Violence in Charlottesville

[a completely inoffensive name]

White Nationalism is now in vogue with Trump in office.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/u...=top-news&_r=0

[Strike For The South]

Awful but not surprising. White nationalism has been allowed to fester since 9/11.

Nazi punks go home.

[Beskar]

I remember pre-11/9/01 where Islam and Muslims were virtually never discussed, it was basically a religion and a way of life for people in the Middle East. Sure, there were people who used to go "Pakis" "Ragheads" and typical xenophobic slurs but that was done to all ethnics except whites to the same degree.

When the twin tower attack happened, things changed. The government's wanted to go to war so in their interest to ram up anti-muslim sentiment to get people on side
War in Afghanistan went ahead with little protest, especially with Media campaigns leading the charge, and 'unfortunate incidents' like when BBC news showed a scene of sewer rats when talking about the Taliban. Anti-Muslim agenda was vogue and state sponsored.

I believe a lot of the current Anti-Muslim rhetoric comes from this period and it caused isolation and failure for integration in communities as people did not want to be associated with the enemy. It was a constant downhill process, and it took almost a decade later to realise the impact this caused hence a government sponsored effort to try to reintegrate the Muslim community which people turned against them 'see through' these efforts due to their fostered dislike.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well if we take that metric we can say black nationalism was downright chic even before Obama took his.
http://www.wnd.com/2010/05/155653/

As the popularization of communists bolsters fascists; black identitarianism has bolstered white.

To denounce one and ignore or excuse the other is to encourage both, the best course of action is to let both extremes feel the truncheon with equal enthusiasm.

But that is not what we are taking about. The first thing you say in response to a white nationalist terrorist attack that killed a woman is a classic What About ism to a random article about the black panthers.

No condemnation of the white nationalists, but a scummy appeal to denounce an organization that had nothing to do with the rally yesterday, as a false prelude of fairness.

scummy. I don't think i want to acknowledge your posts anymore.

[Husar]

We need more love, love is the only answer, don't listen to the globalist Soros propaganda.
The poor (and also despicable) racists just walked right into an antifa-globalist Soros trap, see.
It all makes sense, asking for less racism breeds violence from the poor oppressed white males.

[insert crazy Alex Jones video here]

Also don't forget to buy some caveman juice...

[Hooahguy]

One instance of two Black Panthers engaging in voter intimidation is hardly much of an example of resurgent black nationalism. Now when the President has a couple of advisers with dubious ties to white nationalism, now that gets me paying closer attention.


Also, I don't want to see any far-right (or far-left for that matter) sites like WND linked to, so cut it out.

[Greyblades]

But that is not what we are taking about. The first thing you say in response to a white nationalist terrorist attack that killed a woman is a classic What About ism to a random article about the black panthers.

No condemnation of the white nationalists, but a scummy appeal to denounce an organization that had nothing to do with the rally yesterday, as a false prelude of fairness.

My first response to the blood on the charlottesville street was quote: "the best course of action is to let both extremes feel the truncheon with equal enthusiasm."

No, serrah, it was my first response to a person on the internet making spurrious the claim that white nationalism is now acceptable in trump's america, that being to exhibit a case of a black nationalist intimidation being allowed to go unpunished by the actions of the President of the United States. This was motivated twofold: either to shake you of your most alarmist notion or bait you into exposing a belief in an absurd dichotomy of which you have so eagerly obliged.

Every pundit and publication of whom you rely on to substitute thought have used this womans death for political ends; that being to convince the easily swayed that white nationalism has only suddenly become a problem in america solely because of the ascendance of one man. That the discontent of the people on the street is entirely unwarrented and irrational. This while ignoring the years of pandering and enabling by the first and fourth estates that has allowed anti white racism to become the only racism acceptable, of which this backlash has been long fed by.

scummy. I don't think i want to acknowledge your posts anymore.

I have long thought nothing of value would be lost by losing the attention of such a blatantly moralistic granstander, yet I keep coming back.

If you're finally done you can run along now.

One instance of two Black Panthers engaging in voter intimidation is hardly much of an example of resurgent black nationalism. Now when the President has a couple of advisers with dubious ties to white nationalism, now that gets me paying closer attention.

Should have been paying attention when your president was using dead delinquents to grand stand on. Maybe you will notice what was scrawled upon Lee's collumn.

Also, I don't want to see any far-right (or far-left for that matter) sites like WND linked to, so cut it out.

Excuse my ignorance on the orientation of some of america's news sites, but I must ask what rule did I break? There is nothing on the faq that warrants this action, if I am not mistaken you are acting out of bounds of a moderator.
It seems like the action either of someone worried his site will be flaged or someone who actually thinks truth can be changed by it's source. It could be because you worry about impressionable young minds who have no capacity to double check but frankly I do not see you viewing us in such an insultingly childish manner.

Whatever, will this do?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Bl...imidation_case

Trump is an ass. His incoherence is making Obama's smooth banality look incredibly classy.

