Charlottesville car attack

[Ivysaur]

But it's okay to riot and resort to violence and destroy communities right? Okay gotcha. The irony is real here guys. smh

But in all honesty.. I'm all for shooting these idiots. I'm just saying I find it funny how people can destroy property and communities over a BLM protest or even resort to violence over Trump becoming president yet find it okay because "they have the right to express themselves" but it's different if Trump supporters express themselves is all. Jesus you guys are acting like I support these pieces of ****s when I don't. This is why I don't argue with you guys.
#Murica #Peaceout

It's wrong for anyone to destroy anything or kill anyone or cause violence or break the law. It's wrong and all of them should be punished.

This said:

BML: we protest like this because we want equality for all.
Nazis: we protest like this because we want to kill all non-whites and/or exile them from our land because we think they are inferior.

One is a worthy cause gone wrong. The other is a twisted, fascist cause which obviously went wrong because there is no way you can defend that normally. Can you tell the difference? Or has the power of "whataboutism" and "both sides" completely blinded you so hard that your only response to this is "whatabout BLM"?

Like, if you see people saying "Sieg heil", doing nazi salutes, chanting "You will not replace us!", "blood and soil", "one people, one nation, end immigration" and your only thought is "aww, Trump supporters expressing themselves, that's so nice!" and think "this is like when anti-trumps said 'Not my President', 'Education, not deportation' and 'No Trump! No KKK! No fascist USA!'", then you have a problem of perspective.

Sure, free speech means the government can't put you in jail for expressing your ideas. Nobody is asking any of those protesters is jailed just for being there. What freedom of speech doesn't mean is that anybody has to approve of what you are saying, or respect it. Or is Nazism a respectable philosophy now?

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

You're acting like they haven't protested this shit before. Or are you so sucked into current media that you completely forgot about the history of these white supremacists? I understand they're filled with hatred and I wish we could rid them all of society but them protesting this isn't "new" and history repeats itself. They've protested before and after the Holocaust and they're protesting again, it'll be over soon anyways, just like every other protest throughout history. There's nothing we can do about it unless we start war on our own turf, is that what you want? If so, expect shit to escalate really quickly. Trust me, we don't want war on our own turf it ended oh so well after the Civil War. Then again, maybe it's what this country needs but I believe in peace and love not violence and war. So don't try to tell me I'm blind on anything cause I'm more aware than 95% of you guys on here about what's going on and what has been going on. I even predicted most of what would happen. I'm FAR from oblivious. I've known what's been going on in society, I'm not blind or brainwashed like most people. Really thought, it's just common sense to figure these things out. If you take the mainstream media and social media out of the picture you'd see it's toxic to our society. So please, next.

 

[gimmepie]

I don't think anyone is denying that there have been KKK/neo-nazi protests or "rallies" in the past. Nobody (except the holocaust deniers in those groups maybe) is that oblivious to history.

What people are saying, is that it's a hell of a lot harder for those groups to present their horrible idealism as acceptable when the government isn't acting like racism, anti-semitism or any other kind of discrimination is okay and in some instances actively encouraging that kind of behaviour. Trump/the Republican's aren't responsible for the KKK, but they're enablers.

For the record, I don't think most people think it's okay for BLM activists to resort to violence either. I certainly don't. Nor do I think that's a good idea. I really wish that people would stop using "but [insert person/group here] did..." as a kind of defense. One person acting inexcusably doesn't suddenly make it okay for another to. It just means that both people are assholes.

 

[El Héroe Oscuro]

Uh, no? You're conflating the right to speech to the content of the speech itself. Is it out of the question for someone to both assert the right to peacefully demonstrate and at the same time denounce the cause for which they're demonstrating?

I think what I'm trying to say is that a person has the capacity thanks to the Constitutipn to be able to protest/say whatever they do want to say about it. People are/should be allowed to denounce the matter as it reflects the same amendment that the protestors use for their demonstration.

