4 ms·

A couple of things: 1. I was watching the news and in a picture I noticed one of the counter protesters using some sort of spray can as a flamethrower. I als

by pitay 9y ago

A couple of things: 1. I was watching the news and in a picture I noticed one of the counter protesters using some sort of spray can as a flamethrower. I also saw the counter protesters beating up a spokesman for the protesters before the police saved him. So violence goes all around. 2. Arresting people just because someone like the parent here calls them violent is a really bad idea. As in, it's horrendous. If all someone has to do is call you violent to have you arrested, then boy can it be used to silence people that say things inconvenient to whoever wants to silence them. Saying "arrest their member" about a political group is extreme, ignores any legal precepts of innocent until proven guilty, and can be used by the most authoritarian groups to silence anyone they choose. That said I do find protesters very unlikable. The counter protesters I have found a little bit more likeable but still unlikable, because they seem somewhat hypocritical and dishonest, given they have been somewhat violent as well, and have said that it doesn't matter that they were violent as well.

mozumder 9y ago
If you didn't want to be arrested, then you shouldn't be a member of a group that has waged war against the US? It's a good idea to arrest violent people. Don't be the libertarian theory nerd that thinks of people as academic concepts only. In the real world, people are violent and dangerous, and they get to be arrested. Government limits rights and freedoms of individuals to deal with the real world.
- pitay 9y ago
  Only if they are actually being violent, there is no reason to arrest people because they might be violent. Now let's apply your statement more broadly. Islamists successfully destroyed the World Trade Center. They have actually caused more death than those 'neo nazis' in recent times. If you were to apply what you are advocating for fairly, then every Muslims would be arrested in the US. After all it's members have waged war against the US, and some of its members still do. It would be more appropriate. Now I don't agree with arresting every Muslim as I don't agree with arresting every stupid neo nazi. If someone espouses arresting those protesters but not Muslims, then surely they are a hypocrite, who only applies what they preach very selectively.
  - mozumder 9y ago
    What part of "the Nazi party has already waged war against the US" do you not understand? We literally declared war against them, and killed them wholesale. Are you saying we should stop declaring war against Nazis?
    - 0x8BADF00D 9y ago
      > We literally declared war against them, and killed them wholesale. Except we didn't kill them wholesale. The United States pardoned or looked the other way for lesser Nazis and Imperialists in Japan to run their respective postwar governments. How do you think these countries functioned after the war? It's not like they systematically shot every remaining Nazi.
    - ionised 9y ago
      Actually, the US granted amnesty and asylum to a shit load of Nazis and brought them to the US. Look up Operation Paperclip.
    - ryanbrunner 9y ago
      I don't think comparing state actions against other states is very useful or instructive when you're talking about non-state actors. We don't "wage war" against domestic political groups. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything, but I hope you realize that military action is an extreme response to what amounts to a relatively small (but worrying) group.
    - pitay 9y ago
      Whbat part of Islamists have waged terror that you did not understand. I am not advocating arresting Muslims for simply being Muslim, just as I am not advocating arresting neo nazis for being neo nazis. We don't want laws that are different for certain groups, or how rich someone is. That the law applies equally to everyone is something that is valuable to preserve. We don't want to go back to the old days where blacks were treated by the law as inferior. Suggesting you do this to any groups because you don't like them is a travesty of justice.
  - 7Z7 9y ago
- everheardofc 9y ago
  Person A is nazi and killed someone during a protest. Person B is also nazi Therefore person B potentially killed someone during a protest. Therefore we should arrest all nazis How hard is this to understand the following GROUPS != INDIVIDUALS You're advocating to punish individuals by what group they belong to instead of what they did. Sounds familar? Person A is a jew and lends money and is rich by "stealing" money from the borrowers via interest Person B is also a jew Therefore person b "stole" money Therefore we should arrest all jews
  - mattcoles 9y ago
    This is a false equivalence. I think it's much more like, Person A is a nazi and killed someone after being indoctrinated by violent nazi rhetoric, therefore we should stop allowing violent nazi rhetoric to be spread. And even then it's not actually that, because a private company has decided to stop hosting the content, the government/law enforcement was never involved.
matt4077 9y ago
The difference isn't the violence at any one rally. The difference is that one group (the one with the swastikas) actually advocates genocide. As in: there were people in Charlottesville who openly told reporters that they want to send jews/blacks/muslims to gas chambers. And even if there were only a few of those, the swastika, "heil X", and nazi salute are undeniably linked with the history of the Nazi party, the holocaust, and WW2. I just scrolled through a few pages of pictures, and I think it's fair to say that the protest were pretty homogenous in that regard. I don't see many history professors among these people demonstrating to preserve the value of confederate monuments for science. It's also somewhat telling that I'm having trouble finding a single woman among that side of the protest. Given such a protest–and even if you disagree with the above, please entertain this as a hypothetical–what would be the makeup of the group of people opposing such a protest? It seems to me that, in principle, everybody who disagrees with the far-right ideology of these protesters could, or even should, be among the counter-protesters. You can be a Nazi, or you can be against Nazis. But I'm having a hard time imagining someone being neutral: "I think the idea of sending the jews to the gas chamber has potential, but I will reserve judgement until I have studied it in more detail" just doesn't seem like a common opinion. And that's why people are so outraged with the President's "there are always two sides" equivocation: one side wants genocide, the other wants "no genocide". Even if both sides had been similarly violent (which they were not: only one committed a terror attack killing someone), they aren't comparable. Because for these Nazis, the opposition is in the way of their fantasy of a whites-only country, whereas for these opponents, the step after keeping the upper hand against the Nazis is "going home".
- pitay 9y ago
  Action can and should be taken against individuals that make a credible threat. We certainly don't want to have people fearing for their life. I don't think that "openly told reporters that they want to send jews/blacks/muslims to gas chambers" is in the slightest bit likely top happen, fortunately. Also, you don't go after a group because of one guy; imagine if that was applied to blacks, it would be horrible. One can criticize both groups and still not be neutral. As I have stated, I do not like the neo nazis (not sure if all the original protesters are that or if only a few of them are, either way, they all seem quite unlikable). What I have really been against is the "just arrest people for being seen in a group" which is what my comment was really replying to. Asking for discriminatory laws like this is backwards, harking back to when there were discriminatory laws against people with black skin. Although I know this is not what you were replying to, this is just to show why I made the comment in the first place. Also I seem to be being called a libertarian just for disagreeing with what I replied to, I don't think I have ever actually agreed with anything that someone calling themselves a libertarian has said, that I remember anyway.

by pitay 9y ago

mozumder 9y ago

If you didn't want to be arrested, then you shouldn't be a member of a group that has waged war against the US? It's a good idea to arrest violent people. Don't be the libertarian theory nerd that thinks of people as academic concepts only. In the real world, people are violent and dangerous, and they get to be arrested. Government limits rights and freedoms of individuals to deal with the real world.

pitay 9y ago
Only if they are actually being violent, there is no reason to arrest people because they might be violent. Now let's apply your statement more broadly. Islamists successfully destroyed the World Trade Center. They have actually caused more death than those 'neo nazis' in recent times. If you were to apply what you are advocating for fairly, then every Muslims would be arrested in the US. After all it's members have waged war against the US, and some of its members still do. It would be more appropriate. Now I don't agree with arresting every Muslim as I don't agree with arresting every stupid neo nazi. If someone espouses arresting those protesters but not Muslims, then surely they are a hypocrite, who only applies what they preach very selectively.
- mozumder 9y ago
  What part of "the Nazi party has already waged war against the US" do you not understand? We literally declared war against them, and killed them wholesale. Are you saying we should stop declaring war against Nazis?
  - 0x8BADF00D 9y ago
    > We literally declared war against them, and killed them wholesale. Except we didn't kill them wholesale. The United States pardoned or looked the other way for lesser Nazis and Imperialists in Japan to run their respective postwar governments. How do you think these countries functioned after the war? It's not like they systematically shot every remaining Nazi.
  - ionised 9y ago
    Actually, the US granted amnesty and asylum to a shit load of Nazis and brought them to the US. Look up Operation Paperclip.
  - ryanbrunner 9y ago
    I don't think comparing state actions against other states is very useful or instructive when you're talking about non-state actors. We don't "wage war" against domestic political groups. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything, but I hope you realize that military action is an extreme response to what amounts to a relatively small (but worrying) group.
  - pitay 9y ago
    Whbat part of Islamists have waged terror that you did not understand. I am not advocating arresting Muslims for simply being Muslim, just as I am not advocating arresting neo nazis for being neo nazis. We don't want laws that are different for certain groups, or how rich someone is. That the law applies equally to everyone is something that is valuable to preserve. We don't want to go back to the old days where blacks were treated by the law as inferior. Suggesting you do this to any groups because you don't like them is a travesty of justice.
- 7Z7 9y ago
everheardofc 9y ago
Person A is nazi and killed someone during a protest. Person B is also nazi Therefore person B potentially killed someone during a protest. Therefore we should arrest all nazis How hard is this to understand the following GROUPS != INDIVIDUALS You're advocating to punish individuals by what group they belong to instead of what they did. Sounds familar? Person A is a jew and lends money and is rich by "stealing" money from the borrowers via interest Person B is also a jew Therefore person b "stole" money Therefore we should arrest all jews
- mattcoles 9y ago
  This is a false equivalence. I think it's much more like, Person A is a nazi and killed someone after being indoctrinated by violent nazi rhetoric, therefore we should stop allowing violent nazi rhetoric to be spread. And even then it's not actually that, because a private company has decided to stop hosting the content, the government/law enforcement was never involved.

matt4077 9y ago

The difference isn't the violence at any one rally. The difference is that one group (the one with the swastikas) actually advocates genocide. As in: there were people in Charlottesville who openly told reporters that they want to send jews/blacks/muslims to gas chambers. And even if there were only a few of those, the swastika, "heil X", and nazi salute are undeniably linked with the history of the Nazi party, the holocaust, and WW2. I just scrolled through a few pages of pictures, and I think it's fair to say that the protest were pretty homogenous in that regard. I don't see many history professors among these people demonstrating to preserve the value of confederate monuments for science. It's also somewhat telling that I'm having trouble finding a single woman among that side of the protest. Given such a protest–and even if you disagree with the above, please entertain this as a hypothetical–what would be the makeup of the group of people opposing such a protest? It seems to me that, in principle, everybody who disagrees with the far-right ideology of these protesters could, or even should, be among the counter-protesters. You can be a Nazi, or you can be against Nazis. But I'm having a hard time imagining someone being neutral: "I think the idea of sending the jews to the gas chamber has potential, but I will reserve judgement until I have studied it in more detail" just doesn't seem like a common opinion. And that's why people are so outraged with the President's "there are always two sides" equivocation: one side wants genocide, the other wants "no genocide". Even if both sides had been similarly violent (which they were not: only one committed a terror attack killing someone), they aren't comparable. Because for these Nazis, the opposition is in the way of their fantasy of a whites-only country, whereas for these opponents, the step after keeping the upper hand against the Nazis is "going home".

pitay 9y ago
Action can and should be taken against individuals that make a credible threat. We certainly don't want to have people fearing for their life. I don't think that "openly told reporters that they want to send jews/blacks/muslims to gas chambers" is in the slightest bit likely top happen, fortunately. Also, you don't go after a group because of one guy; imagine if that was applied to blacks, it would be horrible. One can criticize both groups and still not be neutral. As I have stated, I do not like the neo nazis (not sure if all the original protesters are that or if only a few of them are, either way, they all seem quite unlikable). What I have really been against is the "just arrest people for being seen in a group" which is what my comment was really replying to. Asking for discriminatory laws like this is backwards, harking back to when there were discriminatory laws against people with black skin. Although I know this is not what you were replying to, this is just to show why I made the comment in the first place. Also I seem to be being called a libertarian just for disagreeing with what I replied to, I don't think I have ever actually agreed with anything that someone calling themselves a libertarian has said, that I remember anyway.