Should confederate monuments be destroyed?

Should all confederate monuments be moved or destroyed?

  • All the monuments should be completely destroyed

    Votes: 8 21.6%
  • Move them off public lands

    Votes: 17 45.9%
  • Keep the monuments as is

    Votes: 9 24.3%
  • Build even more confederate monuments

    Votes: 3 8.1%

  • Total voters
    37
How is the rally a menace to public well-being? It's first amendment protected speech, and they got a permit, where is the problem? Had the counter protesters stayed home and not incited violence nobody would have been hurt. An armed escort for what...giving speeches? Yeah I'm pretty sure that's the job of the police.
You said yourself, they turned up armed, expecting a confrontation. This was not a civic event, it was a show of force by a bunch of weirdo out-of-towners. Regardless of whether some blame for that lies on the counter-protesters (hint: they're not he ones who started killing people), what obligation do the people of Charlottesville have to supply the battlefield, or the police to fight it on the fascists' behalf?

I honestly have no idea where you're going with this.
I'm just trying to sound out the internal structure of your paranoia. Masked bandits! Communist secret societies! George Soros! It's fascinating stuff, and I've always been a sucker for lore.
 
You said yourself, they turned up armed, expecting a confrontation. This was not a civic event, it was a show of force by a bunch of weirdo out-of-towners. Regardless of whether some blame for that lies on the counter-protesters (hint: they're not he ones who started killing people), what obligation do the people of Charlottesville have to supply the battlefield, or the police to fight it on the fascists' behalf?
They did indeed start the violence, which resulted in someone getting killed. You're being very dishonest with your phrasing. It was perfectly legal and sensible for them for them to bring weapons to defend themselves. They were attacked with clubs, urine, feces, clubs, fists, pepper spray, and even chemicals. One of the scheduled speakers, Baked Alaska, was attacked with some sort of chemical agent which almost caused him to go blind. But nobody in the media would dare talk about that. Had they not brought stuff to defend themselves, it is very likely some of them would have been killed.

You're blaming the victims very hard here, because you disagree with their political beliefs.

I'm just trying to sound out the internal structure of your paranoia. Masked bandits! Communist secret societies! George Soros! It's fascinating stuff, and I've always been a sucker for lore.
Speak for yourself bud.
 
lol, so the protesters cant protest if someone will show up to fight them?

and the ACLU just got pathetic... Protesters cant be armed, not that the ACLU will be there to defend them if they are attacked by armed counter protesters.
 
They did indeed start the violence, which resulted in someone getting killed. You're being very dishonest with your phrasing. It was perfectly legal and sensible for them for them to bring weapons to defend themselves. They were attacked with clubs, urine, feces, clubs, fists, pepper spray, and even chemicals. One of the scheduled speakers, Baked Alaska, was attacked with some sort of chemical agent which almost caused him to go blind. But nobody in the media would dare talk about that. Had they not brought stuff to defend themselves, it is very likely some of them would have been killed.

You're blaming the victims very hard here, because you disagree with their political beliefs.
The victims are those who were killed and maimed, not the Nazis who called for bloodshed and then affected surprised when one of their idiot followers took it seriously. I don't know what piece of fundamental moral wiring has come unstuck that you cannot plainly see that.

Speak for yourself bud.
Tsk, so I guess you're more of a Skyrim NPC than a Morrowind NPC? Shame.
lol, so the protesters cant protest if someone will show up to fight them?
They showed up expecting a fight. You can't step into a boxing ring and affect surprise when the other guy starts swinging.

I will admit, I'm genuinely unsure how far the organisers expected this. I'm reminded of the old sit-com trope of a kid throwing a party while his parents are out of town, and then a biker gang or whatever shows up and wrecks the place. I can believe that the organisers thought they were throwing a grand old Kek-fest for their edgelord mates, and were genuinely surprised when all the guys turned up with swastikas, Klan robes and guns. But I can't say I have much sympathy for people who watched the "bad guys" scene from Blazing Saddles wander into their little protest and not think, even for a moment, "this might not be the best look for us".
 
Last edited:
I don't think any effort should be spent defending the anti-fascists who initiated assault and violence.

We live in a world where that's illegal. If you're really a fan, maybe request that the laws be changed so that we're allowed to attack those who identify as alt-right. But until then, assault is assault.

