Sean

#UnitetheRight

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

My opinion that the GOP is a racist organization is only being solidified.

Not only that- those Republicans that seem troubled by their Nazi colleagues are far too timid to deal with violent racists.  The best they seem capable of is wringing their hands, quietly shuffling away and locking their doors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2017 at 7:19 AM, Sol Rosenberg said:

IMG_6785.JPG

On 8/14/2017 at 7:46 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Where did you find this pic? Who is that officer? Is that black tape over his name badge?

I have mixed feelings about anonymous uniformed officers. Seems a bad thing in general but I can see why he might wish to not reveal to those people behind him where his family lives.

He's what America is about to me and I'd like to praise him by name in public.

Not sure why you think you see tape... I see blurring from a relatively low-rez picture.

His name is Darius Nash.  Far from trying to hide, he's given interviews about it.

http://time.com/4899668/charlottesville-virginia-protest-officer-kkk-photo/

Picture was taken a month earlier, at the KKK rally in Charlottesville  -  the one where the PD was criticized for being too militaristic, especially against the antifa crowd (there's an ACLU suit).  Which might explain some of the overly hands-off approach they used this week...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Almost all Muslims abhor jihad, but terrorists have altered American perception of that religion significantly. 

We have heard a chorus of "why hasn't every fucking Muslim denounced the actions of those who claim to be acting on behalf of that faith?"

The same goes for the Right.  Denounce them in no uncertain terms.  Make it clear they are a criminal element and need to be crushed.

Or, keep your mouth shut and allow it to happen.  But, don't ever speak out about Muslims and what you perceive as tacit approval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:

Not only that- those Republicans that seem troubled by their Nazi colleagues are far too timid to deal with violent racists.  The best they seem capable of is wringing their hands, quietly shuffling away and locking their doors. 

That'd be better than the ball-less fuckers that blame the Democrats and liberals for "giving them attention".

What cowardly sacks of shit the Republicans have become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

That'd be better than the ball-less fuckers that blame the Democrats and liberals for "giving them attention".

What cowardly sacks of shit the Republicans have become.

I get that a lot of our posters here are too old to punch a Nazi. That's okay.  But for them to say that nobody should punch a Nazi is crazy.  Gun nuts like Jeff and Tom saying that violence against Nazis is bad.  YCMTSU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Ok, violence is!!  I'm all for Cracking some nazi skulls. Let's get it on!  

Burn this bitch down!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Ok, violence is!!  I'm all for Cracking some nazi skulls. Let's get it on!  

We'll put you down in the column of people that think Nazis calling for ethic cleansing just have an "opposing viewpoint."  You've been dodging questions in this thread. Not like you to cut and run.

A US citizen got a drone up his ass because he was spreading ISIS propaganda.  We have Nazis on our very own streets calling for ethnic cleansing of Americans.  I don't see much difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Turd Sandwich said:

I'd rather shoot them but then that would require GUNZ. What a quandary.

Shooting Nazis is how the Greatest Generation became the greatest generation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Turd Sandwich said:

Well one thing is unless they are breaking some laws then how do you overcome the free speech issues. Its a slippery slope to say here boy go have your neo rally permit but we are coming by later and give you a rap in the mouth cause you are a racist pig. Unless they are breaking laws what are going to do invoke some brain police cause their thoughts are tainted with racism and hate.

You cant have only free speech just for one side or group. It sucks but its how it is. So yeah the government tends to track subversive groups (by the way they aint all right wing) but whats next. You say dont allow it how in the hell do you do that?

You put one hell of a lot of crap on Republicans and its bullshit. 

I say dont give then the time of day and if they break any laws then lock them the fuck up. Everything else just feeds into what they want civil discourse, divide and conquer and violence. Why give them what they want. I dont give them shit you give them credibility by acknowledging their existence and rising to their bait  

If you are paying attention, we on the left have not been advocating stopping anyone from speaking, except for occasional intemperate mutterings and imprecations. Please forgive us, but one of our numbers was just deliberately run over and we are pissed off. 

 Notably, I did not advocate stifling speech in my post, but rather monitoring hate groups, and I didn't say just right wing although that  was the thrust of my post because it is topically relevant. Remember, Trump in February scaled back efforts by the Counter Extremism task force from any terroristic ideology that wasn't Muslim. Ongoing efforts to counter radical right wing groups and NeoNazi ideologies was no longer the function of this division: all attention was to be diverted to the Muslim threat.

I talked about how the GOP is perceived as having a racist problem, and compared the failure of the party to expel violent hate groups from their midst with how Muslims have all been tarred by the actions of extremists. No suppression of just right wing speech here!

When the GOP president has racist and alt right types in senior admin roles, an AG that has been called out for racism by MLKs wife, the GOP has displayed a pattern of tolerating racist overtones at campaign rallies, and has been censured by the courts for racist voter purges and redistricting it isn't bullshit to call them on this history.  

I am putting NOTHING on Republicans that they haven't voted for, supported or tacitly accepted. Racism is pervasive in recent GOP success and policy objectives. It is a continuing problem which threatens to permanently stain any Republican who does not forcefully reject elements within the party who are unAmerican, violent and racist. 

And you are turning a blind eye to this racist history and future by requiring this explanation.

Perhaps you are feeling persecuted, my dear fellow. The truth tends to do that when you've been believing your own lies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free Speech about depriving our countrymen of their Constitutional Rights is not free.  It should be very expensive, resulting in the shunning of the individual.  If it was a non citizen threatening white christians he would be deported.   If these NAZI thugs can prove citizenship (birth certificate time) they deserve shunning, firing, and further marginalization.   If not, kick them out.   

