REPORTER: Senator McCain said that the alt-right is behind these and he linked that same group to those that perpetrated the attack in Charlottesville.Define your terms — it's a way of slowing down an interlocutor who's letting labels do too much of the work. Trump combines the demand for a definition of one thing that is said with calling attention to what is unsaid: You've got a label for one side but not for the other side.
TRUMP: Well, I don’t know. I can’t tell you. I’m sure Senator McCain must know what he is talking about. When you say the alt-right. Define alt-right to me. You define it. Go ahead. No, define it for me. Come on. Let’s go.
REPORTER: Senator McCain defined them as the same group —
[cross talk]
TRUMP: What about the alt-left that came charging at — Excuse me — What about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt? [cross talk] Let me ask you this: What about the fact that they came charging, that they came charging with clubs in their hands swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do. So, you know, as far as I’m concerned, that was a horrible, horrible day.
Perhaps reacting to that demand for definition, the NYT has "Alt-Right, Alt-Left, Antifa: A Glossary of Extremist Language" (by Liam Stack).
First up is the definition of "Alt-Right," and I think this definition pushes the word into a much uglier zone than some of the people who have popularized the term deserve:
The “alt-right” is a racist, far-right movement based on an ideology of white nationalism and anti-Semitism. Many news organizations do not use the term, preferring terms like “white nationalism” and “far right.”The NYT cedes the term to Richard B. Spencer, calling him "a leader in the movement," and noting his definition: “identity politics for white people.”
Let's compare what Milo Yiannopoulos writes in his book "Dangerous":
When we published [“An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right" in March 2016], there had been little commentary, and no trace of an authoritative definition of the emerging alt-right. The media stuck to their usual hysterics that accompany the rise of any popular new right-wing movement.... [I]n its early days, the alt-right included a member base as diverse as disaffected Tea Party supporters and eighteen-year old meme addicts curious about a movement that defied so many taboos....That gives the history of the term and how it's changed over its brief lifespan, but it also verifies the NYT definition as the current definition.
The definition of alt-right has evolved since we penned our guide. White nationalists and Neo-Nazis took over, and people who initially enjoyed the label were being accused of sins they did not commit. This suited the media just fine... In effect, the extremist fringe of the alt-right and the leftist media worked together to define “alt-right” as something narrow and ugly, and entirely different from the broad, culturally libertarian movement Bokhari and I sketched out. This wanton virtue signaling was wholly unjust to young members of the movement who were flirting with dangerous imagery and boundary pushing....
Thanks to the willingness of old-school conservatives to march in lockstep with the mainstream media, the alt-right gradually came to be dominated not by friends of Pepe, but by actual white nationalists....
Let's move on to the NYT definition of "Alt-Left":
Researchers who study extremist groups in the United States say there is no such thing as the “alt-left.” Mark Pitcavage, an analyst at the Anti-Defamation League, said the word had been made up to create a false equivalence between the far right and “anything vaguely left-seeming that they didn’t like.”What's unorganic about the way the term arose? And why is Pitcavage the beginning and the end of the story of this word? Once we have left and right (terminology that goes back to the French Revolution), if you're going to put a prefix in front of one, it — organically! — suggests a corresponding prefix for the other, whether or not the people receiving the label enjoy its application to them.
Some centrist liberals have taken to using this term.
“It did not arise organically, and it refers to no actual group or movement or network,” Mr. Pitcavage said in an email. “It’s just a made-up epithet, similar to certain people calling any news they don’t like ‘fake news.’”
Notice how Trump introduced the word: "What about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right?" He's not accepting the organic quality of "alt-right," because he's distancing himself from the usage with "as you say." It's almost as though he's saying: Okay, if you're going to say "alt-right," I'm going to say "alt-left." (By the way, as Alt-house, I don't like the creeping pejorative nature of the prefix "alt-." Like I'm a very extreme house.)
The NYT piece proceeds to define "Alt-Light," which I'd never seen before. Is that organic? Is it sugar-free? Does it taste great or have fewer calories?
The “alt-light” comprises members of the far right who once fell under the “alt-right” umbrella but have since split from the group because, by and large, racism and anti-Semitism are not central to its far-right nationalist views, according to Ryan Lenz, the editor of Hatewatch, a publication of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Members of the alt-right mocked these dissidents as “the alt-light.”I see that there's a Wikipedia entry for "Alt-lite" ("also known as the 'alt-light'"). Excerpt:
“The alt-light is the alt-right without the racist overtones, but it is hard to differentiate it sometimes because you’re looking at people who sometimes dance between both camps,” he said.
Individuals associated with the alt-lite include Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos, Gavin McInnes, Mike Cernovich and Jack Posobiec. Many such figures who are now identified with the alt-lite were previously associated with a broader conception of the "alt-right."Hmm. I'm dubious. If you want to distance yourself from alt-right because it's been dragged into an ugly place, why would you want a label that sounds almost the same? I note that Milo doesn't use the term (either spelling) in his book. It has an off-taste to me. I'm going to say: unorganic.
Posts
713 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 713 Newer› Newest»The business leaders of America just told the president of America to 'go fuck himself' and you guys remain desperately clinging to the belief that nothing has changed.
Yeah, just like that "Business leader" of Google showed us what happens to anyone who speaks the truth that is not popular.
These very long comment threads got more and more deranged. I'm outta here.
" Meanwhile people eager to see a Big Turning Pint claim this is the BTP just like they claimed the BTP was both two months ago and two months before that."
Well, now that even the anti-Trump media has admitted that the Russian bullshit is bullshit, the Leftists need some other hope to cling to.
exiledonmainstreet said...
ARM has defended the antifas before.
Straight up lie.
"Straight up lie."
Nope. You claimed Milo and those who showed up in Berkeley to listen to him were asking for it. You were quite pleased that he wasn't allowed to speak.
That's defending and supporting the antifas and I'm sure I'm not the only one here who remembers it.
I can understand disagreeing with what Trump said.
But I don't get the universal media/left/McCain freakout. There is at least an argument to be made there.
And now to see people acting as if the anti-fa is the same as our WW2 vets? It's ridiculous. Why oversell their story?
ARM asserts: The middle class saw the videos of those events, nothing erases those videos. They are not having that crap in their neighborhood. I would like to see these lunatics try this in my neighborhood. Instead of a hundred people counter-protesting there would be thousands of people out on the streets.
I assume you mean the antifa rioters? Yes, they wouldn't last long in my neighborhood, either.
8/16/17, 1:47 PM
Which is why the antifas stick to rioting in blue cities and college towns like Charlottesville instead of confronting the deplorables in, say, rural Texas.
Matthew Sablan said...
There are three separate incidents.
Delusional. The same actors at all three events. The Friday night march was illegal and specifically designed to be intimidatory.
If these cocksuckers tried that in my neighborhood they would not have got off so easily after pulling that stunt. The middle class is done. The business leaders are done.
Time to pull the plug on Trump.
sunsong said...
[The strawman is your insistence criticizing fascists and well as white nationalists is inappropriate.]
Bull shit! I am saying there is no moral equivalence
I didn't assert there is a moral equivalence, I criticized both fascists and white nationalists. Somehow you concluded this is inappropriate but are now both denying that and relying on it to reach your conclusion that people criticizing fascists is wrong.
"And now to see people acting as if the anti-fa is the same as our WW2 vets?"
-- Co-opting virtue is a scoundrel's game. I also have seen people saying things like "Indiana Jones would punch Nazis," but at least he's fictional so they aren't disrespecting actual people by lumping him in with people who would threaten to beat innocent people if a parade they didn't like happened.
exiledonmainstreet said...
You claimed Milo and those who showed up in Berkeley to listen to him were asking for it
Straight up lie. I said Milo was a transparent provocateur, get a dictionary.
"The Friday night march was illegal and specifically designed to be intimidatory."
-- Which is true.
Just like the antifa and other violent counter protestors showing up with things ranging from clubs to acid, which they used to attempt to blind people.
*Which is the thing you deliberately are trying to avoid discussing by sandwiching it between the two events people agree were wrong.*
Let's bottom-line this shit: all the good people agree that communism and extreme Leftistm is more morally acceptable than fascism and extreme Rightism.
Violence in the name of extreme Leftism therefore can't be as bad as violence in the name of extreme Rightism.
If you're a law professor and you have a Nazi flag in your office you'll be fired the next day. If you're a law professor and you have a Commie flag in your office you'll have a long career. One is just acceptable and one isn't, ok? The people have spoken.
The Media isn't against violence. They're against the wrong kind of violence. The right kind of violence is ok--and that includes when good people riot (they just need "space to destroy"), when good people beat bad people in the streets, etc.
It's just childish to expect the Media and the good people here to agree with you that Antifa is as bad as the Unite the Right people. They're both violent, sure, but Antifa are good people--or at the very least are on the side of the good people and that means morally any actions they take are by definition better than any actions taken by bad people.
When good people rip down war memorials it's civil disobedience. When bad people legally march, or gather, or whatever, that's hate and must be condemned.
It's just who, whom. Good people vs. bad people. Look no deeper!
Alt-right folks (Volk?) are not a threat to our constitutional order. Leftists are.
Bull shit! I am saying there is no moral equivalence
Even if you believe that, who cares?
You don't have to be moral, in America, for your opinion to be legal, and your right to say it publicly defended.
If a really moral person and an amoral person get in a fight, there's still a fight. If the moral person hits the amoral person with a baseball bat first, he becomes just a little less moral.
