Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Right-wing vs. Left-wing Clashes [MOD NOTE POST #1]
Comments
-
Looks like some of the media is now going to start calling a duck a duck:
I think the rest of us need to follow suit, the "alt-right" are imo just re-branded Neo-Nazi's wearing polo shirts, and the bizarre political correctness, that we have for whatever bizarre reason have been observing towards them should end. They want to exterminate all non-white people and anyone who disagrees with them, we seen what there inspiration did the last time, so best to stop them here and now, or else our children will be fighting a war against these people.
To be honest, all those men walking around with their neat hair, polo shirts and glasses made it look like an accountants convention. They looked like nerds trying to be tough.0 -
All this statue talk actually distracts from the fact that no-sh** neo-nazis were having a rally, sieg-heiling, burning torches and mowing people down. The nazis aren't about statues and the very fact that this even being discussed means they've spun this episode with some degree of success.0
-
The Southern states seceded because you had some states which wanted to expand slavery west, they could easily have kept slavery in the Union by refusing to not expand it west. Lincoln didn't want that and that is one of the major reasons why the Civil was happened.Professor Moriarty wrote: »Many people throughout history owned and traded slaves. If you take down all their statues you'll have a lot of empty plinths. This is the left trying to extinguish history for their own political ends.
Nah. You need to think a little deeper. The core reason for the Confederate rebellion was to maintain slavery. Thus statues that celebrate the leaders of that rebellion are an insult to the descendants of those slaves. Equating that with a statue of Julius Caesar is very simplistic thinking.
Jefferson and Washington betrayed the crown, Washington was in the British Army, both knew what they did was paramount to treason and accepted what comes with that, both permitted slavery, it was not abolished. Lincoln said if he could keep slavery and save the Union he would or abolish it and save the Union he would do that also.
The war was about maintaining the Union, the soldiers on either side didn't give a damn about the slaves.0 -
Many people throughout history owned and traded slaves. If you take down all their statues you'll have a lot of empty plinths. This is the left trying to extinguish history for their own political ends.
Extinguish history. So you would be fine with a statue of say Oliver Cromwell sitting pretty in the middle of Galway...
Removing the symbols of hate, bigotry and treason is a smart idea especially in areas where ethic minorities live. Statues are not symbols to preserve history, there are no statues of Hitler in Germany yet he is not forgotten historically.0 -
A Little Pony wrote: »The Southern states seceded because you had some states which wanted to expand slavery west, they could easily have kept slavery in the Union by refusing to not expand it west. Lincoln didn't want that and that is one of the major reasons why the Civil was happened.
Jefferson and Washington betrayed the crown, Washington was in the British Army, both knew what they did was paramount to treason and accepted what comes with that, both permitted slavery, it was not abolished. Lincoln said if he could keep slavery and save the Union he would or abolish it and save the Union he would do that also.
The war was about maintaining the Union, the soldiers on either side didn't give a damn about the slaves.
That's a very shallow and mistaken understanding of what happened. In actual fact, Lincoln was implacably opposed to slavery as evidenced by a speech he gave in 1854 (7 years before the civil war) where he made a compelling moral, economic and political argument against slavery. He continued to oppose slavery throughout his political career.
His reference to fighting the war and keeping slavery was that he felt his hands were tied because the constitution sanctioned slavery. After the war, he pushed for full abolition which culminated in his overseeing the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.0 -
Advertisement
-
You should read what Lincoln thought of African Americans, the idea to ship them out of America.Professor Moriarty wrote: »A Little Pony wrote: »The Southern states seceded because you had some states which wanted to expand slavery west, they could easily have kept slavery in the Union by refusing to not expand it west. Lincoln didn't want that and that is one of the major reasons why the Civil was happened.
Jefferson and Washington betrayed the crown, Washington was in the British Army, both knew what they did was paramount to treason and accepted what comes with that, both permitted slavery, it was not abolished. Lincoln said if he could keep slavery and save the Union he would or abolish it and save the Union he would do that also.
The war was about maintaining the Union, the soldiers on either side didn't give a damn about the slaves.
That's a very shallow and mistaken understanding of what happened. In actual fact, Lincoln was implacably opposed to slavery as evidenced by a speech he gave in 1854 (7 years before the civil war) where he made a compelling moral, economic and political argument against slavery. He continued to oppose slavery throughout his political career.
His reference to fighting the war and keeping slavery was that he felt his hands were tied because the constitution sanctioned slavery. After the war, he pushed for full abolition which culminated in his overseeing the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8319858/Abraham-Lincoln-wanted-to-deport-slaves-to-new-colonies.html
A lot of us now in the 21st century see slavery rightly as an evil. In that time if you were against slavery it didn't necessarily mean you thought black people had equal standing with white people. Lincoln was against slavery because of the economic absurdity of it. He thought labour had a value and saw pure slavery as no hope.
