Neo-Nazi speech shows they wanted violence

[Arctish]

There were probably a few scattered "Southern Heritage" type people who always exist in VA, who you couldn't failry characterize as a Nazi. They are just brainwashed about history.

But the vast majority of the people there on the right were avowed Nazis.

Look, if you are going to walk around dressed like Neo-Nazis, chanting "Blood and Soil" and "the Jews will not replace us", you are a Nazi.

No, they are not Nazis. You can say they are Nazi wannabees, maybe.

The real Nazis did evil things. The did not get together and hold rallies to talk about evil things.

Most Nazi's didn't do anything particularly evil. They mostly talked about Nazi ideology, and yet, they were still Nazis.

It is quite simple: these people espouse Nazi ideology, therefore they are Nazis.

I'll concede, if it makes you feel better, that they aren't members of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei in the Deutsches Reich during the 1940s.

But they are very much like members of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei in the Deutsches Reich before the Reichstag fire.

The Nazis didn't start by building Dachau. They started with street rallies, speeches, and recruiting. This latest manifestation of Nazism is growing out of the same old white supremacist rootstock and following the same old path to power.

 

[Vork]

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.

Well I can just say that it *is* political violence to that. Your attempt to deflect responsibility for violence from some on the other side is duly noted. My position is that likely *both* sides were responsible for violence, whereas some people apparently want to ignore the violence coming from the left. Funny that. But Nazis are terrible evil people? So what? That doesn't mean that some on both sides weren't looking for a fight.

 

[Vork]

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?

I would say that some sports are violent (not that basketball is that violent of course) but it's consensual violence, so doesn't really count. If you ran up to someone randomly in the street, and did a basketball style blocking move, you *might* cross the line into assault. If you don't actually make physical contact, and aren't doing it repeatedly to someone to harass them, then I'm guessing it wouldn't be illegal. I don't watch basketball however so I'm not really aware of how much contact is allowed.

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.

They may not really have intended to block anyone else, even if there is a risk that crowds can cause inconvenience for other people. They should move out of your way if they see you coming the other way basically. That's very different from forming a line, refusing to move, and presumably having to push people back that try to cross.

 

[laughing dog]

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

Well I can just say that it *is* political violence to that.

Of course you can say any stupid thing you wish.

Your attempt to deflect responsibility for violence from some on the other side is duly noted.

That is consistent with your history of posting nonsense. I am not denying there was violence. But the notion that blocking protesters is necessarily "political violence" is drivel. When it is used to deflect from Nazi actions, it is alt-right snowflake drivel.

My position is that likely *both* sides were responsible for violence, whereas some people apparently want to ignore the violence coming from the left. Funny that. But Nazis are terrible evil people? So what? That doesn't mean that some on both sides weren't looking for a fight.

The OP is about the Nazis not "the left". Of course, you could start your own thread to deal with your bete noir of "political violence of the left." Instead, you employ the tu quoque fallacy here to deflect/derail the OP with your biased bullshit of "political violence".

 

[bilby]

"... likely *both* sides were responsible for violence, whereas some people apparently want to ignore the violence coming from the left."

 

[Vork]

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.

If you are on a public street I'm not sure what the law would be.

But as a matter of principle, no, they shouldn't be doing that.

If left wingers don't like a conservative speech, (for example), then they should set up their own speech event for a week later (or whatever) to try to respond to the arguments given by the conservative side. Or they can request a public debate with the other side. Or maybe, if they can be peaceful and not harass anyone, then they can stand outside of the conservative event with placards, or handing out their own leaflets.

What they shouldn't be trying to do, is shout down the speech of their opponents. It's not a "free speech" right to try to destroy the events of your opponents and prevent them from speaking by shouting all throughout their speech.

Think about it-- how would that benefit open debate?

 

[laughing dog]

If left wingers don't like a conservative speech, (for example), then they should set up their own speech event for a week later (or whatever) to try to respond to the arguments given by the conservative side.

One does not have to be a left winger to oppose Nazis. And everyone has the right to free speech and freedom of assembly which means that anyone who wishes to counter protest against the Nazis has the legal right to do so and the moral right to do so, regardless of the feelings of the Nazis, their sympathizers and their dupes.

 

[Vork]

View attachment 14768

"... likely *both* sides were responsible for violence, whereas some people apparently want to ignore the violence coming from the left."

Yes, Nazis were historically very violent. Thing is, is that Communists/the left wing, were often historically very violent also.

Quote:

The Antifa (English: /ænˈtiːfə/ or /ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is a conglomeration of autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist groups in the United States.[2][3][4] The principal feature of antifa groups is their opposition to fascism through the use of direct action.[5] They engage in militant protest tactics, which has included property damage and physical violence.[2][6][7][8] They tend to be anti-capitalist[9] and they are predominantly far-left and militant left,[10][5] which includes anarchists, communists and socialists....

Although there is no organizational connection, the lineage of antifa in America can be traced to Weimar Germany,[16] where the first group described as "antifa" was Antifaschistische Aktion, formed in 1932 with the involvement of the Communist Party of Germany....

The idea of direct action is central to the antifa movement. Antifa organizer Scott Crow told an interviewer: "The idea in Antifa is that we go where they [right-wingers] go. That hate speech is not free speech. That if you are endangering people with what you say and the actions that are behind them, then you do not have the right to do that. And so we go to cause conflict, to shut them down where they are, because we don't believe that Nazis or fascists of any stripe should have a mouthpiece"....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)


But anyway, Nazi crimes don't show who was, or wasn't, looking for a fight. That's just a diversion. Again, it's ducking the issue of left-wing violence.

- - - Updated - - -

If left wingers don't like a conservative speech, (for example), then they should set up their own speech event for a week later (or whatever) to try to respond to the arguments given by the conservative side.

One does not have to be a left winger to oppose Nazis. And everyone has the right to free speech and freedom of assembly which means that anyone who wishes to counter protest against the Nazis has the legal right to do so and the moral right to do so, regardless of the feelings of the Nazis, their sympathizers and their dupes.

Not the antifa style of doing it. They have no such right.

 

[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?

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.

Weren't you supporting violence before:

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

?

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, Nazis were historically very violent. Thing is, is that Communists/the left wing, were often historically very violent also.

You just cannot help yourself. This is about Nazis.

But anyway, Nazi crimes don't show who was, or wasn't, looking for a fight. That's just a diversion.

Yes it. We know these Nazis were looking for fight - that is the point of the OP.

Again, it's ducking the issue of left-wing violence.

Your obsession with derailing the OP with "left wing violence" makes one wonder why you feel this overwhelming need to tacitly defend Nazis.

- - - Updated - - -

Not the antifa style of doing it. They have no such right.

They have every right until they break the law. I realize this upsets Nazis and their sympathizers, but that is the reality.

 

[Vork]

Of course you can say any stupid thing you wish.

It's a stupid statement to deny the obvious that it's a form of political violence.

That is consistent with your history of posting nonsense. I am not denying there was violence. But the notion that blocking protesters is necessarily "political violence" is drivel.

You are just in fantasy land to deny it-- if you turn up to physically stop someone else's event, it's a form of political violence. You can pretend anything you like. But it is a form of political violence.

When it is used to deflect from Nazi actions, it is alt-right snowflake drivel.

But I didn't say we should ignore Nazi actions, if they turned up looking for violence. By all means, they should be prosecuted.

Instead, you employ the tu quoque fallacy here to deflect/derail the OP with your biased bullshit of "political violence".

Nonsense. I'm not saying you shouldn't also deal with, and prosecute, Nazi violence. There is no "deflection" intended. But you can't really deal with one side's violence, without considering the other side's violence. Like I said, if you don't deal with left wing violence, then you are giving the right-wing side an easy excuse to be planning for violence themselves. They will be able to say, "yes we planned for violence because the other side comes to attack us". That's a relevant detail in any discussion of right-wing violence.

- - - Updated - - -

They have every right until they break the law. I realize this upsets Nazis and their sympathizers, but that is the reality.

The antifa approach is that their oppenents don't have a right to free speech. They don't have a "right" to that approach.

 

[laughing dog]

It's a stupid statement to deny the obvious that it's a form of political violence.

The evidence in this thread is that there are number of posters who think you are wrong. Unlike Nazis and "the left", I am not advocating the use of violence or censorship - please keep on using this ridiculous rhetoric in your arguments.


Using your "rationale", the  Tank_Man engaged in "political violence" by nonviolently blocking the tanks. Which indicates how ridiculous your rationale truly is.

You are just in fantasy land to deny it-- if you turn up to physically stop someone else's event, it's a form of political violence. You can pretend anything you like. But it is a form of political violence.

You are shifting the goal posts. Counter protesting is not an attempt to stop someone else's event. And nonviolent blockage is, by definition, not violence. But again, feel free to mischaracterize the situation in your tacit defense of these Nazis.

But I didn't say we should ignore Nazi actions, if they turned up looking for violence. By all means, they should be prosecuted.

You have persistently deflected from the OP which is about the Nazis looking for violence with your pathetic claims of "political violence" by "the left".

Nonsense. I'm not saying you shouldn't also deal with, and prosecute, Nazi violence. There is no "deflection" intended.

Nonetheless, it is deflection, regardless of your alleged intent.

But you can't really deal with one side's violence, without considering the other side's violence.

Of course you can. IF A attacks B, and B defends itself in proportion to the attack, of course you can deal with A's violence without considering B's response. Your comment is another example of an "unintended" deflection fro the OP.

Like I said, if you don't deal with left wing violence, then you are giving the right-wing side an easy excuse to be planning for violence themselves. They will be able to say, "yes we planned for violence because the other side comes to attack us". That's a relevant detail in any discussion of right-wing violence.

Not if the other side did not start attacking first. But thanks for providing yet another "unintended" deflection from the OP.

The antifa approach is that their oppenents don't have a right to free speech. They don't have a "right" to that approach.

Of course they do, as long as they do not break the law.

 

[bilby]

Weren't you supporting violence before:

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

?

Yes I was.

I am not sure why you think that my pointing out that the GOVERNMENT does not also support violence, would in any way contradict my position.

I am going to be charitable and assume that you just are not very good at reading for comprehension.