MayBee said...
And now to see people acting as if the anti-fa is the same as our WW2 vets?
In Charlottesville there was very little of the anti-fa, the counter protesters were residents of the town - middle class white people who didn't want their neighborhood taken over by armed thugs.
"Alt-right folks (Volk?) are not a threat to our constitutional order."
-- I have no doubt if the Neo-Nazis had the level of support antifa have, they'd be just as large-scale of a problem. Whereas antifa has reach to be in multiple cities at a time, the Neo-Nazis... just don't have that. They've got to focus their assholery.
"In Charlottesville there was very little of the anti-fa, the counter protesters were residents of the town."
-- That's not what any report I've read has said.
exiledonmainstreet said...
Which is why the antifas stick to rioting in blue cities and college towns like Charlottesville instead of confronting the deplorables in, say, rural Texas.
What a sane person would conclude is that the anti-fa are reactionary rather than being deliberately provocative, unlike the fascists. They don't want to disrupt peaceful people in rural Texas. In fact they have never gone and disrupted the peaceful people of rural Texas.
Matthew Sablan said...
That's not what any report I've read has said.
Where was the woman who died from?
... One person isn't a majority of the protest.
In Charlottesville there was very little of the anti-fa, the counter protesters were residents of the town - middle class white people who didn't want their neighborhood taken over by armed thugs.
I don't know if that's true. I saw a guy in the aftermath who was interviewed- he had come from Washington to "counter protest". Was he the only guy from out of town? Seems doubtful. Especially since protesters (counter protesters!!) really seem to get around these days.
And I'm really not sure it matters. Whoever was there to cause trouble- with a bat, a flame throwing paint can, a bag of urine, a paint-filled balloon, lost some moral standing. If they went in peace and didn't hurt anyone, God Bless Them. They aren't being criticized.
That's right, MayBee. I may believe homosexual behavior [and adultery, for that matter] is immoral but that doesn't mean I don't think homosexuals should receive equal treatment under the law. I don't try to stop Gay Pride parades, as personally repugnant as some of them are to me. We are all sinners in the eyes of God. That's why...Christ.
It's just a matter of whose proverbial ox is being gored.
What a sane person would conclude is that the anti-fa are reactionary rather than being deliberately provocative, unlike the fascists.
Reactionary to Ben Shapiro?
What a sane person would conclude is that the anti-fa are reactionary rather than being deliberately provocative, unlike the fascists.
Ignoring ARM's pretending armed and masked people threatening and committing political violence are "anti" fascist how exactly does a group form and operate for years before the event they are supposedly reacting to?
They don't want to disrupt peaceful people in rural Texas. In fact they have never gone and disrupted the peaceful people of rural Texas.
But they did disrupt the the peaceful people of Portland.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/27/portland-rose-parade-canceled-after-antifascists-threaten-gop-marchers/?utm_term=.686ebd0ed601
Meathead - Archie Bunker
Lamont - Fred Sanford
Mistakes were made.
"If these cocksuckers tried that in my neighborhood they would not have got off so easily after pulling that stunt."
Ugh oh, tough guy AREasonableMan is coming out, starting with the homophobic slurs, and then probably building up to the transphobic ones. Let that be a warning to anyone coming to Farmingville, homophobic and transphobic bigotry awaits you if you try and get a permit and attempt to engage in first amendment protected activity he doesn't care for.
Matthew Sablan said...
... One person isn't a majority of the protest.
You can't even acknowledge the person who was murdered because it doesn't fit your narrative. It is grotesque.
We've talked about this here, right? About the anti-fa/counter protester beat people with a bike lock:
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/05/26/professor-suspected-in-berkeley-bike-lock-attack-arraigned-in-oakland-court/
Super moral high-groundy stuff.
You can't see how transparent you are? ROFL
That's some steel trap logic there! Asking you to summarize and argument you don't like is "transparent." It's only transparent because you know it's a trap because you can't do it, and you know it.
There have actually been social science experiments on this phenomenon:
Jonathon Haidt did some, he notice this, for example:
in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves “very liberal,” were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals.
In other words, you are far more "transparent" to us than we are to you.
"Alt-right folks (Volk?) are not a threat to our constitutional order. Leftists are."
How long until Althouse hillbillies are upgraded to Althouse Hillvolk?
"You can't even acknowledge the person who was murdered because it doesn't fit your narrative. It is grotesque."
-- We can, and have. You keep waving a bloody shirt everyone has acknowledged and using it to justify all sorts of things.
You cannot use one person to claim that a given group is actually a majority.
I wish Garage Mahal were still here, because I believe he counter-protested in Madison when the Fred Phelps gang came to town. And I'm pretty sure he held a sign and didn't bring a bat or a urine balloon with him.
The woman who died was from Charlottesville, and a Wobbly. The ones who were critically and seriously injured were (according to Jeet Heer of the New Republic) all Wobblies, IS, and DSA. Anyone who saw the video of the swarm of masked thugs smashing Fields' car with baseball bats immediately after the crash, and then getting run over when he backed up, knows that some of the most seriously injured are in fact violent Black Bloc thugs, already armed and disguised for combat. Why haven't we learned the names and home-towns of the injured? Most likely because they're not from Charlottesville and not peaceful kind-hearted protestors but violent thugs from out of town, possibly with long police records. I'm prepared to be proved wrong: who are the injured, where are they from, and why don't we already know?
MayBee said...
Whoever was there to cause trouble-
No. Middle class people are not going to put up with this shit in their neighborhoods. We are not having armed provocateurs with two small digit IQs prancing around our neighborhood in the middle of the night. It is not going to happen.
Business people are not going support a President who thinks these are good people. It's over, back up the truck. It was worth a shot but Trump has to go.
ARM says: " They don't want to disrupt peaceful people in rural Texas. In fact they have never gone and disrupted the peaceful people of rural Texas."
No, they don't do it because the peaceful people of rural Texas would shoot their asses full of holes if they tried to riot and beat people with bike locks.
Milo spoke at universities in the South and attracted few protesters and no violent ones. They had no problems with a flaming queen and nobody set any Starbucks on fire. That shows me that Southerners are more civilized than the residents of Berkeley and Chicago. It also shows that the antifas only go where they know they'll be protected by the authorities when they loot and rampage.
You can't even acknowledge the person who was murdered because it doesn't fit your narrative
You can't even acknowledge that the provocative demonstration was organized by an Occupy/Obama supporter, Democrat as of November 2016, who only went "White Supremacist" after "the resistance" was declared in January of 2017.
This whole thing was cooked up, like the Russian "collusion" phantasmagoria, by the left, because they needed it.
AReasonableMan said...
No. Middle class people are not going to put up with this shit in their neighborhoods. We are not having armed provocateurs with two small digit IQs prancing around our neighborhood in the middle of the night. It is not going to happen.
This is why people oppose the antifa as well as white supremacists. It's bizarre he can't get it.
AReasonableMan said...
MayBee said...
And now to see people acting as if the anti-fa is the same as our WW2 vets?
In Charlottesville there was very little of the anti-fa, the counter protesters were residents of the town - middle class white people who didn't want their neighborhood taken over by armed thugs.
8/16/17, 2:01 PM
LOL!
Sure they were! Hell just about every single middle class person I know has all black outfits with black face masks and has pepper-spray and chains and clubs and acid! Used a bunch of it at the last community back sale. LOL!
How many counter-protestors in the videos were wearing black clothing and hoods? What fraction were wearing everyday clothes?
exiledonmainstreet said...
No, they don't do it because the peaceful people of rural Texas would shoot their asses full of holes
Speaks for itself.
ARM, do you think people should just sit there and let themselves be beaten and their businesses be looted and burned?
I'm against political violence. I am not against the right to defend oneself against a mob of ugly thugs.
ARM: "It's over, back up the truck. It was worth a shot but Trump has to go."
Lol
Just like that, eh?
ARM does his best Sally Kohn impression and unfortunately for him it is spot on.
They took down Roger B. Taney's memorial in Baltimore last night.
General Washington better watch his ass.
In other words, I don't champion people who start violence. I champion their right to defensive themselves from those who do.
Another basic distinction that the idiot left just can't seem to grasp.
That's some steel trap logic there! Asking you to summarize and argument you don't like is "transparent."
Okay, for the sake of argument let's say this is a "good faith" request, as you put it.
Why do you want me to do this?
TIM IN VERMONT: Brookzene, why don't you take one of their arguments that you "don't like" and recap it for us, in summary, in your own words.
Normally, I don't go for "false flag" theories, but this time there is evidence.
Southern Poverty Law Center
Rumors abound on white nationalist forums that Kessler’s ideological pedigree before 2016 was less than pure and seem to point to involvement in the Occupy movement and past support for President Obama.
At one recent speech in favor of Charlottesville’s status as a sanctuary city,Kessler live-streamed himself as an attendee questioned him and apologized for an undisclosed spat during Kessler’s apparent involvement with Occupy. Kessler appeared visibly perturbed by the woman’s presence and reminders of their past association.
And there was an editor at CNN of the same name who was associated with the Occupy movement, to make it even funnier.
http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/2017/08/14/report-unite-the-right-organizer-jason-kessler-was-occupy-movement-obama-supporter-8-mos-ago/#sthash.vGxioJpK.dpbs
"ARM, do you think people should just sit there and let themselves be beaten and their businesses be looted and burned?"