The fact that they had a permit and a route is really important. And if any of them had initiated violence, or even the threat of violence, those are against the law.

The anti-fascist movement is a symptom of an underlying problem, but let's not deny that any violence initiated and tolerated against them are being done by people who're willing to break the law and are willing to paint with a wide brush.

If a person goes to a place where they're legally entitled to be, and are prepared for violence, that's their right. It's brandishing that's illegal, it's threatening violence that's a tort.

The alt-right rally made their own errors, since Nazis showed up and were welcomed. And any violence initiated was also an error in the exercise of free speech.

The entire thing reminds me of those who salivate on criminals getting 'justice' in jail by being abused in jails. If raping prisoners is so awesome, why not just vote for it to become legal and then use it as a perk for the guards? Because it's not awesome. Punching Nazis isn't legal, and the world is better for it. I don't trust you to judge whether I'm a Nazi. And I don't want to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I am not one, if I wish to see you convicted for assaulting me.
 
Thing is the antifa people are generally pretty important to protecting other people who are counter-protesting and are exercising their own rights. It's probably not really their primary goal, but it's an important side effect of the whole "oppose nazis physically" thing that they side with and protect, physically, whoever else is around.

Non-violence as a strategy of political resistance is hard and doesn't work in every situation. A large nazi rally being met with nonviolent protesters that don't include any active and violence-willing antifa or a strong and committed police presence is likely, with nazis being what they are, to end up with violence directed at the counter-protesters anyway. The options are pretty much to vacate the field completely and let them threaten and intimidate people and become more emboldened, or to get in their way and risk violence.

I don't know how one can show up and non-violently protest against armed fascists looking for a fight, and guarantee not having violence done to oneself, without the presence of a threat of counterviolence. That can come either in the form of private individuals, or enough state violence, to keep said fascist militia and mob groups in check.

And that's likely to end with nazi apologists blaming the counter-protesters for the violence anyway. Apologists are going to find a way to be apologists with or without the presence of black-clad antifa types. Look at how effectively they make black victims of police brutality responsible for their own victimisation, look at the speed and persistence with which fake images and outright lies can propagate. Such apologia is very flexible for those who want to believe.

As this Episcopalian dude puts it:

In Charlottesville, my “nonviolent” stance was met with heavily armed men. They came with bats, clubs, plywood shields painted with swastikas, brass knuckles, tear gas canisters, and wooden sticks. Not to mention the guns. The heavily armed militia were everywhere. They liked that they made you feel nervous. It was fun for them.

They came to hurt people, and they did.

Let me take a moment to be clear – I do not advocate for violence. I trust, however pig-headedly, that all of creation – including all people – is both capable and worthy of salvation. That there is no such thing as a lost cause with God. I cannot explain this trust; it is a part of me deeper than rational faculty. To commit violence against another human being is to commit violence against the image of God in them. To me, it is a sin. I do not believe God requires us to sin. But it seems apparent to me that the world sometimes does.

I never felt safer than when I was near antifa. They came to defend people, to put their bodies between these armed white supremacists and those of us who could not or would not fight. They protected a lot of people that day, including groups of clergy. My safety (and safety is relative in these situations) was dependent upon their willingness to commit violence. In effect, I outsourced the sin of my violence to them. I asked them to get their hands dirty so I could keep mine clean. Do you understand? They took that up for me, for the clergy they shielded, for those of us in danger. We cannot claim to be pacifists or nonviolent when our safety requires another to commit violence, and we ask for that safety.

And so I come to this – white liberal Christian friends, I’m talking to you. I’ve seen a lot of condemnation of “violent response,” lots of selective quoting Dr. King, lots of disparagement of antifa and the so-called “alt-left,” a moral equivalency from the depths of Hell if I ever saw one. You want to be nonviolent? That is good and noble. I think…I think I do, too. But I want you to understand what you’re asking of the people who take this necessary stance against white supremacy, the people who go to look evil in the face. You’re asking them to be beaten with brass knuckles, with bats, with fists. To be pounded into the ground, stomped on, and smashed. You’re asking them to bleed on the pavement and the grass. Some of them are going to die. And you’re asking them to do that without defending themselves.