Free Speech for guys dressed for street fighting?   When I was a kid teenagers would dress a little like that to go to a fight.   It was expected the loser would end up laying on the pavement covered in piss and blood.    You don't load up like that for peaceful assembly.   Its either because you expect to beat the shit out of somebody or you expect to  scare them so badly they piss themselves.    The Republican party seems to see these thugs as an energetic base to offset the old senile people that forget to vote.   As has been posted, failure to instantly and unequivocally denounce NAZI and similar scum puts Republicans in the same category as a mosque that not only accepts some of its members are terrorists, but seeks to keep them tithing.    The leader had to wait for informal pole results before he could bring himself to denounce them.   Trump still found ways to signal support within hours of his denial.   This is the Republican President.   The Republicans have not denounced their President, putting them in the same category as Muslims that don't denounce or leave their Iman when he publicly supports terrorists.   Several on this list are tainted by their own typing.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Turd Sandwich said:

So now we have fake fear. Sell it BJ

I aint buying

 

By the way calling me ignorant, stupid, gullible etc etc make you feel better. 

I'm not calling you that, I am simply observing what may be concluded from the nature of your posts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is mighty hard to find a thread that isn't polluted by Moderate or his new  Jonny sock 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

It is mighty hard to find a thread that isn't polluted by Moderate or his new  Jonny sock 

Yeah, well nobody missed you while you were gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Sean said:
21 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I was surprised he did as well as he managed to do.

Lots of people shared your mistaken impression.
 

Apparently there are lots of Sol's elk out there who pay only slight attention to LP Florida doings. Can't say I blame them. Invictus is far from the weirdest.

Alt.right types gravitate to your party Tom. It's a problem for for Libertarian folks (like you I assume)  that don't have a racist bone in their body. Not sure what you can do about it. 

I guess the same thing we usually do: overwhelmingly defeat them.

But that won't stop gossips who pay more attention to people than ideas from attacking the party by wrongly associating these nutjobs with those of us who defeated them. Nothing can really be done about them except try to educate them one at a time. But gossip flies around the net and boring facts tend to go nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, frenchie said:
On 8/14/2017 at 7:46 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Where did you find this pic? Who is that officer? Is that black tape over his name badge?

I have mixed feelings about anonymous uniformed officers. Seems a bad thing in general but I can see why he might wish to not reveal to those people behind him where his family lives.

He's what America is about to me and I'd like to praise him by name in public.

Not sure why you think you see tape... I see blurring from a relatively low-rez picture.

His name is Darius Nash.  Far from trying to hide, he's given interviews about it.

http://time.com/4899668/charlottesville-virginia-protest-officer-kkk-photo/

Picture was taken a month earlier, at the KKK rally in Charlottesville  -  the one where the PD was criticized for being too militaristic, especially against the antifa crowd (there's an ACLU suit).  Which might explain some of the overly hands-off approach they used this week...

Looks like the edge of a badge to me, covered by black tape. But I didn't zoom in and look close.

Thanks for revealing Sol's source for me.

And thanks to Darius Nash for being a model American cop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, phillysailor said:

I think there is a point to what BJ is saying, Turd. If Republicans don't forcefully condemn white supremacists and hold the Justice Department accountable for tracking right wing hate groups, they risk enabling violence done in their name. Almost all Muslims abhor jihad, but terrorists have altered American perception of that religion significantly. 

Failure to monitor, label and prosecute hate groups is one level of allowing racism to pervade America, but an entirely new level would be reached if open tolerance of hate groups are allowed to persist. 

It is bad enough that white supremacists had a seat at the NSC table earlier this year, that three alt right types (& their minions) are helping lead our nation. Less aggressive policing in Cville than at BLM protests allowed violence to occur at a place and time of the supremacists' choosing. Well armed and padded, they were ready. If that becomes normative, normal people will bow in fear when these jack booted thugs frog match down our main streets. 

The alt right and these supremacists are assaulting American values. They are seditious,  unpatriotic, learning to organize and mobilize andvare very well armed. One wanted to bomb Oklahoma City again. 

And you'd have us thinking there is no reason to be concerned? This means you are part of the problem. Covering your ears and saying "this isn't happening" isn't an effective response. 

I think that if we're going to monitor hate groups - we should monitor all of them, not just the ones who hate the same people you do. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yeah!  Ho Lee Fuk is right.  

unmoderate, you're a fucking douchebag for that remark!

But far from alone.  Here are the good folks from Charlottesville:

 

Caution:  there's a black man in this video using nasty language.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Some Are Troubled By Online Shaming Of Charlottesville Rally Participants

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/08/15/543566757/twitter-account-names-and-shames-far-right-activists-at-charlottesville

For Wills, the historical parallel is Nazi Germany, in which the Third Reich encouraged citizens to name people they thought were enemies of the state. "When that became a power that your neighbor could execute or your neighbor could use against other people, the power became unchecked," he says.

Wills says all kinds of people began to get caught up in the dragnet of laws and declarations of enemies. He says social media activists are still very far from the evil that was the Third Reich. But he says people should take a deep breath and think before they press the "send" button with someone else's name in the message.

 

Are you troubled by Nazi marchers being named?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised by the young element involved. Appalled, actually. I think we're seeing fallout from Obama's tenure. Screw Gen. Lee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, BrickTopHarry said:

Are you troubled by Nazi marchers being named?

:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I think that if we're going to monitor hate groups - we should monitor all of them, not just the ones who hate the same people you do. 

 

Absolutely, because people who hate racism are just as bad as people who hate niggers and kikes. You know, morally equivalent  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Some Are Troubled By Online Shaming Of Charlottesville Rally Participants

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/08/15/543566757/twitter-account-names-and-shames-far-right-activists-at-charlottesville

For Wills, the historical parallel is Nazi Germany, in which the Third Reich encouraged citizens to name people they thought were enemies of the state. "When that became a power that your neighbor could execute or your neighbor could use against other people, the power became unchecked," he says.

Wills says all kinds of people began to get caught up in the dragnet of laws and declarations of enemies. He says social media activists are still very far from the evil that was the Third Reich. But he says people should take a deep breath and think before they press the "send" button with someone else's name in the message.

 

Ignoring the problem won't make it go away, and if left unopposed, it is likely they get representatives elected and gradually change the country for the worst. Once they become politically legitimate, we have an even more serious problem, so we attack as necessary to stunt their growth.We aren't anywhere near a "dragnet of laws and declarations of enemies, " but it is necessary to be proactive in fighting this cancer. These people removed their hoods, which means they aren't going to hide anymore. I call that fair game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that if you go out in public, and essentially pose for the camera, your anonymity can not be expected.

