret the proposition "you support neo-nazis" as a determination of one's moral character? As you might notice, I've not said that it is necessarily "bad" or "good" - I've not attached any moralism to the definition, it just is "supporting" neo-nazis.

Going back to your earlier example about opening the door to let air in, and thereby unwittingly letting neo-nazis in who end up beating up the people inside. Suppose someone notices you doing so, jumps up, and takes the door from your hands and slams it shut again. That would pretty much be the equivalent of Antifa, maybe not respecting your property (it is your door) and maybe even involving some violence (you being pushed aside because you're in the way when trying to slam the door shut again), but it does stop the neo-nazis from getting through and beating people up inside.

 

[caveman1917]

Your logic is beyond flawed.

No it isn't, yours is though. I notice you continue to refuse answering the question, one wonders why...

 

[Meadmaker]

Charlottesville PD really dropped the ball on this.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/...ce.html?referer=https://t.co/9Np2jwMAfr?amp=1

How was he not arrested when he fired his weapon?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

I have seen claims that he lit up before the Nazi actually fired the gun at people, none that he did so before the Nazi started waving the gun around.

Where is your evidence for that?

It's on the bloody video. As that clip opens, KKK is walking down the stairs. You can see a cloud of paint. KKK sort of veers to the side away from the paint, but keeps walking, but looking back. Corey Long is hidden from the camera by a man, but at about 14 seconds, you can see a new cloud of paint emerge from his direction. KKK is barely visible on the left side. At 16 seconds, flame emerges from the cloud. KKK's hand goes up, holding the gun, and he yells "Hey, ******!"

 

[quadraginta]

It's on the bloody video. As that clip opens, KKK is walking down the stairs. You can see a cloud of paint. KKK sort of veers to the side away from the paint, but keeps walking, but looking back. Corey Long is hidden from the camera by a man, but at about 14 seconds, you can see a new cloud of paint emerge from his direction. KKK is barely visible on the left side. At 16 seconds, flame emerges from the cloud. KKK's hand goes up, holding the gun, and he yells "Hey, ******!"

Are you saying he wasn't holding the gun before the flame, it just suddenly appeared there at that very moment?

A quick-draw artist, perhaps?

 

[phiwum]

Well then, if I go around at those events going "Hey guys! I found a ****** hiding in the bushes here, come beat him up!" then I'm not "supporting" neo-nazis if I only do it because I like lynching mobs in general (ie if I would do the same for a black lynching mob going after white people)?

In this case, there is an intention to aid the neo-nazis in their cause, even if one doesn't care for the cause. This would arguably be support.

Yes, exactly.



Yes. Although it would be kind of hard to believe that someone who fully agrees with them at no point displays any sort of behaviour to "support" them (even if only as small as defending them in a discussion with the neighbours or something). But assuming that such a person exists, who fully agrees with them yet at no point displays any sort of behaviour in their support (even as small as proposing, let alone defending, those ideas in any discussion) then he would not "support" neo-nazis.



Yes, basically. I don't see the problem. Is it your moralist ego-centrism which makes you interpret the proposition "you support neo-nazis" as a determination of one's moral character? As you might notice, I've not said that it is necessarily "bad" or "good" - I've not attached any moralism to the definition, it just is "supporting" neo-nazis.

Going back to your earlier example about opening the door to let air in, and thereby unwittingly letting neo-nazis in who end up beating up the people inside. Suppose someone notices you doing so, jumps up, and takes the door from your hands and slams it shut again. That would pretty much be the equivalent of Antifa, maybe not respecting your property (it is your door) and maybe even involving some violence (you being pushed aside because you're in the way when trying to slam the door shut again), but it does stop the neo-nazis from getting through and beating people up inside.

This has nothing to do with morality but with a misleading misuse of the term "support".

By this definition, there are good odds that each and every one of us has "supported" racism, because we have purchased goods or services at some point where a bit of the profits earned lined the pockets of a racist, and economic freedom for a racist advances his cause. Your definition is silly because it is too broad.

Your definition is also silly because (in order to avoid problems of unreliable self-reporting) you've made it so that not a single person can confidently say, "I do not support X." Who can say with certainty that nothing they've done has advanced the support of a given group? Our actions have unseen effects.

Your definition is also silly because it is too narrow in other respects. An inveterate racist doesn't "support" racism unless he's actually done something which positively affects the cause. (This last point is less essential than the others.)

But if this is your definition, fine. You have given up any meaningful criticism of others on the basis that they support Nazis, since you do too. In fact, you do in a very obvious manner: in your willingness to defend violence against fascists, I'd wager that many of us react with horror and that our support for free speech rights for Nazis is increased some small amount. So, there you have it: you and other antifa "supporters" also support Nazis!

