Charlottesville Protests

[epilepsyduck]

2 minutes ago, Lushen said:

This is not a political issue.

Yes it absolutely is. Neo-Nazism and white supremacy are political issues and to deny that is to deny the reality of American politics.

[Lushen]

6 minutes ago, epilepsyduck said:

Yes it absolutely is. Neo-Nazism and white supremacy are political issues and to deny that is to deny the reality of American politics.

All kinds of supremacy are a problem, not just white supremacy.  That being said, there is no evidence that Trump himself is or supports white supremacy.  You cannot fault him for receving the votes of supremacist votes, he rejected all their endorsements, what more can he do?

I think Trump is very illogical, but I'm tired of people demonizing him as a racist, sexist, and homophobic.  It's so easy to find things he's doing wrong with this country, IDK why people have to make stuff up or draft conspiracy theories.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Lushen

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Res said:

Exactly how are the supremacists threatened? They have the president and government they wanted. They have the police and the power. They have absolutely zero justification and haven't been provoked into anything.

1 hour ago, epilepsyduck said:

People who are literally threatening violence against others for no reason other than malice and bigotry can and should absolutely be blamed when a situation they're in turns violent. These people were literally beating counter protestors and throwing shit before the dude started driving into them with his car, and even if they hadn't been, the mere act of being a Nazi is in and of itself violent. It is absolutely their fault, and to try and mewl that "well the counter protestors deserve some of the blame," while being unable to provide any actual reason why, is a weak attempt to remain neutral in a situation where neutrality is simply not defensible.

I don't want to pick on you here, because I don't think you mean any harm, but we really need to kill the idea that being neutral is always "objective" or the morally correct choice. Nazis consider people who would rather shuffle blame around and espouse some "both sides are wrong" bullshit instead of condemning white supremacy when they see it to be their greatest allies.

The white supremacists were gathering in protest against the removal of a statue (which I might actually agree with from a historical art point of view, though once again I'm not going to pretend I know in the slightest what the situation is). They were ostensibly there for a non violent reason. Now of course it's pretty damn likely that's complete bullshit and they wanted to provoke a conflict, but it's still not a case where they descended on a crowd of people who were there first and attacked them without warning. What I expect did happen is that both sides were there, both sides were very angry. Because most people hate Nazis and Nazis hate most people. And that hate lead to violence. Yes, the lion's share of the blame lies with the people who have a hatefueld ideology, carried weapons and actually killed someone. But there was fighting and I don't think it can entirely be declared self defense on the part of the larger group. Both sides were angry, both sides wanted to hurt and destroy the opinions of the other. And both sides ended up fighting the other. That's what I think happened.

Also don't worry about picking on me :) I can take it. We're just debating here. If things get heated just look at my signature and know I'm mostly talking as a sort of nihilistic devil's advocate. I'd also like to dispel the notion that being a Nazi makes one inherently evil or even violent. John Rabe was a staunch Nazi but he also happened to be one of the most brave and selfless people in World War II. Even when you deal with an ideology that is objectively evil, people are still people which means they're very complex and often contradictory. Even with Nazis it's not necessarily black and white.

43 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

eh, when it comes to flat earthers being deluded, it is indeed sad. but unfortunately ignoring science because it doesn't fit one's own narrative of the world is a practice common to 99% of the world population...including some folks here i won't name...

 

in any case, what do you see as a justification for white supremacy beliefs??? 

 

further, your point about blame is just silly. white supremacists are wholly in the position of power every step of the fucking way. if they feel threatened it's because they have a victim complex. if they commit violence because of the perceived threat, they are wholly to blame. and always will be wholly to blame. 

i don't think people should be going around hitting these neonazis. that feeds a narrative i don't think anyone needs. but goddammit these people should feel shame from every facet of life--from the workplace to the highest levels of government. their beliefs should be treated as the nonsense they are and cast out. crimes committed in the names of these beliefs should carry sentences akin to hate crimes. 

we need to show these beliefs are neither okay to hold socially/civically or privately. we should always aim to progress our society. 

