Sunday, August 13, 2017

RESIST.


Let's pretend:

I'm going to start a group: The Neo-Ted Bundians! It will be based upon the wit and wisdom of famous serial killer, child murderer, rapist and corpse molester, Ted Bundy.

But please, understand, I am only talking about the positive parts of what Ted Bundy stood for, not any of the negative stuff...

...What do you think of that notion? Do we offer sympathy and understanding for this person starting this "fan club," or do we recognize the horror involved in the suggestion?

I think the latter. Of course. (Why does it even need to be said?)

Look, these "neo-nazis" and "KKK" people don't need understanding. We understand just fine.

I understand that they are just regular guys (white guys, to be sure). That they have their concerns and reasons.

However, they have made a fatal flaw if they wanted to be treated as just regular guys: They deliberately chose to self-identify with some of the worst killers, rapists, racists and general awful people in history.

If they just wanted to celebrate "southern culture," they could have started a club about Sweet Tea and Cornbread. They could have started a "Friends of Alabama" support group. But no, they deliberately chose to identify with historical monsters. Of course, Nazis and KKK members were just regular guys, too, with some concerns that they no doubt thought were legitimate. I have no problems with legitimate concerns. BUT, there is a line that must be drawn.

That line is harm, oppression, killing, abuse, terrorism, spreading fear. Those embracing these tactics must be opposed.

Why? (Seems to be a stupid question, but okay, I'll play).

Because just as they might have some concerns, the rest of the world has concerns about justice and safety for all, about human rights. Because we value human rights, good people everywhere must stand opposed to those opposed to human rights. We can be inclusive as hell (or heaven, if you prefer), but IF you have a concern for human rights, then yes, that means we will exclude those who are opposed to human rights.

It's like all these conservatives who try to mock those who value tolerance for being intolerant towards some. But who are we being intolerant towards? The intolerant. IF you are supportive of tolerance, then by definition, you will oppose those advocating intolerance. It's nothing to be mocked, it's just rational.

These people are not imbeciles. They are not unaware of history. They know what the Nazis stood for. They know what the KKK stands for. They understand. And so do we.

That's the problem.

They are seeking to trade in on the horror and fear and oppression of these established groups. These are impotent white boys who are seeking some status and some borrowed power, so they're turning to monsters to try to access it. The thing is, IF you're going to choose to start a white boy's social club and you choose to identify with monsters, you can't ask us for "understanding." At that point, it's your time to understand and understand well:

Good and moral people must always stand opposed to oppressors. Those who choose the tools and symbols of oppressors will be lumped in with them and opposed.

You want to be understood in a moral flattering light? Begin by losing the oppressor, killer, rapist, destroyer identification. Abandon the monster, then we can talk.

75 comments:

Marshal Art said...

And that's why I stand firmly opposed to abortionists and those who enable them. The horror and oppression of one group of selfish, anti-science monsters against the most vulnerable and innocent of our kind must be opposed at all costs, and those who stand with the very people who seek to legitimize the practice (the lion's share of the Democratic Party, for example) are heinous for doing so.

"It's like all these conservatives who try to mock those who value tolerance for being intolerant towards some. But who are we being intolerant towards? The intolerant."

This is a lie. You are being intolerant against people who are intolerant of immoral sexual practices and against the support (legal, social, pseudo-religious) of those practices in all its forms.

BTW...do you think you'll ever address intolerance by black groups any time soon, or are you just opposed to intolerance by "white boys"? Just wonderin'.

Craig said...

Yes. Hateful, violent, actions are repellant under all circumstances.

Craig said...

Art, while I agree that you raise some valid concerns, this is not the time. It's virtually impossible to have a rational conversation about the extremists on both sides.

It seems more productive to decry these idiots and allow the justice system to do its job and prosecute and punish them.

While these people have every right to engage in peaceful protest, no matter how offensive their views, engaging in violent actions just makes things worse.

There are too many people using this to score cheap political points to try to jump on that bandwagon.

Let's support Cruz and Rubio (and many others) in speaking against what's going on and in doing so hopefully set an example of how to react to this sort of thing.

Dan Trabue said...

What the hell are you talking about, Marshall.

I made some pretty simple points here in this post. Those points are:

1. When some group embraces a monstrous philosophy/group, they surrender the right to be treated nicely.

2. The reason for this is because, while we need to understand the humans in the monster group, we have a prior obligation to the innocent people harmed by the monster group.

Do you have any comments about the fucking racist terrorists white son of bitch man/boys trying (and failing) to intimidate people?

Are you truly trying to support them by changing topics?

One chance and one chance alone, Marshall. Do you agree that neo-nazis and KKK members and their comrades have lost the opportunity to be treated seriously, respectfully or to be met with anything but contempt?

That is the point of the post. Take anything else and move on. I insist.

Thank you.

Oh, and yes, if and when there is violent, harmful intolerance committed by anyone, that is wrong. But don't try to change the subject. We're talking about your party's neo-Nazi problem.

Dan

Anonymous said...

Oh, an additional clarification:

IF you are an organizer who truly wants to raise concerns about "your heritage," and you are white, you should know you're already treading on shaky ground because of our shared history. If you don't know that/recognize it, you are operating from a place of dangerous ignorance and you should seek to be more informed.

BUT, if you are an organizer of an event AND the KKK and self-identified white supremacists and neo-nazis flock to your event, you have made a mistake and the onus is on you to END that event with an apology and strong statement against the neo-nazi types, OR uninvite the white supremacists and again, renounce them, OR accept that you'll be giving aid and comfort to monstrous ideologies and moral people will rebuke and oppose you.

~Dan

Craig said...

How is condemning all intolerance, racism, and violence "changing the subject".

I am curious how tarring an entire group of people with the actions of a small minority helps make things better.

Craig said...

Of course the onus is on the organizers to do everything possible to avoid being connected with nasty, racist elements. What I don't understand is why trying to tie to connect anyone but those actually responsible, with responsibility for this horrible situation.

Anonymous said...

The question for you, Craig, is do you agree that neo nazis and white supremacists MUST be opposed, and that by joining groups such as this, you lose the chance to be taken credibly and to be considered anything but a threat to human rights?

Simple question, do you agree?

And yes, hell yes. The onus is on the organizers to deal with nazis and the KKK. IF I am organizing an event that gains significant traction with racists and nazis, I am going to stop whatever I'm doing and re-evaluate. THEN, I will distance myself from the Nazis and racists.

Do you agree?

I am "tarring" an entire group that is adopting the trappings of nazis and the KKK AND any who are not actively distancing themselves from them and denouncing them.

Naziism and racists like the KKK are not shit to be trifled with and people are tired of too many on the Right just shrugging their shoulders when the have fucking nazis and racists in their midst.

Do you understand?

Please answer.

And to answer your question, Marshall changed the subject when he brought up abortion, which this post is not about, and when he tried to make a false comparison between black folk and the nazis.

Perhaps you all don't understand how that looks, but when you say something to suggest that "well, they do it, too!" instead of denouncing the fucking nazis in your midst, it makes it sound like you're engaging in minimizing nazis and racists.

Dan

Anonymous said...

From CNN:

"The President's vagueness on white supremacists stood in stark contrast to the bluntness, bombast and outspokenness Trump has built his career on. The President for decades has slammed his opponents -- by name -- on Twitter and in the media, never missing an opportunity to castigate a person or group that he thinks has slighted him. And he campaigned as a businessman-turned-politician who promised to be blunt when it came to terrorism.

