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.
पोस्ट्स
७१३ टिप्पण्या:
713 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»"Researchers who study extremist groups in the United States say there is no such thing as the “alt-left.”
Startled the cats laughing out loud at that one.
"These are not the droids you're looking for."
"Many news organizations do not use the term, preferring terms like “white nationalism” and “far right.”"
-- Interesting. I remember when "far right" meant "someone who thinks gays should not be married." Has the NYT or others been using "far right" and "alt-right" interchangeably, and if so, do all the non-racist Nazis who have been called far right, like say, McCain, Herman Cain and Romney, have the ability to sue for defamation?
“Antifa” is a contraction of the word “anti-fascist.” It was coined in Germany in the 1960s and 1970s by a network of groups that spread across Europe to confront right-wing extremists, according to Mr. Pitcavage. A similar movement emerged in the 1980s in the United States and has grown as the “alt-right” has risen to prominence.
For some so-called antifa members, the goal is to physically confront white supremacists. “If they can get at them, to assault them and engage in street fighting,” Mr. Pitcavage said. Mr. Lenz, at the Southern Poverty Law Center, called the group “an old left-wing extremist movement.”
Members of the “alt-right” broadly portray protesters who oppose them as “antifa,” or the “alt-left,” and say they bear some responsibility for any violence that ensues — a claim made by Mr. Trump on Tuesday.
But analysts said comparing antifa with neo-Nazi or white supremacist protesters was a false equivalence.
Those hordes of rioting black-masked folk are figments of your imagination.
The MSM are not touching the radical left. Why? They agree that angry mask wearing leftists with baseball bats are justified.
When you have to explain, you've lost.
Trump has lost.
In its original form, what I understood "alt-right" to mean was: on the right, but not the Establishment.
Phil - not quite. The media are all hacks. Pro-democrat progressive hacks. They see no evil on the left. Their side. "experts agree!"
“Antifa” is a contraction of the word “anti-fascist.”
-- Are portmanteaus and contractions the same thing?
So if there is no "alt-left", then that means that the rioters are part of the "mainstream left." Which is probably accurate, considering the numbers of people involved and the lack of criticism for their actions by the leadership of the left.
"But analysts said comparing antifa with neo-Nazi or white supremacist protesters was a false equivalence."
-- What analysts? Why is it a false equivalence? How is it wrong for the alt-right to say bad things, but not wrong for the antifas to burn buildings, attack the alt-right, attack parade goers, attack college speakers, attack bystanders, etc., etc.?
If anything, the alt-right are the classic ACLU Nazi -- no one likes them. But, they're provocative assholes we can all ignore, while the antifa are violent people that we literally can't ignore, because they'll hit you with a baseball bat for wearing a red hat or voting Trump.
It's funny that Mr. Pitcavage is saying the exact thing as Mr. Yiannopoulos, and doesn't realize it.
I'm waiting for the Ctrl-Alt-DeRight and the Ctrl-Alt-DeLeft to show up.
In the meantime, I consider "alt-right" and alt-left to almost as meaningless as the "right" and "left" that spawned them.
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....
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....
This.
The media re-define alt-right, don't go near the fascist mask wearing/ 2x4 wielding, head smashing thugs on the D-side.
How exciting, semantic games. I'll take [class] diversity for $1000, NYT. I'll follow up with anti-nativism for $10,000. Elective wars as first-order forcings of catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform, and, apparently to secure oil and other natural resources (e.g. South Africa, Libya, Ukraine, Serbia). Obamacare that penalizes millions who don't purchase medical insurance and leaves millions who fall in the gap between expanded Medicaid and affordable health care. Finally, denying lives deemed unworthy, Mr. National... nay Global Socialist (Planned Parenthood is a transnational corporation). Judging people by the "color of their skin" is conventional, and an expected incongruity from left-wing ideologues, but I wonder if liberals actually believe in spontaneous human conception. The twilight fringe seems a step too far.
And Ctrl-Alt-Deville to take away the puppies.
I think Milo's history of the term alt-right is pretty accurate. Just as alt-country was/is an alternative to mainstream country music, alt-right was an alternative to establishment Bush/McCain/Romney/Bush right. That's a really big group, and it's convenient to smear it with the tiny minority of Nazi/white nationalists that are a part of it.
And many liberals and celebrities have advocated a military coup that would presumably be alt-center.
"In its original form, what I understood "alt-right" to mean was: on the right, but not the Establishment."
-- A lot of it was people like Milo. People on the right who wanted a Colbert/Stewart like irreverence for authority.
Studies have shown NYT is still trying to make Hillary President.
Experts agree.
Here's my attempt. Alt left means any combination of the following (i) avowed anarchists, socialists and communists who reject the fundamental tenets (and contribution to western civ of capitalism), (ii) BLM & other blatantly racist groups who believe some people are deserving of harm solely because of their identity rather than self-worth, (iii) other so-called progressives who have rejected fundamental tenets of western liberalism, such as free speech and the concept that the validity of ideas and arguments are independent of identity, and (iv) anyone over 25 who lives with their parents, voted for Bernie and owns a black mask that he/she uses for protesting.
Neo-nazis, white supremacists and other members of the so-called far alt-right, strangely, also satisfy this definition.
"far right" meant "someone who thinks gays should not be married."
Actually, the "far right" called for civil unions. Equal treatment, not "=", which is an exclusive construction, that begins, but does not end with denial of its inclusion in the transgender spectrum. Oh, well. Another twilight fringe epiphany, I suppose. The mainstream left seems full of it.
"Liam Stack covers breaking news and social and political issues for the New York Times express desk."
That means you should ignore whatever he writes.
You left out a key work in the Trump quote. I'm sure it was an accident?
Also, I think it is interesting that the people who were in the alt-right at first, like Milo, can have their group/term taken away from them by the NYT and Spencer, but the alt-Left? No. Experts won't allow that term, or antifa, to be tarred by outsiders.
I watched some of the Vice footage from the Charlottesville rallies and frankly it was horrifying (even trying to control for the editing that undoubtedly tried to make it seem as bad as possible.)
