9 ms·

You're honestly putting too much stock in the media's narrative. Were you not watching the violence coming from left-wing protesters for the last couple of year

You're honestly putting too much stock in the media's narrative. Were you not watching the violence coming from left-wing protesters for the last couple of years? Such as Antifa and similar groups smashing towns and beating people with fists and shovels. It's a miracle the guy they were beating on the streets of Berkeley didn't die. Edit: and how about the Scalise shooting or the police officers killed at the hands of BLM supporters. Apparently those don't arouse the same response. It turns out there's violent people of all political stripes who would do us harm.

woofyman 9y ago
There's a time for that discussion. But not now. Nazis, KKK, and white supremacists terrorized a town and killed a women. And our morally depraved president couldn't bring himself to put a name to evil.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  That's fair. But people in this thread are already comparing left and right wing politics. If it's too soon for this discussion, there are up-thread comments it would be appropriate to object to as well.
- nmbr213 9y ago
  > Nazis, KKK, and white supremacists terrorized a town They had a permit to hold that meeting. They could've showed off their bigotry peacefully, but police pushed them where Antifa counter-protested so both sides started to shout at each other which turned into a fight. It happened that way in Berkeley. Now it happened in Charlottetown. And it's going to happen again unless police starts doing it's job and protect people from themselves and prevent those clashes. > killed a women. When a muslim plows into a crowd it's a lone wolf and we should jump to conclusions. But now that it was a white guy the second it happened the media reached the consensus that it was an act of terrorism. This kind of double standard is what fuels white supremacists. > And our morally depraved president couldn't bring himself to put a name to evil. He specifically named KKK, Nazis and white supremacists. But you wouldn't hear about that thanks to your echo bubble.
  - empath75 9y ago
    > This kind of double standard is what fuels white supremacists. Absolute and complete bullshit. What fuels white supremacists is a combination of idiocy, hatred and personal failure.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Nazi's have a bit of a history, which you would do well to familiarize yourself with. See, as soon as people like that start talking about 'taking their country back' and feel that they now have their man in charge it is time to get really worried about where your country is headed. Lest you end up arguing the equivalent of 'I didn't know' a couple of years down the line, which to many 'moderate Germans' must have been quite a hard time. A couple of crazy religious people we can deal with, they are nowhere near to overtaking any Western country. But the largest Western country just got taken over by the ultra-right, according to their own statements. Whether or not that is factually true remains to be seen but for now Bannon, Miller, Gorka and Trump seem to be pretty secure in their positions.
  - throwawaymanbot 9y ago
    Always the snowflake right. Boo-hoo... its everyone else's fault one of our young racist fascists could not restrain his emotions and plowed in to a crowd of people. boo hoo.. poor us, us racists get so much abuse.. boo hoo. The fact of the matter is someone died and many many got injured, because some young guy hopped up on fervent radical white nationalism (that you seem to subscribe to pathetically) decided to make a dumb decision that hes going to pay for, for the rest of his life. Your excuses are pathetically weak (how fascist) and thus null and void. Go back to stormfront.
    - sctb 9y ago
      We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - justin66 9y ago
    > When a muslim plows into a crowd it's a lone wolf and we should jump to conclusions. But now that it was a white guy the second it happened the media reached the consensus that it was an act of terrorism. This kind of double standard is what fuels white supremacists. The "lone wolf" moniker has something to do with the proximity to and coordination with other wolves. When a white supremacist commits homicide at a white supremacist rally the label would not seem to apply.
- YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y ago
  White supremacists may have terrorized a town, but the killing of a person can hardly be described as a lynching. Having seen a video of the incident, the more cynical side in me whispers that those masked and armed “protesters” just nearly got more than they bargained for when coming to pick up fights, not that it justifies anyone's actions. The actual victim may have not been a part of these hooligans but certainly treaded a no-good group of people quite closely.
- BeetleB 9y ago
