Charlottesville

[RIchard Britten]

7 minutes ago, PottyLisa said:

People are objecting to the fact that he has effectively equalised Neo Nazi's and White Supremists with Antifa and counter protesters.  Antifa are more than capable of a fight and whipping up the odd bit of violence but you got to ask yourself, in Charlottesville, what was the objective of the right? (And don't tell me it was purely about a fucking statue) What was the objective of the left?

For the Right (i.e. Neo-Nazis and KKK):

It was a benchmark test.  See how Trump/Whitehouse reacts and see what the fall out was.

Expect this to carry on and gain momentum.  All with Trump dribbling along on the side lines.

For the Left:

To show that Nazism and hate are not what "being an American" is supposed to be about.

[woolley]

If the Stalinist (sorry PK!) BBC says this about ANTIFA then they are not exactly cuties are they?

As I said; purpose of both sides - A fight. As Trump said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40930831

Antifa is anti-government and anti-capitalist, and their methodologies are often perceived as more closely aligned with anarchists than the mainstream left.

Antifa does not shy away from militant protest methods, including the destruction of property and sometimes physical violence.

They were present at the 2017 Berkeley protests of far-right speaker Milo Yiannopoulos and at violent protests against Donald Trump's inauguration; they were also present at Charlottesville.

Antifa's roots go back almost as far as Nazis

Much like the far-right, Antifa members around the world comprise a patchwork of groups, though the most active appear to be based in the US, the UK (under the name Anti-Fascist Action) and Germany (Antifaschistische Aktion).

The German movement was founded in 1932 to provide a militant far-left group to counter the fast-rising Nazi party.

They were disbanded in 1933 after Hitler took control of parliament and resurrected in the 1980s as a response to neo-Nazism after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

President Trump's election seems to have been something of a touchstone for the Antifa movement, which has links with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and various anarchist groups.

[Declan]

12 minutes ago, woolley said:

He said there was violence on both sides. He condemned violence and bigotry on both sides. Liberal media don't like that and seek to make something of it. So what's new?

He said "many sides". That's right, left and the police? 

As far as I can see the neo-Nazi's pitched up in town, were armed, killed an opponent. There were people opposing them, but what damage did they do? Were they rallying against or to protect democratic values?

There probably were a few unsavory agitators on the anti-Fascist side, there usually is (SWP always used to take advantage in the UK of these demos) but there is really no moral equivalency here. 

[PottyLisa]

8 minutes ago, woolley said:

A fight, naturally!

Yes, some.  Some would be there to counter protest, some would be there to punch a Nazi, some would be out on the streets out of curiosity.  Would you be satisfied to let the torchlit march on the campus and the demonstrations of white nationalism go unchallenged?  There is the right to free speech but that'll only take you so far.

[RIchard Britten]

2 minutes ago, PottyLisa said:

Yes, some.  Some would be there to counter protest, some would be there to punch a Nazi, some would be out on the streets out of curiosity.  Would you be satisfied to let the torchlit march on the campus and the demonstrations of white nationalism go unchallenged?  There is the right to free speech but that'll only take you so far.

The right to free speech does not protect incitement to violence, which is the core message of Nazism and the KKK movement.

[woolley]

4 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said:

The right to free speech does not protect incitement to violence, which is the core message of Nazism and the KKK movement.

You know that this extends to both sides, Richard. Anti-Nazi groups comprise some very unsavoury characters on both sides of the pond.

[Mr Shoe]

18 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said:

For the Right (i.e. Neo-Nazis and KKK):

 

You have the standard lefty, BBC, CNN type mentality.

Anywhere on the right is essentially a Nazi.

And because Nazis are clearly the baddies - everyone on the left is clearly righteous (pun intended).

ETA: Nazis very definitely ARE baddies. In case (as is standard) you twist my words.

[RIchard Britten]

1 minute ago, woolley said:

You know that this extends to both sides, Richard. Anti-Nazi groups comprise some very unsavoury characters on both sides of the pond.

Just re-read what you typed....anti-Nazi....anti-Nazi

As if Nazi is something you shouldn't be "anti".

[RIchard Britten]

1 minute ago, Mr Shoe said:

You have the standard lefty, BBC, CNN type mentality.

Anywhere on the right is essentially a Nazi.

And because Nazis are clearly the baddies - everyone on the left is clearly righteous (pun intended).

Read reread what you just typed...

"And because Nazis are clearly the baddies" - Yes, that is what Nazis are.  The baddies.

Also:

Quote

Anywhere on the right is essentially a Nazi.

No, all the quite obvious (proudly displaying their Nazi symbols, salutes and regalia) Nazis and KKK members ((proudly displaying their KKK symbols, salutes and regalia) are Nazis and KKK.

[woolley]

5 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said:

Just re-read what you typed....anti-Nazi....anti-Nazi

As if Nazi is something you shouldn't be "anti".

Too simplistic. Being anti something bad does not necessarily mean you are good. We are looking at the extremists of both sides here and both are outside of acceptable behaviour. Plenty of this type in Labour's Momentum movement.

[Mr Shoe]

7 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said:

As if Nazi is something you shouldn't be "anti".

Do you think ISIS and Stalin are essentially anti-Nazi.

Being an unqualified anti-nazi doesn't make you a good person.

[RIchard Britten]

2 minutes ago, woolley said:

Too simplistic. Being anti something bad does not necessarily mean you are good. We are looking at the extremists of both sides here and both are outside of acceptable behaviour. Plenty of this type in Labour's Momentum movement.

Tell me, how many people did the anti-Nazi/KKK movement mow down with a car?

 

[RIchard Britten]

1 minute ago, Mr Shoe said:

Do you think ISIS and Stalin are essentially anti-Nazi.

Being an unqualified anti-nazi doesn't make you a good person.

False equivalence.

Being anti-Nazi does not mean pro-ISIS.

[RIchard Britten]

Usual responses from usual posters.

I am amazed that people are actually trying to defend Nazis and the KKK...

[Chinahand]

I'm not old enough to remember the civil rights era but I've read eloquent reports of the dignity of protesters who peacefully opposed the state's and society's oppression of them. 

I'm a white male and am only dimly aware of the sea of privilege I swim in. It is still in living memory that people were lynched, people of different colour were not allowed to marry and a person could be banned from attending a particular university because of the colour of their skin.*

Affirmative action is not this, but the politics of intersectionality have created a broad alliance stretching from the extreme right to Joe Sixpack worried his kids' places at university are going  to be given up to an affirmative action candidate.

America is an in-your-face antagonistic country and people make their opinions known.

The alt-right has created a powerful coalition and some members of that coalition are violent.

 The ctr-left aren't that different.

Liberals live with a central contradiction in their ideology: they look at A telling B they should not or cannot do something (vote, get married, love who they want, attend a certain university) and they go "Hey, you can't tell B what they can't do" and hence the pot calls the kettle black.

Neo Nazis praise lynchings, aspired to remove non-white people from society and have used terrible violence against people who they dislike.

i can't quite imagine what it would be like to have such a group turn up and try to take over my local park.

I'm not that surprised that some people wanted to use violence to oppose them.

I think it is counterproductive and wrong but if you were to try to peacefully stop such people they'd stomp right over you .

Having the bravery to let them do that to you gives you the moral victory and gains you the sympathy of neutral parties and hence the civil rights struggle was won.  Dr King's moral stature was far more important in the battle for civil rights than Malcolm X's willingness to fight back.

Now the struggle is far more nuanced and begins to touch upon Marxist ideas of false consciousness which are pretty inimical to freedom of thought - "A" only thinks this way because they are oppressed I am able to see the true situation and so can tell them what they should do.

America is a hugely polarised society with a hugely polarising president.  Extremists on both sides are violent and violence should be condemned.

To be frank Trump's speech where he did condemn the KKK was pretty good, if he'd said it first then condemned all people who use violence I wouldn't have much to complain about.  The trouble is Joe Sixpack feels he is being sacrificed on the alter of political correctness and so has aligned against progressive politics.  Trump sees Joe as a vital supporter.

The alt-right has successfully made issues of Southern history a part of their narrative and Joe sympathises. Hence Trump equivocation.

 It's likely to get worse before it gets better.  At the moment identity politics is the dominant political narrative and intolerance of those you disagree with is growing.  I wonder what political figure will be able to change this? I can't see one, can you?

 

* I highly recommend Hidden Figures for a slightly sacarine portrayal of this.