Charlottesville: video evidence that the alt-right attacked first

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Well this otherwise productive thread has now been LD'd. Pity.

:laughing-smiley-014

Yup. That seems to be LDs MO... if he can't make a cogent argument then he argues irrelevances.

We were actually having a real discussion about the relation between the larger set of all people opposed to fascism and the smaller set that is Antifa, and LD didn't like that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

:laughing-smiley-014

Yup. That seems to be LDs MO... if he can't make a cogent argument then he argues irrelevances.

We were actually having a real discussion about the relation between the larger set of all people opposed to fascism and the smaller set that is Antifa, and LD didn't like that.

Odd, because Antifa wasn't involved in the premeditated attempt of slaughtering Republicans at a baseball practice, nor driving the car that kill a woman and injured more than a dozen people.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

We were actually having a real discussion about the relation between the larger set of all people opposed to fascism and the smaller set that is Antifa, and LD didn't like that.

Odd, because Antifa wasn't involved in the premeditated attempt of slaughtering Republicans at a baseball practice, nor driving the car that kill a woman and injured more than a dozen people.

Odd, because I don't remember anyone making those accusations. We do know the driver was on the fascist side. We do know that James T. Hodgkinson was not on the fascist side. There are those who suspect he had ties to Antifa, but there is nothing solid to offer as evidence for this.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Odd, because Antifa wasn't involved in the premeditated attempt of slaughtering Republicans at a baseball practice, nor driving the car that kill a woman and injured more than a dozen people.

Odd, because I don't remember anyone making those accusations.

What accusations. I was talking about brazen and dangerous showings of force. Something where several of people could have died. Actual things that happened that were terrible with grave consequences.

Meanwhile, the right-wing is concentrating on Antifa, a seemingly self-proclaimed anti-fascist group. Based on what I've seen, they aren't the brightest and their actions could be counterproductive, but I've read of things they've done to protect people as well. And ultimately the damage they have done has been relatively little, especially in the light of the real violence that has unfolded in a couple of cases.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Odd, because I don't remember anyone making those accusations.

What accusations. I was talking about brazen and dangerous showings of force. Something where several of people could have died. Actual things that happened that were terrible with grave consequences.

Meanwhile, the right-wing is concentrating on Antifa, a seemingly self-proclaimed anti-fascist group. Based on what I've seen, they aren't the brightest and their actions could be counterproductive, but I've read of things they've done to protect people as well. And ultimately the damage they have done has been relatively little, especially in the light of the real violence that has unfolded in a couple of cases.

You are hinting at a hasty generalization fallacy.

 

[laughing dog]

:laughing-smiley-014

Yup. That seems to be LDs MO... if he can't make a cogent argument then he argues irrelevances.

We were actually having a real discussion about the relation between the larger set of all people opposed to fascism and the smaller set that is Antifa, and LD didn't like that.

It takes a special kind of "reading comprehension" to come with such a fallacious interpretation.

 

[blastula]

Genesis,

Yes, but at that moment is he inciting violence just for having the same beliefs as Neo-Nazis?

Keith,

I wasn't picturing one in full Nazi regalia. Suppose it was someone you do positively know as a Neo-Nazi, but at this moment he is wearing blue jeans and a tee-shirt that says "I'm only here for the beer"?

All,

And then there's this story. Man stabbed after haircut gets him mistaken for a neo-Nazi. It was this story that made me put quotes around the word "Nazi" in my supposition.

One should always double check things when sourcing the NY Post.

This one is a hoax. Police: Stabbing Victim Made Up Story About Neo-Nazi Attack « CBS Denver

Video surveillance from inside a sporting goods store showed Witt buying a small knife minutes before the alleged attack.

When police re-interviewed Witt, he admitted to accidentally cutting himself with the knife while parked in his car in front of the sporting goods store. He also admitted making up the story about being attacked.

 

[RavenSky]

One should always double check things when sourcing the NY Post.

This one is a hoax. Police: Stabbing Victim Made Up Story About Neo-Nazi Attack « CBS Denver

Video surveillance from inside a sporting goods store showed Witt buying a small knife minutes before the alleged attack.

When police re-interviewed Witt, he admitted to accidentally cutting himself with the knife while parked in his car in front of the sporting goods store. He also admitted making up the story about being attacked.

I didn't think that story passed the smell test when Jason originally posted it. Something seemed wrong about it. I am not the least bit surprised the "victim" turned out to be a liar.

Frankly, from everything that is coming out about this guy, including his false accusation against a black man, I am willing to bet he IS, in fact, a white supremacist. He didn't copy their hair cut just because he likes the style.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In any case, if you are a Neo-Nazi, you are by definition attempting to incite violence. There is no situation where a Neo-Nazi is for rational, civil discourse.

So ... suppose you go into the local burger joint. You want to buy a cheeseburger. You go in and you see a "Nazi" in the line there to buy a hamburger.

Is he inciting violence?

False equivalence.

You go into the local burger joint. You want to buy a cheeseburger. You go in and you see a suicide bomber, complete with his bomb vest and detonator in hand, in the line there to buy a hamburger.

Is he committing an act of terrorism?

...

It makes no difference. His intention is to cause, at some point in the near or distant future, mayhem and destruction on a large scale. The fact that he isn't blowing himself up RIGHT THIS MINUTE doesn't make him entirely harmless.

"A wolf remains a wolf, even if it has not yet eaten your sheep."

 

[Crazy Eddie]

:laughing-smiley-014

Yup. That seems to be LDs MO... if he can't make a cogent argument then he argues irrelevances.

We were actually having a real discussion about the relation between the larger set of all people opposed to fascism and the smaller set that is Antifa...

No we weren't. We were having a discussion about whether or not free speech should include people who advocate for racial genocide and to what extent efforts to shut down those kinds of people through force were really justified.

And I was the one who pointed out that Antifa as it exists in the United States is pretty much just a cosplay imitation of the European antifa movements of the past (the internet makes such shenanigans possible). Antifa is a small, violent umbrella faction of socialists and anarchists -- what could, for once, ACCURATELY be described as "leftist" -- and therefore trying to nail down what they are as an organization is like trying to find the GPS coordinates of the Pacific Ocean.

What accusations. I was talking about brazen and dangerous showings of force. Something where several of people could have died. Actual things that happened that were terrible with grave consequences.

Meanwhile, the right-wing is concentrating on Antifa, a seemingly self-proclaimed anti-fascist group. Based on what I've seen, they aren't the brightest and their actions could be counterproductive, but I've read of things they've done to protect people as well. And ultimately the damage they have done has been relatively little, especially in the light of the real violence that has unfolded in a couple of cases.

You are hinting at a hasty generalization fallacy.

Which part? The right wing -- and you, in particular -- really ARE concentrating on Antifa... is that not a fair generalization?

A white supremacist at Charlottesville really DID run over 20 people with a car, savagely beat several counter protestors and in at least one case fired live rounds at counter-protestors as a warning shot. So most of the documented and potentially deadly violence at C'ville was from the right-wing... is that not a fair generalization?

Antifa are not particularly bright and are often counter productive... is that not a fair generalization?

Neonazis aren't particularly bright either, but hold to the very well developed ideology that the United States needs to ethnically cleanse all the non-white people from this country, either by deporting them or murdering them... is that not a fair generalization?

Not sure what part of the above is "hasty."

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So ... suppose you go into the local burger joint. You want to buy a cheeseburger. You go in and you see a "Nazi" in the line there to buy a hamburger.

Is he inciting violence?

False equivalence.

You go into the local burger joint. You want to buy a cheeseburger. You go in and you see a suicide bomber, complete with his bomb vest and detonator in hand, in the line there to buy a hamburger.

Is he committing an act of terrorism?

...

It makes no difference. His intention is to cause, at some point in the near or distant future, mayhem and destruction on a large scale. The fact that he isn't blowing himself up RIGHT THIS MINUTE doesn't make him entirely harmless.

"A wolf remains a wolf, even if it has not yet eaten your sheep."

You're right, what you wrote is a false equivalence. In my scenario, the guy is guilty of holding abhorrent beliefs. In yours he is presenting a threat by wearing the vest and holding the detonator.

Back to my scenario. He is guilty of holding abhorrent beliefs. He is not presenting any active threat. Is he worthy of assault?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

False equivalence.

You go into the local burger joint. You want to buy a cheeseburger. You go in and you see a suicide bomber, complete with his bomb vest and detonator in hand, in the line there to buy a hamburger.

Is he committing an act of terrorism?

...

It makes no difference. His intention is to cause, at some point in the near or distant future, mayhem and destruction on a large scale. The fact that he isn't blowing himself up RIGHT THIS MINUTE doesn't make him entirely harmless.

"A wolf remains a wolf, even if it has not yet eaten your sheep."

You're right, what you wrote is a false equivalence. In my scenario, the guy is guilty of holding abhorrent beliefs. In yours he is presenting a threat by wearing the vest and holding the detonator.

The belief that America needs to be violently cleansed of non-white people in a nation-spanning race war is logically equivalent to the belief that America needs to be bombed by a devout jihadist in the service of Allah. Both of these people intend to do enormous harm to America, one of them is just way more obvious about it.

Why would you infringe on that suicide bomber's 2nd amendment rights, if he's just standing there buying a hamburger?

Back to my scenario. He is guilty of holding abhorrent beliefs. He is not presenting any active threat. Is he worthy of assault?

No more so than the suicide bomber (who, for all we know, could be on his way to the set of 24, which is filming right down the street and everyone in this burger joint knows that except for me). But he is worthy of careful scrutiny, because he has the appearance of someone who means to do immense harm to me and to my country.

Of course, a suicide bomber who isn't wearing a bomb vest and has no outward sign of actually being a terrorist is, again, equivalent to a neonazi who isn't decked out in Nazi regalia. Unless I have reason to believe he intends to bomb this restaurant right here and now, the best thing I can do is take a picture of him and send it to the FBI. That is, of course, assuming I have some very reliable way of knowing that he is a terrorist or a neonazi.

And on the off chance that the FBI has decided not to investigate potential terrorists/neonazis because some executive somewhere signed an order telling them not to, I might just send a copy of that photograph to a private detective and have HIM keep an eye on the guy instead...

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You're right, what you wrote is a false equivalence. In my scenario, the guy is guilty of holding abhorrent beliefs. In yours he is presenting a threat by wearing the vest and holding the detonator.

The belief that America needs to be violently cleansed of non-white people in a nation-spanning race war is logically equivalent to the belief that America needs to be bombed by a devout jihadist in the service of Allah. Both of these people intend to do enormous harm to America, one of them is just way more obvious about it.

Why would you infringe on that suicide bomber's 2nd amendment rights, if he's just standing there buying a hamburger?

The belief of a devout jihadist that America needs to be bombed is not the same as actively doing so. It was under Bush Jr. that I heard many Republicans tell me that some poor goat herder sitting in a cave saying "yeah, I think America should be bombed" is actually a threat, and I didn't buy it back then. Motive plus opportunity constitutes threat. Now you're driving yourself crazy over the idea that somehow this group of less than 10,000 individuals is going to take over the government and institute a program of ethnic cleansing. He is as much of a threat as a poor goat herder in a cave.

Back to my scenario. He is guilty of holding abhorrent beliefs. He is not presenting any active threat. Is he worthy of assault?

No more so than the suicide bomber (who, for all we know, could be on his way to the set of 24, which is filming right down the street and everyone in this burger joint knows that except for me). But he is worthy of careful scrutiny, because he has the appearance of someone who means to do immense harm to me and to my country.

Of course, a suicide bomber who isn't wearing a bomb vest and has no outward sign of actually being a terrorist is, again, equivalent to a neonazi who isn't decked out in Nazi regalia. Unless I have reason to believe he intends to bomb this restaurant right here and now, the best thing I can do is take a picture of him and send it to the FBI. That is, of course, assuming I have some very reliable way of knowing that he is a terrorist or a neonazi.

And on the off chance that the FBI has decided not to investigate potential terrorists/neonazis because some executive somewhere signed an order telling them not to, I might just send a copy of that photograph to a private detective and have HIM keep an eye on the guy instead...

You're very good at finding ways to scare yourself so that you can then turn to the government to protect you from the scary monsters. You're also trying very hard not to give the answer you know is the right one. If you see someone you know to be a neoNazi but is showing no outward signs of it, and is doing normal day-to-day stuff, you have no right to assault that person.

Just as the Republicans are terrified of some guy in some other country who has desire to harm the US but no ability, you are terrified of some guy in this country who has desire to harm the US but no ability.

 

[ksen]

tbf that group of 10,000 people have the ear of the president

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The belief that America needs to be violently cleansed of non-white people in a nation-spanning race war is logically equivalent to the belief that America needs to be bombed by a devout jihadist in the service of Allah. Both of these people intend to do enormous harm to America, one of them is just way more obvious about it.

Why would you infringe on that suicide bomber's 2nd amendment rights, if he's just standing there buying a hamburger?

The belief of a devout jihadist that America needs to be bombed is not the same as actively doing so.

I never said they were. And yet encountering such a person in a burger restaurant IN AMERICA would certainly give me pause, and law enforcement would likely be alerted to the presence and identity of such a person.

Now you're driving yourself crazy over the idea that somehow this group of less than 10,000 individuals is going to take over the government and institute a program of ethnic cleansing.

Actually, they're a lot more likely to perform some sporadic and misguided terrorist attacks with the intention of starting a race war, while at the more level headed of them will quietly insert themselves into positions of authority within police, military and Federal agencies. Either of these things individually or in combination can cause massive damage to this country, even IF they never manage to get control of city or state governments.

I also very much doubt there are "less than 10,000" of them in America, considering broad support Trump continues to enjoy among the Republican base.

You're very good at finding ways to scare yourself so that you can then turn to the government to protect you from the scary monsters. You're also trying very hard not to give the answer you know is the right one...

What, shoot them on sight? Yeah, I AM trying to avoid that answer. Mainly because...

If you see someone you know to be a neoNazi but is showing no outward signs of it, and is doing normal day-to-day stuff, you have no right to assault that person.

... and therefore, my preference is to alert the proper authorities to the existence of a person whose ideology is fundamentally opposed to my continued existence.

I would do the exact same thing if I discovered the guy in the burger shop was a serial rapist who occasionally flew to Thailand to buy underaged prostitutes; I'd do the same thing if I discovered he was an intelligence agent for a foreign government. Hell, I'd do the same thing if I discovered he was hiding his income to still collect welfare payments. The appropriate body empowered to deal with people who threaten civil society or we have reason to believe INTEND to threaten civil society is government and law enforcement agencies. It's not my job to keep white nationalists , terrorists, thieves, rapists, con men and welfare cheats from undermining the government, that is the whole reason why we have COPS. Besides which, the fact that you can't actually judge a person's motives except by their actions after the fact is the reason you cannot prosecute someone for what they INTEND to do and why people are considered Innocent Until Proven Guilty.

But speaking as someone who has actually seen his own FBI file and is probably being monitored by the NSA right now, the government can and DOES monitor people it considers to be a threat. My preference would be that they do so only when it is warranted and when there is reasonable suspicion that a crime may be about to take place. Being a jihadist, a white nationalist, or a member of any other extremist ideology with a demonstrated history of violence, is DEFINITELY reasonable suspicion.

Just as the Republicans are terrified of some guy in some other country who has desire to harm the US but no ability, you are terrified of some guy in this country who has desire to harm the US but no ability.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/Hpzkw3C4tSA[/YOUTUBE]
No ability... right...

We're not talking about Jihadists in OTHER COUNTRIES who can do nothing except glare angrily at us from the other side of the ocean. We're talking about people who live right here in America, who have access to firearms, chemicals, explosives, who know our neighborhoods, know what's vulnerable and what isn't.

Even without coordinated use of weapons, they can do a shitload of damage. Their ideology ENCOURAGES them to do this, and is therefore a reasonable suspicion of criminal intent.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I was expecting you to say "Can't do anything? What about 9/11? Huh? That goat herder sure can do something."

Still, that is what your "they sure can do something" amounts to. They can do very very little. One plane attack, I mean car attack, and that is proof they are about to overthrow the government and implement Sharia, I mean Fascist law.

No, that less than 10,000 will not be doing so. They are as equivalent to the whole of the Republican Party as BAMN and Antifa are equivalent to the whole of the Democratic Party.

 

[Elixir]

I was expecting you to say "Can't do anything? What about 9/11? Huh? That goat herder sure can do something."

Still, that is what your "they sure can do something" amounts to. They can do very very little. One plane attack, I mean car attack, and that is proof they are about to overthrow the government and implement Sharia, I mean Fascist law.

No, that less than 10,000 will not be doing so. They are as equivalent to the whole of the Republican Party as BAMN and Antifa are equivalent to the whole of the Democratic Party.

Funny ... they're promising an armed insurrection if anything is done to remove their Tangerine Tyrant. That should be pretty entertaining, eh?

 

[blastula]

Woody Allen is antifa.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCrABvZy8uc[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I was expecting you to say "Can't do anything? What about 9/11? Huh? That goat herder sure can do something."

Still, that is what your "they sure can do something" amounts to. They can do very very little. One plane attack, I mean car attack, and that is proof they are about to overthrow the government and implement Sharia, I mean Fascist law.

Well, no, it's proof that they are able or willing to run people over with their fucking cars. Since I would prefer NOT to be run over by a pissed off white nationalist in his car, my preference is that people who hold that worldview be closely monitored just like people with jihadist leanings have been closely monitored for the last sixteen years.

What the hell are you even barking about? Not ONCE have I ever seen you coming out in support of the right of jihadists to openly recruit followers on American soil. Most of us would consider that to be, at the very least, in bad taste. They're still innocent until proven guilty, which is why we don't round people up and imprison them just for having jihadist leanings, but radical Muslims in the United States are (theoretically) kept under an investigative microscope for PRECISELY that reason.

Are you saying they SHOULDN'T be or...?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I've always been a fanatic supporter of freedom of speech, which is why people currently think I'm some sort of fascist sympathizer. After all, freedom of speech is a fascist value, yes? Just because you haven't bothered to find out where I stand on other free speech issues, haven't bothered to look at my record, haven't bothered to find out anything about me at all, doesn't change it.

If it comes to freedom of speech, anything short of "I want you to go out and kill that person" is probably something I approve of. So yes, I will support freedom of speech of people who believe in flying planes into buildings, I mean driving cars into people. As long as they don't actually fly planes into buildings, I mean drive cars into people.

The counter to bad speech is better speech. The jihandist, I mean white supremacist argument is so awful that it can easily be countered by anyone with even the most basic of intellects. Are you actually telling me that you are unable to come up with a better counter-argument than censorship or violence?