  >There's a time for that discussion. But not now. No. The time is now. Without going into my stance, I will say that in all my years observing politics, every single time I've heard this comment it's to hide a double standard. Not a single exception. How do I know this? Because when that time does come (in this case it would be violence by the left), they are silent, and will not condemn. This is as good a time as any.
  - soundwave106 9y ago
    Do you have some clear examples of this? Thinking back to the last notable American left-wing oriented violent act (the 2017 Congressional baseball game shooting), I cannot think of a major Democratic politician that did not strongly condemn the act. Who is the "they" you are speaking of? In fact, regarding Charlottesville, this really isn't a right wing issue, it's a Trump issue. Most Republican leaders that I can think of condemned this immediately and strongly as well. Trump's response was unusually tepid at first, which is what people are taking issue with.
    - BeetleB 9y ago
      >Do you have some clear examples of this? Thinking back to the last notable American left-wing oriented violent act (the 2017 Congressional baseball game shooting), I cannot think of a major Democratic politician that did not strongly condemn the act. Who is the "they" you are speaking of? By "they" I meant individuals I've interacted with, not a generic "they". My experience is with individuals who are polarized about various things (abortion, Middle East, etc) - I wasn't referring specifically to left vs right examples. Some personal examples: Muslims upset at a local newspaper for publishing certain cartoons. At the time they were protesting and demanding the editors get fired (one of them eventually was fired). I discussed it with them (friends, not just strangers), and they said a few things: 1. This isn't just about Muhammad but all of Islam's prophets (which includes Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc). 2. This isn't just about Islam - they'd complain even if it happened to reverent figures of other religions. 3. The very statement that is being discussed here: Those are not the current problems and they are discussions for another time. I pointed out to them that the comic section of the same newspaper had some years prior published really "offensive" cartoons about both Moses and Jesus. Response was "Well we weren't aware". Fair enough. Then later there was a news item about people upset with offensive depictions of Jesus. I pointed it out to them, and their response was the equivalent of "Leave me alone." Happened again related to a Hindu god. Same response. The examples suggest the three points were not true. When those events became current problems, they did not want to have a discussion about it at all. Similar story regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. Without talking about which side did what, in one of the conflicts one side was accused of carrying out war crimes. Protests. I asked some of my friends (protesters) why this issue is so potent to them when similar or worse crimes are not. The response: 1. This is about human rights, not favoritism to a particular group. "We condemn it when it happens to any one". 2. This is the issue of the moment. Don't distract from it. Sure enough, later there was another conflict so eerily similar to what they were protesting, but in a whole other part of the world. Point it out to them, and get the equivalent of "Leave us alone". And then of course much worse conflicts occur than in the Middle East (DRC, for example). Crickets. This is what I meant when I said "Every single time I've heard this comment it's to hide a double standard." And of course, I have to endure accusations of aligning with the other side (by both sides) whenever I ask these questions. I'm asking because I'm curious and want to know. In some cases I may be neutral, and in others I'm actually siding with one side. But my taking a stance to one side does not mean I'll blanket accept the hypocrisy by that side's proponents.
humanrebar 9y ago
There was also the assassination of police officers in Dallas last year. That's on top of a series of ambush style killings of police officers. EDIT: Would downvoters care to explain where I'm mistaken?
- spaginal 9y ago
  On the internet these days take it as a badge of honor honestly. You hear people chant speak truth to power when they repeat the safe narrative and everyone pats their back. The fact that the media, large corporate business leaders, online forums, and government representatives are dog piling all over this narrative and ignoring even basic facts and events that happened in very recent memory, it should shock anyone paying attention to what is currently going on. It's called censorship to blatantly disregard and shout down any opinion or factual information that works against the popularly driven editorial narrative, which is now apparently that Trump and his supporters are extremist violent Neo nazi kkk communist Russian spies, and I'm not even joking when I put that list together.
- nl 9y ago
  So let's talk about that. On the day the shooter was killed, Obama gave a press conference[1] where he said: We still don’t know all the facts. What we do know is that there’s been a vicious, calculated and despicable attack on law enforcement. Police in Dallas were on duty, doing their job, keeping people safe during a peaceful protest. These law enforcement officers were targeted, and nearly a dozen officers were shot, five were killed.... According to police there are multiple suspects. We will learn more undoubtedly about their twisted motivations, but let’s be clear, there is no possible justification for these kinds of attacks. Grave violence against law enforcement. The FBI is already in touch with the Dallas police; anyone involved in these senseless murders will be held fully accountable. Justice will be done. Three days later he had returned from Spain (before planned) to visit the survivors, where he ... described the Dallas shooting as a "hate crime" against police, according to a top law enforcement representative in the meeting with Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. One really striking thing the president said in his opening remarks was that the shooting in Dallas in many ways was strikingly parallel to the Dylann Roof shooting in Charleston in the sense that it was a hate crime[2] The Dallas shooting were a terrible thing, and Obama seems to have responded as one would expect a President should. Outside the Dallas shooting, Obama himself seems to have had some issues with police behavior. But that didn't stop him saying what should be said. [1] http://fortune.com/2016/07/08/transcript-obama-dallas-police-shootings/ http://fortune.com/2016/07/08/transcript-obama-dallas-police... [2] http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/obama-dallas-police-shooting-hate-225390 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/obama-dallas-police-sh...
w_t_payne 9y ago
There is violence on all sides ... however, only one side appears to have the tacit approval of POTUS. I think we can safely assume that he already (and quite rightly) disapproves of left wing violence -- but a lot of us remain unconvinced by his seemingly forced and totally unconvincing denunciations of violence committed by those who also vocally support him and claim to act in his name. WE need to condemn violence on both sides. The president, on the other hand, particularly and specifically needs to convincingly disown right wing violence and the language of division and hatred. We will take a lot of convincing after this.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  Why don't we demand the same disavowal of left wing radical groups like Antifa from Democratic politicians. There is countless footage of peaceful right-wing protesters getting beat, fire bombed, etc. at Berkeley and elsewhere.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    So, what's your position then regarding: - BLM - Antifa - the 'alt right' - the Neo Nazis / white supremacy groups
    - exo762 9y ago
      Pure cancer. All of them.
      - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
        A group asking police not to kill them in such great numbers should be grouped with white supremacists? Do you really believe that?
        talmand 9y ago
        Which part of the group? The part that calls for an end to violence or the part that openly calls for violence against police officers? Lumping people into groups often times hides the positives and negatives of individuals.
pjc50 9y ago
The right-wing violence runs a lot further than that, all the way back to the Civil War and the people who went to war to defend their "right" to violence against black people. There is a continuous line between that and today. The Charlottesville protests were centered on a statue: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-rally-protest-statue.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-rally-...
- talmand 9y ago
  Left-wing violence goes back just as much. Those people defending their "rights" in the Civil War were Democrats.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    Democrats today are not Democrats of yesteryear. The ideology of the two parties switched during the Civil Rights movement. The Civil War was not “left wing violence”.
    - lliamander 9y ago
      How about the French Revolution?
      - freehunter 9y ago
        If we're bringing European politics into a US discussion, then we should arrest everyone displaying Nazi symbols or using the Nazi salute, and we should probably also ban displays of the Confederate flag as well. Also now the Democratic party is far-right extremism, and the Republicans are banned by law. I'm loving my new single-payer healthcare and free college tuition, though.
    - talmand 9y ago
      That's the only reason I post such a statement. To see how the myth of the switching parties is still being pushed.

woofyman 9y ago

There's a time for that discussion. But not now. Nazis, KKK, and white supremacists terrorized a town and killed a women. And our morally depraved president couldn't bring himself to put a name to evil.

humanrebar 9y ago
That's fair. But people in this thread are already comparing left and right wing politics. If it's too soon for this discussion, there are up-thread comments it would be appropriate to object to as well.
nmbr213 9y ago
> Nazis, KKK, and white supremacists terrorized a town They had a permit to hold that meeting. They could've showed off their bigotry peacefully, but police pushed them where Antifa counter-protested so both sides started to shout at each other which turned into a fight. It happened that way in Berkeley. Now it happened in Charlottetown. And it's going to happen again unless police starts doing it's job and protect people from themselves and prevent those clashes. > killed a women. When a muslim plows into a crowd it's a lone wolf and we should jump to conclusions. But now that it was a white guy the second it happened the media reached the consensus that it was an act of terrorism. This kind of double standard is what fuels white supremacists. > And our morally depraved president couldn't bring himself to put a name to evil. He specifically named KKK, Nazis and white supremacists. But you wouldn't hear about that thanks to your echo bubble.
- empath75 9y ago
  > This kind of double standard is what fuels white supremacists. Absolute and complete bullshit. What fuels white supremacists is a combination of idiocy, hatred and personal failure.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Nazi's have a bit of a history, which you would do well to familiarize yourself with. See, as soon as people like that start talking about 'taking their country back' and feel that they now have their man in charge it is time to get really worried about where your country is headed. Lest you end up arguing the equivalent of 'I didn't know' a couple of years down the line, which to many 'moderate Germans' must have been quite a hard time. A couple of crazy religious people we can deal with, they are nowhere near to overtaking any Western country. But the largest Western country just got taken over by the ultra-right, according to their own statements. Whether or not that is factually true remains to be seen but for now Bannon, Miller, Gorka and Trump seem to be pretty secure in their positions.
- throwawaymanbot 9y ago
  Always the snowflake right. Boo-hoo... its everyone else's fault one of our young racist fascists could not restrain his emotions and plowed in to a crowd of people. boo hoo.. poor us, us racists get so much abuse.. boo hoo. The fact of the matter is someone died and many many got injured, because some young guy hopped up on fervent radical white nationalism (that you seem to subscribe to pathetically) decided to make a dumb decision that hes going to pay for, for the rest of his life. Your excuses are pathetically weak (how fascist) and thus null and void. Go back to stormfront.
  - sctb 9y ago
    We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- justin66 9y ago
  > When a muslim plows into a crowd it's a lone wolf and we should jump to conclusions. But now that it was a white guy the second it happened the media reached the consensus that it was an act of terrorism. This kind of double standard is what fuels white supremacists. The "lone wolf" moniker has something to do with the proximity to and coordination with other wolves. When a white supremacist commits homicide at a white supremacist rally the label would not seem to apply.
YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y ago
White supremacists may have terrorized a town, but the killing of a person can hardly be described as a lynching. Having seen a video of the incident, the more cynical side in me whispers that those masked and armed “protesters” just nearly got more than they bargained for when coming to pick up fights, not that it justifies anyone's actions. The actual victim may have not been a part of these hooligans but certainly treaded a no-good group of people quite closely.
BeetleB 9y ago
>There's a time for that discussion. But not now. No. The time is now. Without going into my stance, I will say that in all my years observing politics, every single time I've heard this comment it's to hide a double standard. Not a single exception. How do I know this? Because when that time does come (in this case it would be violence by the left), they are silent, and will not condemn. This is as good a time as any.
- soundwave106 9y ago
  Do you have some clear examples of this? Thinking back to the last notable American left-wing oriented violent act (the 2017 Congressional baseball game shooting), I cannot think of a major Democratic politician that did not strongly condemn the act. Who is the "they" you are speaking of? In fact, regarding Charlottesville, this really isn't a right wing issue, it's a Trump issue. Most Republican leaders that I can think of condemned this immediately and strongly as well. Trump's response was unusually tepid at first, which is what people are taking issue with.
  - BeetleB 9y ago
    >Do you have some clear examples of this? Thinking back to the last notable American left-wing oriented violent act (the 2017 Congressional baseball game shooting), I cannot think of a major Democratic politician that did not strongly condemn the act. Who is the "they" you are speaking of? By "they" I meant individuals I've interacted with, not a generic "they". My experience is with individuals who are polarized about various things (abortion, Middle East, etc) - I wasn't referring specifically to left vs right examples. Some personal examples: Muslims upset at a local newspaper for publishing certain cartoons. At the time they were protesting and demanding the editors get fired (one of them eventually was fired). I discussed it with them (friends, not just strangers), and they said a few things: 1. This isn't just about Muhammad but all of Islam's prophets (which includes Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc). 2. This isn't just about Islam - they'd complain even if it happened to reverent figures of other religions. 3. The very statement that is being discussed here: Those are not the current problems and they are discussions for another time. I pointed out to them that the comic section of the same newspaper had some years prior published really "offensive" cartoons about both Moses and Jesus. Response was "Well we weren't aware". Fair enough. Then later there was a news item about people upset with offensive depictions of Jesus. I pointed it out to them, and their response was the equivalent of "Leave me alone." Happened again related to a Hindu god. Same response. The examples suggest the three points were not true. When those events became current problems, they did not want to have a discussion about it at all. Similar story regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. Without talking about which side did what, in one of the conflicts one side was accused of carrying out war crimes. Protests. I asked some of my friends (protesters) why this issue is so potent to them when similar or worse crimes are not. The response: 1. This is about human rights, not favoritism to a particular group. "We condemn it when it happens to any one". 2. This is the issue of the moment. Don't distract from it. Sure enough, later there was another conflict so eerily similar to what they were protesting, but in a whole other part of the world. Point it out to them, and get the equivalent of "Leave us alone". And then of course much worse conflicts occur than in the Middle East (DRC, for example). Crickets. This is what I meant when I said "Every single time I've heard this comment it's to hide a double standard." And of course, I have to endure accusations of aligning with the other side (by both sides) whenever I ask these questions. I'm asking because I'm curious and want to know. In some cases I may be neutral, and in others I'm actually siding with one side. But my taking a stance to one side does not mean I'll blanket accept the hypocrisy by that side's proponents.

humanrebar 9y ago

There was also the assassination of police officers in Dallas last year. That's on top of a series of ambush style killings of police officers. EDIT: Would downvoters care to explain where I'm mistaken?

spaginal 9y ago
On the internet these days take it as a badge of honor honestly. You hear people chant speak truth to power when they repeat the safe narrative and everyone pats their back. The fact that the media, large corporate business leaders, online forums, and government representatives are dog piling all over this narrative and ignoring even basic facts and events that happened in very recent memory, it should shock anyone paying attention to what is currently going on. It's called censorship to blatantly disregard and shout down any opinion or factual information that works against the popularly driven editorial narrative, which is now apparently that Trump and his supporters are extremist violent Neo nazi kkk communist Russian spies, and I'm not even joking when I put that list together.
nl 9y ago
So let's talk about that. On the day the shooter was killed, Obama gave a press conference[1] where he said: We still don’t know all the facts. What we do know is that there’s been a vicious, calculated and despicable attack on law enforcement. Police in Dallas were on duty, doing their job, keeping people safe during a peaceful protest. These law enforcement officers were targeted, and nearly a dozen officers were shot, five were killed.... According to police there are multiple suspects. We will learn more undoubtedly about their twisted motivations, but let’s be clear, there is no possible justification for these kinds of attacks. Grave violence against law enforcement. The FBI is already in touch with the Dallas police; anyone involved in these senseless murders will be held fully accountable. Justice will be done. Three days later he had returned from Spain (before planned) to visit the survivors, where he ... described the Dallas shooting as a "hate crime" against police, according to a top law enforcement representative in the meeting with Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. One really striking thing the president said in his opening remarks was that the shooting in Dallas in many ways was strikingly parallel to the Dylann Roof shooting in Charleston in the sense that it was a hate crime[2] The Dallas shooting were a terrible thing, and Obama seems to have responded as one would expect a President should. Outside the Dallas shooting, Obama himself seems to have had some issues with police behavior. But that didn't stop him saying what should be said. [1] http://fortune.com/2016/07/08/transcript-obama-dallas-police-shootings/ http://fortune.com/2016/07/08/transcript-obama-dallas-police... [2] http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/obama-dallas-police-shooting-hate-225390 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/obama-dallas-police-sh...

w_t_payne 9y ago

There is violence on all sides ... however, only one side appears to have the tacit approval of POTUS. I think we can safely assume that he already (and quite rightly) disapproves of left wing violence -- but a lot of us remain unconvinced by his seemingly forced and totally unconvincing denunciations of violence committed by those who also vocally support him and claim to act in his name. WE need to condemn violence on both sides. The president, on the other hand, particularly and specifically needs to convincingly disown right wing violence and the language of division and hatred. We will take a lot of convincing after this.

marcoperaza 9y ago
Why don't we demand the same disavowal of left wing radical groups like Antifa from Democratic politicians. There is countless footage of peaceful right-wing protesters getting beat, fire bombed, etc. at Berkeley and elsewhere.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  So, what's your position then regarding: - BLM - Antifa - the 'alt right' - the Neo Nazis / white supremacy groups
  - exo762 9y ago
    Pure cancer. All of them.
    - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
      A group asking police not to kill them in such great numbers should be grouped with white supremacists? Do you really believe that?
      - talmand 9y ago
        Which part of the group? The part that calls for an end to violence or the part that openly calls for violence against police officers? Lumping people into groups often times hides the positives and negatives of individuals.

pjc50 9y ago

The right-wing violence runs a lot further than that, all the way back to the Civil War and the people who went to war to defend their "right" to violence against black people. There is a continuous line between that and today. The Charlottesville protests were centered on a statue: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-rally-protest-statue.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-rally-...

talmand 9y ago
Left-wing violence goes back just as much. Those people defending their "rights" in the Civil War were Democrats.
- freehunter 9y ago
  Democrats today are not Democrats of yesteryear. The ideology of the two parties switched during the Civil Rights movement. The Civil War was not “left wing violence”.
  - lliamander 9y ago
    How about the French Revolution?
    - freehunter 9y ago
      If we're bringing European politics into a US discussion, then we should arrest everyone displaying Nazi symbols or using the Nazi salute, and we should probably also ban displays of the Confederate flag as well. Also now the Democratic party is far-right extremism, and the Republicans are banned by law. I'm loving my new single-payer healthcare and free college tuition, though.
  - talmand 9y ago
    That's the only reason I post such a statement. To see how the myth of the switching parties is still being pushed.