Friar Bijou wrote:
You essentially said "Sure, some racists dude killed and maimed people but the other side broke the law, too". No qualifiers at all. That's called equating the two. If that's not what you intended try to be a better writer.
"And" not "But". That's a qualifier. Saying "Joe fell down the stairs *and* Frank robbed a bank" in no way equates the two events. You're the one trying to create an equivalence that was not present in my statement (nor in Trump's for that matter). And no. It's not about me being a 'better writer". I can say 100 times "my statement about the wrongness of the antifa protesters methods has nothing at all do to with my condemnation of the beliefs of the white nationalists" and you'll still insist that I'm using one to balance out the other somehow.
I'm not. I've repeatedly stated that I'm not. Yet you still insist that I said something I didn't, or mean something I didn't. How many times do I have to say 'that's not what I said' before you'll stop insisting that it was. Doubly so when you say stuff like "you essentially said". Kinda invalidates your whole argument right there.
Being as the KKK and the n.a.z.i.s historically murdered a ton of people, they kinda were. Which is kinda the point. Dumbass.
There's no evidence that the people physically at the protest were murderers (except the guy in the car, but that happened *after* the protest was broken up because of the violent counter protest, so you can't justify one action by saying it's in response to an action that hasn't yet happened). That's the point. If we're going to be pedantic about what people actually said
(as opposed to what they "essentially said"), you didn't say they were "breaking the law in order to hurt people who were promoting an ideology which other people in the past, who have committed murder and other violence, also promoted". You said they were "breaking the law in order to hurt murderers
" (ok. technically, you struck out my words "people they don't like" and replaced it with "murderers", but the intent is clear).
You were calling the people at the protest murderers. That is not correct. Full stop.
Trump listed a bunch of really bad groups and said they were bad and followed that up by saying the people who don't like that list of people were just as bad.
False. He did not say this. Stop making stuff up. It's not helping your point at all.
If you think I'm pulling that comment out of my ***, you might want to check into a large chunk of the GOP folk in Congress who essentially said the same thing.
"essentially". That's you saying "they didn't actually say this, but I'm choosing to pretend they did anyway". If you want to judge someone for what they say, then you really need to be correct about what they actually said. Once you say "essentially", you're putting your own spin on their words. And you'll have to forgive me, but I don't think you're the most reliable source for what a member of the GOP meant when they said something.
If you can't even bother to find an actual quote, then what's the point?
"Horrible" is a pretty strong word. If some person or group who hates the KKK and n.a.z.i.s starts indiscriminately murdering them I assure you I'm not OK with that.
Where's the point of "I'm not OK with that" though? So, somewhere between "show up at their events with tactical gear, bats, and pepper spray" and "indiscriminately murdering them", right? Care to be a tiny bit more specific? Because from my point of view, the former is illegal already. Maybe you don't consider going somewhere with the specific purpose of inflicting physical harm on them "horrible", but I actually do.
Another point is that you are judging the actions of one group based on the ideology of the group they oppose. I'm judging the actions alone. Ask yourself this question: If the protest had been about saving the whales, or raising awareness of global warming, or supporting SSM, and another group had showed up with tactical gear, pepper spray, and bats and proceeded to engage in the exact same actions that the antifa folks did
, would you have questioned me if I'd labeled their actions as "horrible"?
I'm reasonably certain you would not have batted an eye at the label. You'd likely have joined in with the condemnation, and possibly used even stronger language. I'm speculating here. I can't know for sure. But feel free to examine your own conscience on the subject at your own leisure.
Our laws have to be blind to the individuals involved. We should judge actions. Not people. I get that this can be hard to do. It's really really easy to just say that those white nationalists deserved it and move on. But that's not a good idea in the long run. Because what you're really doing isn't opposing that group. You're supporting and establishing the legitimacy of the concept of unequal application of the law. And that's freaking dangerous. I would hope you agree with this.
Having said that...some things are black and white. N.a.z.i.s and the KKK are evil, pure and simple. I pray you don't think otherwise.
Of course they are. But their evilness does not cancel out illegal, violent, and yes... horrible actions by others. Let's also not lose sight of the fact that my point was about the slippery slope aspect of this. As you get more accustomed to allowing such violence against folks like the KKK, the range of "people I don't like" that you will accept it against will grow. My point wasn't about how horrible the violence is (or whether that's the appropriate word at all), but the danger of acceptance of that sort of behavior in the first place (regardless of what we label it).
The same antifa folks show up to conservative events to shut them down. Using the same tactics. If they were reserving their violence just against KKK, neo-*****, and white nationalists, it would still be illegal, but I could at least understand the "instant karma" aspect to the whole thing. But they aren't. This isn't about the folks they were protesting against this time. It's about the group itself.