Technically speaking based on legalities, a person has a right to proclaim themselves as a "racist scumbag" as someone coined the phrase earlier, but that doesn't mean you should be one based off of general normal human values...does that sort of elaborate on what I was trying to say earlier/answer your question?

So to answer my own question from earlier: the President should denounce the behavior while simultaneously recognizing the protestors constitutional rights to be able to express themselves as they did. He should be more heavily denouncing the supremist behavior more as well as addressing the act of terrorism and Constiution to address all parties involved.

I recommend you read the constitution before throwing around the terms "constitutional rights" and "free speech":

I mean...your picture represents my point lol. Based on the Consitution, regardless of how we feel about white supremacy, they have a a right to act as they do. Just like how the same amendment reflects how we don't have to accept or be happy about it. I'm just saying that at the end of the day the Constitution defends the inability to strip this group of people from expressing their horrific values; it's an outdated loophole that is being blatantly utilized to express even more outdated and inhumane values

Emotions aside, what they did was legal (as horrible as the truth is.)

 

[gimmepie]

Emotions aside, what they did was legal (as horrible as the truth is.)

Isn't hate speech not actually protected by your constitution?

 

[Kanzler]

I think what I'm trying to say is that a person has the capacity thanks to the Constitutipn to be able to protest/say whatever they do want to say about it. People are/should be allowed to denounce the matter as it reflects the same amendment that the protestors use for their demonstration.

Technically speaking based on legalities, a person has a right to proclaim themselves as a "racist scumbag" as someone coined the phrase earlier, but that doesn't mean you should be one based off of general normal human values...does that sort of elaborate on what I was trying to say earlier/answer your question?

So to answer my own question from earlier: the President should denounce the behavior while simultaneously recognizing the protestors constitutional rights to be able to express themselves as they did. He should be more heavily denouncing the supremist behavior more as well as addressing the act of terrorism and Constiution to address all parties involved.

I mean...your picture represents my point lol. Based on the Consitution, regardless of how we feel about white supremacy, they have a a right to act as they do. Just like how the same amendment reflects how we don't have to accept or be happy about it. I'm just saying that at the end of the day the Constitution defends the inability to strip this group of people from expressing their horrific values; it's an outdated loophole that is being blatantly utilized to express even more outdated and inhumane values

Emotions aside, what they did was legal (as horrible as the truth is.)

I think what we are saying now is the same.

However, I continue to find disagreement between what we seem to find important. Of course peaceful protest is legal, but is that really the most salient point here? Is that the important last word to have, that to conclude your thoughts on this matter, we're going to state that what they did was legal?

Edmund Burke (not addressed to you EHO, but just saying true conservatives should know who he is cuz I rarely hear anybody mention him re: conservatism) once said that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. I think it's important for all true-hearted Americans to denounce the evil of their ideology for what it is. Do not allow them to convince you that their ideology is normal, and to White Americans, do not allow them to convince you that they are the sole representatives of your interests. Their victory begins not when people believe what they stand for, but when people do not fight against what they stand for.

 

[El Héroe Oscuro]

Isn't hate speech not actually protected by your constitution?

I could not answer that unfortunately; however, if that was the case, I feel like they wouldn't have been able to come together like that in the first place you know?

I think what we are saying now is the same.

However, I continue to find disagreement between what we seem to find important. Of course peaceful protest is legal, but is that really the most salient point here? Is that the important last word to have, that to conclude your thoughts on this matter, we're going to state that what they did was legal?

Edmund Burke (not addressed to you EHO, but just saying true conservatives should know who he is cuz I rarely hear anybody mention him re: conservatism) once said that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. I think it's important for all true-hearted Americans to denounce the evil of their ideology for what it is. Do not allow them to convince you that their ideology is normal, and to White Americans, do not allow them to convince you that they are the sole representatives of your interests. Their victory begins not when people believe what they stand for, but when people do not fight against what they stand for.

