[RD] Why y'all always trying to defend Nazis?

[bernie14]

@bernie14 I believe this kind of talk is your area of analytical expertise.

sticks and stones?....

 

[Berzerker]

The body count is one dead local, the murderer count is one imported terrorist. But don't let facts get in your way when you are trying to defend Nazis.

She wasn't antifa... She didn't show up with weapons to fight the protesters and we'll have to wait for the trial before murder and terrorism charges can be legally validated. If neo-Nazis showed up at someone's protest armed and looking for a fight, I wouldn't be defending them. They'd be the ones attacking free speech... Its too bad so many on the left wont defend free speech when its being attacked from the left. The stench of hypocrisy would repel starving vultures.

 

[inthesomeday]

Tfw free speech > life

 

[Berzerker]

somebody died because free speech was attacked

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If neo-Nazis showed up at someone's protest armed and looking for a fight, I wouldn't be defending them.

Your ability to continue denying the reality of events would be really annoying if it weren't for the zero multiplier I have come to assign to it based on your displayed character.

 

[inthesomeday]

somebody died because free speech was attacked

Tfw you blame a murder victim

 

[plarq]

So anyway, how do you suppress anti-liberal democratic movements within a liberal democracy? Probably just ad hoc and in no particularly principled way, which could include getting counter-demonstrators to shut down speeches. But when we start doing illiberal things ad hoc in order to defend liberal democracy, then you have to consider the unintended consequences of this: when you shut down a speech by threatening violence, do you boost or weaken the appeal of white nationalism?

The secret police system would be very effective against those instigators. The problem is how do we trust secret police such as FBI, which is highly authoritarian, would have defended liberal democracy in the process?

 

[El_Machinae]

somebody died because free speech was attacked

No. Gosh no.

Someone died because someone preached a meme of superiority, and convinced someone that protestors were an enemy that needed to be defeated.

He wasn't defending free speech. He was attacking an enemy. He was choosing to escalate things, because he viewed the culture war to be an actual war.

It's all gradients on a curve. A person is taught that his view is superior and then is convinced that might makes right. This supremacy then allows them to attack their enemies, and attacking proxies of their enemies as if they were enemies.

 

[Ryika]

He was choosing to escalate things, because he viewed the culture war to be an actual war.

Yeah, and why would that be? Maybe because protesters were attacked by counter-protesters in a few of the earlier events? Because peaceful protests turned into violent street battles after counter-protesters invaded the spaces of the protesters?

The truly tragic thing is that he rammed his car into people who were not there to fight, but actually did the right thing and just peacefully protested against the protest. Saying it's escalating because people are talked their views are "superior" and not because the extremist on both sides have been going at each other for a while now, is in my opinion distorting reality.

 

[El_Machinae]

Extremists become Extremists based in the poison of their ideology and cultural conditions interacting.

He openly sided with Nazis when he showed up. That doesn't justify any violence initiated against him. But golly, it means his escalation is sorely his fault.

He's a man who chose to show up. And he's also the type to murder protesters while trying to get at people attacking his Ummah.

It's very possible to write about 'both sides'. Just remember who you're choosing to spill more ink defending

It wasn't a free speech rally. They were exercising free speech, but that's about it. Odious people banded together. They deserve protections. But they don't deserve moral defense

 

[Ryika]

Extremists become Extremists based in the poison of their ideology and cultural conditions interacting.

He openly sided with Nazis when he showed up. That doesn't justify any violence initiated against him. But golly, it means his escalation is sorely his fault.

He's a man who chose to show up. And he's also the type to murder protesters while trying to get at people attacking his Ummah.

It's very possible to write about 'both sides'. Just remember who you're choosing to spill more ink defending

It wasn't a free speech rally. They were exercising free speech, but that's about it. Odious people banded together. They deserve protections. But they don't deserve moral defense

I'm not defending anyone, I'm just saying there's more to it than ideological "indoctrination" on one side. He might still have acted that way if it were only for his views, as far as I understand it, that guy is a violent mental midget, but I think its far more likely that the climate that the people who were fighting on the streets has contributed a lot to it.

