Charlottesville Protests

[Tryhard]

1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

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. 

I think the better solution would be for those who felt strongly to buy these statues from the government and put it in their private place of choice, or in a museum should that not be viable - they are too easily tied to confederacy and being traitors and there is a good argument for the government or state not wanting to display them in a public place. Evidently, it was not about that, as the protesters could have easily argued to engage in a transaction to place the statues in a private setting rather than a public one.

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

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.

While I do have confidence in the prospect that good ideas will win over bad ones, demonstrably monstrous ideologies should be mocked. As much as I disagree with, even hate, Anti-fa and their tactics, they exist and do what they do because they believe that neo-nazis and fascists will never back down and only understand one form of discourse - violence. Neo-nazis do not see rational discourse or even disproving their "arguments" as hindrances to their ideology - and are only held back from doing violent action because they do not have the threat to actually gain power, but would if they could.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Tryhard

[blah the Prussian]

I used to be firmly against removing statues, but my perspective changed in the Czech Republic. There, and indeed in all of the former Warsaw Pact states, you had statues of men like Lenin and Stalin, people who represented foreign domination and Communist oppression to the peoples of these countries, and depending on the country, i.e. Ukraine, genocide. To take down those statues is definitely right and just. People like Lee and Davis(incidentally the idea that Lee treated his slaves well is a myth, especially relative to how they were treated by their former owners, source is here:https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/08/arlington-bobby-lee-and-the-peculiar-institution/61428/) play a similar role to Black Americans as men like Lenin and Stalin did for Eastern Europe. If you think removing the statues of the latter is good, you should be in favor of removing those of the former, and if you oppose removing the former statues, ask yourself if you would feel the same if the topic concerned the removal of the statues of Communist leaders, or Saddam Hussein.

[Etrurian emperor]

9 hours ago, Lushen said:

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.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that Trump isn't personally racist, sexist or homophobic. I don't believe it but the possibility that he's not sexist/homophobic/etcetera probably exist. I just don't think it matters very much when he enables and supports those groups and is willing to throw minorities under the buss just for some votes. Trump may not be homophobic but he sure doesn't mind employing someone who believes in shock conversion therapy, Trump may not personally be against Trans people but if screwing them over gets him his votes he'll do it. Maybe Trump really does respect woman but that doesn't mean much when he doesn't have the self control to stop grabbing them by the.....

I personally think Trump has negative feelings to all these groups but that it doesn't drive him. What drives him is a purely practical matter. His voterbase is against all those people and so he must be too. He's burned all the bridges to minority groups anyway so why bother appealing to them.

I don't even mind Trump not calling the alt right out to much. Why would we expect him to bite the hand which feeds him?

[Phoenix Wright]

10 hours ago, Jotari said:

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.

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.

sorry for putting words in your mouth. i blame my laziness and the fact that i'm on mobile rn. 

the solution is something we've yet to do: reject their beliefs at every level of government. if far right politicians say these beliefs are unacceptable, over time change will occur. but, as trump showed, as long as they're an important voting base, harsh reactions (politically speaking) to white supremacy from the right won't be seen as often as they should be. how long did it take trump to denounce duke? and even then it was a very weak. 

politicians need to forget about the office and think of the future. but our very system is setup in a way that makes that sort of thinking very hard to act on. not that i think we should absolve politicians of blame--worse, they're doing nothing to change it. 

Edited August 14, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[Shoblongoo]

Trump had harsher condemnation for the African-American CEO who resigned from the president's advisory board in protest to Trump's response to Charlotsville then he had for the Nazis or Klansmen. It's his base--and not by accident--he actively courted them. I don't think Trump himself is a hardcore racist so much a user and an enabler, who saw Political advantage in elevating these bozos. Trump not being sufficiently repulsed by Nazis and Klansmen to think this is a really bad idea has less to do with racism, imo. And more to do with him just being universally amoral and without shame or social conscience in all aspects of life and business.

