Charlottesville: Where Do We Go From Here?

[Thermodolia]

Technically no. I'm part Native American. Seminole and muskogee to be exact

Close enough.

US government says I'm not. What do I know

[Ostroeuropa]

Strikes me as fairly irrelevant anyway.
It's like arguing over whether the french or british "Initiated" the murders at waterloo.

If you turned up, you knew what was going to happen. Removing anti-fa goons and only allowing or inviting "Good behavior" anti-fascist groups to protest one of these marches would answer the question definitively.

The oath-keepers for instance, don't ALWAYS cause a breakout of violence when they turn up, and argue they never have.
Anti-Fa DOES.

Thank you.

It's fairly ridiculous that the progressive memory hole problem has led so many to forget that papers and academics and progressive activists and such spent a long time arguing that Klan marches and such WERE violence, to give them license to respond with violence.

Remember the spencer punch?

Right, exactly.

Now, why would they have needed to perform such ridiculous mental gymnastics and put forward those arguments?
You know why. We all know why.

Only one of these factions has argued that they have license to perform violence when the other performs a demonstration. It's a written confession by hundreds of their activists in positions of power, and massively undermines the claim of "Well, they started it!".

[Thermodolia]

Yeah, it's their fault for not letting heavily armed actual fucking neo-nazis march through their streets. *nod*

We've hit peak centrism.

Hey now I'm pretty centrist but even I hate Nazis

[Genivaria]

We've hit peak centrism.

Hey now I'm pretty centrist but even I hate Nazis

That makes you human.

[Senkaku]

But showing up with guns and body armour is totally peaceful.

It is, yes. Violent intent cannot reasonably be assumed given the historical and cultural context of bearing arms in america, especially if the issue of "rights" is the topic at hand.

Lemme strut around your house with all my friends waving assault rifles and symbols that offend you and loudly talking about how we hate your political views, and see how you feel!

I'm sorry back up.
Did you just claim that the African climate and geography is actually EASIER then European?
*full face-desk*

Civilization fucking FLOURISHED in Europe because of the temperate climate and abundant natural resources as well as several inland rivers.
HOW can you have this so backwards?

Well, to be fair Africa also had temperate climates along the river deltas, and it does make sense that we do find their most advanced civilizations around a river and not in the middle of the jungle.

Having access to bodies of water does help with technology and social advances.

And that's why Africa's greatest civilizations were along the Niger and the Nile, but there's a whole list of reasons why things didn't go better for African states and why they didn't develop as much as Eurasia:

north-south axis preventing crop diffusion (as opposed to Eurasia's east-west axis), tsetse flies preventing large domesticated animals from being a thing (and malaria and stuff just generally killing ppl left and right), lack of natural ports (Europe has a longer coastline than Africa), terrain unsuited to agriculture (low-rainfall Sahara, super high-rainfall jungles of the Congo Basin), sheer distance from other cradles of civilization (Mesopotamia/Europe separated by the Sahara and oceans, China and India and the Americas separated by oceans)

Furthermore, the basic argument whoever started this whole nonsense proposed was "cold speeds up evolution", which is dumb and wrong. Firstly, evolution in most species proceeds at a more rapid rate in the tropics, with more species emerging there, and secondly, humans haven't been out of Africa long enough for "evolution" to do much of anything to us. Thirdly, Europe's climate is cooler than Africa's, but much of Africa is either arid or dependent on the monsoon (see: Ethiopian famines,

why am I even arguing about this smh it's dumb

[Ostroeuropa]

It is, yes. Violent intent cannot reasonably be assumed given the historical and cultural context of bearing arms in america, especially if the issue of "rights" is the topic at hand.

Lemme strut around your house with all my friends waving assault rifles and symbols that offend you and loudly talking about how we hate your political views, and see how you feel!

Well, to be fair Africa also had temperate climates along the river deltas, and it does make sense that we do find their most advanced civilizations around a river and not in the middle of the jungle.

Having access to bodies of water does help with technology and social advances.