 

[jimbob]

In this case, there is an intention to aid the neo-nazis in their cause, even if one doesn't care for the cause. This would arguably be support.



This has nothing to do with morality but with a misleading misuse of the term "support".

By this definition, there are good odds that each and every one of us has "supported" racism, because we have purchased goods or services at some point where a bit of the profits earned lined the pockets of a racist, and economic freedom for a racist advances his cause. Your definition is silly because it is too broad.

Your definition is also silly because (in order to avoid problems of unreliable self-reporting) you've made it so that not a single person can confidently say, "I do not support X." Who can say with certainty that nothing they've done has advanced the support of a given group? Our actions have unseen effects.

Your definition is also silly because it is too narrow in other respects. An inveterate racist doesn't "support" racism unless he's actually done something which positively affects the cause. (This last point is less essential than the others.)

But if this is your definition, fine. You have given up any meaningful criticism of others on the basis that they support Nazis, since you do too. In fact, you do in a very obvious manner: in your willingness to defend violence against fascists, I'd wager that many of us react with horror and that our support for free speech rights for Nazis is increased some small amount. So, there you have it: you and other antifa "supporters" also support Nazis!

Yes, but Caveman1917 (clue in the date) is pretty extreme - they equate liberal democracy with Nazism (I think)

In some respects stalinism was even worse than nazism, more succesful, more lethal - I wrote these following comments about this fact some years ago (as modern revanchist and militaristic Russia along our Nordic borders keeps these memories rather fresh):

http://stockholmslender.blogspot.fi/2006/03/good-old-times-when-we-sang-horst.html

http://stockholmslender.blogspot.fi/2007/05/stalins-willing-executioners-pro.html

Nice anti-communist propaganda. So Stalin was responsible for the fact that two of the most brutal, oppressive and lethal political ideologies - liberalism and Nazism - combined their forces to repress left-wingers in 1930's Germany?

 

[Scopedog]

About 19 minutes in "We knew that we would meet a lot of resistance"

I can't find the quote, but I have seen a clip where he says he wants to be attacked so he can retaliate and claim self defence. (*if* my memory is correct).

Fortunately, Christopher Cantwell is in jail and denied bond. Apparently his fascist allies (the police) turned on him:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ond-charlottesville-charges-article-1.3459091

All violent Antifa need to share a cell with him.

 

[caveman1917]

By this definition, there are good odds that each and every one of us has "supported" racism, because we have purchased goods or services at some point where a bit of the profits earned lined the pockets of a racist, and economic freedom for a racist advances his cause. Your definition is silly because it is too broad.

What's wrong with being broad? Also, never heard of the boycott campaign in relation to Apartheid South Africa?

Your definition is also silly because (in order to avoid problems of unreliable self-reporting) you've made it so that not a single person can confidently say, "I do not support X."

And? Is this your moralistic ego-centrism, which requires that you must be able to confidently say "I do not support neo-nazis" about yourself, because you interpret the proposition as a determination of moral character rather than an objective amoral determination of factual effect?

Your definition is also silly because it is too narrow in other respects. An inveterate racist doesn't "support" racism unless he's actually done something which positively affects the cause.

And? Someone can be in a coma, having absolute faith in Nazism, yet if he doesn't interact with the outside world then he isn't "supporting" the neo-nazi cause. How is this not obvious?

You have given up any meaningful criticism of others on the basis that they support Nazis, since you do too.

Unless there's more than one degree of support, of course.

In fact, you do in a very obvious manner: in your willingness to defend violence against fascists, I'd wager that many of us react with horror and that our support for free speech rights for Nazis is increased some small amount.

If you react with horror to self-defense against violent fascists then maybe your support for their rights to organize didn't need much increasing anymore in the first place.

So, there you have it: you and other antifa "supporters" also support Nazis!

Your use of an exclamation mark suggests that you think I couldn't see such an obvious conclusion from my definition. Now that we have that out of the way, I'm always willing to discuss the varying degrees of support in various positions on the subject.

 

[caveman1917]

Yes, but Caveman1917 (clue in the date) is pretty extreme - they equate liberal democracy with Nazism (I think)

Are you sure? Because if they were equal, then it would be pretty silly to mention both. Maybe they're not equal, just comparable along the variables given. Just a thought.

 

[jimbob]

Fortunately, Christopher Cantwell is in jail and denied bond. Apparently his fascist allies (the police) turned on him:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ond-charlottesville-charges-article-1.3459091

All violent Antifa need to share a cell with him.

