Neo-Nazi speech shows they wanted violence

[dismal]

Wow. Are you taking your medication?

So now you are hallucinating other people into your psychoses.

To be fair, I think the part of ronburgundy's post that dismal reacted to in that way was the suggestion that Nazis control the White House and Congress. That's a bit of a stretch (though not lunacy). Trump doesn't care about anything other than money and image enough to bother with the ideals of racial purity, he just wants people who can help him win and look good doing it. The Congress is narrowly controlled by Republican politicians, not Nazis. There may be a few in the House, but most of them are just opportunists who will take any votes they can get. It's like the Christian conservative bloc, who are probably mostly agnostics and atheists but got where they are by pandering to believers.

No, that's pure delusional street-corner ranting.

Anyone who actually believes that should seek help.

 

[Elixir]

Wow. Are you taking your medication?

So now you are hallucinating other people into your psychoses.

To be fair, I think the part of ronburgundy's post that dismal reacted to in that way was the suggestion that Nazis control the White House and Congress. That's a bit of a stretch (though not lunacy). Trump doesn't care about anything other than money and image enough to bother with the ideals of racial purity, he just wants people who can help him win and look good doing it. The Congress is narrowly controlled by Republican politicians, not Nazis. There may be a few in the House, but most of them are just opportunists who will take any votes they can get. It's like the Christian conservative bloc, who are probably mostly agnostics and atheists but got where they are by pandering to believers.

Trump is indeed a racist bigot - just not a "normal" one (which his supporters don't know, or even suspect).
He sees only two races - rich people, and everyone else. Skin color is irrelevant. You can be lily white, but if you're poor, you're an expendable sub-human non-entity to him. OTOH if you're rich enough, you can be fuschia-colored with fluorescent green spots, and he'll still embrace you.

 

[PyramidHead]

To be fair, I think the part of ronburgundy's post that dismal reacted to in that way was the suggestion that Nazis control the White House and Congress. That's a bit of a stretch (though not lunacy). Trump doesn't care about anything other than money and image enough to bother with the ideals of racial purity, he just wants people who can help him win and look good doing it. The Congress is narrowly controlled by Republican politicians, not Nazis. There may be a few in the House, but most of them are just opportunists who will take any votes they can get. It's like the Christian conservative bloc, who are probably mostly agnostics and atheists but got where they are by pandering to believers.

No, that's pure delusional street-corner ranting.

Anyone who actually believes that should seek help.

What is the "that" you are referring to?

- - - Updated - - -

To be fair, I think the part of ronburgundy's post that dismal reacted to in that way was the suggestion that Nazis control the White House and Congress. That's a bit of a stretch (though not lunacy). Trump doesn't care about anything other than money and image enough to bother with the ideals of racial purity, he just wants people who can help him win and look good doing it. The Congress is narrowly controlled by Republican politicians, not Nazis. There may be a few in the House, but most of them are just opportunists who will take any votes they can get. It's like the Christian conservative bloc, who are probably mostly agnostics and atheists but got where they are by pandering to believers.

Trump is indeed a racist bigot - just not a "normal" one (which his supporters don't know, or even suspect).
He sees only two races - rich people, and everyone else. Skin color is irrelevant. You can be lily white, but if you're poor, you're an expendable sub-human non-entity to him. OTOH if you're rich enough, you can be fuschia-colored with fluorescent green spots, and he'll still embrace you.

Pretty much what I was trying to say. But Nazis and KKK members love him because he's the closest they've gotten to one of their own as President.

 

[dismal]

What is the "that" you are referring to?

That White Supremacists control the White House and Congress, obviously.

Were there other things in the thread one would have to be seriously delusional to believe?

 

[PyramidHead]

What is the "that" you are referring to?

That White Supremacists control the White House and Congress, obviously.

Were there other things in the thread one would have to be seriously delusional to believe?

Ah. Well, you were responding to my post, which was saying that white supremacists do not control the White House and Congress, so I was naturally confused.

 

[dismal]

What is the "that" you are referring to?

That White Supremacists control the White House and Congress, obviously.

Were there other things in the thread one would have to be seriously delusional to believe?

Ah. Well, you were responding to my post, which was saying that white supremacists do not control the White House and Congress, so I was naturally confused.

No, you're fine. The only abnormal mental behavior you exhibited was an ability to read and understand internet posts.

Abnormal for here, I mean.