And that's why Africa's greatest civilizations were along the Niger and the Nile, but there's a whole list of reasons why things didn't go better for African states and why they didn't develop as much as Eurasia:

north-south axis preventing crop diffusion (as opposed to Eurasia's east-west axis), tsetse flies preventing large domesticated animals from being a thing (and malaria and stuff just generally killing ppl left and right), lack of natural ports (Europe has a longer coastline than Africa), terrain unsuited to agriculture (low-rainfall Sahara, super high-rainfall jungles of the Congo Basin), sheer distance from other cradles of civilization (Mesopotamia/Europe separated by the Sahara and oceans, China and India and the Americas separated by oceans)

Furthermore, the basic argument whoever started this whole nonsense proposed was "cold speeds up evolution", which is dumb and wrong. Firstly, evolution in most species proceeds at a more rapid rate in the tropics, with more species emerging there, and secondly, humans haven't been out of Africa long enough for "evolution" to do much of anything to us. Thirdly, Europe's climate is cooler than Africa's, but much of Africa is either arid or dependent on the monsoon (see: Ethiopian famines,

why am I even arguing about this smh it's dumb

Strutting around a house could constitute harassment dependent on how long it took.
Strutting past a house would not.

[Genivaria]

Close enough.

US government says I'm not. What do I know

I had a next door neighbor once who was very proud of his native heritage, I once asked him "Oh you're part Native?" and he replied "No I'm part white."

Which took me by surprise at first.

[Senkaku]

Thank you.

It's fairly ridiculous that the progressive memory hole problem has led so many to forget that papers and academics and progressive activists and such spent a long time arguing that Klan marches and such WERE violence, to give them license to respond with violence.

Remember the spencer punch?

Right, exactly.

Now, why would they have needed to perform such ridiculous mental gymnastics and put forward those arguments?
You know why. We all know why.

Only one of these factions has argued that they have license to perform violence when the other performs a demonstration. It's a written confession by hundreds of their activists in positions of power, and massively undermines the claim of "Well, they started it!".

No one would be that torqued if it had been "some violence". In this case a fucking Nazi ran a bunch of people over with his car. I don't particularly care who started it, the white supremacist in this case was the fucking terrorist, and he was enabled by the mob of reactionary hooligans that decided to start this whole fucking retarded protest over a damn statue (aka white supremacist neo-Nazi snowflakes).

[Staniel]

Well, I'm done here. I'm getting tired. Thanks for those who debated me, and thanks for those who supported me on certain topics of this tragic story. So long.

[Senkaku]

Lemme strut around your house with all my friends waving assault rifles and symbols that offend you and loudly talking about how we hate your political views, and see how you feel!


And that's why Africa's greatest civilizations were along the Niger and the Nile, but there's a whole list of reasons why things didn't go better for African states and why they didn't develop as much as Eurasia:

north-south axis preventing crop diffusion (as opposed to Eurasia's east-west axis), tsetse flies preventing large domesticated animals from being a thing (and malaria and stuff just generally killing ppl left and right), lack of natural ports (Europe has a longer coastline than Africa), terrain unsuited to agriculture (low-rainfall Sahara, super high-rainfall jungles of the Congo Basin), sheer distance from other cradles of civilization (Mesopotamia/Europe separated by the Sahara and oceans, China and India and the Americas separated by oceans)

Furthermore, the basic argument whoever started this whole nonsense proposed was "cold speeds up evolution", which is dumb and wrong. Firstly, evolution in most species proceeds at a more rapid rate in the tropics, with more species emerging there, and secondly, humans haven't been out of Africa long enough for "evolution" to do much of anything to us. Thirdly, Europe's climate is cooler than Africa's, but much of Africa is either arid or dependent on the monsoon (see: Ethiopian famines,

why am I even arguing about this smh it's dumb

Strutting around a house could constitute harassment dependent on how long it took.
Strutting past a house would not.

I'm sure you'd be completely fine with it then, so long as I danced right up to the very edge of the legal limit. Hateful people waving killing machines isn't scary at all, right?

[Ostroeuropa]

It's fairly ridiculous that the progressive memory hole problem has led so many to forget that papers and academics and progressive activists and such spent a long time arguing that Klan marches and such WERE violence, to give them license to respond with violence.

Remember the spencer punch?

Right, exactly.

Now, why would they have needed to perform such ridiculous mental gymnastics and put forward those arguments?
You know why. We all know why.

Only one of these factions has argued that they have license to perform violence when the other performs a demonstration. It's a written confession by hundreds of their activists in positions of power, and massively undermines the claim of "Well, they started it!".

