Right-wing vs. Left-wing Clashes [MOD NOTE POST #1]

marcus001

wes wrote: »

Looks like the Republican party and the Cops want to make terrorism legal for Nazi's:

BACKED BY POLICE UNIONS, LEGISLATORS STAND BY LAWS TO PROTECT DRIVERS WHO KILL PROTESTERS

This is so blatant it isn't even funny at this point.

At this point, the US police are as bad as any gang if you ask me.

How is it terrorism to drive through an illegal roadblock?

marcus001

Silver Lynel wrote: »

This was how I understood it, that Alt-Right was kind of Right Wing+.

However, I see a lot of people branded "alt right" who do not appear to have any right wing views at all.

Surely someone should have mostly right wing views before they can be labelled "alt-right"?

Sometimes I feel like "alt-right" really means "not left enough" and there are a good few posters on Boards who perpetuate that idea.

This is why I ask well what is the difference between "alt-right" and just plain "right"? There are so many labels for these people but what are the difference between the labels?

Can a person be alt-right without holding many right wing views?

Yes, anyone who is just plain right wing will usually be accused of being alt-right by leftists but it's just an attempt to browbeat their opponents I don't pay it any heed.

marcus001

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It's a new breed of the far-right which emerged from the cesspits of the Internet. Are you satisfied with that?

My grandad is a racist but he can't use the internet is he still alt-right?

wes

20Cent wrote: »

Trump just retweeted a fox and friends article saying he is considering a pardon for Joe Arpiro. Someone replied "he's a fascist so not unusual". Trump then retweeted that reply.

Is he senile?

Maybe, or could be playing to his white supremacist base.

WinnyThePoo

marcus001 wrote: »

My grandad is a racist but he can't use the internet is he still alt-right?

Probably just a racist.

B0jangles

Mike Godwin, originator of "Godwin's Law" has this to say about the white supremacists/alt-right/pepes marching in Charlotteville:

https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/896884949634232320

Brian?

Danzy wrote: »

You know they think we are Alt Right and among the worst type of Alt Right at that.

The Alt-right are right wingers so deplorable the traditional right don't want them. White nationalists, people who talk about Alpha males etc. There isn't really a strict definition.

Richard Spencer claims to have started the alt-right. He's a white supremacist. He's a neo Nazi troll. So you can't complain when people mischaracterise the alt right as neo Nazis.

CosmicJay

All I know is that the Alt-Right wins the meme war day in day out.

Considering how much of a powerhouse meme culture is especially for young people it's like a factory pumping out young Alt-Righter's.

Most people see through it and stick to centre right but some don't.

Edit: I'm worried enough that young people going forward might start getting their politics from memes.

marcus001

Brian? wrote: »

The Alt-right are right wingers so deplorable the traditional right don't want them. White nationalists, people who talk about Alpha males etc. There isn't really a strict definition.

Richard Spencer claims to have started the alt-right. He's a white supremacist. He's a neo Nazi troll. So you can't complain when people mischaracterise the alt right as neo Nazis.

I'm not trying to defend the guy but people misusing words is something that really irks me. There's a big difference between a nationalist and a supremacist. A supremacist wants to rule over other groups, a nationalist doesn't.

marcus001

CosmicJay wrote: »

Edit: I'm worried enough that young people going forward might start getting their politics from memes.

I already know adults who do this.

A Little Pony

Why do people keep saying alt right? Just say American Nationalists. I don't see what is 'ALT' about it.

Silver Lynel

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Have a read for yourself.

In summary, he believed in white supremacy, a Zionist conspiracy, that women were untrustworthy (one concept that crops up in the alt-right is "white Sharia", which is basically The Handmaiden's Tale becoming real life) and that white masculinity was under attack.

OK this does not match up at all with your previous comment:

"It's a new breed of the far-right which emerged from the cesspits of the Internet. Are you satisfied with that?"

It seems to me here that "alt-right" is basically indistinguishable from "far-right".

What you are describing here is plain old far-right extremist beliefs that have been around for a long long time.

HOWEVER, I see a lot of people who are quite obviously not far-right being branded "alt-right". Which raised my suspicion about how this "alt-right" label is being used.

There are people who label themselves as alt-right and there are people who are labelled by others as alt-right but there seems to be a mismatch in beliefs between people who self identify as alt-right and people who are called alt right as more of a derogatory term.

I'm feeling more and more like the phrase "alt right" is being used to associate people who are not far right with violent and dangerous far right ideology.

Akrasia

marcus001 wrote: »

Pictures can be deceiving you don't know who that started it.

Is this supposed to be ironic?

According to witnesses, the victim of the attack told the nazis to go back home and that they weren't wanted there, which provoked them to chase him down, and beat him to within an inch of his life.

Silver Lynel

Brian? wrote: »

The Alt-right are right wingers so deplorable the traditional right don't want them. White nationalists, people who talk about Alpha males etc. There isn't really a strict definition.

Richard Spencer claims to have started the alt-right. He's a white supremacist. He's a neo Nazi troll. So you can't complain when people mischaracterise the alt right as neo Nazis.

White nationalists.
White supremacist.
Neo Nazi troll.

People who talk about Alpha males.

This is what I mean. How does someone who (wrongly, in my opinion) believes in Alpha males end up bundled in with with Neo-Nazis?

Then how can you say these people shouldn't complain when they are mischaracterized.

A quick google search shows that Richard Spencer claims he invented the term "alt right" and he takes it to mean "white nationalist" as opposed to "white supremacists". It looks like a failed attempt from him to hide the actual white supremacy and racism behind a more legitimate sounding ideology.

So if you are calling someone "alt right" but they are not a white nationalist (or white supremacist in disguise) then you are using the term incorrectly.

How come I am forever seeing people with opinions on movies or video games who have said nothing whatsoever regarding race or white nationalism branded "alt right"?

Why not just call them "White Nationalists"?

Is that because if some dude says "the alpha male gets all the females" you'd look like a total dumbass when your reply is "you are a white nationalist"?

Alt Right is just vague enough and just notorious enough to use to discredit someone without needing to go into too much detail?

marcus001

Akrasia wrote: »

Is this supposed to be ironic?

According to witnesses, the victim of the attack told the nazis to go back home and that they weren't wanted there, which provoked them to chase him down, and beat him to within an inch of his life.

I'll wait for a full police investigation. Considering virtually every witness there would have been on one side or the other there's going to be a lot of bias.

Also, do you have any sources for these claims?

Dyr

Silver Lynel wrote: »

HOWEVER, I see a lot of people who are quite obviously not far-right being branded "alt-right". Which raised my suspicion about how this "alt-right" label is being used.

There are people who label themselves as alt-right and there are people who are labelled by others as alt-right but there seems to be a mismatch in beliefs between people who self identify as alt-right and people who are called alt right as more of a derogatory term.

The SJW's conundrum:

"You dare to disagree with me? You're a nazi! He's nazi! They're all nazi's!!"

"OMFG where did all these nazi's come from?"

Morons

Silver Lynel

Akrasia wrote: »

Is this supposed to be ironic?

According to witnesses, the victim of the attack told the nazis to go back home and that they weren't wanted there, which provoked them to chase him down, and beat him to within an inch of his life.

Wait. What?

So there's this gang of Nazis over there who everyone says are irrational, aggressive and violent, yeah? I think I'll just take a stroll over and tell them to go home.

"Hi, violent, mindless, racist, thugs you are not wanted here!"

What could possibly go wrong?

If you are a citizen standing up to these people then you have to expect that they are going to beat the crap out of you.

Don't start with the "well people stood up to them in WW2" nonsense. It was organised military force that defeated the Nazis before not some clown thinking he can stand down thugs armed with weapons.

This is why the cops should have been all over this instead of standing back and letting it go. The police have to take some responsibility for allowing this kind of nonsense to happen on the streets.

I'm not even sure how this rally was even allowed to be held in the first place.

For Reals

White supremacists should be treated as and labelled as Terrorists.
These people, what ever name or flag they march under believe whites are superior. This is the basic tenet of racism.
You turn up waving confederate flags or swastikas, wearing home made riot gear (or wearing Polo shirts and carrying Tiki torches) you are not out for a peaceful protest regarding your hurt feelings because decent people have gone too far with the whole PC thing. Anyone buying that is very naive.