Lincoln thought the Union was indissolvable[font=Arial, serif] [/font] and did not want the expansion of slavery westward. That is one of the most fundamental reasons for the war.0 -
For anyone saying both sides:
‘I'm glad that girl died’ during Virginia protest, says NC KKK leader
You probably mean well, but your on the wrong side of history on this one.
This is one of the rare instance, when there are "Good Guys" and "Bad Guys", and you don't get any worse than the KKK and Nazi's.0 -
A Little Pony wrote: »You should read what Lincoln thought of African Americans, the idea to ship them out of America.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8319858/Abraham-Lincoln-wanted-to-deport-slaves-to-new-colonies.html
A lot of us now in the 21st century see slavery rightly as an evil. In that time if you were against slavery it didn't necessarily mean you thought black people had equal standing with white people. Lincoln was against slavery because of the economic absurdity of it. He thought labour had a value and saw pure slavery as no hope.
Lincoln thought the Union was indissolvable[font=Arial, serif] [/font] and did not want the expansion of slavery westward. That is one of the most fundamental reasons for the war.
Nope. Wrong again. He dropped the idea of colonization completely in 1863 before the end of the civil war. Also, he attempted to stop slavery's expansion westward while simultaneously promoting compensated emancipation. This was an attempt abolish slavery without further confrontation. To see it as an endorsement of slavery would be utterly wrong.
The fact remains that Lincoln remained implacably opposed to slavery throughout his life primarily as a moral principle. End of.
You are plucking pieces of history out of context and conflating them to promote an argument that is simply wrong. Furthermore, your wrong argument is an attempt to deflect from the reality that statues commemorating Confederate leaders are a gross insult to many Americans today precisely because their core motivation was the maintenance of slavery.0 -
No that isn't correct, he thought that right up to the near end of his life. I NEVER said Lincoln ever endorsed slavery. I said Lincoln had opinions about Africans Americans which matched millions of other white Americans at that time. You can not judge the man by 21st century googles. You have look at it objectively from all angles.Professor Moriarty wrote: »A Little Pony wrote: »You should read what Lincoln thought of African Americans, the idea to ship them out of America.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8319858/Abraham-Lincoln-wanted-to-deport-slaves-to-new-colonies.html
A lot of us now in the 21st century see slavery rightly as an evil. In that time if you were against slavery it didn't necessarily mean you thought black people had equal standing with white people. Lincoln was against slavery because of the economic absurdity of it. He thought labour had a value and saw pure slavery as no hope.
Lincoln thought the Union was indissolvable and did not want the expansion of slavery westward. That is one of the most fundamental reasons for the war.
Nope. Wrong again. He dropped the idea of colonization completely in 1863 before the end of the civil war. Also, he attempted to stop slavery's expansion westward while simultaneously promoting compensated emancipation. This was an attempt abolish slavery without further confrontation. To see it as an endorsement of slavery would be utterly wrong.
The fact remains that Lincoln remained implacably opposed to slavery throughout his life primarily as a moral principle. End of.
You are plucking pieces of history out of context and conflating them to promote an argument that is simply wrong. Furthermore, your wrong argument is an attempt to deflect from the reality that statues commemorating Confederate leaders are a gross insult to many Americans today precisely because their core motivation was the maintenance of slavery.
The problem of the expansion of slavery west was one of the key ingredients of the civil war. It was utterly unacceptable to Lincoln.0 -
jooksavage wrote: »All this statue talk actually distracts from the fact that no-sh** neo-nazis were having a rally, sieg-heiling, burning torches and mowing people down. The nazis aren't about statues and the very fact that this even being discussed means they've spun this episode with some degree of success.
This is correct of course.
However, I still find it sad that we have complex history and historical figures being reduced down to simplistic narratives and gross caricatures.0 -
Advertisement
-
Because people don't have time to read and think about such complex figures. Go look at James Madison, the father of the Constitution, died with 100 slaves in his possession. Look at the amount of Founding Fathers who owned slaves. It hurts the narrative which has been drummed into Americans for centuries that the Founding Fathers did great things while completely ignoring the permitting and flourishing of slavery under them.jooksavage wrote: »All this statue talk actually distracts from the fact that no-sh** neo-nazis were having a rally, sieg-heiling, burning torches and mowing people down. The nazis aren't about statues and the very fact that this even being discussed means they've spun this episode with some degree of success.
This is correct of course.
However, I still find it sad that we have complex history and historical figures being reduced down to simplistic narratives and gross caricatures.0 -
Many people throughout history owned and traded slaves. If you take down all their statues you'll have a lot of empty plinths. This is the left trying to extinguish history for their own political ends.
