Nationalist thugs

[Askthepizzaguy]

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/c...ats-discusses-terence-crutcher-222149914.html

Because of course he has. Easiest thing to predict. And if you don't believe he's gotten them, try it yourself and find out, see how well that goes for you.

This message goes out to everyone who thinks non-violent protesters are traitors to be hated, because you really need a reality check.

Someone not honoring a nation-symbol as a form of non-violent political protest is worth responding to with terrorism only if you a traitor to this country. Those who believe patriotism means threatening anyone who doesn't march lockstep with violent jackbooted thugs, deserve to repeat the rise of fascism and racist nationalism.

You don't have to like someone who doesn't pledge allegiance to a flag. You don't have to like someone who doesn't wear a flag pin to fit in. You don't have to like someone who doesn't sing along with the national anthem. You don't have to like someone who criticizes the politics of your country or government.

But the moment you threaten them, or attack them, to try to scare them into being more like you, you embody nothing that America is supposed to represent, and embody everything that Daesh does, and it offends me that someone might mistake me for one of you. Fascists like to hide in the safety of groups because they're cowards. Strip away all that nationalism, and all you get is a frightened coward mad at the world.

There's videos of people just like you spraying fire hoses at non-violent people sitting as a form of protest to racial segregation. Google it and tell me who the villains are in those videos who should be condemned as traitors to the country, representing none of America's values.

Hint: It's not the non-violent protester.

You learned nothing from the rise of fascism and learned nothing from the civil rights movement. I award you a failing grade in history, and may whatever god you believe in have mercy on your soul.

PS- Odds are pretty good that there will be a god you claim to believe in, because you're not nearly brave enough to break from the safety of the group. Makes it easier to find acceptable targets when you're part of a larger group, not an isolated individual. I know how your mind works. Doesn't take that long to solve such a simple puzzle. It's just like elementary school, except you never grew up and you still think bullying makes you powerful, when you are exactly the most feeble among us, both in mental fortitude and in physical bravery.

Just thought you should know how transparent it is.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

History is full of very patriotic people standing bravely against the threat of the radical non-violent protester.


Link to video.

Kick a lone man not threatening you with violence, when your 12 buddies also support your bullying and will back you up? Of course you would. It proves how patriotic you are. It proves how much you love your country.

I bet that takes a lot of bravery.

I bet that takes a lot of ingenuity.

I bet that takes a lot of moral character on your part.

He's not waving a flag, or performing the rituals everyone else agreed to, obviously that makes him a traitor. Attack him! Threaten him! Kill him!

He doesn't love our country. He's the enemy within. He never belonged here in the first place. He's got different ideas, different skin tones. We can't allow that!

The promised land will exist, and everyone will live there. That is, the moment you stop directing violence toward the non-violent. We're all waiting on you, slowpokes. You've been held back several grades already. Any chance you could join us in the 21st century, preferably before it is over?


Link to video.

Just a reminder how dangerous these peaceful protestors are, and how the only moral thing to do, to protect the nation against their dangerous radicalism of the type advocated by MLK and Gandhi, is to physically attack them, and look the other way when police use excessive force, unlawfully incarcerate or kill them outright.

I guess a person is automatically a hero when they put on a uniform, and automatically a criminal if they're being beaten by someone who has a uniform. Someone is automatically a traitor when they non-violently oppose these acts, and automatically a hero if they stand up and put their hands across their hearts and recite lyrics like everyone else.

That takes some serious courage, I'd have to imagine. How brave and how moral, to do what others do. If millions of people are doing it, it must be right, and if a small minority is doing it, they obviously are wrong, and should be hated.

Popularity makes morality. I must have missed that chapter in school. Remind me again how that went every other time in our history? I could have sworn we were supposed to learn history for some reason other than our teachers having a fetish for memorizing names, and dates, and places.

Or maybe that's all it meant. Just bits of odd trivia to be forgotten whenever it is convenient.

I know the public schools taught this. Perhaps it is time for the violent nationalists to do their patriotic duty, and refund the taxpayers for the money they spent trying to teach you anything at all.

I suppose because you can find a video of a black person being violent, that will justify everything else that happens to anyone else vaguely resembling that violent person. Enjoy your false equivalency. They do make logic for dummies books, and I hear you can get them on the cheap if you tell them you're a recovering nationalist.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

It's not as bad as the 1960s, therefore everything is better.

People were emancipated, therefore everything is all better. The right to vote? That's too much to ask. Now they've gone too far.

People got their right to vote, therefore everything is all better. Desegregation? That's too much to ask. Now they've gone too far.