No one would be that torqued if it had been "some violence". In this case a fucking Nazi ran a bunch of people over with his car. I don't particularly care who started it, the white supremacist in this case was the fucking terrorist, and he was enabled by the mob of reactionary hooligans that decided to start this whole fucking retarded protest over a damn statue (aka white supremacist neo-Nazi snowflakes).

If a mob intends violence against you, and there's arguments put forward the car was struck first, which will ultimately be settled in court, self-defense would apply.

[Ostroeuropa]

Strutting around a house could constitute harassment dependent on how long it took.
Strutting past a house would not.

I'm sure you'd be completely fine with it then, so long as I danced right up to the very edge of the legal limit. Hateful people waving killing machines isn't scary at all, right?

Whether i'm okay with it or not doesn't matter. As you say, the edge of the legal limit. I agree that is the tactic the fascists often engage in, as well as many protesters throughout history have engaged in to bait authorities into cracking down and seeming disproportionate.
In this case, the "authority" being challenged is progressive mob rule.

I can criticize Mccarthyism without being a communist, you know, and get pissed off you're making commies look good.

An example of how anti-fascists are openly celebratory of initiating violence against fascist demonstrations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street

There's a long history of it, and even recently, tonnes of written apologia for the behavior to try and justify it.
Progressive violence and forceful suppression of alternative viewpoints is par for the course these days, and the justification of that violence is a large part of their discourse.
(For another example, remember the fire-alarm pull at MRA meetings, etc.)

Fascism may have violent ends, but violent or forceful disruption of protest is not necessarily a core part of the ethos as it seems to be with progressives. (For instance, did fascists turn up to violently attack the womens march? Nope.)

For that reason, I don't buy that the fascist side started this conflict. We have reams of evidence to suggest one of these groups is more likely to have been the culprit.

I just don't fucking buy it, and if you do, you aren't paying attention.

Explain to me how every fascist demonstration ends up having violent incidents, but not every progressive march, if fascists are violently opposed to progressive protest and not visa versa?

You can't, because it's absolute nonsense, peddled by progressive activists.

[Vassenor]

Strikes me as fairly irrelevant anyway.
It's like arguing over whether the french or british "Initiated" the murders at waterloo.

If you turned up, you knew what was going to happen. Removing anti-fa goons and only allowing or inviting "Good behavior" anti-fascist groups to protest one of these marches would answer the question definitively.

The oath-keepers for instance, don't ALWAYS cause a breakout of violence when they turn up, and argue they never have.
Anti-Fa DOES.

Thank you.

And you still haven't proved that Antifa was there.

[Thermodolia]

US government says I'm not. What do I know

I had a next door neighbor once who was very proud of his native heritage, I once asked him "Oh you're part Native?" and he replied "No I'm part white."

Which took me by surprise at first.

Hahaha

[Unified Kekistan]

Before you call me a liar, watch the non-news organization videos of the protests on YouTube for yourself. The media WILL lie about this, just as they did with Berkeley. My post was NOT apologia for the right. I wanted to objectively portray the events that occurred, where so many in this thread refuse to. The Unite the Right (catchy as fuck) members did not initiate the violence. You can't tell from the videos so I didn't say anything about it, but the right was probably instigating the left. Still. They did not. Hit. First. The left always hits first. They did at Berkeley, they did with Milo, they did with Richard Spencer, they did at the inauguration.

[Vassenor]

Before you call me a liar, watch the non-news organization videos of the protests on YouTube for yourself. The media WILL lie about this, just as they did with Berkeley. My post was NOT apologia for the right. I wanted to objectively portray the events that occurred, where so many in this thread refuse to. The Unite the Right (catchy as fuck) members did not initiate the violence. You can't tell from the videos so I didn't say anything about it, but the right was probably instigating the left. Still. They did not. Hit. First. The left always hits first. They did at Berkeley, they did with Milo, they did with Richard Spencer, they did at the inauguration.

So let's see your evidence then. Because random out-of-context youtube videos aren't evidence.

Newsflash: People on YouTube can lie too.

[Torrocca]

Before you call me a liar, watch the non-news organization videos of the protests on YouTube for yourself. The media WILL lie about this, just as they did with Berkeley. My post was NOT apologia for the right. I wanted to objectively portray the events that occurred, where so many in this thread refuse to. The Unite the Right (catchy as fuck) members did not initiate the violence. You can't tell from the videos so I didn't say anything about it, but the right was probably instigating the left. Still. They did not. Hit. First. The left always hits first. They did at Berkeley, they did with Milo, they did with Richard Spencer, they did at the inauguration.

If you're so cocksure that the counter-protesters initiated violence, surely you'd have 100% concrete proof to post here backing you up, no?

[Vassenor]

Before you call me a liar, watch the non-news organization videos of the protests on YouTube for yourself. The media WILL lie about this, just as they did with Berkeley. My post was NOT apologia for the right. I wanted to objectively portray the events that occurred, where so many in this thread refuse to. The Unite the Right (catchy as fuck) members did not initiate the violence. You can't tell from the videos so I didn't say anything about it, but the right was probably instigating the left. Still. They did not. Hit. First. The left always hits first. They did at Berkeley, they did with Milo, they did with Richard Spencer, they did at the inauguration.

If you're so cocksure that the counter-protesters initiated violence, surely you'd have 100% concrete proof to post here backing you up, no?

And if you have that why are you ranting on the internet rather than going to the authorities with it?

[Ostroeuropa]

Before you call me a liar, watch the non-news organization videos of the protests on YouTube for yourself. The media WILL lie about this, just as they did with Berkeley. My post was NOT apologia for the right. I wanted to objectively portray the events that occurred, where so many in this thread refuse to. The Unite the Right (catchy as fuck) members did not initiate the violence. You can't tell from the videos so I didn't say anything about it, but the right was probably instigating the left. Still. They did not. Hit. First. The left always hits first. They did at Berkeley, they did with Milo, they did with Richard Spencer, they did at the inauguration.

So let's see your evidence then. Because random out-of-context youtube videos aren't evidence.

Newsflash: People on YouTube can lie too.

Character evidence is evidence in and of itself.

I'll ask again:
Explain to me how every fascist demonstration ends up having violent incidents, but not every progressive march, if fascists are violently opposed to progressive protest and not visa versa?


Did fascists turn up to violently disrupt the womens march?

Imagine if you're a cop, and you've got conflicting stories.

Every tuesday, there's a call from this guy at someone elses house, and they've been in a fight. The person whose house it isn't says "He hates me, he wants to kill me, he started it." So does the other guy.

Every tuesday.

But the guy whose house it isn't?
There's never incidents at his house, no matter the day of the week.

Who do you believe?
Well, we already know who you believe, I just want you to try and explain why the hell you would, if not for duplicitous or insincere reasons.
Explain to us how you can come to believe such a thing, if you could.

[Aellex]

That makes you human.

Hath not a Nazi eyes?

[Vassenor]

Also it's still depressing the way people are trying to justify terrorism and murder because BUT THE OTHER SIDE IS JUST AS BAD or THE OTHER SIDE TOTALLY STRUCK FIRST SO THAT MAKES EVERYTHING OK BECAUSE YOUTUBE VIDEOS.

[Liriena]

Explain to me how every fascist demonstration ends up having violent incidents, but not every progressive march, if fascists are violently opposed to progressive protest and not visa versa?

Probably because they are usually outnumbered in progressive protests. Fascists can be massive cowards.

When they aren't vastly outnumbered, this happens: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/10/serbia-police-rioters-gay-pride

[Ostroeuropa]

Also it's still depressing the way people are trying to justify terrorism and murder because BUT THE OTHER SIDE IS JUST AS BAD or THE OTHER SIDE TOTALLY STRUCK FIRST SO THAT MAKES EVERYTHING OK BECAUSE YOUTUBE VIDEOS.

It's neither terrorism nor murder if the other side struck the car first, it is self-defense.

[Senkaku]

If a mob intends violence against you, and there's arguments put forward the car was struck first, which will ultimately be settled in court, self-defense would apply.

"well someone might've slapped the door, so it's fine he ran 20 people over, nbd" -ostro

[Vassenor]

Also it's still depressing the way people are trying to justify terrorism and murder because BUT THE OTHER SIDE IS JUST AS BAD or THE OTHER SIDE TOTALLY STRUCK FIRST SO THAT MAKES EVERYTHING OK BECAUSE YOUTUBE VIDEOS.

It's neither terrorism nor murder if the other side struck the car first, it is self-defense.

And no-one has actually proved that the car was struck first.