Race issues: Privileges, Relations, Racism and other related stuff

[Serovectra]

Rather than a citation-less piece, why not a video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TWCEV5U09c

That way you can see to just what degree both parties were involved. And how neither is innocent.

(Around the 5minute mark is the largest confrontation)

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Serovectra

Rather than a citation-less piece, why not a video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TWCEV5U09c

That way you can see to just what degree both parties were involved. And how neither is innocent.

(Around the 5minute mark is the largest confrontation)

Okay, so basically normal angry protesting until a hateful person drove a car through a crowd of people with the intention of killing them, and succeeding at least once while injuring many others.

Cool.

[Serovectra]

Originally Posted by Solace

Okay, so basically normal angry protesting until a hateful person drove a car through a crowd of people with the intention of killing them, and succeeding at least once while injuring many others.

Cool.

One person did that. It wasn't a group activity. The guy also had schizophrenia and was prescribed anti-psychotics. Clearly not all there in the head.

The hard truth is what Trump originally said was not inaccurate and the media tried their damnedest to make it seem like the protesters were all innocent bystanders.

If you think hitting someone over the head with a bat or punching an older man in the head and face is "normal" then we've been in a state of regression all these years.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Serovectra

One person did that. It wasn't a group activity. The guy also had schizophrenia and was prescribed anti-psychotics. Clearly not all there in the head.

The hard truth is what Trump originally said was not inaccurate and the media tried their damnedest to make it seem like the anti-protesters were all innocent bystanders.

If you think hitting someone over the head with a bat or punching an older man in the head and face is "normal" then we've been in a state of regression all these years.

Seriously man, nothing at protests is normal. I've been to a few myself. Anyone not expecting at least minor scuffles when a racist rally happens in public really hasn't paid attention to history.

But clearly the tragedy was the result of a crazy person who just happened to go full crazy on the day he went to a racist rally. It's comforting isn't it? To believe that, and not that he was actually momentarily sane but wicked enough to act upon sick impulses.

I don't give a fuck what Trump says. Only what he does. And he hasn't done anything except waste a lot of taxpayer money vacationing as President while his full time job appears to be a Twitter bot that constantly says stupid shit that pisses people off.

[MeoTwister5]

There is enough historical evidence to support that true blooded Nazi's don't need to have a psychiatric condition to provoke or justify murder. Likewise, trying to justify that a/the Nazi only became murderous because of their mental problem and not because, you know, it's in their doctrine to be such shows such ignorance it is somewhat sickening.

It's even worse trying to make some sort of moral equivalency between the opposing mentalities. Sure it became violent, but again the violence makes the protesters (Nazis and supremacists) and their counter protesters somehow the same? This apologist cognitive dissonance is so insane and ridiculous that anyone taking that stance should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

[Serovectra]

Originally Posted by Solace

Seriously man, nothing at protests is normal. I've been to a few myself. Anyone not expecting at least minor scuffles when a racist rally happens in public really hasn't paid attention to history.

And anyone not expecting serious injuries after hitting someone with a bat...hasn't paid much attention to physics. But this feels like a tangent, because the fact remains that both parties were violent, one did not exclusively instigate the other. They both had a permit, they both had a right to be there, and they both were violent.

But clearly the tragedy was the result of a crazy person who just happened to go full crazy on the day he went to a racist rally. It's comforting isn't it? To believe that, and not that he was actually momentarily sane but wicked enough to act upon sick impulses.

Who really knows? I just don't see how one incident from a single person makes everyone at the rally culpable for his actions.

I don't give a fuck what Trump says. Only what he does. And he hasn't done anything except waste a lot of taxpayer money vacationing as President while his full time job appears to be a Twitter bot that constantly says stupid shit that pisses people off.

Nor do I, but we're not everyone. Even if you don't like anything he does, there is no reason to cause a shitstorm on the occasions he does nothing wrong.

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

There is enough historical evidence to support that true blooded Nazi's don't need to have a psychiatric condition to provoke or justify murder. Likewise, trying to justify that a/the Nazi only became murderous because of their mental problem and not because, you know, it's in their doctrine to be such shows such ignorance it is somewhat sickening.

What is your point? In any other instance you would concede the fact that a person with schizophrenia could do some spontaneously crazy thing, but because he's been labeled a white nationalist you can't accept that. Did anyone else at the rally kill people? I honestly don't know his mindset, but his condition does classify him as medically insane.