People were desegregated, therefore everything is all better. End de facto segregation and spread funding from all white neighborhoods to fund schools in all black neighborhoods? Force the children to attend the same schools? Scholarships based on academic performance for the poor? That's too much to ask. Now they've gone too far.

It's almost like these measures, however important, didn't fix the entire problem!

Asking to be treated fairly by the police? Trying to end bias in sentencing? Asking to address draconian laws keeping a drug user in prison for longer than a child molester or someone who committed assault? Pointing out when someone with guns seizes federal land and threatens the police, and are treated with kid gloves because they're white, and an unarmed black man can be tasered, then shot, by two different officers? Actually looking for real equality? Actually looking for biases and injustices to be addressed?

That's too much to ask. Now they've gone too far again.

And not praising the glorious nation-state? Not doing the rituals? Non-violent protest?!? Those dangerous radicals are foreign to our nation's history and values.

Don't they realize not standing and doing the salute makes you a traitor?

You have to do the salute.

If you don't do it, you deserve whatever comes to you, right?

It's such a meaningful gesture of honor and respect when someone forces you to do it under a threat of violence.

I mean, you obviously get the most faithful people if you tell people they have to convert or they will die, right?

Obviously you only get the most patriotic people if you make them swear to love the country or else, right?

Those gestures are EVER SO MEANINGFUL with the threat of force.

If a student doesn't stand and recite the pledge, punish them. That will make them respect you.

If your child doesn't respect your authority, hit them in the face! Scream at them and threaten them! Obviously, that will show them how worthy you are of being respected.

If a minority has the gall to protest a violent injustice through a non-violent action, let's direct vile ignorant bile at them, threaten their lives, further oppose any changes that might address their concerns, and have the balls to tell them to their faces that you're doing so because their protest lacked class.

They weren't being respectful enough.

They don't know their place, because they're not showing the proper respect before asking kindly and non-violently not to be treated like murderers when they aren't.

I can't think of a more American act, one that demonstrates more love for the country, or more respect for our values or our history. Non-violently protesting violence with a single, quiet, act of defiance.

I honestly can't think of a single thing that's more American. It ranks right up there with actually fighting Daesh. Because it still risks one's life. The only difference I can see is that there's no possibility anyone innocent might die along the way. Otherwise, they're fairly equivalent to me.

I guess that makes me an evil radical. Please threaten me as well, at your earliest convenience.

Making it a crime to beat up homosexuals? Everything is fine now, obviously.

Wanting the same legal rights? Now they've gone too far.

Who the heck are these people who have appointed themselves to judge exactly how much fairness minorities are allowed to ask for, before it is too much? And my what precious little egos they must have.

 

[thecrazyscot]

So...are you ranting or do you want someone to respond?

For what it's worth I agree with your sentiment that stifling peaceful protest is possibly one of the most un-American things that can be done.

I do take issue with this, though:

Odds are pretty good that there will be a god you claim to believe in

Duh. Less than 3% of the world's population are outright athiests. You seem to be implying that a belief in god means the believer lacks courage and is somehow...less. Am I wrong?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Having just read Thoreau's 'Civil Disobedience' and discussed it to death in four 90-minute sessions this post very much resonates with me, thank you for keeping up the quality content in Civ Fan OT!

 

[civman110]

Edit.

I wrote a response, but I'm not sure what this thread is addressing exactly, so I deleted it. Is this just one really big platitude, or is there more of a point to this?

 

[Mydeadgayson]

Anyone condemning Kaepernick should have the balls to condemn Mohammed Ali et al. Blind obediance and uncritical support of your country isn't patrioism, it's close to fascism actually.

 

[Lord of Elves]

America is a business. We do what we do, and [censored] gets done, and when everything is fine and good most everyone feels content to stand up and say, "Yeah, you know, I pledge my allegiance to this flag," and all that jazz. Patriotism in times of "peace" is so casual and automatic here, like preppy kids wearing American flag clothes, like attributing national character to fast food like hamburgers and hotdogs and milkshakes. Because America is a business, this is all that's asked of most people when business is good: just to tacitly consent with their money and with their attitude.

But right now, business is bad, and it's becoming clear that the powers that be consider our tacit consent of buying food, clothes, music and movies to be public approval of ugly, ugly things that no one mentioned in the "Natty Lite, apple pie, burgers and baseball" shpiel on patriotism. More conscientious people justifiably want to revoke their consent, to express their disapproval of the ugly things that are done in their name. But at its core, the ugly stuff is what America is really about. That's how we're making money.

 

[civman110]

But at its core, the ugly stuff is what America is really about. That's how we're making money.