Class was all he had and it was getting tired.

[Hooahguy]

Should have been paying attention when your president was using dead delinquents to grand stand on. Maybe you will notice what was scrawled upon Lee's collumn.

Not even close to being the same thing. Using a tragedy to bring light to an issue and press for police reform is not anywhere comparable to what is going on now with white nationalists marching down streets carrying tiki torches and giving the Nazi salute.

Excuse my ignorance on the orientation of some of america's news sites, but I must ask what rule did I break? There is nothing on the faq that warrants this action, if I am not mistaken you are acting out of bounds of a moderator.
It seems like the action either of someone worried his site will be flaged or someone who actually thinks truth can be changed by it's source. It could be because you worry about impressionable young minds who have no capacity to double check but frankly I do not see you viewing us in such an insultingly childish manner.

Whatever, will this do?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Bl...imidation_case

It falls under a rule within the FAQ:

"Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, etc, etc."

WND is well known to peddle conspiracy theories as well as other generally objectionable material that has no place on the Org and as admin I will enforce this. The same would be true for any similar website linked here, no matter the political alignment. If you have further issue with this, please take it up via PM and I would be happy to explain further. That being said, I do not appreciate your snarky tone.

[Husar]

No, serrah, it was my first response to a person on the internet making spurrious the claim that white nationalism is now acceptable in trump's america, that being to exhibit a case of a black nationalist intimidation being allowed to go unpunished by the actions of the President of the United States. This was motivated twofold: either to shake you of your most alarmist notion or bait you into exposing a belief in an absurd dichotomy of which you have so eagerly obliged.

Every pundit and publication of whom you rely on to substitute thought have used this womans death for political ends; that being to convince the easily swayed that white nationalism has only suddenly become a problem in america solely because of the ascendance of one man. That the discontent of the people on the street is entirely unwarrented and irrational. This while ignoring the years of pandering and enabling by the first and fourth estates that has allowed anti white racism to become the only racism acceptable, of which this backlash has been long fed by.

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".

[Beskar]

Trump finally comes out with "Racism is Evil"

[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.

[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?

[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...

[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.

[Greyblades]

Not even close to being the same thing. Using a tragedy to bring light to an issue and press for police reform is not anywhere comparable to what is going on now with white nationalists marching down streets carrying tiki torches and giving the Nazi salute.

Did I say they were the same thing? Ever?

No, I said that you should have been paying attention when this was being fed. So eager to use death for political capital that he lamented the death of those killed in self defense or in the process of breaking the law, the "post race president" proclaimed thier demises as examples of police brutality and racism later to be proven false. This was one step in a long chain that served to sour race relations and brought upon the chaos you see before you.

If you had also been paying attention you'd also be taking account that the communist black bloc took the streets of america before the nazis reemerged. They marched down Berkeley and Austin's streets carrying the hammer and sickle and raising thier fists and only the politically blind couldnt see them for the neo red guard they are.

It falls under a rule within the FAQ:

"Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, etc, etc."

WND is well known to peddle conspiracy theories as well as other generally objectionable material that has no place on the Org and as admin I will enforce this. The same would be true for any similar website linked here, no matter the political alignment. If you have further issue with this, please take it up via PM and I would be happy to explain further. That being said, I do not appreciate your snarky tone.

If this is how you interpret "objectionable material" you had best get used to snark for you will be eliciting a lot of it.

It is absurd to ban an entire site for political conspiracy theories, I may as well petition for the banning of anyone linking to the rolling stone after they pushed the university of virgina false rape accusation. You could disqualify half the american mainstream media for peddling the "russia hacked the election" theory.

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?

Quite the strawman, I have said it's re-emergeance and popularity is a reaction of the rise of black racism not an excuse.

You know your own history do you not? How the nazis used legitimate fears of communism to gain support? How they capitalized upon the failures of the government to combat it?

Well you better start learning because it's the Weimar republic again only now your fear of the nazis is empowering the communists and you've forgotten that both are evil not just one.

As for your "it was just a picture" claim, read the freaking wikipedia page.

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".

White racism isnt far worse, they are both the same evil that wants the other gone or dead with the same ferocity and they are codependant; each grows in reaction to the other. You are worrying about the one in the doorway while ignoring the one in your bed.

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.

My two cents is that it's your allegiance to your team that's making you think I'm excusing them when I am pointing out it was the other team's actions that made them. They are to the right what antifa are to the left and both have been eager to beat the other's brains out.

Whether it was with bikelocks on the picket line or with a rifle in a baseball field it is only by chance that it was the nazis that produced the first fatality.

[Greyblades]

On a more, hm, lighter note: I have to admit confusion at the motivation of the people calling for the removal of lees statue. Robert E Lee like Rommel after him was a hero for his own people an highly respected by his enemies to the point of lionization of him after death.

