Alt-right neo-nazis assault counter protesters

[Skycaptain]

If an Islamic extremist driving a vehicle into a crowd is an act of terrorism, then this should be treated likewise. Maybe the armchair supporters may change their opinion if told they are backing an illegal terrorist organisation. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Skycaptain said:

If an Islamic extremist driving a vehicle into a crowd is an act of terrorism, then this should be treated likewise. Maybe the armchair supporters may change their opinion if told they are backing an illegal terrorist organisation. 

White extremists also did that to innocent muslims

[Karacoreable]

3 hours ago, Ms. Maya the Bee said:

White extremists also did that to innocent muslims

Exactly. As Skycaptain says, labelling them terrorists may give some of their supporters pause for thought.

[BinaryFission]

I read some stuff on this thread and not all of it, but I don't really think it's necessary. I may disgress from what is being replied here, but I just want to give my own opinion on these matters:

 

I have a close friend who is pretty much, some form of a neo-Nazi and very alt-right. The comments that they can sometimes make are very offensive, anti-Sematic, and can be very disespectful. Some of you might think at this point I shouldn't be friends with them anymore, but I cannot do that. They have been a close friend of mine for many years, and I remeber the times when they didn't know about this (well, I think almost everyone didn't know about neo-Nazi and alt-right groups when we were kids). Over time, we became more knowledgeable about these groups and formed our own opinions about them. My friend was one of the few people who believed in their ideals, and slowly evolved from being a friendly, accepting person to a person who believes in neo-Nazi and white supremacists ideals. 

 

What I'm trying to say is, that we learn to hate another group or faction, and it unfortunately can be most influenced by our own families. I believe everyone knew this already, but I just wanted to give my own thoughts. 

 

I have seen posts about how confederate statues are being destroyed  ( by mistake or on ourpose, whatever). I visited Munich last week, a birthplace of the massive Nazi Party that we know of today, and not everything the Nazis touched was destroyed after the 2nd World War (most of the places where they were and where Hitler made speeches where destroyed, but not everything). I believe that is because even though this is one of the worst parts in German history, the Germans wanted to preserve something to show the rest of the world an example of what happens when one small bad idea can become an influence to a whole country. I believe this is what the Confederate statues were made for; it is to show America how a group of beliefs can influence a nation to believe that this is the right thing to do (hint hint slavery) . Not all statues are created to be depicted as hereos, but rather to show the world the influence  and history these people have made to each of our own nations.

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[Guest]

6 hours ago, BinaryFission said:

I read some stuff on this thread and not all of it, but I don't really think it's necessary. I may disgress from what is being replied here, but I just want to give my own opinion on these matters:

 

I have a close friend who is pretty much, some form of a neo-Nazi and very alt-right. The comments that they can sometimes make are very offensive, anti-Sematic, and can be very disespectful. Some of you might think at this point I shouldn't be friends with them anymore, but I cannot do that. They have been a close friend of mine for many years, and I remeber the times when they didn't know about this (well, I think almost everyone didn't know about neo-Nazi and alt-right groups when we were kids). Over time, we became more knowledgeable about these groups and formed our own opinions about them. My friend was one of the few people who believed in their ideals, and slowly evolved from being a friendly, accepting person to a person who believes in neo-Nazi and white supremacists ideals. 

 

What I'm trying to say is, that we learn to hate another group or faction, and it unfortunately can be most influenced by our own families. I believe everyone knew this already, but I just wanted to give my own thoughts. 

 

I have seen posts about how confederate statues are being destroyed  ( by mistake or on ourpose, whatever). I visited Munich last week, a birthplace of the massive Nazi Party that we know of today, and not everything the Nazis touched was destroyed after the 2nd World War (most of the places where they were and where Hitler made speeches where destroyed, but not everything). I believe that is because even though this is one of the worst parts in German history, the Germans wanted to preserve something to show the rest of the world an example of what happens when one small bad idea can become an influence to a whole country. I believe this is what the Confederate statues were made for; it is to show America how a group of beliefs can influence a nation to believe that this is the right thing to do (hint hint slavery) . Not all statues are created to be depicted as hereos, but rather to show the world the influence  and history these people have made to each of our own nations.

From what I've seen, the supporters of confederate statues look at them as heroes, they don't care about the bad those people did.

You don't see statues of Hitler and other nazis in Germany, do you? (not that I know of)

Statues generally are for celebrating the person they portray.

[Skycaptain]

It's a slight digression from the OP, but I'm replying to Ms. Maya 

 

The difference is that countries like Germany, and many former communist states experienced a revolution, either by defeat in war, or through civil uprising. Whether as collateral damage during the conflict, or as a simple way of the populace demonstrating the removal of tyranny, statues and other momentos of the removed regime are frequently destroyed. Countries like the USA and Britain have not experienced a popular uprising, so statues commemorating prominent figures still survive, even if the passage of time implies that their actions wouldn't curry much support in today's world. 

[BinaryFission]

2 hours ago, Ms. Maya the Bee said:

From what I've seen, the supporters of confederate statues look at them as heroes, they don't care about the bad those people did.

You don't see statues of Hitler and other nazis in Germany, do you? (not that I know of)

Statues generally are for celebrating the person they portray.

There are statues of Stalin in Russia and elsewhere in Europe, and I don't think many people there now see him as a hero, but preserve the statue to show what an influence he was.

[daveb]

3 hours ago, Skycaptain said:

It's a slight digression from the OP, but I'm replying to Ms. Maya 

 

The difference is that countries like Germany, and many former communist states experienced a revolution, either by defeat in war, or through civil uprising. Whether as collateral damage during the conflict, or as a simple way of the populace demonstrating the removal of tyranny, statues and other momentos of the removed regime are frequently destroyed. Countries like the USA and Britain have not experienced a popular uprising, so statues commemorating prominent figures still survive, even if the passage of time implies that their actions wouldn't curry much support in today's world. 

