4 men charged in connection with violent 2017 Charlottesville rally

[Newtheran]

^ Case in point about Newtheran not know what he's talking about. 'White supremacist' is supposedly a slur, but it's perfectly OK to claim, with the only evidence offered being a screenshot on a conspiracy website, that Kessler is actually an Occupy Wall Street protestor.
Ringo

"Laura Kleiner, a Democratic activist who lives in Staunton, said she dated Kessler for several months in 2013. She said Kessler was very dedicated to his liberal principles, and that he was a strict vegetarian, abstained from alcohol and drugs, embraced friends of different ethnicities and was an atheist."

That's from Daily Progress, on your side of the aisle.

Strange credentials for a white supremacist.

...and remember, you have to believe her, because she's a woman.

 

[Ringo84]

Last fall, The Daily Progress reported that Kessler published a blog post in February 2016 in which he reflected on the potential of war between different racial groups in the future. He argued that white people would need to fight to avoid becoming a minority in America — a phenomenon he’s described in recent months as “white genocide.”

“Cultures, tribes and civilizations are meant to clash just as we always have in the past, just like it is with nearly every other beast in the animal kingdom,” Kessler wrote last year.

Source: Kessler described as one-time wannabe liberal activist

Yeah...definitely no white supremacy there. It's such a mystery that people sometimes change in a couple of years.
Ringo

 

[Go Braves]

Good.

 

[pat34lee]

Angry white guys caused other angry white guys to kill a white woman? Do you realize how incredibly stupid that is?

Of course, except the colors and sex don't matter.
Stupid is stupid. What is worse is when the police
refuse or are barred from doing their jobs keeping
the peace. If that means riot gear, rubber bullets,
attack dogs and up to deadly force, so be it.

 

[pat34lee]

These people identified themselves as whit supremacists, wore swastikas and chanted "Jews will not replace us". But it's always so nice to hear someone talk about things they clearly don't understand.
Ringo

True. In this case. In most cases, the charge
is spurious and usually brought against any
conservative or Christian who dares to speak
out against the socialist progressives trying to
bankrupt our country financially and morally.

 

[pat34lee]

Hmmm...so your position is to rollover and kowtow to extremists as to no get them fired up...

I suspect your stance would be different if this were a conversation about Islamic extremism (Just a hunch).

Typically when someone suggests "hey don't provoke the extremists, you'll just unnecessarily escalate things and cause them to act out in a violent way" --for instance, the "Draw Mohammed Contest" that resulted in a pretty bad outcome, with respect to Islam, conservatives (and it's one thing I'd agree with them on) will say "we have freedom of expression, we should be free to criticize and even agitate them without fear of reprisal"...which, like I said, I agree. However, when we're discussing people from their own camp (or, at the very least, people who clearly supported their guy in the election), they seemingly change their tune and now all of the sudden, "it's other peoples' fault for agitating them...had they just left the extremists alone, it wouldn't have escalated".

Which is it, should people be allowed to openly and vociferously confront extremists? Or should they have to just avoid any and all confrontation in the name of "not getting the nut-jobs all riled up as to prevent them from acting out"?

Let's take your Muslim example. Should they be able to march
and protest here? Within bounds, of course. They do it now.

To equate this to Charlottesville, would you recommend that
a bunch of rednecks show up at a Muslim march and proceed
to start fights and damage property because they don't like Muslims?
Would you encourage Muslims to start fights at a Jewish rally?

If not, then why defend Antifa, who only showed up to fight?
They don't confront with ideas because they don't want to
hear anyone who isn't one of them.

 

[AirPo]

Hmmm...so your position is to rollover and kowtow to extremists as to no get them fired up...

I suspect your stance would be different if this were a conversation about Islamic extremism (Just a hunch).

Typically when someone suggests "hey don't provoke the extremists, you'll just unnecessarily escalate things and cause them to act out in a violent way" --for instance, the "Draw Mohammed Contest" that resulted in a pretty bad outcome, with respect to Islam, conservatives (and it's one thing I'd agree with them on) will say "we have freedom of expression, we should be free to criticize and even agitate them without fear of reprisal"...which, like I said, I agree. However, when we're discussing people from their own camp (or, at the very least, people who clearly supported their guy in the election), they seemingly change their tune and now all of the sudden, "it's other peoples' fault for agitating them...had they just left the extremists alone, it wouldn't have escalated".

Which is it, should people be allowed to openly and vociferously confront extremists? Or should they have to just avoid any and all confrontation in the name of "not getting the nut-jobs all riled up as to prevent them from acting out"?

I'm a nut-job. Like my posts or else!