In the privacy of your own home, yes, I think that maintaining your anonymity could be reasonably expected, to the extent that public records will show your name, and with a name, these days, inevitably will come a face..... But if you're out marching, protesting, sloganeering, in public, you're fair game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sean said:

Absolutely, because people who hate racism , Cops, Whitey, Straights, Wops, Micks and Spics are just as bad as people who hate niggers and kikes. You know, morally equivalent  

 

FTFY   Do you think that the only people who can exhibit racism are white men?  That the only perpetrators of violence last weekend were the Nazi shitheads?  Or do you simply want to excuse everyone who's acting like the Nazis because you feel that the oppression they've suffered for 200 years prior to their birth makes them justified in their behavior?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

I would think that if you go out in public, and essentially pose for the camera, your anonymity can not be expected.

In the privacy of your own home, yes, I think that maintaining your anonymity could be reasonably expected, to the extent that public records will show your name, and with a name, these days, inevitably will come a face..... But if you're out marching, protesting, sloganeering, in public, you're fair game.

Yes indeed - your public activities may impact other areas of your life, regardless of which side of the picket line you're standing on.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Not particularily.  But I wonder if someone set up a similar site that started naming and shaming the left wing antifas and anarchists that come out to protest as well and they started losing their jobs as a result - would you be ok with that too?  

i would be...  not that you asked me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Turd Sandwich said:

I think that social media should be used to the fullest extent to out every POS that shows up to a protest wearing masks and backpacks full of shit to fuck people up.

Seriously whats up with the back packs one would think that after the Boston Bombing the cops would stop and search every POS at a protest with one

Mask plus back pack = trip to the ground to be searched for weapons. Caught with weapons straight to jail

What about open carry?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Turd Sandwich said:

Caught with weapons straight to jail

umm, there were plenty of folks practicing open-carry....

Now, personally, I'm with ya. If you carry, carry open. But unless they are illegally carrying, I'm not sure how you toss them in the slammer.

Which brings up an interesting question - can a city make weapon-free be a condition of the permit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

the oppression they've suffered for 200 years prior to their birth

 

We stopped oppressing black people the minute slavery ended?

Much as I like you, Guy  -  I'd love to watch you try to say that to my landlord. 

Black, Alabama born & raised, 85 years old.

16 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Not particularily.  But I wonder if someone set up a similar site that started naming and shaming the left wing antifas and anarchists that come out to protest as well and they started losing their jobs as a result - would you be ok with that too?  

You think the alt-right hasn't been doing that for years already?  It's why antifa wears bandannas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I like how everyone has glommed onto the social media naming and shaming, but have totally ignored my question about being violent to stop an ideology we all despise.  

At least Clove Hoof condones preemptive violence towards these shitbags.  How about the rest of you?  Are you also up for cracking some nazi skinhead skulls because they are marching and daring to wear swastikas?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Not particularily.  But I wonder if someone set up a similar site that started naming and shaming the left wing antifas and anarchists that come out to protest as well and they started losing their jobs as a result - would you be ok with that too?  

Ouch.   I'm anonymous primarily because I'm in deep Republican territory, don't go to church, don't deny global climate change, and run a business that depends on trust.   I've voted for some Democrats.    That makes me misguided and even unethical by rural Indiana standards, since only active Christians can be ethical.   Fortunately they are non violent there.   Rural Ohio is less extreme but deeply suspicious of non christians and science.   Nobody around here knows much about sailing, but I could face consequences for my beliefs.   Yet I am eager for these alt right nutters to be shamed and outed.   I usually hate hypocrisy.   I also hate people that hate my minority neighbors, dis me because of my "sand nigger" tan or my girlfriend who is a minority and foreigner.   When a large mob brings weapons to a protest it is at best coercion and at worst the night of the long knives.   They force defenders of the oppressed to protect themselves or accept martyrdom.   I'm unarmed but prepared to break as many joints as I can before they bash my skull in, if they attempt intimidation or violence in my town.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Turd Sandwich said:

Should be. I doubt any of the fucks with guns were involved in the head bashing but i might be wrong. Didnt see pistol whipping eitther but i sure saw a lot of pepper spraying  and a lot of sticks used as clubs.

The more i think about this the City has some splaining to do. I really dont think you could have set this up worse if you tried

From what I've read, the gun-toters were actually some of the best behaved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Turd Sandwich said:

You almost have to be or you might catch a round from a cop

But, again, just from what I've read, the gun toters were actually acting as a barrier between the Fas and Anti-Fas

Not that I am suggesting that people go to protests armed.  Just that THIS protest was likely made a little better, or kept from getting worse, by the open-carry crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

But, again, just from what I've read, the gun toters were actually acting as a barrier between the Fas and Anti-Fas

Not that I am suggesting that people go to protests armed.  Just that THIS protest was likely made a little better, or kept from getting worse, by the open-carry crowd.

Interesting.   The people best trusted with guns are those lease likely to use them, those that don't want to kill, unafraid and without temper.    Not my stereotype of a gun customer.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, frenchie said:

We stopped oppressing black people the minute slavery ended?

Much as I like you, Guy  -  I'd love to watch you try to say that to my landlord. 

Black, Alabama born & raised, 85 years old.

You think the alt-right hasn't been doing that for years already?  It's why antifa wears bandannas.

I doubt your neighbor would be behaving like the people I intended as the audience for that comment. Antifa doesn't have a claim to any moral superiority when they advocate violence as a means of expression - like the Beatles said: 
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world

But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out

Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're all doing what we can

But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait

Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright, al...

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You'd better free your mind instead

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

...  ...   ...  Antifa doesn't have a claim to any moral superiority when they advocate violence as a means of expression - ....    ....
 

Actually, they do. Antifa is not morally equivalent to the Nazis and the KKK

Of the groups named, two advocate genocide against other people based on race & religion. Two advocate economic repression of people based on race & religion. Two advocate violent overthrow of our country's accepted social order.

Antifa advocates violence against the first two. That's bad but it's not even remotely in the same moral ballpark.