[SullyMcGully]

General notice: The KKK thinks it speaks for the South. It doesn't. I'm from the South. I'll admit I like seeing statues of Lee and Jackson around the place, and I'm proud of my Confederate ancestry. But this is stupid. These white supremacists might think that they are honoring these relics of the past, but they aren't. They're spiting everything that all of those men died for. The South isn't supposed racist, hateful, or stuck in the past. By God's grace, I personally don't believe that it is any of those things today. These extremists don't know what it is they think they're standing for. 

I hope we can all overlook the political implications of this and see the heart of the matter. Hate, whether in the public cries of misguided masses or within the confines of our own emotions, is poison. This is what it does to people, to cultures, and to cities. We need to avoid it like the plague it is.

[Jotari]

34 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

sorry for putting words in your mouth. i blame my laziness and the fact that i'm on mobile rn. 

the solution is something we've yet to do: reject their beliefs at every level of government. if far right politicians say these beliefs are unacceptable, over time change will occur. but, as trump showed, as long as they're an important voting base, harsh reactions (politically speaking) to white supremacy from the right won't be seen as often as they should be. how long did it take trump to denounce duke? and even then it was a very weak. 

politicians need to forget about the office and think of the future. but our very system is setup in a way that makes that sort of thinking very hard to act on. not that i think we should absolve politicians of blame--worse, they're doing nothing to change it. 

The whole American political set up is just the kind of ideas that I'm talking about avoiding. As an outside observer it seems to be massively a case of sides rather than policies. I don't think social issues are so simple that every single issue thing can be boiled down to either democrat or republican. Yet you see people take sides on such thing purely due to party allegiance. It's part of the reason Trump even got elected from what I heard. A lot of the republicans didn't like him but he managed to get into the election in spite of everything and many people would rather vote for a republican they don't like over a democrat regardless of any other factors.

[Shoblongoo]

11 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

 I'm proud of my Confederate ancestry.  

Why??? You generally don't see Germans running around going "I'm proud grandpa was a Nazi." they're proud to be German and they're proud of their history--the Vikings, the knights and castles, the monasteries and beer halls. But they know not to be proud of that part of their history. Like--why do southerners have this ongoing, compulsive need to honor seditionists and slavers? 

Edited August 14, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Elieson]

19 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Why??? You generally don't see Germans running around going "I'm proud grandpa was a Nazi." they're proud to be German and they're proud of their history--the Vikings, the knights and castles, the monasteries and beer halls. But they know not to be proud of that part of their history. Like--why do southerners have this ongoing, compulsive need to honor seditionists and slavers? 

Perhaps it lies in the concept of "I'm proud to be a descendant of someone who fought for what they believed in. Even if I don't agree with it, that loyalty to a cause is still admirable in its own way, versus sitting on the sidelines and eating popcorn while doing nothing but watching other sides lash out each other." I read Sully's point as a sign of respect for drive and dedication, not as a sign of perpetuating slavery, illiteracy and needless death.

 

It's like, people have an idea that their side has to be 100% perfect or else there may as well be 0 redeeming qualities to it, and that's just not how living works, otherwise we wouldn't have international borders and various religions

Edited August 14, 2017 by Elieson

[Res]

3 hours ago, Jotari said:

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.

Everyone may get a say; not everyone gets an audience. Words can be harmful and we shouldn't be obligated to listen to hateful rhetoric.

Sometimes they are actions, too; a vote is an action. 

Also some things are values rather than opinions. Being friends with someone who dislikes my favourite flavor of ice cream is a difference of opinions. Being friends with someone who considers a core part of my being to be wrong is literally not possible. 'Hating the sin but loving the sinner' is something that sounds great in theory but has literally driven people to depression, suicide etc.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Res

[blah the Prussian]

7 hours ago, Elieson said:

Perhaps it lies in the concept of "I'm proud to be a descendant of someone who fought for what they believed in. Even if I don't agree with it, that loyalty to a cause is still admirable in its own way, versus sitting on the sidelines and eating popcorn while doing nothing but watching other sides lash out each other." I read Sully's point as a sign of respect for drive and dedication, not as a sign of perpetuating slavery, illiteracy and needless death.