I think that it just becomes a very tricky situation. People in general want to/should denounce these atrocities. But if one is to progress into outlawing these stances, than it does call into the question the Constitution. I think there would need to be radical changes to the foundations of which the country was founded on in order for this to work as smoothly as possible. Unfortunately though, I don't think that would be the case.

Mind you, I would like for those changes to be made. I'm just being as realistic as possible about the situation. I don't view it as a matter of "right vs wrong", but more as a "constitutional vs unconstitutional" standpoint, which unfortunately with this current regime is how I personally feel like the matter will be perceived.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Well, it's really proved the point I've been trying to get across for how long now? THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE GENERAL POPULATION! If they did we wouldn't be in these situations now would we? Our founding fathers sure as hell didn't envision this, they didn't envision society to become this divided yet here we are. As I said, maybe this country needs another Civil War and as I stated I'm against violence and war, but it seems the general population with how they've been acting wants it. If we want war, so be it. I'll happily defend myself, all my guns have been loaded and ready but I hope I never have to use them. But with the way things have been going I fear it's just a matter of time before it happens. Let our stupidity be the death of us.

 

[tokyodrift]

It's quite sad that this happened not even 5 miles away from my home. It would have been a peaceful protest but they came ready for war. They came with guns, shields, and helmets. We came with just ourselves. It's an issue when you can sit in a Walmart parking lot threatning people with guns and all the other bullshit. It's an issue when you come to our university and beat people with tiki torches. Or when you beat a close friend of mine who happens to be a black kid walking through a garage. Or when someone walks past you looking at you like you're utter trash just because the color of my skin. The media is really covering up how bad it was here and I hope you'll manage to talk to other people who were out in the front lines and see just what a tragic last two days it was in this small town. If I'm completely honest, I'm quite embarasssed to say I'm from Charlottesville, and the fact that our City Council granted them the permit to hold this rally. It's not even about the statue anymore it's so much more than that.

 

[Grey Wind]

I think there comes a point where "everyone is entitled to their opinion" doesn't apply, and Nazism is definitely it. This isn't just a couple of assholes running their mouth. It's literal Nazis marching in streets inciting violence, and it should absolutely be condemned by Trump. Regardless of whether or not hate speech is covered by the constitution (it's not, afaik), I don't think that the president denouncing white supremacy and neo-Nazism is a problem.

 

[Esper]

People have a right to protest in America. People have a right to protest others' protests. It's unfortunate that white supremacists and neo-nazis are feeling so bold under this presidency, but they cannot use violence or threaten violence. That's illegal and not protected. No one has a right to violence.

This is something new we're seeing, but it's also something that's not new. There have always been backwards, regressive people and groups who will try to stop progress. The people pushing for change and for a better future have always fought under a double standard. They have to be perfect because one slip up and "there's violence on both sides." It's almost as if they're saying it was just an accident that a man drove a car into people with the intent to maim and kill them, as if it was just as likely that someone protesting the nazis would have done the same.

 

[Somewhere_]

Isn't hate speech not actually protected by your constitution?

If the speech is threatening or inciting violence, then its not protected. Otherwise, hate speech is totally okay. Another way its not protected is in public schools, where most speech is allowed, but if the speech impedes on other students or teachers from learning or teaching then its not considered free speech. Of course, on private property, the 1st amendment isnt applicable. There are other exceptions, but I dont think they are relevant to this situation.

The way the protestors are protesting is not really free speech in my opinion. Sure, some of the neo-Nazis may be acting peacefully despite what they advocate for, but a lot of them brought clubs and shields. You dont bring those to a protest unless you intend to incite some sort of violence.

And if the protestors impede on private property too much (where the place isnt open to the public), I think the police are allowed to remove them like with the North Dakota pipeline

 

[Grey Wind]

Even ignoring the weapons, I'm pretty sure "I want to kill all Jews" counts as threatening and inciting violence.