 

[AirPo]

Of course, except the colors and sex don't matter.
Stupid is stupid. What is worse is when the police
refuse or are barred from doing their jobs keeping
the peace. If that means riot gear, rubber bullets,
attack dogs and up to deadly force, so be it.

is stupid.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If not, then why defend Antifa, who only showed up to fight?
They don't confront with ideas because they don't want to
hear anyone who isn't one of them.

I think they showed up to yell at Nazi's...the "puffing up of chests" and "I'm going to show I'm tougher than you" escalations were coming out of both camps equally.

Keeping in mind...it was the "Unite the Right" side that produced a car ramming that killed one and injured others, as well as that lunatic who verbally goaded people into trying to come at him, and when they did, pulled his gun out (as if that makes him a tough guy) and literally fired it at them.

...so my original question still stands, do you advocate walking on eggshells as a means to avoid riling up people who would be prone to ideologically-driven violence when their beliefs are challenged?


There's really nothing to "hear" as far as ideas from the Unite the Right crew that showed up. To say that the members of Antifa that were in attendance...and I always make it a point to point out...were only a subset of the people who showed up to oppose the racists, were closed minded because they didn't want to "listen to ideas" is absurd.

One doesn't need to have a long ideological conversation with these guys:

...to know that they don't offer any ideas worth listening to.


Part of me thinks that the reason people on the right tend to depict that conflict as "Racists vs. Antifa" is so they can justify picking the morally reprehensible side on the supposed grounds of "well, communism is bad and Antifa is bad". In reality, Antifa was just a subset of the people who showed up to oppose the Nazis. There were plenty of non-Antifa, non-Commies, who weren't affiliated with any group, who showed up to give the Nazis an earful that day.

If you side with the "Unite the Right" side of that conflict, make no mistake about it, you picked the less ethical side.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't doubt Antifa was to blame for some violence, but 100%?

Did they cause the guy to drive his car through a crowd of people too?

That is his defense if I remember correctly. He claimed he was surrounded, threatened, and when a brick was thrown through his car window....he hit the gas to get out of there.

Given that he's a "white supremacist"...it will be interesting to which way it goes.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think they showed up to yell at Nazi's...the "puffing up of chests" and "I'm going to show I'm tougher than you" escalations were coming out of both camps equally.

Keeping in mind...it was the "Unite the Right" side that produced a car ramming that killed one and injured others, as well as that lunatic who verbally goaded people into trying to come at him, and when they did, pulled his gun out (as if that makes him a tough guy) and literally fired it at them.

...so my original question still stands, do you advocate walking on eggshells as a means to avoid riling up people who would be prone to ideologically-driven violence when their beliefs are challenged?

Is that what happened? Their beliefs were challenged?

I had the impression that the counter-protesters were there to intimidate, use violence, and attempt to stifle free speech.

There's really nothing to "hear" as far as ideas from the Unite the Right crew that showed up. To say that the members of Antifa that were in attendance...and I always make it a point to point out...were only a subset of the people who showed up to oppose the racists, were closed minded because they didn't want to "listen to ideas" is absurd.

One doesn't need to have a long ideological conversation with these guys:
View attachment 242547

...to know that they don't offer any ideas worth listening to.

No offense, but one could argue that the "white supremacists" and other racists were just a subset of the people protesting there.

Part of me thinks that the reason people on the right tend to depict that conflict as "Racists vs. Antifa" is so they can justify picking the morally reprehensible side on the supposed grounds of "well, communism is bad and Antifa is bad".

I don't think Antifa is bad because of communism. I think Antifa is bad because they use violence and attempt to deny people their freedom of speech.

Our founders didn't get everything right...but I look at freedom of speech as one of the things they did get right.

In reality, Antifa was just a subset of the people who showed up to oppose the Nazis. There were plenty of non-Antifa, non-Commies, who weren't affiliated with any group, who showed up to give the Nazis an earful that day.

If you side with the "Unite the Right" side of that conflict, make no mistake about it, you picked the less ethical side.

I don't think it's likely anyone would have gotten killed or injured if "Unite the Right" was allowed to have their little protest and then go home. I don't see it as a matter of saying "if one side is bad....then the other side is good". I think "Unite the Right" is repugnant....and Antifa is no better.

 

[Ringo84]

I can't help but appreciate the irony that some of the same Christians who have traditionally ranted about "moral relativism" and pounded the Bible over that verse about teachers who "tickle ears" rather than "teach sound doctrine" are the ones who are now playing bothsidesism games over defending white supremacists.

The biggest tragedies of this current era is not the loss of innocent people like Heather Heyer. It's not Supreme Court battles. It's the fact that some "evangelicals" will defend anything as long it preserves their power and upset liberals. American Christianity has lost its way and its mind.
Ringo

 

[pat34lee]

I think they showed up to yell at Nazi's...the "puffing up of chests" and "I'm going to show I'm tougher than you" escalations were coming out of both camps equally.