I don't really agree with this. I understand you're point and I wouldn't say I disagree, as much as I have a different perspective. I'll try and explain it, this might sound a bit patronizing at first and I honestly do not mean it that way:

The world is not ideal and neither is human nature. That's something we have to be mindful of. I also think a lot of people in Western countries do not realize how brutal the vast majority of the world is, or even realize that this brutality is part of human nature because they have never had to face it. Our nature is that the most dominate group will always seek to dominate all others. That's why it is important to be strong as a nation because if you don't dominate some other group will dominate you and you do what you have to, to make sure that never becomes a possibility.

Does that mean the government has to do ugly things at times? Yes, but it's necessary and sometimes you don't have any good options to choose from.

For example, a foreign government is taking hostile actions toward your country. Do you surrender to them, or do you retaliate knowing that innocent people will suffer, or be killed? You retaliate. There is no option for middle ground.

Do you allow another nation to surpass your country's ability to project power around the world, and possibly dominate you? The answer is no because you can't risk losing everything if they suddenly become hostile. Then the question is what actions do you choose to take? Do you become hostile?

I'm not advocating you should be immoral, but there's situations where conventional views of morality really don't apply in any practical sense.

 

[Mouthwash]

It's genuinely amazing how much the OP can find to say about so little. There's only so many ways I can imagine stating, "threatening to kill people for disrespecting America is un-American and hypocritical."

EDIT: I had to add this. I mean, just look at this:

This message goes out to everyone who thinks non-violent protesters are traitors to be hated, because you really need a reality check.

On a forum with more Marxists than Republicans? Really?

 

[Lord of Elves]

I don't really agree with this. I understand you're point and I wouldn't say I disagree, as much as I have a different perspective. I'll try and explain it, this might sound a bit patronizing at first and I honestly do not mean it that way:

The world is not ideal and neither is human nature. That's something we have to be mindful of. I also think a lot of people in Western countries do not realize how brutal the vast majority of the world is, or even realize that this brutality is part of human nature because they have never had to face it. Our nature is that the most dominate group will always seek to dominate all others. That's why it is important to be strong as a nation because if you don't dominate some other group will dominate you and you do what you have to, to make sure that never becomes a possibility.

Does that mean the government has to do ugly things at times? Yes, but it's necessary and sometimes you don't have any good options to choose from.

For example, a foreign government is taking hostile actions toward your country. Do you surrender to them, or do you retaliate knowing that innocent people will suffer, or be killed? You retaliate. There is no option for middle ground.

Do you allow another nation to surpass your country's ability to project power around the world, and possibly dominate you? The answer is no because you can't risk losing everything if they suddenly become hostile. Then the question is what actions do you choose to take? Do you become hostile?

I'm not advocating you should be immoral, but there's situations where conventional views of morality really don't apply in any practical sense.

This is just embarrassing.

"The emperor has to throw Christians to the lions! Do you want us to become weak and be overrun by the barbarians? Don't you realize how brutal and savage it is out there in Germania? Do you want things to be like that here?"

It's absurd. There's no disorder and chaos that's being held back by the bulwark of the federal government, like Gondor holding back the armies of Sauron. If anything violence and disorder is brought about by the government, or at least, with the government's consent through the operations of strikebreakers - "the police" - and similar domestic terrorists whose goal is clearly the destruction of communities, particularly communities of people of color and of the poor, and the rendering of their inhabitants powerless. By keeping people of color and the poor fearful, incapable of organizing and voicing their grievances in the public forum, the ruling class creates a population of liquid cheap labor that has no ability to achieve financial or social stability and is wholly reliant on whatever bones are thrown by the private sector. Resources like welfare and public housing have been so exhausted by continual legislative pressure against them that they exist more or less to keep this under-class alive long enough to move onto the next minimum wage job, or be killed in the street as an example to others.

This is the business of America.

 

[civman110]

This is just embarrassing.

"The emperor has to throw Christians to the lions! Do you want us to become weak and be overrun by the barbarians? Don't you realize how brutal and savage it is out there in Germania? Do you want things to be like that here?"

There was no reason to feed Christians to the lions, but their concern about being over-run by barbarians was completely justified. That was what did the Roman Empire in.

Rome would have been better off to kill off the Germanic tribes rather than try to assimilate them. They chose the latter and paid the highest price for it. It destroyed them, so I fail to see how Rome opening up it's borders and choosing not to kill it's adversaries was moral.

...

I don't really understand what you're trying to get at with the second part. It's a lot of hyperbole. I realize things aren't ideal, but ideal when it comes to anything is completely unrealistic. You make the best of what you have within the parameters the situation allows.

You don't want to become Icarus.

 

[Lord of Elves]

There was no reason to feed Christians to the lions, but their concern about being over-run by barbarians was completely justified. That was what did the Roman Empire in.