A lot of Antifa do, undoubtedly. However, the attacks on the Nazis once the Nazis had turned the situation violent were justified.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...w_charlottesville_is_coping_a_week_later.html

Rev. Seth Wispelwey
Directing minister of Restoration Village Arts and consulting organizer for Congregate C'ville

I am a pastor in Charlottesville, and antifa saved my life twice on Saturday. Indeed, they saved many lives from psychological and physical violence—I believe the body count could have been much worse, as hard as that is to believe. Thankfully, we had robust community defense standing up to white supremacist violence this past weekend. Incredibly brave students held space at the University of Virginia and stared down a torch-lit mob that vastly outnumbered them on Friday night. On Saturday, battalions of anti-fascist protesters came together on my city’s streets to thwart the tide of men carrying weapons, shields, and Trump flags and sporting MAGA hats and Hitler salutes and waving Nazi flags and the pro-slavery “stars and bars.”

Snip

A phalanx of neo-Nazis shoved right through our human wall with 3-foot-wide wooden shields, screaming and spitting homophobic slurs and obscenities at us. It was then that antifa stepped in to thwart them. They have their tools to achieve their purposes, and they are not ones I will personally use, but let me stress that our purposes were the same: block this violent tide and do not let it take the pedestal.

The white supremacists did not blink at violently plowing right through clergy, all of us dressed in full clerical garb. White supremacy is violence. I didn’t see any racial justice protesters with weapons; as for antifa, anything they brought I would only categorize as community defense tools and nothing more. Pretty much everyone I talk to agrees—including most clergy. My strong stance is that the weapon is and was white supremacy, and the white supremacists intentionally brought weapons to instigate violence.

Similarly, the situation described in this BBC world service radio programme about the Notting Hill race riots - was an occasion where the fascists only stopped after a week, once the Jamaicans from Brixton went and fought them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csv254

 

[phiwum]

What's wrong with being broad? Also, never heard of the boycott campaign in relation to Apartheid South Africa?



And? Is this your moralistic ego-centrism, which requires that you must be able to confidently say "I do not support neo-nazis" about yourself, because you interpret the proposition as a determination of moral character rather than an objective amoral determination of factual effect?



And? Someone can be in a coma, having absolute faith in Nazism, yet if he doesn't interact with the outside world then he isn't "supporting" the neo-nazi cause. How is this not obvious?



Unless there's more than one degree of support, of course.



If you react with horror to self-defense against violent fascists then maybe your support for their rights to organize didn't need much increasing anymore in the first place.



Your use of an exclamation mark suggests that you think I couldn't see such an obvious conclusion from my definition. Now that we have that out of the way, I'm always willing to discuss the varying degrees of support in various positions on the subject.

No, there's no point in discussing your silly definition further. That you recognize the consequences of the definition (so that all of us "support" racists, most likely, as well as supporting anti-racists, vegans and libertarians) is a point in your favor, but the fact that you don't see this trivializes the notion of support is surprising.

You keep trying to bring morality into this, but I haven't raised the point at all. I've merely said that the usual sense of "S supports movement P" requires that S has a conscious pro-attitude towards P. If S has no knowledge that some action inadvertently aids P, then we do not describe S as supporting P by performing that action. This is a simple observation of how the terms are used in normal speech.

 

[Meadmaker]

Are you saying he wasn't holding the gun before the flame, it just suddenly appeared there at that very moment?

A quick-draw artist, perhaps?

That is precisely what I am saying. His hands are visible until about one second before the flames are seen. There's no gun.

It seems probable that, as he walked backwards, he had probably placed his hand on his gun. I don't know where he had been carrying it. There's some sort of pocket in his vest. Maybe that's where the gun was.

Yes, he pulled the gun in reaction to the flame.

 

[caveman1917]

No, there's no point in discussing your silly definition further.

Just because you call something silly doesn't mean it is.

That you recognize the consequences of the definition (so that all of us "support" racists, most likely, as well as supporting anti-racists, vegans and libertarians) is a point in your favor, but the fact that you don't see this trivializes the notion of support is surprising.

The reason I don't see it trivializes the notion is because it doesn't.

You keep trying to bring morality into this, but I haven't raised the point at all. I've merely said that the usual sense of "S supports movement P" requires that S has a conscious pro-attitude towards P. If S has no knowledge that some action inadvertently aids P, then we do not describe S as supporting P by performing that action. This is a simple observation of how the terms are used in normal speech.

If that were true then there would be no concept of "unknowingly supporting" in normal speech, yet a google search for those terms (unknowingly supporting) shows this to be false. Not only does "that's how the term is used in common parlance" make for one bad argument for a definition of a term, but it's not even true in this case in the first place.