White supremacy run amok

Should you squeeze the toothpaste tube in the middle or from the end?
Post Reply
User avatar
C40
Posts: 1847
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:30 am
Location: Western U.S.
Contact:

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by C40 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:09 pm

Spartan_Warrior wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:57 pm

Which is why at some point the natural question becomes, what do you gain by denying the obvious? Why are you struggling so hard to implicitly defend a white power rally? Whose side do you want to be on in this?
Really? Seriously? Come on....

User avatar
Chad
Posts: 3849
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by Chad » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:15 pm

C40 wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:06 pm
Chad wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:56 pm
C40 wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:53 pm
It could be that he was over arguing/fight with those people, got punched a few times, and over-reacted in extreme fashion.
Still terrorism. Terrorism isn't necessarily sane or calm.
Am I using the wrong definition?
Google wrote: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
(emphasis mine).

I'm just saying that the guy could've been motivated merely by being pissed off in the moment. If a person gets pissed off and runs someone over, that's not automatically terrorism.

Is it just important to use the buzzword terrorism once we reach a certain point us us/them anger?

Ugh, debating this is such a waste of our time.
Even if it is because the person is pissed off in the moment, that doesn't mean it's not terrorism. Terrorism doesn't have to be rational or calm. If the person is there for political reasons and then gets angry and kills people...it would be terrorism. It might be stupid terrorism, but that wouldn't change what it is.

It's possible it's not terrorism, it's just unbelievably improbable that it isn't. This is why the argument is...ugh.

Spartan_Warrior
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by Spartan_Warrior » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:17 pm

C40 wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:09 pm
Spartan_Warrior wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:57 pm

Which is why at some point the natural question becomes, what do you gain by denying the obvious? Why are you struggling so hard to implicitly defend a white power rally? Whose side do you want to be on in this?
Really? Seriously? Come on....
Which part do you think is a joke? They're all serious questions. Can you answer them, even if only for yourself?

User avatar
C40
Posts: 1847
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:30 am
Location: Western U.S.
Contact:

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by C40 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:20 pm

You're being absurd. I am in no way defending a white power rally.

Again, here you are seeming to want to slant what I say or put words in my mouth. For what? To make me into an opponent in a forum thread?
Last edited by C40 on Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2508
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by BRUTE » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:25 pm

country doesn't seem divided enough

User avatar
Dragline
Posts: 4443
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by Dragline » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:26 pm

C40 wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:53 pm
People can get crazy in situations like that. It could be that he was over arguing/fight with those people, got punched a few times, and over-reacted in extreme fashion. I'm not defending the guy here at all. It does seem extremely likely that he was there on the side of the white supremacists. I'm just saying that we don't know for sure whether he did it for political reasons. It seems odd to me to assume that you absolutely know, and to debate it right at this moment. Probably in a few days we'll know more about the guy and what he may have said online or to his friends and have a better idea.
"It could be", huh? Yes, that means you are defending the guy. Full stop. You. Are. Defending. A. Murderer. I am a lawyer and this is just lawyer talk for the defense of a guilty person. Twenty-year old guys who travel hundreds of miles to a rally for a specific purpose don't just "get crazy" and suddenly ram cars into pedestrians without meaning to do it.

Unless you thought the drivers in the European incidents that killed people were somehow justified. But I did not hear any defense of them, and for good reason. But why do you, POTUS and others seem to have this problem of calling reckless terrorist murderers as reckless terrorist murderers only selectively? Or associating them with the groups that were instigating the action? Maybe that guy in Germany was just confused and missed his bus and was upset that day, right? "It could be". Yeah, anything "could be."

Nobody has a problem saying what happened in Europe was ISIS terrorist murder. Nobody should have a problem saying that Charlottesville was white supremacist terrorist murder. Even if you want to say "most likely" to cover yourselves.

Spartan_Warrior
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by Spartan_Warrior » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:29 pm

@C40: Picture this: Islamic radicals with guns hold a rally about installing Sharia law and violently killing white people or whatever--a demonstration which in itself could be construed as terroristic in nature. People show up to protest it. One of the Islamic guys gets in a fight with some of the counter-protesters. When he gets his ass kicked, he goes back to his car, gets in, starts it up, drives back to a group of counter-protesters, and plows into them from two blocks down the road. Or opens fire with a gun. Either way would be pre-meditated murder with a deadly weapon.

(Here's the footage in case you need to see it again for visualization purposes: https://twitter.com/brennanmgilmore/sta ... 6260212737)

Still not terrorism?

I agree it is ridiculous that we're arguing this. It seems so fundamentally obvious.

I'm not trying to make you an opponent. I'd like to make you an ally. But the fact that you have resisted the most basic facts, from the rise in white supremacy and this hate rally being an example, to the vehicular murder by one of the white supremacists being an act of terrorism with an obvious political basis, makes me question whether that's possible.

User avatar
Dragline
Posts: 4443
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by Dragline » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:40 pm

BRUTE wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:25 pm
country doesn't seem divided enough
You should be pleased. You want it all to go down in flames, right? You can sit on the sidelines and pretend to be a uninterested umpire until somebody burns your house down and then you wonder why and complain about it being unfair because you weren't involved.

I would say at this point that the country is not divided enough, because we still have people who would prefer their random musings to justify insanity to actually grappling with the concept of people being killed for someone else's politics. Whomever referenced the Copperheads (probably Riggerjack) in another thread was on the mark. I suspect they were mostly INTJs.

User avatar
C40
Posts: 1847
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:30 am
Location: Western U.S.
Contact:

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by C40 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:44 pm

you sure do seem to like extrapolating a lot, Dragline

User avatar
Chad
Posts: 3849
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by Chad » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:46 pm

C40 wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:44 pm
you sure do seem to like extrapolating a lot, Dragline
And, you change the subject.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2508
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by BRUTE » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:47 pm

and such a nice car, too :(

User avatar
C40
Posts: 1847
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:30 am
Location: Western U.S.
Contact:

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by C40 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:57 pm

Chad wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:46 pm
C40 wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:44 pm
you sure do seem to like extrapolating a lot, Dragline
And, you change the subject.
I'm done being called all kinds of things just for not immediately using the same exact words that Dragline and SW declare must be used or else you support white supremacists. (Really, as I said, I agree that it seems like terrorism, I was partly trying to defend FFJ who they were jumping all over just for saying he thinks it's too soon to make the terrorism declaration, and partly just discussing the assumption people are making about exactly why the guy did it and how that part is critical to whether it's terrorism or not)

User avatar
bryan
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 2:01 am
Location: mostly Bay Area

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by bryan » Sun Aug 13, 2017 12:09 am

Plus, isn't it a good thing to study cause/effects behind things, instead of just react automatically, predictably?

It seems obvious that it's terrorism.. but what about it? Should we all join in in punching "nazis"?
Last edited by bryan on Sun Aug 13, 2017 12:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Chad
Posts: 3849
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by Chad » Sun Aug 13, 2017 12:10 am

@C40
All I did was point out you ignored the normal course of a conversation. You didn't refute anyone's point with that statement. You skipped over them. All your statement did was deflect prior comments and make it look like you were still part of the conversation. I realize you were trying to defend FFJ, but then you stopped defending his statements and yours. If your goal was defending his comments then it petered out. If they were incorrect for jumping all over him, one would think we would be able to follow that conversation to its end point and provide that defense throughout and not change the subject.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2508
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by BRUTE » Sun Aug 13, 2017 12:28 am

Hitler changed subjects

Jean
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by Jean » Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:11 am

What disturb me from SW, dragline, and other on this side, is that they seem to assume, that those alt-right people wan't to kill and enslave the rest of the population. You're are denying theyre right to speak, and are refusing to listen to them, just because you assume they are indiana jones' Nazi. Antifa initiated the use of violence, a few times with a clear intent to kill. They should have been condemned from you side too. It really makes me sad to witness this communication breakdown.
People from the left that try to initiate conversation with the right are being ostracized.
There was no incident from the right until now. This guy thought his demand were reasonable, and that you not willing to listen was unfair.
If you listen to them, and think they aren't reasonable, then violence is the only way out for you and them, and you were right to initiate it, and they were right to retaliate. I think it is the case for islamist, that our vision could only conflict, and that violence or intimidation are the only way.
But concerning the alt-right, I think theyre demandy are reasonable and compatible with what you want for society, and it is really a shame that everybody is looking at the other side only trough his own echo chamber, and get a caricatural vison of their position.

I do blame the left for this communication breakdown, but I might be wrong, it doesn't matter.
What matter is that people start to fight their comfirmation biases, instead of each other, and start to listen to what the other side wants to say.

Sometime, I feel that some people want to use violence, and choose to not listen.

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 5291
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by jennypenny » Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:37 am

Wow, you guys are being kinda harsh to C40 when all he was saying was to wait and see what the facts are. I agree that if this guy drove down from Ohio to Virginia than he was probably looking to cause harm to people who don't agree with him ... just like the guy who drove down from Ohio to Virginia in June and shot at the Republican softball team. Funny, I don't remember everyone being so instantly worked up over that or starting a new thread to decry the leftist hate rhetoric that inspired him to hurt people.

Spartan_Warrior
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by Spartan_Warrior » Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:32 am

@Jean:

"they seem to assume, that those alt-right people wan't to kill and enslave"

They're fucking Nazis and KKK scumbags, so yeah, I assume they would like to kill and/or enslave. It's sort of their MO.

"If you listen to them, and think they aren't reasonable, then violence is the only way out for you and them, and you were right to initiate it, and they were right to retaliate."

I listened to them. Since the Civil War and WWII we've listened to them. They have proven unreasonable to a dangerous degree as they've demonstrated many times in the past and yesterday. But just so I'm understanding your chain of logic...

Again, their central idea involves violence against non-whites. I disagree with this. Not only do I "think they aren't reasonable", they clearly and objectively aren't reasonable. Therefore, it's right for me to fight back against them AND it's right for them to go ahead and commit violence against non-whites?

That is some incredibly fucked up horseshoe theory moral equivalency right there.

One of those actions is morally justified and the other is still fucking genocide.

"But concerning the alt-right, I think theyre demandy are reasonable and compatible with what you want for society"

Remind me again which of a Nazi or KKK member's demands are reasonable and compatible with mine? Is that the part where they demand lesser rights or outright death for me, my family, my friends, people of color, trans people, Muslims, Mexicans, atheists?

How long am I supposed to listen? How much of a chance do I give? Like I asked C40, do we need to wait until they form actual posses and go around looking for undesireables to maim and murder? Why can we not take them at their word as to what they intend to do? Do you not believe them? Have they not shown themselves capable? Look at the hate crime statistics and trends.

@Dragline likes to talk about moderation, meeting two extreme ideas in the middle, the "why not both" sort of deal. This is an ideal of Liberalism, listening to both view points and respecting each others' rationality and finding something that works for everyone. It's also a practice that only works when you're dealing with rational and respectful human beings interested in compromise. That is not what the alt-right is.

Moreover, it's a practice that breaks down in decisive times like these.

In the Civil War you didn't get to say, "One side wants slaves and the other wants freedom? Let's hear both sides out and meet in the middle. Maybe we can have slaves, but only a few..."

Or in WWII, "Hm, these Nazis want to kill non-whites, gays, and political enemies? Surely we can meet some of their demands. Maybe we can just kill some of the gays?"

It doesn't work like that. There are times in history when you pick a side or your side is picked for you.

I don't think I'm exaggerating here.

And let me tell you, only one side gets to be morally right. Only one side will be remembered as on the right side of history.

And I think it's safe to say it ain't the fucking Nazis.

@Jenny: Make your own thread then. This one is for white supremacy, a subject I think more than worthy of discussing. Not tit-for-tat mentions of political violence. Not my fault white supremacy is a right-wing issue.

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 5291
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by jennypenny » Sun Aug 13, 2017 8:05 am

I would if I thought it was worthy of this forum. You only drop by when you have something to get off your chest, stirring up bad feelings in the process, and then disappear again. Some would consider that trolling.

I don't think SW is the only one out of line here. Recent history shows that emotional personal attacks based on politics make everyone uncomfortable and less apt to post. Jacob owns the forum and I think it's bad form to piss in his pool, especially over something that's off topic.

Spartan_Warrior
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by Spartan_Warrior » Sun Aug 13, 2017 8:09 am

So is this thread unworthy of the forum?

BTW, this:

"You only come by... Some would consider that trolling."

Is actually the closest thing I've seen in this thread to a direct personal attack, IIRC.

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 5291
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by jennypenny » Sun Aug 13, 2017 8:13 am

Spartan_Warrior wrote:
Sun Aug 13, 2017 8:09 am
So is this thread unworthy of the forum?
What is the point of this thread?

Spartan_Warrior
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by Spartan_Warrior » Sun Aug 13, 2017 8:15 am

"Politics, and other eternal disagreements"

Specifically, discussing the rise of white supremacy and related terrorist actions like the one we've just witnessed, the underlying causes, possible solutions, etc.

It's unfortunate that it became what I foresaw rather than what I intended. But again, not really my fault?

Also, just so I'm clear, not trolling at all...
Recent history shows that emotional personal attacks based on politics make everyone uncomfortable and less apt to post.
You're asking me to be more politically correct? So this remains a safe space? And no snowflakes have their feelings hurt with ugly truths?

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 5291
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by jennypenny » Sun Aug 13, 2017 8:22 am

I was thinking polite.

Whatever. You and everyone else who's overreacting can carry on with your forum-clearing rant. I have a plane to catch.

User avatar
C40
Posts: 1847
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:30 am
Location: Western U.S.
Contact:

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by C40 » Sun Aug 13, 2017 8:54 am

In the video we've all seen, it is a bit hard to tell how fast the car is going as it enters the crowd. One picture of the car from behind on CNN and it looked like the brake lights were on. But this picture shows how fast and hard the guy drove into some of the people:

Image

Note that when a picture is taken with a very long lens, as this one was, it can compress things that are far away and make them look like they are closer together than they actually are.. so it's a little hard to tell exactly how dense the crowd of people in front of the car really are - but obviously, he's hitting least 6 or so people at that very moment and he's hitting them hard, and clearly he drove really hard into that crowd. That's such a disgusting thing that it's only possible when you have extremely strong motivations - probably way more than just wanting to kill a couple people there or being really angry in the moment - and is even something that most complete lunatics would never do. In my mind that's enough to think it was clearly a terroristic act.

To try to close out the pedantic discussion we've been having on whether something is terrorism or not, we have the definition of terrorism as being a combination of two things:
1 - the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians
2 - (Being done) in the pursuit of political aims.

We all knew from the start that #1 was definitely true... So then.. if we have:

1 - The violence - [Yes, True]
2 - The political motivation - [Not sure yet]
Than we have ---> Not sure whether it's terrorism yet.

If a guy lost his head in anger, totally flipped out, and attacked people because he was just so pissed off at those specific people in that specific moment
1 - The violence - [Yes, True]
2 - The political motivation - [No]
Than we have ---> Not terrorism

Let's say a witness shares that yesterday before that driver got in the car, he said "I'm gonna show the world what happens when you fuck with my KKK rally"
Then:
1 - The violence [Yes, True]
2 - The political motivation [Yes, true]
----> Definitely Terrorism

For me, seeing that picture of how many people he drove into and how hard he hit them makes me quite certain that the guy had really strong political motivations, and that those were a motivator here, and thus, yes terrorism. It's such a horrible thing to do that the likelihood of doing it because he was simply mad at those specific people in the moment is very close to zero.

User avatar
C40
Posts: 1847
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:30 am
Location: Western U.S.
Contact:

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by C40 » Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:27 am

Spartan_Warrior wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:29 pm
@C40: Picture this: Islamic radicals with guns hold a rally about installing Sharia law and violently killing white people or whatever--a demonstration which in itself could be construed as terroristic in nature. People show up to protest it. One of the Islamic guys gets in a fight with some of the counter-protesters. When he gets his ass kicked, he goes back to his car, gets in, starts it up, drives back to a group of counter-protesters, and plows into them from two blocks down the road. Or opens fire with a gun. Either way would be pre-meditated murder with a deadly weapon.

(Here's the footage in case you need to see it again for visualization purposes: https://twitter.com/brennanmgilmore/sta ... 6260212737)

Still not terrorism?

I agree it is ridiculous that we're arguing this. It seems so fundamentally obvious.


Changing "white supremacists" to "Islamic radicals" does't change anything for me.

I'm not a white supremacist, so the bad guys being the white supremacist rather than terrorists wasn't the issue. I was looking at the situation detached from which specific views the groups had.
Spartan_Warrior wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:29 pm
I'm not trying to make you an opponent. I'd like to make you an ally.
As happens so easy on the internet, we've spent 5 pages focusing only on the very small parts of the situation that we disagree on. I think if we were talking in person, we'd find agreement quickly, or at least get past stupid kind of word technicalities that we've been going on about, and get to talking about the interesting stuff: what can actually be done to make the world better. (which we did actually talk about a bit in the first couple pages in relation to whether it's better to ignore the KKK as idiots, or to ~confront them)
Last edited by C40 on Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply