NationStates

Liriena wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote: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

They were also outnumbered here.
So i'll ask again, why do you seem to think they are only willing to initiate violence at their own rallies?

And why aren't you drawing a connection between the behavior of progressive demonstrators here, and progressive demonstrators in other contexts, like say, MRA meetings.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Vassenor wrote: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 you, I presume, have definitive proof the car was struck first?

Regardless, it still is murder and attempted because the woman who was killed and the people who were injured did NOT hit the car.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Staniel wrote:
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!".

If you're done peddling right-wing propaganda about the evils of progressive academia to defend fascists...

Vassenor wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
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.

That's why he said it'll be settled in court.

Liriena wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
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!".

If you're done peddling right-wing propaganda about the evils of progressive academia to defend fascists...

But it's totally self defence to kill leftists.

Torrocca wrote:

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

And you, I presume, have definitive proof the car was struck first?

Regardless, it still is murder and attempted because the woman who was killed and the people who were injured did NOT hit the car.

It would actually be manslaughter.

Thermodolia wrote:

Liriena wrote:We've hit peak centrism.

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

One can hate them all they want but that doesn't necessarily make physical violence permissible especially as a first strike.


Anyways, Charlottesville was depressing as hell. That terrorist with the car (at least it seems like the attack was politically motivated, I've heard some claims that the car was attacked or something right before the tragedy but I can't find any videos or sources that show what happened before it drove down that road) was shockingly awful. The dude getting beaten made my blood boil.

Honestly, in the end I'm left disappointed with it all. It's all the emotion I can dredge up at this point.

Napkiraly wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
And you, I presume, have definitive proof the car was struck first?

Regardless, it still is murder and attempted because the woman who was killed and the people who were injured did NOT hit the car.

It would actually be manslaughter.

More likely this is what the outcome will be as the jury will hedge on the question, imo.

Napkiraly wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
And you, I presume, have definitive proof the car was struck first?

Regardless, it still is murder and attempted because the woman who was killed and the people who were injured did NOT hit the car.

It would actually be manslaughter.

Ah, yes, the case of, "you sped at 40+mph down several city blocks directly at a very visible crowd of protesters and struck twenty of them, killing one. Clearly manslaughter!"

Vassenor wrote:

Liriena wrote:If you're done peddling right-wing propaganda about the evils of progressive academia to defend fascists...

But it's totally self defence to kill leftists.

Depends on the context tbh.

Don't have the time to go through every single video to come out of Charlottesville. This isn't a formal debate, this is a forum thread. How about you find video evidence that isn't lacking context to DISPROVE my points? By the way, for the man asking how we know antifa was there, there was that video on Twitter with that antifa member in tears because of how badly outnumbered they were.

Unified Kekistan wrote:How about you find video evidence that isn't lacking context to DISPROVE my points?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You're the one that made the claim that the counter-protesters struck first! Defend your damn point!

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Liriena wrote: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

They were also outnumbered here.

Fair enough. I misread my own source, and that was very, very dumb of me.

Ostroeuropa wrote:So i'll ask again, why do you seem to think they are only willing to initiate violence at their own rallies?

I don't. I think they are willing to initiate violence when and where it best suits them, be it through blatant provocation by invading spaces where they are not wanted or by committing hate crimes against individuals and smaller groups of people.

Also, fascist scum can be very PR savvy, and their propagandists surely know that violently disrupting somebody else's rally makes it easier for the general public to see them as the bad guys.

Ostroeuropa wrote:And why aren't you drawing a connection between the behavior of progressive demonstrators here, and progressive demonstrators in other contexts, like say, MRA meetings.

Because I'm not interested in getting dragged into a discussion about your anti-feminist grievances.

Unified Kekistan wrote:Don't have the time to go through every single video to come out of Charlottesville. This isn't a formal debate, this is a forum thread. How about you find video evidence that isn't lacking context to DISPROVE my points? By the way, for the man asking how we know antifa was there, there was that video on Twitter with that antifa member in tears because of how badly outnumbered they were.

Burden of proof does not work that way. You prove yourself right. We ain't gotta prove shit.

Torrocca wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:It would actually be manslaughter.

Ah, yes, the case of, "you sped at 40+mph down several city blocks directly at a very visible crowd of protesters and struck twenty of them, killing one. Clearly manslaughter!"

If he was actually being attacked and there was a reasonable cause to fear for his life, then yeah actually it would. His actions would be deemed to be self-preservation without the intent to actually kill someone. If there is a fire at a stadium and in the process I push someone to save my life and that person happens to die, I'd get hit with involuntary manslaughter or at best voluntary manslaughter.

Napkiraly wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Ah, yes, the case of, "you sped at 40+mph down several city blocks directly at a very visible crowd of protesters and struck twenty of them, killing one. Clearly manslaughter!"