 

[laughing dog]

To be fair, I think the part of ronburgundy's post that dismal reacted to in that way was the suggestion that Nazis control the White House and Congress. That's a bit of a stretch (though not lunacy). Trump doesn't care about anything other than money and image enough to bother with the ideals of racial purity, he just wants people who can help him win and look good doing it. The Congress is narrowly controlled by Republican politicians, not Nazis. There may be a few in the House, but most of them are just opportunists who will take any votes they can get. It's like the Christian conservative bloc, who are probably mostly agnostics and atheists but got where they are by pandering to believers.

No, that's pure delusional street-corner ranting.

Anyone who actually believes that should seek help.

Given your experience, who would you recommend?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

To be fair, I think the part of ronburgundy's post that dismal reacted to in that way was the suggestion that Nazis control the White House and Congress. That's a bit of a stretch (though not lunacy). Trump doesn't care about anything other than money and image enough to bother with the ideals of racial purity, he just wants people who can help him win and look good doing it. The Congress is narrowly controlled by Republican politicians, not Nazis. There may be a few in the House, but most of them are just opportunists who will take any votes they can get. It's like the Christian conservative bloc, who are probably mostly agnostics and atheists but got where they are by pandering to believers.

No, that's pure delusional street-corner ranting.

Anyone who actually believes that should seek help.

Given your experience, who would you recommend?

Dr. Ron Paul.

 

[Vork]

If you talk about the left-wing violence, you may get people making a fuss over inappropriate "moral equivalency".

Couple of points:

The use of violence is a distinct issue from the ideology on either side. To say that (perhaps) both sides were equally responsible for the violence, is not the same thing as saying that both sides have equally terrible ideology. That is just a different question altogether. You don't overlook violence because you think one side has a really bad ideology. (Of course there was probably a spectrum of beliefs on both sides.)

Second point, is that if you don't deal with the violence on the left-wing side, is that you are giving an easy excuse to the right-wing side. Right-wingers turned up with weapons?-- well why shouldn't they turn up with weapons with "antifa" around? It's entirely sensible that they should be planning for violence in that kind of scenario. So it justs hands the right-wing side a reasonable excuse to be planning for violence.

The 'right wing side' doesn't need nor care for a "reasonable excuse"; Nazism is an explicitly violent ideology, and the two cannot be separated. Initiation of physical conflict is perfectly acceptable and even encouraged in Nazism, and to a Nazi, the only immorality associated with assault and battery derives from failure to beat your opponent.

The fundamental tenet of racial supremacy is that the superior race can and should defeat its inferiors in combat, and that might therefore defines right - a Nazi has a duty to be violent against anyone who is not his ideological equal, and that is defined to include anyone who is not also a Nazi.

It's the doctrine of the bully and the thug, and until the allies showed up the fact that mere will and racial purity are insufficient for world domination, it didn't pretend to be anything else.

It's not reasonable to tolerate intolerance. Nazis want violence, because they believe that their opponents will resile from it, and that as a result, they can ride roughshod over any opposition.

Fuck that. Nazis deserve and need to be violently put down; because they believe that this is the way their opponents should be treated. Nazi ideology is fundamentally a violent attack, and violence is justified in defending society against it.

Nazism is not just right wing politics taken a tiny bit further. Even though it suits the Nazis to pretend that it is.

We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

This is how civilised people respond to Nazis.

So argue for official suppression of the viewpoint.

You can't have private citizens decide for themselves what speech they will, or will not, violently suppress.

 

[Vork]

Well it's a form of violence. And it's being done for political reasons. So "political violence". You are in fantasy hypersensitive snowflake land to deny it.

Fixed it for you. Even though you are working hard to make excuses for neo-nazi behavior with your stupid false equivalences, you are failing miserably.

So if people decide to prevent you from leaving your house by blocking you in, that's not illegal violence. OK...

Where I live, people park and block driveways. You can call the police to have the vehicle ticketed and removed. No one is cited for assault or any type of violent behaviorr because that would be ridiculous. When your argument depends on ramping up on an idiotic analogy, you know the argument has no basis.

Yeah that's not assault because it's a parking issue.

Try doing it with people on people, (with deliberate intention to control another person's behaviour), and then the police will probably not consider it a parking matter!

It would be assault or false imprisonment.

