Trump -- once again -- fails to condemn the alt-right, white supremacists

[Obliquinaut]

So one white supremacist running people over makes Antifa de facto "Good guys" in this scenario? Not sure I agree with that logic.

No but it shows who went for lethal action first. And that makes sense because the White Nationalists were the ones who came to the rally with guns. Granted, to their credit, they didn't shoot anyone.

When I first heard about the car plowing into people I wondered "Was it an antifa guy who blew a fuse?" But hey, guess who it wasn't? It wasn't an antifa guy. It was one of the people who follow the philosophy that is dedicated to hatred of entire swaths of the human population.

I wonder if there's a correlation there?

 

[Eryk]

Bridgewater, New Jersey (CNN)President Donald Trump, a man known for his bluntness, was anything but on Saturday, failing to name the white supremacists or alt-right groups at the center of violent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Full story here -->

But he did call out Nordstrom for refusing to sell his daughter's shoes.

 

[Tanj]

People need to chillax a bit here. I mean the homicidal maniac aside, the nazis in this scenario were carrying tikki torches. The correct response is to point and laugh at the irony.

 

[Obliquinaut]

But he did call out Nordstrom for refusing to sell his daughter's shoes.

Well, of course, when it comes to threats to America, Nordstrom's failure to sell Ivanka's shoes is very much like putting American through another 9/11.

 

[Obliquinaut]

People need to chillax a bit here. I mean the homicidal maniac aside, the nazis in this scenario were carrying tikki torches. The correct response is to point and laugh at the irony.

Oh, I definitely got a kick out of the "tiki torch parade" footage! I am reading a history of Europe and the US in the 1930's right now and I remember in the past seeing film footage of Nazi rallies with torches, but the modern day US version of Nazis went and got tiki torches from Walmart. Hilarious!

 

[PeachyKeane]

I admit, I look funny at anyone who tries to tell me "well, both sides are to blame" when one of those sides is the Nazis.

 

[Redac]

Two things make them less bad than the White Supremacists:

1) The White supremacists held a rally making them the ones who brought their hate-speech to the community. The Antifa groups responded (ie they were not the aggressors)

2) The Antifa groups hate the fascists, the fascists hate anyone who isn't white. Antifa does not exist solely to spread hatred and racism around. That is precisely what White Supremacists groups do.

Like I mentioned before, I view it as a "Hitler v. Stalin" sort of scenario on a much smaller scale (Nazis v. Commies) Publicly singling out only one of them for the blame comes across as a tacit approval of the other side.

If an only if Stalin were not murdering a scale that Hitler could only dream of.

In this case, yes, the Antifa were not peaceful nice people. BUT, again, the aggressors (the people actively spreading hatred and acting without it being in response to any incitement) were the White Supremacists/Neo-Nazis/Alt-Right.

The fact that the White Supremacists never actually expect the left to stand up to them and, when they do they are among the first to whine about being hurt.

I'm not saying the Antifa were 100% in the right, but the White Supremacists were 100% PERFECTLY IN THE WRONG. Ergo the Antifa is less evil than the White Supremacists.

Moral equivalence is fine unless there isn't a sound basis for pure equavalence.

Holding a lawful rally and speaking is not aggression and does not justify a violent response.

 

[MoonlessNight]

No but it shows who went for lethal action first. And that makes sense because the White Nationalists were the ones who came to the rally with guns. Granted, to their credit, they didn't shoot anyone.

I love how antifa defenders always act as though if their opponents come prepared to defend themselves, then they are the ones instigated the violence. Never mind the fact that antifa reliably disrupts this sort of gathering, and that they have engaged in violence at numerous times in the past. Every day we apparently have to give antifa a blank slate, and assume that they won't be violent in the future.

It's like blaming a guy who got mugged on his way home from work on five separate occasions for carrying a gun, since he can't be sure that the muggers are going to beat him up again.

But beyond that, this is America. Plenty of people carry guns all the time for general self defense, whether they have knowledge of a specific threat against them or not. And in the majority of places in the country doing so is not viewed as a threatening action, but only as a reasonable defensive measure.

Really it's about the same as saying that if a company has a lawyer on retainer, that it's proof that they are breaking the law, since if they weren't planning on getting into trouble what would they need a lawyer for?

 

[MoonlessNight]

For the context of this discussion, I'm merely just discussing the fact that in terms of this conflict, there are no good guys and it's literally like asking "Hitler vs. Stalin...pick a side" ...and in this instance, I'm not using those names merely as hyperbole, you literally had one side with Nazi flags, and the other with Commie flags and there were going at it.

Unfortunately you might not get an option to refrain from picking a side. That's more or less what happened in the Spanish Civil War; both sides were a mess of ideologies that only cooperated because they realized that if they cooperated with no one, they would be the first to go. It's not like the supporters of the Republic had a great love for Anarchists, or the Carlistas had a great love for the Falangists, but they could work together as allies based on the principle that those people weren't shooting at them, while others were. If you despise the politics of one group but can (theoretically) coexist with them, while their opponents are actively seeking your destruction, there really isn't a choice to make, except possibly leaving the country to try to escape the whole conflict. (However, with globalism making increasing strides, if another conflict like the Spanish Civil War breaks out it's likely that there won't be anywhere to run to.)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In this case, yes, the Antifa were not peaceful nice people. BUT, again, the aggressors (the people actively spreading hatred and acting without it being in response to any incitement) were the White Supremacists/Neo-Nazis/Alt-Right.

I'm not saying the Antifa were 100% in the right, but the White Supremacists were 100% PERFECTLY IN THE WRONG. Ergo the Antifa is less evil than the White Supremacists.

If this were the one and only time we've seen Antifa act out like this, I'd be inclined to agree...

However, given their track record of starting riots in efforts to silence speakers who they disagree with (which is also evil and anti-American) at best, it's an "enemy of my enemy" scenario. ...but that being said, I don't know if using violence to squash the first amendment is any more or less evil than a person driving their car into someone else. I know it sounds like it should be a no-brainer, but I view the squashing of free speech with thug-tactics as being just as evil as running your car into someone simply because of the more widespread implications.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I admit, I look funny at anyone who tries to tell me "well, both sides are to blame" when one of those sides is the Nazis.

In 99% of cases, I'd agree with you.

However, when the other group is one that feels it's okay to use fear and threats in order to silence speakers they disagree with and intentionally cause chaos so events get cancelled, I think they're on equal footing in terms of being anti-American.

...it's not as if Antifa reserves this "special treatment" for the worst of the worst like the Klan and White Hate groups... they do it to people like Ann Coulter and Milo. Granted, they're not the most endearing people on the planet...I wouldn't want to be sat next to either of them on a plane, however, them speaking at Berkeley isn't something that deserves to be met with violence and property destruction. If they want to speak and someone wants listen to them, that's between them, it's not any group's place to interfere with that.

Basically, we shouldn't be pretending that "oh, the only reason Antifa reacted so harshly is because the views of the KKK are especially extreme"...because Antifa have used these tactics and expressed their hate for pretty much anyone who is right of center.

Portland rose parade canceled after ‘antifascists’ threaten GOP marchers

Antifa's threat to the Portland Police:
“You have seen how much power we have downtown and that the police cannot stop us from shutting down roads so please consider your decision wisely,” the anonymous email said, referring to the violent riots that hit Portland after the 2016 presidential election, reported the Oregonian. “This is nonnegotiable.”

The email said that 200 people would “rush into the parade” and “drag and push” those marching with the Republican Party.

 

[Rion]

No. Unless you think that the Allies in WWII were equal in hatred to the Nazis.

There are differing levels of "bad" in this conversation. The antifa were responding to the worse evil (Neo-Nazis) who came, unbidden, to Charlotte to spread their hate and racism.

Unless you mean the communist part of the allies, then you are comparing two different things. Antifa are not a lesser evil to Neo-Nazis, they're communists and are ideological cousins. Communists are just as evil as Nazi's, they are both monstrous ideologies.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Unless you mean the communist part of the allies, then you are comparing two different things. Antifa are not a lesser evil to Neo-Nazis, they're communists and are ideological cousins. Communists are just as evil as Nazi's, they are both monstrous ideologies.