 

It's like, people have an idea that their side has to be 100% perfect or else there may as well be 0 redeeming qualities to it, and that's just not how living works, otherwise we wouldn't have international borders and various religions

No it's not. I don't consider Soviet troops who had loyalty to Communism and put down the Hungarian Revolution and the Prague Spring to be admirable. I don't consider Wehrmacht soldiers admirable. I consider Confederate soldiers to be at best(and this was the case I think for most of them) victims of an oligarchy, sent to the meat grinder so the rich didn't have to give up their slaves. They were pitiable, and individual soldiers might even have done admirable things unrelated to the cause they fought for. But there was nothing admirable about the act of fighting for the Confederacy.

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, Elieson said:

Perhaps it lies in the concept of "I'm proud to be a descendant of someone who fought for what they believed in. Even if I don't agree with it, that loyalty to a cause is still admirable in its own way, versus sitting on the sidelines and eating popcorn while doing nothing but watching other sides lash out each other." I read Sully's point as a sign of respect for drive and dedication, not as a sign of perpetuating slavery, illiteracy and needless death.

 

It's like, people have an idea that their side has to be 100% perfect or else there may as well be 0 redeeming qualities to it, and that's just not how living works, otherwise we wouldn't have international borders and various religions

...I mean I'm sure there were campguards at Aushwitz who believed in the cause, and did what they did with drive and dedication. You'd be hard-pressed to find a living German proud to be their descendants, or fighting to preserve their statues. 

Edited August 14, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[SullyMcGully]

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Why??? You generally don't see Germans running around going "I'm proud grandpa was a Nazi." they're proud to be German and they're proud of their history--the Vikings, the knights and castles, the monasteries and beer halls. But they know not to be proud of that part of their history. Like--why do southerners have this ongoing, compulsive need to honor seditionists and slavers? 

Coincidentally, my great grandfather was a German soldier. He wasn't driven by patriotism or propaganda. He wasn't even German by birth - he had been forced to relocate to Germany from Hungary when the war began. He fought for his family. He was conscripted, and in order to feed and clothe his wife and children, he went to the front lines and fought his hardest. And while I certainly disapprove of the atrocities that Germany stood for, I am still proud of my great grandfather and what he did for his family.

Most wars aren't divided along clear moral lines. Like @Elieson said, if one side was obviously right and the other obviously wrong, then the wrong side wouldn't have many supporters. As many Americans are quick to forget, the Civil War was not a battle between the heroic, freedom-loving North and the racist, slaveholding South. Consider the following facts:

1: While at the time of the Civil War, slaves primarily worked in the South, they were often imported by Northern ships.

2: Slavery was not abolished in the North until the war was already half over, and even then it is speculated that it was simply a political move on Lincoln's part.

3: Only 32% of Southerners owned slaves. Most of those owned very few slaves, with a much smaller percentage actually owning plantations.

4: Following emancipation, blacks in the Union Army received very discriminatory treatment.

5: For years after the Civil War ended, children in major cities all across New England were put to work in conditions that made many Southern plantations look like tropical paradises.

While slavery played a large role in the South's decision to secede, it was not the reason the war began. The war began over the question of whether or not a state has the right to leave the Union, a question that was settled with the lives of 620,000 men. It was a tragic event where both sides lost. The South simply lost worst. With the proper diplomatic measures, it probably could have been avoided altogether.

People like Robert E. Lee, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, or my own ancestors didn't start the war. Hotheaded radicals and greedy politicians did. Once the war began, however, people were forced to choose a side. We often forget, living in a post-Civil War world, that in the 1860s one's state determined their loyalty more than their nation. Lee and Jackson sided with their state, knowing full well that they would probably lose the war. They fought for what they believed in, regardless of the consequences. I find that to be an admirable quality.