With the oft touted distaste of slavery only being outweighed by his love of country it is highly odd for him to have been attacked as a symbol of the worst of the confederates. I thought Lee was supposed to be the reb you were "allowed" to like in democratic circles.

I cant imagine anyone would have thought removing him wouldnt get pushback, and the ideological justification doesnt make sense, so why was this ever proposed?

[Husar]

Quite the strawman, I have said it's re-emergeance and popularity is a reaction of the rise of black racism not an excuse.

So it was just victim-blaming?

You know your own history do you not? How the nazis used legitimate fears of communism to gain support? How they capitalized upon the failures of the government to combat it?

Well you better start learning because it's the Weimar republic again only now your fear of the nazis is empowering the communists and you've forgotten that both are evil not just one.

As for your "it was just a picture" claim, read the freaking wikipedia page.

It's not the Weimar Republic again, certainly not here. And in the US I don't see it either unless you finally came around and mean that Trump is like Hitler. The empowering of communists is a load of unfounded bollocks, you can hardly find any in the US and the communist party here is nowhere to be seen either.

White racism isnt far worse, they are both the same evil that wants the other gone or dead with the same ferocity and they are codependant; each grows in reaction to the other. You are worrying about the one in the doorway while ignoring the one in your bed.

That's wrong from top to bottom. The numbers of white racists and their being part of a majority group that denied the humanity (voting rights) of the other well into the 1960s alone makes them far worse. There may be some blacks who are racist, but they are nowhere near the level of danger that white racists have achieved. I'm also not in bed with one, I've made angry posts about antifa before. The point is that there is no reason to denounce the antifa or black racism when Neo Nazis and white supremacists show up to a rally looking like racist Total War reenactors, wearing Hitler quotes, toting guns and actually killing and injuring people with cars. Get a grip!

[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.

[Montmorency]

I thought Lee was supposed to be the reb you were "allowed" to like in democratic circles.

He wasn't. His benign legacy is a myth and he is up there with the most egregious traitors and supremacists. The pushback is most charitably identified with imbeciles and casual racists who just don't know any better and don't want to.

After seeing this type of disingenuous pushed relentlessly by people who of course wouldn't dream of calling for a memorial to Osama bin Laden at Ground Zero as an expression of heritage or history, I'm through with the belief that some may be spared. Raze everything on public land to the earth. The pigs can lick up their blood and soil from the gravel of their impressions.

The only Confederate symbol that matters is the white flag of surrender.

[Hooahguy]

Did I say they were the same thing? Ever?

You pointed to it as a classic case of whataboutism which leads me to believe you think they are comparable.

No, I said that you should have been paying attention when this was being fed. So eager to use death for political capital that he lamented the death of those killed in self defense or in the process of breaking the law, the "post race president" proclaimed thier demises as examples of police brutality and racism later to be proven false. This was one step in a long chain that served to sour race relations and brought upon the chaos you see before you.

So I suppose according to you, using the case of Emmett Till to bring light to rampant and vile racism in the south was wrong as well.

If you had also been paying attention you'd also be taking account that the communist black bloc took the streets of america before the nazis reemerged. They marched down Berkeley and Austin's streets carrying the hammer and sickle and raising thier fists and only the politically blind couldnt see them for the neo red guard they are.

Were they marching and shouting for the extermination/expulsion of other races/religions? Calling for the burning of synagogues? Brandishing a large arsenal of weaponry? Besides, from the images and videos of the marches you mention, their numbers are a tiny fraction compared to the neo-Nazis who showed up last weekend.

If this is how you interpret "objectionable material" you had best get used to snark for you will be eliciting a lot of it.

It is absurd to ban an entire site for political conspiracy theories, I may as well petition for the banning of anyone linking to the rolling stone after they pushed the university of virgina false rape accusation. You could disqualify half the american mainstream media for peddling the "russia hacked the election" theory.

A false rape accusation is hardly on the same level as pushing the birther conspiracy theory. If you do not like how moderation is done on this forum, there is nothing forcing you to stay here.

[Xiahou]

Some surprisingly balanced reporting from NBC:


So yes, there were people on both sides that came looking for a fight. However, most counter-protesters were locals who were appalled to have white supremacists and neo-nazis marching thru their town.

[a completely inoffensive name]

He wasn't. His benign legacy is a myth and he is up there with the most egregious traitors and supremacists. The pushback is most charitably identified with imbeciles and casual racists who just don't know any better and don't want to.

After seeing this type of disingenuous pushed relentlessly by people who of course wouldn't dream of calling for a memorial to Osama bin Laden at Ground Zero as an expression of heritage or history, I'm through with the belief that some may be spared. Raze everything on public land to the earth. The pigs can lick up their blood and soil from the gravel of their impressions.

The only Confederate symbol that matters is the white flag of surrender.

You remember way back when i said we need to bring back radical reconstruction and i joked by saying you agreed wholeheartedly?

I'm glad we are finally on the same page.