Compare it to Islamic terrorist attacks. Yeah, some people would probably have done them purely based on the doctrine that has been put into their heads, but to deny that there are huge political aspects that increase the amount of such attacks that happen, doesn't seem to be very realistic to me. Saying that there is probably a causal link is not meant to be an excuse for the individuals who commit those actions.

Of course it's hard to tell in each individual case, but I think it's pretty obvious that in the greater picture the number of such incidents increases as the atmosphere between the people on the extremes gets worse.

 

[inthesomeday]

Valessa, are you honestly of the belief that IRL white supremacists will simply congregate and then go home? Like, if there was no opposition the situation would just simply de escalate right at the end? That "Uniting the Right" would literally result in liberal utopia of free speech and respect towards everybody?

 

[Ryika]

Unite the Right is again just a reaction to the things that happened in the recent past. But generally, yeah, that wouldn't be a big deal.

I mean, what are you even referring to when you talk about a situation that would "deescalate"? What is that "escalation" that you're imagining would happen if there were no violent counter-protesters? People would chant their silly rhetoric, and then they'd go home.

 

[luiz]

Valessa, are you honestly of the belief that IRL white supremacists will simply congregate and then go home? Like, if there was no opposition the situation would just simply de escalate right at the end? That "Uniting the Right" would literally result in liberal utopia of free speech and respect towards everybody?

Do you believe those morons would actually proceed to some sort of mini-Holocaust, though?

By all means, protest their protest. But what do you think will happen if nobody stops their stupid march? The end of democracy, of western civilization?

 

[Senethro]

I don't think the historical evidence for nazis not causing trouble is very strong.

 

[luiz]

I don't think the historical evidence for nazis not causing trouble is very strong.

Maoists also caused a lot of trouble. Should we stop their marches in the US? Are they about to take over too?

Nazis are scum, but we are talking of a few dozen people in a country of hundreds of millions. That march did not represent some sort of threat of taking over the stage and conducting ethnic cleansing or whatever

 

[Ryika]

I don't think the historical evidence for nazis not causing trouble is very strong.

History of similar marshes shows that they generally do their thing and then disband.

 

[warpus]

Maoists also caused a lot of trouble. Should we stop their marches in the US? Are they about to take over too?

Nazis are scum, but we are talking of a few dozen people in a country of hundreds of millions. That march did not represent some sort of threat of taking over the stage and conducting ethnic cleansing or whatever

Maoists aren't inherently racist and calling for the extermination of certain races. The nazis on the other hand..

I say it's fine to let people say what they want. But as soon as they start spreading hate speech, shut them down.

 

[luiz]

Maoists aren't inherently racist and calling for the extermination of certain races. The nazis on the other hand..

I say it's fine to let people say what they want. But as soon as they start spreading hate speech, shut them down.

I'm fine with that, but if hate speech laws are applied consistently, some SJWs will get in trouble too. Like that BLM leader from Toronto that was discussed on CFC some time ago.

At the end of the day Nazis in the US right now don't really represent a threat. If they did, things would be different. Same with communists or other violent groups.

 

[inthesomeday]

Maoists aren't inherently racist and calling for the extermination of certain races. The nazis on the other hand..

I say it's fine to let people say what they want. But as soon as they start spreading hate speech, shut them down.

Maoists also are always shut down when they try to organize. The only mainstream organization in American history that ever espoused Maoism was the Black Panther Party, which the government took extensive actions to destroy, even naming it the worst domestic terrorist threat while the KKK (a white supremacist organization) was actively lynching American citizens.

There's a funny pattern there, eh? All this talk about declaring Antifa a terrorist organization (even though they aren't an organization) while white supremacists are active across the country and are openly supported by the police, by media, and by the government.