The apologist posts and comments citing Antifa are pathetic. All violence is wrong. Not every protester was a Racist, not every one an Antifa member. Do we err on the side of the folks protesting against hate and racism or the white supremacists, unaware or fully aware of what they are?

If a bunch of African Americans or Muslims behaved this way Fox and the 'Alt Right' KKK etc. would be calling for curfews and the army, if the protesters weren't shot already.

wes

Bambi wrote: »

The SJW's conundrum:

Its funny that what you said could be applied to you.

FYI, there were people with Nazi flags (along side confederate flags) at unite the right , so calling them Nazi's is just a statement of fact.

Its astonishing that so many are choosing to ignore the guys with the Nazi flags.

B0jangles

Bambi wrote: »

The SJW's conundrum:

"You dare to disagree with me? You're a nazi! He's nazi! They're all nazi's!!"

"OMFG where did all these nazi's come from?"

Morons

If some random person disagreeing with you* and calling you a nazi is genuinely enough to make you become a nazi just to spite them, then you are a grade-A moron.

Alternatively you were only hair's breadth from being a nazi to begin with.

*non-specific 'you' btw.

marcus001

Here's the full video of the assault. It shows a right winger getting knocked out cold with a bat and then the other right wingers jumping in to defend him. The cops were there the whole time. Just goes to show how one photograph can be seriously misleading.

https://vid.me/VVIH7

It also completely rubbishes any claim that the young man just went over to tell them they weren't welcome. I hope the person who spread that rumour on here backtracks.

Mr.H

Silver Lynel wrote:

I'm not even sure how this rally was even allowed to be held in the first place.

1st amendment

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Knock it off Marcus and Bambi. There have been on thread warnings already.

Dyr

For Reals wrote: »

If a bunch of African Americans or Muslims behaved this way Fox and the 'Alt Right' KKK etc. would be calling for curfews and the army, if the protesters weren't shot already.

You mean like the riots in Milwaukee last year? Or protests as the media call em

They called a state of emergency in charlottesville before anything happened

Silver Lynel

For Reals wrote: »

The apologist posts and comments citing Antifa are pathetic. All violence is wrong. Not every protester was a Racist, not every one an Antifa member. Do we err on the side of the folks protesting against hate and racism or the white supremacists, unaware or fully aware of what they are?

How much leeway should we give Antifa?

They say that they are against hate and racism but what about their actions?

Do they have ideology or rhetoric of their own?

Is violence a valid method for achieving their goal?

Could they do more harm than good? Escalating violent clashes until people are dying in the streets?

Where and when do we stop?

If one group believes whites are superior and the other group believes whites are inferior then is there really any hope of a peaceful conclusion for America?

I think the authorities need to step in because ultimately it's going to be regular people, who aren't Nazis and aren't Antifa, who feel the brunt of this.

If the Fascists abuse you and beat you up for being the wrong colour and Antifa smash up your business and set fire to your car then who can you turn to?

Over a year ago people said "this violence will escalate and someone will die". It could have been a stray rock or bottle or a deadly strike from a bike lock or baseball bat that caused the first fatality.

It could have easily been either side that was first to kill someone.

Now that it has happened we should just condemn them all and ban them from holding any more rallies. At least until they can front the cash to pay for security to make sure that people are not dying at a protest over a damn statue.

I have no problem condemning the far right groups involved here and no problem condemning the far left groups either. They are both a disgrace and someone is dead because of their bullsh!t.

Don't just give Antifa a free pass because they call themselves "anti-Fascists".

marcus001

For Reals wrote: »

White supremacists should be treated as and labelled as Terrorists.
These people, what ever name or flag they march under believe whites are superior. This is the basic tenet of racism.
You turn up waving confederate flags or swastikas, wearing home made riot gear (or wearing Polo shirts and carrying Tiki torches) you are not out for a peaceful protest regarding your hurt feelings because decent people have gone too far with the whole PC thing. Anyone buying that is very naive.

The apologist posts and comments citing Antifa are pathetic. All violence is wrong. Not every protester was a Racist, not every one an Antifa member. Do we err on the side of the folks protesting against hate and racism or the white supremacists, unaware or fully aware of what they are?

If a bunch of African Americans or Muslims behaved this way Fox and the 'Alt Right' KKK etc. would be calling for curfews and the army, if the protesters weren't shot already.

Antifa may not be racist but they are as hateful as you can get. And they don't just hate right wingers. They hate liberals too.

Akrasia

marcus001 wrote: »

I'll wait for a full police investigation. Considering virtually every witness there would have been on one side or the other there's going to be a lot of bias.

Also, do you have any sources for these claims?

There was a journalist there Zach D. Roberts. He took the photographs. Here is his report

teacher, was walking down the street with friends, trading taunts with the white supremacist demonstrators.
Harris’ jibes were hardly fighting words. “Go home! Leave town!” Locals like Harris resented the jack-ass invasion.
That’s when fists flew and Harris was slammed by one of the white guys straight into a parking lot barrier so hard the yellow wooden arm broke.
De’Andre fell to the ground, alone, surrounded by all these white guys — and they started beating him with the poles that almost all the white supremacists were carrying.
http://www.gregpalast.com/charlottesville-gun-face-got-photo/#more-13681

20Cent

Silver Lynel wrote: »

If one group believes whites are superior and the other group believes whites are inferior then is there really any hope of a peaceful conclusion for America?.

Antifa are pro equality not anti white.
If there were no fascists there wouls be no antifa.

oscarBravo

marcus001 wrote: »

Here's the full video of the assault. It shows a right winger getting knocked out cold with a bat and then the other right wingers jumping in to defend him. The cops were there the whole time. Just goes to show how one photograph can be seriously misleading.

https://vid.me/VVIH7

It also completely rubbishes any claim that the young man just went over to tell them they weren't welcome. I hope the person who spread that rumour on here backtracks.

Hang on. That video doesn't show the assault. It shows a separate incident, and also shows someone who appears to be the victim of the assault.

If you're trying to claim that the victim of the assault was an instigator, and that the four people with sticks and one person with a gun were acting in self-defence, you're going to have to produce some actual evidence.

marcus001

Akrasia wrote: »

There was a journalist there Zach D. Roberts. He took the photographs. Here is his report

There's a video I posted above which shows that Harris was part of a bat wielding mob that was following the marchers down the street. I'll take video evidence over the words of a "journalist" with no credentials.

marcus001

oscarBravo wrote: »

Hang on. That video doesn't show the assault. It shows a separate incident, and also shows someone who appears to be the victim of the assault.

If you're trying to claim that the victim of the assault was an instigator, and that the four people with sticks and one person with a gun were acting in self-defence, you're going to have to produce some actual evidence.

It does show the assault at 1:27. Harris is on the ground just to the left of the shot.

I'm not claiming he's the instigator, but he wasn't some random fella minding his own business set upon by a racist mob. At a minimum this video establishes this as fact.

The person is obviously Harris. No one else would have been wearing that exact outfit at that time.

We won't really know what happened until there is a full police investigation as I said before, thankfully there were dozens of police around at the time, making it altogether more likely that this was an act of self-defence, not necessarily defending against Harris but against the group he was moving with. I can't see any violence from Harris in the video, but this really isn't the outrage that it's being made out to be. Looks like a scuffle between two groups and one group won.

Christy42

marcus001 wrote: »

It does show the assault at 1:27. Harris is on the ground just to the left of the shot.

I'm not claiming he's the instigator, but he wasn't some random fella minding his own business set upon by a racist mob. At a minimum this video establishes this as fact.

The person is obviously Harris. No one else would have been wearing that exact outfit at that time.

We won't really know what happened until there is a full police investigation as I said before, thankfully there were dozens of police around at the time, making it altogether more likely that this was an act of self-defence, not necessarily defending against Harris but against the group he was moving with. I can't see any violence from Harris in the video, but this really isn't the outrage that it's being made out to be. Looks like a scuffle between two groups and one group won.

Why would the presence of police make it more likely it was self defense? Surely if police presence would deter one side from assault it would deter both?

Also what is with all the red in the video? Is that just my phone?

Brian?

marcus001 wrote: »

I'm not trying to defend the guy but people misusing words is something that really irks me. There's a big difference between a nationalist and a supremacist. A supremacist wants to rule over other groups, a nationalist doesn't.

I beg to differ. Richard Spencer is a white supremacist who claims to be a "white nationalist". He believes white people are superior to all other races, as do any other "white nationalists" I've come across. They talk about pushing out the inferior races and taking America back for white people. This is the very definition of being a white supremacist.

They can call themselves "white teddy bears" for all I care. It doesn't change who they are and what they stand for. Standing beside actual Nazis kind of gives it away.

For someone who's pedantic, which I'm guilty of myself, why don't you take issue with the term "white nationalist"? There is no white nation.

oscarBravo

marcus001 wrote: »

I'm not claiming he's the instigator...

[...]

I can't see any violence from Harris in the video...

...but he deserved to be beaten by four men with sticks anyway. That's an interesting perspective.

Brian?

Silver Lynel wrote: »

White nationalists.
White supremacist.
Neo Nazi troll.

People who talk about Alpha males.

This is what I mean. How does someone who (wrongly, in my opinion) believes in Alpha males end up bundled in with with Neo-Nazis?

Then how can you say these people shouldn't complain when they are mischaracterized.

A quick google search shows that Richard Spencer claims he invented the term "alt right" and he takes it to mean "white nationalist" as opposed to "white supremacists". It looks like a failed attempt from him to hide the actual white supremacy and racism behind a more legitimate sounding ideology.

So if you are calling someone "alt right" but they are not a white nationalist (or white supremacist in disguise) then you are using the term incorrectly.

How come I am forever seeing people with opinions on movies or video games who have said nothing whatsoever regarding race or white nationalism branded "alt right"?

Why not just call them "White Nationalists"?

Is that because if some dude says "the alpha male gets all the females" you'd look like a total dumbass when your reply is "you are a white nationalist"?

Alt Right is just vague enough and just notorious enough to use to discredit someone without needing to go into too much detail?

As I said, there is no strict definition of th alt right. But it includes the people I've mentioned.

Milo being a primes example. He's alt right. But isn't a white supremacist.

super_furry

Mental how people can honestly try to defence straight up neo-Nazis, particularly after one of their number murdered an innocent women in a terrorist attack.

marcus001

Brian? wrote: »

I beg to differ. Richard Spencer is a white supremacist who claims to be a "white nationalist". He believes white people are superior to all other races, as do any other "white nationalists" I've come across. They talk about pushing out the inferior races and taking America back for white people. This is the very definition of being a white supremacist.

They can call themselves "white teddy bears" for all I care. It doesn't change who they are and what they stand for. Standing beside actual Nazis kind of gives it away.

For someone who's pedantic, which I'm guilty of myself, why don't you take issue with the term "white nationalist"? There is no white nation.

Can you link to where he said these things?

I take issue with the concept of white nationalism because as you say, white's are not a coherent nation, but as a term I don't have a problem with it. It's an ideal I don't aspire to.

marcus001

oscarBravo wrote: »

...but he deserved to be beaten by four men with sticks anyway. That's an interesting perspective.

It's amazing how a mod can edit someone's post in quotes and then put words like that in my mouth. My post wasn't that long to justify cutting out most of what I actually said so you could misrepresent what I said.

I never said anyone deserved to get a beating.

marcus001

Christy42 wrote: »

Why would the presence of police make it more likely it was self defense? Surely if police presence would deter one side from assault it would deter both?

Also what is with all the red in the video? Is that just my phone?

I think people would be less likely to commit and unprovoked assault right in front of the cops than when there are no cops. Don't you?

I think scuffles can break out where both sides can plausibly argue the other side started it. Anyone who's been in a scrap on the street even on a night out knows it's not always black and white. Sometimes fights are mutual. Sometimes people can get dragged into someone else's fight just by being in their group.

Brian?

marcus001 wrote: »

Can you link to where he said these things?

I could. But I'm not in the business of googling for you. Google his "hail Trump" speech.

It contains a quality rant about "we are the pioneers, we are the nation builders" and so on. Absolutely historically blind.

I take issue with the concept of white nationalism because as you say, white's are not a coherent nation, but as a term I don't have a problem with it. It's an ideal I don't aspire to.

Why don't you have a problem with it, but you have a problem with my post? Interesting.