Oh wow, don't get me wrong and think I believe there's justification for white supremacy. I said that racial supremacy is understandable compared to flat earth beliefs. Racial supremacy is all about wanting to increase (or maintain) one's own standing and position which is pretty human. Now to do that to the extent of putting down others and justifying violence is definitely not acceptable, but at least I can comprehend that humans would be selfish and greedy enough to do that. But to ignore all evidence and common sense as flat earthers to do is well...just baffling to me. It'd be like denying the existence of Denmark and claiming all the documented evidence of it is fraudulent. It's ridiculous and ultimately rather pointless.

You also raise a good question. How does one deal with a problem like extremist groups organised like this. Do we attack them and wipe them off the face of the Earth? I don't think so, not only would that be pretty difficult to do but meeting vitriol with vitriol is just going to provoke sympathy from people who are on the fence. Their opinions need to be combatted in some higher way than basic violence. Not sure how beyond equal opportunity employment prospects and representation in media but I just feel like punching people in the face isn't going to help anyone much.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Jotari

[Res]

15 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I think Trump is very illogical, but I'm tired of people demonizing him as a racist, sexist, and homophobic.  It's so easy to find things he's doing wrong with this country, IDK why people have to make stuff up or draft conspiracy theories.

No one's making stuff up; since when has Trump not been sexist and racist? He barely says a word about women that isn't sexist. 

10 minutes ago, Jotari said:

You also raise a good question. How does one deal with a problem like extremist groups organised like this. Do we attack them and wipe them off the face of the Earth? 

I think some of the right steps were being taken this weekend. Naming and shaming them. Reporting them to their employers and causing them to lose their jobs.

On a personal level we can ostracize family members. If it turned out my husband harbored secret Nazi sympathies he'd be out of the door in an instant. (Or if we believe someone has a chance of changing their views, talk to them/engage with them; but not ignore them, as the mother did in the link on the previous page). 

[Jotari]

11 minutes ago, Res said:

No one's making stuff up; since when has Trump not been sexist and racist? He barely says a word about women that isn't sexist. 

I think some of the right steps were being taken this weekend. Naming and shaming them. Reporting them to their employers and causing them to lose their jobs.

On a personal level we can ostracize family members. If it turned out my husband harbored secret Nazi sympathies he'd be out of the door in an instant. (Or if we believe someone has a chance of changing their views, talk to them/engage with them; but not ignore them, as the mother did in the link on the previous page). 

I'm not sure ostracisation is a good way to go. Refusing to associate with an extremist only pushes them to find people who will associate with them (ie other extremists) which leads to confirmation bias and reinforcement of their beliefs. Also with more divisive beliefs you might find this happening to you

Spoiler

Though jokes aside, boycotting a business that financially supports a cause you find distasteful is sensible in my book. But boycotting them just because of their private unrelated beliefs, not something I would do.

 

Edited August 14, 2017 by Jotari

[Res]

4 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I'm not sure ostracisation is a good way to go. Refusing to associate with an extremist only pushes them to find people who will associate with them (ie other extremists) which leads to confirmation bias and reinforcement of their beliefs. Also with more divisive beliefs you might find this happening to you

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Which is why you hopefully argue with them first, but ultimately being tolerant of hateful beliefs isn't going to help matters, either. And as long as they're going home to a steady income and loving families they're not going to be pressured to change in any way.  

...and wtf is the second half of your post? How on earth is that comparable? I'm actually so gobsmacked that you're using shitty comedy clips to relate pro-choice to nazism that I'm at a loss for words.

[Phoenix Wright]

like...? be specific @Lushen

Edited August 14, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[Slumber]

4 minutes ago, Res said:

...and wtf is the second half of your post? How on earth is that comparable? I'm actually so gobsmacked that you're using shitty comedy clips to relate pro-choice to nazism that I'm at a loss for words.

One thing I'll tolerate less than Neo Nazis is people trash talking Seinfeld. 

Pistols at dawn. 

[Jotari]

9 minutes ago, Res said:

Which is why you hopefully argue with them first, but ultimately being tolerant of hateful beliefs isn't going to help matters, either. And as long as they're going home to a steady income and loving families they're not going to be pressured to change in any way.  

...and wtf is the second half of your post? How on earth is that comparable? I'm actually so gobsmacked that you're using shitty comedy clips to relate pro-choice to nazism that I'm at a loss for words.

It was less about prochoice and more about ostracisation. People have a range of beliefs that you might find surprising. I made an American friend out here in China and after knowing him quite awhile I discovered not only did he vote for Trump but he actively believes homosexuality to be a mental illness. Certainly not something I agree with but I'm not going to stop seeing him over it and loose a friendship over it.

[Res]

7 minutes ago, Slumber said:

One thing I'll tolerate less than Neo Nazis is people trash talking Seinfeld. 

Pistols at dawn. 

Suggesting I'm worse than actual murderers in a serious forum might not be the funny joke you think it is.

5 minutes ago, Jotari said:

It was less about prochoice and more about ostracisation. People have a range of beliefs that you might find surprising. I made an American friend out here in China and after knowing him quite awhile I discovered not only did he vote for Trump but he actively believes homosexuality to be a mental illness. Certainly not something I agree with but I'm not going to stop seeing him over it and loose a friendship over it.

Nah, I'm never surprised by bigotry.

See, that's an example of someone who I might engage in conversation, but being a friend, no. Because that signifies a tolerance of their beliefs. No progress is made by being tolerant of intolerance.

[Jotari]

14 minutes ago, Res said:

Suggesting I'm worse than actual murderers in a serious forum might not be the funny joke you think it is.

Nah, I'm never surprised by bigotry.

See, that's an example of someone who I might engage in conversation, but being a friend, no. Because that signifies a tolerance of their beliefs. No progress is made by being tolerant of intolerance.

Well personally I see intolerance of intolerance as a contradiction. That's just where we differ as people.

[Res]

14 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well personally I see intolerance of intolerance as a contradiction. That's just where we differ as people.

Here's the thing; we have confirmation that a nurturing, encouraging environment is emboldening white supremacists. Trump's presidency, whether Trump and Republicans like it or not, has given their movement legitimacy like nothing else. This is what they themselves have said.

So befriending these people, having them as coworkers and as welcome family, doesn't stop them. Yet you say ignoring them isn't a solution, nor is violence. So then what? At what point does it actually become acceptable to stop them? Because your posts suggest we simply... don't.

You can't tolerate intolerance and have a functioning society. At some point one side is going to lose out. There is no middle ground where everyone can meet.

The difference is that someone is who anti-abortion wants to restrict abortion for everyone. Someone who is pro-choice isn't forcing people to get abortions, so it's not an equivalent oppressive stance. Someone who is anti-gay marriage wants to restrict marriage rights for all gay people. Someone who is pro-gay marriage doesn't want to prevent heterosexual couples from marrying.

So comparing someone who's pro-choice to someone who wants to see the rights of others restricted? It's not equivalent. 

[Tryhard]

36 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well personally I see intolerance of intolerance as a contradiction. That's just where we differ as people.

I've got no interest in being perceived or known as tolerant if it means I have to accept bigotry as some sort of valid viewpoint.

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

but he actively believes homosexuality to be a mental illness.

this guy is just as embarrassing as the flat earthers you pointed out tbh because he has no regard for logic and evidence either - we have already been through this entire thing in the past

Edited August 14, 2017 by Tryhard

[The Geek]

43 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well personally I see intolerance of intolerance as a contradiction. That's just where we differ as people.

Standing up to intolerance is not in and of itself intolerance; it's the right thing to do.

[epilepsyduck]

Being "intolerant of intolerance" is not only not contradictory, it's basic human decency. I really don't have patience for people who are perpetually neutral in all things because they genuinely think people attacking white supremacy and Neo-Nazism is a matter of difference of opinion instead of fighting a dangerous fringe group who advocates for violence and genocide. Don't be fooled by "oh we're only rallying over removal of a statue", because when people like this are involved, their right to commit violence against vulnerable groups in our society is always the real question at hand.

Edited August 14, 2017 by epilepsyduck

[Nobody]

All I can say besides what most people said about how vile those acts were is that I hope even more of those disgusting confederate statues end up being removed. Also, I hope they build a memorial to the poor woman who was murdered in the place where the statue was.

I wonder what went wrong with the world to make this sort of act acceptable again. No, intolerance of intolerance isn't intolerance. If you don't respect others you don't deserve respect.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Nobody

[Slumber]

45 minutes ago, Nobody said:

All I can say besides what most people said about how vile those acts were is that I hope even more of those disgusting confederate statues end up being removed. Also, I hope they build a memorial to the poor woman who was murdered in the place where the statue was.