Rome would have been better off to kill off the Germanic tribes rather than try to assimilate them. They chose the latter and paid the highest price for it. It destroyed them, so I fail to see how Rome opening up it's borders and choosing not to kill it's adversaries was moral.

It's basically being established here that you care a great deal more about borders, empires and "lots of mans" in one place than about anything real, tangible or practical, like your quality of life and the living standards of others. Which isn't at all abnormal on this forum, but - surprisingly - a lot of people out in the real world are more concerned about their personal lives than about what America's stats would be if life was a Paradox game.

"I fail to see how [choosing not to commit genocide] was moral" indeed.

I don't really understand what you're trying to get at with the second part. It's a lot of hyperbole. I realize things aren't ideal, but ideal when it comes to anything is completely unrealistic. You make the best of what you have within the parameters the situation allows.

You don't want to become Icarus.

Jesus, then what is realistic? Evidently it's very realistic that the absurdly wealthy and powerful "rich" might find a way to get wealthier and more powerful, but completely unrealistic that government become accountable to citizens, that police not murder people, that we don't live under a police state. I'll let other posters and lurkers decide what this view of reality reveals about the beholder.

 

[civman110]

It's basically being established here that you care a great deal more about borders, empires and "lots of mans" in one place than about anything real, tangible or practical, like your quality of life and the living standards of others.

Civilization, law, and order = survival, a good quality of life, higher living standards.

It's extremely tangible and practical.

Jesus, then what is realistic?

Not opening the gates to the barbarians, so to speak.

Evidently it's very realistic that the absurdly wealthy and powerful "rich" might find a way to get wealthier and more powerful, but completely unrealistic that government become accountable to citizens, that police not murder people, that we don't live under a police state. I'll let other posters and lurkers decide what this view of reality reveals about the beholder.

I never made any such assumption.

 

[Evie]

Rome fell to its own instability, overbloatedness and repeated civil wars between the different wings of a far-too-powerful military (and the leaders they supported), far more than it fell to "unassimilated barbarians".

There were "barbarians" issues, sure, like Adrianople, but by and large, the Barbarians resettled within Roman borders did more to reestablish a measure of order in the power vacuum left by a dying Rome, than they did to kill Rome.

In short, when Rome self-destructed, it was the "Barbarians" who moved in to uphold and restore civilization, law and order.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Not opening the gates to the barbarians.

Just to be contrarian, the cities who opposed the Mongols ("barbarians") survived when they opened the gates and were slaughtered when they didn't.

 

[civman110]

Rome fell to its own instability, overbloatedness and repeated civil wars between the different wings of a far-too-powerful military (and the leaders they supported), far more than it fell to "unassimilated barbarians".

I realize all of that, although many would argue Rome's army was over-extended; not too powerful.

Lord of Elves brought up the barbarians so I stuck with that example.

In short, when Rome self-destructed, it was the "Barbarians" who moved in to uphold and restore civilization, law and order.

That is blatantly and demonstrably false.

 

[Evie]

Too powerful in terms of the social and political clout it wielded within the empire, and over the selection of the emperor. Not in term of raw military power.

And most certainly, the "barbarians" carried on law and order and civilization. They didn't reestablish it over the same empire ; and it was a different system of law and order, but these "barbarians" weren't disorderly mud-dwelling savages. They had legal systems (largely customary), they sought order, they had their own civilization. They also adopted a LOT of ideas from Rome and the Roman people they came to occupy.

Don't fall for the stupid renaissance Roman fanboys myth of the "dark ages". That has been thoroughly debunked by all forms of competent history.

 

[civman110]

Most certainly. They didn't reestablish it over the same empire ; and it was a different system of law and order, but these "barbarians" weren't disorderly mud-dwelling savages. They had legal systems (largely customary), they built towns and villages and established their own form of order.

Relativism is a lie. Some cultures and civilizations are superior to others.

Don't fall for the stupid renaissance Roman fanboys myth of the "dark ages". That has been thoroughly debunked by all forms of competent history. One system of law and order fell apart ; another rose in its stead.

No credible, or competent historian agrees with your opinion. And notice I said "opinion."

 

[Lord of Elves]

There's not much to be said about this. It's all the same. Nothing has changed. We're talking about ethical and humane treatment for people of color and the poor (and others) in the United States, and already the daggers have come out with the Roman Empire analogies and the talk of "civilization" and "barbarians" and "opening the gates."

So okay, if you want to fight in this particularly grotesque dialectical box, let's do it. Who gets to be cast as the Roman legions, upholding order and "civilization?" Who gets to be the barbarians?

"Gee, I wonder."