 

[Somewhere_]

Even ignoring the weapons, I'm pretty sure "I want to kill all Jews" counts as threatening and inciting violence.

To clarify:

Its not inciting violence until violence actually occurs. For example, I could say "Lets kill all Jews" and its protected. But if I say "Lets kill all Jews" and someone punches me, then I have incited violence and my speech is not protected.

And saying "I will kill you" is different from saying "I will kill you" with a gun in my hand. Of course, this is more of a case-by-case sort of thing and I'm sure saying "I will kill you" without any weapon may qualify as threatening in many situations.

Considering the weapons and shields and stuff the white nationalists brought, their speech is most likely not protected.

 

[Somewhere_]

You're mixing up "incite" with "cause." Inciting violence does not mean violence inevitably occurs as a result; it is an encouragement and saying "let's kill people" is in and of itself an incitement.

I made a different mistake. I mixd up the words "incite" and "fighting words." My example regarded "fighting words," which are not protected by law. And incitement is not protected either.

Cornell Law explains incitement here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2102

 

[User19sq]

Oh, look at this. Justin Moore, the NC leader of the KKK, has something interesting to say about Heather Heyer's death.

This is just so wrong on so many levels, but that's my opinion. Anyone else think differently?

 

[Sir Codin]

If it looks like a Nazi, supports white nationalism like a Nazi, and quacks like a Nazi, it's a fucking Nazi.

You can knock it off with the false flag narrative right now, nobody is talking about "calling them nazis for argument points" Nazis, we're talking about genuine swastika-tattoo, unabashed xenophobe, racial diversity hating Nazis here. On the one side, we have an entire militant demonstration designed to advocate white supremacy and genocide, and on the other, we have people who react violently when they are told that this militant demonstration is for the specific purpose of advocating the mass murder of them and their loved ones. These two are not the same.

Nazism and white supremacy are ideologies advocating racial purity and genocide of races deemed inferior. There's no room for discussion here and if there is, your either one of them or you badly need to rethink your views on neutrality and moderation.

Fighting Nazis doesn't make the other side "just as bad." It's not hypocrisy, it's not fascism, it's not anti-free speech, it's not anti-diversity, it's not terrorism.

It's self-defense.

 

[Mobile Tsk]

As strong a supporter of the First Amendment as I am, I can't support the rights of people who call for ethnic cleansing. I'm not going to go as far as some as to say diversity is our greatest strength, or anything like that. But I do appreciate that the US has always had a goal of being a place where anyone regardless of demographic characteristics has a chance at success. To enforce this will at times require civil disobedience and even violent force, but we are talking about using force against people who have threatened others' very existence. And yes, when the criminal justice system, including the courts and police force, along with the President, side with violent white supremacists, violent revolution is probably necessary to vanquish such a cancerous force.

 

[Mewtwolover]

BLM protests = we're tired of being murdered because of prejudice towards our skin color.

BLM: we protest like this because we want equality for all.

BLM protests are like that but don't let them fool you. The truth is that BLM is racist anti-white movement, here's what BLM co-founder has said about whites: https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/...ounder-white-people-are-sub-daniel-greenfield

Of course she wont get punished for that because racism against whites is allowed which is wrong, it isn't any different than racism against blacks.

And yes, nazism and white supremacy are bad ideologies as well. Every live matters equally.

 

[Grey Wind]

BLM protests are like that but don't let them fool you. The truth is that BLM is racist anti-white movement, here's what BLM co-founder has said about whites: https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/...ounder-white-people-are-sub-daniel-greenfield

Of course she wont get punished for that because racism against whites is allowed which is wrong, it isn't any different than racism against blacks.

And yes, nazism and white supremacy are bad ideologies as well. Every live matters equally.

That source is terrible. Of course you're gonna think BLM are a racist movement if you believe everything you read on these random conservative websites. They don't even link to the post they claim is coming from this woman.