I wonder what went wrong with the world to make this sort of act acceptable again. No, intolerance of intolerance isn't intolerance. If you don't respect others you don't deserve respect.

Somebody brought this up to me, and I've seen it a few times, but I think the north failing to really punish the south after the end of the Civil War has lead to a bunch of the race problems we face to this day. 

Instead of treating the southern confederates as traitors, we allowed them to continue to legislate laws in the US government. We allowed them to disrupt the voting process, which lead to all kinds of terrible legislatures like Jim Crow. Instead of demonizing confederate soldiers and leaders, we allowed them to build statues and monuments to generals who killed thousands and thousands of Americans who continued to fight for their country. We allowed them to dictate history books, which, TO THIS VERY DAY, still romanticisize the plight of the confederates in certain parts of the country. Instead of the Civil War being about how the affluent southerners demanded the right own people as it was a staple of their economy, the Civil War was about the poor southerners standing up for states' rights against the tyrannical federal government. The confederate flag isn't a symbol of a traitorous army that tried to overthrow the legitimate American government, it's a symbol of southern pride. We've managed to legitimize an army that mostly fought to keep a race of people as slaves. The confederates lost, but their ideals sure didn't. 

Compare to what happened with Germany after WW2. Even divided, Germany discouraged and actively fight against the ideals that lead to Nazism. Nazism was never, ever romanticized, and supporters were quieted quickly. 70 years later, and Germany is STILL owns up to their actions as wrong, and are deeply ashamed by them. There's no sugar coating it.

And now today we have this. Hundreds of people echoing the sentiments of both 150 year old slave-owner rhetoric AND Nazis coming together to protest the removal of a statue dedicated to the most famous confederate general. With three people dead, and a dozen more in the hospital. And a president who doesn't want to acknowledge this because the people responsible for this tragedy are the people that got him elected. 

Edited August 14, 2017 by Slumber

[Moblin Major General]

2 hours ago, Slumber said:

*snip*

Johnson might have been too friendly with the Confederates, but even Lincoln wasn't about to punish the South for what he blamed himself for. He knew that there would be a guerrilla war if he fully suppressed the South. In the movie Lincoln, which is pretty close to the actual events, he tells US Grant that he wouldn't be remiss if Jefferson Davis and his cabinet flew the coop. Does that sound like someone willing to denazify the South? US Grant might have tried during his part of the Reconstruction, but he was mired by scandals he had no actual connection to, leading to the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes.

[Slumber]

15 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Johnson might have been too friendly with the Confederates, but even Lincoln wasn't about to punish the South for what he blamed himself for. He knew that there would be a guerrilla war if he fully suppressed the South. In the movie Lincoln, which is pretty close to the actual events, he tells US Grant that he wouldn't be remiss if Jefferson Davis and his cabinet flew the coop. Does that sound like someone willing to denazify the South? US Grant might have tried during his part of the Reconstruction, but he was mired by scandals he had no actual connection to, leading to the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes.

The Civil War was the most brutal and bloody war America had seen up until that point. The country was super close to literally splitting in half. 

Maybe the German comparison isn't the best, since Germany was overlooked by occupying ally forces for 45 years, but the Nazis were the former party in power when they started quashing Nazism in Germany. 

You'd think that, despite the lack of outside help(Though you're right, Lincoln's cabinet didn't make it easier), the federal government would have had more of a thumb over the people who JUST tried to take out the union. Instead they pretty much had impunity. They lost slaves, but they basically forced a bunch of concessions that existed purely to keep newly freed slaves from truly being free. 

Edited August 14, 2017 by Slumber

[Moblin Major General]

1 minute ago, Slumber said:

The Civil War was the most brutal and bloody war America had seen up until that point. The country was super close to literally splitting in half. 

Maybe the German comparison isn't the best, since Germany was overlooked by occupying ally forces for 45 years, but the Nazis were the former party in power when they started quashing Nazism in Germany. 

You'd think that, despite the lack of outside help(Though you're right, Lincoln's cabinet didn't make it easier), the federal government would have had more of a thumb over the people who JUST tried to take out the union. 