Now go ahead and bitch (or kvetch, whatever) that I snipped the Beatles lyrics from your post and thus am unfairly trying to smear your rational discussion points.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trans, UVA student, antifa organizer says the milita guys were very helpful in keeping things calm:

 

 

 

It frankly sounds like they were doing the police's job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

FTFY   Do you think that the only people who can exhibit racism are white men?  That the only perpetrators of violence last weekend were the Nazi shitheads?  Or do you simply want to excuse everyone who's acting like the Nazis because you feel that the oppression they've suffered for 200 years prior to their birth makes them justified in their behavior?  

 

 

 

A thought for all our practitioners of whataboutism -

Absent racism and other extreme forms of bigotry, there would be no Antifa. No BLM. 

Chew on that for a minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Actually, they do. Antifa is not morally equivalent to the Nazis and the KKK

Of the groups named, two advocate genocide against other people based on race & religion. Two advocate economic repression of people based on race & religion. Two advocate violent overthrow of our country's accepted social order.

Antifa advocates violence against the first two. That's bad but it's not even remotely in the same moral ballpark.

Now go ahead and bitch (or kvetch, whatever) that I snipped the Beatles lyrics from your post and thus am unfairly trying to smear your rational discussion points.

-DSK

Not gonna bitch - just disagree with your idea that Antifa is OK, or even better.  If I understand your position, what you espouse is that if enough people hate a certain group - that any other group engaging in violence against the 1st group is OK. Pretty distorted target there - who gets to decide who's hated enough for others to take 'em out?  

With your permission - I'm gonna go huntin' hood rats, bangers & meth heads - and expect your support when it comes time to dump lime.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Not gonna bitch - just disagree with your idea that Antifa is OK, or even better.  If I understand your position, what you espouse is that if enough people hate a certain group - that any other group engaging in violence against the 1st group is OK. Pretty distorted target there - who gets to decide who's hated enough for others to take 'em out?  

With your permission - I'm gonna go huntin' hood rats, bangers & meth heads - and expect your support when it comes time to dump lime.  

 

So, you think hating Nazis and KKKers is just as bad as hating Jews and blacks? That advocating violence against Jews and blacks and liberals and gays is morally equivalent to advocating violence against the first group? Nice.

Nowhere did I make excuses for advocating violence, That's bad. As I've said elsewhere, I would rule (if it were up to me) that advocating violence is a red line that NO group should cross.

What you're saying is, the people picking up guns t protect their families in ISIS-controlled areas are "just as bad" as ISIS.

I don't think that's really what you meant to say... or hope that, anyway

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I doubt your neighbor would be behaving like the people I intended as the audience for that comment. Antifa doesn't have a claim to any moral superiority when they advocate violence as a means of expression - like the Beatles said: 
 

One of the first things I noticed, the first time I met him, was the big painting on their livingroom wall.  Douglass and King... but also Malcom X.

His son calls it the black trilogy.

Now, they don't, and I don't, consider Malcom "just like the nazis".  But I'm gonna hazard a guess you do; am I wrong?

 

Irrelevant, anyways.  The point I was making was specifically directed at the "200 year" trope, which is why I edited down your comment.

"200 years" is racist-enabling bullshit. 

I know a man, still alive, who can provide you with much more recent examples of stuff you would have to agree constitutes oppression.  Lynching & seperate drinking fountains & all the rest (including redlining, when they bought their first house, up here in the North).

EVERY BLACK PERSON IN AMERICA knows at least one person who has personally experienced things you would agree were oppression. 

What, you think these kids don't have parents, uncles, aunts, grandparents?

 

You & I probably disagree about blacks being oppressed NOW.  But is there any room for debate about, say, 60 years ago?  Back of the bus, etc?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sean said:

 

 

A thought for all our practitioners of whataboutism -

Absent racism and other extreme forms of bigotry, there would be no Antifa. No BLM. 

Chew on that for a minute.

Nice tangent, and I'm certain you're correct - everyone would be happy happy joy joy, and accepting of their own role in their life's circumstances, and not blaming their plight on some group of "them".    You mistake my pointing out that the racism, intolerance and violence aren't perpetrated solely by the angry white guys y'all like to blame for everything w/the idea that "racism doesn't exist".  There are people who make it a practice to look for oppression and offense where it simply doesn't exist - conflating and twisting comments and actions completely unrelated to them into some insidious institutional plot.  There are indeed cases of behaviors by authorities and individuals that aren't racially equitable.  If one wants to - you can find all sorts of things to be offended by and to disagree with.  That one would spend their time looking for such offense doesn't mean that everyone around them is spending the same amount of time creating such offense. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That one would spend their time looking for such offense doesn't mean that everyone around them is spending the same amount of time creating such offense.

But the allegation is NOT that anyone spends a lot of time & energy trying to be deliberately oppressive. 

Au contraire. 

The allegation is that the default / lazy / unconscious / uncritical "going with the flow", supports & reinforces oppression. 

 

That's why becoming aware of, and resisting, oppression is called "being woke"  -  as opposed to being asleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, frenchie said:

One of the first things I noticed, the first time I met him, was the big painting on their livingroom wall.  Douglass and King... but also Malcom X.

His son calls it the black trilogy.

Now, they don't, and I don't, consider Malcom "just like the nazis".  But I'm gonna hazard a guess you do, am I wrong?

 

Irrelevant, anyways.  The point I was making was specifically directed at the "200 year" trope, which is why I edited down your comment.

That's racist-enabling bullshit. 

I know a man, still alive, who can provide you with much more recent examples of stuff you would have to agree constitutes oppression.  Lynching & seperate drinking fountains & all the rest (incl redlining, when they bought their first house, up here in the North).

EVERY BLACK PERSON IN AMERICA knows at least one person who has personally experienced things you would agree were oppression. 

What, you think these kids don't have parents, uncles, aunts, grandparents?

 

You & I probably disagree about blacks being oppressed NOW.  But is there any room for debate about, say, 60 years ago?  Back of the bus, etc?

 

OK - I'll speak to that - I've met young, college educated, well fed, well dressed, articulate, well employed black people from very nice neighborhoods who have made quite a point of the fact that they are oppressed now because of things that happened 200 years before they were born, and that it's my fault that that has happened, because I grew up white.   It's that specific group I was referring to.  

As to Malcom X?  He was not someone I'd invite home to supper, and he was definitely not in the same league as Dr. King and Frederick Douglass. He advocated violence as retribution and everything he espoused while supporting the Nation of Islam was contradictory to peace, prosperity and equality for all.  From what I've read, he changed his tune a little bit after his pilgrimage, but, still advocated for things I'd disagree with.  Nazi?  Naw.  Someone I'd disagree with?  yeah.  

60 years ago?  yeah - there was.  I remember fallout from race riots happening when I was a kid - I was born in the mid 60s. 

As to current oppression?  I don't think that widespread, systemic anti-black racism is as prevalent as many suggest.  That said - I'm not usually the target of such behavior, so it's reasonable for me to accept that it happens in ways/places that I just don't notice.  I'd also suggest that in places like Ferguson - where the court system preys upon locals w/exorbitant fines for petty offenses and rigorous collection enforcement is a symptom of bad governance, not systemic racism.  ALL the poor folks in an area that experiences that kind of policing/courts suffer - regardless of their color.  

Individual acts?  yeah - I'd think so, but, would wonder whether how many of those affronts were based upon racism /vs/ dislike of some individual attribute.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, frenchie said:

But the allegation is NOT that anyone spends a lot of time & energy trying to be deliberately oppressive. 

Au contraire. 

The allegation is that the default / lazy / unconscious / uncritical "going with the flow", supports & reinforces oppression. 

 

That's why becoming aware of, and resisting, oppression is called "being woke"  -  as opposed to being asleep.

So - you look for offense where none is intended as well?  I hope ya find what you're after.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

OK - I'll speak to that - I've met young, college educated, well fed, well dressed, articulate, well employed black people from very nice neighborhoods who have made quite a point of the fact that they are oppressed now because of things that happened 200 years before they were born, and that it's my fault that that has happened, because I grew up white.   It's that specific group I was referring to.    ....    ...    ...

I think they were probably fucking with you, because they know you're uncomfortable with it. Or perhaps because they've heard/read your opinions about how Affirmative Action is really oppressive to whites, and lynchings never really happened.

Rural NC is NOTHING like the Deep South, and the town I grew up still had seperate bathrooms and the whole bit. When I was a kid I drank from the black (excuse me, "colored") water fountain, not really thinking anything except I was thirsty. Don't recall if it was my first or second or third fistfight in my life, but there was more than one peckerwood white kid who wanted to make something out of that.

The KKK marched thru my little town once because the sheriff protected a black man from being removed from jail by a mob. They burned a cross on the Catholic church lawn, too. This is when I was in grade school, after the Civil Rights marches and such had been happening for a while. This was not a town where blacks were especially put-upon, they were welcome in the school, in the supermarket, (there was only one of each anyway) and had jobs working alongside whites. I don't have any particular memories pertaining to it, but I'm sure that blacks felt they had to be careful and "know their place."

Contrast this with a man I knew in the Navy, from a really Deep South area, whose idea of a happy childhood reminiscence is having his mom stop the car so he and his friends could gather rocks by the side of the road to throw at a black kid walking.

Oh yeah, the oppression is all 200 years ago, buddy.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I think they were probably fucking with you, because they know you're uncomfortable with it. Or perhaps because they've heard/read your opinions about how Affirmative Action is really oppressive to whites, and lynchings never really happened.

Rural NC is NOTHING like the Deep South, and the town I grew up still had seperate bathrooms and the whole bit. When I was a kid I drank from the black (excuse me, "colored") water fountain, not really thinking anything except I was thirsty. Don't recall if it was my first or second or third fistfight in my life, but there was more than one peckerwood white kid who wanted to make something out of that.

The KKK marched thru my little town once because the sheriff protected a black man from being removed from jail by a mob. They burned a cross on the Catholic church lawn, too. This is when I was in grade school, after the Civil Rights marches and such had been happening for a while. This was not a town where blacks were especially put-upon, they were welcome in the school, in the supermarket, (there was only one of each anyway) and had jobs working alongside whites. I don't have any particular memories pertaining to it, but I'm sure that blacks felt they had to be careful and "know their place."

Contrast this with a man I knew in the Navy, from a really Deep South area, whose idea of a happy childhood reminiscence is having his mom stop the car so he and his friends could gather rocks by the side of the road to throw at a black kid walking.

Oh yeah, the oppression is all 200 years ago, buddy.

-DSK

You really are a right fuckhead, aren't ya?  Where have you ever heard me say anything like what you've just claimed I've said?  I doubt you really think that - I suspect that you quickly peruse what someone you've decided to argue with posts until you find something you think you can argue about, without taking the time to actually read and understand what was said. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So - you look for offense where none is intended as well?  I hope ya find what you're after.   

That's a bit disappointing.  I'm not attacking you, and my goal's not to make you defensive.  I'm actually trying to have an open/honest exchange where we can both learn something. 

That said...

If someone calls you out for inadvertently being rude -  and they're not saying you did it on purpose, they're just just pointing out how you're coming off  -  do start making excuses for why it wasn't actually rude in the first place?  Or do you try to understand where they're coming from so as to avoid inadvertently giving offense in the future?
 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You really are a right fuckhead, aren't ya?  Where have you ever heard me say anything like what you've just claimed I've said?  I doubt you really think that - I suspect that you quickly peruse what someone you've decided to argue with posts until you find something you think you can argue about, without taking the time to actually read and understand what was said. 

 

I'm pretty sure I understand what you were saying when you and Jeff were trying to persuade me that Affirmative Action was oppressive to whites. With Dabs and Saorsa and Dog and a few others chiming in to point out that every black kid admitted to college meant a deserving white kid was kept out, etc etc.

The good news is, you being a bit younger than I, and living in the Virginia/Maryland area (I assume), it's easily possible that you have never seen much of the kind of thing I'm talking about. A hell of a lot less of it exists now (and it certainly exists in other places than the South) but it sure isn't gone. And it is threatening to come back.