If your expecting to find saints on a battlefield, you're looking in the wrong place. Every side has issues. The winner writes the history books. I take pride in my Confederate ancestors, even if their side was pro-slavery, because they weren't fighting for slavery. They were fighting for their families and their homes. They were fighting for Virginia.

Well, that was lengthy and off-topic. I believe that I have cleared my name adequately, so we can continue focusing our interests on the subject at hand.

[DarkDestr0yer61]

3 hours ago, Elieson said:

Perhaps it lies in the concept of "I'm proud to be a descendant of someone who fought for what they believed in. Even if I don't agree with it, that loyalty to a cause is still admirable in its own way, versus sitting on the sidelines and eating popcorn while doing nothing but watching other sides lash out each other."

That's a....... poor way of thinking. Even if there is something to be admired from someone who "stands up for their beliefs"... you probably shouldn't be a proud to be a descendant of someone who is literally a nazi or shares other toxic ideology regardless if they "stood up for their beliefs".

 

Don't blindly admire someone just because they are blood. (Not saying that is what you are trying to say exactly, but I feel it is something people need to think about

[Tetragrammaton]

55 minutes ago, DarkDestr0yer61 said:

That's a....... poor way of thinking. Even if there is something to be admired from someone who "stands up for their beliefs"... you probably shouldn't be a proud to be a descendant of someone who is literally a nazi or shares other toxic ideology regardless if they "stood up for their beliefs".

 

Don't blindly admire someone just because they are blood. (Not saying that is what you are trying to say exactly, but I feel it is something people need to think about

That's the reason why the man who pushed the button to drop a nuclear bomb loved his act, and the family are proud of that genocide act.

Edited August 14, 2017 by hanhnn

[Ein]

The initial protest was going to be conducted over the cities move to remove the Robert E. Lee statue. The Unite The Right people got permission for their rally but the permission was revoked due it causing undue strain to the police force. A judge overturned that ruling allowing them to continue with the rally because their right to rally was not to be taken away.

A counter protest, with Antifa in it, formed and it seems that they initiated the violence but it is unclear who did. Regardless many were injured, a woman was killed during the car incident as well as a helicopter crashing killing both occupants.

What is really telling is how the police were not there in the first place to quell the counter protest. This whole having police standing down is causing so many problem as they are not being allowed to actually conduct their duty to protect and uphold the law and peace. One report stated that they were not there due to the armed militia in the rally despite no gun shots being fired. Having police stand down appears to be a common tactic as seen in UC Berkeley.

Seeing as how the mayor, and many others, was very quick to denounce the far-right/alt-right/whatever protest but was unwilling to denounce the violence by the left and Antifa is becoming a greater and greater worrying concern to me as this rise in aggression in violence will only continue.

The mayor will also have two Confederate statues, including the Robert E. Lee statue, taken down which will only validate the far right so this is either an act of ignorance of why they were rallying in the first place or they simply want to virtue signal to the constituents he believes are on his side.

Just a few moments ago a Confederate statue in Durham, North Carolina was toppled in a protest that was formed to counter what had happened in Charleston.

I've seen many people state how supposed Nazi/Neo-Nazi/White Supremacists/White Nationalists do not deserve a platform and the right to free speech but such a notion runs counter to what the 1st Amendment stand for. If the speech of the individual or group is stifled then no one should have. All speech is free speech and should be treated as such regardless of the person or group or what said speech even states. Just because you do not agree with what is being said DOES NOT allow one to enact violence upon them.

[Lord Raven]

25 minutes ago, Ein said:

The initial protest was going to be conducted over the cities move to remove the Robert E. Lee statue. The Unite The Right people got permission for their rally but the permission was revoked due it causing undue strain to the police force. A judge overturned that ruling allowing them to continue with the rally because their right to rally was not to be taken away.

A counter protest, with Antifa in it, formed and it seems that they initiated the violence but it is unclear who did. Regardless many were injured, a woman was killed during the car incident as well as a helicopter crashing killing both occupants.

What is really telling is how the police were not there in the first place to quell the counter protest. This whole having police standing down is causing so many problem as they are not being allowed to actually conduct their duty to protect and uphold the law and peace. One report stated that they were not there due to the armed militia in the rally despite no gun shots being fired. Having police stand down appears to be a common tactic as seen in UC Berkeley.

Seeing as how the mayor, and many others, was very quick to denounce the far-right/alt-right/whatever protest but was unwilling to denounce the violence by the left and Antifa is becoming a greater and greater worrying concern to me as this rise in aggression in violence will only continue.

The mayor will also have two Confederate statues, including the Robert E. Lee statue, taken down which will only validate the far right so this is either an act of ignorance of why they were rallying in the first place or they simply want to virtue signal to the constituents he believes are on his side.

Just a few moments ago a Confederate statue in Durham, North Carolina was toppled in a protest that was formed to counter what had happened in Charleston.

I've seen many people state how supposed Nazi/Neo-Nazi/White Supremacists/White Nationalists do not deserve a platform and the right to free speech but such a notion runs counter to what the 1st Amendment stand for. If the speech of the individual or group is stifled then no one should have. All speech is free speech and should be treated as such regardless of the person or group or what said speech even states. Just because you do not agree with what is being said DOES NOT allow one to enact violence upon them.

ah but which side actually killed someone in this riot???

and which side advocates for ethnic cleansing and genocide???

oh who am i kidding you soapbox on SD anyway

3 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

snip

If the Civil War was not fought over slavery then what was it fought over?

I think you're believing the Civil War is a "War of Northern Aggression," which is still incorrect. The South seceded because Lincoln sought not to extend the influence of slavery and because the soon-to-be-confederate states hated Lincoln to the point where his name wasn't even on southern ballots at the time.

Here's a long history on the complicated politics behind it. Even if "only" 32% of people in the south owned slaves, consider how many people did want to own slaves and did see blacks as lesser people and join the upper and middle classes so they could do it. I'm not saying your ancestors were necessarily pro-slavery (though, it's likely they were) but "just following orders" means that it's more of a black mark. It's a case of being proud of your troops but not the war; taking pride in the confederate ancestry is a really weird and incredible awful way to word it, but being proud to be from a military background seems much more rational.

I mean, you can argue that this is a concern about wording, but being proud of a confederate ancestry is not at all what you were actually talking about, because the confederacy stood for white supremacy when all was said and done.

[Nobody]

52 minutes ago, Ein said:

The mayor will also have two Confederate statues, including the Robert E. Lee statue, taken down which will only validate the far right

This makes no sense. The far right wanted the statues to stay. They would have been validated if the mayor had backed down on his decision because of the far right protest. If anything, the mayor showed the far right that their opinion has no influence on his decision.

Charlottesville is a very blue city (79% dem vs 13% gop last election). I'm willing to bet a huge majority of the population supports the mayor's decision, specially after this incident. The mayor governs to his city, not a bunch of bigots that don't even live there.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Nobody

[Time the Crestfallen]

1 hour ago, Ein said:

A counter protest, with Antifa in it, formed and it seems that they initiated the violence but it is unclear who did. Regardless many were injured, a woman was killed during the car incident as well as a helicopter crashing killing both occupants.

So it's unclear who started the violence, but it seems like Antifa did? On what basis do you say that? Because by all indications it was the Neo-Nazis who initiated the violence.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/14/16143168/charlottesville-va-protests
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/charlottesville-far-right-crowd-with-torches-encircles-counter-protest-group

1 hour ago, Ein said:

What is really telling is how the police were not there in the first place to quell the counter protest. This whole having police standing down is causing so many problem as they are not being allowed to actually conduct their duty to protect and uphold the law and peace. One report stated that they were not there due to the armed militia in the rally despite no gun shots being fired. Having police stand down appears to be a common tactic as seen in UC Berkeley.

Why should the police have quelled the counter-protest? If they're not going to stop Neo-Nazis and KKK members marching down the streets brandishing Tiki torches, dressed with Swastikas and Confederate flags and verbally harassing people, I see no reason to go after the much less aggressive counter-protesters.

