4 ms·

Not really. He didn't refer to them as white supremacists, and was far too moderate in condemning the violence that happened on behalf of the neo-Nazi protestor

by cyphar 9y ago

Not really. He didn't refer to them as white supremacists, and was far too moderate in condemning the violence that happened on behalf of the neo-Nazi protestors, referring to "violence on all sides". For a person who slammed the media and Obama for not "calling a spade a spade" on radial Islamic terrorism, it's quite hypocritical to then not "call a spade a spade" on white supremacist terrorism. To be clear, the left has acted violently as well in the past (just look at the Berkley riots), but in this context "violence on all sides" sounds as though the violence was not entirely initiated by one side. But for all accounts, that's exactly what happened. Counter-protestors weren't the ones to drive a car into a crowd. Some people argue that the protestors having permits somehow excuses the fact that they attacked counter-protestors, but that doesn't make sense unless the violence was initiated by the counter-protestors (which there doesn't appear to be evidence for, and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary).

yellowapple 9y ago
"Counter-protestors weren't the ones to drive a car into a crowd." But they were (among) the ones who showed up with baseball bats, clubs, and mace (and even a few guns). It's not like the protesters were the only ones ready for a fight. "Counter-protestors weren't the ones to drive a car into a crowd." That happened well after there had been a lot of fighting already.
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago
  When you're defending white supremacists, it's time to take a step back and reevaluate your perspective.
  - itbeho 9y ago
    Let's stop ignoring violence when it suits our own political agenda and start condemning it wherever it occurs. Racism has no place in our society and violent acts only fuel it. Pointing that out doesn't imply someone is "defending white supremacists".
    - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
      Of course someone who responds to violence by white supremacists by saying, 'But what about those lefties,' is implicitly defending white supremacists.
  - cyphar 9y ago
    When you're defending any form of offensive violence, it's time to take a step back and reevaluate your perspective. This all comes back to the whole "punch a Nazi" trope that was thrown around during the Berkeley riots. Assaulting someone for their political views is reprehensible, no matter what their views are. If a white supremacist is attacked at a protest, that is just as much of an issue as when a counter-protester is attacked. If you use that card against the white supremacists, what are you going to if the pendulum swings? If you're okay with using violence against your political opponents, you don't have a leg to stand on when they retaliate and use violence against you. My family comes from a country that was ruled by a communist dictatorship, and the very concept of "violence is justified against your opponents" is disgusting to me. We saw enough of that bullshit before we left. It's sad that discourse has devolved to this level. All of that being said, discussion of "violence on all sides" is contingent on there actually being violence on all sides in the particular event. As I said in GP, I am not entirely aware of all of the relevant evidence.
    - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
      This is exactly the way the white supremacists want you to think. They want you to normalize them and say, 'All violence is bad - from either side.' "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/060.html http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/060.html
      - cyphar 9y ago
        All authoritarian, violent actors want you to think that violence (especially of the preemptive variety) is justified for their particular set of ideals. The viewpoint discussed in that MLK quote is not my viewpoint, he talks about people who are against violence even in the instance of retaliation. I am all for equivalent response when it comes to a conflict, but "punch a Nazi" et al was about preemptively escalating a political discourse to physical violence. That's what my whole disagreement was with. As you can see in my original comment, I effectively said that if it's the case that the violence was initiated by the white supremacist protesters (which the initial evidence appeared to indicate) then counter-protester violence was justified.

by cyphar 9y ago

yellowapple 9y ago

"Counter-protestors weren't the ones to drive a car into a crowd." But they were (among) the ones who showed up with baseball bats, clubs, and mace (and even a few guns). It's not like the protesters were the only ones ready for a fight. "Counter-protestors weren't the ones to drive a car into a crowd." That happened well after there had been a lot of fighting already.

grasshopperpurp 9y ago
When you're defending white supremacists, it's time to take a step back and reevaluate your perspective.
- itbeho 9y ago
  Let's stop ignoring violence when it suits our own political agenda and start condemning it wherever it occurs. Racism has no place in our society and violent acts only fuel it. Pointing that out doesn't imply someone is "defending white supremacists".
  - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
    Of course someone who responds to violence by white supremacists by saying, 'But what about those lefties,' is implicitly defending white supremacists.
- cyphar 9y ago
  When you're defending any form of offensive violence, it's time to take a step back and reevaluate your perspective. This all comes back to the whole "punch a Nazi" trope that was thrown around during the Berkeley riots. Assaulting someone for their political views is reprehensible, no matter what their views are. If a white supremacist is attacked at a protest, that is just as much of an issue as when a counter-protester is attacked. If you use that card against the white supremacists, what are you going to if the pendulum swings? If you're okay with using violence against your political opponents, you don't have a leg to stand on when they retaliate and use violence against you. My family comes from a country that was ruled by a communist dictatorship, and the very concept of "violence is justified against your opponents" is disgusting to me. We saw enough of that bullshit before we left. It's sad that discourse has devolved to this level. All of that being said, discussion of "violence on all sides" is contingent on there actually being violence on all sides in the particular event. As I said in GP, I am not entirely aware of all of the relevant evidence.
  - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
    This is exactly the way the white supremacists want you to think. They want you to normalize them and say, 'All violence is bad - from either side.' "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/060.html http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/060.html
    - cyphar 9y ago
      All authoritarian, violent actors want you to think that violence (especially of the preemptive variety) is justified for their particular set of ideals. The viewpoint discussed in that MLK quote is not my viewpoint, he talks about people who are against violence even in the instance of retaliation. I am all for equivalent response when it comes to a conflict, but "punch a Nazi" et al was about preemptively escalating a political discourse to physical violence. That's what my whole disagreement was with. As you can see in my original comment, I effectively said that if it's the case that the violence was initiated by the white supremacist protesters (which the initial evidence appeared to indicate) then counter-protester violence was justified.