The Confederates didn't institutionally murder 9 million people from across the world, nor did the war they cause have any consequences on the world as a whole. Also, under Grant, he did have most of the Southern States under military control, which only lifted after Hayes became president.

[Slumber]

1 minute ago, Hylian Air Force said:

The Confederates didn't institutionally murder 9 million people from across the world, nor did the war they cause have any consequences on the world as a whole. Also, under Grant, he did have most of the Southern States under military control, which only lifted after Hayes became president.

Grant certainly tried to do what I suggested, but him being sandwiched between a centrist democrat president who did not give two shits about slaves(Johnson) and one who folded under a democratic congress(Hayes) didn't help. He had about 8 years to try to do something that would have taken a generation or two. 

[Shoblongoo]

They marched, doing Nazi salutes and openly carrying torches and firearms. For hours. They were not confronted by police. They were not ordered to drop their weapons or shot at by officers on scene. They were not dispersed with tear gas or met with SWAT teams and riot gear. One among them commited murder and attempted to commit mass murder; he was taken into custody with minimal use of force and sits alive and unbattered in a jail cell, awaiting trial. The rest continued to go about their business. For those of you still confused about it (i.e. Lushen)--this is what a White Privilige looks like.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[blah the Prussian]

7 hours ago, Lushen said:

All kinds of supremacy are a problem, not just white supremacy.  

Well, when Black Supremacists drive a car into a bunch of people we can have another thread condemning that. Until then, its frankly off topic.

A bit off topic, but no joke I have a Black friend who literally said "I think the protestors have some good points"(I firmly disagree). He also at one point said he thought the ISS was made of wood, though.

RE ostracization, it's difficult. On the one hand, my gut says its a good way to ensure that these people become even more taken in by their ideological brethren, and even more convinced that their beliefs are right and society is keeping them down. On the other hand, I have been lucky enough to not have friends or family turn to support for racist totalitarianism(although one of my friends was a Wehraboo for a week or so). I guess, if you're willing to put up with a Neo Nazi long enough to turn them away from their beliefs, that's great, and I have the utmost respect for you, but on the other if you do want them out of your life there's no shame in that.

[Jotari]

RE: Basically everyone who responded to my last point. I'm not saying that intolerance should be taken lying down and just accepted or ignored. But I do think that treating opinions as the be all and end all of a person isn't the way to go (actions are much more important than opinions). People are more than the sum of their beliefs and treating someone as a demon because they follow a philosophy that you see as monstrous isn't going to actually help anyone. Rationally debating and disproving their world view is what should be done. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of the speech I agree with. It means everyone get's a say, everyone gets their opinions expressed even if you strongly disagree with it.

[Etrurian emperor]

6 hours ago, Slumber said:

Instead of treating the southern confederates as traitors, we allowed them to continue to legislate laws in the US government. We allowed them to disrupt the voting process, which lead to all kinds of terrible legislatures like Jim Crow. Instead of demonizing confederate soldiers and leaders, we allowed them to build statues and monuments to generals who killed thousands and thousands of Americans who continued to fight for their country. We allowed them to dictate history books, which, TO THIS VERY DAY, still romanticisize the plight of the confederates in certain parts of the country. Instead of the Civil War being about how the affluent southerners demanded the right own people as it was a staple of their economy, the Civil War was about the poor southerners standing up for states' rights against the tyrannical federal government. The confederate flag isn't a symbol of a traitorous army that tried to overthrow the legitimate American government, it's a symbol of southern pride. We've managed to legitimize an army that mostly fought to keep a race of people as slaves. The confederates lost, but their ideals sure didn't. 

I find the American treatment of its rebels very weird and not very consistent. Benedict Arnold was treated terribly and when he reacted by turning on the Americans in a move that didn't even go well he became known as the ultimate example of a traitor.

But when men actually succeed in committing treason and start a war in which thousands and thousands of Americans die they are handled incredibly gently, their actions and ideology are defended and they were even allowed to write the history books. Instead its Grant who gets demonized as a mere drunken butcher. 
When comparing the results you'd think Lee and Davis come off a lot worse then poor old Benedict. 

Though I'm not at all in favor of removing Lee's statues. He was a talented man who did try to heal the rifts that had been formed after the war. The very concept of removing statues doesn't sit very well with me in general. 

Edited August 14, 2017 by Etrurian emperor