It's even worse trying to make some sort of moral equivalency between the opposing mentalities. Sure it became violent, but again the violence makes the protesters (Nazis and supremacists) and their counter protesters somehow the same? This apologist cognitive dissonance is so insane and ridiculous that anyone taking that stance should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

I quantify people based on actions, not words. They both had the right to be there and speak their mind, they did not have the right to become violent. Both sides became violent, both sides are to blame.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Serovectra

Who really knows? I just don't see how one incident from a single person makes everyone at the rally culpable for his actions.

Because the right thing to do would be to express remorse for the death and distance from the criminal. Instead you get "the fat whore deserved it" and "too bad that was it". It's not like they told him to, or helped him do it, but they sure didn't mind it either.

Nor do I, but we're not everyone. Even if you don't like anything he does, there is no reason to cause a shitstorm on the occasions he does nothing wrong.

His job as President is to be a good man. Good men don't look at violence like that and then make it seem like both sides are equivalent. Good men express remorse, call for unity, and don't triple down on bad form. Plenty of other Republicans did. He should have known better, but he likes stirring the pot.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Serovectra

What is your point? In any other instance you would concede the fact that a person with schizophrenia could do some spontaneously crazy thing, but because he's been labeled a white nationalist you can't accept that. Did anyone else at the rally kill people? I honestly don't know his mindset, but his condition does classify him as medically insane.



I quantify people based on actions, not words. They both had the right to be there and speak their mind, they did not have the right to become violent. Both sides became violent, both sides are to blame.

No. My point is that his schizophrenia (if he really does have it) does not negate the fact that his ideology already predisposes him to violence as per their beliefs. It does not mitigate him of any and all responsibility. Was he more inclined to violence than the rest of them? Perhaps, but he was already on that road to begin with. This was not some random schizophrenic who suddenly got a command auditory hallucination to go run over people.

Also not all schizophrenics are automatically assumed to be predisposed to violence. There are multiple types of schizophrenia. To equate them together does a massive disservice to struggling schizophrenics wrestling with their condition.

It was a powder keg situation started by a group already predisposed to violence. You could claim that it was a matter of "if" and not necessarily "when", but you allowed an ideology that has a proven historical track record of violent genocidal tendencies to congregate. To be surprised that it eventually went down that road regardless of the mental state of the perpetrator is asinine.

Both sides provokes each other, yes, but only one side proudly raises it's genocidal ideology and is already factually predisposed to violent action.

[shadow1296]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

No. My point is that his schizophrenia (if he really does have it) does not negate the fact that his ideology already predisposes him to violence as per their beliefs. It does not mitigate him of any and all responsibility. Was he more inclined to violence than the rest of them? Perhaps, but he was already on that road to begin with. This was not some random schizophrenic who suddenly got a command auditory hallucination to go run over people.

Also not all schizophrenics are automatically assumed to be predisposed to violence. There are multiple types of schizophrenia. To equate them together does a massive disservice to struggling schizophrenics wrestling with their condition.

It was a powder keg situation started by a group already predisposed to violence. You could claim that it was a matter of "if" and not necessarily "when", but you allowed an ideology that has a proven historical track record of violent genocidal tendencies to congregate. To be surprised that it eventually went down that road regardless of the mental state of the perpetrator is asinine.

Both sides provokes each other, yes, but only one side proudly raises it's genocidal ideology and is already factually predisposed to violent action.

If they are already predisposed to violent action why provoke them. If a bear is already likely to start violence before you poke it with a sharp stick what do you think will happen after you poke it.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by shadow1296

If they are already predisposed to violent action why provoke them. If a bear is already likely to start violence before you poke it with a sharp stick what do you think will happen after you poke it.

It's a lose-lose situation. You could ignore them and play it "safe", but risk letting their ideology be heard, spread and likely have them act it out. You could confront them and find a way to stop their spread, but risk provoking them into action. Either way, there is a risk, and in ways society as a whole loses.

The only solution was to never have let it start in the first place. Hindsight is 20-20 and you can't really do that now. Now you either do nothing, or do something.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

It's a lose-lose situation. You could ignore them and play it "safe", but risk letting their ideology be heard, spread and likely have them act it out.

Not only heard but legitimized. In a "if it was bad, someone would do something, right?" way. Not to mention the message that they are too scary to confront and therefore should be agreed with.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Not only heard but legitimized. In a "if it was bad, someone would do something, right?" way. Not to mention the message that they are too scary to confront and therefore should be agreed with.

When good men do nothing, as the saying goes.

[Ithekro]

Why is it the first thing I think of in this situation the Blues Brothers getting tied of being held up in traffic by the Illinois Nazi and just running them off the road/bridge?