Pointing out that the world isn't what you wish it was does not make me a fuckhead. I apologize for making you feel so bad you lashed out like that.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, frenchie said:

That's a bit disappointing.  I'm not attacking you, and my goal's not to make you defensive.  I'm actually trying to have an open/honest exchange where we can both learn something. 

That said...

If someone calls you out for inadvertently being rude -  and they're not saying you did it on purpose, they're just just pointing out how you're coming off  -  do start making excuses for why it wasn't actually rude in the first place?  Or do you try to understand where they're coming from so as to avoid inadvertently giving offense in the future?

In all sincerity?  It would have a lot to do with how the person called me out for being rude.  Believe it or not, I don't want to inadvertently offend anyone.  There are folks who want to help others become aware of unintentional offense, and there are those who try to manufacture offense, and treat people as though an intentional offense has already happened.  I'd be thankful for input from anyone in the first group, and dismissive of input from those in the second. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I'm pretty sure I understand what you were saying when you and Jeff were trying to persuade me that Affirmative Action was oppressive to whites. With Dabs and Saorsa and Dog and a few others chiming in to point out that every black kid admitted to college meant a deserving white kid was kept out, etc etc.

The good news is, you being a bit younger than I, and living in the Virginia/Maryland area (I assume), it's easily possible that you have never seen much of the kind of thing I'm talking about. A hell of a lot less of it exists now (and it certainly exists in other places than the South) but it sure isn't gone. And it is threatening to come back.

Pointing out that the world isn't what you wish it was does not make me a fuckhead. I apologize for making you feel so bad you lashed out like that.

-DSK

Affirmative Action is oppressive to everyone.  It taints the acceptance of those who "checked a box" for the admitting authority.  It creates resentment. It sacrifices quality for diversity. IMHO - I think that Affirmative Action harms the very people it was instituted to help, in that it establishes the idea that without a set aside, that they couldn't achieve the same results as everyone else.   I understand and agree that when it was implemented, it was probably the best, most workable approach to ensuring acceptance and prevention of discrimination.   I think that it's ingrained into the psyche of anyone younger than 75 that you simply cannot discriminate based upon race, color, creed, religion or sex.

If we truly want equality of access, and not forced equality of outcomes, shouldn't we be working to address the issues that really do prevent most achievement? IMHO, that's not discrimination on applications, it's the effects of abysmal poverty and equally abysmal parenting that such poverty regularly breeds.  What happens to those kids? Many make poor choices while young that preclude them from being able to take advantage of the opportunities that exist, and the awareness of those opportunities doesn't make it to the people who are in most need of that awareness.   That's not a black/white thing, and it can't be fixed by assigning quotas. 

You don't make me "feel bad" - ya piss me off when you claim I've said or inferred things I haven't.  You think differently?  Cool.  Tell me about it - and why. Call me a jackass for thinking differently, but, don't claim I've said things I haven't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: I FUCKING HATE THE NEW SOFTWARE!!!  CAN WE PLEASE HAVE SOME SORT OF BBCODE FUNCTIONALITY BACK?!?

If not, can we somehow tweak splitting a quote in two?  It's completely unreliable / unpredicatble, as-is.

 

 

1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

In all sincerity?  It would have a lot to do with how the person called me out for being rude.  Believe it or not, I don't want to inadvertently offend anyone. 

Not believe it?  I just relied on it...

Quote

There are folks who want to help others become aware of unintentional offense, and there are those who try to manufacture offense, and treat people as though an intentional offense has already happened.  I'd be thankful for input from anyone in the first group, and dismissive of input from those in the second.

Fair enough. 

 

BTW, I only just noticed your other post, somehow in switching threads I missed it earlier:

2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

OK - I'll speak to that - I've met young, college educated, well fed, well dressed, articulate, well employed black people from very nice neighborhoods who have made quite a point of the fact that they are oppressed now because of things that happened 200 years before they were born, and that it's my fault that that has happened, because I grew up white.   It's that specific group I was referring to. 

Okay, so... I'd taken took the 200-years comment to be dismissing a much wider swath of BLM et al.  Surprised me a bit, comin from you.  But it's not like I've never heard that one before, and I've been getting surprised a lot lately.  If you're referring to just those specific people, I owe you an apology. 

 

But I do agree with (part of) that argument.  However privileged their current individual position might be:  they'd be even better off, if not for the long-term effects of shit that went down 200 years ago.  It's pretty hard to accumulate & pass on wealth when your labor's been stolen; that impacts future generations. 

And most of us - white people in the US - are a bit better off than we would be otherwise, as a result of that same theft of labor.

But that doesn't mean every individual white is to blame

Unknowingly receiving stolen goods =! violent robbery. 

It just doesn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, frenchie said:

Edit: I FUCKING HATE THE NEW SOFTWARE!!!  CAN WE PLEASE HAVE SOME SORT OF BBCODE FUNCTIONALITY BACK?!?

seriously, there's gotta be something.

Not believe it?  I just relied on it...

 

 

 

Okay, so... I'd taken took the 200-years comment to be dismissing a much wider swath of BLM et al.  Surprised me a bit, comin from you.  But it's not like I've never heard that one before, and I've been getting surprised a lot lately.  If you're referring to just those specific people, I owe you an apology. 

But I do agree with (part of) that argument.  However privileged their current individual position might be:  they'd be even better off, if not for the long-term effects of shit that went down 200 years ago.  It's pretty hard to accumulate & pass on wealth when your labor's been stolen; that impacts future generations. 

And most of us - white people in the US - are a bit better off than we would be otherwise, as a result of that same theft of labor.

But that doesn't mean every individual white is to blame

Unknowingly receiving stolen goods =! violent robbery. 

It just doesn't. 

I hate trying to edit with this too - I find myself copying text out and making my own quotes and copying it back in to a clean post sometimes. 

W/the rest?  Peace. We're cool - seeing the same scene from different seats, I think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I hate trying to edit with this too - I find myself copying text out and making my own quotes and copying it back in to a clean post sometimes. 

Do you ever get this one?

.emit siht yako dekrow ti ,lleW

Quote

seeing the same scene from different seats, I think. 

Well ya, that's the point.  More different perspectives, closer we can get to the actual shape of the thing.

If I wanted a fight, I'd be over at /pol/, or stormfront.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Affirmative Action is oppressive to everyone.    .....   ...   ...

No, it isn't. And every time I have tried to explain how it works in college admissions, you call me a liar. So frankly, your opinion is based on ignorance (ie not worth shit) AND it is offensive to me as well as to black people

You don't make me "feel bad" - ya piss me off when you claim I've said or inferred things I haven't.  You think differently?  Cool.  Tell me about it - and why. Call me a jackass for thinking differently, but, don't claim I've said things I haven't. 

You just repeated what I said you said.

Furthermore, I'm a lot less than 75 years old, and the kind of stuff I described earlier is happening today.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, frenchie said:

Do you ever get this one?

.emit siht yako dekrow ti ,lleW

Well ya, that's the point.  More different perspectives, closer we can get to the actual shape of the thing.

If I wanted a fight, I'd be over at /pol/, or stormfront.

 

Your editor response isn't one I've seen - looks like typing got hung up behind cached editor content.  As to getting different perspectives out?  Yeah man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

You just repeated what I said you said.

Furthermore, I'm a lot less than 75 years old, and the kind of stuff I described earlier is happening today.

-DSK

I think that once again, you intentionally missed the point.   No worries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Your editor response isn't one I've seen - looks like typing got hung up behind cached editor content.  As to getting different perspectives out?  Yeah man!

Happens all the time.  I hit enter twice to break up the quote, and then... IF it works properly... anything I type, comes out reversed. 

Hit enter again, then backspace, everything's fine.  Makes me wish I could look under the hood...

 

And don't get me started on images and twitter quotes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Not particularily.  But I wonder if someone set up a similar site that started naming and shaming the left wing antifas and anarchists that come out to protest as well and they started losing their jobs as a result - would you be ok with that too?  

It's my understanding that alt whities have been doing exactly this to antifa folks for quite some time now.  I think if you do stuff in public then it has to be stuff that you think stands up to scrutiny, or you are prepared to suffer whatever penalty is attached to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BrickTopHarry said:

It's my understanding that alt whities have been doing exactly this to antifa folks for quite some time now.  I think if you do stuff in public then it has to be stuff that you think stands up to scrutiny, or you are prepared to suffer whatever penalty is attached to it.

Hell, my boss would prolly give me employee of the month if there was video of me punching a Nazi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a thread around here that seems to indicate that four days is the incubation period for calling something terrorism. That would seem to make today the day when folks who like to throw around the T-word would talk about driving a car into a crowd of people with different skin color and/or political beliefs. 

Did the driver have a beard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Turd Sandwich said:

You almost have to be or you might catch a round from a cop

Only if you were wearing a blm tee 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

My $.02.  But if the consensus is that the Constitution is "fluid" and that cracking nazi heads is good to go, sign me up.  I've also been wanting to crack some Westboro baptist fucks' skulls as well.  Is that cool too, because their speech is equally despicable.

FWIW, you're not going to get much disagreement on Westboro Baptists deserving the same "head cracking" some are calling be levelled at Nazi's. Some folks would have stood up for their rights had they stuck to the gays (you know, those evil people mind-controlling the NC State Republican legislature :rolleyes: ).... but they started pissing on the military and managed to isolate themselves even from Trump supporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
7 hours ago, Raz'r said:
8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Not particularily.  But I wonder if someone set up a similar site that started naming and shaming the left wing antifas and anarchists that come out to protest as well and they started losing their jobs as a result - would you be ok with that too?  

i would be...  not that you asked me.

So if enough people hate someone who intends to cause harm, it's OK to bust their heads?  Glad we got that squared away.  

Seriously Guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Scratchanot said:

Yeah, well nobody missed you while you were gone.

@nobody never mentioned that to me 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I like how everyone has glommed onto the social media naming and shaming, but have totally ignored my question about being violent to stop an ideology we all despise.  

At least Clove Hoof condones preemptive violence towards these shitbags.  How about the rest of you?  Are you also up for cracking some nazi skinhead skulls because they are marching and daring to wear swastikas?

Nazis deserve a place in hell.  I'd have no guilt for bashing them in their head. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

WHAAAAAT????  Jocal's head is going to explode now.  That armed folks carrying, *GASP* assault rifles who are clearly imbued with his evil gun mentality he rants about all day and all night about, were actually some of the best behaved and kept a bad situation from getting worse???

YOU LIE!

As I pointed out on another thread..It's in the best interests of the organisers to try to keep the hot heads in check..it's called propaganda management I think..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yes, it is EXACTLY equivalent.  Advocating violence against ANY fellow American is equally wrong, no matter their political POV.  Until such a time as any of those groups does something that legally warrants violence - such as a violent act towards someone - then you are on a morally equivalent plane to the nazi skinhead who advocates violence against a jew.  Sorry, but you don't get to choose who's better in terms of wanting them to be hurt by violence.  

As despicable as the nazi or kkk fucktards are - hateful thoughts, hateful words and hateful speech does not qualify them for head cracking.  As satisfying as it may be.  

When sadly, violence does break out..there is no moral equivalency between  those fighting for what's right and those fighting for what's wrong...If that were the case, all our defence forces would be in the shit and all our defence force personnel would be no better than hired thugs.

Trumps pathetic.."there were fine people on both sides" is what's causing the problem here.

If you go to a rally, and find yourself marching among people chanting "the jews will not defeat us" (or whatever it was) a fine person LEAVES.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yes, it is EXACTLY equivalent.  Advocating violence against ANY fellow American is equally wrong, no matter their political POV.  Until such a time as any of those groups does something that legally warrants violence - such as a violent act towards someone - then you are on a morally equivalent plane to the nazi skinhead who advocates violence against a jew.  Sorry, but you don't get to choose who's better in terms of wanting them to be hurt by violence.  

As despicable as the nazi or kkk fucktards are - hateful thoughts, hateful words and hateful speech does not qualify them for head cracking.  As satisfying as it may be.  