Well, the Civil War in the US was a popular uprising in some areas. Though they lost. The statues that are being taken down are celebrations of people who were in active revolt against the United States. Taking those statues down and putting them in museums (or storage or whatever) doesn't erase history. History can still be taught, learned, read about, researched, etc. People like Robert E. Lee will still appear in history books.

 

Comparing or equating people who committed treason against the US with people who founded the US is either intellectually dishonest, ignorant or a deliberate attempt to divert the discussion from the issue at hand (similar to the attempts to say "many sides" are to blame in recent violence). At a basic level the important differences between the 2 are not equivalent.

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[ChillaKilla]

On 8/18/2017 at 9:29 AM, CaptainYesterday said:

The one statue carved into a mountin is an issue, though.  You can't really move that one.  Maybe carve some poignant Latin phrase beneath it about not condoning, but also not erasing or something like that.

I live a couple hours from Stone Mountain and this is a pretty good idea. Something like "History must be learned from" or something.

[Skycaptain]

@CaptainYesterday, I agree that whatever the demonstration people should protest without violence, either from those supporting the cause, or those against the cause, and turning up masked and potentially ready for violence is wrong. 

But please, what is despicable about, at a freedom of speech rally, in carrying a hammer and sickle flag? Surely, that is exercising freedom of speech to voice an opinion contrary to the demonstrators in a non-violent manner? 

[Jackninja5]

8 minutes ago, Skycaptain said:

@CaptainYesterday, I agree that whatever the demonstration people should protest without violence, either from those supporting the cause, or those against the cause, and turning up masked and potentially ready for violence is wrong. 

But please, what is despicable about, at a freedom of speech rally, in carrying a hammer and sickle flag? Surely, that is exercising freedom of speech to voice an opinion contrary to the demonstrators in a non-violent manner? 

There is no problem with the hammer and sickle. I disagree with communism but it's not a problem to wave that flag there.

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[Mostly Peaceful Ryan]

I hope the guy who killed that poor girl is thrown into prison and given the harahest sentence possible. If labeling him a terrorist is possible I would be for it.

[Skycaptain]

^^there's more chance of them getting "life plus 99 years" in the USA than in Europe. Over here they'd probably get counselling because of the trauma suffered when people didn't try and run away from their murderous actions 

[Atheno]

On 8/18/2017 at 6:35 PM, daveb said:

Well, the Civil War in the US was a popular uprising in some areas. Though they lost. The statues that are being taken down are celebrations of people who were in active revolt against the United States. Taking those statues down and putting them in museums (or storage or whatever) doesn't erase history. History can still be taught, learned, read about, researched, etc. People like Robert E. Lee will still appear in history books.

 

Comparing or equating people who committed treason against the US with people who founded the US is either intellectually dishonest, ignorant or a deliberate attempt to divert the discussion from the issue at hand (similar to the attempts to say "many sides" are to blame in recent violence). At a basic level the important differences between the 2 are not equivalent.

Agree that it's not erasing history, disagree that the people who committed treason in a war over slavery can't be compared to people who owned slaves. You could say there's a big difference in degree, numbers, whatever. That George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned however many slaves, but that if the Confederacy had won the war, slavery throughout the South would have been prolonged for so many years, so that's a lot more people enslaved. Honestly, I don't think well of any of these people, and on the other hand, you know... they were all people, bad in a very real sense, terrible in fact, but not without good qualities. None of them really deserves to be honored, but that doesn't mean you can't say-- all right, Declaration of Independence, fairly good propaganda piece... or whatever.

[Alexandmb]

On 12/8/2017 at 3:27 PM, Carson:) said:

I strongly dislike groups like the Alt-Right, BLM, antifa and others violent groups like this they all think they are doing things for the better but they're just making it worse.

That's exactly what I think about them. Their actions must be condemned. 

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[Skycaptain]

In the USA does "alt-" really mean violent thuggery? 

[Karacoreable]

4 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said:

More alt-left violence that the mainstream media will probably ignore:

 

http://www.wave3.com/story/36226162/black-clad-anarchists-storm-berkeley-rally-assaulting-4

Is anarchy left wing?

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[Karacoreable]

7 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said:

Communism is, which is what they really are.  Many of them fly the hammer and sickle.

 

Aslo, these "anarchists" only ever attack right-wing rallies.  We miraculously didn't see them at the Women's March, the March for Science, etc.

I don't think the Women's march or March for science really represent a political establishment, that being what anarchists are trying to tear down. I don't actually know what those are, they just don't sound affiliated to a party. Feminists and scientists, at a guess?

 

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[Karacoreable]

7 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

Feminism is a left-leaning political ideology.  Science shouldn't be political, but it sadly has become political, mostly over issues of gender.

We have different experiences. I think science became political when we realised that politics is how we get funding! As to feminism as a political idealogy, I limit the definition of feminist to someone who believes in equality regardless of your gender. Personally anyway.  

 

Just now, CaptainYesterday said:

I can admit when I'm wrong.  MSNBC actually covered this, even using the term "far left," and didn't defend Antifa.  They actually went really hard on them:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XXbgKUKeRw

So can I. On reflection I guess even though they called it a 'Rally against Hate', it was a left-wing rally against whatever right-wing event was going on. So the 'anarchists' who tried to attack them and then 'melted back into' the rally against hate, well... they only had a problem with half the political idealogies present. I do wonder about anarchism. Do they object to people holding political views? To grassroots supporters or just to the government and party members? The former's a bit like objecting to people holding opinions in general. 

 

On an aside, Germany banned a far-left website recently, it was such big news we even heard about it here.

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]