There is simply no way I can make any common cause with the vile people who took part in these protests, and I think Trump is wrong to say that not all of the protestors were white supremacists. If there were more mainstream people there who simply don't think that historical monuments should be removed, I haven't seen any evidence of it and I think that the groups who organized were repugnant enough that any nonracists who might have wanted to oppose the removal of the statue should have taken care to have a separate rally to distinguish themselves from the racist groups and denounce them.
It's fine and good that Trump is raising the point about the violence on the left but if he already has no credibility among people on the left and center, and muddling the facts about who took part in the protest of the removal of the statue only proves his doubters correct.
What about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt? ...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.
This is where I wholeheartedly agree with the President, and studiously disagree with the Media, Congress, assorted snowflakes. Don't give in to the people who only want to blame the mythical "alt-right" for everything.
The word was "us."
A nice Freudian slip, there.
One might have guessed Althouse would find that "interesting."
"Actually, the "far right" called for civil unions."
-- I thought that was more a libertarian position, and they've usually been looked at as kind of odd ducks and not really far right (I'm probably more libertarian than conservative, and am all for abolishing the word "marriage" from law in favor of some other value neutral word for the concept and opening it up to any two consenting adults, but I never heard the Far Right used pejoratively against that idea. Or I don't remember. It is actually possible I did, but don't remember.)
"TRUMP: What about the alt-left that came charging at US— Excuse me — What about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right"
You're welcome
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8638/what-alt-right-ben-shapiro
I also came away from viewing footage of the events with reflection on the civil rights movement of the 60s. I was only a child so no first hand experience (except remembering a scary evening when my dad was caught up in a race riot on his way home from work.) It seems to me though that MLK gave people a nonviolent path to support civil rights, so that they could be both opposed to the Black Panther militism but for civil rights for black Americans.
Unfortunately we now have DJT, not an MLK type leader, trying to point the way forward. I hope someone else will step up.
The point is dubious.
You're skeptical.
I mean, you might be dubious anyway, but that's not really what you mean to say.
I disagree with the idea that there was "also some fault with the leftist anti-protesters."
"Nazi" and "KKK" are totally disgraced labels and those that assume them these days are not the real thing, but pathetic misfits looking for attention. In this case, they actually applied for, and got, a legal permit to hold a demonstration rally. The proper response for the authorities would have been to see to it that they got to hold their rally, but otherwise ignore them to the greatest extent possible, as they finally learned to do in Skokie, Illinois.
The "antifa" crowd, however, came to town with the intent of engaging in physical violence and proceeded to do so.
Therefore, the main fault for what happened lie with the "antifa," and the mayor and city council that encouraged them.
"Researchers who study extremist groups in the United States say there is no such thing as the “alt-left.”
This is true in the sense that left wing extremists are fully mainstream.
Liberalism is divergent. Progressivism is monotonic change. Progressive liberalism is monotonically divergent.
Progressive liberalism's [class] diversity (e.g. racism, sexism) denies individual dignity.
The Left's Pro-Choice quasi-religious/moral philosophy denies human rights to wholly innocent human lives that are deemed unworthy.
Color supremacy is to one-child as [class] diversity is to selective-child.
Planned Parenthood cannibalizes profitable clumps of cells from boys and girls who aborted under legal and quasi-moral authority of the State-established Pro-Choice Church.
NYT, tear down the walls. Your national socialist roots are showing. Never again, right?
"TRUMP: What about the alt-left that came charging at US— Excuse me — What about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right"
If you're hearing dog whistles, you're probably the dog.
Suddenly Labels are in fashion again. SPLC is the marketing arm, as the KKK was the Antifa arm before, of the DNC for politically convenient Labels and civil and human rights suppression.
Unfortunately we now have DJT, not an MLK type leader, trying to point the way forward. I hope someone else will step up.
An MLK type leader is wholly inadequate for the type of chaos we have now. If an MLK type leader tried to point out how Antifa was just as culpable for the violence as the Neo Nazis and KKK this past weekend, they'd be laughed out of the room.
Chief of staff Kelly reacts to his boss's words... https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/897616420854317056
IMO it should be "Ctrl-Left" vs "Alt-Right" to capture the thinking more accurately.
Hagar's synopsis seems to match what actually happened.
Ahhh, with the "analysts" and "experts" again. A more accurate term would be "some guy who told me what I wanted to hear". Like the ones offered up at trials, you can get one to support any story you want. They're kinda like ghost writers.
Callahan,
It's not a dog whistle. That would imply some sort of forethought. He said "us," caught himself, and corrected. Why?
Matthew Sablan said...
Also, I think it is interesting that the people who were in the alt-right at first, like Milo, can have their group/term taken away from them by the NYT and Spencer, but the alt-Left? No. Experts won't allow that term, or antifa, to be tarred by outsiders.
So true. Reasonable distinctions between reality and political sliming exist but only for those on the left. The very people who enforce that distinction on the left lead the political sliming of the right while posing as responsible and non-partisan arbiters.
It was inevitable the left would turn alt-right into racist / white supremacist. They've already done it with the "right" so how could they not with "alt-right"?
Ann Althouse said...
"In its original form, what I understood "alt-right" to mean was: on the right, but not the Establishment"
That would be pretty much all people who vote for republicans.
Are people at Hatewatch and the SPLC really authorities on anything? I doubt more than a minority of people think so, rather they're being deployed to prop up other interests and commitments.
What is likely more true is that the history of former slaves is now a topic for popular public sentiment and politics (the divisions were always there, and very deep).
There are increasingly fewer places to turn for stability, institutional continuity and public trust, and many are convinced that any application of law, institutional authority and decision-making are unjust and unwarranted.
"Nazi" and "KKK" are totally disgraced labels and those that assume them these days are not the real thing
Exactly. The national socialists and color supremacists: minority, white, black, etc., have no standing and less leverage in American society. The Antifa fascist movement has both and poses the greater risk to civil and human rights. Democrats need to collar their armed movements. A chip off the progressive DNC, who still don't get that Water Closet only confirmed what was already known: Democrats are Pro-Choice.
For all the talk about Nazis, the media says virtually nothing about the ascendant illiberal Left. Antifa and BLM are just two manifestations on the trend on the Left toward authoritarianism and violence. (As annoying as the Occupy crowd was, at least they were peaceful. Or at least that's how I remember them.)