The term "white nationalist" is a complete nonsense.

.

Tony EH

Manic Moran wrote: »

We have had a problem with one of our products, a WW2-era naval wargame. Due to protest from Korean players, the powers-that-are decided to remove the historically correct sunburst flag from the backs of IJN ships, and replace it with the current Japanese national flag.

The stupidity of it is that the sunburst flag is still the official flag of the JMSDF, and the Korean Navy seems to have figured out how to work in friendship with it.

http://i.imgur.com/leNqG7F.jpg

Worse, the flag flown by the IJA in Korea during the occupation is actually a bit different to the flag flown by the IJN or the current JMSDF. (The sun is centered on one, offset on the other)

This is just so dumb.

marcus001

Brian? wrote: »

I could. But I'm not in the business of googling for you. Google his "hail Trump" speech.

It contains a quality rant about "we are the pioneers, we are the nation builders" and so on. Absolutely historically blind.



Why don't you have a problem with it, but you have a problem with my post? Interesting.

The term "white nationalist" is a complete nonsense.

.

No, no, this is Politics so if you want to quote someone you have to provide sources when asked.

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

Looks like the Republican party and the Cops want to make terrorism legal for Nazi's:

BACKED BY POLICE UNIONS, LEGISLATORS STAND BY LAWS TO PROTECT DRIVERS WHO KILL PROTESTERS

This is so blatant it isn't even funny at this point.

At this point, the US police are as bad as any gang if you ask me.

You did actually read the article, right? And the text of the laws? It even quotes one law, as saying that the driver must be executing 'due care and attention.'

After all, if you're going around minding your own business and someone else deliberately puts themselves in harm's way (I don't know about you, but I was always told to avoid traffic when entering a street) to the level that an accident happens (yes, accident, not a deliberate ramming: As the article stated, deliberate rammings are not 'authorised') then immunity from suit is not unreasonable. Remember in the US, anyone can sue for anything, and costs are not usually paid by the loser.

marcus001

Brian? wrote: »

Why don't you have a problem with it, but you have a problem with my post? Interesting.

The term "white nationalist" is a complete nonsense.

.

Why would I have a problem with it?

Are you saying white nationalism doesn't exist?

Are you also saying that Pan-Arab nationalism doesn't exist for the same reason?

Are you saying that because I have a problem with you using words incorrectly I should also have a problem with this other related word as well?

PopePalpatine

super_furry wrote: »

Mental how people can honestly try to defence straight up neo-Nazis, particularly after one of their number murdered an innocent women in a terrorist attack.

And now dozens of their number are heading to Heather Hayer's funeral, WBC-style.

Brian?

marcus001 wrote: »

Why would I have a problem with it?

Are you saying white nationalism doesn't exist?

Are you also saying that Pan-Arab nationalism doesn't exist for the same reason?

Are you saying that because I have a problem with you using words incorrectly I should also have a problem with this other related word as well?

It's ok. I'll leave it. You'll pendantry is ideologicall biased. I do that myself.

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

You did actually read the article, right? And the text of the laws? It even quotes one law, as saying that the driver must be executing 'due care and attention.'

After all, if you're going around minding your own business and someone else deliberately puts themselves in harm's way (I don't know about you, but I was always told to avoid traffic when entering a street) to the level that an accident happens (yes, accident, not a deliberate ramming: As the article stated, deliberate rammings are not 'authorised') then immunity from suit is not unreasonable. Remember in the US, anyone can sue for anything, and costs are not usually paid by the loser.

Yeah, and let be honest we know exactly how the law is going to be used, and who the victims are going to be. We have seen enough about how things work over there at this point.

A Little Pony

I was listening to Dr Umar Johnson say most of the protesters are white and not black and thinks white people/LGBT agenda should stop trying to hijack the black cause.

super_furry

PopePalpatine wrote: »

And now dozens of their number are heading to Heather Hayer's funeral, WBC-style.

I wish I could say I'm surprised but these are Nazi's we're dealing with. Would love to hear how their cheerleaders here can defend this one.

marcus001

wes wrote: »

Yeah, and let be honest we know exactly how the law is going to be used, and who the victims are going to be. We have seen enough about how things work over there at this point.

Can you fill us in on the conspiracy?