But on Saturday, as the nation watched white nationalists carrying Nazi flags scuffle in an idyllic American city, Trump ignored reporters who asked him directly whether he condemned white nationalist groups or whether he considered the murder of a woman in Charlottesville a terrorist attack."


Do you two understand that when a president who condemns terrorists with Muslim connections (or even the hint of a Muslim connection) on the drop of a hat is deafening silent when condemning white racists and nazis, that it sounds rather like at least half-hearted support?

It does in the real world, sound just like that. Do you understand that this is how it comes across?

Do you understand the need for good people from all stripes to clearly denounce nazis and racists? Not say, "Yes, BUT, the blacks..." or any shit like that?

~Dan

Craig said...

Of course such groups should be opposed. I and the vast number of conservatives haven't joined these groups. Which raises the question of why tar those who haven't joined such groups, and have condemned such groups with such a broad unjustified brush?

Again, I agree that the organizers should have done things differently and distanced themselves from these extremist groups.

I understand that craploads of conservatives have been unequivocally vocal in condemning these groups and to suggest otherwise is just not looking at the reality.

Of course, there are no "fucking NAZI's in the midst of the vast majority of the real world, and for you to even slightly suggest otherwise is just being inflammatory. Perhaps you noticed that I took Marshall to task as well, I didn't feel the need for expletives and nastiness, but did so nonetheless.

I don't know, but what I heard Trump say was pretty condemnatory, then when you add in Cruz, Pence, Rubio, McCain and many others it's hard to take seriously the charge of indifference.

I do understand how it comes across, I also understand that there is an element of partisanship involved. Especially if one looks beyond one statement by one person.

Do you understand that good people of all stripes are speaking out against this?

Do you understand that ignoring the significant numbers of conservatives doing exactly what you say they should be doing doesnt really help you.

Anonymous said...

How many nazis and KKK members are too many for your party to harbor? I would vote for none in my party.

I think that what you're not getting is that there ARE too many of these nazi and KKK types out there (you agree, I presume?) AND that they are finding too much comfort and acceptance in your party since the election of your leader. Trump could not even find it within him to say, "These nazis are wrong!" specifically, instead, opting for a generic, "violence is bad wherever it happens" or whatever vague thing he said.

I am glad that some conservatives have condemned this, honestly. My question here is why Marshall began automatically with a half-hearted NON-attack on the nazis and racists in question, instead opting for some false equivalency tack.

What "broad brush" do you think I've used, Craig? Where did I condemn all conservatives? Who do you think I'm condemning here? My post was very directly attacking those who self-identify as nazis and KKK members, so I don't know what you're speaking about.

I've gotten a bit more vulgar in my language because fucking nazis and KKK members are fucking vulgar. The language fits the crime.

To your questions, yes, of course I understand people of all stripes have been condemning this. I haven't said otherwise.

Do you understand that?

Do you understand I haven't ignored anything?

Do you understand when you are talking about all this other stuff I haven't said instead of what the point of the post, it's a distraction from the point of the post?

~Dan

Craig said...

Let's not forget that your party is the only party yo elect a KKK member to national office. Multiple times.

I don't know how many people of extreme views claim membership in either political party, and fail to see how that's an issue. Unless you're on a jihad to eradicate all extremists everywhere. But that's not even the point here the response of the GOP has been negative toward these extremists. There is no harboring going on. I'm a little shocked that you are so determined to paint an entire political party in a negative light based on a small number of people. It's certainly strange in light of the loud publici repudiation we've actually seen in the real world.

As usual, I don't speak for Marshall.

Well since you just accused the GOP of "harboring" these people against all evidence to the contrary, I'd start there.

Several places, including your inability to admit the reality of forceful denunciations by many leaders of the party.

That's a great question, it certainly appears that you're condemning anyone and everyone you can loosely associate with this fiasco. But you've certainly lumped Trump in because he isn't rabid enough for you. Again based on the first sentence in the above comment, you're spreading guilt beyond those who deserve it.

Got it, you think that swearing at Marshall and I somehow makes it better, kind of 12 year old, but if it helps you feel good.

You also haven't acknowledged it, and you continue to write as if the GOP leadership is "harborimg" these folks when the reality is otherwise. Would it really be that hard to stop the the expletive filled screed and acknowledge the reality that there are plenty of GOP leaders and conservatives who have loudly and publicly spoken against this.

Really, discussing the reality of how the real GOP and conservatives are reacting doesn't fit your narrative.

In case I missed it, can you show me where you got even a fraction of this worked up when one of "your guys" shot/shot at GOP representatives and staffers?

Its fascinating how quickly you've managed to turn my agreeing with your into confrontation and an adversarial situation.

Dan Trabue said...

I said one chance, Marshall.

"One chance and one chance alone, Marshall. Do you agree that neo-nazis and KKK members and their comrades have lost the opportunity to be treated seriously, respectfully or to be met with anything but contempt?"

THAT is the point of the post.

Do you understand that this is the point of the post?

Do you agree with the point of the post?

From there, if you can respectfully agree and start from a place of decent human conversation, we can talk about other on-topic ideas. But first, if you want to come here when I'm talking about Nazis and trash like the KKK, I would expect you to at the least say, Yup, you got it right.

Last chance.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

Let's not forget that your party is the only party yo elect a KKK member to national office. Multiple times.

THIS post was on nazis and the KKK, that they've lost their chance to be treated with respect when they embraced violent, oppressive groups to join.

Beyond that, your party has a race problem. Practically no black folk vote for the GOP. That is a national embarrassment for you.

Do you understand that?

Now, I am fine with the idea that perhaps this discrepancy is based on a misconception for many, maybe most conservatives. The argument can be made. BUT, and this is the important thing you all need to realize, you all have a perception problem. It appears that you all are making room for racist and racist policies.

And when you all make stupid ass comments such as the one I just cited, it adds to that perception.

Yes, we are familiar with history, and that in the past, the Dems were the racist party. But that was before The Southern Strategy. You see, we are familiar with history, but with ALL of history. We know what the Dems represented 60+ years ago AND we know that there was a deliberate effort by the GOP and conservatives that changed that.

When you cite old history as something to do with the conversation here and now and ignore what has happened between then and now, you appear to be either dishonest or tragically uninformed.

The GOP is the party with Trump running with some pretty clear (according to many conservatives, thankfully, as well as the rest of us) racist overtones. Appeals to fear of the brown Mexicans, demonization and false claims and false equivalencies to the BLM movement. You all have an image problem.

That being the case, it is vital for good conservatives who aren't racist to go above and beyond to distance themselves from these neo nazis and KKK members. From the Alt Right, which Trump has elevated to leadership levels.

So, the point of this post is not an attack on conservatives. That did not come up at all in the post. It was an attack on neo-nazis and racists. And justified, yes?

But when people like Marshall get on and say what he's saying, when people like you say idiotic things like what I quoted above, you undermine your claim that the GOP is not a problem, writ large. It's just a few outliers.

The problem is, it makes you sound like you're defending them, while at the same time, trying to say you're not.

The modern Democrat party would not have any room for neo-nazis and racists in its ranks. The GOP needs to do more to purge their ranks of this "small" group (and at this point, I don't know that we know the percentage, but I'm willing to give you all the benefit of the doubt). But it must need begin by stopping idiotic statements like, "Ya know, YOU guys elected KKK members."

Do you understand why you need to surrender that tactic... or at least only do it with the added caveat, "...and yes, I do realize we embraced the Southern Strategy since then and shame on us for doing so..."

Can you say that, Craig?

Dan Trabue said...

