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

[bernie14]

those nazis seem pretty heavily armed to me, unless the flagpoles are made of styrofoam (and they have shields too!!)..also, there are like what, 1 cop for every 10 or 20 nazis?...wow, the scandinavians give the US a lesson in free speech !!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

those nazis seem pretty heavily armed to me, unless the flagpoles are made of styrofoam (and they have shields too!!)..also, there are like what, 1 cop for every 10 or 20 nazis?...wow, the scandinavians give the US a lesson in free speech !!

Well, the flagpoles don't really match up with tiki torches (which were explained on the sites where the invasion of Charlottesville were organized as 'molotov on a stick') and I don't see any 'organized security' carrying automatic weapons holding their flanks.

 

[El_Machinae]

Compare it to Islamic terrorist attacks.

Oh, I'm doing so, don't worry. There are the social circumstances that get people to think violence is going to help them, and nothing else will work out as well. And then there's the meme-base justifying the attack on 'the other'.

I think that battling the problem on both fronts is very worth it, it's a two-angle problem.

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

And then Arpaio got pardoned.

 

[bernie14]

Well, the flagpoles don't really match up with tiki torches (which were explained on the sites where the invasion of Charlottesville were organized as 'molotov on a stick') and I don't see any 'organized security' carrying automatic weapons holding their flanks.

...invasion of charlottesville?? ......I don’t know tim, I think you are spending too much time soaking up propaganda form extreme right sites....i could not find anything regarding guns at the tiki torch march on "regular" media outlets....i found this on CBS...

......"Dozens alt-right activists, white nationalists and neo-Confederates chanted "white lives matter" as they faced off against counter-protesters at the statue, CBS affiliate WTVR-TV reports. Police arrived on the scene and declared the assembly unlawful. Fights broke out between the two groups of demonstrators, with some marchers swinging their torches. University police said one protester was arrested and charged with assault and disorderly conduct. Police said several people reported injuries, including one police officer.".....

in regards to automatic weapons, yeah, I was surprised to see this.....

and this....

and this....

miraculously, no one was shot or molotoved......digging a little deeper, I found these stories from the guardian and washington post (sorry, I know they are alt-right sites but they will have to do )...

and then the militia leader himself

(tbh, I only watched about 3-4 minutes...the guy is kinda boring and I get the gist....)

so, just a little more info for anyone interested, judge for yourself.....my verdict, our law enforcement did a piss poor job...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Try this.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Dyyyeeeerrrp. It's obvious that the counter-protesters were terrorists, because only leftists and minorities can be terrorists. The idea of white terrorists is a myth like global warming, or Australia, or the ridiculously heretical idea that the earth is round.

 

[Hehehe]

Of course you don't.

Yes, I don't, that's why I've been asking why for the past three posts. Instead of dancing around the question, could you just tell me why you brought it up?

I was curious about what you said regarding who really invented the zero, so I looked it up myself. As I said, my point was that the Europeans got this knowledge from the Arabs. Who invented it is of less importance, since there are some of the major inventions that have been independently invented in different parts of the world at different times.

Is it then important at Arabs transferred this knowledge? I mean as you said, some of the major inventions have been independently invented. If Europeans can come up with advanced calculus, derivatives, imaginary numbers, etc. then is it possible that Europeans could also have invented zero?

Why do you think the information would have been transferred from someone else? According to some of what I read, the Mayans knew about zero, but we already know the Europeans couldn't care less about what the natives of this continent knew or believed.

First of all, you do know that Mayans didn't exist by the time the Spanish landed into Americas, right? The Mayans disappeared around 900 AD. Second, as for the treatment of Aztecs, yes the Spaniards teamed up with minor tribes, most notably the Tlaxcalans, against the Aztecs (would you believe it, minor tribes didn't like to be human sacrifices). A lot of natives did die, but most of them died from diseases. So what are the exact crimes of the Spaniards here? I mean I'm not denying them, I'm just saying, feel free to point out specifics.

I give credit where it's due, and people willing to share knowledge deserve credit for that. Some just hoard it and refuse to share, and while that might benefit them in the short term, in the long term it usually benefits everyone.

I see. I suppose you're also grateful for all the knowledge I've shared with you in this thread? And besides, obviously the Indians didn't hoard that knowledge.

those nazis seem pretty heavily armed to me, unless the flagpoles are made of styrofoam (and they have shields too!!)..also, there are like what, 1 cop for every 10 or 20 nazis?...wow, the scandinavians give the US a lesson in free speech !!

Yes, perhaps you might also want to copy our gun legislation. Perhaps then you can avoid these kind of ****shows in the future. You're welcome.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yes, I don't, that's why I've been asking why for the past three posts. Instead of dancing around the question, could you just tell me why you brought it up?

I brought it up because I consider it connected to the conversation. It's not spam or something off-topic. If that's not enough, then that's too bad.

Is it then important at Arabs transferred this knowledge? I mean as you said, some of the major inventions have been independently invented. If Europeans can come up with advanced calculus, derivatives, imaginary numbers, etc. then is it possible that Europeans could also have invented zero?

Why is it so important to you that the Arabs are not given any credit for the beneficial things they did? It's like you're determined to paint them as unenlightened barbarians once and forever, when there was a time when they did value scientific knowledge and intellectual curiosity and were willing to preserve other cultures' knowledge and share the things they themselves knew. Yes, I am perfectly aware that this is a value that many of them no longer have.

Yes, it's possible the Europeans could have invented zero. But the historical fact is that they didn't. They learned about zero from the Arabs, who learned about it from others and shared this knowledge with the Europeans.

First of all, you do know that Mayans didn't exist by the time the Spanish landed into Americas, right? The Mayans disappeared around 900 AD. Second, as for the treatment of Aztecs, yes the Spaniards teamed up with minor tribes, most notably the Tlaxcalans, against the Aztecs (would you believe it, minor tribes didn't like to be human sacrifices). A lot of natives did die, but most of them died from diseases. So what are the exact crimes of the Spaniards here? I mean I'm not denying them, I'm just saying, feel free to point out specifics.

Yes, I'm aware that the Mayans died out. But are you seriously suggesting that all their knowledge died with them, and everyone after that had to start over from scratch?

As for this "what did the Spaniards do?"... oh, please. If you're not denying them, then there's no need for me to point them out.

I see. I suppose you're also grateful for all the knowledge I've shared with you in this thread?

What is your obsession with gratitude? I appreciate people sharing knowledge with me, but honestly, all you've shared with me here is a weird obsession with gratitude, when it should be obvious that this isn't what I'm talking about at all.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that organized marches could do without armed civilians. Ideally they could be replaced by police, but in the US it seems that the police is even more trigger-happy than a well-regulated militia

Btw, what are the laws on open carry? I mean i can get being allowed to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit, but it is different to allow civilians the right to openly carry, whether on a march or otherwise.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think that organized marches could do without armed civilians. Ideally they could be replaced by police, but in the US it seems that the police is even more trigger-happy than a well-regulated militia

Btw, what are the laws on open carry? I mean i can get being allowed to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit, but it is different to allow civilians the right to openly carry, whether on a march or otherwise.

Some states have open carry laws, meaning that as long as you aren't trying to conceal it you can carry whatever you want. The gun nuts rave all the time about how if a criminal sees a gun they won't commit a crime...unless of course they are the ones carrying the gun, but the gun nuts never want to consider that. Open carry laws pave the way for all kinds of problems, because a business is completely within their rights to say "yes, this is an open carry state, but not in here, GTFO." So the next thing you know there are handguns in glove compartments while their open carry enthusiast owners are in the store, along with long guns in gun racks readily available to whoever feels inclined to break the glass. Of course the gun nut solution to these problems is to force business owners to allow them to carry their guns in with them wherever they go, because, y'know, nothing says "relax and enjoy your meal" like a restaurant full of armed nitwits.

 

[Hehehe]

I brought it up because I consider it connected to the conversation. It's not spam or something off-topic. If that's not enough, then that's too bad.

Yeah, but how is it connected? Why did you bring it up? I've been asking this in 4 posts now. Can't you just answer my question?

Why is it so important to you that the Arabs are not given any credit for the beneficial things they did? It's like you're determined to paint them as unenlightened barbarians once and forever, when there was a time when they did value scientific knowledge and intellectual curiosity and were willing to preserve other cultures' knowledge and share the things they themselves knew. Yes, I am perfectly aware that this is a value that many of them no longer have.

No, I give the Arabs little credit for transmitting that knowledge. And although intellectually Arabs have contributed very little to humanity, I absolutely do recognize what little they have contributed. To me it seems intellectually dishonest to give Arabs credit for something which was actually invented by Indians.

Also, my original response to that one guy was just me setting the historical record straight.

Yes, I'm aware that the Mayans died out. But are you seriously suggesting that all their knowledge died with them, and everyone after that had to start over from scratch?

No, just pointing that out. Just sharing knowledge and things I know.

As for this "what did the Spaniards do?"... oh, please. If you're not denying them, then there's no need for me to point them out.

No, please. Give me a detailed comparison of Spaniard occupation vs. Ottoman occupation. Point out to me all the differences, if you think it matters. I mean I'm not sure why it matters, that's what I have been asking you.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yeah, but how is it connected? Why did you bring it up? I've been asking this in 4 posts now. Can't you just answer my question?

Stop badgering me and just re-read what I said. You're the only one who appears to have a problem with it.

No, I give the Arabs little credit for transmitting that knowledge. And although intellectually Arabs have contributed very little to humanity, I absolutely do recognize what little they have contributed. To me it seems intellectually dishonest to give Arabs credit for something which was actually invented by Indians.

Oh, for crying out loud. I'm not disagreeing that the Indians invented the zero. But you are hell-bent on not giving any credit to the Arabs for having shared the knowledge of zero (which they learned from the Indians) with the Europeans.

No, please. Give me a detailed comparison of Spaniard occupation vs. Ottoman occupation. Point out to me all the differences, if you think it matters. I mean I'm not sure why it matters, that's what I have been asking you.

At this point you're just trying to pick a fight. I'm looking at this from the perspective of an archaeologist/anthropologist. As I said previously (and which you appear to have totally missed), I don't approve of destroying cultural artifacts (which could be anything from a huge monument to the grocery list I wrote on a piece of scrap paper yesterday). The Ottomans chose to preserve at least some of the artifacts of the people they conquered. The Spaniards were all about "gimme the gold" and cared nothing that they were destroying artifacts that did mean something to the people they conquered.

 

[Hehehe]

Stop badgering me and just re-read what I said. You're the only one who appears to have a problem with it.

Please, help me understand this. You brought up this factoid. Why? Was it a part of some larger point you were trying to make? That the Ottomans were oh ever so gentle conquerors, especially compared to the Spanish? I mean that's what I'm assuming here.

Oh, for crying out loud. I'm not disagreeing that the Indians invented the zero. But you are hell-bent on not giving any credit to the Arabs for having shared the knowledge of zero (which they learned from the Indians) with the Europeans.

That the Arabs transferred this knowledge seems to be little more than a consequence of geography.

At this point you're just trying to pick a fight. I'm looking at this from the perspective of an archaeologist/anthropologist. As I said previously (and which you appear to have totally missed), I don't approve of destroying cultural artifacts (which could be anything from a huge monument to the grocery list I wrote on a piece of scrap paper yesterday). The Ottomans chose to preserve at least some of the artifacts of the people they conquered. The Spaniards were all about "gimme the gold" and cared nothing that they were destroying artifacts that did mean something to the people they conquered.

And you believe that the Ottomans did not take all the gold they could from Constantinople?

Mehmed II had promised to his soldiers three days to plunder the city, to which they were entitled.[5]:145[54] Soldiers fought over the possession of some of the spoils of war.[55]:283 According to the Venetian surgeon Nicolò Barbaro "all through the day the Turks made a great slaughter of Christians through the city". According to Philip Mansel, widespread persecution of the city's civilian inhabitants took place, resulting in thousands of murders and rapes and 30,000 civilians being enslaved or forcibly deported.[56]

The looting was extremely thorough in certain parts of the city. Weeks later on 2 June, the Sultan would find the city largely deserted and half in ruins; churches had been desecrated and stripped, houses were no longer habitable and stores and shops were emptied. He is famously reported to have been moved to tears by this, speaking "What a city we have given over to plunder and destruction."[5]:152

 

[Traitorfish]

Yup. And Jacobins as we know invented guillotine - their preferred tool to expedite social change.

Not really. The aristocracy had been abolished before the Terror, and the Assembly had already provided for the appropriation of seigneurial and church lands. The Great Terror was about protecting the Revolution from real and imagined "counter-revolutionaries", it wasn't supposed to effect social change in and of itself. Nobody actually believes that you can bring about democracy just by guillotining viscounts.

If Marx didn't discuss "details" of revolutionary terror - beyond making a point about it being absolutely necessary - it was obviously so because his audience was well enough acquainted with the default Jacobin approach to not need any further coaching. The term and its intended purpose were and are entirely clear.

In 1848, when he wrote the Manifesto, sure. But Jacobinism was already in decline as a political philosophy by the Revolutions of 1848, and irrelevant by the 1870s. His audience could no longer be assumed to be familiar with the tenants of a political current that was last relevant in their grandfather's day, any more than we'd expect the average Occupy Wall Street-attendee to be familiar with the tenants of the the Communist Party c.1950. "Terror" just isn't something that mid-to-late nineteenth century socialists spent a lot of time talking about, outside of a few fringe anarchist circles and, again, Russia.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Please, help me understand this. You brought up this factoid. Why? Was it a part of some larger point you were trying to make? That the Ottomans were oh ever so gentle conquerors, especially compared to the Spanish? I mean that's what I'm assuming here.

Okay, at this point, I'm just going to assume that you're deliberately misinterpreting or not even trying to understand my point.

I said NOTHING about how the conquered people were treated. It was horrible, in both cases. I'm talking about preserving SOME of the cultural artifacts (without melting them down, in the case of precious metals).

Is this clear enough, or would you like someone to pop forward in time and bring back a universal translator?

That the Arabs transferred this knowledge seems to be little more than a consequence of geography.

The point is that it happened.

And you believe that the Ottomans did not take all the gold they could from Constantinople?

Of course they did. I'm talking about knowledge.

 

[Hehehe]

Okay, at this point, I'm just going to assume that you're deliberately misinterpreting or not even trying to understand my point.

I said NOTHING about how the conquered people were treated. It was horrible, in both cases. I'm talking about preserving SOME of the cultural artifacts (without melting them down, in the case of precious metals).

Is this clear enough, or would you like someone to pop forward in time and bring back a universal translator?

See this is the thing that confuses me. Are you saying that the Ottomans did not destroy "cultural artifacts"? See my source below. Or are you saying that the Spaniards did? Care to elaborate on what did the Spaniards destroy exactly?

Of course they did. I'm talking about knowledge.

Luckily, Byzantine scholars escaped the Byzantine empire. Would the Ottomans have destroyed all that knowledge? I guess we'll never know for sure, but given the plundering, the answer is probably. As for "cultural artifacts", here is a description from an eyewitness:

"Nothing will ever equal the horror of this harrowing and terrible spectacle."

An observer describes the scene:

"Nothing will ever equal the horror of this harrowing and terrible spectacle. People frightened by the shouting ran out of their houses and were cut down by the sword before they knew what was happening. And some were massacred in their houses where they tried to hide, and some in churches where they sought refuge.

A contemporary depiction of the battle
The enraged Turkish soldiers . . . gave no quarter. When they had massacred and there was no longer any resistance, they were intent on pillage and roamed through the town stealing, disrobing, pillaging, killing, raping, taking captive men, women, children, old men, young men, monks, priests, people of all sorts and conditions . . . There were virgins who awoke from troubled sleep to find those brigands standing over them with bloody hands and faces full of abject fury. This medley of all nations, these frantic brutes stormed into their houses, dragged them, tore them, forced them, dishonored them, raped them at the cross-roads and made them submit to the most terrible outrages. It is even said that at the mere sight of them many girls were so stupefied that they almost gave up the ghost.

Old men of venerable appearance were dragged by their white hair and piteously beaten. Priests were led into captivity in batches, as well as reverend virgins, hermits and recluses who were dedicated to God alone and lived only for Him to whom they sacrificed themselves, who were dragged from their cells and others from the churches in which they had sought refuge, in spite of their weeping and sobs and their emaciated cheeks, to be made objects of scorn before being struck down. Tender children were brutally snatched from their mothers' breasts and girls were pitilessly given up to strange and horrible unions, and a thousand other terrible things happened. . .

Temples were desecrated, ransacked and pillaged . . . sacred objects were scornfully flung aside, the holy icons and the holy vessels were desecrated. Ornaments were burned, broken in pieces or simply thrown into the streets. Saints' shrines were brutally violated in order to get out the remains which were then thrown to the wind. Chalices and cups for the celebration of the Mass were set aside for their orgies or broken or melted down or sold. Priests' garments embroidered with gold and set with pearls and gems were sold to the highest bidder and thrown into the fire to extract the gold. Immense numbers of sacred and profane books were flung on the fire or tom up and trampled under foot. The majority, however, were sold at derisory prices, for a few pence. Saints' altars, tom from their foundations, were overturned. All the most holy hiding places were violated and broken in order to get out the holy treasures which they contained . . .

When Mehmed (II) saw the ravages, the destruction and the deserted houses and all that had perished and become ruins, then a great sadness took possession of him and he repented the pillage and all the destruction. Tears came to his eyes and sobbing he expressed his sadness. 'What a town this was! And we have allowed it to be destroyed'! His soul was full of sorrow. And in truth it was natural, so much did the horror of the situation exceed all limits."

I realize that they're no grocery lists, but are those items not "cultural artifacts?" Do not "sacred and profane" books contain knowledge?

 

[luiz]

It's the Black Legend. Part of the self-loathing of some westerners, sometimes compounded with a latent anti-Catholicism.

The idea that western (and particularly Spanish) conquerors were somehow "worse" than other conquerors, be them Arabs or ottomans or Persian or Chinese, runs deep in Western thought. It's pure nonsense of course, but it's very entrenched.

 

[Camikaze]

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?

If you're looking for something to read and have the right subscriptions, you'd probably enjoy David Dyzenhaus's article "Liberalism, Autonomy, and Neutrality" and Colin Macleod's article "Liberal Neutrality or Liberal Tolerance?" Jeremy Waldron also has a nice book on hate speech laws which covers this sort of territory nicely.

 

[Akka]

Luckily, Byzantine scholars escaped the Byzantine empire.

In fact, that's precisely what kicked the "Renaissance" in.

 

[inthesomeday]

In fact, that's precisely what kicked the "Renaissance" in.

Mmm nope. Italian city states maritime trade with the Ottomans did.