Of course he doesn't.
He just thinks that people on YOUR side should.
ARM doesn't seem to realize that the percentage of obvious assholes on each side in Charlottesville proves just the opposite of what he thinks.
A large percentage of the pro-statue crowd were Nazis because thousands of pro-statue people canceled their plans to come when they heard the Nazis were coming. That's also why the anti-statue crowd was so much larger.
On the other hand, the peaceful townspeople and assembled clergymen of Charlottesville don't seem to have had any objection to sharing the streets with black-masked thugs carrying baseball bats, bottles of urine, whatever. They certainly didn't take any steps to separate themselves from them. It looks like a whole lot of lefties enjoy the smug feeling of being peaceful themselves, while acting as human shields and enabling their violent comrades to get away with their violence. And then gloating about it on Twitter afterwards: I've lost count of the number of ordinary decent academics on my Twitter feed who thinks it's hilarious to see a guy aiming an improvised flamethrower at a guy brandishing a Confederate flag.
Why do you want me to do this?
Maybe to actually learn what you are thinking, you know, advance understanding and brotherhood. And find out what you think conservatives believe. I have never seen a lefty do this, and I don't expect you to either, but I always ask.
Maybe Haidt's research that showed that liberals were unable to recapitulate conservative arguments, while conservatives had little trouble recapitulating liberal arguments if full of shit.
You are perfectly free, after laying out the conservative position you hate, to point out the flaws in the argument, it's fatal flaws. In fact I encourage it.
I watch CBS this morning. They can't report any of this in good faith, obviously. This morning they said Trump equated George Washington with Robert E Lee. As if they don't understand the point he was making, when you know they do.
"They took down Roger B. Taney's memorial in Baltimore last night."
Taney? Oh, yeah, that Democrat Justice who wrote the Dred Scott decision.
Maybe in another 150 years, they'll be dragging Blackmun's statue off a pedestal and pissing on it because of Roe v. Wade.
How many counter-protestors in the videos were wearing black clothing and hoods?
How many does it take to start a melee?
exiledonmainstreet said...
ARM, do you think people should just sit there and let themselves be beaten
So it is OK for Texans to shoot people not like them but not OK for middle class people from Charlottesville to protest against an illegal intimidatory display by dim-witted racist thugs from out of town?
As if they don't understand the point he was making, when you know they do. - MayBee.
No, they don't, see above, I will repeat it
in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves “very liberal,” were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals.
They can't understand us, so, to make themselves feel better, they tell themselves we are stupid. It's kind of pathetic, really.
Dr Weevil said...
the peaceful townspeople and assembled clergymen of Charlottesville
At least you have the honesty to admit who was there. I have yet to see a picture of a black-masked thug, but there may have been a few, apparently not a significant number based on the videos.
ARM,
"What a sane person would conclude is that the anti-fa are reactionary rather than being deliberately provocative, unlike the fascists."
You mean like in DC? Or Portland?
OK for middle class people from Charlottesville to protest against an illegal intimidatory display by dim-witted racist thugs from out of town?
It's ok to protest, of course.
I guess I have a hard time with people who supported Occupy and the pipeline standoff complaining about thugs coming in from out of town and slowing down business.
"So it is OK for Texans to shoot people not like them but not OK for middle class people from Charlottesville to protest against an illegal intimidatory display by dim-witted racist thugs from out of town?"
No, it is not OK for Texans to shoot at people not like them - unless the people who are not like them initiate violence. Then the Texans have the right to defend themselves.
It is also perfectly fine for people to protest against Nazis in Charlottesville. It is not OK to hit anyone, even a Nazi, with a baseball bat or throw acid in his eye.
Jesus, that point has been made 1000 times in these comments sections. Are you that slow-witted that you don't know the different between violent and non-violent protests?
I have yet to see a picture of a black-masked thug, but there may have been a few, apparently not a significant number based on the videos.
I know you saw them in the video of Field's car.
"So it is OK for Texans to shoot people not like them --"
-- Foul. Misinterpreting the statement.
Matthew Sablan said...
"So it is OK for Texans to shoot people not like them --"
-- Foul. Misinterpreting the statement.
8/16/17, 2:41 PM
ARM's MO. And then he accuses me of lying.
Video from Charlottesville
http://rightwise.com/news/violence-antifa-charlottesville/
These are ARMs militia of "middle-class neighbors."
If you are wondering why I don't post a link to the main stream press on this, it's because they refuse to show it. Not in the narrative they are pushing just now. Don't see fit to print it, as they say.
Btw, the statue pulled down in Durham was to honor children conscripted into the Confederate Army against their will.
Well done.
8/16/17, 2:42 PM
Yeah, you lefties really struck a blow against injustice there!
How many baseball bats and clubs does one need to bring to a demonstration to count as 'significant.'
Oh. So the plaque about "boys in gray" was literally about boys.
I think the organizer should be sued by all concerned, BTW. The discovery would be awesome!
"How many baseball bats and clubs does one need to bring to a demonstration to count as 'significant.'"
-- While asked flippantly, actually a fair question. If there are 1,000 protestors, and one asshole with a bat and a mask, he's... probably just one asshole.
"Are you that slow-witted that you don't know the different between violent and non-violent protests?"
ARM is not slow witted. What he and the leftists desire is for everyone to accept that leftist violence against any and all who oppose the left is justified and proper.
Period.
They are demanding that you stand by patiently to await your punishment for wrong think/speech.
I deleted that comment because it was misreported in The Wire
From the NYT
"Who marched against the ‘Unite the Right’ rally?
Those who marched against the rally on Saturday in Charlottesville said they stood broadly in solidarity against white supremacy, but they espoused a wide array of ideological beliefs, preferred tactics and political goals. A large number were ordinary residents of Charlottesville who wanted to show their disdain for white supremacist groups
They are demanding that you stand by patiently to await your punishment for wrong think/speech.
8/16/17, 2:47 PM
Yeah, well, good luck with that.
Drago said...
What he and the leftists desire is for everyone to accept that leftist violence against any and all who oppose the left is justified and proper.
No, what I have made very clear is that neither myself nor the vast majority of the middle class are going to put up with an illegal march by armed dumbass agitators through the streets of our neighborhood. It is very simple. If anti-fa decided to march through your neighborhood with torches and semi-automatics my advice is to stop them.
tim in vermont said...
Normally, I don't go for "false flag" theories, but this time there is evidence.
I suspect that evidence is being over-interpreted to reach "false flag". People don't necessarily think the way political descriptions flow and the extremes aren't all that different. I bet there are quite a few occupy supporters who also oppose amorphous seeming decisions from government bodies.
Well, if the New York Times says so, I guess that ends the debate.... Except they flushed their credibility down the toilet some time ago. with their partisan reporting.
Yeesh!
AReasonableMan said...
From the NYT
"Who marched against the ‘Unite the Right’ rally?"
Oh, yeah. I completely trust the NY Times to report on the rally fairly and objectively.
[AReasonableMan said...
No, they don't do it because the peaceful people of rural Texas would shoot their asses full of holes
Speaks for itself.]
It's pretty amusing he posted this mere minutes after implying he would use violence to stop people doing this in his own neighborhood. There's just no self-awareness at all. Everything is a pose to further an attack.
Sparrow, I don't know if you're still reading comments, but I appreciated your words on charity. We all could use a lot more these days.
"A large number" means what, exactly?
From that same article:
Were all of the counterprotesters nonviolent?
No. A complete picture of the violence that took place in Charlottesville is still unfolding, as those who were arrested face an array of charges and more photographs and videos emerge from the chaotic scenes.
Yes, as I complained from the first reports on Sunday. It has been stupefyingly difficult for major news outlets to obtain the story of who was involved and what exactly happened. Or at least its been nearly impossible for them to report it.
"Trump, however, was in “good spirits” on Tuesday night, according to a White House adviser who spoke to him. The adviser said the president felt the news conference went much better than his statement on Monday, in which he declared that “racism is evil” and denounced certain hate groups by name. "
To be fair, it is funny in a black humor vein. A man with his finger on the pulse of the nation.
illegal march by armed dumbass agitators through the streets of our neighborhood.
Organized by a 'former' member of Occupy, who should be sued, at a minimum. The genesis of this violence should be thoroughly investigated, no matter where it leads. That still doesn't justify the existence of a movement dedicated to political violence and to violence against political opponents. That's what the brownshirts did. These white supremacists only serve the interests of the left. They are no force of themselves. They could have been safely dealt with by mockery. That would have been the end of them.
It is very simple. If anti-fa decided to march through your neighborhood with torches and semi-automatics my advice is to stop them.
what if they decide to start cars on fire and block traffic in your downtown? Should that be stopped?
AReasonableMan said...
exiledonmainstreet said...
ARM, do you think people should just sit there and let themselves be beaten
So it is OK for Texans to shoot people not like them but not OK for middle class people from Charlottesville to protest against an illegal intimidatory display by dim-witted racist thugs from out of town?
8/16/17, 2:34 PM
You keep on adding to that straw-man like that and it will collapse into a black-hole from the added mass. Uh-oh, wait, is also now racist to say black-hole? Did I cross a line or something?
I guess I have a hard time with people who supported Occupy and the pipeline standoff complaining about thugs coming in from out of town and slowing down business.
Besides which there's the attitude that unlimited immigration from the four corners of the earth is a basic human right, yet if you cross into the city limits you're in for a beating because y'ain't from here.
