*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 3963
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2080 on: August 14, 2017, 11:43:03 PM »
FE'ism requires suspension of disbelief...

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5794
  • Videmus Omnia
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2081 on: August 15, 2017, 01:36:00 AM »
The only place the Republicans and Trump have been supporting the KKK/Naizis are in the imaginations of Antifa and all who agree with them. Antifa/BLM/KKK/Nazis all agree on what tactics to use to get what they want, they just disagree on what they want.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 455
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2082 on: August 15, 2017, 03:31:00 AM »
The only place the Republicans and Trump have been supporting the KKK/Naizis are in the imaginations of Antifa and all who agree with them.

And judging by how enthusiastically they've embraced Trump, also in the imaginations of said KKK/Nazis/racists.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Re: Trump
« Reply #2083 on: August 15, 2017, 05:19:37 AM »
And then there's people like this guy:
http://www.npr.org/2017/08/13/543259485/trump-supporter-he-called-for-unity-i-never-saw-obama-call-for-unity


They hate nazis and white supremesists because they don't know what they stand for. 

shitposting leftists are never alone

*

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2473
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2085 on: August 15, 2017, 09:31:37 PM »
I think he (rightfully) doesn't want to invigorate the extreme left that is just as capable of being violent.

if i hadn't been alive and conscious for the 2016 election cycle, then i could maybe buy that.  i think he's just a pathetically amoral coward.

either way, let's not restrain ourselves from criticizing violent nazis because we're afraid of hypothetical future violence by someone else.

plus he could've just addressed that directly while also displaying a modicum of moral courage:

tweet #1: nazism and white nationalism are immoral.  fuck off, nazis.
tweet #2: hey "leftists" don't use this as an excuse to be violent.  violence is wrong my dudes.  you have to let others peacefully protest even if you think they're dicks.
tweet #3: here are the concrete steps we're gonna take to keep things cool and safe. 
tweet #4: including free capri suns for both sides.

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.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 455
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2086 on: August 15, 2017, 11:02:09 PM »
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.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2473
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2087 on: August 15, 2017, 11:39:23 PM »
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?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5941
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #2088 on: August 16, 2017, 07:10:47 AM »
So you would agree that if this weren't Trump we're talking about, his statements would be fine?
See, the problem here is that you're not reading Trump's mind correctly. We're all experts at knowing exactly what's going on in other people's minds, especially if we never spoke to said people. You'll have to step up your game if you want to roll with the FES lefties.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

Re: Trump
« Reply #2089 on: August 16, 2017, 07:54:51 AM »
I think he (rightfully) doesn't want to invigorate the extreme left that is just as capable of being violent.

if i hadn't been alive and conscious for the 2016 election cycle, then i could maybe buy that.  i think he's just a pathetically amoral coward.

either way, let's not restrain ourselves from criticizing violent nazis because we're afraid of hypothetical future violence by someone else.

plus he could've just addressed that directly while also displaying a modicum of moral courage:

tweet #1: nazism and white nationalism are immoral.  fuck off, nazis.
tweet #2: hey "leftists" don't use this as an excuse to be violent.  violence is wrong my dudes.  you have to let others peacefully protest even if you think they're dicks.
tweet #3: here are the concrete steps we're gonna take to keep things cool and safe. 
tweet #4: including free capri suns for both sides.

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.
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.
And a white national did kill someone by trying to ram the counter protesters with his car.

This is basically victim shaming.  "If they weren't against me, then that guy wouldn't have tried to kill them with his car".

Now if we find out that the other side was attacking with violence as well and this was basically just escalation then sure.  But I haven't seen evidence of that yet.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5941
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #2090 on: August 16, 2017, 08:23:38 AM »
there is no evidence of violence (in that instance) from the counter protesters.
Wait, what? Where on Earth did you get that idea? There was violence on both sides, and I struggle to find any coverage that denies this. The only question here is that of the extent of the violence on each side (spoilers: the protesters were much more heavily armed than the counter-protesters, so when the clashes erupted it was a bit one-sided)
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

Re: Trump
« Reply #2091 on: August 16, 2017, 08:59:30 AM »
there is no evidence of violence (in that instance) from the counter protesters.
Wait, what? Where on Earth did you get that idea? There was violence on both sides, and I struggle to find any coverage that denies this. The only question here is that of the extent of the violence on each side (spoilers: the protesters were much more heavily armed than the counter-protesters, so when the clashes erupted it was a bit one-sided)
Ignorance.
I haven't read anything about it.  Also, I've read very few actual articles on the subject so that's probably it.

So both sides were in fisti-cuffs with each other then?
Or was it thrown objects?

Re: Trump
« Reply #2092 on: August 16, 2017, 09:08:46 AM »
Ok, having read more, it sounds like "violence on both sides" is like saying:

"Look, the Nazi's are bad, but if you didn't try to fight back, you would have been fine."

Cause it seems like the counter protesters were in a defensive stance and the white nationalists were more offensive.