And just to reiterate: My post didn't address conservatives in general at all. It didn't. Marshall, and then you, brought conservatives into the discussion.

For instance, where you said, Craig, "There are too many people using this to score cheap political points to try to jump on that bandwagon." appears to be an attempt to peg progressives/Dems for "using this" as a ploy, rather than acknowledging that it is a problem. Period.

You ARE correct in your initial comment to Marshall, that it should be enough to decry nazis and racists. Period.

But that's where you should end things, if you didn't want to make it a political ploy yourself.

The point is, you two brought conservatives into this argument, not me.

And to this point, "How is condemning all intolerance, racism, and violence "changing the subject"."

This is the problem that Trump had in his comments. Instead of taking the opportunity to deal with the actual problem: White (self-identified) conservative nazis and racists embracing violence and terrorism - he said something bland to the point of nauseation like All violence is bad, no matter where it comes from, and it comes from all sides...

This was not the time for that. As much as Trump is prepared to jump on Muslims at the drop of the "terrorist" hat, he failed to do that for white conservative terrorists and oppressors.

It's a problem of false equivalency at a time when what was needed was simple denunciation of nazis and racists.

Anonymous said...

Watch this and maybe you can better understand the problem with Trump's type of response...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DXszx68uhsY

Dan

Craig said...

Because having an actual KKK member in the senate in recent history, isn't relevant.

So, what's your answer? Deny people you disagree with their conditional rights? Pass laws banning them from supporting or voting for whatever candidates they choose?

It's great to talk about how bad they are and the f-bombs really make you sound much meaner, but seriously what's your solution?

Oh, you're the one who accused the GOP of "harboring" racists, so let's cut the "I'm not blaming the GOP " crap. You're the one who keeps casting this in terms of a GOP problem, not a problem of a small group of extremists.

Look, if you can't let go of your hatred and look at things objectively, you simply surrender any credibility you might have.

Are you really saying that the "modern Democratic Party" has absolutely zero racists? Zero violent extremists? Really? No one in the "modern Democratic Party" walking around idolizing Castro, Guevara, Stalin, and Mao? Really?

As long as you simply repeat the narrative that's just partisan and simplistic, why would you expect anyone to agree with you across party lines.

Hell, I started off agreeing with you and criticizing Marshall and yet you've managed to drive me away from that, well done.

As far as Trumps comments, they're very similar to what Sanders said after the softball shooting, and P-BO said after Dallas.

I guess it's just to much to expect you to rise above what you perceive Trump's level.

FYI, you are correct about a perception problem, your problem is treating perception as reality.

Craig said...

One problem here is the fact that it is perfectly reasonable and valid to look objectively at how different people react to these kinds of actions. It's a rational conversation to have and one that should happen. Not now, but at some point.

Strangely enough, there is a protest scheduled outside the local GOP office this evening. Now the local GOP has condemned the actions in VA, and has absolutely no connection to those actions, can you understand why this is not helpful. Can you understand that the responsibility lies with those who actually engaged in the actions.

Seriously, your position that racism, hatred, and violence is a position agreed on by 95% of the people in the country, yet instead of seeking common ground you choose to spurn those who agree with you. You try to write off Robert Byrd as "ancient history, them appeal to a political strategy from almost 50 years ago as if it's relevant.

Why not join those of us who decry ALL hatred and racism in public life. Why perpetuate the narrative based on perception rather than reality.

Anonymous said...

Craig, please answer the question:

Do you understand why you need to surrender that tactic... or at least only do it with the added caveat, "...and yes, I do realize conservatives/the GOP embraced the Southern Strategy since then and shame on us for doing so..."

Can you say that, Craig?

No other comments, please, until you answer this question.

~Dan

Craig said...

You've decided that the lynchpin of this conversation is not what we agree on, but on my repudiating a half century old political strategy. Not that you'd actually apologize for your party electing a Klan member for decades, but this.

Ok fine. The southern strategy was a heinous, cynical, nasty, evil, horrible strategy that was used half a century ago. It was so evil that anyone who has ever voted for a republican must repent of the evil to cleanse ourselves.

I'll eagerly be awaiting your denunciation of George Soros (a significant finder of liberal causes) for actively collaborating with the real NAZI's and for being unrepentant about

You should move away from division based on perception.

Anonymous said...

More later, but re: Soros...

1. I don't know what claim you're speaking about, but it is always bad to collaborate with Nazis...

2. The claim you're making is probably false...

https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2010/09/20/toronto-sun-corrects-soros-nazi-smear/170877

Dan

Craig said...

Really, I guess he lied about it in the interview I just heard.

Anonymous said...

Sigh. Given your problem understanding the words of liberals, do you mind citing some data, as opposed to "somethin' I heard.."

Dan

Craig said...

You do realize that by not specifically denouncing Soros and by trying to discredit the story, you just did exactly what you've been bashing others for.

Craig said...

By something I heard, I'm referring to an actual interview Soros did, where he answered the questions he was asked, clear?

Marshal Art said...

Though this will be deleted by Dan the lying coward, the "Southern Strategy" is misrepresented here by Dan...as it typically is by the left always. There was no such strategy that mitigated the fact of Democratic racism. I will be taking my response to my own blog in the coming days, because Dan is a liar. There, I will also explain the relevance of my initial response in greater detail. While Dan in his corruption cowered in horror at the prospect of the logical, rational and incredibly relevant comparisons I made, Craig, too will be shown how my comments are worthy of support.

In the meantime, I reiterate my deleted response to Dan's stupidity in saying that I have no need to disavow that which I have never in the least bit shown any connection or support, and indeed have clearly and unambiguously demonstrated over the years the very opposite.

Craig said...

Art, I'm not saying that your comments are necessarily wrong or totally out of bounds, I'm just saying that it's a little too soon.

Matt Walsh did a really well thought out piece today addressing the same types of issues.

The problem conservatives have is that it's all about the narrative and perception, not about reality.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, I have no doubt that you heard what you think you heard. I'm asking you to support it, because frankly, I don't trust your interpretation of liberals' words and because what I read in several places appears to be saying you got it wrong.

Finally, it also appears that Soros was a child during the war. Even if you are correct (and the data says otherwise, but I don't know because you won't be specific or cite any supporting data), most people don't tend to hold children as accountable for mistakes as you appear willing to do.

Craig said...

I'm just pointing out your inconsistency, since you appear blind to it.

Craig said...

It's in a 60 minutes interview and is readily available.

I honestly understand that he most likely wasn't a "willing" participant, but his lack of remorse makes that a little harder to buy.

My point is not that he was a collaborator, as much as it is that y'all are willing to ignore this sort of thing if it's on your side, but demonize it when it's not.

The fact that you responded the way you did (virtually identically to the responses you decry) just reinforces my point.

But since you clearly aren't interested in agreement, and are more concerned with forcing me to repudiate a half century old political strategy, I'm not sure what else there is to say.

I'm sure you don't understand that what you see as righteous rage, just comes of as an opportunistic way to vent your hatred for those you don't agree with.

It truly saddens me when one who claims to follow Christ is more concerned with anger than grace.

Anonymous said...

My God.

There are no words.

Blind, indeed.

Dan

Anonymous said...

But yes, you are right. I DO have some righteous indignation towards fucking racists and Nazis.

What's amazing is the amount of defense you seem prepared to offer them.

Grace is for those being harmed, not those causing it.

Dan

Craig said...

And yet. I have not defended those people in any way shape or form. The fact that you have such hatred, seems to counter Christ's "love your enemies, bless those who curse you" ethic.