This is more from ARM's NYT article. Funny stuff:
But some carried signs expressing more far-flung ideologies — denouncing capitalism, for instance, alongside fascism and racism.
and
Groups that identify as anti-fascist — also known as antifa (pronounced an-TEE-fa) — have been physically confronting neo-Nazis, white supremacists and, in some cases, speakers who merely challenge the boundaries of political correctness on college campuses across the country.
You can tell they serve the interests of the left mainly, because nobody is defending them, yet the left won't shut up about them, unlike how quickly they shut up about The Rifleman. You know, the guy who believed that killing Republicans was the only course his conscience would allow.
" physically confronting"
Well, doesn't that sound nice? Much better than "have been beating up people with baseball bats."
" ... in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt ..."
Haidt attempted a positive (descriptive), that is, not a normative (value-laden) psychology of morality.
Haidt’s reference to Indian, “The Laws of Manu,” aren’t neatly translatable as positive dictums into American conservative-liberal modes for predicting for moral judgment, because “The Laws of Manu” encase caste practice that’s long established, and mortally penalized under certain circumstances, and not tractable to free speech countries, which Wendy Doneger herself (a co-author of the book Haid cites) has more recently addressed with her work on female clitoris symbology in Indian society (another story), with Doneger herself on the excoriated side of Hindu hell.
Haidt’s positive-descriptive focus (he blurs the lines) doesn’t refer to liberal failed predictions about the abstract moral principles of conservatives (say as encyclopedic abstract entries in American morality), but rather, it refers to the difficulty of predicting pragmatic (again positive-descriptive) judgments by conservatives, say when conservatives face (I’m importing this from other studies) pragmatic judgments about their own pro-life positions, which conservatives cannot neatly make pragmatic without criminalizing abortion (extreme: killing the mother for killing the baby - yes, it’s extreme), so that conservative abstract moral grounds don’t easily and neatly translate, and hardly ever translate into linearly - predictable - pragmatic policies.
It's lack of linearity makes it difficult for liberals to predict conservative practical judgments. “The Laws of Manu” are not a good intro to the American problem here. Martin Marty covered this better as a positive history in, “The Irony of It All.” This stuff is not really my bailiwick, as an armchair reader of history and religious studies, my interests are elsewhere, in the sociobiology of religious convictions as predictors of whatever (violence, voting patterns, military allegiances, cheating, criminal behaviors, metrics of transcendental temptations confusing ‘chance’ with ‘divine intervention,’ and whatever - so discount accordingly).
"And, if Providence ever drops in my lap another chance like that ... I may have radio malfunction again." ~ Brigadier General Frank Savage
ARM hasn't been paying attention the last few days. On more than one thread we've discussed a video Rabel linked to showing the crash and aftermath from behind. Within 2 seconds of the crash 7-10 masked people were all over Fields' car smashing it with baseball bats. It looked to me like they would gladly have killed him if they'd had a few more seconds to do it, but he shifted into reverse, gunned his motor, and backed up down the street, running over most of them in the process. (One reason I'm not sure about the 7-10 number - I watched it twice on different days, and really don't want to see it again: I don't enjoy seeing people injured, even club-smashing thugs, unlike many on my Twitter feed, who love seeing Nazis in pain.)
On Twitter, someone named David Hines, whose political leanings I'm having trouble figuring out (@hradzka), reports that "The DSA and the Wobblies aren't giving up and they've got a ton of people in the hospital and one of their organizers literally got killed." Apparently, as I'd already guess from the video, most of the seriously injured are masked bashers run over by Fields when he escaped the scene of the crash. Whether Heather H. was one of them, or was in front of the cars, I don't know. I'm still wondering if we'll ever get the names and home-towns and organizations of the others.
What all this means is that 7-10 people in one half-block stretch of one street were already openly armed and masked and ready for instant action, mingled in with a bunch of carefree peaceful lefties who don't seem to have had any objection to them being there. It would be a Hell of a coincidence if they were the only masked thugs in town at that time, wouldn't it? How many were there in all? I've already complained on one of these threads that the press doesn't seem interested in even telling us how many people were there on each side, and how each broke down into subgroups, much less showing any pictures that would complicate the bad-Nazis good-Antifas morality tale. Most likely that means they're afraid to tell us how many of the 'right' were not in fact Nazis and how many of the 'left' were in fact armed and dangerous.
AReasonableMan said...
The Friday night march was illegal...
What about the Friday night march made it illegal? Exactly what law?
I'm not disputing that it was illegal, I'd just like a bit more to go on than the bare assertion.
Groups that identify as anti-fascist — also known as antifa (pronounced an-TEE-fa) — have been physically confronting neo-Nazis, white supremacists and, in some cases, speakers who merely challenge the boundaries of political correctness on college campuses across the country.
Gee, did they forget to mention the attacks on pro-Trump rallies?
The Trump supporters marched several blocks but were met by a group of counter-demonstrators, and fights began breaking out, according to Matthai Chakko, a spokesman for the city of Berkeley.
Videos and photos posted on Twitter showed people punching each other and pulling their hair, with one man using an unidentified object to beat another person. Several people in the crowd were pepper-sprayed, including an elderly man.
At least two people, with their faces covered up, could be seen on video trying to set fire to an American flag, while a photo on Twitter showed the bloody face of a man who wore a T-shirt that said “Trump is My President.”
People punch and pull hair and beat each other, but it was impossible to discern who did what.
There are axes and crowbars, dozens of sticks and makeshift clubs, canisters of mace, knives, hammers, batons and even a set of brass knuckles. Together, they offer an unsettling glimpse of the violence that has seeped into Portland’s protests as the city has drawn extremists on the left and right in increasing numbers, becoming something of a proxy for the country’s ideological battles.
It seems to be impossible to figure out who owned these weapons! Even though many of them were dropped on the ground when police moved in on a group of AntiFA(FA=First Amendment) protesters.
NYT = alt-left
Anybody who supports Trump is clearly a Nazi, and violence is called for, is I guess, a fair summary of ARM's views and his belief that AntiFa doesn't exist. I guess the New York Times says there is no Alt-Left, so that's an end on the matter of someone as incurious as he is.
If the definition of Alt-Right has changed since its inception, does it mean that Bannon's comment about Breitbart being a home for the Alt-Right is no longer accurate? Does it mean that people should stop calling Bannon Alt-Right? I think the answer to the latter question is yes.
Lots of people, including myself, mocked the article on Hillary's website that talked about the dangers of Pepe the Frog, but for her purposes she certainly did a good job of defining Alt-Right for the media.
tim in vermont said...
Anybody who supports Trump is clearly a Nazi, and violence is called for, is I guess, a fair summary of ARM's views
You are better than this, but you know there is no reasonable defence so you lash out at the messenger.
Dear Mr. President,
I want you to know,
I am deeper than you,
Listen and learn,
My heart is a chapel,
My head is a steeple,
My arms are the people,
And the people now yearn.
I stand for the midget,
I stand for the Negro,
I stand for the Injun,
all hopped up on booze,
I stand for the Jap,
And I stand for the beaner,
I stand, yes I do,
For the Christ-Killin' Jew.
And I stand for the Dyke,
And I stand for the retard,
I stand for the Chinaman,
Washing my socks,
I stand for the bum,
And the pimp, and the bugger,
And the cripple that lives,
On my street in a box.
To conclude, Mr. President,
I'm not at all hesitant,
To tell you I think,
The first ladies a fox,
Her husband, the jerk off,
Has ruined my country,
That's all for today,
Sincerely, D. Cox.
AReasonableMan said...
If anti-fa decided to march through your neighborhood with torches and semi-automatics my advice is to stop them.
On what legal grounds? Even if their march was illegal, that is a matter for police. As long as they were not threatening imminent harm to people or property, what basis do I have for stopping them?
"Middle class people are not going to put up with this shit in their neighborhoods. We are not having armed provocateurs with two small digit IQs prancing around our neighborhood in the middle of the night. It is not going to happen." - ARM
1. You don't get to speak for the middle class, asshole.
2. However, your statement is correct. You bring that antifa shit into my neighborhood, the streets will be littered with bodies. And they won't be from my side.
See? I can play tough guy, too.
Try me.
If you reasonably feel that anti-fa is intimidating or threatening your neighborhood, as was clearly the case for the fascists in Charlottesville, then of course you have the right to act against them, preferably non-violently and within the law.
Haidt’s positive-descriptive focus (he blurs the lines) doesn’t refer to liberal failed predictions about the abstract moral principles of conservatives (say as encyclopedic abstract entries in American morality), but rather, it refers to the difficulty of predicting pragmatic (again positive-descriptive) judgments by conservatives, say when conservatives face (I’m importing this from other studies) pragmatic judgments about their own pro-life positions, which conservatives cannot neatly make pragmatic without criminalizing abortion (extreme: killing the mother for killing the baby - yes, it’s extreme), so that conservative abstract moral grounds don’t easily and neatly translate, and hardly ever translate into linearly - predictable - pragmatic policies.
Impressive. But can you fight?
Jim at said...
You bring that antifa shit into my neighborhood, the streets will be littered with bodies. And they won't be from my side.
See? I can play tough guy, too.
Try me.
Surely you can extend the same courtesy to the good folks of Charlottesville and acknowledge that they also have a right to not have fascists marching illegally through their neighborhood with guns and torches?