So while violence on both sides occurred, I'm gonna struggle with how a Republican can attack someone for defending themselves.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5941
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #2093 on: August 16, 2017, 11:05:32 AM »
Sure. Defensive.



Look, I don't think anyone is denying that the far-right were the primary aggressors here who deserve an overwhelming majority of the blame. It's just that some extremists are trying to push it much further, and are receiving tacit support from some media outlets in doing so.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

Re: Trump
« Reply #2094 on: August 16, 2017, 11:18:42 AM »
Sure. Defensive.



Look, I don't think anyone is denying that the far-right were the primary aggressors here who deserve an overwhelming majority of the blame. It's just that some extremists are trying to push it much further, and are receiving tacit support from some media outlets in doing so.
1. Posting a single image of a person in a helmet and holding a bat does not mean anything.

2. Assuming that's a legitimate picture of a counter protester... I'm failing to see your point.  Defensive does not mean you hunker down with a shield and pray they don't have guns(They did).  If cops need to defend someone from being killed, do they carry only riot shields or do they have batons as well?  Or even *gasp* guns?

3. I say defensive based on movement patterns, not armaments.  The counter protesters were largely stationary while the white supremacists marched towards them.

Finally:
The "Anti-Facists" are being labeled as bad.  Yet... why?  I mean, if any group deserves to be actually resisted with physical force, it's the god damn Nazis.  The way Trump talks, it's bad to punch Nazis yet we've seen he's totally ok with people punching journalists and annoying people at his rallies.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5941
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #2095 on: August 16, 2017, 11:50:11 AM »
1. Posting a single image of a person in a helmet and holding a bat does not mean anything.
Yes, perhaps I should have clarified that this is a widely circulated photograph of an antifa "member", taken in Charlottesville at a time that strangely coincided with the clashes.

2. Assuming that's a legitimate picture of a counter protester... I'm failing to see your point.  Defensive does not mean you hunker down with a shield and pray they don't have guns(They did).
Yes, they armed themselves went to a location where they expected armed people to hang out, many of them travelling from out of state. All in self-defence, of course. I, too, regularly arm myself and go looking for fights in order to best defend myself. Sometimes I even go abroad to get some diversity in who I'm defending myself from!

If cops need to defend someone from being killed, do they carry only riot shields or do they have batons as well?  Or even *gasp* guns?
Now you're comparing domestic terrorists to law enforcement officers. You're about to go full BLM. Never go full BLM.

3. I say defensive based on movement patterns, not armaments.  The counter protesters were largely stationary while the white supremacists marched towards them.
This contradicts witness accounts.

Violence and hate and blood, that’s what I saw. What happened in Charlottesville this past weekend wasn’t a rally. It was a riot.

I was on Market Street around 11:30 a.m. when a counterprotester ripped a newspaper stand off the sidewalk and threw it at alt-right protesters. I saw another man from the white supremacist crowd being chased and beaten. People were hitting him with their signs. A much older man, also with the alt-right group, got pushed to the ground in the commotion. Someone raised a stick over his head and beat the man with it, and that’s when I screamed and ran over with several other strangers to help him to his feet.

Naturally, many of these accounts come from the far-right domestic terrorists, and it's in their best interest to say that antifa were violent. But even the antifas readily admit that they were not just defending themselves:

We were coming off a hard won victory. Before the attack occurred, we chased the Nazis out of their park, removing their platform. They were on the move towards a community with many people of color. We mobilized to intercept. We were at our most powerful, all of us together chanting with enthusiastic support from the people of Charlottesville. That was the moment that we were attacked.

The "Anti-Facists" are being labeled as bad.  Yet... why?
I believe terrorism is illegal in America, and illegal things are commonly described in a negative light. I'm also not convinced that domestic terrorism in the name of anarchism and/or communism is particularly worthy of your apologia.

I mean, if any group deserves to be actually resisted with physical force, it's the god damn Nazis.
No. Nobody deserves to be physically assaulted for protesting the idea of removing a statue. Not even the 50-ish Nazis that may have somehow found their way to that rally.

The way Trump talks, it's bad to punch Nazis
The way trump talks, it's bad to punch anyone. He's been pretty explicit and direct about that recently.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2017, 12:03:20 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

Re: Trump
« Reply #2096 on: August 16, 2017, 12:51:06 PM »
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.




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.


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.


And Trump has, on several occasions during his campaign, advocated punching people in the face.




Re: Trump
« Reply #2097 on: August 16, 2017, 01:19:47 PM »
Trump's trying to see just how low we can get those approval numbers before the end of August.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 3963
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2098 on: August 16, 2017, 01:51:59 PM »
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?


Quote
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. 


Quote
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.


And Trump has, on several occasions during his campaign, advocated punching people in the face.
[/quote]
FE'ism requires suspension of disbelief...

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5941
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #2099 on: August 16, 2017, 01:56:20 PM »
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.

[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.

Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!