Right-wing vs. Left-wing Clashes [MOD NOTE POST #1]

Samaris

While I agree with your general thrust of argument, wonderfullife, and I certainly agree that retweeting the views of racist bigots and then hiding behind innocent "I only retweeted it" is a coward's argument, I for one am uneasy about linking a twitter profile with identifying information in it. Even if they do retweet white supremacist nonsense, it's not right to essentially out them on an anonymous internet forum.

I think most of us have seen their level of argument and deflection (and I was never particularly convinced by the claims of neutrality, all things considered!), but linking to RL info in any way is not a good thing to do - and referencing ways to identify them gives me a deeply uneasy feeling.

Asking as fellow poster and commentator if you would consider removing the twitter link.

wonderfullife

Samaris wrote: »

While I agree with your general thrust of argument, wonderfullife, and I certainly agree that retweeting the views of racist bigots and then hiding behind innocent "I only retweeted it" is a coward's argument, I for one am uneasy about linking a twitter profile with identifying information in it. Even if they do retweet white supremacist nonsense, it's not right to essentially out them on an anonymous internet forum.

I think most of us have seen their level of argument and deflection (and I was never particularly convinced by the claims of neutrality, all things considered!), but linking to RL info in any way is not a good thing to do - and referencing ways to identify them gives me a deeply uneasy feeling.

Asking as fellow poster and commentator if you would consider removing the twitter link.

His twitter profile is publicly accessible and he has posted from his twitter profile on to Boards in the past. It's not my problem what he posts on his public twitter feed.

Look I'll delete whatever out of respect for you but he quoted me on lots of the posts so he'll have to do the same.

Edit - I removed every single link to his twitter and location but (again) it was a public twitter profile I didn't have to Sherlock Holmes to find it.

Tony EH

Samaris wrote: »

Yes, sometimes it should be, when symbols of its power are left to become symbols of a new generation with the same ideals as the old one. That is why the statues of dictators are famously toppled when the regime falls. It is a symbol of a new dawn without the evils of the past.

It should not be forgotten, quite, but there is a clear line between remembering the past and idolising it.

Personally, I think the statute should remain, although my politics would be different from those rallying around it and those of a certain mindset on this thread who most are familiar with. I find it particularly sad that it's a kicking off point for two groups of political idealogues.

When you start whitewashing the historical record, nobody wins.

Plus, and this is the important part, who gets to be the arbiter of what statutes stand and which ones fall? And what should be the meter for that arbitration?

There are statues to Arthur Harris and Winston Churchill in Britain, one of whom murdered hundreds of thousands while in charge of Bomber Command and the other who had very dubious views on races oither than his own. Should they be toppled? There's a monument to the extermination of Dacia standing in Trajan's forum in Rome. Should we knock that down?

Where does one draw the ine and who gets to draw that line?

Also, Lee wasn't a dictator. He was one of the greatest military leaders of the time and recognised as such by both sides. He, no doubt, held some views we would consider awful today. But, he was very much a product of his time and his views would have been shared by plenty of his enemies as aswell.

Statues act as reminders. They don't have to be an idolisation or a celebration and sometimes it's good for a nation to reminded of its dubious past as to not forget it, in favour of some happy clappy myth. Something which far too many Americans, in particular, are want to do.

wonderfullife

I'm not going to post in here for a while. I suppose it was a bad idea watching videos of the car ploughing into that poor girl so I might have been too emotional. I think the overall point I made about anonymity and spreading hatred was a fair one but on the other hand I could have made the point without directing it at Kira.

Mr. Kira sorry.

I won't post again in the thread. Good luck.

CosmicJay

Having read this entire thread from the start, I note numerous posters who posted in recent Islamic Terror attack threads and kept saying;

'How do we know the terrorist was a muslim'

'Asian suspect'

'How do we know its terror related'

'Don't jump to conclusions the facts aren't in'

These same people have posted in this thread going WHITESUPREMACIST RACIST TRUMP KKK TERRORIST REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

Its basically all the same sh*ite at this stage.

super_furry

Well you see, we know the terrorist in this case was a Neo-Nazi alt-righter because he was marching with the Neo-Nazi alt-right in their Neo-Nazi alt-right march. It's pretty straight-forward actually.

CosmicJay

super_furry wrote: »

Well you see, we know the terrorist in this case was a Neo-Nazi alt-righter because he was marching with the Neo-Nazi alt-right in their Neo-Nazi alt-right march. It's pretty straight-forward actually.

Ah so its pretty straight forward when a bomb blast or a ram or knife attack happens in London its a muslim.

Right, no other normal people were in Charlottsville on that day, gotcha.

Danzy

B0jangles wrote: »

Retweeting neo-nazis and white supremacists is a FAR more direct and efficient way of raising their profile than punching them.

People like Spencer have a tiny Social Media and a tiny band of activists behind them, tiny even by the standards of a small country like Ireland, never mind America with its 300 + million.

That punch made him known to hundreds of millions, it was the best day he ever had, just so some college kid could get their rocks off playing revolution.

Maybe the person who did it was a supporter of Spencer, that wouldn't surprise one either.

The Legend Of Kira

B0jangles wrote: »

Retweeting neo-nazis and white supremacists is a FAR more direct and efficient way of raising their profile than punching them.

What gets someone more publicity attacking them thus giving them media coverage or 1 retweet about inauguration day violence ? Ill frame things in another way in the past some people involved with smaller poiitical parties got attacked + meetings disrupted ' the end result was instead of a speaking to people at the venue they got national media coverage interviwed on multiple radio stations thus increasing his public profile even more .

super_furry

CosmicJay wrote: »

Ah so its pretty straight forward when a bomb blast or a ram or knife attack happens in London its a muslim.

Right, no other normal people were in Charlottsville on that day, gotcha.

If a terrorist is pictured marching alongside alt-right Neo-Nazis and then proceeds to drive a car into a crowd of people protesting this alt-right Neo-Nazi march, then, yes - it's pretty straight forward.

Not sure what you're having trouble understanding really.

The Legend Of Kira

Danzy wrote: »

People like Spencer have a tiny Social Media and a tiny band of activists behind them, tiny even by the standards of a small country like Ireland, never mind America with its 300 + million.

That punch made him known to hundreds of millions, it was the best day he ever had, just so some college kid could get their rocks off playing revolution.

Maybe the person who did it was a supporter of Spencer, that wouldn't surprise one either.

+1 i only heard of the fellow back in January after it was in the news. To use a phrase controversy creates interest ; when something is of interest it gets reported on in the media .

CosmicJay

super_furry wrote: »

If a terrorist is pictured marching alongside alt-right Neo-Nazis and then proceeds to drive a car into a crowd of people protesting this alt-right Neo-Nazi march, then, yes - it's pretty straight forward.

Not sure what you're having trouble understanding really.

Yeah but see most of those photos weren't out at the time people in this thread had their first spaz.

Look all I'm saying is that you're just as bad as the guy who goes DAMN MUSLIMS whenever something blows up.

super_furry

CosmicJay wrote: »

Yeah but see most of those photos weren't out at the time people in this thread had their first spaz.

Look all I'm saying is that you're just as bad as the guy who goes DAMN MUSLIMS whenever something blows up.

Nope, you're still not making sense I'm afraid. You see a group of people protesting a particular alt-right Neo-Nazi march were targeted and murdered specifically by someone who was involved in this alt-right Neo-Nazi march. He was then apprehended minutes later and it was clear exactly what had happened.

This isn't something that happened in isolation and at no stage did it ever look like it was anything other than a targeted terrorist attack, targeting a specific group of people in a political attack.

Contrast that with the May incident in Times Square where a car drove into a crowd of people and one died. The instant reaction there was "blame the muslims", before police confirmed it wasn't a terrorist attack. At no stage was there ever any indication that there was a political or religious motive behind it.

Ronaldinho

Since when did counter-protests become a thing?

I don't have any time for nazism or 'white supremacists' but in the interests of freedom of speech I would let them have their march.

Let the Antifa do theirs the next day/week.

All of these showdowns between the two groups are just sowing even more polarization. I fear more and more people are going to be sucked into either one of the two extremes.

Danzy

Ronaldinho wrote: »

Since when did counter-protests become a thing?

I don't have any time for nazism or 'white supremacists' but in the interests of freedom of speech I would let them have their march.

Let the Antifa do theirs the next day/week.

All of these showdowns between the two groups are just sowing even more polarization. I fear more and more people are going to be sucked into either one of the two extremes.

Uniforms, flags, slogans, radical ideologies, them against the world, against evil, close knit groups that use their underground status as a bonding agent, a belief in the righteousness of their violence, violence as sanctifying, both sides admire people and carry symbols etc representing the most murderous regimes in history, both are obsessed with dictating to others what is right or wrong, having control over others.

Pick your tyrant side as they battle each other and do their level best to help each other grow by bigging up their opponents.

CosmicJay

super_furry wrote: »

Nope, you're still not making sense I'm afraid. You see a group of people protesting a particular alt-right Neo-Nazi march were targeted and murdered specifically by someone who was involved in this alt-right Neo-Nazi march. He was then apprehended minutes later and it was clear exactly what had happened.

This isn't something that happened in isolation and at no stage did it ever look like it was anything other than a targeted terrorist attack, targeting a specific group of people in a political attack.

Contrast that with the May incident in Times Square where a car drove into a crowd of people and one died. The instant reaction there was "blame the muslims", before police confirmed it wasn't a terrorist attack. At no stage was there ever any indication that there was a political or religious motive behind it.

Ah I think you just have yourself so idealogically invested in this you don't realise you're deluded.

You would have to prove intent for murder, as has been stated by the police they think that he was scared, you can see damage on the vehicle as it begins to run at protestors so most likely he was mobbed before the video kicks in.

The photos of him being involved in the rally only came out long after people like yourself had already cast their die.

So what I am asking is, when very little evidence had come out about this incident.

Why are you better than the other side when you do exactly the same thing?

Jump to conclusions when very little evidence is out.

You reference the times square accident, people jumped to conclusions just as you had jumped to conclusions.

Someone ploughed into some communists at a protest rally and you instantly call him a white neo Nazi supremacist, just like everyone calling that times square drive a muslim terrorist.

You are no different no matter how much you lie to yourself.

freedominacup

Inquitus wrote: »

I would disagree, Nazism and White Supremacism does not deserve a platform, and protesting to deny it one is both reasonable and to be expected in a decent society.

You probably consider yourself to have a liberal outlook.

super_furry

CosmicJay wrote: »

Ah I think you just have yourself so idealogically invested in this you don't realise you're deluded.

Hahaha, brilliant. You honestly, HONESTLY, see no difference between a car being driven deliberately and purposefully into a group of counter protesters after a heated day of rhetoric in a political flashpoint and a car veering off the road going into a random crowd of people?

No-one needed to wait and see what happened in Charlottesville. From the moment the car was driven into a crowded group of anti-fascist protesters and then reversed and attempted to flee, it was obvious what happened.

Danzy

freedominacup wrote: »

You probably consider yourself to have a liberal outlook.

The problems with No Platforming is it helps the other side grow and secondly the people usually behind it are often fans of ideologies and movements that have killed as many as the other side have, in some cases more, though not as clinically brutal.

Who could argue against No Platforming Communists, Maoists, Stalinists, Trots etc, the same logic applies, over a 100 million starved or shot in 30 years in just 2 countries alone. I don't support it though.

Another one is that the people who are doing it tend to be very righteous and absolutist in their thinking, and this is a real problem in America today, the list of people who are deemed fascist or racist etc is growing by the day and often for the most innocuous of reasons.

It is a powerful tool but it is used and abused by people who have more in common with John McQuaid than any one else.

One set of authoritarian control freaks over another and they both want conformity to their beliefs.

Billy Mays

CosmicJay wrote: »

Ah I think you just have yourself so idealogically invested in this you don't realise you're deluded.

You would have to prove intent for murder, as has been stated by the police they think that he was scared, you can see damage on the vehicle as it begins to run at protestors so most likely he was mobbed before the video kicks in.

The photos of him being involved in the rally only came out long after people like yourself had already cast their die.

So what I am asking is, when very little evidence had come out about this incident.

Why are you better than the other side when you do exactly the same thing?

Jump to conclusions when very little evidence is out.

You reference the times square accident, people jumped to conclusions just as you had jumped to conclusions.

Someone ploughed into some communists at a protest rally and you instantly call him a white neo Nazi supremacist, just like everyone calling that times square drive a muslim terrorist.

You are no different no matter how much you lie to yourself.

People who don't want Nazi and white supremacist scum marching through their town = communists

gussieg

What is so scary is how many people seem to be altright too and that's not alright.
Please for the love of God do not bring fascism and hatred back into fashion. We are a nation of survivors of hatred racism and oppression. Don't let what was done to us be done to others.
Wake up and somebody get those clowns out of office in the White House before they inadvertently or otherwise cause the apocalypse.

hatrickpatrick

wonderfullife wrote: »

Deep State-ism, anti-Clinton-ism while maintaining "i'm personally none of the above".

None of your post was addressed to me, but I want to jump in regardless:

I'd be fundamentally opposed to Clinton and her pseudo-liberal DINO ideology, does that make me a right wing fascist? I despise her because she's not left enough, specifically on human rights issues.

See, the thing is I guarantee your hate-filled twitter timeline would look very different without the cloak of anonymity. I guarantee if your employer (if you have one) saw your twitter timeline you'd be fired, if not I guarantee nobody sane in this country would employ you.

And you think that this is a good thing? That people can be persecuted and censored for their political beliefs?

What happens when your and my liberal ideology is in the minority, and we get punished for holding firm to it by being fired? It's not ok to fire somebody because of their politics, end of story. That constitutes an infringement upon freedom of opinion and freedom of expression.

If it were up to me alone people would lose their right to anonymity for posting half of the sickening stuff you're a fan of.

And who gets to decide what counts as an unacceptable opinion? You personally? The majority? Who? Because for the bajillionth time, there was a time in the very recent past in Ireland when we had institutions which locked up women for being too sexually expressive. Do you think this was ok, because the prevailing societal opinion at the time was social conservatism?

BabyCheeses

Billy Mays wrote: »

People who don't want Nazi and white supremacist scum marching through their town = communists

It's there go to at the moment. It's easy to spot their supporters, they all use the same language even when pretending to be neutral.

I'm sure many people in this thread have seen this already but it looks like our careful drivers are a fan of joining antifa to cause violence. No wonder they think everything is a false flag, they think others are just like them.

https://bbs.dailystormer.com/t/why-arent-we-infiltrating-antifa/128764

super_furry

BabyCheeses wrote: »

It's there go to at the moment. It's easy to spot their supporters, they all use the same language even when pretending to be neutral.

That and they've moved on from denying that they support white supremacists Nazis to asking, "well what's wrong with that?"

jooksavage

Presumably all those guys in their polo shirts think they look like modern storm troopers. They actually looked like chartered members of the Kip Appreciation Society.

super_furry

http://bnonews.com/news/index.php/news/id6332

"Internet hosting provider GoDaddy will ban The Daily Stormer after the prominent neo-Nazi website published an article that attacked the victim of Saturday's car-ramming attack at a protest in Charlottesville."

Again I see no problem with this. Having the right to 'free speech' does not mean you get to spread racism and hatred through someone else private platform.

BillyBobBS

gussieg wrote: »

What is so scary is how many people seem to be altright too and that's not alright.
Please for the love of God do not bring fascism and hatred back into fashion. We are a nation of survivors of hatred racism and oppression. Don't let what was done to us be done to others.
Wake up and somebody get those clowns out of office in the White House before they inadvertently or otherwise cause the apocalypse.

"Somebody get these clowns out of office"??

The president of the United States was democratically elected. He's going nowhere. I actually think people with opinions like that are as bad a problem as the "alt right" or the neo nazi's tbh...

Wanderer78

BillyBobBS wrote:

The president of the United States was democratically elected. He's going nowhere. I actually think people with opinions like that are as bad a problem as the "alt right" or the neo nazi's tbh...

I'd agree with Joe stigliz regarding the American political system, I.e. 'One dollar, one vote'!

Tony EH

super_furry wrote: »

http://bnonews.com/news/index.php/news/id6332

"Internet hosting provider GoDaddy will ban The Daily Stormer after the prominent neo-Nazi website published an article that attacked the victim of Saturday's car-ramming attack at a protest in Charlottesville."

Again I see no problem with this. Having the right to 'free speech' does not mean you get to spread racism and hatred through someone else private platform.

...Heather Heyer a "fat, childless 32-year-old slut." Sunday's article was widely condemned on social media and the link received more than 156,000 shares on Facebook alone.

"Despite feigned outrage by the media, most people are glad she is dead, as she is the definition of uselessness," Anglin wrote. "A 32-year-old woman without children is a burden on society and has no value. .. Childless women are black hole vortexes of public money and energy."

I believe that Free speech should be absolute. But, when your idea of free speech includes the disgusting things like the above you'll need to accept the consequences readily and I support GoDaddy's action.

Scumbag level opinion.

BillyBobBS

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I'd agree with Joe stigliz regarding the American political system, I.e. 'One dollar, one vote'!

I'd agree with the American constitution myself, one citizen one vote.

When people are more focused on being outraged at Trump because he supposedly didn't condemn this asshole enough (even though he was very clear is his condemnation) than being outraged at how a terrorist killed someone with a car then you know the agenda is strong.