The fact that you (and P-BO, and Bernie) all responded virtually exactly the way Trump did, but that you choose not to see it, is sad.

I'd ask how you feel about roving mobs destroying public property, but I suspect you'd excuse that in the same way you excuse other liberal excesses.

I do genuinely appreciate one thing though. I appreciate the fact that you've demonstrated how seriously you take it when people attempt to forge some degree of agreement. Just because I'm not in full blown lynch mob mode like you, doesn't mean that I support these people.

Craig said...

If one takes seriously the example of Jesus, grace is definitely for those who harm people. Maybe this road of hatred and vengeance isn't the best example of following Jesus.

I guess it's a good thing you don't get to decide who's worthy of grace, I suspect the list would be short.

Anonymous said...

If you were a good German in the 1940s, would you be pissed off as hell at the Nazis?

God, I hope so.

Would your allegiance and grace be extended to the Nazis or their victims?

Would you also be pissed as hell at the Germans who were not standing strongly opposed to the Nazis?

Usually, Godwin's Law would say I've lost the argument, but that doesn't apply when you're talking about actual fucking Nazis.

If you were that hypothetical German and the leader said, "Well, now, there's violence on ALL sides..." would you recognize that for the diabolical false equivalency that it is?

Dan

Craig said...

I'm amazed that for someone who spends so much time bitching about being misunderstood, you put so little time and effort into understanding others.

If one takes your strange equivalence to its logical end, then one sees Jesus being "pissed as hell" at the Romans. Instead Jesus calls for forgiveness to the very people who tortured and killed him. That's the example of Jesus

It's not being "fucking" "pissed as hell" and launching expletive filled diatribes at those other evil people.

The fact that you admit you should have lost the argument probably means you have. I'd suggest you lost when you just started making stuff up about me supporting these folks. I'd further suggest you lost it when you didn't speak against the mobs destroying public property. Or against the ANTIFA folks who showed up just as prepared for a fight as the other racists. Or when you can't acknowledge that continually electing a Klan member a decade into the 21st century isn't "ancient history", but that half century old political is a current event. I'd suggest you lost when you decided to force me into parroting your position. I'd also suggest that you lost when you chose disagreement and perception as your position.

As to your last question, I guess you don't know much about your history or you wouldn't have come with such s foolish hypothetical.

The problem you have with all your childish expletive laden venting is that it doesn't accomplish anything. Those who engaged in violence will be punished (unlike BLM), and the justice system will administer justice. The 95% of the country which realizes that these folks are nuts will continue to ageee on that fact despite the efforts of some to fan the flames of division. I can only assume that they hope to turn this to political advantage.

But, in the end, you don't have one constructive thing to add to the discussion beyond "If you aren't fucking pissed as hell just like me, then you're one of them.". Which is; not true, not Christian, and not helpful.

If I was a good German in the 40's, I'd realize that being "pissed as hell", would buy me a one way trip to a camp. Do, I'd try to be less emotional and more strategic in working against the regime. Or in helping the Allies put an end to the regime.

My allegiance is primarily to God, but following his example I'd try to extend forgiveness and grace to all.

I don't think so, because I would not know for sure what kinds of things they were doing to work against the regime. Being "pissed as hell", instead of being less emotional would simply drive me to make assumptions about others that might not have been true.

Except both during the run up to the NAZI's taking power, and during the past few years there literally, actually,demonstrably was unjustified violence on more than one side.

Look at that, all you questions answered, and I didn't get "fucking" "pissed as hell". Maybe you should try exhibiting some of those fruits of the spirit, especially self control.







Craig said...

Sorry, that lady got a little long. But I have to point out that I didn't draw an equivalency between now and then. I pointed out that you aren't "fucking" "pissed as hell" at George Soros who actually worked with the NAZI's, and that you, P-BO, and Bernie all gave virtually the same response that Trump gave, but you're not "fucking" "pissed as hell" any them.

So, you attributing something else to me that I didn't say might be another place you lost.

Craig said...

Last, not lady.

Anonymous said...

? I'm not going to respond to stupid suggestions. Do I blame an elderly man for what he did (or didn't do, you STILL haven't provided any data, it's all based on your claim that appears to have been debunked) as a child? No. Why not? Because I'm not an idiot.

Do I blame adults who are self-identified nazis and KKK members? Yes. Why? Because they are dangerous idiots.

Look Craig, for however odd it is you keep fighting against me over my opposition to Nazis (seriously, wtf?), I think you're probably a good, moral man. So, father to father, concerned citizen to concerned citizen, I'm asking:

Do you at least recognize that many moral people hold average German citizens and soldiers (many of whom identified as Christians!) accountable for not standing up against Nazis and Hitler, strongly, solidly?

If so (and surely you do), do you recognize why people are concerned today now that Nazis and the KKK are out boldly walking the streets, thanking the GOP president for his support and throwing their support behind him, walking the streets with torches, with a large amount of weaponry and hatred, looking for a fight? Do you recognize that our goal is to NOT let Nazi Germany even begin to happen again?

Do you recognize that is our goal?

Please answer.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

Also, we've just had a terrorist attack on US soil. We've just had armed and threatening NAZIS out marching in our streets, looking for fights, punching women and others, and thanking the president for his leadership and support.

Can either of you two tell me of a single conservative blog that has had a post denouncing this? I can't find any at any of your links, Marshall.

It's been four days now. Why the crickets?

You assure me that conservatives are at least unhappy about this, where are the blog posts? Especially/specifically, the "small" bloggers. I did see that Mohler appears to have dealt with it. Good for him.

But did any of your comrades do so?

Just curious.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

Some of the comments from conservatives in office, who were saying the right things...

Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake released a statement Tuesday evening on the President's latest comments regarding the events in Charlottesville.

"We cannot accept excuses for white supremacy and acts of domestic terrorism. We must condemn them. Period," the statement reads.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, criticized Trump on Twitter Tuesday night.

"There's no moral equivalency between racists & Americans standing up to defy hate& bigotry. The President of the United States should say so," McCain said in a tweet.

Sen. Todd Young, an Indiana Republican, tweeted, "This is simple: we must condemn and marginalize white supremacist groups, not encourage and embolden them."

Speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room" Tuesday, GOP Rep. from Texas Will Hurd said that Trump should "apologize."

"Racism, bigotry, anti-Semitism of any form is unacceptable and the leaders of the free world should be unambiguous about that," he said.

"Blaming "both sides" for #Charlottesville?! No. Back to relativism when dealing with KKK, Nazi sympathizers, white supremacists? Just no," she tweeted.

Florida senator and former Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio sent out a flurry of six back-to-back tweets that said, "The organizers of events which inspired & led to #charlottesvilleterroristattack are 100% to blame for a number of reasons."


These conservatives are right. No hedging, no "buts..." No, "Now is not the time..." Just "No. It's wrong. The racists and the nazis are wrong. NOT the crowd. It's not 50% of the blame goes to the nazis.

Do you guys think they're right? Should Trump apologize? Are his false moral equivalency comments repulsive to you?

Since I've never said that all conservatives are wrong on this point, I'm more than glad to point to some who are right.

BUT, there IS a problem in the GOP. I'm not saying it's ALL the conservatives, just noting the reality that there is a problem... people like these nazis and racists self-identify as conservative. They love Trump. Trump encourages them, according to them.

We warned everyone that Trump was giving tacit support and encouragement to the deplorables and this weekend proves it. We MUST unite together in nipping this in the bud and uniting together begins by recognizing this is a Nazi problem, not a problem "on all sides." NOT comparing the BLM to the KKK. NOT saying, "but they do it, too." Just NO. Nazis are not going to be part of our story. The KKK is not going to be part of the story.

And since these are white folk, it is incumbent upon white folk to lead the way in going out of our way to denounce them and marginalize them.

And since these are self-identified conservatives (who, let's face it, clearly are not liberals and who do value many of the same tenets that at least the Trump wing of "conservatism" has endorsed, including the Wall, the demonization of latinos and Muslims and, too often, black folk), it is incumbent upon conservatives to go above and beyond in marginalizing these people. When they're our family, we must confront them. We must let them know that taking arms to a "peaceful rally" is NOT how peaceful rallies are done in our nation. We must let them know that the KKK is not okay, that nazis are not okay.

These conservatives have it right. Good on them.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

Craig, about your coming here in agreement with me, I don't think you know what I'm saying, as it does not appear you ARE agreeing with me. Your first comments here...

Hateful, violent, actions are repellant under all circumstances.

Art, while I agree that you raise some valid concerns, this is not the time. It's virtually impossible to have a rational conversation about the extremists on both sides...


And then, later...

I don't know, but what I heard Trump say was pretty condemnatory

My point is NOT that all conservatives are racists or harboring racists, but that Trump and his team and his supporters are. There are not comparisons between BLM and KKK. There are not dangerous groups in general on both sides.

The problem IS the KKK. It IS the Nazis.

It's not BLM. It's not people who are pushing back against Nazis.

Liberals certainly may have elements (infinitesimally tiny percentages, especially as compared to the alt right) that are finding it difficult to establish appropriate lines in fighting racism and fascism and Nazism, but fighting back against these legitimate evils and perhaps crossing a line is not the same as being the actual evil itself.

Trump erred in not strongly condemning the Nazis, etc AND in suggesting that the "all sides" were equally violent.

So, I don't know if that helps you understand where you and I are disagreeing and why I was pushing for you to clearly join the conservatives I quoted who did not make false equivalencies and specifically rejected the comparisons.

FWIW.

Dan

Craig said...

You say you blame adults who were KKK members, yet you can't even acknowledge the affront of the democrats electing a Klan member well into the 21st century. That says enough for me to not take you seriously.

As far as trying to stop a repeat of NAZI Germany, don't you think your overreacting just a tiny bit.

While you are free to make vast sweeping generalizations about what some people might or might not have done or felt, I don't see any value in that sort of thing.

Do you recognize that virtually no one disagrees with your "goal", yet we also realize that yelling "The NAZI's are coming!", is just a bit hysterical given the reality of the situation.

I've already mentioned one conservative blog that has denounced what happened, another is the Conservative Millenial. I've also mentioned many conservative elected officials who have done the same thing. The fact that you've chosen to ignore that isn't my problem, the fact that you've finally acknowledged what I've been saying for days just makes you late to acknowledging reality. I'm going to suggest that the reason you haven't seen any is that you haven't looked.

Thank you for clarifying my impressions of your point. You are (and have been) much less concerned with condemning violence on the left (you continue to provide excuses not to do so), than in using one incident involving a small group of people as a club to express your hatred of Trump.

Your main complaint seems to be that these people all "support Trump", do you realize how ridiculous it is to hold Trump responsible for what others say. Do you realize that, Trump has continued to make statements condemning these folks. Do you realize that the Trump justice department is actively pursuing federal charges against them.

Look, you may disagree with my point that all of this violence is bad. Yet you've managed to ignore the fact that ANTIFA showed up armed and ready for a fight, yet you can't even say one thing about that. You can't even chide them for not using non violent techniques.

I'm sorry that you hold conservatives to so much higher standards than you do liberals. I'm sorry that you choose to see disagreement where none exists. I'm sorry that you can't or won't acknowledge that this small group of people who call themselves "conservative" are just that. A small group of fringe extremists.

Finally, the fact that you actually believe that conservatism is even compatible with NAZIsm, just demonstrates your unwillingness to grasp the basic tenets of either.

So why don't you start with the two blogs I've mentioned, then try Glenn Beck, Michael Merced. After that, if you type in "www.google.com" into the search bar of your browser, you can learn all sorts of interesting things.

Craig said...

One last thought, you'd have so much more credibility on this had you not remained virtually silent when violent left win groups laid siege and threw Molotov cocktails at a police station, when the governor of a state fled the governors mansion in fear, when mobs of people dropped large rocks on police officers, when a sniper shot 5 police officers in Dallas, when mobs destroy public property, and on and on.

That's your problem. You've decided that this one instance of violence justifies getting "fucking" " pissed as hell", and all of the other violence justifies silence. The problem isn't a false equivalence, it's the fact that you pretend that this is one sided.

You're other credibility issue is the fact that both in this case and in the past, you (and Sanders and P-BO) have said virtually what Trump said in his first statement, yet you hold Trump to a different standard, than yourselves.

The fact that you not only ignore the area of agreement, but actively attempt to deny it is just icing on the whole hypocritical cake.

I can't ignore the fact that you've chosen to ignore the clear teachings of Jesus on forgiveness and grace in favor of being "fucking" "pissed as hell", as well as ignoring my answers to the questions you've asked.

So, feel free to wallow in your emotional reaction if it helps.

Craig said...

Sorry, Michael Medved, not Merced.

Dan Trabue said...

So, in summation...

I asked if you understood that we have real concerns that there are armed Nazis joining up with armed racists, walking our streets looking for a fight and asked if you realized that we had genuine concerns and didn't want to see our nation even begin move towards what Nazi Germany was. You responded...

don't you think your overreacting just a tiny bit.

So, it appears you are saying, "No, I do not understand that you all are genuinely concerned and acting in ways to try to prevent anything like Nazi Germany happening here."

Got it.

You also said...

yelling "The NAZI's are coming!", is just a bit hysterical given the reality of the situation.

And what puzzles us is that the Nazis ARE marching in our streets, armed and looking for a fight, and outright saying that they have been emboldened and empowered by the GOP's election of Trump. What is hysterical about pointing out reality and saying, "Hell no!"?

But I don't think you get it, so, I don't know that there's anything to explain.

I asked if you understood, along with the many conservative politicians I cited, that Trump was wrong... that there IS no blame "on all sides" on last weekend?

Yet you've managed to ignore the fact that ANTIFA showed up armed and ready for a fight, yet you can't even say one thing about that.

And so, it appears that you do not understand. You appear to want to conflate armed Nazis looking for a fight and emboldened by our president, to people showing up to oppose NAZIs.

Here again, I don't think you get it, so, I don't know that there's anything left to explain.

I don't think it would help you to hear (if you didn't know already) that this "small group of fringe extremists" who proudly identify as Nazis and racists number in the hundreds of thousands, maybe in the millions... and the number is growing since the election of Trump because, as noted by many reasonable conservatives, Trump is empowering and emboldening fucking Nazis.

So, okay, let's say it's "only" one million armed Nazis looking for a fight. That is only a "small fringe" group to you and we're "hysterical" for pointing out that reality... but the number is growing. At what point will there be enough armed Nazis looking for a fight that you think it's worthy of being concerned about? Two million? Ten million?

Also, I asked you if you realized what a crock it is to say, "But the KKK was a Democrat supported thing!" without also publicly acknowledging the reality of the Southern Strategy. You've hemmed and hawed on that, trying to link people back to what they did as children and young adults, before they repented and became changed or adult people. (also, STILL you have not cited anything about Soros, so I still don't know what charge you're making, only some vague "collusion" charge of a child).

You don't appear to get how offensive that is to African Americans and other right-minded people, as if the Dems of 60 years ago are somehow the same thing as the party that African Americans vote for almost unaminously.

If you don't get it, I don't see how to explain it to you. So, good luck.

Thank you for saying that there exists a conservative blog that talked about the weekend (although, the conservative millenial blog I looked up had nothing to say about it and I can't find any mention of an earlier blog reference from you...). As to your false charge that I haven't looked for any, i directly said that I looked at all of Marshall's links. I also looked at all of Stan's links. (Many of both of those are broken/old, by the way) And I did a google search. I noted that I turned up Mohler and I noted that in reality, I would guess that many of the "bigger" blogs would have posted on it. I was specifically interested in the "small timers."

Craig said...

Not at all, I'm suggesting that you are overreacting to one incident. I'm suggesting that folks on your side suggesting that denying people's constitutional right to free speech is overreacting. I'm suggesting that it's possible to denounce the actions taken, without living in fear of a putsch.

Yes. I'm suggest that for a pacifist to support violence is strange. Yes I'm suggesting that when armed groups show up prepared for a violent confrontation, that they might share a portion of the blame.

I have to love how you magically creat "millions" of crazed NAZI's bent on taking over the country out of thin air.

I did cite the Soros interview, you're just too lazy to look for it, and just keep making excuses for Byrd. BTW, what political party was in control when all these statues were erected? Oh, let's not forget that I cited the Soris thing as an example of hypocrisy, and noticing else.

Please. Please, show me 1 million armed NAZI's looking for a fight. And yes, even your mythical 1 million is a tiny percentage of the 330 million population of the US. Let's not forget, that you used the "small percentage" argument to justify your lack of concern with Islamic terrorism, so once again you hold yourself to a lower standard than you do others.

Again, if you haven't been able to find my earlier reference that's on you not me, and as far as the conservative millennial she's been all over Facebook, but "that's not a blog...". The fact that you've chosen to limit your search to "blogs" and ignore the other conservative media again raised questions of your credibility. I also find it interesting that you sort of admit that the majority of conservatives and the "bigger" blogs are in agreement in calling out the evil being perpetrated, yet you choose to discount that in a search for "small" obscure blogs that you hope will give you ammunition. I haven't addressed it in my blog, because I don't see the need to write a post that says "Racism and fascism are bad.", because it's redundant and self evident to the vast majority of Americans. I also don't see the need to simply spew hated and expletives and simply go down the one sided rabbit hole that so many are doing.

What's most interesting is that even now, you are unwilling to address the many instances of violence from your side of things and to acknowledge that the problem of using violence and coercion as political tools crosses ideological lines and is always wrong. Your irrational blaming of Trump for the thoughts and actions of others would be strange, but for your unwillingness to deal with people as individuals rather than as members of groups.





Craig said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan Trabue said...

One final bit of data on the whole notion that it's just silly to be concerned about a few Nazis...

According to this poll, 25% of Americans (not just Trump supporters...) will follow him no matter what...

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-roughly-one-in-four-americans-say-1502815844-htmlstory.html

IF it's reasonable to think that the Nazis and racists fall in that 25% - and given the alarming notion that 1/4th of the citizens can't think of anything Trump would do that would lose their support! - then it is a reasonable question to wonder, how large a percentage of that 25% are Nazis and violent racists of the sort that we saw this weekend? I don't think we know the answer to that. BUT, given that these types of violent idiots are growing in numbers, reasonable people would worry if 1%, 5%, 25%! of the nation were moving in that direction.

Again, it begs the question, what number of armed nazis violently looking for a fight is too many for you?

Also, it begs the question, Why would someone conflate those who rise up in violence AGAINST that sort of violence are equivalent?

Dan

Craig said...

Let's try this.

NAZIsm is an evil ideology and those who seek to bring it back are completely wrong in doing so

Racism is wrong under any and all circumstances.

Communism is an evil ideology and those that want to bring it back or who idolize the men who engaged in massive evil are wrong to do so.

Identify politics is an inherently divisive philosophy.

Violence, threats, coercion, and force are completely unacceptable ways to drive change in a representative republic.

Clear enough?

Craig said...

I've been quite clear, that armed thugs of any ideology have no place in the US political process.

The fact you can make some assumptions about the results of one poll, is clearly not in any representative of reality.

Thank you so much for confirming what I've thought for years. That all pacifism is a matter of degrees, not absolutes. You've just endorsed armed violent counter protests to because you're "fucking" "pissed as hell".

So thanks for that, and the vast amounts of my comments you've chosen to ignore.

Dan Trabue said...

That's a good start. (Although, you mistakenly conflate "communism" - which might have many forms - with totalitarian communism, which is indeed, evil. Not all communism necessarily is totalitarianism. Indeed, some would argue that communism and totalitarianism should be incompatible.)

But otherwise, that's a good start.

Now, can you also add...

When one group concerned about violence from Nazis or racists responds with violence, to conflate the two sides as if they were equally responsible is wrong and part of the problem and what the Nazi-types depend upon to further their agenda.

It is wrong to say "The Dems were racist 60+ years ago..." as if to suggest that racism was the invention of liberals or the Dems. And when people do that in defense of GOP racism/concerns, they come across as defending the racists?

We all need to unite against Nazism and racism and not allow it to have a foothold in the public debate AND if a sitting president or party is encouraging or promoting it, that is a serious problem and all sides need to unite against that president.

You're starting off good. Keep it going.

Dan

Dan Trabue said...

And suffice to say that most of what you are saying I'm saying, I'm not.

Clearly, I have never defended or encouraged violence. Saying, "People hitting someone who started a fight are not to blame, it's the ones who started the fight" is not the same as defending it. It's explaining the difference and noting that it's a vital difference.

I've ignored your comments like this where what you are saying is not reality based and is as stupid as hell. I'd sorta like to deal with them, but you're keeping me busy just trying to deal with the point of the post and there is so much to unpack in your comments that you just don't appear to even recognize that it takes all the free time I have.

Craig said...

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/mobile/article/news/nation-world/president-trump-denounces-racism-after-charlottesville-violence/464272732

http://www.kiro7.com/news/trending-now/president-trump-names-hate-groups-denouncing-charlottesville-violence/59146122

Maybe this is s better choice than arming yourself.

http://brokeassstuart.com/blog/2017/08/15/san-franciscans-plan-to-dance-in-face-of-white-nationalist-rally/

Try Black Tea Patriots and Rocky Mountain Blacj conservatives or mind of Jamal. For some perspectives that might differ from yours.

Craig said...

I've never said both sides were equally responsible.

Why should any of us deny the history of overt and systematic racism in the Democratic Party. In much the same way as removing statues that represent part of our history doesn't change the reality of that history. Simply demanding that I regurgitate your opinion doesn't change the reality of history.

I agree that if a sitting elected official is actively promoting any sort or racism that all people should oppose that.

Once again thank you for confirming that your pacifism is situational and not absolute. The fact that you have to misrepresent what I've said to justify your support of violence is amusing.

Theses plenty of stuff you've ignored that constitutes worthwhile counters to your argument and examples of your selectivity.

The reality is that we're having two different conversations. You've chosen to focus on only one side of a disturbing and increasing trend that's increased over the past few years. While I'm trying to broaden the discussion and ask some larger questions. Even after all of this, you won't even begin to acknowledge, let alone unequivocally condemn the racially driven violence from the left.

Craig said...

Re: communism, since there has never been a communist government that wasn't totalitarian it seems silly to ignore history in favor of theory.

Anonymous said...

If Bob is beating up someone and Jane intervenes and punches Bob until he is no longer a threat, do you have two bad guy aggressors or do you have one bad guy and one hero who, perhaps you wish they found a more non-violently way to stop the aggressor, but still, she's clearly the good guy?

Dan

Craig said...

Not strictly on topic, but any thoughts on all the love Iceland is getting for its final solution for Downs Syndrome?

Craig said...

Dan,
Thank you for that, you don't know how much I appreciate you finally admitting that your pacifism has limits and that you do condone violence in certain circumstances.

Still a lot hanging, but who thought we'd get this.

Anonymous said...

Please answer the question.

Dan

Craig said...

In your limited analogy, you've set up so one guy is the "hero". How accurately that corresponds to the VA situation, I'm not sure. I've been away from news so I haven't been able to glean many details.

But, if the thugs were randomly walking around attacking people you would have a point. If the situation is otherwise, you might not.

Personally I'd prefer not to jump to any conclusion before I have more access to less biased reporting.

But again, thank you.

Marshal Art said...

"It's been four days now. Why the crickets?"

12 hour shifts, so bite me.

However, I've been trying to find an answer to one question: Just how many neo-nazis are there in the United States? Wiki says the largest nazi group in America is around 400 people across 32 states. Gonna take a helluva lotta them to get to "millions".

Other than that, I can only find the oft-repeated "stat" that there has been a 17% increase in hate groups since the election. Given that comes from the SPLC, who has a curious way of defining what constitutes a hate group (hating sexual immorality, for instance, has made the Family Research Council a hate group---as such, Dan, by hating neo-nazi ideology--to say nothing of neo-nazis themselves---would be a hate group), one would need to look deeply at such research that would come up with that stat. And as we're seeing here with Dan specifically, one site I checked (may have been SPLC--not sure--in a hurry here), chose to have a section speaking to a rise on anti-black attacks by whites, with no corresponding section for the reverse. This is curious given the chronicling of black mob action by Colin Flaherty.

I wonder how Antifa groups knew neo-nazis were coming armed and thus had to come armed themselves? I wonder who Antifa groups were preparing to defend against in all previous instances where they came masked and armed to riot and cause mayhem?

Gotta go. One more 12 hour shift to endure.

Anonymous said...

if the thugs were randomly walking around attacking people you would have a point. If the situation is otherwise, you might not.

So, it appears you are answering (and really, why not just answer the question asked of you when we are establishing principles and groundwork... You aren't committed to it when the details change) the question: IF someone is beating up someone and someone punches them to make them stop it, then YES, the person stopping the beating - albeit with a punch - is the HERO, not a second villain.

Is that correct? It's what I'm hearing you say, then we agree on that principle.

Given that agreement, then this comment seems a bit snarky...

Thank you for that, you don't know how much I appreciate you finally admitting that your pacifism has limits and that you do condone violence in certain circumstances.

We apparently BOTH believe that, in principle, using some form of violence is not necessarily wrong or deserving of condemnation.

As to "finally admitting," this is just another example of you not actually understanding my position. Indeed, I lean pacifistic. BUT, I have been clear over the years that not all violence is equal. I was quite clear in the past that, for instance, a Nicaraguan family shooting at descending Contras who were intent on wiping them out, that this is not a situation I would condemn.

Not all violence is equal.

I've been clear, over the years, that I am fine with physical intervention to save lives, for instance. I've pointed out over the years that I've been trained in what was called at the time, Safe Physical Management, to try to physically stop a violent confrontation if it comes to it.

I've been clear that, while I don't condone it, burning a garbage can, for instance, or driving money changers out of the temple, for instance, is not necessarily wrong.

Not all violence is equal.

What I've been clear about is that violence that causes harm to innocent bystanders, THAT violence I am opposed to.

What I've been clear about over the years and now is that punching a rifle-carrying nazi who was threatening violence/trying to start a fight/trying to intimidate is NOT my preferred method of dealing with such childish men. It muddies the water (as we can see with you and Marshall and this ass of a president of ours)... "well, maybe there's violence on BOTH sides, so we can't really condemn the Nazis 'cause..."

So, no new "limits" or revelations on my part. I've been quite consistent. It's just more likely an instance of you not understanding where I've stood all these years.

As an aside, you said, several years ago...

I'm suggesting that using violence against a person or group, who are engaging in behavior that can only be called evil, to prevent that person or group from perpetrating said evil on innocents has historically been justifiable.

http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2014/08/research-confirms-peace-works.html

So it appears that yes, you DO agree with the principle (unless something has changed) that I'm speaking of. So, then, the question is whether or not you deem self-proclaimed Nazis and racists armed and marching around with torches trying to intimidate and start fights can be called "evil."

I say yes. You?

~Dan

Craig said...

Of course I've historically said violence is sometimes justified, I've been incredibly clear on that for ever. As far as them marching around, I stand with the Supreme Court in agreeing that all speech, no matter how repugnant is protected by the first amendment. That the more repugnant the speech, the more protected that speech should be. I also stand with the Supreme Court, that ones right to swing ones fist ends when it strikes someone else's nose. So while I find it repugnant when people express ideas I find to be horrific. I also find it to be protected. Where I find the problem is when speech turns to action. While this might seem equivocal, it's more than I want the be as clear as possible, against the probability that my views would be misrepresented.

As for you, I said years ago that pacifism in a spectrum, not an absolute and now we know where your line is. For that I say thank you.

Yet, you can't seem to stop misrepresenting my comments, I've never (nor have I seen either Trump or Art) said that "We can't really condemn the NAZI's...". I find it hard to take you seriously when you misrepresent something so simple.

I need to point out that I've "asked" numerous questions on this post, but have intentionally not formatted them as questions to make the point that I didn't think you would answer them, and therefore I chose not to play that game.

With that in mind, one question.

Under what circumstances does one feel justified that it is appropriate take a home made flame thrower to a counter protest?

I also have to say that finding strictly fact based, non biased reporting on the events is more difficult than I thought it would be.

As I sit here I'm listening to a young woman of color describing who was covering a march for a news organization who was physically threatened and attacked by the ANTIFA folks at an allegedly peaceful protest. Not in any way to minimize the culpability of the racists, but it seems more and more apparent that ANTIFA, in a general sense, is not the peaceful, defensive group that the narrative would suggest.



Craig said...

Sorry, the young woman of color was covering what was supposed to be a peaceful rally, when she was threatened and attacked by ANTIFA folks.

I'm not using this to justify any actions on the part of the racists, just to raise questions about the role ANTIFA has assigned itself and why these stories don't get the media attention. The fact that too many on the left will excuse or ignore this behavior is pretty much a given at this point.

When I have better access I'll try to provide more detail.

Anonymous said...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/537048/

Antifa has their problems and we need to deal with that, too. But they ain't Nazis.

Dan

Craig said...

Once again, I never said they were. They just seem to get a free pass from too many folks on the left.

Just curious, I've asked you two questions in this thread and was wondering if you might have time to answer them at some point?

Anonymous said...

They are mostly a new phenomena. From what I've seen, they're not much on anyone's radar screen, at least before this. In our weekly "Socialists Taking Over the World" meetings, we've not discussed them any, thus far.

I'm guessing now they'll start getting more coverage and, if they continue their established ways (ie, an embrace of illiberal, anarchist views, including some violence), they'll get more and more rebukes such as the one I cited.

As I argued in my essay, some of their tactics are genuinely troubling. They’re troubling tactically because conservatives use antifa’s violence to justify—or at least distract from—the violence of white supremacists, as Trump did in his press conference. They’re troubling strategically because they allow white supremacists to depict themselves as victims being denied the right to freely assemble.

And they’re troubling morally because antifa activists really do infringe upon that right. By using violence, they reject the moral legacy of the civil-rights movement’s fight against white supremacy. And by seeking to deny racists the ability to assemble, they reject the moral legacy of the ACLU, which in 1977 went to the Supreme Court to defend the right of neo-Nazis to march through Skokie, Illinois.


~Dan

Anonymous said...

Not sure what questions you're thinking of.

I see this one...

In case I missed it, can you show me where you got even a fraction of this worked up when one of "your guys" shot/shot at GOP representatives and staffers?

It's bad that some individual shot at the GOP people. Of course. I've never said anything to suggest otherwise. As Bernie Sanders said, "I am sickened by this despicable act. Let me be as clear as I can be. Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society, and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms."

I haven't gotten as worked up about that tragedy because

1. The shooter was was not part of a larger problem. He was a lone wolf, and who knows what causes someone to go nuts like that? It sure isn't an embrace of progressive values.

2. It's apples and oranges comparing a lone wolf who goes off to organized Nazis and racists who are getting tentative support/encouragement from the president of the US.

That question? I didn't answer because it was a rather ridiculous question.

This question?

what's your answer? Deny people you disagree with their conditional rights? Pass laws banning them from supporting or voting for whatever candidates they choose?

My answer is to not - as a party - vote for a race baiting, mentally ill president who gives aid and comfort and encouragement to Nazis and racists. To do what it takes to excise the overt racists and Nazis from your midst.

And, if you find that your policies are attracting and encouraging racists and Nazis, maybe recognize that perhaps there is something wrong with your policies.

Trump is a problem. No, you can't control that racists and Nazis are attracted to your policies (well, unless maybe that gives you a hint that there's something wrong with your policies) and that perhaps they're there in sufficient numbers to win you the election. BUT, you could - all the moral and decent GOP representatives united as one - refuse to work with this president that is giving comfort to racists and Nazis.

If Trump had run and won as a Democrat, I'd be encouraging all the Dems to pledge non-cooperation, at least on most points. He is a fundamentally problematic president. He should not be cooperated with unless it's an objectively good item he's working on.

That question?

~Dan

Craig said...

Nope, the last two questions I asked. But I appreciate you answering.

I have to say that 1. Your expression of distress over the GOP folks shot in cold blood is touching and your condemnation of that liberal shooter is stirring. I do thank you for pointing out Sanders response, which you seem happy with. That's strange, because he said virtually the same thing that has you so "pissed as hell" about Trump.

2. So much for you not broad brushing the GOP.

Anonymous said...

Okay, looking for question marks that appear before your request about "two questions," find this one...

With that in mind, one question.

Under what circumstances does one feel justified that it is appropriate take a home made flame thrower to a counter protest?


The answer is, of course, none. Duh.

And I find this fun one from Marshall...

wonder how Antifa groups knew neo-nazis were coming armed and thus had to come armed themselves?

The answer to which is: They're ultra-conservative, racist fucking neo-nazi boys who don't feel secure without their widdle guns. That's what dicks like this do. It's not rocket science.

But that's not your other question.

Before that, I see your question about Down Syndrome...

any thoughts on all the love Iceland is getting for its final solution for Downs [sic] Syndrome?

Answer: I know nothing about this. In looking it up, I find this story...

Prenatal testing is optional in Iceland, but the government mandates that doctors notify women of that option. About 85 percent of expectant mothers undergo the test, and close to 100 percent of those women choose to abort if their child is diagnosed with Down syndrome. Just two children with Down syndrome are born in Iceland each year, often as the result of faulty testing.

Where women can choose how to deal with their unborn fetuses. It saddens me that so many women would choose to abort for this reason (if the story is legit), and I would fully support education to help women make what, in MY HUMAN MIND, is a better decision. But I don't support any efforts to take that choice away from the woman and her family.

Here's the Snopes clarification of the story...

http://www.snopes.com/iceland-eliminated-syndrome-abortion/

where it notes that in the US, the rate is closer to 68% choosing abortion in the case of Down Syndrome. I find that appalling, regardless. But, I am not the one to make that call for that family, they are.

I wish conservatives weren't so dogmatic about it all. I bet we could find some common ground where combinations of efforts at better birth control/birth prevention, perhaps better options to abortions and better education about disabilities and other factors could reduce the number of abortions and the what I fear may be a tendency sometimes to abort for what are morally questionable reasons.

But I still believe that the family is the one to make that call, not the state.

And unfortunately, too many in the conservative wing take the "baby killer" tact, which doesn't leave much room for common ground.

I'm guessing you think the state should make the decision?

If those aren't the questions you're looking to have answered, perhaps you should just ask them again, instead of me hopping around trying to guess what you want answered.

~Dan

Craig said...

That got pretty convoluted. So you do think that Iceland's final solution to rid their country of Downs Syndrome is an appropriate, rational course of action.

How many babies killed because of false positives on the test is an acceptable number for you.

I guess some people just can't be that cavalier about ending a human life.

But I'll give you credit, you did finally answer. I also have to give you credit for realizing that what you started out believing were noble heros defending the world from fascism, were really just trying to impose a different sort of fascism. Again, I congratulate you on your progress.

If you're actually asking a question, I find it appalling that anyone can condone such an act of brutal violence on a human being that is completely and utterly defenseless. Do I have a problem with the state limiting people's ability to do this, yes I do.

Unfortunately, you choose to pretend that the DFL, is just as intransigent and stubborn as you perceive pro lifers to be.



Marshal Art said...

"The answer to which is: They're ultra-conservative, racist fucking neo-nazi boys who don't feel secure without their widdle guns. That's what dicks like this do. It's not rocket science."

They are not "ultra-conservative" at all, failing to promote actual conservative ideals. They more closely resemble you and other socialists. But apparently, the Antifa boys don't feel all that secure, either, as they never show up without weapons of their own. Oh, yeah. They're heroically fighting fascism...as if they aren't fascists themselves.

More intelligent people than leftists would understand that ignoring the protest rally of the white nationalists would have resulted in absolutely no deaths, and thus no weapons by Antifa were required. But then, we're talking about lefties here, so intelligence doesn't factor into the equation. No. It was the Antifa people who came looking to mix it up and as a result, an innocent woman died, and possibly two others. Leave it to the lefties to handle things properly!

"It saddens me that so many women would choose to abort for this reason..."

...as opposed to other reasons, you mean? But why would any reason sadden you as you don't find abortion to be immoral?

"And unfortunately, too many in the conservative wing take the "baby killer" tact..."

It's a baby, and it was put to death. The term is appropriate. Don't lie about it.

"I'm guessing you think the state should make the decision?"

No. The people of the state should push for laws that include EVERYBODY when outlawing unjust, non-self-defense killing...commonly known as "murder". That would include protecting people about to be born. That's what a moral society would do.

Craig said...

Sorry.

...isn't just as intransigent..,

Look at what Liberals in Oregon just did, think that's a moderate, middle of the road position.

Anonymous said...

you do think that Iceland's final solution to rid their country of Downs Syndrome

You find my words to be provocative for saying "disappeared" when immigrants are detained and no one knows where they've gone (they've literally disappeared from society and their community) but you're fine with saying women and a whole nation who choose differently than you want them to choose have embraced a "final solution..."?

Hypocrisy, much?

Dishonesty, much?

~Dan