4 ms·

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 cou

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.
  - makomk 9y ago
    The guy wasn't at the rally at the time, if I recall correctly it may have even been called off hours earlier, and no evidence of coordination has been discovered. On the other hand most or all of the recent Islamic terrorist attacks have been centrally coordinated down to the last detail, with the attackers in communication with their handlers right up until the attacks - including car attackers like Khalid Masood. Your justification just doesn't stand up.
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      > The guy wasn't at the rally at the time He was photographed marching with Vanguard Of America[1] carrying a Vanguard shield shortly before his attack with the car. [1] Who are now desperately disavowing any knowledge of him
    - DanBC 9y ago
      > On the other hand most or all of the recent Islamic terrorist attacks have been centrally coordinated down to the last detail Completely untrue.
- efuquen 9y ago
  > He specifically named KKK, Nazis and white supremacists. But you wouldn't hear about that thanks to your echo bubble. It took him two days and only after great pressure from people across the political spectrum. From Saturday when he gave his first statement to Monday before he gave the statement you referred to he refused to answer multiple times when he was asked by reporters to condemn white supremacy by name and call the attack an act of terrorism. But when Merck's CEO resigns from the business council he was able to vehemently attack him and his company on twitter almost immediately. When a terrorist attacked the Louvre in France at 5 am Washington time it took him 3 hours to denounce 'radical Islamic terrorist'. His response to the London attacks also involving terrorists driving a car through crowds was just as swift and specific. But he holds off on calling out the neo-Nazis and KKK by name, disgusting. Liberals and conservatives have been united in their condemnation of Trump's failure to call out evil by it's name. You are the one living in an echo chamber that is willing to defend white supremacists and their President.
- 7Z7 9y ago
  >When a muslim plows into a crowd it's a lone wolf and we should jump to conclusions That is literally the opposite of the actual media narrative associated with Muslims, and is often held out as the difference in coverage between Muslim-related incidents and non-Muslim ones (for want of a better differentiator). Muslim/brown/whatever attackers are always framed in terms of their religious affiliations, and white attackers are almost always described as "lone wolves". It beggars belief that you are trying to present that switched, with a straight face.
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

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.
- makomk 9y ago
  The guy wasn't at the rally at the time, if I recall correctly it may have even been called off hours earlier, and no evidence of coordination has been discovered. On the other hand most or all of the recent Islamic terrorist attacks have been centrally coordinated down to the last detail, with the attackers in communication with their handlers right up until the attacks - including car attackers like Khalid Masood. Your justification just doesn't stand up.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > The guy wasn't at the rally at the time He was photographed marching with Vanguard Of America[1] carrying a Vanguard shield shortly before his attack with the car. [1] Who are now desperately disavowing any knowledge of him
  - DanBC 9y ago
    > On the other hand most or all of the recent Islamic terrorist attacks have been centrally coordinated down to the last detail Completely untrue.
efuquen 9y ago
> He specifically named KKK, Nazis and white supremacists. But you wouldn't hear about that thanks to your echo bubble. It took him two days and only after great pressure from people across the political spectrum. From Saturday when he gave his first statement to Monday before he gave the statement you referred to he refused to answer multiple times when he was asked by reporters to condemn white supremacy by name and call the attack an act of terrorism. But when Merck's CEO resigns from the business council he was able to vehemently attack him and his company on twitter almost immediately. When a terrorist attacked the Louvre in France at 5 am Washington time it took him 3 hours to denounce 'radical Islamic terrorist'. His response to the London attacks also involving terrorists driving a car through crowds was just as swift and specific. But he holds off on calling out the neo-Nazis and KKK by name, disgusting. Liberals and conservatives have been united in their condemnation of Trump's failure to call out evil by it's name. You are the one living in an echo chamber that is willing to defend white supremacists and their President.
7Z7 9y ago
>When a muslim plows into a crowd it's a lone wolf and we should jump to conclusions That is literally the opposite of the actual media narrative associated with Muslims, and is often held out as the difference in coverage between Muslim-related incidents and non-Muslim ones (for want of a better differentiator). Muslim/brown/whatever attackers are always framed in terms of their religious affiliations, and white attackers are almost always described as "lone wolves". It beggars belief that you are trying to present that switched, with a straight face.

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.