• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

Charlottesville, Virginia

Why do people keep doing the comparison thing? "Oh, yeah, well what about the obscure gang of child-eaters in New Guinea, do you condemn THEM too? I heard them say something that sounded vaguely left-leaning once." I guess they're trying to say both sides are violent and I'm a hypocrite?

But every side of every ideology throughout history and even the ones who slept in have been violent. It's not a contest. And I'm often hypocritical.

The "violence" part isn't really the issue here (murder is part of it), even though it's why the cameras stick around. The queasy part is because white nationalists are in the GODDAMNED EXECUTIVE BRANCH of the USA.

Apparently some people here really want to share about the poorly defined concepts of nationalized production, a robust military, and policed conformity; and how that's their model for a future society, despite a really lousy track record.

I hope they can agree that hanging any philosophy on the idea that arbitrary parts of your driver's license can determine your status as sub-human and deserving of extermination, kind of nullifies any worth it might have.
 
yep. there's no doubt that trump's rhetoric on these issues is emboldening nationalists and supremacists and encouraging violence.

they say "you are the company you keep" (which is, ironically, from scripture) and trump's choice to not immediately, clearly and decisively disavow these people - including the KK ffs - is a factor for which he has to take some responsibility.

alasdair
 
Scrofula said:
Why do people keep doing the comparison thing? "Oh, yeah, well what about the obscure gang of child-eaters in New Guinea, do you condemn THEM too? I heard them say something that sounded vaguely left-leaning once." I guess they're trying to say both sides are violent and I'm a hypocrite?
Click to expand...

Dunno if you mean me but I just brought up the comparison to contrast the responses from law enforcement to these different (very different) movements, which is a good example of the white supremacy deeply embedded in our justice system and police forces. The larger point being that if a group of thousands of armed white nationalists descends on your city to terrorize people, it's pretty reasonable to want to defend your community when the police aren't going to. I could give a fuck about permits or legality. I'd point to the fact that slavery was legal, but it seems like some of ya'll wouldn't see that as something that was wrong.
 
Sorry if I swept you up with my giant brush, CustieWhale, didn't want to be specific.

It's a good point: police and sheriffs here have a bad record* of allowing or participating in these things.


*A record means history. It was worse then, it's not all gone now.
 
spacejunk said:
so, people should hide away from these reprobates so they have "no one in sight to bash"?
i don't think you've thought this through.
ignoring the people doesn't make them go away.
Click to expand...

it's worked for my children.

they barely want to see me at all anymore.
 
Last edited:
effingcustie said:
Actually, it happened at this rally: http://www.theroot.com/interview-20-year-old-deandre-harris-speaks-out-about-1797796038

These people aren't here to have an intellectual debate. There's no point to still even listening to whatever ridiculous mental gymnastics based on absurd false equivalencies they'll fabricate to justify using the threat of armed violent terrorism as a first amendment right. Violence is the only language they speak, it is the basis of their ideology. If the state isn't willing to wield it against them (curious the police response to this "protest" vs a BLM rally of unarmed protesters [again another RIDICULOUS false equivalency to compare these two groups]), someone else has to. This was not a rally about political ideas, it was an effort to terrorize and intimidate with the threat (and in some cases physical act) of violence.
Click to expand...

“Me and about five of my friends were out protesting. We thought [the racists] left, but at one point they came back. Everyone was exchanging words with the group, but then the KKK and white supremacists just rushed us,” Harris told The Root in an interview.

This kid was out counter protesting - NOT SAYING THAT HE DESERVES TO GET BEAT - but I don't know what he did/said to precipitate this. If all he did was "exchange words with the group" then by all means getting a couple of staples is unwarranted. Also, sort of goes to my point that if you don't gather to feed the fire this sort of thing doesn't happen.

How do I know he didn't throw a rock or swing at one of these people before he got his ass kicked.

I've had worse bike accidents than what happened to this kid from 5 grown men with poles.

Where were his 4 other friends?
 
His 4 other friends then rescued him.

If you're not saying counterprotesters deserve to get beat, why are you blaming them for violence committed against them?

How do we KNOW anything? Anyone could have done anything, and we have to rely on eye-witness accounts for anything that was not documented, and honestly this argument is a cop-out. Personally I'm going to trust people coming from organizations built around non-violent protest or self defense more than ones built around endorsement of racial genocide as far as "who started it" goes.

I'm tired of splitting hairs about legal minutiae. This was a white nationalist hate rally meant to intimidate, it resulted in violence and deaths, and it's absurd to place the blame with anyone but the armed thugs marching through the streets terrorizing people with the (not always so) implicit threat of violence. It's a much bigger issue than who started a small skirmish.
 
(I'm agreeing with you, whale)

The organizers of the rally wanted all this to happen, maybe not all of them wanted to see a murder.

Can I prove that? No, but I'm going on past performance. The whole point is intimidation, even if now they don't actually hang black people from trees.

If someone is provoked by that and throws a rock, so what? Does that make the racists less repulsive?

I don't care whose "fault" it is. Yeah, the guy who throws a rock is bad. It doesn't make any difference for this story. It sure as fuck doesn't make the story become "both sides do it". Only one advocates the extermination of people, and it's got members in the white house.

It's getting weird in here that there isn't consensus on that. Everyone agrees that enslavement of humans is wrong, right? Terrorism is bad? These guys' ancestors were terrorists in the original sense. They are murderers and rapists and sadists. Well documented. They have a habit of weaseling in to government, and they scored. I don't know how anyone could defend them.
 
Exactly, no event exists in a vacuum and like anything happening in the country right now you need to look at it within the context of our deeply white supremacist history. "Who started it" being the determining factor of who is at fault here is a ridiculous false equivalency if you actually look at the intentions of the groups and their place in American racial history. It *started* several centuries ago when our (I'm white) ancestors built the country on genocide and slavery, who threw the first punch is largely irrelevant. I'm not denying that these right-wing groups have a right to freedom of speech and assembly, or saying that counter protesters should just show up and start beating them down. I'm just pointing out that there is a larger context than any single event that occurred, and the two sides in these clashes have a very different place in that history, and our analysis of what happened this weekend should consider that. When an avowed white nationalist is the president's chief advisor, police show up to non-violent BLM protests with tanks and riot gear but don't bat an eye at a hoard of armed white supremacists marching through the street, etc, I certainly don't begrudge anyone feeling like taking matters into their own hands and using physical force to protect yourself and your community is warranted in this situation.

Has anyone actually read any of the rhetoric coming from these groups? Three people died at this rally and they consider it a huge success. Violence is what they want.
 
A quick refresher:

Fascism is a political ideology that views conflict as the natural order of things. It is, by its own definition, anti-democratic (which is sees as obsolete) and very nationalistic. It believes in strength through unity, and only in a strong leader with all the power can societies survive.

FYI.
 
Permits were Johnson and Nixon's way of holding down the 60's and early 70's stuff that was going on. That's definitely not a reason, but it's practice goes back at least that far. I once had to get a permit in Chicago for a picnic because we were more than 20 people. Our only "crime" was having long hair and dressing funny.
 
'll repeat it for you, the nazi's had a legal right to hold a rally, the Lefties did NOT!
Click to expand...

Let's all look at that statement.
nazis v. "Lefties"

No, that already happened, and the lefties won pretty decisively.

That statement should read:
"Nazis had a legal right to hold a rally, and rational normal human beings did not, but came out to oppose them anyway."
 
Fresco said:
That is simply not true. 9/11 alone killed 2,000+
Click to expand...

yeah, sorry - i meant to say "for the last 15 years".

but fwiw i would be surprised if the history of american white supremacist violence had killed less than 2000 people, frankly.
violence isn't necessarily relative in this sense, but when you have the whole state apparatus dedicated to shutting diwn (and killing) islamic terrorist, but protecting nazi terrorists (all the way up to the president) - that's a problem, and a threat to all the people these people direct their hatred towards
 
9/11? REally? Who wins in this contest? You can argue the hijackers were also fascists, btw. I don't know what you were trying to say.

If you really want to though, lynchings in the US, reconstruction to the sixties, estimated at over 5000 victims, conservatively. That's AFTER slavery was abolished. Before that they weren't called lynchings, they were capital depreciation. Should we start counting that?

I pulled that number from PBS, I know depending on your politics it's either just libtard lies or koch bros propaganda, so I figured it's neutral on average.

Here's a photo from 1930. I wonder if they had a fucking permit? I'm sure they just had some points to make.

Negro-lynching-in-Indiana_1930.jpg
 
Escher's Waterfall said:
I know about permits, but I'm asking why, in America, we have to get a permit to non-violently protest, considering the history of America, including colonial America
Click to expand...
Organized protests, marches or rallies almost always need permits so that the police, EMT's and even firefighters can get get ready in case of an emergency.

If everyone just started protesting everything they wanted you'd have bloodbaths breaking out everywhere
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top