If you side with the "Unite the Right" side of that conflict, make no mistake about it, you picked the less ethical side.

Most people know the difference between picking sides and
saying that everyone involved was wrong.

Anyway, you didn't bother to deal with my answers about
Muslims being able to protest. Anyone can protest legally.
I don't care what they say. In Charlottesville, the Nazis were
legally allowed to march. It wasn't up to Antifa or anyone
else to decide they must be shouted down or harassed for
their views. When we allow mob rule, we deserve what
comes next, which is anarchy, followed by repression.

 

[mala]

I can't help but appreciate the irony that some of the same Christians who have traditionally ranted about "moral relativism" and pounded the Bible over that verse about teachers who "tickle ears" rather than "teach sound doctrine" are the ones who are now playing bothsidesism games over defending white supremacists.

The biggest tragedies of this current era is not the loss of innocent people like Heather Heyer. It's not Supreme Court battles. It's the fact that some "evangelicals" will defend anything as long it preserves their power and upset liberals. American Christianity has lost its way and its mind.
Ringo

they've been doing that forever it's hardly belonging to this era.
the entire "religious" right has always been a sham from top to bottom.

 

[Non sequitur]

Hmmm...so your position is to rollover and kowtow to extremists as to no get them fired up...

I suspect your stance would be different if this were a conversation about Islamic extremism (Just a hunch).

Typically when someone suggests "hey don't provoke the extremists, you'll just unnecessarily escalate things and cause them to act out in a violent way" --for instance, the "Draw Mohammed Contest" that resulted in a pretty bad outcome, with respect to Islam, conservatives (and it's one thing I'd agree with them on) will say "we have freedom of expression, we should be free to criticize and even agitate them without fear of reprisal"...which, like I said, I agree. However, when we're discussing people from their own camp (or, at the very least, people who clearly supported their guy in the election), they seemingly change their tune and now all of the sudden, "it's other peoples' fault for agitating them...had they just left the extremists alone, it wouldn't have escalated".

Which is it, should people be allowed to openly and vociferously confront extremists? Or should they have to just avoid any and all confrontation in the name of "not getting the nut-jobs all riled up as to prevent them from acting out"?

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....

 

[pat34lee]

I can't help but appreciate the irony that some of the same Christians who have traditionally ranted about "moral relativism" and pounded the Bible over that verse about teachers who "tickle ears" rather than "teach sound doctrine" are the ones who are now playing bothsidesism games over defending white supremacists.

Ringo

Saying the same thing over and over does not make it true.

Nobody is defending white supremacists, much less their
beliefs. We defend the Constitution, and the right of all
citizens to protest and petition, the right to free speech
and freedom of religion and the right not to be harassed
over political or religious beliefs.

The Democrats used to be the party of "I may not agree
with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Now, its "If I don't agree with you, then you have no right
to speak, and if you try, I'll do anything within my means,
including violence, to shut you up."

 

[Ringo84]

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

 

[Ana the Ist]

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!"

Nobody said that.

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.

Well I don't mind telling you that is called a false equivalency. Criticism of Antifa isn't the same as defending Nazis...and just because some people think everyone is a Nazi doesn't mean that everyone has to explain that they aren't.

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.

Where was this attitude when muslims were killing Americans by the thousands? I remember post 9-11 liberals saying that we had to respect everyone's beliefs and we shouldn't deny anyone's rights....and it didn't matter if they thought jews and gays should be killed and women subjugated.

Now suddenly we can't possibly let this group of people get together and speak...imagine what the people they blame everything on will feel like!

15 years ago I argued against conservatives for freedom of religion and that being a Muslim didn't automatically make anyone a bad person. Then it slowly shifted to arguing with liberals that people still had a right to criticize Islam....it's not above criticism just because some people hate muslims....

Now here I am trying to explain to liberals why even nazis have freedom of speech...and rightly so.

It would be nice if either party could hold consistent values and principles instead of just being led like sheep against whatever political scapegoats they're given.

It shouldn't be this hard to denounce people like Kessler when they terrorize American communities,

Nobody has to denounce nazis just to prove to you or anyone else they aren't supporting them.

Nobody is responsible for your misconceptions.

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

I've never wanted anyone to tickle my ears...it's not even where I'm ticklish.

 

[FireDragon76]

Because you can't have fights without two sides.
In Charlottesville, Antifa was 100% to blame for
the violence, not the Nazis, who had permits to
protest and march in the streets. Without Antifa,
they would have had their day and gone home.

Victim-blaming.

 

[KCfromNC]

These people identified themselves as whit supremacists, wore swastikas and chanted "Jews will not replace us". But it's always so nice to hear someone talk about things they clearly don't understand.
Ringo

No, you don't get it. Evil liberal orbital mind control lasers made perfectly nice far-right agitators think and do these things. Soros!