Are you willing to do that? Are you going to to go out when the Nazis come here, to the Bay Area, next week? Are you going to offer your body to them? No? Are you willing to take a bat to the head? To be surrounded by angry young men who want nothing more than to beat you unconscious, like they did Deandre Harris? Are you going to rely upon a different type of violence – that imposed by the state – to protect you – even knowing it is a danger to your neighbors? To outsource the violence your safety requires to someone else? Or are you just not going to show up, at the rally or afterward? To choose passivity over pacifism – because let’s be clear, nonviolence is still about showing up.

If you are unwilling to risk your bodily integrity to stand against literal Nazis, but you are willing to criticize the people out there who are taking this grave threat seriously but not in a way of which you approve….I just don’t know what to say to you. Truly. Your moral authority is bankrupt and you’re not helping. You’re a hypocrite.
 
Last edited:
^^^ Nonsense. The police should have it under control but this is not the first time they have been ordered to step down. Besides too often this antifa folks act like an animals mindlessly destroying everything. Again with police just onlooking.

Antifa also act like a shill for social engineers like Soros:

Hail democracy! Lol. Go and sign up at georgesoros.com:
 
Last edited:
Ah yes, Soros posts, the Dunning-Kruger Effect test of political commentary.
 
Ah yes, Soros posts, the Dunning-Kruger Effect test of political commentary.
Ah yes, deflection from the core point of the discussion. Nice try.
 
Do you genuinely not appreciate that "some rich Hungarian Jew did antifa/everything else" isn't a conspiracy theory worth engaging with, much less capable of being the "core point" of any discussion not held immediately after drinking a bucket of hand sanitiser?
 
Do you genuinely not appreciate that "some rich Hungarian Jew did antifa/everything else" isn't a conspiracy theory worth engaging with, much less capable of being the "core point" of any discussion not held immediately after drinking a bucket of hand sanitiser?
Looking for an argument in your post and found non. Check that (you got a plus for the sarcasm though).
Conspiracy theory? Soros paying an army of protesters seems to be a fact but dont let that influence you. There is a cuteness to ignorance...
The "core point" is presented arguments and evidence but again ignorance is bliss so you have my sympathy.
That Soros is a rich jew is again nice attempt at deflection and a try at framing your opponent as an envious bigot but hey since you have no arguments anything will do, right?
Drinking a bucket of sanitiser? I wouldnt know but surely the knowledge you are trying to pass on could explain something...
 
Last edited:
The point isn't whether you, personally, are an anti-Semite. It's whether the Soros conspiracy theory is anti-Semitic. It's about what the conspiracy theory means in context and how it is used. If you're willing to spread white supremacist propaganda and lack the basic critical thinking skills to realise that you're even doing it, then you're not an innocent, you're just a sucker.
 
The point isn't whether you, personally, are an anti-Semite. It's whether the Soros conspiracy theory is anti-Semitic. It's about what the conspiracy theory means in context and how it is used. If you're willing to spread white supremacist propaganda and lack the basic critical thinking skills to realise that you're even doing it, then you're not an innocent, you're just a sucker.
The only thing I am at the moment talking about are the FACTS and the analysis based on them. If you cant engage those except by theoreticizing about nondirectly related accusements through defamatory labeling than you are somebody wearing a T-shirt saying: "I love to suck and can teach you how to do it too!" on it.

Have you actually considered that I may be simply interested in the plain truth of the matter?
 
Last edited:
I don't know how one can show up and non-violently protest against armed fascists looking for a fight, and guarantee not having violence done to oneself, without the presence of a threat of counterviolence. That can come either in the form of private individuals, or enough state violence, to keep said fascist militia and mob groups in check.

And that's likely to end with nazi apologists blaming the counter-protesters for the violence anyway. Apologists are going to find a way to be apologists with or without the presence of black-clad antifa types. Look at how effectively they make black victims of police brutality responsible for their own victimisation, look at the speed and persistence with which fake images and outright lies can propagate. Such apologia is very flexible for those who want to believe.

As this Episcopalian dude puts it:

There's no doubt that there's a place for thuggish people on the protestor side. In the end, if you're dealing with Nazis, you're going to want friends who do pushups on their knuckles. And it take incredible presence of mind to stand against people who're willing to thug out against you. I don't mind that nuance. Not at all.