So if you were the presiding judge in Loving vs Virginia you would have sided with the state?
A judge is not "violating the law" when he rules a law to be unconstitutional. He's upholding a higher law. That's not remotely similar to someone illegally protesting, blocking traffic, committing acts of vandalism and violence, etc. The judge isn't showing up in court with a baseball bat and bludgeoning the guy he rules against either, so there's that too.
But for the record, if I had been the judge in the Loving case, I would have ruled against the state, just as the judge did in that case. But not because I'm "for" or "against" a "side" of some current social issue, which sadly, is how so many people today make decisions. But because the law in question served no lawful purpose except to arbitrarily discriminate. And before you go there. No. I don't equate Loving to SSM. Ironically, the Loving case used as part of its basis for the decision the fact that procreation is a natural purpose of marriage, and being of different races did not affect the ability to procreate. So by denying a mixed race couple marriage, they would prevent the children from being born to a married couple, thus providing more harm to them. That is, quite obviously, not the same with a same *** couple.
But I don't feel like re-hashing that one again.
Movements like white nationalism have been steadily losing steam for decades.
Until Obama got elected and they blossomed anew. Maybe you should get your news from somewhere.[/quote]
First off, no correlation to Obama being elected. Also, there's this bit: There has been a rise in the number of hate groups operating in the United States for a second year in a row, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) monitoring group.
In a recent report , the SPLC found that the total number of hate groups in the US in 2016 grew to 917 from 892 a year earlier.
Since 1999, the total number of hate groups in the US has more than doubled.
There are now more anti-Muslim , anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT, white nationalist, neo-****, neo-Confederate and black separatist organisations.
But the number of Ku Klux Klan (KKK) chapters, racist skinhead groups and anti-government militias and political groupings has declined, according to the report.
Let's make another thing clear. The SPLC's definition of "hate groups" can be quite broad. And in this case, their definition of "white nationalists" included any group associated with the "alt-right", despite the fact that most people and groups who identify themselves as such don't identify themselves as white nationalists, nor engage in the behavior of white nationalists. Apparently, these days, all it takes to be labeled a white nationalist is to support crazy things like enforcing our existing immigration policies, and wanting better vetting of refugees from areas of the world where terrorist groups have strongholds.
The actual white nationalists, neo-*****, etc can hardly get more than a hundred people to show up to most of their events. I believe the count in Virginia was what? 500? That's the largest number I've been able to find. And that consisted of like a dozen different (known) groups that came from all over the country to attend. That's not a lot of people. And it's unclear how many were actual members of white nationalist groups, and how many were there because they opposed the removal of the statue, but had no affiliation with the other groups (and apparently a decent number of people who just showed up to express support for the 1st amendment, but didn't have a "side" at all).
If anything, the actions of antifa have *increased* the numbers of white nationalists showing up at these events. They're getting media attention that they didn't get before, and are able to play up the victim card. A previous event, planned by the same guy who planned the one on august 12th, managed to garner a whopping 50 protesters (and over a thousand counter protesters).
My point is that it's the violence of the counter protesters that is drawing media attention, both to the violence, and to the protesters themselves. It's counterproductive IMO. And yeah, what they're doing is also illegal. Showing up and voicing your opinion? Perfectly fine. Showing up and engaging in physical violence against the protesters? Illegal. I didn't think that had to be clarified.
You don't have a 1st amendment right to engage in violence. It stops at "speech". Again. I didn't think that this was something that had to be explained. And certainly didn't think I'd have to explain this so many times.
So when racists and their ilk parade around and hold demonstrations to spread their message of hate just be silent and let them? Sounds like a swell plan there, man.
Sigh. There's a difference between countering the message, and engaging in violence. That's the point I've been making, repeatedly. It doesn't seem to be sinking in though.
Hateful ideologies like white nationalism are best fought by marginalizing them. In a large population, with the prevailing social message being in opposition to racism, the solitary guy who might have white nationalist leanings, perhaps passed down by previous generations in his family, will assume he's alone in his thoughts. He's the outlier in a sea of people who disagree with him. He'll tend to stay quiet, keep his hateful opinions to himself, and be less likely to pass them on to his children. Over time, the ideology dies out via this process. Is it fast? No. But it's the only way to accomplish this. Violence doesn't work.
What violence does do is raise national awareness of the ideology. Doesn't matter what that messaging is. It gives folks like that a "group" to associate with, and increases the likelihood that they'll begin speaking up themselves, and even taking action. Violence against that sort of ideology does not work. It has never worked. You're just giving them what they want. Edited, Sep 19th 2017 10:20pm by gbaji