LOL
How about no? The statues that were taken down are barely historically relevant. The majority of confederate statues were erected in the 1920's or 30's, and were less about honouring confederate generals than they were a silent warning to black people to let them know who was still in charge in the south. There is nothing historically significant about these statues, this isnt someone dismantling the Pyramids at giza because they were built by slaves, this is right thinking people removing cheaply produced, (the confederate soldier statue that was pulled down by members of the public is literally a generic confederate soldier that is in other places across the US), barely even old enough to qualify as antique statues that are nothing more than a warning to black people.
Let me ask you this much, would you be okay with a big statue of Oliver Cromwell on O'Connel St? If people tried to pull it down would you say it was just some pussy ass lefties trying to erase history for their own political ends?0 -
There's a statue of Cromwell in Westminister.0
-
A Little Pony wrote: »Because people don't have time to read and think about such complex figures. Go look at James Madison, the father of the Constitution, died with 100 slaves in his possession. Look at the amount of Founding Fathers who owned slaves. It hurts the narrative which has been drummed into Americans for centuries that the Founding Fathers did great things while completely ignoring the permitting and flourishing of slavery under them.
Because there is a large difference between a famous historical figure who owned slaves and a famous historical figure who is only famous because he fought for slavery and who's statue is only there by people who wanted to honour this fight. By all means the failings of other historical figures should be remembered but Lee's main historical feature is his moral failings.
But hey keep moving the topics away from the fact that was a large a KKK and nazi march in the US (and apparently fine upstanding people who thought the fine upstanding thing to do this day would be to ally themselves with Nazis and the KKK).0 -
To your first point. Give an example of Lincoln supporting forced coloninisation after the end of civil war.A Little Pony wrote: »No that isn't correct, he thought that right up to the near end of his life. I NEVER said Lincoln ever endorsed slavery. I said Lincoln had opinions about Africans Americans which matched millions of other white Americans at that time. You can not judge the man by 21st century googles. You have look at it objectively from all angles.
The problem of the expansion of slavery west was one of the key ingredients of the civil war. It was utterly unacceptable to Lincoln.
Regarding your second point, that is exactly what I said. I repeat, he did this while promoting compensatory emancipation. Which negates your implications that he was in any way of the same view as confederate leaders. It also negates any farcical implication that statues of Lincoln should be removed for the same reason that confederate leaders' statues should be removed.
Do you agree that there was clear blue water between confederate leaders and Lincoln on the subject of slavery? Yes or no?0 -
-
This is the kind crap I'm talking about.
It's simplistic beyond belief to reduce a complex historical figure to such bottom level nonsense.
Oh ffs. There is more to him but that is what he will mostly be remembered for. There are 1000s of historical figures out there and not everyone will learn the entire life of each one. If not for the civil war, no one would remember Lee very well is what I mean. If not for his stance of slavery he would not be in a history book. If Washington had had a different approach to slavery he would still be in the history books.
No one is suggesting that we forget who Lee is. That is a complete tangent to the statue. If history is forgotten or too "vague" without the statue than you are going to need a lot more statues than we have currently because a lot is currently in this situation of being "vague".
Of course keep up the tangential discussions to keep the topic off of the nazi/KKK march which walked through the streets of the US (and don't give me bull about the fine people, fine people don't join forces with the Nazis and KKK for the sake of a f***ing statue.0 -
Baltimore, Maryland (next to Virginia) removed all four of its civil war statues in the middle of the night last night.0
-
Oh ffs. There is more to him but that is what he will mostly be remembered for.
Only by some, who can't be arsed to go any deeper.
And what he's actually mostly remembered for is his tactical and strategic expertise on the battlefield.
Your simplistic reduction is like saying George Washington - slave owner.
That's all...nothing else...0 -
Only by some, who can't be arsed to go any deeper.
And what he's actually mostly remembered for is his tactical and strategic expertise on the battlefield.
Your simplistic reduction is like saying George Washington - slave owner.
That's all...nothing else...
You seem to be completely hung up on the personalities here. A statue of George Washington doesn't personally glorify him, fallible human being that he was, it represents an IDEA.
Statues to founding fathers = celebrate the building of a nation
Statues to defeated Confederate generals = harken back to a pre-emancipation era South
It's really as simple as that.0 -
Advertisement
-
Only by some, who can't be arsed to go any deeper.
And what he's actually mostly remembered for is his tactical and strategic expertise on the battlefield.
Your simplistic reduction is like saying George Washington - slave owner.
That's all...nothing else...
Not really. His major impact on the lives was his role in the confederate army. It would be like saying George Washington-founder of the US. He really is better known for his role in the civil war.
As I said there are 1000s of historical figures. I am sure you have reached that level of detail on all of them?
As I said this tangential. You know damn well no one was in that march because they thought his tactical ability should be remembered.0 -
-
Silver Lynel wrote: »To be honest I don't the people at Charlotteville as a natural consequence of young men being brutally silenced and denigrated by the PC left, I see them as nasty, bigoted arseholes who feel they're now in a position to be more open about their neo-Nazi politics than they were before.
I tend to agree with this. These people have always been around and they exist pretty much everywhere in western society.
They are definitely emboldened once they get into a crowd. Especially if they are part of a crowd who will not stand up to them.
You have different "layers" to this general right wing movement and extremist groups are one of those layers.
They are not the entirety of the "right wing" though and I think one of the things we really should be careful of is tarring everyone with the same brush.
I've asked people many times to explain what "alt-right" means and what the difference is between the "alt-right" and the regular "right" and when I do get an answer it's usually not a very good one.
I've felt like the more the phrase "alt-right" is used the less clear it's meaning becomes. Is the "alt-right" just the right? Or does it really mean "American Right" or are we meaning "Online Right"?
Is there a gap between the right, the alt-right, neo-nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists, race realists, fascists? How much of a gap?
What I see sometimes is that people who have negative views on Feminism, for example, are categorized as "Alt-Right" when they don't appear to hold many, or any, right wing views and don't appear to be racist or homophobic etc.
The logic seems to be something along the lines of...
You are annoyed that Dr Who is a woman now. So you must hate women. You know who else hates women? The alt-right! You know another thing about the alt-right? They are racist, white supremacist, nazis. So I guess you are too. Oh, by the way, we are going to punch all Nazis!
So you end up with all these people who don't belong in the same category as neo-nazis and/or far right extremists turning a blind eye because those extremist groups are willing to inflict violence and "revenge" on the people who have treated then unfairly.
Imagine if some colleague at work was bullying you and spreading lies about you and as a result you just outright hate them as a person. Then one night you are out on the town and you see that same colleague being slapped around by some skinhead thug. Are you going to intervene?
The left seems to have alienated a lot of people who are actually very left leaning and now I feel like those alienated people are either ignoring or even encouraging far-right rhetoric because they enjoy watching the people who alienated them get their "comeuppance".
As a result the far-right become bolder and more numerous as people enjoy the power of being able to join a crowd and have someone else stick it to their opponents.
Even the "punch a nazi" hardmen online. Are they going to do the nazi punching themselves or will they be expecting someone else to do it for them?
More and more people on the left come across as arrogant, smug and out of touch. More and more they will passive aggressively shut down people who have a different opinion and will outright hound people who disagree with them.
The crazed Neo-Nazi, racist, contingent who are outright looking for violence have always been there. Now we are throwing people who don't belong in that category in with them and those people are just looking the other way while the extremist rhetoric spreads itself and takes hold.
How can it be that these fringe groups seem to be growing and becoming more visible and/or relevant?
There is even an impression that the left are these stuffy humorless authoritarians and the right are so edgy and alternative and funny. This is probably attractive to young people. It's worrying.
Used to be that the right would be trying to ban video games or Pokemon or Harry Potter and the young people would laugh at them and seek out ways to rebel against them. Now it seems like the impression is that the right are the rebels and the left are the authoritarian, no fun, censorious, establishment.
In American, it is escalating to violence now and that's a really, really, worrying trend.
If people want to "punch a nazi" then they need to be sure that the people getting punched are actually nazis. They also need to be prepared for the possibility that there are nazis who are itching for an opportunity to punch back.
It was only a matter of time before somebody died over this.
Now that it has happened maybe it's time for these activist groups to step back and take a good look at themselves.
Maybe it's time for people who ignored the racism and extreme rhetoric from the right because it was triggering people they personally dislike to take a good look at themselves too because they are allowing the violent element that has always been there to feel like the violence is finally justified.
" There is even an impression that the left are these stuffy humorless authoritarians and the right are so edgy and alternative and funny. This is probably attractive to young people. It's worrying.
Used to be that the right would be trying to ban video games or Pokemon or Harry Potter and the young people would laugh at them and seek out ways to rebel against them. Now it seems like the impression is that the right are the rebels and the left are the authoritarian, no fun, censorious, establishment."
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]" authoritarian/censorship " is exactly how I have viewed the left in recent years, yesterday the journal.ie published an opinion piece by a pro life spokesperson, the reaction online from a lot of people with repealthe8th stickers on their profiles , " journal.ie how could you do that " - " why are you giving this person a platform ? " - etc abortion is another touchy issue that people have differing views on, there is many pro repeal opinion pieces written in different medi[/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]a outlets, what don,t recall is people identifying as " pro life " calling on media outlets to " no platform/censor " people calling for repeal of the 8th, basically what Im saying is a lot on the left are coming off as being intolerant of dissent/people disagreeing with them whereas a lot of people on the right are coming off as being a lot more tolerant of dissent then people on the left are.[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Another example Katie Hopkins appears on the late late show last November people involved with certain left wing parties start a social media campaign to try pressure the late late show into canceling her tv appearance,but yet in 2015 Anjem Choudary spoke on Rtes prime time around the time of the Charlie Hebdo incident yet there was no social media campaign by those very same people to try pressure Rte into canceling his interview.[/font]
No GIF's please.0 -
The Legend Of Kira wrote: »Katie Hopkins appears on the late late show last November people involved with certain left wing parties start a social media campaign to try pressure the late late show into canceling her tv appearance,but yet in 2015 Anjem Choudary spoke on Rtes prime time around the time of the Charlie Hebdo incident yet there was no social media campaign by those very same people to try pressure Rte into canceling his interview.
Well, one is an arsehole who spouts ****e for her own self aggrandisement. The other is a leader of a community who's views are at the centre of a debate about something like the Hebdo shootings.
While I find most of what Choudry has to say abhorrent to say the least, many still want to hear it.
Most people couldn't give a toss what the likes of Hopkins has to say about anything.0 -
Comments on the Journal.ie and twitter. Worst excuse for being a nazi ever.0
-
wonderfullife wrote: »...The sad reality of Donald Trump is most of his base are racists. Most of them are longing for an idealized version of America that is never coming back. An America where men are men, women are women, whites are in charge, coal-mining and manual labour jobs are plentiful...
Instead the future is technology, education, diversity, progress.
I think that is unfair on a chunk of voters that voted for Trump.
Remember Trump won northern states that had endorsed Obama in two previous elections.
They voted for him because they were ignored by Clinton and because they have seen their industrial heartlands disappear.
It is too fooking simplistic and very much a liberal educated view that most Trump voters were racist knuckle draggers who just want a return to the likes of the 50s and to manual industrial jobs.
And the future for these, and indeed a lot of people in the western world, is very bleak.AGAIN, I'll ask where do you stop?
There's a statue to Bomber Harris in London. A man who murdered German civilians in their sleep.
He and bomber command did a job that they were commanded to do by a wartime cabinet.
They tried to stop German's war machine from functioning and that included hitting German cities.
Of course it is easy for some apologists today, in a nice western society in existence partially due to their sacrifices, to label them murderers.
It was fooking sickening how badly they were treated given the attrition rate they had to face during the war.
And if you were to make anything of a like comparison it would be shoving up a statue to heydrich in Prague or himmler in Jewish district of Paris.
As for the topic of discussion, I can see why having monuments to rebel leaders is a reminder to some of the pain their ancestors suffered.
Having monuments to Lee, Jackson, etc in a town, city with a large black population is akin to sticking a statue to cromwell in Drogheda or to King billy in the Bogside.
The big issue in the states and increasingly in Europe is that the middle ground is being ceded really due to how bereft we have become of proper political leaders.
There is increasing polarisation and sometimes I think it suits some.
For instance in the states poor people be they black, white, red, yellow have more in common with each other than with some of agenda drivers pushing them to opposing sides.
Some think globalisation and diversity is great, we even see it here, but it is only great if you benefiting from it.
It is becoming apparent to quiet a sizable chunk of people that not alone their own jobs and livelihoods are going to go, but that their kids haven't got much of a future.
Globalisation and diversity is not so good for them and trying to bully them for not drinking the koolaid has and will backfire spectacularly.
When political policy is being set or shaped by the likes of the Kochs and Sutherlands of this world you should worry.I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
Baron Frankenstein bewailing the destruction his Monster causes.
American progressives created the Alt-Right. What did you think blue-collar Americans were going to do when shunted aside, denigrated, and impoverished in an attempt to create a utopia for those who think like you? The biggest irony being of course that said utopia didn't happen, and your equal, multicultural society never materialised, instead an unequal Balkanised one did, on both sides of the pond.
Minority groups in the US were encouraged to maintain a distinctive group identity and vote accordingly for those who promised to promote their interests, of course White Americans would eventually do the same, why wouldn't they?
British progressives shriek with horror over Brexit yet won't acknowledge had they accepted EU immigration had some negative effects and acted, it would never have happened. Or that current hostility towards Islam and migrants has it's roots in behaviour tolerated too long under the cover of community cohesion and a morbid fear of being called racist.
This is "your" mess,but you will never I suspect own your part in creating it. Instead you'll come crying to those of us in the crossfire to save you, and to be honest, I'm not much inclined to. Whichever of you wipes the other out is much the same to me, hopefully it'll weaken the victor enough for those of us from the sensible Left and Right to put them in their metaphorical coffin and nail it shut.
Sorry, waving a swastika says more about your mental state than any economic one.
There's complaining about your hardships based on economics and then there's racism. You would have to go very far back to find a time when any ethnic grouping lived in a bubble happy as Larry. I believe the U.S. is full of immigrants from Europe, has been for a while.
If you've issues with the way your country is managed, looking to minorities or other ethic groups just because they're not like you is, simply put, pig ignorant. The idea minorities have only themselves to blame by staying with their own communities is nonsense. Nobody criticises the WASP minority on that one.
I would hope the majority of blue collar human beings are clever enough not to be suckered into the far Right wing agenda of distraction by way of race, which is what this is. Then there's always the poor if your country doesn't have a significant amount of minorities.
I can see how people buying into the rhetoric might see being a decent human as 'having to tolerate'.0 -
Christopher Cantwell the guy from the Vice documentary seems to have had a change of heart.
This is why Antifa is needed.
Letting them march unopposed and engaging with them is useless.
https://youtu.be/lyeTj002DCo0 -
One of the reasons imo we are seeing apologetics for Nazi's on here and elsewhere, is that some people can't quite believe that Westerners would in this day and age embrace extremism in the same way as people in parts of Africa (Lords Resistance Army) and the Middle East (ISIS).
There are 2 components here, the ideology (Nazism, racism etc) (spread via social media unchallenged), and economics (not always based on reality, in regards to economics, as the first one ,ideology can warp this one). The question is how do we stop poor people (or middle class people pissed off about equality), from embracing this ideology?
Al Qaeada and ISIS, were the first wave of extremism, and these Neo Nazi's /far right, are a second wave, using social media, to recruit (in some ways people self radicalize via internet propaganda) people to there cause. We even see less bad versions of this kind of thing in the likes of the Daily Mail, the Sun as well, and of course far right politicians, but we see it even from some main stream ones. Plenty of blame to go around.0 -
Advertisement
-
"" The people holding the torches weren't the moderate-to-pissed-off. The march couldn't get the moderates (because the moderates took one look at who was going and decided "nope, we are not tainting our beliefs with those racist nutters"), ""The people holding the torches weren't the moderate-to-pissed-off. The march couldn't get the moderates (because the moderates took one look at who was going and decided "nope, we are not tainting our beliefs with those racist nutters"), which is why it Nazified so rapidly. These were actually the racists. You don't wake up one morning and accidentally join the Ku Klux Klan, even if you feel that universities are full of communism. And it is reeeally quite difficult to argue that you're totally innocent while marching with the KKK. Seriously, the KKK. That's where America is right now. If you march with the KKK and Seig Heil like a Nazi and chant "Jew! Jew!" like a Nazi (yeah, that was going on too), you are probably at the least a raving doucheweasel.
On that note, all this isn't new. Does no-one remember the existance of the Red Scare? McCarthyism? How someone's life and career could be destroyed by the accusation of being Socialist, which was only one step aside from pinko Commie-ism. You think people get called out for being white supremacists? Well, maybe it's a bit more understandable that someone should get called out for being a white supremacist than someone should get called out for being socialist - or even having Communist beliefs. Because socialism is pretty benign, even if you don't believe in it. Communism's ideas don't -work- at a national scale, but in general, they are based on "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", which balanced against "The naturally dominant white race has a destiny under God to dominate the lesser races"...isn't actually all that horrific. There were certainly awful people leading the Communist beliefs as well as decent ones, but it's really quite difficult to be a decent supremacist.
Secondly, the supremacists and Antifa share a method - violence. That makes them both condemnable. However, there is actually a slight difference - believing that lesser races should be dominated or wiped out is actually objectively worse than believing that those who believe lesser races should be wiped out have no place expressing that crap in civilised society. I deplore their methods, but I feel there is a certain false equivalence going on.
The counter-protests very easily can be formed of essentially peaceful people because their beliefs (not being a dick to minorities for one) are not inherently violent. The belief that due to the colour of your skin, you have an inherent right is to dominate others is not a peaceful belief.
[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Hypothetical speaking if I lived in C[/font][font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]harlottesville & [/font]Hypothetical speaking if I were thinking of attending a planned right wing rally, upon seeing the banners/torches that were there on display there,s no way Id take part as I wouldn,t wanna be [font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]associated with a rally expressing extremism .[/font]
"" On that note, all this isn't new. Does no-one remember the existance of the Red Scare? McCarthyism? How someone's life and career could be destroyed by the accusation of being Socialist, ""
Some people on the left are guilty of their own McCarthyism at times, at the time of Brussels attacks a year and half ago various anti Islam sentiment expressed online/social media, without mentioning anyone by real name a certain someone known enough on twitter found out where someone was working who expressed anti Islam sentiment online, next thing they publish details about the person where the person worked & asked people to ring persons employers to let them know their employee is an Islamophobe etc- as if to say its some form of thoughtcrime to express anti Islam sentiment, that all smacks of McCarthyism there is no other word to describe it .
