4 ms·

I haven't said anything about defending these crowds at all, you're welcome to point out where I defended them; I've pointed out the likely frustrations of op a

I haven't said anything about defending these crowds at all, you're welcome to point out where I defended them; I've pointed out the likely frustrations of op about two facedness and lack of nuance in the press. I can perfectly see there are people in the protests making the nazi salutes just fine and I follow the logic behind getting the label if you hang with them, and as you'll surely agree in just the same way that those involved with the recent floyyd protests will be labelled as opportunistic thugs looking to destroy property and assault people. > At some point you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that in the UK the far right pose a far greater risk of harm than the left. No, no I don't; both sides seem significantly detrimental in different ways and I don't have to permit free reign to one group of sociopathic bullies just because they are the enemies of a different one.

fzeroracer 6y ago
> the same way that those involved with the recent floyyd protests will be labelled as opportunistic thugs looking to destroy property and assault people This is so disengenuous as to veer into the realm of absurdity. You seem to be completely ignoring the actual intent of the two groups in attempt to conflate them to defend your argument. Not to mention both side-ing them is an absolute joke. The intent of the floyd protests wasn't to loot and destroy property. It was to protest his death. The fact that some took this opportunity to do so does not affect the actual intent which was upheld in many other places and protests. The intent of the other group was explicitly racist. Organized by far-right groups and quite literal Nazis.
- textgel 6y ago
  No the intent as described many times in the comment chain was protection of the statues; that was what spurred the counter protest. Both sides began under good intent; both sides had bad actors who caused trouble; both sides get labelled.
  - fzeroracer 6y ago
    And as DanBC said multiple times, that was not the real reason why they were out there. You seem to be ignoring all context for why they were out there and who organized it in attempt to equate the two in a disingenuous manner. At this point it's obvious you're not here to argue in good faith.
    - textgel 6y ago
      Unfortunate as it is but neither you nor DanBC are the global authority on other peoples "real reason" for doing things no matter how you feel on the subject. Context is also a poorly thought out point to bring up considering plenty was provided; numerous examples of destruction of statues given before, no sign of slowing and future targetting given often and loudly.

fzeroracer 6y ago

> the same way that those involved with the recent floyyd protests will be labelled as opportunistic thugs looking to destroy property and assault people This is so disengenuous as to veer into the realm of absurdity. You seem to be completely ignoring the actual intent of the two groups in attempt to conflate them to defend your argument. Not to mention both side-ing them is an absolute joke. The intent of the floyd protests wasn't to loot and destroy property. It was to protest his death. The fact that some took this opportunity to do so does not affect the actual intent which was upheld in many other places and protests. The intent of the other group was explicitly racist. Organized by far-right groups and quite literal Nazis.

textgel 6y ago
No the intent as described many times in the comment chain was protection of the statues; that was what spurred the counter protest. Both sides began under good intent; both sides had bad actors who caused trouble; both sides get labelled.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  And as DanBC said multiple times, that was not the real reason why they were out there. You seem to be ignoring all context for why they were out there and who organized it in attempt to equate the two in a disingenuous manner. At this point it's obvious you're not here to argue in good faith.
  - textgel 6y ago
    Unfortunate as it is but neither you nor DanBC are the global authority on other peoples "real reason" for doing things no matter how you feel on the subject. Context is also a poorly thought out point to bring up considering plenty was provided; numerous examples of destruction of statues given before, no sign of slowing and future targetting given often and loudly.