And do we know that the anti-white nationalist protestors in Charlottesville were extreme communists espousing a pre-WWII anti-fascism hyper violence message? Or were they just a bunch of hippies and a few nasty people who wanted to make the extreme right feel pain?

I ask because we know what the protestors were supporting. We know what the torch-light racist rally the night before was all about. There is little question.

And perhaps I have been using the antifa monicker loosely. I simply used it as those who are standing up against white nationalist/fascists/racists (you know, like David Duke who found his way out of his hole in the ground and slithered on up to Charlottesville and braved sunlight for a little while).

I will readily agree the anti-racist protestors were violent. Clearly they were fighting too. But I have no idea that they are somehow Neo-Stalinists. Where did you see this information on that particular group?

And if they are so evil why weren't they they ones driving cars into crowds killing people?

 

[Obliquinaut]

If this were the one and only time we've seen Antifa act out like this, I'd be inclined to agree...

I believe that I was using "antifa" in an incorrect manner. It appears that the protestors in Charlottesville were not necessarily all antifa radicals. Rolling Stone says: "...many of the rally opponents in Charlottesville were religious liberals, Black Lives Matter activists and others who showed up to protest racism and white supremacy. The visible religious presence includes clergy and congregants who march, offer people food and water, and set up space at the First United Methodist Church for people to seek respite. In the parking lot, people link arms and sing, "We Shall Overcome."" (SOURCE)

So now it looks like the neo-Nazis are clearly the bad guys here for the most part.

Isn't it refreshing when we, as a nation, can once again agree that the Neo-Nazis are the bad guy almost every single time?

 

[Obliquinaut]

I love how antifa defenders

Two points:

1 I am not an antifa defender per se.
2 It does not appear that antifa were necessarily the main thrust of the Charlottesville counter-protestors.

The Rolling Stone article cited earlier indicates it had a significant presence of religious leaders and general people who showed up because they didn't want racists marching in their town. (SOURCE)

Yes there was violence on both sides. But it was the Nazis who were worse. The Nazis are always worse. The came into Charlottesville and had a torch-light racism parade. Apparently not everyone in Charlotte wanted their brand of hatred.

always act as though if their opponents come prepared to defend themselves, then they are the ones instigated the violence.

And in this case they did! You might recall when the neo-nazi nutjob plowed a car into a crowed of counterdemonstrators? Yeah, one guy died.

Never mind the fact that antifa reliably disrupts this sort of gathering, and that they have engaged in violence at numerous times in the past.

And if this was purely an antifa counter-rally you'd be right to complain. Now take it up with the religious leaders and regular citizens of Charlotteville.

It's like blaming a guy who got mugged on his way home from work on five separate occasions for carrying a gun, since he can't be sure that the muggers are going to beat him up again.

Yeah, cuz Neo-Nazis are normally such great guys! I mean who doesn't want someone in their neighborhood who thinks every other race is "mud people" and spouts hate to everyone who isn't like them?

And yet, again, it was the white nationalists who wound up killing someone. I wonder why that is. Gosh.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I believe that I was using "antifa" in an incorrect manner. It appears that the protestors in Charlottesville were not necessarily all antifa radicals. Rolling Stone says: "...many of the rally opponents in Charlottesville were religious liberals, Black Lives Matter activists and others who showed up to protest racism and white supremacy. The visible religious presence includes clergy and congregants who march, offer people food and water, and set up space at the First United Methodist Church for people to seek respite. In the parking lot, people link arms and sing, "We Shall Overcome."" (SOURCE)

So now it looks like the neo-Nazis are clearly the bad guys here for the most part.

I don't doubt that Antifa wasn't the only group of people there to oppose the KKK. Anytime those guys hold a rally, numerous different groups show up to oppose them, they're not very popular (goes without saying). However, they were involved, and I highly doubt the religious liberals were the ones engaging in the street warfare that took place. #BLM I can potentially see getting involved if provoked...however, I think it's safe to assume that if there was violence coming from the left during this thing, Antifa is the more likely suspect than the other two liberal groups. There were news reports from on the scene that Antifa members (identified by their outfits) were pepper spraying people and throwing balloons filled with urine at people. I realize that in the end, it was a white supremacist who ended up taking that last step in violence escalation by driving his car into someone. However, if you start pepper spraying people and throwing bottles of pee, things are bound to get out of hand.