The traditional enemy of the fascists isn't the Party of liberty, it is the Stalinists. At one time the anarcho-syndicalists opposed fascism, but they were crushed by the Stalinists. Easier to fight them than it was the fascists, I suppose. Those were the days when Uncle Joe declared that any socialist party, world wide, that was not under the direct control of his Comintern was to be labeled fascist.
The intellectual class who assure us the alt-right and Trump represent the worst in politics have in the past endorsed the politics of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and Pol pot. Some of them said nice things about Hitler's Germany and Italy's Mussolini.
"As long as I breathe I hope. As long as I breathe I shall fight for the future, that radiant future, in which man, strong and beautiful, will become master of the drifting stream of his history and will direct it towards the boundless horizons of beauty, joy and happiness!"
Welcome to Year Zero, comrades!
AReasonableMan said...
If you reasonably feel that anti-fa is intimidating or threatening your neighborhood, as was clearly the case for the fascists in Charlottesville, then of course you have the right to act against them, preferably non-violently and within the law.
The neighborhood was not threatened, nor were the people in it, by the people marching. Anyone who felt threatened by it was not being reasonable. Violence did occur when counter-protestors tried to interfere with the march, but it is entirely unclear at this point who initiated the violence.
If we choose to call the rioters who tore up Seattle in 07 the alt-left, do we need their permission? NYT says yes.
ARM, just let me say that your steadfast refusal to look at any further fact that might disrupt your little bubble is fascinating to see. I might say that you are better than that, but I would be lying.
Here's video of fascists participating in a rally along with other members of the left. When the fascists attack a conservative none of the "liberals" make any effort to constrain their allies.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/08/student-attacked-at-charlottesville-vigil-in-syracuse-for-wearing-yaf-cap/
I guess if we're going to be called Nazis we'd better start acting like Nazis. I'll get a swastika armband and get some for my multiracial family and friends, as well. Nazi-ism should be diverse now, as I happen to know gays and blacks who voted for Trump. Let's square off against these privileged white antifas. They don't really stand for civil rights. They stand for their own smug self-importance. I'm game.
"so that conservative abstract moral grounds don’t easily and neatly translate, and hardly ever translate into linearly - predictable - pragmatic policies."
Ha ha ha! So liberal policies are not self contradicting?
I give you one example, picket line/border, illegal immigrant/scab.
Your little post is so full of misjudgments about conservatives, and self-serving blindness, that a thorough response is impossible from my phone.
Surely you can extend the same courtesy to the good folks of Charlottesville and acknowledge that they also have a right to not have fascists marching illegally through their neighborhood with guns and torches?
There were two groups of fascists present in Charlottesville Saturday. One had a permit, and was therefore there legally. I do not acknowledge that the "good folks of Charlottesville" have any legal right to impede their march. Under our laws they did not. The second group of fascists did not have a permit; were equipped with masks, clubs, homemade flame throwers; and quite clearly had violence on their minds. They were the law breakers and it is to the deepest shame of the Charlottesville police and citizenry that they did nothing to stop this second group.
Do you want to live in a country that respects the rule of law? Or only when it's convenient to you?
Big Mike said...
There were two groups of fascists present in Charlottesville Saturday.
What about the illegal march on Friday night? You OK if that happens on the streets of your neighborhood? The only things missing were white hoods and a dead negro.
Anybody who supports Trump is clearly a Nazi, and violence is called for, is I guess, a fair summary of ARM's views and his belief that AntiFa doesn't exist.
Given your complete inability to fairly summarize ARM's point of view, I'm going to call bullshite on your ability to evaluate whether or not my positions are objective or not.
On the other hand, anybody with "good faith", as you say, can ask my opinion on virtually anything and I'll probably tell them straight up.
AReasonableMan said...
What about the illegal march on Friday night? You OK if that happens on the streets of your neighborhood?
If it was illegal ( still waiting for clarification on that, including the text of the law ) then I would call the police.
The deflection is strong in ARM.
Lol, I knew you couldn't do it Brookie, it's science. Instead you desperately sought an excuse you could rationalize as honorable to yourself. Talk about transparent! I was just trying to draw ARM out on the previous violence by AntiFa against Trump supporters, evidence of which I presented, and which he refuses to acknowledge. I don't blame him, then he would have to acknowledge that they are textbook brownshirts.
Just like he refuses to acknowledge that the organizer left Occupy in January and has very limited support outside his little group.
I note with interest Brookzene's claim that everyone denounced Steve Scalise's shooting. That's clearly wrong, because Brookzene categorically refused to do so; right here on this blog, where after repeated direct requests to do so Brookzene forcefully said that asking anyone to denounce the shooting of republicans was wrong. That is, asking them to denouncing killing Republicans was wrong.
ARM was the same way. It was widely noted that of all the leftist commentators here, only sunsong could bring herself to say that cold blooded murder of Republicans was wrong. The rest would not commit to that principle, including ARM.
Witness asking them to denounce BLM for killing cops. Silence. Witness their complete silence on the Clayton cold blooded murder last week of a Republican committee chairman--that is not a problem, apparently. When 4 black men beat a white Serbian immigrant to death in front of the man's wife (what is it with leftists murdering people for political reasons in front of their target's spouses?), we heard silence. When Lakim Faust ran around trying to kill white men and start a race war, a gigantic yawn was all we heard.
ARM supports antifa and violent leftist attacks. I mean, all Nazi's are evil and are not human so anything done to a Nazi is a-ok! If antifa had somehow managed to massacre every one of the "white supremacist" marchers, ARM would be praising them. So would every other leftist.
And of course, since violence against Nazi's is completely justified, it won't hurt any to expand the definition of "Nazi" a bit, like "anyone who disagrees with the left is a nazi".
Right ARM?
--Vance
ARM supports AntiFa as clearly as Trump supported the white supremacists. It's all in the failure to denounce quickly and emphatically enough to satisfy your critics who make it a point of pride to never be satisfied.
Also, I have a question. It's pretty clear that contrary to ARM's view of saintly antifa that the driver who killed that girl was under severe threat. Video evidence conclusively shows that within 2 seconds of his car crashing into another car the mob was beating his vehicle and trying to kill him. He then tried backing up, and in so doing ran over a few people trying to kill him.
So: When did the lady die? When he ran over her backing up trying to escape a howling mob bent on his death? I assume even ARM would agree that when masked violent people are beating your windshield in and trying to kill you that you have a right to defend yourself by getting out of there, and if you run over a few people bashing your car in it's justifiable.
Of course, this is the left, who no doubt demand that if antifa is beating your car you must sit there and be murdered. Right ARM? Brookzene?
--Vance
Instead you desperately sought an excuse you could rationalize as honorable to yourself.
Your sitting here completely misrepresenting other people's opinions here all afternoon - it's right here, anyone can read it - and you say that I "desperately sought an excuse" to "rationalize as honorable to yourself. [sic]"
LOL where do you get this shit! Oh, PLUS (here's my favorite from all your bullshit that you apparently believe about yourself:
TIMINVERMONT: Maybe to actually learn what you are thinking, you know, advance understanding and brotherhood.
And now because I'm in my right mind and don't fall into your bullshit with you, I "desperately sought an excuse". What a riot.
Where do you righties come up with these clowns?
Unknown said...
including ARM
Straight up lie. Don't you get tired of lying?
tim in vermont said...
Tim, my post wasn’t adversarial. I wasn’t taking sides. I’m more conservative than you know. See my comments about positive/descriptive. As a conservative, I too struggle with linear conversions of my morals into neatly packaged and easily predictable legal or pragmatic judgments.
I don’t fault liberals for their confusions in predicting how conservative morals translate into pragmatic judgments and laws.
Even the Republican dominated government - a clean sweep - can't get right, "right."
Your mis-citation and abuse of the casuistry of the study you cited, and your eagerness to find fault rather than read, makes me wonder whether your conservatism involves learning, or just reflex-arc spouting, which defines conservatism according to some.
If you want your knee-jerk pigeonholes to fit your fiat-category, then see:
Make Love and Lose Your Religion and Virtue: Recalling Sexual Experiences Undermines Spiritual Intentions and Moral Behavior
In contrast with traditional considerations, sexuality is often perceived today as being rather compatible with religion/spirituality and morality. However, there may be some inherent opposition between (a) sexuality (thoughts, affects, and pleasure) and (b) religion/spirituality (attitudes, motives) and (interpersonal) morality (dispositions, behavior). The two imply, respectively, self-enhancement versus self-transcendence, disinhibition versus self-control, and disgust indifference versus sensitivity. We hypothesized that sexual experience attenuates spiritual and moral concerns and behaviors. In three online experiments, young adults were asked to recall a personal sexual experience. Compared to a control condition, sexual induction diminished spiritual behavioral intentions (Experiments 1 and 2), in particular among those with high individual disinhibition (Experiment 1), as well as behaviors of prosociality and integrity/honesty (Experiment 3). The effects were independent of individual religiousness/spirituality. These findings suggest that combining sexual pleasure with self-transcendence and moral perfection, even if a legitimate ideal, is not an easy enterprise.
It’s not quite Borges saying all men are equal in orgasm, but pretty close, so take it up with them.
Aka, try getting laid more often than spending knee-jerkinging time here.
Journal for Scientific Study of Religion - March 2016
If that's what happened, Vance, this is another Russian colusion clusterfuck by the media and the left.