Many reasonable lefties have embraced the language and ideology of the social justice movement, with all the privilege shaming and identity politics, etc. What disturbs me greatly is how elements on the Right, feeling besieged and lectured to, have adopted the ideology white pride and grievance. That is a great recruitment environment for the Nazis and the Klan. This is why identity politics are so toxic. Yes, I blame the Left for this.
Unfortunately we now have DJT, not an MLK type leader, trying to point the way forward. I hope someone else will step up.
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.
During a crisis, such as Charlottesville, moderates of all parties and views look to the president for guidance and leadership regardless of his party affiliation, and most presidents do a more or less decent job as it's required. Trump is just awful at being presidential, however. I understand his base doesn't want him to be presidential but then during a crisis this is what can happen - greater division, greater uncertainty, lack of reason on all sides, a greater sense of us vs. them.
But if I were a resident of Janesville, WI next year, I might not vote for Paul Ryan.
The alt-right should really be called the alt-left because they are mostly socialists, not libertarian right wingers.
What happened on weekend was fighting between red, black or brown shirts that has been going on for about a century now.
Ann Althouse said...
In its original form, what I understood "alt-right" to mean was: on the right, but not the Establishment.
This was my understanding as well. I think Milo is correct that it was in the interest of the Establishment Republicans as well as the Establishment media to portray them as racists.
CStanley said...
It seems to me though that MLK gave people a nonviolent path to support civil rights, so that they could be both opposed to the Black Panther militism but for civil rights for black Americans. Unfortunately we now have DJT, not an MLK type leader, trying to point the way forward. I hope someone else will step up.
8/16/17, 8:50 AM
You have this exactly backwards. Trump did stake out the position you can oppose both white nationalists and left wing fascism and is thus emulating MLK in that regard (albeit in his typically ham-handed way). Meanwhile the left and much of the establishment right is attacking him for asserting that we should oppose both.
"TRUMP: What about the alt-left that came charging at US
He was thinking of the alt-left that disrupted his campaign rallies. The MSM made it sound like the fighting was all from the Trump side, but just like Charlottesville, they lied.
I understand his base doesn't want him to be presidential but then during a crisis this is what can happen - greater division, greater uncertainty, lack of reason on all sides, a greater sense of us vs. them.
What is "presidential"? Telling you progressives what you want to hear?
Define the term.
There is NO moral equivalence between Nazis and those who oppose them!
I think the problem is that the media successfully conflated all three violent incidents in Charlottesville.
There are three incidents:
1. The Friday night torch march, where the alt-right Nazis are clearly agitating/being provocative.
2. The street fighting around the rally where both sides are clearly at fault; they dressed for a fight, showed up with weapons, and even met each other in neat skirmish lines.
3. The murder by what appears to be a mentally unbalanced person who identifies with the alt-right.
A lot of conservatives/right-leaning people are focused on incident 2, while the media has succeeded in getting people to think everyone is talking about incident 3.
During a crisis, such as Charlottesville, moderates of all parties and views look to the president for guidance and leadership
So telling the truth about the violence is a bad thing?--surprise surprise.
"When there is no human decency, it leads to disorder."
~ Kasich
"Therefore, the main fault for what happened lie with the "antifa," and the mayor and city council that encouraged them."
This is true, and stopping the armed, violent counter-protesters was the only legal, constitutional way to have prevented this. This is what Trump has said, but the media and the left have no time for the truth. They have learned to instinctively reject it outright, becuase it rarely supports their narrative. The only fragments of truth they are accepting here are that a NAZI sympathizer drove into those people, and that NAZI's have a racist ideology. Virtually everything else is a lie, and a smear of stretching and sticking those two truths onto people who do not deserve it. It's the same type of bigotry and smears that the NAZIs have always engaged in.
The definition is a variant of the Althouse theory that all scientific studies of gender must conclude that women are superior. In this instance, all media and establishment definitions of alt-right and alt-left must conclude that liberalism is superior.
"There is NO moral equivalence between Nazis and those who oppose them!"
-- No. Communist Russia was a pretty terrible place. Just because it happened to fight Nazis doesn't forgive them.
It is entirely possible for two groups of bad people to clash.
There is NO moral equivalence between Nazis and those who oppose them!
Moscow changed that several times. Consider yourself purged.
"It's not about winning and argument...it's about bringing the country together."
~ Kasich
"There is NO moral equivalence between Nazis and those who oppose them!"
You mean like the Communists?
There is NO moral equivalence between Nazis and those who oppose them!
People who use violence to control and punish others are all evil, regardless of their label, you complete and total nitwit. Yes, those who oppose Nazis can be just as bad as the Nazis.
"What Trump did today was a moral disgrace."
~ Charles Krauthammer
"There is NO moral equivalence between Nazis and those who oppose them!"
You mean like Stalin?
Yes, yes, your signaling is very impressive.
Thugs are still thugs no matter what flag they fly. The immorality of the opposition does not justify an immoral response.
Researchers who study extremist groups in the United States say there is no such thing as the “alt-left.
I can't believe this is real. I have no hope for our country when people lie so brazenly.
Yes, those who oppose Nazis can be just as bad as the Nazis.
You are so wrong! I am embarrassed for you
Those who do NOT oppose Nazis are supporting them.
sunsong, You're drunk. Go home and sleep it off.
Ralph is a mind-reader.
Good to know
On the right, alt- means you don't take bribes.
On the left, alt- means that you do.
Everybody who showed up with a club is a fascist. That would not be true if the cops did their job, becuase it's not having a club that's fascist, but using one to stop the speech of others is pretty much the definition of it.
Scott Adams today in the pope hat on CNN mind reader panels is good.
He, as pope, doesn't note Augustine's definition of charity, which means thinking the best of people rather than the worst. Which is how charity came to be soul-saving before it meant money.
There is NO moral equivalence between Nazis and those who oppose them!
Yes, there is. Antifa is a communist, anarchist, ultra violent group who are evil to their core. In other words, just like the Nazis.
Period. Full Stop.
@ Harrogate From the transcript; “What about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt?”. I fixed it to accuracy for you. You're welcome.
There is no moral equivalence between communist agitators that foment violence and nazi wannabe twits who foment violence.
Trump is stating the obvious. No one was respecting the law and peaceful means of resolving political disputes. Both showed up with bats and intent of violence.
