[honk]

I can imagine quite a few legitimate reasons for why Trump didn't want to address nazis et al. right away (other than pandering). One of them being that the nazi boogeyman is massively overblown by left-leaning media. How many actual nazis or white nationalists do you think there were in that protest? Sure, there were some I'd imagine, but certainly not all of them. And those some likely weren't involved in the violence at all.

Condemning hateful ideologies in general is fine and dandy, but let's not blame people for something they probably didn't do. Let's just condemn all violence in one statement and the ideologies in another, which is what happened.

Nice rationalization, but we both know that Trump is utterly incapable of this level of restraint and nuance. If it had been a Muslim who did this, an illegal immigrant, or a leftist, the self-congratulatory shitposts would be flying thick and fast from Trump, as we've seen multiple times in the past. But now suddenly Trump's thoughtful, patient side emerges? Bullshit.

So you would agree that if this weren't Trump we're talking about, his statements would be fine?

I might be more willing to believe that it was a sincere plea for a measured response if it was coming from anybody but Trump, but I highly doubt that any other politician would hesitate to condemn such an unsavory group, in large part because no other politician is that reliant on racists making up a significant part of their base. All I'm saying is that it stands out as being especially out of character for Trump, given everything that we know about his temperament and usual responses to attacks.

[Blanko]

Well, it's not unusual to hesitate when it comes to condemning entire groups based on the actions of one person. For some reason, the left has unequivocally agreed that in this case it's perfectly fine, yet I didn't see anyone in the MSM lambast Obama for failing to condemn BLM for Dallas shootings.

[Roundy]

I can only think that after months of saying almost nothing regarding Trump, Blanko's choice of this particular incident to speak up and defend Trump's words, something literally nobody in this country except the Nazis he sympathizes with has been willing to do, speaks volumes about the nature of his character.

[Blanko]

I can only think that after months of saying almost nothing regarding Trump, Blanko's choice of this particular incident to speak up and defend Trump's words, something literally nobody in this country except the Nazis he sympathizes with has been willing to do, speaks volumes about the nature of his character.

Ah, yes, the ol' "everyone who disagrees with me is a literal nazi". Ya got me.

I'm not in your country, so I don't subscribe to your tribal us vs. them bullshit. Political discourse where I'm from thankfully isn't that retarded, so you could say I'm used to not being called a nazi every time I disagree on something, and therefore my choices on what to say aren't influenced by that possibility. It's too bad dealing with Americans makes that quite a bit more difficult.

Also, I don't like to talk about Trump often because I think he's incompetent and a dumbass. I'm not really even defending him right now, I'm criticising the reaction from the media and the left.

[honk]

Well, it's not unusual to hesitate when it comes to condemning entire groups based on the actions of one person. For some reason, the left has unequivocally agreed that in this case it's perfectly fine, yet I didn't see anyone in the MSM lambast Obama for failing to condemn BLM for Dallas shootings.

Well, yeah, people don't really equivocate BLM and Nazis.

[Blanko]

Well, it's not unusual to hesitate when it comes to condemning entire groups based on the actions of one person. For some reason, the left has unequivocally agreed that in this case it's perfectly fine, yet I didn't see anyone in the MSM lambast Obama for failing to condemn BLM for Dallas shootings.

Well, yeah, people don't really equivocate BLM and Nazis.

That's fine, but Trump didn't condemn just nazis, nor was he expected to, because 1) not everyone in the protest were nazis, and 2) the driver of the car very likely wasn't one. Trump was expected to condemn essentially all of alt-right, based on a lone actor whose affiliations are unknown, and some fisticuffs from people whose affiliations were also unknown.

[juner]

Political discourse where I'm from thankfully isn't that retarded

I'm moving in with Blanko.

[Pete Svarrior]

Well, yeah, people don't really equivocate BLM and Nazis.