We will see. When people die, investigations tend to be thorough, outside of DC anyways.
tim in vermont has now acknowledged that he posts in bad faith, why bother with him any further?
Vance,
Video evidence conclusively shows that within 2 seconds of his car crashing into another car the mob was beating his vehicle and trying to kill him. He then tried backing up, and in so doing ran over a few people trying to kill him.
Th video I saw ended maybe two seconds after he reversed and before anyone actually struck his car. Do you have a link to the longer video you mention?
I note with interest Brookzene's claim that everyone denounced Steve Scalise's shooting. That's clearly wrong, because Brookzene categorically refused to do so; right here on this blog, where after repeated direct requests to do so Brookzene forcefully said that asking anyone to denounce the shooting of republicans was wrong. That is, asking them to denouncing killing Republicans was wrong.
More clownassery.
I've been clear about political violence all along, and specifically about the Scalise shooting - as in this thread, fucknuts.
What I didn't do accede to your demands that I tell you what you want me to say at any time you choose to make me.
Can we have some real conservatives who know how to argue above the third-grade level please? I promise I'll respect you. Just don't leave me talking to these bozos who have apparently slipped their adult supervisors.
tim in vermont has now acknowledged that he posts in bad faith, why bother with him any further?
Bingo.
You know I get bogged down with these knuckleheads b/c it's kind of fun and easy but damn there's so many good arguments to argue with intelligent conservatives, libs, whatever. These guys just reach for the infantile every fucking time.
"Your mis-citation and abuse of the casuistry of the study you cited"
I merely interpreted the findings myself. 🤠We are all allowed to use our own judgment, democracy demands it. The fault was obvious. Kinda jumps out at you. If the only way to interpret information is to accept a long line of judgements made along the line by social scientists, whom Haidt himself has said are overwhelmingly biased against conservatives, why even dicuss it?
Don't worry Brookie, ARM was always on your side.
It's funny how you constantly babble about intelligent conversations with conservatives, but take any excuse to avoid one.
ARM at least knows he is being strategically obtuse.
Again, Brookzene refuses to condemn the cold blooded murder of Republicans by Democrats and leftists. You sure pick a simple question to be all "How dare you ask me that question!" on.
I mean, surely a simple "I condemn in specific the violence from the left and agree that it does not look well that my side promotes it" should be easy to say. It's what you are demanding of everyone else. But you won't say it. You refuse to give an opinion on leftist murderers like Clayton or Lakim Faust. Good guys all, apparently.
Rick, I don't know what happened in Charlottesville. All I know is that within 2 seconds of the crash a mob was beating the car violently, and that the driver was trying to escape and ran over a few people. I don't know if that is when Heather died, or if she died before that. I was hoping others knew.
What about it, ARM and Brookzene-- if this lady died because she was run over while she was beating this guys car with a bat--is he still a murderer, and all Republicans everywhere must be flogged to an inch of their life over it?
--Vance
What I didn't do accede to your demands that I tell you what you want me to say at any time you choose to make me.
If they can so easily recognize this tactic as inappropriate when they're the targets why do they insist on using it?
Is this one of their in-group markers? They recognize this is inappropriate for leftwingers in good standing but since no one else deserves fairness they're free to deploy it against outsiders?
Hey, Tim in Vermont I have been wondering where you went. Welcome back. Hillary is still not president.
I Callahan said...
Above all else TEA Partiers were peaceable and certainly not inclined to be attracted to violent extremists.
Really? You certainly wouldn't have known that from the reporting that went on during the Obamacare debate coverage, etc. Remember how TeaPartiers called a congressman the "N" word?
My point is this: if the media couldn't get that right (and they didn't), then why should I believe anything they're reporting on this incident.
What we know is that the Black Caucus lied about the TEA Party on March 20, 2010.
What we know about Donald Trump is that he cannot tell the same lie two days in a row, let alone three and it is not important to him that his words are recorded. To paraphrase Maya Angelo, "When someone shows you who he is, believe him the first time."
If they can so easily recognize this tactic as inappropriate when they're the targets why do they insist on using it?
When have I ever told anyone to denounce anything, smart boy? Hmmm?
The business community just walked away from a Republican president. Let that sink in for a while - a Republican president.
Fox's Shep Smith: We couldn't find a Republican willing to come on and defend Trump
By the way, ARM and Brookzene's friends the violent "anti-protestors" just ripped down a statue in Durham North Carolina. The people who did it? Members of Workers World Party--an extreme communist agitation group. The statue was to commemorate boys forced into the Army. Gosh, wouldn't want people to remember that! The Statue must go!
Leftists in Chicago are demanding that George Washington be scrubbed from the streets and schools.
But this is all how its supposed to go, right ARM? Brookzene? Destroying all of American history. Now Arlington national cemetery is under attack, because it is the grounds of Robert E. Lee's home. Leftists demanding Arlington be destroyed now.
No word on whether the statue of Lenin in Seattle is bad, though .Can't wait until Woodrow Wilson is torn down too. He must go as well, since he segregated the military. But he's a Democrat.... such internal conflict!
But only the right is hate filled. Correct, ARM? Please explain how America is better after you Leftists destroy every bit of history prior to Barack Obama.
--Vance
It's funny how you constantly babble about intelligent conversations with conservatives, but take any excuse to avoid one.
From everything I can see in this thread you are neither an intelligent conservative nor capable of intelligent argument.
Shrug
I didn't assert there is a moral equivalence, I criticized both fascists and white nationalists. Somehow you concluded this is inappropriate but are now both denying that and relying on it to reach your conclusion that people criticizing fascists is wrong.
Your assumption of my conclusion is, is wrong. Donald Trump gave the two (fascists and white nationalists) moral equivalence, and many posts here are defending that! There is no equivalence.
To your point I would say, your timing is atrocious...but then isn't that what you consider "a better way" squashing emotion in order to think and reason? This is a national moment of crisis. It is truly inappropriate to disrespect Heather right now and those mourning her loss and those mourning the 'new reality' that alt right types will kill and are violent. I have no idea how many there are or how many racists there are or white nationalists etc...but having witnessed how Obama was treated for eight years (obstructed in every way possible and accused [by Trump and others ] of not even being a United States' citizen...I am certain there are a lot more than I ever imagined. What do you think?
tim,
Fair enough. I agree with your conclusion regarding liberals not understanding. Agree, maybe on different reasons. There’s a weird coitus, weird only in the sense of same-old, where there’s now a cusp, if not more, of mutual partisan agreement in anti-Trump sentiments, likely the result of compromising pragmatism and ass-saving, but my take is that the sentiment will gain traction, at least given the lack of substantial forward progress (repeal healthcare, a infrastructure presser hijacked into ad lib, and a party in operational disarray, at least the current weather report - I can’t see deep future) - substance that is the real test, and I wish they would get on to it: infrastructure, tax, whatever to lower debt, so on. Peace.
White House staff are stealing themselves to the inevitable: sooner or later they will have to walk away just as the business community is. It's a little tougher for them and they're not quite prepared yet. But it's evident it will be soon.
@ARM, I concede your point. The "good people of Charlottesville" are not a violent fringe group, but are in fact mainstream Democrats, who find it inconvenient to rely on police and legal authorities, and prefer screaming, club-swinging, rock-throwing mob action in lieu of being law-abiding citizens.
Brookzene concurs with you, it appears.
@ARM, sunsong too.
We all know that the Democrats are the party of cheap labor, cronyism, and billionaires, of course entrenched big businesses want to be in bed with them.
Here's what we know. Let's say Hero Hodgkinson's sister climbs over the fence of the White House and yells "Death to tyrants! Go Hillary!" and kills Trump in his sleep.
Straight up treason/assassination. Does anyone think for a moment that the left and the Democrat party wouldn't immediately call such a person a hero and demand that they be pardoned "for the good of the country" and then demand that Lincoln or Washington be blasted off of Rushmore and the assassin put there?
Right Brookzene? You would demand that anyone who killed Trump be treated as a hero, wouldn't you?
--Vance
Rick (4:29pm):
The video we are referring to is here.
Separate comment, since two-link comments are treated as spam by some comment systems:
My previous comment on the video, explaining why I think Fields may actually be acquitted, is here. Whether Heather H. was one of the people beating on the car, I do not know.
When have I ever told anyone to denounce anything, smart boy? Hmmm?
Criticized for not denouncing in the speakers chosen form is the summary I think.
Brookzene said...
The problem has been exacerbated by the president. His "say one thing one day, and another thing the next" blunder pushed away moderates who were looking for some leadership.
8/16/17, 9:04 AM
It was literally your first post on the thread. Maybe you'd contradict yourself less if you remembered your own arguments.
It doesn't matter how you characterized the exchange, Brookie. Do you think you convinced anybody? Ask yourself where you made a solid point. It's science, you can't do it.
I offer Brookie up as exhibit A regarding purblind liberalism, Feste.
AReasonableMan said...
Delusional. The same actors at all three events. The Friday night march was illegal and specifically designed to be intimidatory.
And it was organized by an Obama supporter.
If these cocksuckers tried that in my neighborhood they would not have got off so easily after pulling that stunt. The middle class is done. The business leaders are done.
Time to pull the plug on Trump.
Keep waving that blood shirt! Wave it proudly ARM.
The Mother of the victim is with you! Or not...
Victims mother thanks Trump for denouncing violence
This is going to rebound on you hard. When it comes out that Obama supporters organized both sides and McCauliffe ordered the police to stand down?