Obviously the White Supremacists are the definitive bad guys when compared only to religious liberals, BLM, and members of the clergy.

However, just because there were other, more noble, groups who happened to be on the same side as the Antifa group in this particular conflict, I still don't feel that vindicates the tactics that Antifa used.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Basically, we shouldn't be pretending that "oh, the only reason Antifa reacted so harshly is because the views of the KKK are especially extreme"...because Antifa have used these tactics and expressed their hate for pretty much anyone who is right of center.

Which indicates that when the antifa call the people at the rally "Nazis" they're using a considerably broader definition that that term would suggest to most people...

And in this case they did! You might recall when the neo-nazi nutjob plowed a car into a crowed of counterdemonstrators? Yeah, one guy died.

He said instigated. The point is that the antifa showed up looking for blood, and this time they got it. Look who's whining about getting hurt now...

And if this was purely an antifa counter-rally you'd be right to complain. Now take it up with the religious leaders and regular citizens of Charlotteville.

...who provided cover for the antifa as they attacked the rally from the crowd. They're just as culpable.

 

[Hank77]

I definitely acknowledged that he was a hypocrite in that regard...

However, considering that his words were "I condemn racial bigotry and violence", I'm not sure how their takeaway from that was "he's on our side".


If I were to say "I condemn all animal rights extremism" after Animal Liberation front blew up a medical research lab, would Animal Liberation Front assume "Oh, he didn't mention us specifically by name, he must like us".

It really doesn't matter how they get there or if it is even logical, it is what they believe. Trump needs to put a stop to it, why won't he?
He has spoken out against BLM and I'll about bet I could find where he has spoken out against Antifa, too.
In 2,000 Trump called David Duke a racist, a bigot, a problem. Someone you don't want in your party. He was speaking of the Reformed Party that he was a part of.

 

[Hank77]

I love how antifa defenders always act as though if their opponents come prepared to defend themselves, then they are the ones instigated the violence. Never mind the fact that antifa reliably disrupts this sort of gathering, and that they have engaged in violence at numerous times in the past. Every day we apparently have to give antifa a blank slate, and assume that they won't be violent in the future.

It's like blaming a guy who got mugged on his way home from work on five separate occasions for carrying a gun, since he can't be sure that the muggers are going to beat him up again.

But beyond that, this is America. Plenty of people carry guns all the time for general self defense, whether they have knowledge of a specific threat against them or not. And in the majority of places in the country doing so is not viewed as a threatening action, but only as a reasonable defensive measure.

Really it's about the same as saying that if a company has a lawyer on retainer, that it's proof that they are breaking the law, since if they weren't planning on getting into trouble what would they need a lawyer for?

You do make some good points here.
Will you consider that some of us are remembering things like the 9 black people who were gunned down in their church by the white supremacist, Dylann Roof. I personally suspect this kid had pretty severe mental illness problems but hate groups are the perfect place for angry and hurt people to vent and become violent by the very nature of the group.

 

[LoAmmi]

No but it shows who went for lethal action first. And that makes sense because the White Nationalists were the ones who came to the rally with guns. Granted, to their credit, they didn't shoot anyone.

When I first heard about the car plowing into people I wondered "Was it an antifa guy who blew a fuse?" But hey, guess who it wasn't? It wasn't an antifa guy. It was one of the people who follow the philosophy that is dedicated to hatred of entire swaths of the human population.

I wonder if there's a correlation there?

Open carry is 100% legal in the state of Virginia. I know people who do open carry but also follow the laws regarding restrictions on open carry. If I recall, religious institutions can deny people and private residences, of course, can. Maybe bars, but I'd have to look that up. I don't have a problem with anybody carrying a gun. As you said, nobody was shot.

My synagogue doesn't allow weapons into the building for example.