It's less uncommon than you'd think, especially when the "Nazis" you're referring to in this case are not of the Weimar variety, but rather the "literal nazis!!1!" that liberals are trying to over-hype for some reason.

[honk]

Well, it's not unusual to hesitate when it comes to condemning entire groups based on the actions of one person. For some reason, the left has unequivocally agreed that in this case it's perfectly fine, yet I didn't see anyone in the MSM lambast Obama for failing to condemn BLM for Dallas shootings.

Well, yeah, people don't really equivocate BLM and Nazis.

That's fine, but Trump didn't condemn just nazis, nor was he expected to, because 1) not everyone in the protest were nazis, and 2) the driver of the car very likely wasn't one. Trump was expected to condemn essentially all of alt-right, based on a lone actor whose affiliations are unknown, and some fisticuffs from people whose affiliations were also unknown.

Call them whatever you want. #NotAllAlt-Right is a bizarre hill to die on, and yes, people expected the President of the United States to condemn them and their bullshit ideology. And so far, the available evidence suggests that James Fields was most likely one of them.

[trekky0623]

The speakers at the rally for the most part advocated for America as a white ethnostate. So I don't know what we're supposed to call them but neo-nazis or white supremacists seem to fit, and the term "alt-right" was coined by the same people. It's not really a shock it's made up of neo-nazis.

[Blanko]

Call them whatever you want. #NotAllAlt-Right is a bizarre hill to die on, and yes, people expected the President of the United States to condemn them and their bullshit ideology.

Ok, well, good thing he did just that, then.

And so far, the available evidence suggests that James Fields was most likely one of them.

I assume Trump didn't have that information when he made his initial statement.

[Roundy]

I'm not in your country

Yes, I'm aware you're from the birthplace of the Aryan race, no need to remind me.

[Roundy]

Also, what with all the Republicans coming out of the woodwork and denouncing Trump's position, this has gone beyond a "left vs right" issue. It is literally Nazis and white supremacists vs everybody else.

[Blanko]

I'm not in your country

Yes, I'm aware you're from the birthplace of the Aryan race, no need to remind me.

Wrong.

[Lord Dave]

Woah woah woah...


I never siad "self-defense"
I said defense.  As in "Defending America from bad people".
They came expecting a fight, I'm not denying that.  But they didn't go there to throw the first punch.

That would not be in line with past antifa behavior. Why are you so sure about that?

In honesty, I only read the washington post timeline but based on that, it sounds like it.  Otherwise the antifa protesters would have met the alt-right instead of waited for them.

Secondly, are you sure there were only 50ish nazis?  I mean, the whole rally wasn't "Save our Statue" since they chanted "we will not be replaced" and "Jews will not replace us" while marching.  "Blood and Soil" at other times.  AND they came armed too.  So they were looking for a fight.

No one denies that the alt-right faction wasn't looking for a fight. My biggest issue is that left-wing media became so fixated on the narrative that Trump is once again Hitler that they neglected to report on the far-left presence that almost always leads to violence whether there are literal Nazis there or not. Both stories are important to the degree that they are accurately and fairly reported. America does not have a racism problem so much as it has a polarization problem. Echo chambers will lead to civil strife not experienced by most people alive today. 

We totally have a racism problem.  Just look at the amount of unarmed black people killed by cops for proof.

Third: One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.  But against for people who want to oppress non-whites, I'm siding with the people against them.

If you're sure of their intentions sure. I would steer clear of Antifa as much as the alt-right. They both want bad things for a free, liberal society.

Would still take someone wanting to kill white supremacists and such vs someone who stands by while those groups march unopposed.

I said defense.  As in "Defending America from bad people".

Well, that's certainly a bizarre thing to bring up. We were discussing whether or not there was violence on both sides. You said that "it seems like the counter protesters were in a defensive stance and the white nationalists were more offensive." Now you're saying that you weren't actually referring to their stance in the clashes, but rather the motivation behind their violence. While not incorrect (I'm sure they thought they were doing a good thing - they wouldn't be doing it otherwise), it's quite irrelevant to what we were talking about.

Then of course there was violence on both sides.  The only way there couldn't be is if one side either wasn't there or was purely passive.  So yes, there was violence on both sides.  But when I see "violence" I look at the person actually seeking to harm vs the group seeking to stop harm. 

And perhaps I'm not being clear:
Defensive Stance, is like defending a fort.  You stand at a spot, wait for the enemy to come to you, and kick their asses.  THAT is what I meant.  Not just some ideology (though that's there) but also "We're gonna be here.  When you come, you're gonna try to fight us and we're gonna fight back" instead of "We're gonna march towards you and attack"

[again] I said defense.  As in "Defending America from bad people".
[...]
One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.

Are you saying you support domestic terrorism as long as the ideas behind the terrorism sound nice? Because that's honestly how that's coming across, and the only way I can respond to that is with strong personal judgements.

That is literally how America became independent.

[Pete Svarrior]

Then of course there was violence on both sides.  The only way there couldn't be is if one side either wasn't there or was purely passive.  So yes, there was violence on both sides.

Yes. It really is that obvious. Now, certain subsections of the media are trying to deny this, despite it being so obvious. In my mind, news organisations should not cover up facts.

And perhaps I'm not being clear:
Defensive Stance, is like defending a fort.  You stand at a spot, wait for the enemy to come to you, and kick their asses.  THAT is what I meant.  Not just some ideology (though that's there) but also "We're gonna be here.  When you come, you're gonna try to fight us and we're gonna fight back" instead of "We're gonna march towards you and attack"

And now you've returned to claiming that antifa were exclusively attacked by the white supremacists. This is not what happened. Each side started some of the clashes. Undeniably, the far-right started more of them, but to pretend that antifa was only there waiting to be attacked is disingenuous.

Also, let me remind you once more what your claim was: Your claim was that there is no evidence that antifa were violent.

The problem is that he condemned violence from both sides in one statement but there is no evidence of violence (in that instance) from the counter protesters.

Now you're talking about them waiting to kick someone's asses. It is blindingly obvious that you made your original comment without any understanding of the situation, and that you're trying to retcon your words into anything other than utter nonsense.

That is literally how America became independent.

Really? America became independent because a group of people with baseball bats decided to bash in the heads of an anticipated and public protest? I think it was a little bit more complicated than that, but perhaps growing up in a country with a semi-functioning education system has just blinded me to the woke truth.

Of course, I know what you're actually trying to say there. The USA became independent through violence. Therefore, violence is good! Of course, the Nazis also took control of Germany through violence, so if we apply the same reductionist logic, antifa are literally nazis. And, as we've established over the course of the last year, it is okay to punch a nazi.

[Rama Set]

In honesty, I only read the washington post timeline but based on that, it sounds like it.  Otherwise the antifa protesters would have met the alt-right instead of waited for them.

Not necessarily.  Sometimes you stake out a battleground and wait for the enemy to come to you.  I am not sure, but I am sure that Antifa is a consistent violent and agitating presence at just about every protest they attend.  It should be expected that they would instigate some portion of the violence here. 

We totally have a racism problem.  Just look at the amount of unarmed black people killed by cops for proof.

I don't want to go too far down a debunking BLM claims road, but black cops are more likely to shoot black men than white cops are.  So how does that fit your narrative?  Are these black cops so reified that they no longer have the agency to resist the systemic racism?

Would still take someone wanting to kill white supremacists and such vs someone who stands by while those groups march unopposed.

Well if your first response to a white supremacist is to want to kill them, then I suppose I can't really sway you to a reasonable position.

[Lord Dave]

Yes. It really is that obvious. Now, certain subsections of the media are trying to deny this, despite it being so obvious. In my mind, news organisations should not cover up facts.

But are they?  I mean, I've just started reading it and even I knew that both sides were ready to fight.

And now you've returned to claiming that antifa were exclusively attacked by the white supremacists. This is not what happened. Each side started some of the clashes. Undeniably, the far-right started more of them, but to pretend that antifa was only there waiting to be attacked is disingenuous.

Also, let me remind you once more what your claim was: Your claim was that there is no evidence that antifa were violent.

A claim I have admitted to being incorrect due to my own ignorance.

Now you're talking about them waiting to kick someone's asses. It is blindingly obvious that you made your original comment without any understanding of the situation, and that you're trying to retcon your words into anything other than utter nonsense.

Yes, I said so.

Ignorance.
I haven't read anything about it.  Also, I've read very few actual articles on the subject so that's probably it.

Really? America became independent because a group of people with baseball bats decided to bash in the heads of an anticipated and public protest? I think it was a little bit more complicated than that, but perhaps growing up in a country with a semi-functioning education system has just blinded me to the woke truth.

Of course, I know what you're actually trying to say there. The USA became independent through violence. Therefore, violence is good! Of course, the Nazis also took control of Germany through violence, so if we apply the same reductionist logic, antifa are literally nazis. And, as we've established over the course of the last year, it is okay to punch a nazi.

Sort of.  I'm saying that the American colonies engaged in acts of public vandalism, destruction of private property, and eventually open conflict with military and civilian groups all in the name of freedom and protest.  From England's perspective, a bunch of ungrateful colonists decided to launch attacks and declare themselves independent as though a piece of paper and some dead soldiers made it so.  What made it so was when England stopped trying to fight them.

And unless I'm mistaken, the Nazi party did NOT take over via violence.  They were elected in a fair and open democratic election on a platform in which the economic hardships of the people were blamed on Europe and Jews, gypsies, gays, etc.. (it was totally Europe's fault though) and that together, they could rise up and become stronger.  And the clinch?  No one stopped them.  When they marched in the streets, no one marched against them.  When they rallied, no one stopped them.  When the Reichstag fire broke out and they ushered in the decree, no one stopped them.  Not even the Hitler hating president of Germany.  After that, it was legal to do whatever they wanted and they were able to arrest all their political opponents.  Then they made the Chancellor a dictator and that was that.

The violence against Jews and minority groups in Germany wasn't the result of the government saying "Go kill those Jews" it was the result of the government figure saying "Jews are the reason you're all poor!"

[Pete Svarrior]

And unless I'm mistaken, the Nazi party did NOT take over via violence.  They were elected in a fair and open democratic election on a platform in which the economic hardships of the people were blamed on Europe and Jews, gypsies, gays, etc.. (it was totally Europe's fault though) and that together, they could rise up and become stronger.

Yes, you are mistaken. It's not so much that what you've said is completely incorrect, but it's extremely incomplete. The Nazis obtained the extent of power they did through staged violent activities which they blamed on "the enemy", thus justifying the strengthening of the government and the elimination of political discourse.

The violence against Jews and minority groups in Germany wasn't the result of the government saying "Go kill those Jews" it was the result of the government figure saying "Jews are the reason you're all poor!"

No, Dave, concentration camps were not a side-project of a private citizen who was convinced the Jews are making him poor. The violence was systemic, organised, and largely centrally controlled.

But are they?  I mean, I've just started reading it and even I knew that both sides were ready to fight.

This is the problem with you talking before you've done your reading. The original media reports were appallingly skewed, and are now (nearly a week after the tragic events) finally moving from "violence was one-sided and oh no how dare Trump say otherwise" to "yes, there was violence on both sides, but..."

This BBC video is a good example of this new, revised narrative: https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/videos/10155014210312217/

This situation perfectly illustrates why we should continue to oppose media spin. It actually works. Next stop: the media acknowledging that antifa is a terrorist organisation.

[Ghost Spaghetti]

Jesus, apart from the Antifa = Terrorist thing, I actually agree with SexWarrior.