What is happening again is the media and establishment showing how ignorant and uninformed they are. These two groups have openly been strategizing on how to get the upper hand in a street fight.
It happened on the West coast a few times already.
It isn't real until it happens somewhere close to Washington. Then it becomes real.
Ignorant idiots. Trump actually is right and more informed. The media is simply interesting as simpletons always are in some tidy little story they can tell themselves.
You are so wrong! I am embarrassed for you
Those who do NOT oppose Nazis are supporting them.
I'm embarrassed for you because you show up every day to engage with your intellectual betters and you have demonstrated zero ability to grasp the content of their arguments.
Here. I'll help you.
Nazis are bad because of the bad things they do.
The bad things they do can also be done by other people.
Therefore, badness is not limited to Nazis.
There is not some super magical badness that they can achieve because of their magical Nazi label.
harrogate said...
Callahan,
It's not a dog whistle. That would imply some sort of forethought. He said "us," caught himself, and corrected. Why?
8/16/17, 8:57 AM
Because the left or Antifa (same difference) want his head on a pike too. "We" (meaning anyone to the right of Nancy P.) really are all in this together and are all targets for "wrong-think".
You are so wrong! I am embarrassed for you. Those who do NOT oppose Nazis are supporting them.
Hypothetical. Say a bunch of Nazis march down your street. You pull out a machine gun and murder all of them.
Are you justified in what you did?
Before you know it the alt-right and antifa will sign a Molotov- Ribbentrop treaty to gang up on the deplorables. Then you will know that history repeats itself when the ignorant take over.
“What we saw today was an increasingly isolated, impotent, humiliated & frustrated president who lashed out & disgraced the office he holds.”
~ Evan Siegfried (GOP strategist)
“What about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt?”. I fixed it to accuracy for you. You're welcome.
I should have known Harrogate was lying. It's who the left is. It's what they do.
The reason these overeducated journalists and commentators don't know what is going on is because they are afraid to look.
If you read the sites where this stuff is openly discussed, you can lose your job. This is the net result of the stupidity that has entranced the smart and enlightened.
This is another occasion where I feel less informed when I read the media.
Nazis are bad because of the bad things they do.
The bad things they do can also be done by other people.
Therefore, badness is not limited to Nazis.
Check. There is no context.
"Thank you, Pres. Trump, for your honesty and courage to tell the truth about Charlottesville."
~ David Duke
"greater sense of us vs. them."
Agree with brookzine on this one. Obama fostered this attitude and Trump is doing a terrible job of trying to correct it.
sunsong said...
There is NO moral equivalence between Nazis and those who oppose them!
What a sad effort to hide the fascists nature and protect them. Imagine white nationalists opposing communism and and people claiming the only relevance of the white nationalist group was opposition to communism as if their own ideology were irrelevant. It's absurd as if reasonable people can't understand more than one idea is wrong.
But such obfuscations are routine on the left.
I have lost my dog whistle.
It was in my rear right pocket for over two decades and now it's gone.
Check. There is no context.
There doesn't need to be any context. Bad things are bad things, whoever does them. Or are you saying some groups are exempt from that rule?
Go listen to the clip. NYT dropped it as well. Strange, that.
I for one appreciate the President challenging the narrative.
The Washington Post had an article a couple days ago justifying political violence.
"Those who do NOT oppose Nazis are supporting them."
What do you do in this fight besides falsely accuse people of being NAZI's? You are using the exact same tactics used in 1930's Germany to oppose Communists, democrats, Jews, etc. You resemble what you claim to oppose.
@Sunsong Siegfried was a Hillary voter - before Trump was even nominated - so it's hard to take anything he says about Trump too seriously.
Brookzene said...
During a crisis, such as Charlottesville, moderates of all parties and views look to the president for guidance and leadership regardless of his party affiliation, and most presidents do a more or less decent job as it's required. Trump is just awful at being presidential, however. I understand his base doesn't want him to be presidential but then during a crisis this is what can happen - greater division, greater uncertainty, lack of reason on all sides, a greater sense of us vs. them.
8/16/17, 9:04 AM
Funny...
I seem to recall that when Obama constantly used divisive rhetoric the media and left did not mind at all cause it was their divisive rhetoric and instead claimed how "healing" his words were. Now when the city let (indeed encouraged) things to get out of hand and the President condemns both sides, that is the wrong sort of divisive rhetoric.
I agree with you to a point but not your point. The President should have called out the city, the police, and the antifa and said something like: I abhor everything the white supremacist stand for BUT they had a completely legal right to have their protest and it is shameful that the city chose ideology over the Constitution. It is shameful that the media, the alt-left, antifa all chose ideology over the Constitution. That is NOT America!
GOP Strategist? You are quoting a GOP Strategist as an authority?
Seriously? Is that the best you can do?
Repeating what some guy said is not an argument. People can be wrong, dishonest, biased. Just because they say something you like does not make it true.
Charity the way I mean't earlier, means seeing the humanity in the other, showing respect, refraining from name calling and snap judgements: ie a rare commodity. I'm not educated enough to know Augustine's definition.
Sunsong is right. Antifa is different from the Nazis.
Nazis - Obsessed with race, identity politics, hate, division, intolerance, destruction, violence, oppression, sticklers for paperwork.
Antifa - Obsessed with race, identity politics, hate, division, intolerance, destruction, violence, oppression, skip the paperwork.
Violence is not appropriate at a rally!
Whoever engages in it is wrong, but that does NOT make a moral equivalence between the groups.
"It is entirely possible for two groups of bad people to clash."
Why can't the media talk about this, then?
It's like people never heard the phrase, "two wrongs don't make a right".
I am speaking in regards to the outsider groups, not the locals of Charlottesville.
The media and political operatives is fueling this cult of outrage, the russian email thing didn't hold up so blame Trump for this incident
Meanwhile good news. Not anyone cares, that real Nazis are in jail or anything. Because Trump is a Hilter.
But last Thrusday before the incident.
08/10/2017
Last of 89 members/associates of Aryan Brotherhood of Texas and Aryan Circle sentenced to 20 years in federal prison; represents the largest case prosecuted in US focusing on white supremacist prison gang members
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/last-89-membersassociates-aryan-brotherhood-texas-and-aryan-circle-sentenced-20-years#wcm-survey-target-id
"Those who do NOT oppose Nazis are supporting them."
-- Good thing most of the right oppose Nazis, which is why there are so few of them.
Those who oppose national socialists are bipartite. There are people who recognize diversity (i.e. individual dignity) and intrinsic value. The other party practices [class] diversity or judgment by "color of skin" and denies, recycles lives deemed unworthy. Very Pro-Choice. Very selective. There is not only "=", but equal principles shared by the national socialists, the communists, the fascists, and other left-wing parties. Hopefully, the left in all its incarnations will lose.
Sunsong:
"Yes, those who oppose Nazis can be just as bad as the Nazis."
"You are so wrong! I am embarrassed for you."
Somewhere the ghost of Raoul Wallenberg is relieved to learn that those who oppose Nazis so cannot be as bad as the Nazis.
"Whoever engages in it is wrong, but that does NOT make a moral equivalence between the groups."
-- That's the definition of moral equivalence.
Blogger sunsong said...
Yes, those who oppose Nazis can be just as bad as the Nazis.
"You are so wrong! I am embarrassed for you
Those who do NOT oppose Nazis are supporting them."
Are you drunk?
I don't care much for "alt-Left". It sounds too much like a "So's your mother" response.
Why not call them what they are: "fascists" with the small f.
As far as I can tell they pretty much hew straight down the line to Mussolini's Fascist, capital F, ideology including the street fighting and black shirts.
John Henry
It's good that the NYT even recognizes the Antifa thugs. Now, if they would report on the violence Antifa commits at rallies, it would be great.
Folks above have dismembered the "false equivalency" charge, well done.
Yes, Nazis are evil. But if you come to rallies with baseball bats, mace, bricks and chains to attack folks, then you are acting like Nazis.
The Left are shameless hypocrites.
Nothing Trump would say except abject apology and prostrate confession would satisfy the dogs baying for blood.
I am very pleased to see someone finally refusing to play that game.
Sunsong was a Bernie supporter...who would not vote for Trump.
So under the definition they have committed to for alt-Right, the Times has admitted they, and much of the media, have libeled a number of right wing figures. Milo, for instance, simply does not fit that definition, and was routinely called alt-right.
sunsong said...
There is NO moral equivalence between Nazis and those who oppose them!
I agree 100% in this case. ( I could imagine a case of Nazis being opposed by some group of genocidal Stalinists, or some such, in which case there would be moral equivalence. )
There is also NO moral equivalence between a group of people legally exercising their 1st amendment rights, and a group using violence or threats of violence to prevent it.
The NYT can't even define the term 'news'.
The doxxing fascists are out in full force. Not really you? oh well.
Masked leftists are all A-OK.
Zinger philosophy.
If they bring a knife, we bring a bun.
Bay Area Guy. No they are not hypocrites. They are using a strategy that has worked very well for them for many many years. The Left has always worn a cloak of purity and moral goodness as a justification for perpetrating evil.
Violence is not appropriate at a rally! Whoever engages in it is wrong, but that does NOT make a moral equivalence between the groups.
Yes, it does. You're wrong.
On the down side, the alt-right will probably wear masks next time they show up for a street brawl.
I wonder how they would categorize blacks and Hispanics who are against gay marriage, feminism and gender fluidity?
Can we have a Tag for "Fake Definitions" now, please?
Thanks!!!!
Trump once again exposes the painful truth that the press covers up. Now he is forcing the MSM to at least admit that there is an "alt-left" that is just as violent and obnoxious as the so-called "alt-right". Neither side has anything constructive on its mind - sort of like the Democratic party.
What he does is damned uncomfortable sometimes, but it is better than being led like lambs to the slaughter by the MSM and Republican establishment. Trump is definitely going to carry on with his revolution. He may only succeed in breaking all the china, but that is a good thing.
I surprise myself sometimes at how angry I get over the MSM/ GOPe hypocrisy. I can't imagine myself 10 years ago supporting Trump. Today, I am ready to go to the barricades with him I am so fed up.
To my mind charity is recognizing a shared humanity meaning both the best and the worst in us all that exists universally. So I recognize my own partially controlled tendency toward anger and have charity towards those that display it. It's not denying the reality of human nature by assuming only the best but rather its not exempting myself from the equation and imagining I'm somehow better just because I'm better off at the moment.
Here ya go: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-alt-right-is.html
In just the last few years we've had numerous riots, property destruction, and violence under the banners of BLM, Antifa, Occupy, and other groups with background support in bringing people to the rallies by WFP, Leftist Unions, and other groups.
I get that the rallyers in Charlottesville were terrible. But there was planned and organized counter-protests who came to disrupt a lawful rally and came prepared for violence.
You might be on their "side", but why aren't journalists chronicling their efforts. Who are the organizers? How are they organizing? What groups are contributing? What messages do they use to prepare people?
There are counter protesters who are all wearing the same goggles (to protect from pepper spray/riot gas), same outfits, similar weaponry ("Sticks"). There are commonalities among banners.
This is not organic and it's not local community members. So what is it?
I seem to recall that when Obama constantly used divisive rhetoric
I don't. But ... dog whistles.
Zinger philosophy.
If they bring a knife, we bring a bun.
rhhardin you're a genius
Sorry Sunsong - most of the Nazi Jew Haters I know about - they are all on the left.
"Who are the organizers? How are they organizing?"
-- If you read the WaPo article, they go through great lengths to obscure the fact the counter protestors were equally, if not more, organized than the Nazis.
Ann says: In its original form, what I understood "alt-right" to mean was: on the right, but not the Establishment.
It's what I considered myself until recently. I am most definitely NOT a racist.
I should know better than to start the day with a NYT post. :-(
Moral just defines what sort of argument it is. You determine if it's anything you can respect or if the other guy is beyond the pale, at least in this area.
You learn what not to talk about at dinner.
sunsong said...
“What we saw today was an increasingly isolated, impotent, humiliated & frustrated president who lashed out & disgraced the office he holds.”
~ Evan Siegfried (GOP strategist)
8/16/17, 9:24 AM
LOL!
Yep, the guy that had NO chance to win the primary, the guy that had NO chance to beat Hillary, yep, that guy is frustrated, lashing out, and a disgrace to the office he holds. After 8 years of the light worker, that anyone dares write those words is hilarious!
You all keep thinking that with your liberal blinders on. That is EXACTLY how you got Trump and will get more Trump.
Trump calls out the truth and all of the establishment state see and hear what they want to and AGAIN misunderestimate (to quote another that was labeled an idiot) him to their detriment. This is but the first (maybe second) inning, play ball!
Another blank profile says:
I think Trump is wrong to say that not all of the protestors were white supremacists.
The lefties are all on the same page. I guess the memo went out early.
The riot, and that's what it was, was created by a larger group of anarchists and real Fascists attacking a small group of a mixture of white nationalists and fringe groups like the neo Nazis.
A lot of young white men are getting radicalized by things like Stanford's "Abolishing Whiteness" courses.
My youngest daughter at U of Arizona ten years ago had a class in freshman year that used "Whiteness Studies"text book.
This whole hysteria about rape and "diversity" in colleges is making white men into a damaged identity. What you see now is an early, very early manifestation.
The Air Force is bleeding pilots. The exit interviews are finding euphemism of "Extra Duty" as the most common reason why pilots turn down $35,000 bonuses and leave. Airline pilot salaries have dropped considerably since the 1990s and after the drop in travel after 9/11. It is not that airline salaries are so high. It is that young pilots are sick of "Diversity" lectures and forcing young officers to walk around in high heels.
We are still very early in the Cold Civil War. You saw some of it last weekend.
As a pigeon, it's important that I'm placed in the correct hole.
I Have Misplaced My Pants quoted...
“Antifa” is a contraction of the word “anti-fascist.” It was coined in Germany in the 1960s and 1970s
"Antifaschistische Aktion was proclaimed by the German Communist Party (KPD) in their newspaper Rote Fahne in 1932 ..."
"Sunsong was a Bernie supporter."
Oh. So you support trying to assassinate Republican politicians. That's disgusting!!
"Alt-Right" has become as meaningless as "Fascist": Now it just means "not liberal."
I dare you who are claiming 'moral equivalence' to watch this and tell me it is ok with you...
esquire
sunsong said...
Violence is not appropriate at a rally!
What a strange admission for someone protecting a group which exists specifically to commit violence to stop speech - and not just speech by white supremacists but of anyone who expresses ideas they don't like.
Why do people profess to believe principles which are directly contradicted by their statements? Don't they understand when these come in conflict people always conclude their stated principles are not their true principles?
I don't. But ... dog whistles.
"He acted stupidly"
"Clinging to guns and religion"
"We don't know all the facts. I will have more to say about this as the facts become more clear. For now, let me just say that even as yesterday I spoke about our need to be concerned, as all Americans, about racial disparities in our criminal justice system..."
These were the obvious ones. But apparently your dog whistle only hears what it wants.
@John Henry You are correct, but the "f" word has been so degraded that no one knows what it means anymore - so some new term needed to be introduced.
Adddendum: I do remember Obama foolishly commenting on "bitter" people with their Bibles, their guns, before he was elected president, and man did he extract a huge penalty for that blunder. The right has felt persecuted by Obama and sorry for themselves ever since. Foolish and inexperienced Obama.
But divisive? That ain't nothing like Trump. This is a guy who campaigned on divisive, and won't stop.
There is Alt-Right, Alt-Left, and AltHouse.
SunSong - if you want videos of Antifa smashing people and things - we can do that.
I don't get Jew hating, excepting Radio Japan's pro Palestinian stance, which I gather is just their thing in Japan.
Though there was that movement to ban christmas trees in the workplace in the early 90s, but it blew over I think. It wasn't a great popularity play.
It is pretty clear the leftists have been planning this attack on history for a long time. How many protests against Confederate statues were there for the last 8 years?
Funny how it just happens to start when the traitors trying to pull a coup with fake Russian collusion are being outed.
I dare you who are claiming 'moral equivalence' to watch this and tell me it is ok with you...
No one who's claiming moral equivalence has said that any of what happened last week was "OK".
That is a massive strawman.
Do you have the slightest shred of ability to think with reason and without emotion?
There is not some super magical badness that they can achieve because of their magical Nazi label.
Actually there is a super magical badness they achieve.
They advocate race hatred as fundamental fact of their ideology.
They appropriate the symbols and rhetoric of one of the most violent, racist, and inhumane regimes in history.
While the brawling incidents between the white nationalists and antifa resemble 1920s Fascist Italy more the 1930s Nazi Germany, it is Nazi Germany that the white nationalists present as their model.
"Today, I am ready to go to the barricades with him I am so fed up."
Me too, and I am not so surprised anymore to find McCain and his brain tumor on the other side.
"They advocate race hatred as fundamental fact of their ideology."
So does BLM. Can you bring yourself to admit it ?
I am neither 'protecting' nor 'supporting' the antifa. I hope all those who are violent are arrested.
But that in no way makes them equivalent to Nazis and Nazi sympathizers...who in this particular case killed an innocent woman and injured about 19 others. There is NO equivalence.
sunsong said...
I dare you who are claiming 'moral equivalence' to watch this and tell me it is ok with you...
I'm interested in someone explaining how believing two groups have taken wrong actions means the believer must approve the actions of one of them.
What passes for logical thought is just bizarre. Upon realizing their conclusions have become so twisted most people would stop talking and reevaluate how they ended up believing such nonsense.
I don't see anyone supporting NAZIs. I see some supporting the Constitution, and some not.
That's the real dividing line.
The far left and the far right are on the same page when it comes to their hatred of Jews.
I know - I live in a very progressive leftwing town and many of the progressives here have no problem displaying their "Jews are going to destroy everything" attitude. I witnessed an outrage burst at a local grocery store right after the election. Some old leftist hippy was ranting out loud for the whole store to hear that "Trump and the Jews were going to destroy everything."
Actually there is a super magical badness they achieve.
They advocate race hatred as fundamental fact of their ideology.
They appropriate the symbols and rhetoric of one of the most violent, racist, and inhumane regimes in history.
While the brawling incidents between the white nationalists and antifa resemble 1920s Fascist Italy more the 1930s Nazi Germany, it is Nazi Germany that the white nationalists present as their model.
While all of that may be true, does it give one side more moral authority than the other when using violence?
sunsong said...
I am neither 'protecting' nor 'supporting' the antifa.
You are doing both by arguing their conduct should not be subject to evaluation.
Nazi Germany was sort of okay until Kristalnacht, when it becamse obvious that things were not going to go well. Until then it was all talk of decency and goodness. Ideals in the air. Sort of like today but with the sides reversed.
He, as pope, doesn't note Augustine's definition of charity, which means thinking the best of people rather than the worst.
Note the principle of charity in rhetoric. Helping your opponent out with the best and strongest expression of his argument when s/he has artlessly failed hirself to do so.
That's worth keeping in mind and practicing. The practice, which you see in experienced debaters, shows a strong mind and sound principles, regardless of their correctness of their argument.
Thanks for making me think of that.
Brookzene said... [hush][hide comment]
I seem to recall that when Obama constantly used divisive rhetoric
I don't. But ... dog whistles.
8/16/17, 9:40 AM
"If I had a son, he would look like..."
"The police acted stupidly"
I could go on. I get that YOU don't see these sorts of things as divisive but that is because you agree with all of his positions and more. MLK tried to unite. Obama tried to divide.
Its not the leader, its the people.
The people want to be divided, so they will select those who will.
If they didn't want to be divided they would not behave as they do. This process has been going on for decades. Obama was just a symptom, and for that matter merely a puppet. Trump is a manifestation of a reaction. Hate of Trump is just a handy way to personalize communal hatreds.
But that in no way makes them equivalent to Nazis and Nazi sympathizers...who in this particular case killed an innocent woman and injured about 19 others.
Yes, it does. And one person killed an innocent woman and injured about 19 others. The blame lays squarely on that one person. Who may have been mentally ill. Who may have been goaded (or not) into running his car the way he did.
Anyone who uses violence as a means to political ends is EQUALLY EVIL IN EVERY WAY, SHAPE AND FORM. PERIOD.
"I don't get Jew hating, excepting Radio Japan's pro Palestinian stance, which I gather is just their thing in Japan."
I think it's a focused form of over-the-top anti-elitism that is strengthed by ethnic and religous history and a dash of paranoia. It has a long history with lots of famous propents (e.g. M Luther). But really that's not much of an explanation: I guess it's always hard to rationally explain irrational behavior.
That's worth keeping in mind and practicing. The practice, which you see in experienced debaters, shows a strong mind and sound principles, regardless of their correctness of their argument.
It also leads to clearer thinking for everyone.
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.
Oh no, not inorganic. Pure uncut bullshit. Did you use bullshit tag, Althouse?
And so we see why I hate these labels so. This begins as a way to identify a group or sub-group of like minded individuals and then is redefined by opponents and turned into an insult for the purpose of name calling.
Nothing Trump would say except abject apology and prostrate confession would satisfy the dogs baying for blood.
No. The only thing Trump could do to satify them is stop being President. Reporters brazenly admit as much when they breathlessly describe Trumps newser, adding 'I don't see how he can survive...' as CNBCs political reporter did this morning.
You can think of the statues as traditional marriage and find a lot of application.
A way of life.
Wow I agree with Unknown on that labelling point
"If I had a son, he would look like..."
That was exactly how millions of black parents felt. You wanted to believe that was divisive because you had a narrative in your head that completely came apart over time.
But keep insulting African-Americans in your effort to portray Obama as "divisive" because of this quote.
Ppppppffffffftttttthhhhhhhttttt.
One major difference between the origins of the terms Alt-Right and Alt-Left seems to be that members of the Alt-Right self identify as such, while people who have been assigned the label "Alt-Left" generally don't identify with that term. In a lot of peoples minds that matters. But I guess in order to resist and fight a movement, you first have to label it. Putting all the various far left protesters, BLM activists and Antifa people under one umbrella term helps make them one big target. As Alinsky said: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Trump probably knows this.
Right wing hurt feelings and entitlements and all....
rhhardin I'm not following you, care to expand?
Black Lives Do Matter! That is a truth. And they are being killed by police for non-capital offences, which is heinous. That does not mean that violence is justified from them!
But it does mean that they NEED to say: Our lives matter! Black Lives Matter! It is a tragedy of America, imo, the treatment of blacks and that even today racism is alive and well and blacks actually need to say this.
The point is that the left are desperate to smear Trump as a white supremacist because they have lost the argument, and this sort of media tactic is all they have left. The left are trying to smear normal Americans as Nazis, all while they ignore the Nazis on the left.
Indeed, the right wing has a right to feelings, and for that matter entitlements.
Blogger sunsong said...
"I am neither 'protecting' nor 'supporting' the antifa. I hope all those who are violent are arrested.
But that in no way makes them equivalent to Nazis and Nazi sympathizers...who in this particular case killed an innocent woman and injured about 19 others. There is NO equivalence."
How about democrats/antifa who want to force everyone who disagrees with them to accept the sins of Nazis so the democrats/antics can justify their violence and usurp power from a lawfully elected president?
You clearly want to call us all racist/fascists so you can justify seizing power through violence.
Nazis did that.
Brookzene:
Uh, Trayvon was a tatted violent thug, he was beating Zimmerman's head against the concrete when he was shot, and the courts agreed. That was our narrative from the start. YOUR narrative was that he was a saintly innocent 11 year old (or at least that's the only picture the media showed). How exactly did OUR narrative fall apart? How exactly was your narrative supported by *anything*?
The Big Lie of the Anti-Cop Left Turns Lethal
"The police could end all killings of civilians tomorrow and it would have no effect on the black homicide risk, which comes overwhelmingly from other blacks. In 2013, there were 6,261 black homicide victims in the U.S.—almost all killed by black civilians—resulting in a death risk in inner cities that is ten times higher for blacks than for whites. None of those killings triggered mass protests; they are deemed normal and beneath notice. The police, by contrast, according to published reports, kill roughly 200 blacks a year, most of them armed and dangerous, out of about 40 million police-civilian contacts a year. Blacks are in fact killed by police at a lower rate than their threat to officers would predict. In 2013, blacks made up 42 percent of all cop killers whose race was known, even though blacks are only 13 percent of the nation’s population. The percentage of black suspects killed by the police nationally is much lower than the percentage of blacks mortally threatening them. "
rhhardin I'm not following you, care to expand?
The tradition of traditional marriage was offensive to activist gays and so traditional marriage was removed at night and thrown away.
Just as the statues represent the southern gentleman and that way of life, is offensive to activist leftists for its connection to slavery.
In both cases it's a blindness not to see what's positive in the tradition, and I think everybody did see it, but it's a power play at heart, not a matter of being offended.
It's offending the guy who isn't claiming to be offended, much to everybody's surprise.
Traditions and rules do more than is noticed so they surprise you.
Brookzene said...
Right wing hurt feelings and entitlements and all....
It's pretty amusing when people who claim to be for uniting turn around and admit they dismiss the concerns of half the group. There's nothing like accidentally admitting your entire branding effort is a lie.
Whoops.
BLM does not believe all our lives matter - just ask them. Try and tell them so and see how that goes.
Indeed, the right wing has a right to feelings, and for that matter entitlements.
There are specific hurt feelings and grievances, and claims of entitlements that are proper to the alt-right that we need to talk about.
I have already said I don't 'approve' of antifa...but Nazis and KKK are threatening one of the fundamental principles of our founding...that all are created equal. There is no equivalence.
And again, in this particular case they killed Heather and injured about 19 more.
It's pretty amusing when people who claim to be for uniting turn around and admit they dismiss the concerns of half the group. There's nothing like accidentally admitting your entire branding effort is a lie.
This will be very effective to use against me as I campaign to become the president of all Americans.
WaPo
In 2015, The Washington Post launched a real-time database to track fatal police shootings, and the project continues this year. As of Sunday, 1,502 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since Jan. 1, 2015. Of them, 732 were white, and 381 were black (and 382 were of another or unknown race).
Adjusting for percentage of population - you can rig the math to make it look like more blacks are killed by police, but the base numbers make it clear. NO - cops are not targeting blacks.
Yes - cops target criminals.
No way Equivalent morally?
What if driver's car was attached and he panicked? What if he had mental issues and got overwhelmed mentally?
And what of Baked Alaska who may lose an eye due to an acid attack. That was premeditated.
What of the Trump supporters attacked in San Jose?
Whoa! The definition of Alt-Right is slanderous, preposterous and so clearly meant to demonize. Pity that smarter people have not been drawn to journalism. Although come to think of it I have known a few through the years and none of them were brain trusts. They thought the purpose of their jobs was to change things. LOL
sparrow said...
Wow I agree with Unknown on that labelling point
It's a different "Unknown".
There are other principles of the founding the antifa are against, especially liberty.
Blogger Brookzene said...
"If I had a son, he would look like..."
That was exactly how millions of black parents felt. You wanted to believe that was divisive because you had a narrative in your head that completely came apart over time.
So millions of black parents thought their kid was like a violent person who jumped a guy and knocked him to the ground and was beating the victim until the victim defended himself? I am sure obama was thinking "If I had a son he would violently assault people just like Trayvon."
Sounds like everyone who thinks that statement was ok has a racism issue.
While all of that may be true, does it give one side more moral authority than the other when using violence?
No, but there is a distinction between proximate fault and existential evil.
I do think the left is being pretty dishonest on the first point. I know a few antifa activists and they quite clearly embrace the use of force to oppose fascism. And their definition of fascism keeps getting bigger. So in assessing blame for the actual violence in Charlottesville, antifa should stand up and take the credit they deserve. Instead, they proclaim that they will use force to oppose the fascists then circulate videos and news stories that blame all the violence on the other side.
On the other hand, the Nazi ideology is an existential threat to an open, pluralistic society. It is objectively evil as an ideology and can be treated as such.
Brookzene said...
"If I had a son, he would look like..."
That was exactly how millions of black parents felt. You wanted to believe that was divisive because you had a narrative in your head that completely came apart over time.
But keep insulting African-Americans in your effort to portray Obama as "divisive" because of this quote.
Ppppppffffffftttttthhhhhhhttttt.
8/16/17, 9:56 AM
Don't be obtuse. That phrase was divisive because he DIDN'T have to comment at all! It was a local matter. He chose to inject himself and he CHOSE to "dis" over half the country by making race a thing at the national level. He was everyone's President and he SHOULD have been above that. He couldn't though because he was too petty. He never let an opportunity go by to point out race.
Both the alt-right neo-nazis and the masked hordes of antifa thugs are worthless sacks of shit. It takes about as much courage to state one's opposition to dregs walking around wearing clan robes and carrying nazi flags as it does to publicly declare one's self opposed to childhood cancer. However, if you happen to think highly of antifa for fighting white supremecists, there are hours of videos on youtube showing them screaming in faces, attacking elderly veterans, punching women, tear-gassing unarmed people, smashing heads with bike locks, and on and on, usually for the crime of what appears to nothing more than publicly stating an opinion deemed wrongthink by antifa & the left. Oh, and from what I've seen, you don't have to brandish a swastika to be "literally a nazi" in the eyes of antifa(thus eligible to be be thrown to the ground & kicked half to death by 12 people), you just have to disagree with them.
To paraphrase the famous philosopher -- if you make it your life's work to beat up those you deem fascist, make sure not to adopt fascistic tactics. You may end up looking less "anti-fa" than just plain old "fa."
There is no such thing as the alt-Left. There is no such thing as violent Antifa. There are no Leftwing riots, beatings, murders...none of those happen.
Nice people like you, Professor, agree that the UGLY people are all on one side. The Media agrees! Why would you quibble about definitions?
If you say something confidently enough, you might begin to believe it's true, and then get angry at people who don't agree.
sunsong said...
I have already said I don't 'approve' of antifa..
But you showed you want to protect them. When actions and words conflict people universally believe the actions.
There is no equivalence.
I didn't say there was an equivalence. That's a definition the left invented (and you support) for the purpose of protecting the left wing fascists. Reasonable people are perfectly comfortable saying both groups are wrong without further requiring people not criticize left wingers engaging in political violence.
Even more evil than the neo-Nazis: The MSM. They have done/are doing everything possible to get us into an all-out civil war or a race war or both.
I read yesterday that a mostly black group in Dallas is organizing to protect Confederate monuments from the antifas. Good for them. I'll bet if this happens it won't make the evening news.
Blacks to Protect Confederate Monuments
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा