The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

I already condemned the violent acts of the nazis. Some people, however, have a hard time believing that the violence comes from both sides and it is both wrong. Just because I'm pointing out that both sides are violent doesn't make me a nazi supporter/apologist. Do I have to say in every message I post in this thread, about the violence comming from both sides, that I am against nazis and condemn their violence? If that is what you want, then you should atleast do the same thing. If not, then stop implying I have to.
Even though I totally disagree with those nazi ideologies, it is part of free speech. If we prohibit their speech, then we are falling in to a society where censorship dominates us.
I personally am a strong believer that if there is total free speech, the best ideas for the advancement of society will dominate these hate full ideas.

The whole argument wasn't about you or me though. At least it started with the question if Trump was clear enough or not.

Violence against Nazis is less wrong than violence against people who aren't white supremacist pro-eugenics genocide-advocating rifle-toting militia.

This is what moderates fail to understand, I find, and of course right-leaning folks use it as a cover. "but look at this other violence". Yes, it's violence because guess what! You let free speech become so all-pervasive that Neo-Nazis are abusing it to achieve their goals. People waited for Nazis to get into power last time. This isn't a Godwin, you see, because

a) we're already discussing modern Nazis, in context, and
b) the person who literally created Godwin's Law said we're fine to do so. Because a).

https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/896884949634232320?lang=en

Yet, weirdly, this argument is never applied in the reverse. Which is the easiest argument in exposing the intentional subversion behind it. All violence is bad when people are using or threatening violence against literal Nazis. But free speech is not sacrosanct when the offender isn't a Neo-Nazi. For example, people who defend the right to Neo-Nazi speech, in my experience, have real trouble in defending the right for extremist Muslims to espouse a twisted version of the Sharia principles.

Funny that.

Almost like there's a bias at play.

You see, I condemn both types of hate speech, and I accept that people will go UH WHAT ABOUT THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, MAN. But people never do when I write about condemning or suppressing the hate speed of other religious extremists. Only when I criticise Neo-Nazis, or any of their relatively easily-linked cultural strongholds online (see: alt-right, harassment campaigns, etc), do I get any kind of opposition.

Doesn't anybody think that's weird?

These same people support violence against extremist Muslims (or death cults using Islam as an excuse for their bigoted violence - like IS do). But they don't support it against extremist white folk.

Why?

Anybody got an answer?

missquote. It was Gorbles not me who said that.

It's Jon Oliver on CharlottsevilleGate

x'DDDDDDDDDDD this dude...

The concept is, that not every Trump voter is a Nazi, but out of the various vehicles vandalized at Trump venues, like 1 out of 15 or less belongs to a Nazi. Other vehicles, belonged to someone who "wasn't voting the way they wanted them to vote".

They are legitimately a poor choice of judge and jury. If this country runs on violence groups as enforcers with no general concern for the law of the land, then we truly are an anarchy, and I should start finding a feudal lord to serve so I can help him conquer his neigbhors. That's where we are, if we let antifa carry their violence out without due-process, and I'd even be okay if it turned out over half their victims were Nazis, but well over half their victims are not Nazis, that's how poor the accuracy of their assault is.

They might as well be Gundam Wing pilots, how fucked their accuracy is when attacking targets.

Literally same answer. You can vandalize a Nazi's car and they wouldn't have voted for you in the first place. If you vandalize every Trump supporter's car, and you LOST THE LAST ELECTION, then WITHOUT BETTER NUMBERS, he wins again. I'm certainly not going to vote democrat because my car was vandalized, you might as well ******* kill me, because you're going to have to. But you'll say "must have been a random home invader who killed me, you can't prove it was Antifa".

We can't prove it, but as far as the claims go, the victims of crime who aren't tied with white-nationalist organizations are all sharing the same tale that it was radical-left terrorism. Why can't we prove the victims were attacked by Antifa? Well, they aren't just waiting around at the scene of the crime, they're as chicken-**** as any other criminal. Why can't women prove they were raped? Pretty offensive, eh? Well if only you'd've given a **** about the victims, aye?

Protect ALL victims of domestic violence, assault, and vandalism. Condemn ALL forms of terror. Condemn ALL forms of political suppression. Condemn ALL forms of biased media. Enforce ALL policies equally when you handle crimes, not just "jail your enemies when they do nothing, set free your allies when they commit crimes". That is the lowest form of law, I cannot support it.

But hang on.

Americans defend their right to an assortment of lethal weaponry based on the fundamental principle of violent opposition to a corrupt government.

So what you're saying is that vigilante groups you disagree with are bad, but vigilante groups you agree with are good?

I'm not even getting started on your "condemn all sides" trash. You've spent pages condemning nothing but the antifa, with the odd line against Nazis maybe just about speculatively thrown in for good measure. That isn't condemning all sides. That is a clear and obvious bias against one side that you have there.

I said nowhere ever, that groups should carry out judge-and-jury violence on offensive people. I said fire when fired upon. The police often get caught doing what you suggest here, they shoot unarmed civilians based on convenience. I believe the POLICE should fire when fired upon. I believe civilians should do the same, absolutely. Brandishing and using a firearm in an illegal non-defensive pre-emptive manner, should be and is against the law already. If it's not brandished and use in an illegal manner, it's okay, because we don't arrest everybody for possession, unless it's marijuana, which I don't agree with.

If we're going after firearms, why not arrest for marijuana, why not arrest for Qurans and Bibles, why not arrest for carrying a blade, why not arrest for possession of a blunt instrument exceeding so long and such a weight, or arrest for possession of a taser or exposed electric device capable of greater than 4 amps? North Korea does all this, and they are completely pacified, because nobody can commit violence without execution. They also can't hold elections, even if they wanted to. This is apparently NOT A GOOD THING. North Korea has a nonexistent crimerate, but do we really "want" a nonexistent crimerate, or a proper citizen response to crime?

Honestly, if police had rubber bullets at those divisive protests, and a video-captured digital scope, nobody could say "the police wasn't bombarding you for being violent", and that includes liberals who happen to be tossing concrete bottles randomly in the air (one of these days it'll land on someone young and kill them, you watch, though you'll probably say the slain shouldn't have been assembling with a large group of white people, knowing how dangerous it is, like they don't have freedom of assembly or something).

Because who do you think were a large part of the population in Saudi Arabia during the "Lawrence of Arabia" timeperiod?

Violence is not only physical.

And no, guns are not the same as mari-fecking-juana.

Man, you're terrible at this. More Whataboutism please, and more of those terrible comparisons. They're the only arguments you have.

Nothing is ever a good enough comparison to you. Saying they're not good comparisons, is easy.

Pretending comparisons between guns and mob-lynching exist, is also easy.

Pretending I don't need your approval because it should be pretty clear you're just pretending all your arguments are right and mine are wrong, is also easy. I'll let readers decide what's a good comparison.

You'll probably insist on telling them what to think though. Of course you would, they have to be told what to think after all, right?

Times trophy has responded well to any criticism or counterarguments: still zero

and taken things back : 0

anyways the practice of Trumpism (A.K.A. Divination of what Trump will do ) is really solidifying itself as an exact science.

as the predictions from [CNN amongst others] that trump would pull a 180 on his stance on the Afghanistan war in yesterday's presidential address came true!

and despite all odds!

remember this (and Robert Pattinson) is one's of trump's main things during years and years of tweeting, during the campaign and even during recent news interviews.

So I'll let you guys guess how they did it before telling you.

oh and unrelated to the reason but still fun :

I am not a religious person, but halleluiah, the link is down! He's going to replace it, but halleluiah for right now!

How's THAT as a response? I literally have responded to everything, and been ignored AT LEAST ONCE, but HALLELUIAH THE LINK IS DOWN.

even in your quote it isn't
?

bad internet where you are maybe

oh whoops :
I forgot to make it unlisted rather than private

aaaaaaand ICE : (because it's always been american politics and today is no different)

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/making-sense-of-robert-e-lee-85017563/

By the way, I call you your speculative news articles (no modern news posts facts and doesn't go forth to say "this proves you should think this way", because journalism is dead and is eyebrow deep in horseshit)...

...and I raise you an educational article not writ to draw conclusions for you. Even includes your quotes and ****, IN CONTEXT to the time it was actually written (you know, when Abraham Lincoln wrote this

Oh, we're quoting old posts now with completely unrelated nonsense?

Well, it's not unrelated. But you've linked an article to someone sympathic to Lee who considers him akin to his own father. Lawl. So it is nonsense.