Violence in Charlottesville

[Xiahou]

You accuse "the left" of having wrongfully excused black racism for too long because someone posted a picture of two black panthers supposedly intimidating voters somewhere and excuse white racism yourself by saying it's "only" a reaction of the victims of said black racism?
Not only is the white racism far worse, you admit yourself that it is not even a recent problem, so it might as well be the primary reason black racism exists. If white racism is the reason for black racism, then black racism cannot be a legitimate excuse for white racism. In the end you're just whining and victimizing "your group".

I think there's a strong tendency from many (most?) to excuse bad behavior when it's their team and harp on it when it's the opposing team. Greyblades isn't the first one to do this and won't be the last.

I think we're all better off though, when we can acknowledge bad behavior regardless of which "team" is doing it. Pointing out sketchy behavior of the other team isn't a good refutation of the same from one's own. I could maybe see it (as part of a hypocrisy argument), if Orgahs had been dismissive of the past charges while railing against the current- but I doubt there's much evidence of that. It's safer not to attribute all characteristics of the opposing "team" to the individual you are currently debating.

That's just my 2 cents anyway.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's safer not to attribute all characteristics of the opposing "team" to the individual you are currently debating.

There is a certain point when the defense of the deplorable (trigger warning to any alt-right in here) is no longer noble and is indeed deplorable in itself.

The time to play devil's advocate is not when you have Nazi's marching in your streets.

[Montmorency]

There is a certain point when the defense of the deplorable (trigger warning to any alt-right in here) is no longer noble and is indeed deplorable in itself.

The time to play devil's advocate is not when you have Nazi's marching in your streets.

Nazis have marched in the past, and the ACLU has gone to bat for them, but let's be clear on the specific argument now:

Tolerance is not an absolute, but a social contract and a pact of peace. Once the aggressors make themselves known and break the peace, they forfeit their enjoyment of tolerance from society. Neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and adjacent speech has been identified in our time as a clear and present public danger and may as such be restricted by the government. Apart from the government, citizens have a moral and civic obligation to tamp down and repudiate any such speech wherever they find it, both on-line and off. More or less the same applies to all stripes of terroristic Islamic jihadism.

One concern here is that this principle is not a very clear or robust one other than in privileging the status quo. A more refined principle might be prejudiced against any speech where propagators wish to dismantle the system in which they act, or hold an ideology that intrinsically calls other human life incompatible. But I'm not convinced; one moral value attached to tolerance and retribution is proportionality, and where someone believes and expounds that I and my family should die for the sake of their paradise, it would be proportionate for me to apply severe interpersonal and communal sanctions - but arguably disproportionate to adjudicate criminal liability.

Doxxing and ostracism ("no freedom from consequences") may be the appropriate recourse short of categorical repression. No, you never have to respect or debate Those People. You find the space between "respect" and "destroy", keeping in mind that in the end even Nazi/Confederate rights were baseline human rights (Then again, are human rights really worth it?) To concerned individuals who worry that

“At some point, someone will propose a concentration of power and winnowing of the public voice, and the public sphere will let it articulate the means by which the public sphere can itself be dissolved.”

notice that the bar of proportionate retaliation rises in turn. But we should consider that it isn't there yet, and pre-emptive maximum escalation is intrinsically something you can't mobilize the society for, in addition to being morally dubious. We aren't talking about individuals "standing their ground" against threats. This is always group-level and the mediation of your own actions in that context.


That's not to say we should coddle a certain person here on this forum. One strategy in these types of situations is to practice

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

debunking without direct engagement of the propagator.

[Husar]

http://www.drawninpowerpoint.com/201...ement.html?m=1

https://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/resou...nt/DOCNAC7.htm

On 30 April 1928, Goebbels wrote in his paper "Der Angriff"; "We enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of democracy, with its own weapons. We become members of the Reichstag in order to paralyze the Weimar sentiment with its own assistance. If democracy is so stupid as to give us free tickets and per diem for the this "blockade" (Barendienst), that is its own affair." Later in the same article he continued: "We do not come as friend nor even as neutrals. we come [Page 202] as enemies: As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come." (2500-PS)

Also, in related recent news:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40842853

Two Chinese tourists were arrested in Berlin for making Hitler salutes outside the German parliament on Saturday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...up-police-say/

An American tourist in Germany was beaten up by a passer-by after he began giving the Nazi salute outside a cafe in Dresden, police said Sunday.
[...]
Police said the U.S. national is under investigation for violating German laws prohibiting Nazi symbols and that they are still seeking the passer-by for causing personal injury, according to the Associated Press.

Now the US pretends to be new to this when it let the Nazis breed in broad daylight for years and thought everything was going to be just fine.

Fascism is nothing but capitalist reaction; from the point of view of the proletariat the difference between the types of reaction is meaningless.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky

[Strike For The South]

It has become clear that these white nationalists (I'm not going to call them NAZIs because I think it cheapens the seriousness of the discussion) were emboldened by Trump. At this point, that fact is wholly indisputable. Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller effectively planted these seeds and they are beginning to blossom. Combine that with Trumps total lack of empathy and communication skills (beyond his platitudes) and you end up with the totally tone deaf statement a couple of days ago.

These people have become very good at obfuscation and equivalency. The aim here is two fold. First, they want to discredit the various leftist groups that come out to protest them (The socialists, BLM, etc.). Second, they want to frame the debate. At the very least they want people to think that their movement is about preserving "white" culture.

Of course the white "culture" they want to preserve is largely a myth built at the turn of the 20th century. America was never that white. Its worth pointing put that the last 4 census have incrementally carved out a more unique identity for hispanics. It should be no surprise that the number would seemingly explode. Of course we can set aside the immigration debate for another time. These confederate statues are basically the end of the re-consolidation of white supremacy in the south (or wherever southerners settled) post reconstruction. They coincide with the building of a national myth to try and make America seem in line with the European powers of time.

These people are white power, plain and simple. There power is the direct result of a concerted effort that grew out of the holy trinity (Ruby Ridge, Waco, and OKC) and they were given cover by 9/11 to implement their plan. It also seems that what has been a loose cohort of people is coalescing into a true movement. That is the most scary thing.

Police Action has also come under fire from both sides. Both seem to think the other was given carte blanche by the police, trotting out various videos to the effect. I think the real answer is much simpler. The police were outgunned (or at least at parity) with the supremacists and mid size city cops are not about to get into a gun battle with military grade armaments. This is EXACTLY why the Feds were so obsessed in the 90s. These men are heavily armed, better trained, and take care of their supplies better than the cops. IF they wanted to, they could have taken the town and that is frightening.

The Leftist response has kind of confused me. There seems to be two main camps. The chapo contingent who seem to refuse the help of the police, ACAB, and seem to reject the levers of power which could very much help them in this scenario. This would be fine if they would arm themselves, but they seem to not have any desire to? Punch a Nazi is a great slogan until your insides become your outsides because you wanted to play radical. Bike locks don't work too well against ballistics helmets and mace can be countered. Tendies jokes won't matter when the lead starts flying around. These people are at their tipping point. I don't understand that twitterverse.

Then you have your centrist liberals who seem to have a broader base of support because, you know, the whole incrementalist no rebellion thing. I probably fall in this camp.

It's funny, the best way for white supremacists to succeed would be to have large families and accumulate capital. Money and demography are destiny. However they seem more concerned on inflicting hate and pain. Unfortunately with a lax federal response, I fear we will see more of this.

Also a Nazi flag is pretty much the highwater mark of identity politics you shallow minded idgets.

If you are some young impressionable kid Be careful. We had a confederate sympathizer on these very forums throw a bunch of words on a post and call it real history. They will try and sway you with walls of texts and mountains of numbers. It is all an illusion. Don't be swayed, they are merely peddling hate.

[Strike For The South]

[Montmorency]

Police Action has also come under fire from both sides. Both seem to think the other was given carte blanche by the police, trotting out various videos to the effect. I think the real answer is much simpler. The police were outgunned (or at least at parity) with the supremacists and mid size city cops are not about to get into a gun battle with military grade armaments. This is EXACTLY why the Feds were so obsessed in the 90s. These men are heavily armed, better trained, and take care of their supplies better than the cops. IF they wanted to, they could have taken the town and that is frightening.

Taking down a lone motorist, or a pair, is a much simpler proposition than gunning it out in the open with dozens or hundreds. It was the same thing when police came to round up the murderous bikers after the 2015 Waco shootout, who were going peacefully anyway.

Without saying anything else about police, we can agree that antagonizing scores of armed individuals is something they will neither accept, or be permitted to do.

[Xiahou]

The ACLU posted a response to Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe's claim that they were responsible for the violence. I largely agree with their response.

It is the responsibility of law enforcement to ensure safety of both protesters and counter-protesters. The policing on Saturday was not effective in preventing violence. I was there and brought concerns directly to the secretary of public safety and the head of the Virginia State Police about the way that the barricades in the park limiting access by the arriving demonstrators and the lack of any physical separation of the protesters and counter-protesters on the street were contributing to the potential of violence. They did not respond. In fact, law enforcement was standing passively by, seeming to be waiting for violence to take place, so that they would have grounds to declare an emergency, declare an ‘unlawful assembly’ and clear the area.

Other than the bad actors on both sides themselves, I think local and state government deserves a good bit of the blame.

[Montmorency]

Given the "slippery slope" in shutting down demonstrations on the basis of individual acts, I think we should agree that no weapons of any sort may be permitted in public view during any political gathering, protest, or demonstration. To pair arms with speech and presence - what greater sin or provocation is there? In what era? In what culture?

Any person in the vicinity of such gatherings who brandishes a weapon must be summarily removed and detained. (Without further specification, concealed carry is not affected.)

If police are concerned about encountering danger to any significant degree, then the gathering should be shut down anyway as an imminent public danger. Other than such cases in which there should be no lawful gathering begun or continued, the State authority must be willing and ready to sacrifice of itself in order to maintain the standard, or else it is no authority. In that case pf borderline civil collapse, counter-marchers have no choice but to arm themselves in turn and provision for their own defense, and we might as well have mobs of partisans thrashing it out like in Cable Street.

[Husar]

Well, it's very simple. If the police allow large groups of armed people to gather, they run the risk of, as you said, losing their monopoly on power, at least locally and temporarily. This is not acceptable considering they need this monopoly to ensure the safety of everyone else.

It, ahem, is of course not an issue in civilized countries where Neo Nazis aren't allowed to run around with rifles...

[Husar]

Taking down a lone motorist, or a pair, is a much simpler proposition than gunning it out in the open with dozens or hundreds. It was the same thing when police came to round up the murderous bikers after the 2015 Waco shootout, who were going peacefully anyway.

Without saying anything else about police, we can agree that antagonizing scores of armed individuals is something they will neither accept, or be permitted to do.

You have so many Abrams tanks standing around somewhere without being used....whatever happened to militarization of the police?

[Gilrandir]

You have so many Abrams tanks standing around somewhere without being used..

Say rather that you don't know where they are used. Unlike you, the Donbas separatists do. They claim Abramses are used against them.

[CrossLOPER]

Say rather that you don't know where they are used. Unlike you, the Donbas separatists do. They claim Abramses are used against them.

You are the kind of person to wave a colon cancer flag at a breast cancer rally.

It is absurd to ban an entire site for political conspiracy theories

OK, let's ban its usage due to the large amount of click-bait ads that infest it instead. I find it difficult to take sites like that seriously. It looks even worse than Breitbart.