Oh boy are we gonna have us some fun. Everyone in that chain of command that ordered the police to stand down is on the hook for conspiracy and murder 2 right?
And when these "business leaders" are shown to have planned their "resignations?"
This whole thing is going to implode just like the Russian Collusion story. Everyone in that looks like a bunch of traitors too.
sunsong said...
Your assumption of my conclusion is, is wrong. Donald Trump gave the two (fascists and white nationalists) moral equivalence, and many posts here are defending that! There is no equivalence.
Funny the mother of the victim and most of america thinks it was appropriate to denounce ALL of the violence including you leftist shitheads.
There is nothing racist about saying Antifa thugs are wrong. It just makes you mad.
Holy crap! All of those good citizens of Charlottesville jumped on that car with bats and clubs!
ARM, in order to maintain your posture of complete ignoranc2,do mo,I repeat, do not look at the video.
Antifa is a contradiction of the word anti-fascist.
Has Sunsong viewed the video? Better not to honey. You need to keep your delusions. No telling what might happen if they are falsified
Dr Weevil said...
The video we are referring to is here.
Thank you. The video I had seen before was from the other side of the street, which means it wasn't intentionally cut to exclude the later footage.
Brookzene sleeps standing up because David Duke is hiding under his bed.
AReasonableMan said...
The business community just walked away from a Republican president. Let that sink in for a while - a Republican president.
That isn't surprising to people who have more than a room temperature IQ. We have noted that all of the big money has been going to democrats for a long time.
You are the party of the wealthy elite now.
Keep waving that bloody shirt ARM. Obama people organized both sides of Charlotseville. Gonna be fun when Jason Kessler, the founder for "Unite the Right" is widely outed as an occupy protestor.
Going to be fun watching McCauliff be deposed and taking the 5th when asked if he ordered the police to stand down.
So looking at that video: is Heather the one who was on the back of his car, beating on it, and then fell off after he threw it in reverse to try to escape? The crowd runs to an injured person who looks like the one who fell off of the back of the car.
If so, I can't see how any charge of murder could possibly stand. This guy was clearly in danger, and the video shows that he was being chased by a baseball bat wielding mob. And if Heather was the one that got carried back and lost the shoe... well, this is clearly self defense.
--Vance
It was literally your first post on the thread. Maybe you'd contradict yourself less if you remembered your own arguments.
I'll ask one more time. When did I ever tell or demand anyone to denounce anything? Or anyone?
Noting Trump lost moderates by changing his story from one day to another is not demanding someone make a denouncement - you get that, right?
So, I'll wait for a minute.
I would guess from the pictures of Heather H and the looks of the people beating on his car, she was not beating on his car. I saw a still shot somewhere that looked to me like she was perhaps hit by the car he hit.
I get why some of you like Trump so much - you're just like him in that you don't care how many contradictions you are caught up in - you just keep plowing on like it's all normal, everything's fine in your argument.
Weevil said...
Rick (4:29pm):
The video we are referring to is here.
Oh my.
If that video is admitted into evidence it is going to make it tough to convict. I don't see any holes in the rear window until after he drives into those people and there doesn't seem to be any dents on the side.
My guess is he got in his car with intent and hearing about his back history with his mom it sounds like he was off his meds and a violent person in general and he drove there all the way from Ohio.
But that isn't enough. If there is no confession and this goes to court the riots are going to be nuts. Reasonable doubt is a high standard. If he says he got trapped on a one way with all those people surrounding him with bats and clearly throwing rocks wearing masks reasonable people are going to find reasonable doubt.
And there were no innocents in that crowd. I saw at least one plate carrier which is interesting.
One wonders if the Reichstag Fire could have been carried off with cell phone cameras around.
Brookzene said...
It was literally your first post on the thread. Maybe you'd contradict yourself less if you remembered your own arguments.
I'll ask one more time. When did I ever tell or demand anyone to denounce anything? Or anyone?
Noting Trump lost moderates by changing his story from one day to another is not demanding someone make a denouncement - you get that, right?
So, I'll wait for a minute.
Trump has lost exactly zero reasonable people. The mother of the victim thanked him for denouncing the violence unequivocally.
The only people Trump "lost" are shitheads like you that are mad he included Antifa in his denouncement.
You shitheads calling everyone who disagree with you racists are going to have this rebound on you hard particularly when it becomes widely known that "Unite the Right" founder Jason Kessler was a member of the Occupy Movement and an Obama voter.
And as we speak Jason Kessler is being wiped from the internet. Funny that. But the internet remembers.
Comment deleted
This comment has been removed by the author.
8/16/17, 5:32 PM
Heh. That was some loose cannon that just cut through here. Whacked.
Trump has lost exactly zero reasonable people.
Speaking of whacked.
Can anyone tell if his front window is busted before he hits the car in front? If so: acquittal, right there. I also can't tell if he's got people hanging on the back of his car beating on it as he plows forward into the car in front of him.
What I suspect happened is the mob chasing this guy occupied his full attention, and he was watching them in the mirror until it was too late to hit his brakes. The sound makes clear that he was hitting his brakes before he hit the car in front of him.
I'm sure no leftist here has any problem with their precious antifa beating on this guys car and chasing him down the street before he hits the other car.
--Vance
Brookie doesn't cite any specific contradictions. Too dangerous to his fragile self-esteem.
sunsong said...
Your assumption of my conclusion is, is wrong.
Based on this you either don't know what assumption means or you misspelled "logical analysis", not sure which.
Donald Trump gave the two (fascists and white nationalists) moral equivalence,
No, this is just how the left re-framed what he said to stop people from criticizing left wing fascists engaging in political violence. Luckily that effort is failing because reasonable people conclude criticizing all political violence is perfectly appropriate.
It is truly inappropriate to disrespect Heather right now and those mourning her loss and those mourning the 'new reality' that alt right types will kill and are violent.
I think it's inappropriate to incorporate her death into a cudgel to win a political argument, but that's just me. The left just went apeshit because a Republican used the Scalise shooting in a political ad. What were your feelings on that?
I have no idea how many there are or how many racists there are or white nationalists etc...having witnessed how Obama was treated for eight years (obstructed in every way possible and accused [by Trump and others ] of not even being a United States' citizen...I am certain there are a lot more than I ever imagined. What do you think?
You mean where schoolkids sang messiah songs and celebrities made loyalty-pledge videos? Or where people with different goals continued to pursue those goals even though Obama was president? The Horror!
I don't know how many white nationalists there are. It doesn't seem like too many since every institution in the country is dominated by race preference supporters. But I know if there were as many as the left claims they wouldn't have to make them up.
Unknown said...
What I suspect happened is the mob chasing this guy occupied his full attention, and he was watching them in the mirror until it was too late to hit his brakes.
I think if this were true we would already have heard it through his lawyer or family. I'll wait and see what comes out at the trial.
I did @tim in vermont. I pointed out your total misrepresentation of ARM's pov. You conveniently ignored that. As I said, guys like just plow on la di dah, no matter what bullshit you catch yourselves up in.
Anybody who supports Trump is clearly a Nazi, and violence is called for, is I guess, a fair summary of ARM's views and his belief that AntiFa doesn't exist.
That italics part is you. That's your quote. And you say you want to test if I can represent conservative points of view fairly.
Pure clownassery.
Rick: Fair point, but honestly I've heard zero from him or his lawyer explaining anything. I am beginning to wonder why he's being muzzled. All we have is other people smearing him "He's a Nazi! I always felt uncomfortable around him! Unsafe!"
And ok, he's not a great guy. But i think the video is pretty clear that he was being chased and being attacked. We also know that the antifa drove him into this street and there was no other way out.
And then he was being chased by a violent mob.
Of course Brookzene will tell you that your duty is to be beaten to death by Antifa and never ever resist because only bigots would resist being murdered by the fine folk of the left.
--Vance
Noting Trump lost moderates by changing his story from one day to another is not demanding someone make a denouncement - you get that, right?
He's not "changing his story". He slightly altered his denouncement into the form demanded and you are criticizing him for not using the demanded form the first time.
Brookzene said...
Trump has lost exactly zero reasonable people.
Speaking of whacked.
The victims mom thinks you are wrong.
How old are you Brookie? 14?
So a question I saw on Ace.
Let's assume Brook and ARM and sunsong are right: this guy was out to murder poor innocent peaceful protestors. He had driven all the way from Ohio to murder, maim and kill.
The video shows a long, narrow street filled with people. This guy, who was intent on murdering people.... somehow doesn't drive on the sidewalk where everyone is standing? Boy, he was a lousy murderer.
Muslims whom the left loves, when they use a car to kill people--they drive right up on that sidewalk and aim for the crowds. Democrats defend that, of course. This guy didn't do that.
Why not?
--Vance
Pitcavage is probably correct when he says there is no alt-left. The term right alt-right does not mean extreme, it means alternative. The people who coined the expression were trying to distinguish themselves from the "establishment right" whom they believed had compromised too much with the prevailing left-leaning culture. Frankly, we already had the word "reactionary" and I don't see that alt-right adds much to that. Alt-left might have worked in the Kennedy/Johnson era when the left was still in opposition to the main body of the Democratic party, but that ship sailed long ago. They are mainstream now, as others have said above.
Incidentally the "alt" in Althouse is unrelated. It has Germanic roots rather than Latin and means "old".
