Did Charlottesvilel mean anything?

[bennyboy]

I am for free speech, and protecting offensive speech, but when you show up with weapons of war that is no longer simply being offensive, that is an act of intimidation and shouting fire in a theater. 

Yes, absolutely. I'm for free speech and tolerance, but there have to be balances among various kinds of freedom and the many affected individuals and populations. The only thing I really want is for there never to be the easy call-- "Fucking white supremacists, we gotta shut them all down because fuck them" is a fascist statement, and if we don't fight for the rights of those we disagree with, every minor group in the States may eventually be isolated and dismantled one by one until there's nothing left but the White House to determine how people might live or think.

[Anomalocaris]

I am for free speech, and protecting offensive speech, but when you show up with weapons of war that is no longer simply being offensive, that is an act of intimidation and shouting fire in a theater. 

Yes, absolutely.  I'm for free speech and tolerance, but there have to be balances among various kinds of freedom and the many affected individuals and populations.  The only thing I really want is for there never to be the easy call-- "Fucking white supremacists, we gotta shut them all down because fuck them" is a fascist statement, and if we don't fight for the rights of those we disagree with, every minor group in the States may eventually be isolated and dismantled one by one until there's nothing left but the White House to determine how people might live or think.

It wasn't those who opposed the white supremacists who respected the right to free speech so much they were willing to use their very own cars to ram those whose opinions they disagree with.

Free speech is not a suicide pact, and it attainmeant to any reasonable degree for extended period of time requires the crushing of those who will deny free speech to others.

[LadyForCamus]

I guess I just wonder, as far as the message it sends to his alt. Right base, what practical difference there is between a Trump-approved thumbs up to the KKK, and a glaringly absent passionate stance against them.   I don't think Trump's personal motives are relevant..  The effect his words (or lack there of) and actions have on his base, and society at large are pretty much the same whether he's real racist or a fake one.

Just my humble opinion.  😎

In the wake of Charlottesville, I heard a couple of online posts read on the news making this point: "He didn't criticize us, this is a signal."

It's essentially a nod and a wink, which is insidious, IMO.

[bennyboy]

It wasn't those who opposed the white supremacists who respected the right to free speech so much they were willing to use their very own cars to ram those whose opinions they disagree with.

You are speaking dangerously right now. "They" weren't driving. If you want to demonize all those who were there protesting the removal of a landmark they valued, you'll have to demonstrate that they generally supported that action, or were complicit in some way. You are part of many groups-- if any one in any of your social circles committed a crime, would you accept your share of blame?

You need to be a little more open and a little more tolerant of opposing views, and not to lump those people together in the way you are doing right now. When some demented atheist eats a baby somewhere, are you going to stand by while atheism becomes condemned by the president, or maybe even outlawed? Will you be fine accepting cuffs and being led off to jail because someone whose beliefs intersect partially with your own did something wrong?

No, you won't. So don't use the rhetoric that leads down that road lest you be the victim of it some day.

[Catholic_Lady]

It wasn't those who opposed the white supremacists who respected the right to free speech so much they were willing to use their very own cars to ram those whose opinions they disagree with.

You are speaking dangerously right now. "They" weren't driving. If you want to demonize all those who were there protesting the removal of a landmark they valued, you'll have to demonstrate that they generally supported that action, or were complicit in some way. You are part of many groups-- if any one in any of your social circles committed a crime, would you accept your share of blame?

You need to be a little more open and a little more tolerant of opposing views, and not to lump those people together in the way you are doing right now. When some demented atheist eats a baby somewhere, are you going to stand by while atheism becomes condemned by the president, or maybe even outlawed? Will you be fine accepting cuffs and being led off to jail because someone whose beliefs intersect partially with your own did something wrong?

No, you won't. So don't use the rhetoric that leads down that road lest you be the victim of it some day.

I agree very much with this principle in general. However, I do think the white supremacists condoned the car attack, from what I've gathered. I havent heard of a single one of them expressing disagreement or disgust at that killing.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes, I've read much more approval from those circles than any other reaction.

Of course, that sort of commentary would probably garner more coverage anyway.

[bennyboy]

Consider this: take ANY group of say 200 or 300 people or whatever. . . how many of them have done time? How many of them, if you dug up blogs or social media, have probably said truly horrific things?

Also, I don't think that sympathy is required. If a few Nazis got taken out by an angry black panther or something, how many tears would be shed here.

[Anomalocaris]

It wasn't those who opposed the white supremacists who respected the right to free speech so much they were willing to use their very own cars to ram those whose opinions they disagree with.

You are speaking dangerously right now.  "They" weren't driving.  If you want to demonize all those who were there protesting the removal of a landmark they valued, you'll have to demonstrate that they generally supported that action, or were complicit in some way.  You are part of many groups-- if any one in any of your social circles committed a crime, would you accept your share of blame?

You need to be a little more open and a little more tolerant of opposing views, and not to lump those people together in the way you are doing right now.  When some demented atheist eats a baby somewhere, are you going to stand by while atheism becomes condemned by the president, or maybe even outlawed?  Will you be fine accepting cuffs and being led off to jail because someone whose beliefs intersect partially with your own did something wrong?

No, you won't.  So don't use the rhetoric that leads down that road lest you be the victim of it some day.

No, I am speaking of the dangerous, not speaking dangerously.    landmark they value my ass.   What they value is the cause the traitors those landmark depicts killed for, not the land mark.   But you seem particularly sensitive to the dangerous being spoken of as dangeous, and resorts to barely veiled leering threats.   why, I wonder?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Consider this: take ANY group of say 200 or 300 people or whatever. . . how many of them have done time? How many of them, if you dug up blogs or social media, have probably said truly horrific things?

Also, I don't think that sympathy is required. If a few Nazis got taken out by an angry black panther or something, how many tears would be shed here.

I stand up against any political violence, no matter the perpetrators.

[bennyboy]

Consider this: take ANY group of say 200 or 300 people or whatever. . . how many of them have done time?  How many of them, if you dug up blogs or social media, have probably said truly horrific things?

Also, I don't think that sympathy is required.  If a few Nazis got taken out by an angry black panther or something, how many tears would be shed here.

I stand up against any political violence, no matter the perpetrators.

Show that they committed political violence, then arrest those who committed it. Absolutely. Violence is an act of oppression AGAINST free speech, and I for sure wouldn't stand for that.

---

No, I am speaking of the dangerous, not speaking dangerously.    landmark they value my ass.   They value is cause the treasonous fought persons those landmark depicts killed for, not the land mark.   But you seem particularly sensitive to the dangerous being spoken of as dangeous, and resorts to barely veiled leering threats.   why, I wonder?

Bro, do you even English? I feel you are making a point in there somewhere, but the English is so bad that it's hard to see it.