1 hour ago, Ein said:

Seeing as how the mayor, and many others, was very quick to denounce the far-right/alt-right/whatever protest but was unwilling to denounce the violence by the left and Antifa is becoming a greater and greater worrying concern to me as this rise in aggression in violence will only continue.

So a literal Neo-Nazi murders a person and injures many more in a terrorist incident at a far-right demonstration, and you're upset that people aren't blaming both sides?

1 hour ago, Ein said:

The mayor will also have two Confederate statues, including the Robert E. Lee statue, taken down which will only validate the far right so this is either an act of ignorance of why they were rallying in the first place or they simply want to virtue signal to the constituents he believes are on his side.

It's already been stated above that leaving the statues up does more to validate the Alt-Right then taking them down. Secondly, it may have started as being about the statues, but it very quickly became about white supremacy and fascism. They were chanting Nazi slogans after all.

1 hour ago, Ein said:

I've seen many people state how supposed Nazi/Neo-Nazi/White Supremacists/White Nationalists do not deserve a platform and the right to free speech but such a notion runs counter to what the 1st Amendment stand for. If the speech of the individual or group is stifled then no one should have. All speech is free speech and should be treated as such regardless of the person or group or what said speech even states. Just because you do not agree with what is being said DOES NOT allow one to enact violence upon them.

Wrong; even in the US, some things are not protected by Free Speech.

Regardless, the major point isn't that they should have no platform, but that they shouldn't be tolerated. Expecting someone to treat advocacy for racial superiority, the establishment of an enthno-nationalist state and ethnic cleansing as just another opinion and worthy of debate is foolish. Freedom of Speech ≠ Freedom from Criticism and Contempt

[Time the Crestfallen]

14 minutes ago, Sage of Ylisse said:

<snip>

So you felt the need to post this in a thread where the subject matter is a white nationalist/supremacist demonstration where a literal Neo-Nazi murdered someone in  an act of domestic terrorism.

Okay then.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Mortarion

[Sage of Ylisse]

2 minutes ago, Mortarion said:

So you felt the need to post this, in a thread where the subject matter is a white nationalist/supremacist demonstration where a literal Neo-Nazi murdered someone in  an act of domestic terrorism.

Cute.

While I'm not saying what happened wasn't bad, It was fucking tiring to hear a bunch of fucking whinging about it. I am for the first amendment. I may not agree with supremacists at all, But I still at least believe they should be given a platform so they can be debunked. To censor their speech makes it taboo and more intriguing.

[Hardin]

A person is dead, and your're tired about hearing about it? Please try to have some perspective. 

[Nobody]

39 minutes ago, Sage of Ylisse said:

While I'm not saying what happened wasn't bad, It was fucking tiring to hear a bunch of fucking whinging about it. I am for the first amendment. I may not agree with supremacists at all, But I still at least believe they should be given a platform so they can be debunked. To censor their speech makes it taboo and more intriguing.

No one forced you to enter this thread.

Also, that's not true. Germany has way less problems with neo nazis than America and they have a zero tolerance policy on it.

I recommend this read:

https://www.economist.com/blogs/kaffeeklatsch/2017/08/charlottesville-context

Edited August 15, 2017 by Nobody
typos

[epilepsyduck]

I'm really glad so many of you spineless shits have decided to take this genuinely terrifying and evil thing these white supremacists have done, and turned it around to make it about... some blatantly wrong definition of freedom of speech? Pitiful attempts to remain neutral by whining about "both sides"? Defending "Southern pride" or whatever stupid bullshit? General apathy and getting mad at people who actually care? Honestly, this is exactly the kind of attitude that helped galvanize these people into doing things like this in the first place. Stop treating Nazis like they're just some petty annoyance and start realizing that just because they don't threaten you doesn't mean they aren't dangerous.

[Res]

I mean even if you want to consider it 'whinging' (which it's not) is there anything better to whinge about than murderous Nazis? If that's not worthy of people's contempt then what on earth is?!