When the greatest generation killed Nazis, it was patriotic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Has it ever fucking occured to you that your stereotype is just that???

I've been to gun stores and shows and had been a gun owner until the gun was stolen.  It's not entirely based on whimsy.    Are you losing your temper with me?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yeah, except THOSE nazis were actually fucking killing people.  When OUR idiot nazis start killing people wholesale, then I'll be the first in line with my rifle to cut them down.  

In the meantime, it continues to be a stupid analogy.

This is a post for the ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
16 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yeah, except THOSE nazis were actually fucking killing people.  When OUR idiot nazis start killing people wholesale, then I'll be the first in line with my rifle to cut them down.  

In the meantime, it continues to be a stupid analogy.

This is a post for the ages.

Unfortunately, yes.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shootist Jeff said:

How so?  Did you miss the word "wholesale"?  

I'll put both you down in the column with Clove hooff that says cracking people's skulls because you disagree with their ideology is good.  Let me know when ya'll want to go beat down some nazi skinheads.  I'll come join you.

The Constitution is good......  sometimes.

I didn't miss "wholesale". I thought that the most morally bankrupt and historically ignorant part of the whole post. The real German Nazis only killed some people in street riots to start off with. Leftists here and there. They "only" killed in the thousands and tens of thousands before the war started. Then they had to kill in the millions to fulfill their plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yes, it is EXACTLY equivalent.  Advocating violence against ANY fellow American is equally wrong, no matter their political POV.  Until such a time as any of those groups does something that legally warrants violence - such as a violent act towards someone - then you are on a morally equivalent plane to the nazi skinhead who advocates violence against a jew.  Sorry, but you don't get to choose who's better in terms of wanting them to be hurt by violence.  

As despicable as the nazi or kkk fucktards are - hateful thoughts, hateful words and hateful speech does not qualify them for head cracking.  As satisfying as it may be.  

5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Meli, please try to focus.  The adults are discussing advocating violence.  There is a difference between advocating that someone oppose vile ideas (which we should) vs advocating someone's head get bashed in because they have views you don't like.  The antifuckwit who swings a bat unprovoked at a nazi's head is exactly the same as the nazi fuckwit who swings a bat at a jew or a black's head.

Advocating violence against a particular group of people based on something they have no control over (race)

Advocating violence against a particular group of people based on something they do have control over (ideology)

Morally equivalent? 

By that "logic", the Yazidi and Kurds militias are morally equivalent to ISIS  -  since they both advocate violence against each other.

 

When did you become such an "all violence is wrong, always" hardcore pacifist, anyways? 

Can't believe I'm hearing that bullshit from you. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

How so?  Did you miss the word "wholesale"?  

I'll put both you down in the column with Clove hooff that says cracking people's skulls because you disagree with their ideology is good.  Let me know when ya'll want to go beat down some nazi skinheads.  I'll come join you.

The Constitution is good......  sometimes.

What about retail?  Are you against the middleman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

How so?  Did you miss the word "wholesale"?  

I'll put both you down in the column with Clove hooff that says cracking people's skulls because you disagree with their ideology is good.  Let me know when ya'll want to go beat down some nazi skinheads.  I'll come join you.

The Constitution is good......  sometimes.

They killed someone here. Right here in the US. Any statement of remorse or disavowal of the terrorist's actions?  Nope. Just Cantwell saying that there would be more. They are calling Charlottesville a "win".  They're off to Boston next. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, frenchie said:

 

Advocating violence against a particular group of people based on something they have no control over (race)

Advocating violence against a particular group of people based on something they do have control over (ideology)

Morally equivalent? 

By that "logic", the Yazidi and Kurds militias are morally equivalent to ISIS  -  since they both advocate violence against each other.

 

When did you become such an "all violence is wrong, always" hardcore pacifist, anyways? 

Can't believe I'm hearing that bullshit from you. 

 

 

So you're cool with the Militias going after the gangsters, thugs and meth heads?   Frenchie - I think you and a few others may be conflating two things: Advocating violence against a group before they act solely to silence their rhetoric, and acting decisively, to include employing violence, to prevent a harmful act from happening once it becomes obvious that the rhetoric is being put into action.  The two are close, but a world apart. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

How so?  Did you miss the word "wholesale"?  

I'll put both you down in the column with Clove hooff that says cracking people's skulls because you disagree with their ideology is good.  Let me know when ya'll want to go beat down some nazi skinheads.  I'll come join you.

The Constitution is good......  sometimes.

Don't use a vague term like "wholesale".  Be specific.

How many deaths at the hands of the Nazis warrants a response?

I say "one" is enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

How so?  Did you miss the word "wholesale"?  

I'll put both you down in the column with Clove hooff that says cracking people's skulls because you disagree with their ideology is good.  Let me know when ya'll want to go beat down some nazi skinheads.  I'll come join you.

The Constitution is good......  sometimes.

Why are you ignoring the Nazi's own words and actions?  They are explicitly calling for violence. They are explicitly calling for ethnic cleansing.   It's a great bit of luck only 1 person died last week.  Let's not forget the 19 injured. 

These are not the Blues Brother's Nazis.  As that one shit-bag Caldwell said, "I'm trying to make myself more capable of violence."

How many more people must the Nazi's kill? 5?  How many more folks slain by domestic terrorists will you tolerate?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

Why are you ignoring the Nazi's own words and actions?  They are explicitly calling for violence. They are explicitly calling for ethnic cleansing.   It's a great bit of luck only 1 person died last week.  Let's not forget the 19 injured. 

These are not the Blues Brother's Nazis.  As that one shit-bag Caldwell said, "I'm trying to make myself more capable of violence."

How many more people must the Nazi's kill? 5?  How many more folks slain by domestic terrorists will you tolerate?  

I think that the line that's being obscured by the back and forth is that espousing hate is permitted and protected - inciting/engaging in a specific act of violence is legally actionable.   So - they can chant they hate everyone, and want everyone to die, and that remains opinion.  Once they say "I'm going to kill someone", or "You go beat the hell outta that sumbitch!"  - that's legally actionable.   Any implementation of violence before that line is crossed, as pleasant as the contemplation may be, can't be condoned. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites