4 men charged in connection with violent 2017 Charlottesville rally

[KCfromNC]

Nobody is defending white supremacists, much less their
beliefs.

Some people are, and in this very thread even :

In Charlottesville, Antifa was 100% to blame for
the violence, not the Nazis

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I seem to recall people "criticized and even agitated them" by drawing Mohammed, whereas Antifa brought water bottles filled with cement and balloons filled with urine and feces....

One has to look at who and how the events were organized as well...

The Drawing contest was specifically made to provoke (which like I said, I don't have an issue with), the Antifa actions were a response to the fact that the Nazi's scheduled the event in order to provoke.

Not justifying Antifa's part in the conflict here...just pointing out that the logical inconsistencies coming from many on the right.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If you don't know the difference between picking sides and
saying that everyone involved was wrong, then you're in the
wrong forum. Maybe the Democrat safe room would be more
to your liking.

I'm not a democrat, so no...but nice attempt at deflection.

I never said that both sides weren't wrong for their parts in the conflict. However, there was one side that was definitely more ethical than the other. To evaluate that, you have to look at which side has the more unethical message if the event had gone off without any sort of escalation to violence

If you remove all violence from the equation (since both sides do it, we'll call that a wash), one side's message was that of racist propaganda and antisemitism. The other side's message was one stating that racism and antisemitism sucks.

Which side is more ethical?

The fact that both sides escalated things to violence at various points in the day doesn't somehow magically mean that their underlying messages are somehow now equivalents or that there's no longer a right or wrong side.

If you had two groups, one saying that stealing is good, and the other saying stealing is bad, and their argument turned into a fight, just because they both escalated things to violence doesn't mean their messages are somehow morally equal and that people shouldn't pick a side...or that you can somehow say "I'm not going to pick a side, they were both violent". There's still a right side and wrong side in that scenario.


Like I said before, it seems to go back to this underlying thing where Trump supporters don't want to flat out admit that the guys in that conflict (who also happened to be Trump backers) were the ones with the bad ideas, and so they attempt to portray the entire thing as a wash in order avoid admitting that by claiming "Both sides escalated things so everyone was wrong".

 

[Non sequitur]

One has to look at who and how the events were organized as well...

The Drawing contest was specifically made to provoke (which like I said, I don't have an issue with), the Antifa actions were a response to the fact that the Nazi's scheduled the event in order to provoke.

Not justifying Antifa's part in the conflict here...just pointing out that the logical inconsistencies coming from many on the right.

Since both sides agree racism and antisemitism is bad and violence is bad, where are the logical inconsistencies?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Since both sides agree racism and antisemitism is bad and violence is bad, where are the logical inconsistencies?

The logical inconsistencies arise from within the stance that "since both sides engaged in violence, I'm ethically and morally well reasoned in claiming that I don't want to pick a side" and some even take that further in using altercations where one side may have started it to pretend as if that side (and their underlying message) is somehow worse for that reason.

An example:
If a nambla advocate and a person who opposes nambla are in a conflict, whether they both were to escalate things to physicality...or even if there are instances where the person opposing them threw the first punch, it certainly doesn't mean "well, the anti-nambla position is actually worse" or "well, they're both equally bad" or "I'm not going to pick a side, because violence is wrong". ...No, there's still a right ideological position and a wrong one, regardless of who threw the first punch.

When analyzing these conflicts, "which group threw the first punch?" or "both sides were escalating things" are really just distraction talking when one is deciding which side they're on and are often times just a disingenuous tactic for trying to justify not wanting to oppose a group (that might be highly unethical) but that are on "one's own side" in terms of the way they vote.

...and that's basically what it is. The alt-right are securely in the corner of Trump and the GOP, so other republicans try to either A) claim antifa is worse, or B) claim "both sides are bad so I'm not going to pick a side"...as to not have to acknowledge that there's a very seedy element from within their voter base.

The actions of people who uphold certain positions don't impact the objective morality of the positions they uphold. For example, rape is wrong, regardless of whether or not anti-rape advocates escalate things to violence during protests.


And for the record, these are the exact same things I've pointed out about other groups like the Occupy people as well, so I'm not simply "picking on" the GOP here.

 

[Ringo84]

I think that for some people, bothsidesism is a defense mechanism. It's hard to believe that one side is so bad that they'd openly carry Nazi banners and chant anti-Semitic slogans, so the liberal/antifa side must be just as bad somehow. I don't necessarily think that's what's happening here, but I think it's the case for a lot of people who can't fathom how bad it's gotten.

As Rob said, though: I think there's a pretty clear case of who is in the wrong here, and it has absolutely nothing to do with which side had a permit. There is only one side whose members ran into people with their car, beat up a man in a parking garage, and who have been charged with rioting and assault. It's not antifa.
Ringo

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think that for some people, bothsidesism is a defense mechanism. It's hard to believe that one side is so bad that they'd openly carry Nazi banners and chant anti-Semitic slogans, so the liberal/antifa side must be just as bad somehow. I don't necessarily think that's what's happening here, but I think it's the case for a lot of people who can't fathom how bad it's gotten.

As Rob said, though: I think there's a pretty clear case of who is in the wrong here, and it has absolutely nothing to do with which side had a permit. There is only one side whose members ran into people with their car, beat up a man in a parking garage, and who have been charged with rioting and assault. It's not antifa.
Ringo

Yup...Antifa is totally harmless...

PICTURES: Meet The Wonderful Antifa Members Arrested In Berkeley

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not a democrat, so no...but nice attempt at deflection.

I never said that both sides weren't wrong for their parts in the conflict. However, there was one side that was definitely more ethical than the other. To evaluate that, you have to look at which side has the more unethical message if the event had gone off without any sort of escalation to violence

If you remove all violence from the equation (since both sides do it, we'll call that a wash), one side's message was that of racist propaganda and antisemitism. The other side's message was one stating that racism and antisemitism sucks.

Which side is more ethical?

I'm sorry, this is completely dishonest. Their message is "we beat up and attack anybody we disagree with"....much of the time it has nothing to do with nazis.

 

[pat34lee]

Some people are, and in this very thread even :

Just because they didn't start the trouble doesn't make
them good guys. It just means Antifa had no right to
attack them on the streets.

 

[pat34lee]

One has to look at who and how the events were organized as well...

The Drawing contest was specifically made to provoke (which like I said, I don't have an issue with), the Antifa actions were a response to the fact that the Nazi's scheduled the event in order to provoke.

Not justifying Antifa's part in the conflict here...just pointing out that the logical inconsistencies coming from many on the right.

So, does declaring an unpopular opinion give others
the right to physically attack a person or group who
is otherwise acting within the law?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Here's an article about Antifa beating up a progressive counter protester...errr..."nazi" because he was carrying an American flag....errr..."fascist symbol".

VIDEO: Progressive Protester Beaten By Antifa For Carrying American Flag

The funny thing is there's so many examples of this....from attacking reporters, to liberals, to free speech advocates. They engage in more fascist activity than the so called fascists. I don't remember the last time self declared fascists tried to stop other people from having freedom of speech or attacked them in attempt to silence them.

 

[KCfromNC]

Just because they didn't start the trouble doesn't make
them good guys. It just means Antifa had no right to
attack them on the streets.

Revisionist history from people who claim actual neoNazis weren't to blame? Color me unsurprised.

 

[KCfromNC]

Here's an article about Antifa beating up a progressive counter protester...errr..."nazi" because he was carrying an American flag....errr..."fascist symbol".

VIDEO: Progressive Protester Beaten By Antifa For Carrying American Flag

Again, I continue to be impressed by people who feel an inherent need to bring up Antifa any time a white supremacist gets in trouble. That shows dedication.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Again, I continue to be impressed by people who feel an inherent need to bring up Antifa any time a white supremacist gets in trouble. That shows dedication.

Pat34lee brought it up...and the OP could've shut it down right then, but didn't.

But I continue to be amused by people who forget what was posted in a thread only 3 pages long.

 

[pat34lee]

Pat34lee brought it up...and the OP could've shut it down right then, but didn't.

You can't shut down responses just because you don't like them.
"Pot, meet kettle" examples are not off-topic.

 

[pat34lee]

Revisionist history from people who claim actual neoNazis weren't to blame? Color me unsurprised.

Just because they are offensive doesn't make assaulting them legal.

Are you one of those who supported Antifa when they rioted to
prevent conservatives from speaking at college events?
Antifa is garbage, no matter who they riot against.

 

[AirPo]

Pat34lee brought it up...and the OP could've shut it down right then, but didn't.

But I continue to be amused by people who forget what was posted in a thread only 3 pages long.

Technically not the OP's job. I think there's even a rule about it.

 

[pat34lee]

So now we've gotten to the "someone else messed my pants" phase of the conversation. "No, we're totally not defending people who carried Nazi banners in Charlottesville and ran over Heather Heyer. It's just that maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle!"

Hate to tell you, but if your first reaction to Charlottesville is wringing your hands about antifa, then even if it's not your intention, you're defending Nazis. When they can muddy the waters enough that they are invited to the table in society because "well, we really need to hear everyone's views", then that's doing their work for them.

It shouldn't be this hard to denounce people like Kessler when they terrorize American communities, but we live in a world that the Bible long ago predicted: when people would seek out teachers who "tickle their ears" rather than "teaching strong doctrine".
Ringo

You may have picked one side over the other, but that
doesn't mean everyone has to take sides. We can very
well condemn one for their beliefs and the other for
their beliefs and their actions.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Technically not the OP's job. I think there's even a rule about it.

You can't decide what's "off topic" in your own thread?

 

[KCfromNC]

Are you one of those who supported Antifa when they rioted to
prevent conservatives from speaking at college events?

Why would you even ask that here? This thread is about white supremacists who are facing criminal charges. Why do you feel the need to try and change the subject away from them? There's no need for you to publicly. Or is there?