But when someone's post can be summarized "it should be legal to punch Nazis" or "I don't mind when victims are created by protestors who've gone too far", we have a problem.
 
The point isn't whether you, personally, are an anti-Semite. It's whether the Soros conspiracy theory is anti-Semitic. It's about what the conspiracy theory means in context and how it is used. If you're willing to spread white supremacist propaganda and lack the basic critical thinking skills to realise that you're even doing it, then you're not an innocent, you're just a sucker.

I don't know if this Soros person really is even capable of doing all that, so i suspect it is a conspiracy theory to at least a great degree. That said... it isn't a good stance to bring anti-semitism when the issue is one specific oligarch, who just happens to be of jewish descent.
But yeah, it does seem he gets mentioned all the time as some instigator, though at least what is known is that he funds a number of so-called NGOs, which at times do have rather extreme positions. The fire can't be as large as it is said to be, but some smoke does exist.
 
It comes from an inability to conceptualise that individuals have their own agency and beliefs. Someone must be paying all the people I don't like to be that way because they couldn't just all be that way on their own.

It's a bit of projection I think, because of course the sorts of people who peddle this sort of thing generally aren't adept or experienced at authentic social movements, and they are frequently really dishonest or disingenuous.

The fact that white supremacism is an inherently conspiratorial worldview (entire ethnic groups are plotting to kill me with their insidious babies! Immigration is a plot by... some shadowy people... to use social engineering to... do... something!) presumably just makes that kind of thinking easier.
 
Last edited:
I will admit, I'm genuinely unsure how far the organisers expected this. I'm reminded of the old sit-com trope of a kid throwing a party while his parents are out of town, and then a biker gang or whatever shows up and wrecks the place. I can believe that the organisers thought they were throwing a grand old Kek-fest for their edgelord mates, and were genuinely surprised when all the guys turned up with swastikas, Klan robes and guns. But I can't say I have much sympathy for people who watched the "bad guys" scene from Blazing Saddles wander into their little protest and not think, even for a moment, "this might not be the best look for us".

I'm going to go ahead and post some of these. I do not feel like investigating each and every one to try to figure out if they are all genuine, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that anyone attending a "Unite the Right" rally is fully intending to hold court with Nazis.

Spoiler :
unite_the_right.jpg


Spoiler :
14474895_G.jpg


Spoiler :
charlottesville-6.jpg


So, yeah. I think the purpose of this rally was QUITE clear.
 
You know how like some people adopt this pose of being rebel philosophers who swim against the stream, thinking the heretical thoughts that the sheeple cannot. They think themselves creative and revolutionary, iconoclasts in a world of golden calves, the bright young things for whom free speech was made. Theres a whole slew of them on youtube purloining ancient names from times when Men could be great.

But then time after time their thoughts are "what if white people really are super great and zee joos really are the oppressor above/traitor within?"
 
The victims are those who were killed and maimed, not the Nazis who called for bloodshed and then affected surprised when one of their idiot followers took it seriously. I don't know what piece of fundamental moral wiring has come unstuck that you cannot plainly see that.
I dunno, probably has to do with the fact that I'm talking about what actually happened, and you're making things up. Again: The "nazis" are not the one who called for bloodshed, how long is it going to take for that to sink in? Are you just incapable of viewing right-wingers as victims?

Non-violence as a strategy of political resistance is hard and doesn't work in every situation. A large nazi BLM rally being met with nonviolent protesters that don't include any active and violence-willing antifa or a strong and committed police presence is likely, with nazis BLMers being what they are, to end up with violence directed at the counter-protesters anyway. The options are pretty much to vacate the field completely and let them threaten and intimidate people and become more emboldened, or to get in their way and risk violence.
:think:
 
I don't know if this Soros person really is even capable of doing all that, so i suspect it is a conspiracy theory to at least a great degree. That said... it isn't a good stance to bring anti-semitism when the issue is one specific oligarch, who just happens to be of jewish descent.
But yeah, it does seem he gets mentioned all the time as some instigator, though at least what is known is that he funds a number of so-called NGOs, which at times do have rather extreme positions. The fire can't be as large as it is said to be, but some smoke does exist.
Just for an amusement here are "couple" of involvements of the Soros person:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237
 
Back
Top Bottom