Jump to content

The Impeachment of Trump?


Airbrush
 Share

Recommended Posts

I find attempts to rationalize the purpose of such protests to be a passive defense for neo-Nazis white supremacists. As we have seen in recent years from the protests over the Confederate flag in South Carolina to what we saw over the weekend it is Nazi hate groups that show up in solidarity with Confederate history.  There are not large groups of non-extremists out protesting to keep Confederate monuments. It is repeatedly hate groups carrying swastikas. Many people attempt to side with the group of sensible protesters who aren't bigots and just want to preserve history. Problem is that group of protesters doesn't exist. By making them up are a device one can defend the monuments behind all one is doing is passively saying the Nazis have a point. 

 

Free speech is free speech. Nazis can protest. If one agrees with the point Nazi protesters are making they should have the courage to say so and not pretend they agree with some non-Nazi pro Confederate protesters which don't actually exist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe war hero was the wrong choice of words, but he was an integral, if not major, part of US history.
You can't take down a statue and 'remove' him from that history.
Just like you can't ban/censor previously produced works of literature because they offend modern sensibilities.

And geordief, are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with a certain ideology should have his rights removed ?
How very Nazi of you.
( no, I don't downvote for opposing viewpoints, nor do I call people dumb )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

How many people have died from gun crimes in America the same day the car was driven into the protesters.?

 

People who commit crimes with guns are aggressively pursued and prosecuted. Gun violence and what should be done about it is a top Political issue in every Election. To imply gun crimes aren't of national focus or require more focus than they get is simply wrong. Guns along with taxes and abortion are the Holy Trinity of national political focus. The attention these protests are getting will slow and eventually go away. Gun's aren't going anywhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

And geordief, are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with a certain ideology should have his rights removed ?
How very Nazi of you

Where did I say that?  (and what "certain ideology " do you mean?

Edited by geordief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do the people interviewed in this documentary sound like their primary motivation was defending a Southern War Hero's statue: 

 

 

What "Southern heritage" apparently looks like:

nazis.jpg

It's all equivocation meant to provide cover for Nazis. Full stop.

Edited by Delta1212
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

Maybe war hero was the wrong choice of words, but he was an integral, if not major, part of US history.
You can't take down a statue and 'remove' him from that history.
Just like you can't ban/censor previously produced works of literature because they offend modern sensibilities.

And geordief, are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with a certain ideology should have his rights removed ?
How very Nazi of you.
( no, I don't downvote for opposing viewpoints, nor do I call people dumb )

Every wartime nemesis of the U.S. is part of our history. Which others are venerated? Should we have a monument to Emperor Hirohito at Pearl Harbor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

Maybe war hero was the wrong choice of words, but he was an integral, if not major, part of US history.
You can't take down a statue and 'remove' him from that history.
Just like you can't ban/censor previously produced works of literature because they offend modern sensibilities.

And geordief, are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with a certain ideology should have his rights removed ?
How very Nazi of you.
( no, I don't downvote for opposing viewpoints, nor do I call people dumb )

 

You can teach history without erecting monuments to people who should not be celebrated.

 

Stick it in a museum. Maybe a historical battlefield. There are places to teach history and places to celebrate history. And some history belongs exclusively in the "teaching" circle of that particular Venn diagram.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that Delta, is an opinion.
Some of those people had differing opinions, and are most certainly allowed to voice that opinion vithout the fear of violence.
Violence which was apparent on both sides.
Not ALL protesters were Nazis, and it is wrong to characterize them as such because of the reprehensible actions of a few.
( and I addressed that in my first post on the matter )

@ geordief

It already is apparent.
Unfortunately it makes YOU look bad.
(no-one has had to 'rescue' my rep points )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, geordief said:

I don't think they came to protest (unless one is naive). They came as a show of strength and find support in numbers. (are you so dumb?) Apparently they had  metal under their gloves and we all saw the heavy weaponry they were carrying as their latest fashion statement.

 

Their slogans were incitements to violence which decent people  hoped never to hear again. 

 

And by the way do we not know who the Nazis were?What they have done in recent history.?

Oh ,not to forget that they support Trump  which on its own is hardly a character reference.

 

 

Someone downvoted me .I wonder why.

It was my down vote. MigL raised the issue of whether we were treating both sides in a fair manner, which in my mind is always a good check. To suggest he is 'dumb' for doing so is not acceptable, and an indication that perhaps you are indeed being biased.

I was surprised someone voted it back up.

42 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Every wartime nemesis of the U.S. is part of our history. Which others are venerated? Should we have a monument to Emperor Hirohito at Pearl Harbor?

I imagine there are monuments to Hirohito in Japan. You seem to be forgetting that the South was also part of the U.S. Should the 'South' accept monuments to Grant in the North? Certainly the behavior of many Northern soldiers left much to be desired.

Edited by zapatos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I will only say this once ( mostly because this thread is about the impeachment of D Trump )...
iNow made the point that if it was a middle Eastern type driving the car, people's perception would be vastly different.
Yes it would. Most of you guys would be bending over backwards explaining that all Muslims are not like that, only a few radicalized ones, and the chances of that type of violence affecting you, personally, are very slim.
How is that different from the protest ?

4

The main difference is that they were all there due to racism and bigotry, which is not an attribute of all muslims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, zapatos said:

It was my down vote. MigL raised the issue of whether we were treating both sides in a fair manner, which in my mind is always a good check. To suggest he is 'dumb' for doing so is not acceptable, and an indication that perhaps you are indeed being biased.

I was asking/suggesting he /anyone was dumb enough to believe those Neo Nazi groups came to protest against the removal of the statue .It was and is a pretext to find an issue to rally around  and show their brute force (as they admit)

Still ,if the cap fits.

 

btw to be biased against neo Nazi groups is not a characterization that offends me.

 

Edited by geordief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, geordief said:

I was asking/suggesting he /anyone was dumb enough to believe those Neo Nazi groups came to protest against the removal of the statue .It was and is a pretext to find an issue to rally around  and show their brute force (as they admit)

Still ,if the cap fits.

 

And you double down. Trump would be proud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, geordief said:

I was asking/suggesting he /anyone was dumb enough to believe those Neo Nazi groups came to protest against the removal of the statue .It was and is a pretext to find an issue to rally around  and show their brute force (as they admit)

Still ,if the cap fits.

2

For some maybe, but you can't possibly know they ALL intended violence, whatever they believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

For some maybe, but you can't possibly know they ALL intended violence, whatever they believe.

Don't know who would suggest that (Trump raised the suggestion ,for what reason I am not sure -strawman?)

In any case their creed is a violent creed per se..

15 minutes ago, zapatos said:

And you double down. Trump would be proud.

Join the line of those who haven't actually addressed my points .I am done with arguing with you.

Edited by geordief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, geordief said:

Don't know who would suggest that 

 

I did.

Just now, geordief said:

(Trump raised the suggestion ,for what reason I am not sure -strawman?)

Trump has political reasons.

Just now, geordief said:

In any case their creed is a violent creed per se..

No, it's racist and bigoted but not ALL are violent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I did.

Trump has political reasons.

No, it's racist and bigoted but not ALL are violent. 

You literally cannot separate the one from its consequences. You cannot say "I non-violently believe that all Jews, blacks and gays should be forcibly removed, subjugated or executed."

 

i do not advocate meeting such speech with violence, but I refuse to ignore that there is a level of violence in such beliefs that cannot be extricated from them regardless of whether the person espousing them is in the process of committing physical violence or not. It is always, at a minimum, incitement to violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Maybe war hero was the wrong choice of words, but he was an integral, if not major, part of US history.
You can't take down a statue and 'remove' him from that history.
Just like you can't ban/censor previously produced works of literature because they offend modern sensibilities.

And geordief, are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with a certain ideology should have his rights removed ?
How very Nazi of you.
( no, I don't downvote for opposing viewpoints, nor do I call people dumb )

A few things to consider. On of course being that Lee was on the the side opposing the Union and as such could be considered a traitor. A statue glorifying him uncritically (or at least not providing critical insights into his role)  is problematic, and a removal of said statue is not the same as removing from history. Moreover the whole issue of "Confederacy Pride" is heavily soaked in resentments and, believe it or not, racism. Many of those monuments were created during the Jim Crow years and are strongly associated with efforts to subdue blacks.

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

And that Delta, is an opinion.
Some of those people had differing opinions, and are most certainly allowed to voice that opinion vithout the fear of violence.
Violence which was apparent on both sides.
Not ALL protesters were Nazis, and it is wrong to characterize them as such because of the reprehensible actions of a few.
( and I addressed that in my first post on the matter )

@ geordief

It already is apparent.
Unfortunately it makes YOU look bad.
(no-one has had to 'rescue' my rep points )

 

The not all protesters thing is a bit difficult when applied to this particular rally (unless you mean protests against statue removal in general). However if people are fine marching next to guys with Swastika flags and tattoos one should at least question one's company. Also note that the rally was organized by well-known supremacists.

It is not to say that they have no right to protest, after all at least then they are all in the open. But I have a big problem with your characterization of that group and the comparison of e.g. Muslims. Where in the US have there been hundreds of Muslims on the street chanting Jihadists verses? 

MigL I generally like you posts and I understand that you sometimes like to get a rise out of folks, but really if you have people running around in Nazi paraphernalia chanting Nazi verses evoking all the images of Fackelzuege and then equivocate excusing them with the "not all Muslims trope?" These guys are just as far off as extremist Muslims and you cannot equivocate them with the average white guy nor the average Muslim. I would be terribly disappointed if you really want to make the point that an assembly of self-proclaimed supremacists requires should be compared to a mainstream religion rather than the fanatic fringes.

 

Edited by CharonY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, MigL said:

Some of those people had differing opinions, and are most certainly allowed to voice that opinion vithout the fear of violence.
Violence which was apparent on both sides.

Nazism is hate speech. Period. People are arrested and convicted for it all the time.

This whole "some of those people" appears little more than a veiled racist rant in it itself. Who are these so-called people? Blacks? Muslims? Liberals? I'll remind you this is a science forum, where you're expected to substantiate your claims. Can you name even one these upstanding neo-nazi citizens you so adamantly defend? Show me one example of how anyone this group improves the quality of life for everyone.

Nazism was ended by violence, because that's all they understood. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Delta1212 said:

You literally cannot separate the one from its consequences. You cannot say "I non-violently believe that all Jews, blacks and gays should be forcibly removed, subjugated or executed."

 

i do not advocate meeting such speech with violence, but I refuse to ignore that there is a level of violence in such beliefs that cannot be extricated from them regardless of whether the person espousing them is in the process of committing physical violence or not. It is always, at a minimum, incitement to violence.

A belief in and of itself is not nor does it always incite violence, for instance, I can hate my neighbour's  belief without expressing it violently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

No, it's racist and bigoted but not ALL are violent. 

The ideology itself is violent. After all, if you desire race purity, if you believe that your race is threatened by an obscure genocide (which implies that the others are mortal danger), when you think that the others are worth less than yourself... What do you think the endgame is? Respectful disagreement? I am not saying their mind cannot be changed to some degree (there was a great documentary about a Davis, black Musician who befriended KKK members, who subsequently left the movement. But if they follow their logic to the end, there is little reason to believe that there is not readiness for violence. After all, their view of their own plight is so dire, the end clearly justifies the means> And we quite a few historic examples to get a glimpse at the end...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CharonY said:

The ideology itself is violent. After all, if you desire race purity, if you believe that your race is threatened by an obscure genocide (which implies that the others are mortal danger), when you think that the others are worth less than yourself... What do you think the endgame is? Respectful disagreement? I am not saying their mind cannot be changed to some degree (there was a great documentary about a Davis, black Musician who befriended KKK members, who subsequently left the movement. But if they follow their logic to the end, there is little reason to believe that there is not readiness for violence. After all, their view of their own plight is so dire, the end clearly justifies the means> And we quite a few historic examples to get a glimpse at the end...

I fundamentally agree but there's a difference between a belief and intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.