You are actually using an idiotic analogy yourself, to compare (probably) inconsiderate parking, and illegal parking (without trying to deliberately impact anyone else) with physically trying to control and prevent someone else's behaviour.

I guess if you need to switch to an analogy that terrible, you can't have a real argument.

 

[Lion IRC]

...You can't have private citizens decide for themselves what speech they will, or will not, violently suppress.

Agreed.
Speaking of official suppression
Where's the "Vernon Demerest" thread

Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

 

[bilby]

If you talk about the left-wing violence, you may get people making a fuss over inappropriate "moral equivalency".

Couple of points:

The use of violence is a distinct issue from the ideology on either side. To say that (perhaps) both sides were equally responsible for the violence, is not the same thing as saying that both sides have equally terrible ideology. That is just a different question altogether. You don't overlook violence because you think one side has a really bad ideology. (Of course there was probably a spectrum of beliefs on both sides.)

Second point, is that if you don't deal with the violence on the left-wing side, is that you are giving an easy excuse to the right-wing side. Right-wingers turned up with weapons?-- well why shouldn't they turn up with weapons with "antifa" around? It's entirely sensible that they should be planning for violence in that kind of scenario. So it justs hands the right-wing side a reasonable excuse to be planning for violence.

The 'right wing side' doesn't need nor care for a "reasonable excuse"; Nazism is an explicitly violent ideology, and the two cannot be separated. Initiation of physical conflict is perfectly acceptable and even encouraged in Nazism, and to a Nazi, the only immorality associated with assault and battery derives from failure to beat your opponent.

The fundamental tenet of racial supremacy is that the superior race can and should defeat its inferiors in combat, and that might therefore defines right - a Nazi has a duty to be violent against anyone who is not his ideological equal, and that is defined to include anyone who is not also a Nazi.

It's the doctrine of the bully and the thug, and until the allies showed up the fact that mere will and racial purity are insufficient for world domination, it didn't pretend to be anything else.

It's not reasonable to tolerate intolerance. Nazis want violence, because they believe that their opponents will resile from it, and that as a result, they can ride roughshod over any opposition.

Fuck that. Nazis deserve and need to be violently put down; because they believe that this is the way their opponents should be treated. Nazi ideology is fundamentally a violent attack, and violence is justified in defending society against it.

Nazism is not just right wing politics taken a tiny bit further. Even though it suits the Nazis to pretend that it is.

We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

This is how civilised people respond to Nazis.

So argue for official suppression of the viewpoint.

You can't have private citizens decide for themselves what speech they will, or will not, violently suppress.

Sure you can. Governments don't have a monopoly on public opinion.

 

[Vork]

If they're close enough to physically block your doors and windows then they're already tresspassing and potentially vandalizing your house, ie your property.

You don't need to do that, to block someone from leaving their property. I didn't mean "house" in the sense of blocking your door. I meant keeping you at home. You can be on a public street and effectively prevent someone from leaving their home. But even if they were trespassing, it wouldn't also be illegal violence to physically stop someone from walking out of their property? (I mean you let them walk out the door, but then block them from going where they want to go off their property.)

I think there's a pretty big difference between two crowds of angry people intersecting because local authorities dropped the ball and a crowd ganging up on one person or small group of persons to in some way harm them. So again I say your scenarios don't equal out.

I wasn't talking about two "angry crowds" just happening to intersect, but rather the deliberate attempt to block a pre-planned march by another group. That's an act of political violence that could easily cause a mini-riot or even someone being killed.

 

[Vork]

Governments have a monopoly on allowing legitimate use of violence. Yes there may be extreme cases where rebellion against the government order is justified. But generally speaking, if everyone can just come up with their own reasons for attacking their neighbours, outside of the law, then it's a breakdown of society.

If you are happy to attack people over what is (likely) constitutionally protected speech, do you want the constitution amended at all? Or just keep it as it is, but illegally attack people for legally protected speech?

 

[Vork]

We didn't tolerate overt nazi or communist ideologies 60-80 years ago so why start now?

I believe "antifa" tend to identify as anarchists, socialists, or even communists...

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think there's a pretty big difference between two crowds of angry people intersecting because local authorities dropped the ball and a crowd ganging up on one person or small group of persons to in some way harm them. So again I say your scenarios don't equal out.

I wasn't talking about two "angry crowds" just happening to intersect, but rather the deliberate attempt to block a pre-planned march by another group. That's an act of political violence that could easily cause a mini-riot or even someone being killed.

I am not saying I agree or disagree and only want to comment on a narrow technical issue.

How is blocking violence? Wouldn't you have to encircle someone, thus completely trapping them, for it to be something, still not violence though? People get blocked in basketball all the time and have to run around the person or jump above them to shoot. How is that violence, even if planned?

What about if I am minding my own business walking down the street and I encounter a Nazi march in my way...they're blocking me so is that violence against me? In fact, they "pre-planned" (your word) to block me and draw attention to themselves.

When the guy with the car plowed through a crowd of people would you also call what the mob did violence because they were blocking people with their standing around? Suppose these persons are the same people under discussion and so they are there intentionally to demonstrate. So the Nazi guy plowed through them because they were violent?

 

[laughing dog]

I think there's a pretty big difference between two crowds of angry people intersecting because local authorities dropped the ball and a crowd ganging up on one person or small group of persons to in some way harm them. So again I say your scenarios don't equal out.

I wasn't talking about two "angry crowds" just happening to intersect, but rather the deliberate attempt to block a pre-planned march by another group. That's an act of political violence that could easily cause a mini-riot or even someone being killed.

It is not "political violence". Your attempt to deflect responsibility from the Nazis via the use of rhetorical devices is duly noted.

 

[Elixir]

I think there's a pretty big difference between two crowds of angry people intersecting because local authorities dropped the ball and a crowd ganging up on one person or small group of persons to in some way harm them. So again I say your scenarios don't equal out.

I wasn't talking about two "angry crowds" just happening to intersect, but rather the deliberate attempt to block a pre-planned march by another group. That's an act of political violence that could easily cause a mini-riot or even someone being killed.

I am not saying I agree or disagree and only want to comment on a narrow technical issue.

How is blocking violence? Wouldn't you have to encircle someone, thus completely trapping them, for it to be something, still not violence though? People get blocked in basketball all the time and have to run around the person or jump above them to shoot. How is that violence, even if planned?

What about if I am minding my own business walking down the street and I encounter a Nazi march in my way...they're blocking me so is that violence against me? In fact, they "pre-planned" (your word) to block me and draw attention to themselves.

When the guy with the car plowed through a crowd of people would you also call what the mob did violence because they were blocking people with their standing around? Suppose these persons are the same people under discussion and so they are there intentionally to demonstrate. So the Nazi guy plowed through them because they were violent?

To simplify further, consider someone exercising their first amendment right to speech, speaking on a street corner. Would someone else, perhaps with an even louder voice, be within their rights to shout them down? Vork's 'argument' would seem to say not.

 

[bilby]

Governments have a monopoly on allowing legitimate use of violence. Yes there may be extreme cases where rebellion against the government order is justified. But generally speaking, if everyone can just come up with their own reasons for attacking their neighbours, outside of the law, then it's a breakdown of society.

If you are happy to attack people over what is (likely) constitutionally protected speech, do you want the constitution amended at all? Or just keep it as it is, but illegally attack people for legally protected speech?

The constitution protects you from GOVERNMENT intervention to restrict your speech. It says nothing about whether your fellow civilians are required to put up with your crap.

Showing your displeasure (using any means short of violence*) at someone else's speech is ALSO protected speech.












*Standing in someone's way is not violence.

 

[J842P]

I am not saying I agree or disagree and only want to comment on a narrow technical issue.

How is blocking violence? Wouldn't you have to encircle someone, thus completely trapping them, for it to be something, still not violence though? People get blocked in basketball all the time and have to run around the person or jump above them to shoot. How is that violence, even if planned?

What about if I am minding my own business walking down the street and I encounter a Nazi march in my way...they're blocking me so is that violence against me? In fact, they "pre-planned" (your word) to block me and draw attention to themselves.

When the guy with the car plowed through a crowd of people would you also call what the mob did violence because they were blocking people with their standing around? Suppose these persons are the same people under discussion and so they are there intentionally to demonstrate. So the Nazi guy plowed through them because they were violent?

To simplify further, consider someone exercising their first amendment right to speech, speaking on a street corner. Would someone else, perhaps with an even louder voice, be within their rights to shout them down? Vork's 'argument' would seem to say not.

No, you wouldn't. I'm not sure if "shouting down" would be considered "violence", but it could definitely be considered assault/harassment depending on the circumstances.