If he was actually being attacked and there was a reasonable cause to fear for his life, then yeah actually it would. His actions would be deemed to be self-preservation without the intent to actually kill someone. If there is a fire at a stadium and in the process I push someone to save my life and that person happens to die, I'd get hit with involuntary manslaughter or at best voluntary manslaughter.

And, again, we have zero evidence that he or his car were attacked before he plowed into a crowd of protesters. In fact, by the looks of the car from the several different videos showing angles of it, it looks perfectly unscathed before he even hits the crowd. I'm not buying into the, "oh the poor, innocent Nazi was attacked first!" off that alone.

Liriena wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
They were also outnumbered here.

Fair enough. I misread my own source, and that was very, very dumb of me.

Ostroeuropa wrote:So i'll ask again, why do you seem to think they are only willing to initiate violence at their own rallies?

I don't. I think they are willing to initiate violence when and where it best suits them, be it through blatant provocation by invading spaces where they are not wanted or by committing hate crimes against individuals and smaller groups of people.

Also, fascist scum can be very PR savvy, and their propagandists surely know that violently disrupting somebody else's rally makes it easier for the general public to see them as the bad guys.

Ostroeuropa wrote:And why aren't you drawing a connection between the behavior of progressive demonstrators here, and progressive demonstrators in other contexts, like say, MRA meetings.

Because I'm not interested in getting dragged into a discussion about your anti-feminist grievances.

1. It happens.

2. "Blatant provocation by invading spaces where they are not wanted " = violence. This is essentially my point that you and other progressives believe this constitutes violence, and how the consequence of that is that a core part of the ideology is violent disruption of protest. As for PR savvy, they're openly fascist, so no I don't really think so.

3. You're not interested in noticing a pattern of behavior you mean. I think it's an apt point.

The authoritarian nature of progressivism can also be seen in the google memo incident. Dissent is not tolerated, no matter the space.
You're also arguing that confederates aren't welcome at the statue of a confederate general.
I thought the entire point was that this made it a racist space and that needed to change. Surely, that's where they belong? But consistency be damned, it's a series of rationalizations and excuses as usual.

Unified Kekistan wrote:. How about you find video evidence that isn't lacking context to DISPROVE my points? By the way, for the man asking how we know antifa was there, there was that video on Twitter with that antifa member in tears because of how badly outnumbered they were.

You made the point, prove it and provide evidence for it.

There was a video there? No one made a back up on the internet time machine? No evidence that the video you are speaking of existed?

Napkiraly wrote:It would actually be manslaughter.

They guy was charged with second degree murder, so no.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:It would actually be manslaughter.

They guy was charged with second degree murder, so no.

Yes, but if it comes out there is evidence that he was being attacked I guarantee his defense lawyers will be pushing for a manslaughter conviction.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:It would actually be manslaughter.

They guy was charged with second degree murder, so no.

Generally outside of negligence cases you don't get charged with manslaughter. You get charged with murder and the jury decides if the defences presented in court knock it down to manslaughter.

Vassenor wrote:

Liriena wrote:If you're done peddling right-wing propaganda about the evils of progressive academia to defend fascists...

But it's totally self defence to kill leftists.

May not be self defense, but it is a civil service.

Torrocca wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:If he was actually being attacked and there was a reasonable cause to fear for his life, then yeah actually it would. His actions would be deemed to be self-preservation without the intent to actually kill someone. If there is a fire at a stadium and in the process I push someone to save my life and that person happens to die, I'd get hit with involuntary manslaughter or at best voluntary manslaughter.

And, again, we have zero evidence that he or his car were attacked before he plowed into a crowd of protesters. In fact, by the looks of the car from the several different videos showing angles of it, it looks perfectly unscathed before he even hits the crowd. I'm not buying into the, "oh the poor, innocent Nazi was attacked first!" off that alone.

Hence my usage of "If he was actually attacked".

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
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.

Eh? Actually showing up armed and armored in mass is not about being peaceful.

What rights are they discussing the removal of a statue in a city where they don't live?

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Liriena wrote:Fair enough. I misread my own source, and that was very, very dumb of me.


I don't. I think they are willing to initiate violence when and where it best suits them, be it through blatant provocation by invading spaces where they are not wanted or by committing hate crimes against individuals and smaller groups of people.

Also, fascist scum can be very PR savvy, and their propagandists surely know that violently disrupting somebody else's rally makes it easier for the general public to see them as the bad guys.


Because I'm not interested in getting dragged into a discussion about your anti-feminist grievances.

1. It happens.

2. "Blatant provocation by invading spaces where they are not wanted " = violence. This is essentially my point that you and other progressives believe this constitutes violence, and how the consequence of that is that a core part of the ideology is violent disruption of protest. As for PR savvy, they're openly fascist, so no I don't really think so.

3. You're not interested in noticing a pattern of behavior you mean. I think it's an apt point.

2. Yes, I do see some value in the idea that violence can also include actions and expressions other than the act of physically assaulting or murdering someone. Specially when a lot of physical violence has been the direct result of forms of this non-physical idea of violence.