[Eisdrache]

I wonder how all these 'good people' ended up at a rally that was shouting Nazi slogans, waving Nazi flags and doing the Hitler salute? Must have been an accident.

There is no morally equivalent side to neo-nazis and the KKK, the whole 'both sides' argument was busted from the very beginning.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by shadow1296

If they are already predisposed to violent action why provoke them. If a bear is already likely to start violence before you poke it with a sharp stick what do you think will happen after you poke it.

Bears, unlike humans, aren't subject to following laws.

And if a bear showed up in a public place, well?

Though to be fair, the "bear" in this case isn't the initial protesters. It seems to me the fault comes from the police and their failure to enforce order.

[shadow1296]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

It's a lose-lose situation. You could ignore them and play it "safe", but risk letting their ideology be heard, spread and likely have them act it out. You could confront them and find a way to stop their spread, but risk provoking them into action. Either way, there is a risk, and in ways society as a whole loses.

The only solution was to never have let it start in the first place. Hindsight is 20-20 and you can't really do that now. Now you either do nothing, or do something.

Or not confront them because it's still there right to say what they say, America is still a country of free speech whether like it or not, whether like what they say or not, and as much you want to say confront because not confronting might might let their thought process spread and that is an if it did which considering it was Nazi's saying it it probably wasn't by not confronting no one would have gotten hurt or died, but because they did and to a group predisposed to violence as much as the media wants to spin it they weren't, they are just as responsible for that woman's death as the person who ran his car into there parade. And before you say not confronting them legitimizes them they already were because they were given the permits to hold that protest meaning as much as who hate it it was a legal legitimate protest even if you don't agree with their stance

[MCAL]

Originally Posted by shadow1296

Or not confront them because it's still there right to say what they say, America is still a country of free speech whether like it or not, whether like what they say or not, and as much you want to say confront because not confronting might might let their thought process spread and that is an if it did which considering it was Nazi's saying it it probably wasn't by not confronting no one would have gotten hurt or died, but because they did and to a group predisposed to violence as much as the media wants to spin it they weren't, they are just as responsible for that woman's death as the person who ran his car into there parade. And before you say not confronting them legitimizes them they already were because they were given the permits to hold that protest meaning as much as who hate it it was a legal legitimate protest even if you don't agree with their stance

Nice victim blaming. Would you like to say that in front of Heather Hayes' mother face?

[shadow1296]

Originally Posted by MCAL

Nice victim blaming. Would you like to say that in front of Heather Hayes' mother face?

Not blaming Heather Hayes blaming the group she was with, they came looking for a fight they got one and she died as a result, both groups were to blame and someone died as result, so yes I would tell that to her mother's face, because I am not saying that if she wasn't there she wouldn't have died, I am saying that if her group didn't pick a fight she wouldn't have died, and if I was her mother I would be blaming both groups because the actions of both groups killed her daughter

[MCAL]

Originally Posted by shadow1296

Not blaming Heather Hayes blaming the group she was with, they came looking for a fight they got and she died as a result, both groups were to blame and someone died as result, so yes I would tell that to her mother's face, because I am not saying that if she wasn't there she wouldn't have died, I am saying that if her group didn't pick a fight she wouldn't have died, and if I was her I would be blaming both groups

???

But Heather Hayes WAS part of the group she was with. How can you not blame her and yet blame the group who was there for the very same exact reasons she was there.

Also "if you were her you'd be blaming both groups" That's just complete BS. (http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-c...-of-legitimacy) Absolutely no one who thinks Nazi's are evil (Am I seriously needing to tell someone basic history 101 here) think Nazi's should be allowed to run over people or that the other side who are the target of torches and weapons and words of "Blood and soil" and "Jews will not replace us" is responsible.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by shadow1296

Or not confront them because it's still there right to say what they say, America is still a country of free speech whether like it or not, whether like what they say or not, and as much you want to say confront because not confronting might might let their thought process spread and that is an if it did which considering it was Nazi's saying it it probably wasn't by not confronting no one would have gotten hurt or died, but because they did and to a group predisposed to violence as much as the media wants to spin it they weren't, they are just as responsible for that woman's death as the person who ran his car into there parade. And before you say not confronting them legitimizes them they already were because they were given the permits to hold that protest meaning as much as who hate it it was a legal legitimate protest even if you don't agree with their stance

Uhh, no, the person responsible for murder, is the person commiting murder.

Others may have played a role and deserve blame, but they are not equal.

And free speech entails the right to oppose another opinion.