Re: USA refugees Huh?
 

Accepting that both sides were entitled to attend and demonstrate, one cannot help but think that had those that were opposing the protest not attended, a few nutjobs would have attended and shouted whatever filth they wanted to, no one but the media would have taken any interest in that, one woman would still be alive and a number of others would not have been injured. Did the gains made by those opposing the protest justify the price paid?

Re: USA refugees Huh?
 

A few nut jobs today becomes a bigger movement tomorrow. No signal is sent, and more young men (and deranged old men) become persuaded that neo nazism is a viable philosophy. I found the very fact that they could march like that in public quite shocking. Full credit to those who stood them down.

Re: USA refugees Huh?
 

It’s America and the “freedom of speech” permitted there appears to be very different to what is permitted elsewhere. I make no comment as to whether that is a good or a bad thing.

There will always be nut jobs and one can argue that it is better to confront them, or better to ignore them, until one is blue in the face. I don’t believe that the price paid by the protesters justified the benefit they obtained.

Once again, I find it somewhat strange how those that argue for “confrontation” usually argue the exact opposite when dealing with North Korea. I can only assume that they believe that the potential of the “white supremacism” movement for death is significantly more than a nuclear armed North Korea could inflict in the Pacific.

Re: USA refugees Huh?
 

Let's forget the events of Charlotteville but examine the quote above, and only the quote above. I don't want to focus on this instance, we all think like this sometimes.

We readily give our opinions on this site and these betray some of our deepest thoughts. The fact that we consider some who we think of as 'nut jobs' indicates that their behaviour is completely incomprehensible to us to the extent that we think them mad. I would suggest that this generates a response that forces us to act to ensure that the so called 'nut jobs', these who we simply do not understand, aren't allowed to spread their heretic ideas.

All is well where such groups are universally condemned.. but what happens where the group is small but simply expounds ideas we find difficult to cope with? Where do we draw the line? What happens where such a group is at odds with current political, religious or even our own strong minority views?

We see intolerance wherever we look and it is up to us to personally stand back and control knee jerk responses. Something most posters would do well to consider.

We no longer burn witches at the stake because we now understand that they pose little threat to us.. but imagine being a 17th century christian at fear of our soul, we would unversally light the torch, an act we would now condemn and consider to be mad.. or are there witch burners still out there?

We should all be as afraid of those who seek to obliterate the spread of ideas that we disapprove of as we should the ideas themselves. Just last month a Thai man was jailed for 35 years for Facebook posts deemed insulting to the royal family, who do you think is the 'nut job' in this case?

What I'm suggesting is that when faced with someone whose activities we find difficult to understand, something every parent of a teenager will experience, we shouldn't lock them up or seek to batter them into submission but should stand back and ask ourselves 'is this idea one we can ignore, is it an existential threat or is it self limiting and will it fade away with time and can we live with it?' It is all too easy to get on our own high horse and act to silence those we disagree with.

Re: USA refugees Huh?
 

Why bewildered ? Looking at the television images of those in Berkeley smashing windows and other illegal acts because they objected to someone speaking on their campus with different views, it doesn't appear those protestors are exactly the most open-minded and tolerant of different views. I am not supporting either side, just pointing out the similarity of the mind-set between the two extremes, and to me the hypocrisy of claims to be tolerant except of those one doesn't agree with.

Re: USA refugees Huh?
 

And there's your problem. It should not be difficult to choose between Nazi and not-Nazi even if the latter is behaving badly.

Re: USA refugees Huh?
 

Who is talking about locking them up (apart from you)??

No need to stand back and muse on whether racist rhetoric may have a point (most opponents have already thought it through and know that it does not). Far better to call them out for being wrong and signal that their thinking is warped.

Re: USA refugees Huh?
 

One adversary has tiki torches and dodgy shields, the other a massive military and nuclear weapons. Not so strange IMO.

Re: USA refugees Huh?
 

I see. So you confront the one you are able to mock with words, but leave alone the one that has the potential to obliterate cities. If you don’t already work for the UN, you should apply for a position there. :p

Re: USA refugees Huh?
 

That is of course possible.

But did you see the HBO produced documentary that was linked to here?

They intend stepping up their game. One wonders what the next level to turning up armed and a "justified" death might be.

Re: USA refugees Huh?
 

Why would I need to support either side ? The neo-Nazi/KKK groups dont have any real traction in the American political process, the Antifa and similar people are more numerous and exhibit the same sort of totalitarian intolerant mindset as the neo-Nazi groups. It is a very slippery road when one starts justifying violence and intolerance against free speech that represents no practical threat.

Re: USA refugees Huh?
 

If you are white, not-Catholic, not-Jewish, not-gay, not a trades-unionist, not of Gypsy or Polish descent and untroubled by the suffering of others, I suppose it’s up to you.

Re: USA refugees Huh?
 

For those of you that support "Antifa" I suggest you read about the Nazi brownshirts and see the frightening similarities on how they operate and intimidate.

Re: USA refugees Huh?
 

Uniforms? pseudo-military titles? Murders of diplomats? Ransacking homes and destroying churches and cemeteries?

What have you been reading?:blink:

Re: USA refugees Huh?
 

“One can condemn the means of extralegal violence, and observe that the alt-right, Antifa, and the far-left have all engaged in it on different occasions, without asserting that all extralegal violence is equivalent––murdering someone with a car or shooting a representative is more objectionable than punching with the intent to mildly injure. What’s more, different groups can choose equally objectionable means without becoming equivalent, because assessing any group requires analyzing their ends, not just their means.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...matter/538320/

TL:DR Attacking Nazis is not as bad as being one.