"" Secondly, the supremacists and Antifa share a method - violence. That makes them both condemnable. However, there is actually a slight difference - believing that lesser races should be dominated or wiped out is actually objectively worse than believing that those who believe lesser races should be wiped out have no place expressing that crap in civilised society. I deplore their methods, but I feel there is a certain false equivalence going on. ""
I often say one can judge someone politically based on the flag/banner they wave & display, on one hand white supremacists displaying the swastika representative of an ideology that killed millions vs Antifa on the other side displaying the red flag hammer and sickle once again representative of an ideology that killed millions, then on Immigration the extreme right want zero Immigration vs Antifa the extreme left who want open borders/no limits or any restrictions on Immigration, both are two very extremes.0 -
InTheTrees wrote: »I dont think most people care what label these people choose for themselves. Their ideology is what defines them.
Right but supremacism and nationalism are two different ideologies.0 -
jooksavage wrote: »Listverse? List-f*#king-verse? You're citing polished-up clickbait to support your argument. That speaks volumes about your research into the topic.
Read the article. The information in it is all true.0 -
-
Remember to put these statues in some context of life in the southern US.
in the american south segregation only officially ended in 1964. So this is not an issue that is confined to the 19th century.
These statues were a constant reminder to african americans during those segregated times.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
For people who think or say " you re far right if you criticise Antifa " , here is an African American political commentator who is critical towards Antifa.
https://twitter.com/WayneDupreeShow/status/897821546575794178
https://twitter.com/WayneDupreeShow/status/897587503317884929
Would anyone dare call him " far right " too as well ?0 -
Remember the outrage when people thought Trump removed the bust of MLK from the Oval office? People were outraged because he is a hero to a lot of americans. He also beat his wife. What if a female president decided to remove it because it represents domestic violence in her mind? Would that be right?
Lee is a hero to many in the south. Even if some people don't like what he stood for that fact remains. Southerners have the right to defend their heritage. And no, Lee does not represent slavery. He represents military prowess, something the South has always been renowned for and something they are very proud of. Tearing down their famous generals is an insult.0 -
The Legend Of Kira wrote: »For people who think or say " you re far right if you criticise Antifa " , here is an African American political commentator who is critical towards Antifa.
https://twitter.com/WayneDupreeShow/status/897821546575794178
https://twitter.com/WayneDupreeShow/status/897587503317884929
Would anyone dare call him " far right " too as well ?
Nation of Islam would be far right and racist, and are African American. Being African American isn't really any of kind argument against someone not being far right and is basically a different version of "I have a black friend".
FYI, him referring to Nazi as conservatives, should offend any decent person. Also, no such as an "alt left". "Alt Right" (Nazi's, racists) are a self identified group. Complaining about the alt left is nonsense, as no such group exists.0 -
There are statues and monuments all over Rome remembering people and events that make Lee look like a liberal saint.
Lee was a traitor to the US, on that basis alone, its absurd that there are statues of the man. I do not understand why the US puts up with that nonsense. These confederate people need to get over the fact they lost the civil war decades ago, and that it was fought for the right to own people.
The US which he swore an oath to arguably did not exist. Back in the 1850s, the oath of commissioning was to the individual states as a united group, and the States in the early 1860s were certainly not united. As a result of the civil war, in 1862 the federal military changed the oath so that it was to the Union of States, not the States of the Union.
In other words, Virginia fought for the right to keep slavery. (Why have we not removed Virginia?) Lee fought for Virginia. He would have fought for Virginia had the North been pro-slave and the South anti. It is on this basis that the military has retained the names of confederate officers in its institutions. The point about statues going up in the 1960s is well taken, but it is not the only view on the matter of commemorating those who fought for their States.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »The US which he swore an oath to arguably did not exist. Back in the 1850s, the oath was to the individual states as a united group, and the States in the early 1860s were certainly not united. As a result of the civil war, the federal military changed the oath so that it was to the Union of States, not the States of the Union, the oath remains unchanged since then.
In other words, Virginia fought for the right to keep slavery. (Why have we not removed Virginia?) Lee fought for Virginia. He would have fought for Virginia had the North been pro-slave and the South anti. It is on this basis that the military has retained the names of confederate officers in its institutions. The point about statues going up in the 1960s is well taken, but it is not the only view on the matter of commemorating those who fought for their States.
Well, I am sure the losers of the war saw themselves as patriots of course, but the I find it bizarre that we have current day people who call themselves Americans celebrate this kind of thing. I don't understand why people put up with it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Lee is a hero to many in the south. Even if some people don't like what he stood for that fact remains. Southerners have the right to defend their heritage. And no, Lee does not represent slavery. He represents military prowess, something the South has always been renowned for and something they are very proud of. Tearing down their famous generals is an insult.
What about the fact that after the war Lee himself opposed building confederate monuments?
Not really respecting their supposed hero so much if they so fervently want to ignore his wishes?0 -
Remember the outrage when people thought Trump removed the bust of MLK from the Oval office? People were outraged because he is a hero to a lot of americans. He also beat his wife. What if a female president decided to remove it because it represents domestic violence in her mind? Would that be right?
Lee is a hero to many in the south. Even if some people don't like what he stood for that fact remains. Southerners have the right to defend their heritage. And no, Lee does not represent slavery. He represents military prowess, something the South has always been renowned for and something they are very proud of. Tearing down their famous generals is an insult.
Was that why people marched along side the nazi flag?0 -
"" FYI, him referring to Nazi as conservatives, ""The Legend Of Kira wrote: »For people who think or say " you re far right if you criticise Antifa " , here is an African American political commentator who is critical towards Antifa.
https://twitter.com/WayneDupreeShow/status/897821546575794178
https://twitter.com/WayneDupreeShow/status/897587503317884929
Would anyone dare call him " far right " too as well ?
Nation of Islam would be far right and racist, and are African American. Being African American isn't really any of kind argument against someone not being far right and is basically a different version of "I have a black friend".
FYI, him referring to Nazi as conservatives, should offend any decent person. Also, no such as an "alt left". "Alt Right" (Nazi's, racists) are a self identified group. Complaining about the alt left is nonsense, as no such group exists.
You misinterpret what he said, he,s talking about Antifa wishing to silence anyone they disagree with, wishing to silence anyone they view as being right wing in any way shape or form, some people will very well get what,s talking about .0 -
People should read the book Rebel Yell biography of Stonewall Jackson, another fantastic general, the Union Army was lucky he wasn't at Gettysburg. His Valley campaign, his flanking at Chancellorsville, outstanding military leaders. Sherman's idea of scorch earth tactics, Jackson advocated that well before him.Oh ffs. There is more to him but that is what he will mostly be remembered for.
Only by some, who can't be arsed to go any deeper.
And what he's actually mostly remembered for is his tactical and strategic expertise on the battlefield.
Your simplistic reduction is like saying George Washington - slave owner.
That's all...nothing else...0 -
Well, one is an arsehole who spouts ****e for her own self aggrandisement. The other is a leader of a community who's views are at the centre of a debate about something like the Hebdo shootings.
While I find most of what Choudry has to say abhorrent to say the least, many still want to hear it.
Most people couldn't give a toss what the likes of Hopkins has to say about anything.
I highly doubt the people trying to no platform Hopkins were doing so because they "didn't care" what she had to say. People don't really care about 90% of the guests but more people tune in to listen to the likes of Katie Hopkins than your average middle aged celeb with an incoming autobiography0 -
-
One of the reasons imo we are seeing apologetics for Nazi's on here and elsewhere, is that some people can't quite believe that Westerners would in this day and age embrace extremism in the same way as people in parts of Africa (Lords Resistance Army) and the Middle East (ISIS).
There are 2 components here, the ideology (Nazism, racism etc) (spread via social media unchallenged), and economics (not always based on reality, in regards to economics, as the first one ,ideology can warp this one). The question is how do we stop poor people (or middle class people pissed off about equality), from embracing this ideology?
Al Qaeada and ISIS, were the first wave of extremism, and these Neo Nazi's /far right, are a second wave, using social media, to recruit (in some ways people self radicalize via internet propaganda) people to there cause. We even see less bad versions of this kind of thing in the likes of the Daily Mail, the Sun as well, and of course far right politicians, but we see it even from some main stream ones. Plenty of blame to go around.
The less well off or poor and disenfranchised are the puppets. It's the 'thinkers', of the privileged far right that stir these things up. All comes back to wealth and power.
Just on the 'antifa' thing. We've fascists and anti-fascists. I would like to believe most of us are anti-fascist. 'anti-fa' do not represent all anti-fascists. Also regarding the protesters; simply put, one side wants inequality in their favour, to maintain or return to a more severe white led status quo, the other wants equality.0 -
The Legend Of Kira wrote: »For people who think or say " you re far right if you criticise Antifa " , here is an African American political commentator who is critical towards Antifa.
https://twitter.com/WayneDupreeShow/status/897821546575794178
https://twitter.com/WayneDupreeShow/status/897587503317884929
Would anyone dare call him " far right " too as well ?
I think your obsessed with antifa. I think you should step away from twitter, take a break from the journal. Get out and get some air. Join a club.
Antifa are Piss poor. They have no moral authority and anyone loses that turn to violence...
Neo Nazi's, kkk, white supremacists are no better than ISIS. They have blown up buildings.
Your twitter account is a propaganda machine.
Get out. Live your life.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement