Charlottesville: video evidence that the alt-right attacked first

[Crazy Eddie]

I've always been a fanatic supporter of freedom of speech...

Cool story, bro. But we're talking about ideology, not speech. No one is saying that TALKING about Nazis should be banned. The central claim here is that BEING a Nazi implies a very real psychological and ideological commitment to a philosophy of violence. People who are committed to that philosophy post a very real danger to society whether or not they are ACTIVELY trying to harm someone at any given moment. They therefore should be monitored closely, and their efforts to spread their philosophy to others should be restricted or, at the very least, tightly regulated.

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.

How about "I want you to go out over to the bar and keep your guns with you, and if that person gets in your face, or acts in a threatening manner, or infringes on your rights, or looks like he might be preparing to commit bodily harm to you, you would be within your rights to kill him in self-defense. Probably go at, say, 5:30pm when he's likely to be there. Remember, it's okay if you just happen to kill him in self-defense. I have that feeling, you know, that it might just come to that. He's that kind of person, you know?"

Now imagine the above being said to a large gathering of people in a basement somewhere and the person in question is a very prominent local businessman who did something to anger them. Suppose one person in the crowd decided to call this local businessman and tell him about the meeting... how do you suppose he would describe the situation?

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.

Cool story, bro.

Except, again, we're talking about the dangers of IDEOLOGY, not the dangers of speech. There IS such a thing as a dangerous ideology, which is why we go out of our way to monitor people like jihadists, white supremacists, liberationists and anarchists.

Which is EXACTLY why I specified that someone who I know to belong to a dangerous organization or movement would be reported to law enforcement. Not confronted, not lynched, not shot on sight, just recognized for the potential threat that they are.

Are you actually telling me that you are unable to come up with a better counter-argument than censorship or violence?

I already did. The better counter-argument is Call the FBI and tell them "I just found out the guy standing behind me at Burger King is a suicide bomber/Nazi sympathizer. Here's my evidence and a photograph."

You do not "win" arguments with Nazis, because the goal of nazis and white nationalists isn't to convince anyone that they're right. Their goal is to establish actual dominance in society by whatever means is at their disposal. So while you can counter their SPEECH any number of ways, the only way to counter their AGENDA is to be ready if and when they ever try to carry it out.

 

[repoman]

So it seems you are saying (you will clarify of course) that monitoring of some mosques may have been justified, as well as some "churches" (like the old World Church of the Creator).

But what white nationalists want is to point to people objecting to (selective or sweeping) mosque monitoring as a reason to lay off them.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yeah, saying "I'm talking about an ideology, not speech" is a cop-out, unless you have somehow perfected mind reading. Go get your James Randi fortune, Eddy.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, the only way we have to determine what ideology a person has is by their speech and by their actions. I'm here saying that I am in favor of free speech, unlike the fascist white supremacists or the fascist antifa who oppose free speech.

So, going back to my neo-Nazi buying a hamburger. Suppose it can be determined that he is not actively doing anything except voting for and donating to a fascist political party, and of course having abhorrent beliefs. Still a threat by his mere existence?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So it seems you are saying (you will clarify of course) that monitoring of some mosques may have been justified, as well as some "churches" (like the old World Church of the Creator).

But what white nationalists want is to point to people objecting to (selective or sweeping) mosque monitoring as a reason to lay off them.

To be clear, there are some mosques and Islamic teachers who were closely monitored even BEFORE 9/11, and rightly so. The Blind Sheikh, for example, who orchestrated the first WTC bombing attempt was caught in this way, even though the real mastermind behind the bombing wasn't captured until years later. Mosques that harbor or support radical, militant or jihadist activity should also be monitored. Same goes for Churches and religious groups, same goes for the more radical marxist and anarchist groups. This is mainly because extremists tend to do extreme shit when they think nobody is listening to them and sometimes -- in fact, a lot of the time -- it's possible to get one or two steps ahead of them and minimize the damage.

Nazism and white nationalism are just as dangerous as jihadism in my book. I'm not for banning Muslims or even conservative religious denominations, but there IS a difference between "very conservative Muslim" and "Jihadist." Just like there is a difference between "more than a little bit racist" and "white nationalist."

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yeah, saying "I'm talking about an ideology, not speech" is a cop-out, unless you have somehow perfected mind reading.

White nationalism is an ideology, not a speaking style... you DO know that, right?

Meanwhile, here in the real world, the only way we have to determine what ideology a person has is by their speech and by their actions.

Right. A man has a right to say anything he wants to say. He can stand in that burger shop and say "One of these days I'm gonna shoot every nigger in this town and you're all going to thank me for it!" And everyone who hears him calls the FBI and says "There's an armed man here making vague, racially charged threats. Here's his description." And he should be monitored for a considerable length of time, now that he has identified himself as a potential threat.

He can SAY any damn thing he wants, but threatening people -- indirectly or otherwise -- still has consequences.

I'm here saying that I am in favor of free speech

Cool story, bro. But running people over with a car is not a form of protected speech. Ethnically cleansing the United States of all non-white people is, also, not a form of protected speech. Therefore, people who prefer to talk about doing that sort of thing probably should fall under greater-than-normal scrutiny by law enforcement agencies.

Again... is there a particular reason you disagree with that? I don't really understand why that would be.

Suppose it can be determined that he is not actively doing anything except voting for and donating to a fascist political party, and of course having abhorrent beliefs. Still a threat by his mere existence?

Yes. And somebody needs to keep an eye on him.

Again: being monitored by law enforcement because you are a potential threat to your community doesn't violate your free speech rights. I don't see why you think it does.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

White nationalism is an ideology, not a speaking style... you DO know that, right?

Unless you're about to claim the James Randi prize, the only way we can tell what ideology is inside a person's head is by their words.

But running people over with a car is not a form of protected speech. Ethnically cleansing the United States of all non-white people is, also, not a form of protected speech.

Gee, did anyone say it was?????

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Unless you're about to claim the James Randi prize, the only way we can tell what ideology is inside a person's head is by their words.

So... what are you whining about, exactly? I think I lost track two or three Harvestdances again.

But running people over with a car is not a form of protected speech. Ethnically cleansing the United States of all non-white people is, also, not a form of protected speech.

Gee, did anyone say it was?????

Well, this whole thing started when you asked:

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?

Which is why I pointed out that the fact that he isn't inciting violence RIGHT THIS SECOND doesn't change what he is. He is still poses a heightened potential of harm to others by virtue of his ideological commitment.

If you're not arguing that white nationalists should be treated as if they are entirely blameless and left to their own devices right up until the moment they start murdering people, then I have no idea what your point is. Risk management and of freedom of speech are not mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[Arctish]

If you're not arguing that white nationalists should be treated as if they are entirely blameless and left to their own devices right up until the moment they start murdering people, then I have no idea what your point is. Risk management and of freedom of speech are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Risk management is anathema to most strains of Libertarianism.

 

[ZiprHead]

I’m Sick Of Busting My Ass Doing Neo-Nazi Stuff Only To Have Some Masked Antifa Dweebs Get Credit As The Real Fascists

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So... what are you whining about, exactly? I think I lost track two or three Harvestdances again.

But running people over with a car is not a form of protected speech. Ethnically cleansing the United States of all non-white people is, also, not a form of protected speech.

Gee, did anyone say it was?????

Well, this whole thing started when you asked:

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?

Which is why I pointed out that the fact that he isn't inciting violence RIGHT THIS SECOND doesn't change what he is. He is still poses a heightened potential of harm to others by virtue of his ideological commitment.

If you're not arguing that white nationalists should be treated as if they are entirely blameless and left to their own devices right up until the moment they start murdering people, then I have no idea what your point is. Risk management and of freedom of speech are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Alright.

From my point of view, all but one political ideology is inciting violence, as in government violence against people who act in a manner not consistent with the goals of that ideology. Theoretically a fascist wants to elect fascists so that fascist policies get passed. Then the violence is in the form of arresting and punishing anyone who violates those policies. That those policies are more restrictive than conservoprogressive policies is matter of degree, not an essential difference.

So if you see someone who holds fascist ideas, and you want to punch that person (and that is what you are trying to avoid expressing plainly) then you are engaging in thought policing against people who wrong-think.

So yes, if they aren't doing anything they should be left alone. Some people around here thinks that makes me a sympathizer. Their ideology is different only in degree from conservoprogressive ideology, so I assume that if reporting fascists is acceptable then reporting conservoprogressives is also acceptable.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So... what are you whining about, exactly? I think I lost track two or three Harvestdances again.

But running people over with a car is not a form of protected speech. Ethnically cleansing the United States of all non-white people is, also, not a form of protected speech.

Gee, did anyone say it was?????

Well, this whole thing started when you asked:

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?

Which is why I pointed out that the fact that he isn't inciting violence RIGHT THIS SECOND doesn't change what he is. He is still poses a heightened potential of harm to others by virtue of his ideological commitment.

If you're not arguing that white nationalists should be treated as if they are entirely blameless and left to their own devices right up until the moment they start murdering people, then I have no idea what your point is. Risk management and of freedom of speech are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Alright.

From my point of view, all but one political ideology is inciting violence...

... and the one and only non-violent ideology is libertarianism.

Gotcha.

 

[Arctish]

Additional video evidence:

https://sub.media/video/charlottesville-redux/

It really shows just how dangerous that confrontation became over the two days of protests and counter-protests.

 

[blastula]

"The situation is tense." Uh, yeah.

Have the police explained why they did nothing? It looks like that was the plan. It could be they thought they were outnumbered.

 

[RavenSky]

"The situation is tense." Uh, yeah.

Have the police explained why they did nothing? It looks like that was the plan. It could be they thought they were outnumbered.

I don't know how accurate it is, and I would have to hunt for the article again, but I read that the police argued strongly against allowing the neo-nazi/kkk march in the first place, predicting there would be violence. The sense of the article was that police allowed the initial violence to unfold as sort of a "told you so".

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

From my point of view, all but one political ideology is inciting violence...

... and the one and only non-violent ideology is libertarianism.

Gotcha.

Actually no. It is ancap that doesn't. I'm merely a libertarian, a minarchist, which ancaps describe as "just the tip".