He slightly altered his denouncement
Ha ha. That's your story - the one held on to by the Last of the Trumpelstiltskins. Everybody else knows better. We're waving goodbye to you as you sink into ... well, a swamp. Trump's swamp of lies. You're willingly going down with him.
Well, it's kind of understandable. What else do you have? Integrity means nothing to you, so what else do you have but to follow Trump?
The "alt right" is a way of getting American right-wing Nazi/Confederate sympathizers to seem like a cool and trendy thing.
"Alt left" doesn't mean anything and is just a way of trolling and equivocating against their critics and detractors, as usual.
It's really all the right can do anymore. No more ideas of their own worth defending, they're stuck in a perpetual "I know you are but what am I" loop of justification.
AReasonableMan said...What a sane person would conclude is that the anti-fa are reactionary rather than being deliberately provocative, unlike the fascists.
They "reacted" to the presence of Trump supporters at Trump campaign rallies for months, ARM. Is a Republican presidential campaign even sufficiently out of the mainstream to justify antifa violence? Fuck your "reactionary" bullshit.
The victims mom thinks you are wrong.
The victim's mom was put in the position she is in by Trump's supporters.
She can't help or change the fact that that dunderheaded Nazi-simp is president and has no choice but to praise whatever tiny bit of reconciliation he's capable of in order to proclaim that all is not lost and be the bigger person. Which when it comes to Trump, is not that hard. 99% if humanity is better than Trump.
Trump took you for a ride down into his swamp. Every week there are the jump offs: approval 40%; approval 37%; approval 34%. But you hardcore ones, what do you care that you're going down with him? A lot of people went down with Nixon. All the failed and leaders throughout history had their groupies who wouldn't leave them.
You're like the hags writing love letters to Charlie Manson.
How old are you Brookie? 14?
Sick burn.
You're like the hags writing love letters to Charlie Manson.
At least Charlie Manson carved the swastika in his forehead.
Trump just wears one on his sleeve.
Nazis like him so he has to like them. It's that simple.
Rick:
We haven't heard anything either way through Field's lawyer (assuming he even has one) or his family.
I haven't tried to find the video, but I'm told there's clear proof that his car was hit at least once with a bat two blocks before the collision, that there is video of other cars being attacked there, and that Antifas were attacking cars leaving the main parking garage in the area. The garage is one block east and two blocks north of the collision, and I'm guessing he was coming from it.
It's clear to me that he was not trying to maximize casualties. He was in fact in the middle of the lane of traffic, exactly where he was supposed to be, heading out of town (I-64 is south of the Downtown Mall) just as the police had ordered. He had the right of way, and could have been going the speed limit (25mph, I'm pretty sure) if the leftie mob hadn't been walking in the street blocking traffic and lowering the speed of the two cars he hit to 1-2 mph. He hit a couple of people before hitting the silver car and knocking it into the red SUV, but could have hit a lot more by swerving back and forth. In fact, he hit the silver car square in the rear bumper, still right in the middle of the lane of traffic.
What I suspect he was thinking in his panic, insofar as he was thinking: "there's only one way out and if I'm lucky things will work out". I don't watch a lot of action movies, but aren't there scenes in which the hero is driving at high speed through a dense mob of people trying to kill him and a mass of vehicles and maybe animals is blocking him, when just in time a gap opens up for a second just wide enough for his car, and he slips through it and escapes from the howling mob with a huge sigh of relief? Was Fields hoping that something like that would save him? If the mob had gotten out the damned way, and the other two vehicles had accelerated to the posted speed limit, it might have worked. Too bad the mob was too busy shouting "We own the streets" and the police had been ordered not to enforce the laws and get them onto the sidewalk and let the losers leave town as they had been ordered.
But i think the video is pretty clear that he was being chased and being attacked
Certainly afterward but what about before? In the video linked above there's a minivan blocking the initial view and by the time the car is visible it's already hitting the crowd. So it's possible he was being attacked (I couldn't see damage but the the front of the car isn't visible at that point) but it's also possible he drove into the crowd without provocation and they attacked his car afterward.
I've heard zero from him or his lawyer explaining anything.
Right, but if there were a legitimate justification chances are overwhelming we would be hearing it. I agree it's not conclusive but it seems a bad bet to stake my credibility on something this counter to public perception remaining secret this long afterward when 100 people saw the event plus he had the opportunity to explain events to police and the court.
You watch the video Toothless? Of course not!
Funny the mother of the victim and most of america thinks it was appropriate to denounce ALL of the violence including you leftist shitheads.
Trump made a veritable Rodney King out of her.
Can't we aawwwl just get alowong?
You watch the video Toothless? Of course not!
I'll let you summarize. (Watching Nazis is something I find tedious. Especially when not in old, black-and-white reel footage).
What happened that you found so important and what was its relevance?
If they attacked the car in response, let me commend their lightening reflexes. You would think that their would have been a few seconds of shock. Not with these guys they were on the car beating it with clubs within a couple seconds.
It's too early to know what happened, and the guy is a pariah, likely with a public defender, so don't expect Johnny Cochrane.
Trump made a veritable Rodney King out of her.
The lady's still in shock from losing her daughter to murder and Trump's using her as a character witness.
The question isn't how low will Trump go? Thee question is always how low will you go with him?
What happened is that his car was set upon and his windows were being smashed and he slammed into reverse, killing on of the attackers.
I don't know what led up to it, but it was involuntary manslaughter, at best. It certainly is not cut and dried.
rehajm said...Studies have shown NYT is still trying to make Hillary President.
Experts agree.
Is that what analysts say?
Don't worry, TTR, if you watch the video you won't see the Nazi, only the outside of his car and a bunch of Antifa guys making it clear that if he gets out of his car he will almost certainly be beaten to death with baseball bats. The only reason you're not watching is that doing so might force you to reconsider your opinion of who is at fault, or more likely force to you to come up with ever more elaborate sophistries to excuse the Antifas' behavior.
Of course the man seems seriously mentally ill, so who knows what happens next.
but I'm told there's clear proof that his car was hit at least once with a bat two blocks before the collision, that there is video of other cars being attacked there, and that Antifas were attacking cars leaving the main parking garage in the area.
That will help but I'm not sure it shows he's not guilty. Unless he was being attacked or chased right then the least guilt proving story would be that it was an accident caused by looking behind to see if his previous attackers were following. Would this mean he's not guilty of the local version of vehicular manslaughter? I don't know - and that's presuming his best case.
It is odd he drove directly into another car. I didn't understand that until I saw the first video. But if he had a panic attack or it was an accident why hasn't that side of the story even been advanced? The DA would have to consider that because it woudl impact the charge selection and therefore it would have been part of the charging documents.
Anyway I'm not trying to reach a conclusion, only to kick around the possibilities. I'll wait to see what comes out at trial. I just think people who project definitively are likely to end up wrong.
Thanks Weasel Weevil. I knew that if anyone could make me feel sympathetic to Nazis and other violent enemies of America who claim to feel intimidated it would be you. ;-)
It's good that all the enemies of America have a friend in the Republican grass-roots voter.
Rick: if you look at the video, the car hits the one in front. Within 2 seconds there appears at least 6 people in the middle of the street behind him, running full speed towards the car.
now, there is one guy from the side who grabs his bat and attacks. He had quick reflexes--no one else did anything. But he didn't have time to get to the middle of the street and be running full speed, bat in hand, at the car, when the mob showed up.
They were chasing him before the crash. There's no way for that mob to show up that quick without chasing him prior to the crash.
Now, TTR will tell you that when a leftist mob chases you intent on murdering you, that you should do nothing. Communists killing people are great with him.
--Vance
No one's trying to get you to be more sympathetic to Nazis, TTR, who continue to be assholes and losers. We're trying to convince you that the anti-Nazis are in fact homicidal thugs, who trapped an asshole loser, threatened him with violence, helped cause a gruesome accident, and then tried to kill him, and you refuse to look at the evidence, and lie about what we're doing. Which makes you a different kind of asshole and loser, but still a member of both classes, just like Fields.
TTR will tell you that when a leftist mob chases you intent on murdering you, that you should do nothing.
I don't recall doing that. But it seems you would say he should run over young girls?
Anyway, he'll get his due process rights at trial. (Or not, if it doesn't go there). But the fact that you have to get on board with the Trump truther train to Nazi-ville in order to simply acknowledge his due process rights is a bit pathetic. The enemies of America don't need to be equivocated simply so that you can get your hate on against people who never went to war against us.
We're trying to convince you that the anti-Nazis are in fact homicidal thugs -
And whose exactly did they kill?
And how does that make them anywhere near as bad as the Nazis who killed hundreds of millions of Americans or the secessionists who killed hundreds of millions of Americans?
Well, TTR: you refuse to even consider the idea that perhaps your side was trying to kill him and he was trying to escape a mob.
That's what the video shows, after all: he was mobbed.
Let's cut right to the chase: was there anything wrong with trying to at the very least maim or kill this "nazi?" Do you think that Nazi's have no rights and therefore should be hunted like the mob was hunting this man?
Because that's the thrust of this entire thread: you and ARM and Brookzene all saying how horrible it is to notice the leftist mob attacking people. That because they were attacking "Nazis and White Nationalists" that we should ignore the leftist violence.
Is that your idea too? Because everyone can remember how the left called THEM a nazi too... and, well, it's not too far to ask whether we also are on the "It's heroic if leftists beat you to death with a bat" too.
--Vance
Post a Comment