Social Question

Mariah's avatar

What are your thoughts on what transpired in Charlottesville today?

Asked by Mariah (24420points) 2 months ago

Here’s what’s known right now:

- There was a far-right protest against the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee
– Counter-protestors showed up
– A car drove into the counter protestors, causing many injuries and at least one death
– The facts aren’t out yet about who drove the car, but he’s in custody

This is terrifying….this is the most divided our country has been in my lifetime. I’m especially eager to hear the thoughts of people who have lived through more history.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

160 Answers

flutherother's avatar

I said when Trump was elected we had fallen down the rabbit hole and the consequences could not be predicted. What does seem to be happening is that America has become very divided and the far right are feeling empowered. I fear the death and the injuries in Charlottesville are only going to exacerbate the situation.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

This had nothing to do with Trump. I see it as people in general have paper thin skin these days. People are offended by a statue and demand it be torn down, people get offended that it’s being torn down. People let ideology become pert of their self worth. Americans on the far right and left are a bunch of childish babies that need to chill the fuck out.

Mariah's avatar

People were yelling “Heil Trump”

si3tech's avatar

The total division of our country was effectively complete before the election!

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

Meh… I canceled my cnn package. Nothing ever gets better.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

If not Trump they would be saying heil whats his face. This is centered around a statue.

Mariah's avatar

This is about so much more than a statue friendo

ragingloli's avatar

Meanwhile, Russia threatened Poland over their plans to remove Soviet era monuments.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Yeah it is, there area bunch of arbitrary ideological lines being crossed by messing with it. This country is not so divided just the minority of assholes living here are.

Pachy's avatar

Words cannot express the extent of horror, sorrow and fear I feel. Thanks to Trump and his supporters, these creatures are popping up everywhere. And what does this so-called president say:

He did little to denounce the white supremacists, instead saying Saturday that “many sides” were responsible for the violence.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Eyeroll, Trump is not spawning these creatures. They have always been here.

si3tech's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me Spot on! They have always been her.

DominicY's avatar

No, Trump is not spawning them, but I do believe that he and his administration are causing them to feel empowered, and thus we see an increase in demonstrations like this. So I would not blame Trump directly, but I will not say that Trump has nothing to do with this. His rhetoric unfortunately has consequences.

I do think that these people are extremists and do not represent the majority of Americans (I saw an image recently that showed anti-fa extremists fighting white nationalists and it said “am I bad a person for hoping they destroy each other?”), but they are a problem now and they have to be dealt with. I feel this way about all extremists. I will not simply say “they’re just crazy; we can ignore them”. No we can’t.

I unfortunately don’t see this going away any time soon. People I know who’ve lived through the 60s compare it to the turmoil of the latter part of that decade, though still regard it as being much milder.

chyna's avatar

They are now reporting that 3 are dead. I’m sick over this.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

These assholes don’t need Trump to egg them on. They were just as active when we had Obama. Their numbers are very small and they are not really populated so much with actual racists but people who are just deeply disturbed. Counter protesting this was dumb. The victory was won yet you have the “angry left” who are disturbed in their own way there inciting a fight. Messing with crazy is crazy in its own way. Sadly this cost human life.

This division is nothing like the race riots in days past. That was real, serious shit. We are not that divided now. Only the fringes get any real attention now.

janbb's avatar

Sick at heart.

Mariah's avatar

These people may have always been here but Trump and the “alt right” have emboldened them. It’s becoming socially okay to be a literal Nazi. They did not hide their faces. They don’t think they need pointy hoods anymore. They feel sure they’ll still have a job on Monday after marching with confederate and swastika flags.

Pachy's avatar

This won’t help you sleep.

cookieman's avatar

I’m really upset about it. It’s awful.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

“It’s becoming socially okay to be a literal Nazi.”
In no way is this the case.

DominicY's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me What is your definition of an “actual racist” and what makes you think these people aren’t?

stanleybmanly's avatar

I wouldn’t panic. Trump is fully aware that these people are part of his base, thus his mealy-mouthed comment deploring violence from “all sides”. Fascists make the mistake of believing they can now cavort in the open, because they believe Don has their back, but simply can’t be open too open about it. But the truth is that Trump couldn’t tell you the difference between a fascist and a mumblety-peg. Surprisingly a minimum amount of depth is required to qualify even as a racist or fascist. Trump isn’t s fascist, though they flock to him. He’s surrounded himself with guys like Bannon and that ilk. But as Dukes’s little tirade demonstrates, the nazis and fascists are doomed to disappointment and disgust like the rest of us.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

A good number of these people are disenfranchised white males who just need something to belong to. An actual racist really believes this shit, is mentally sound and not insecure. There are not many of those.

Mariah's avatar

For fuck’s sake. The poor little Nazis just need friends. What do these people have to do to get you to condemn them or even speak in a way about them that doesn’t sound like you’re defending them. They murdered a woman in cold blood today.

funkdaddy's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me

If not racists…

- Why is the KKK in support of their cause?
– Why carry torches? What else could the message there possibly be?
– Why show up to an event organized to “affirm the right of Southerners and white people to organize for their interests”.
– Why the flags

Your argument may be that there were individuals there that weren’t racist, and that’s probably true. There’s probably a guy there somewhere that doesn’t hate, and really loves some civil war history.

But put a reasonable person in that crowd. You show up and the white supremacists are out with helmets, slogans, and “heil”. You disagree with those things, but just decide to march anyway, right? Because of the statue? Or would it take something more?

MrGrimm888's avatar

Does anyone else find it interesting that old symbolic figures are being systematically removed. But xenophobia, bigotry, divisiveness, and intolerance are ok…

Whomever is calling for these statues to be removed should be putting that energy into helping educate the right. Their ignorance is the root of all their fears. Taking down a statue shouldn’t be this high of a priority, to me. It also gives ammunition to those who stir up the right. Their leaders can point to or spin this as immigrants coming in, and their older culture being removed. Validating their false understanding of how history, or inevitable change works. This type of incident is precisely what the right has been conditioned to fear. This is what stirs them up. This is what got them to go out and vote Trump.

I would rather have seen the petitions, or energy spent getting the statue removed in a better way. Like clogging city halls in protest of recent health care, and immigration issues. Scare the politicians into thinking that they won’t be reelected. That’s all they really care about. Removing the statue would not change who is in power, and what they are doing with it.

As to the events themselves. Of course it’s sad. Of course the left should be there to represent the type of America that the right wants to tear apart.

There is always a chance for violence at a protest. Emotions are high. People question each other’s beliefs. Both sides firmly believe that they are right.

I wonder if the local police underestimated the mercurial nature of the event. Perhaps they could have prepared better. In the future, there should be National Guard troops there, with more barricades, and a better plan to separate the two sides. There is a reason that similar statue removals have been done in the dark of night, under heavy protection….

From what I know of the truck hitting the crowd, the driver also threw the vehicle in reverse hitting more people. It could be a dumb person, who panicked. But it seems malicious at this point. The driver should be charged with terrorism. And hit with the full weight of the law.

Peaceful protest is one of a democracy’s most valuable tools. It cannot be threatened…

flutherother's avatar

Why did Trump fail to stand up to these white supremacists who descended on a peaceful American town in black shirts, helmets, and boots and in some cases openly carrying rifles? Are such people really Trump’s power base?

What happened in Charlottesburg was an act of domestic terrorism that the Trump has failed to recognise and condemn and he must be condemned for it.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Yeah. It’s a big fucking deal. In many ways. And Trump has a history of publicly condoning, asking for violence from his volatile base…
It’s possible that this person (driver) acted in support of Trump’s calls/support for aggressive behavior.

It’s important for the non-right, to continue their fight. Well, nonviolent fight…

The Trump supporters are not “half the country. ” Far less… If pressure is kept up, they will cower(because most are cowards), and slither back to their holes…

This is a time for unification, not whatever the right is after…

Their separatist thinking is not going to help any cause…

Pachy's avatar

Re-read my comment, @ARE_you_kidding_me. Nowhere did I say Trump spawned these detestable white supremitists. As a Jew, I know well that hate and predjudice have always been with us.

What I pointed out is, he didn’t denounce these people, as any elected representative of all American citizens is sworn to do, And by the way, he has a history of encouraging violence and fawning over dictators like Putin with their own histories of violent rule.

Roll your eyes till they hurt, @ARE_you_kidding_me, you cannot deny that civil violence and incivility accelerated in this country against Jews, Muslims, African Americans, members of the free press and others since Trump rose to power—power which he is dangerously unqualified to possess.

I grow increasingly fearful for all of us under Trump’s watch.

ragingloli's avatar

In any case, one should wait until the perpetrator is caught and his (yes, I am assuming it is a man) motives, are revealed.
Would not want the egg on my face if it turns out that it was an Antifa member targeting the wrong crowd to plow into.

chyna's avatar

The drive was a 20 year old male from Ohio. So young to have so much hate.

seawulf575's avatar

I saw an article on this the other day. That article said that the driver wasn’t even involved in the protests, but that a rock was thrown by counter-protester hitting the car in the windshield. The driver jerked and the car went out of control hitting protesters. Did he purposely hit them? I don’t know. Looking at the video, he didn’t actually run into the crowd, he hit the back of another car. Then backed up out of there as the crowd surged towards the car. He is at least guilty of vehicular manslaughter as well as felony hit and run. But proving his intentions will be an exercise. It will be interesting to see how this one washes out.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

You guys act like most these people are mentally stable, and organically hold racist and bigoted beliefs. I don’t think that’s the case, I think they’re mentally deranged, brainwashed or have serious anger issues. I think racist groups are just an unhealthy outlet that these people flock to. These are people that don’t need to be on the street. They are rabid dogs, why the surprise when they lash out when people taunt them.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@seawulf575 I just saw an interview with his mother and he told her he was going there.

si3tech's avatar

This is a deluge here of hate, bigotry and people who can’t see the light!

ragingloli's avatar

Of course, they are just “mentally ill”.
Could not possibly be that their extremism is just the inevitable result of conservative ideology brought honestly to its actual conclusion.
But, hey, no one is surprised that their ideological brethren have nothing but rationalisations to protect their own worldview.

When a Muslim drives a car into a crowd, it is because of Islam.
When a Nazi does it, it is because of “mental illness”.

funkdaddy's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me – So, you’re advocating judging people based on what? Not self-professed beliefs, not their actions, then what?

An idiot racist with anger issues gets a pass as a disenfranchised white male, so who’s the true problem? Doesn’t the whole group skew lower intelligence and higher anger? Aren’t all other avenues open for their protest and this is what was chosen?

DominicY's avatar

@ragingloli That’s I think what bothers me about this line of thinking. I’m not disputing they are deranged, I see white supremacy as a deranged ideology, same goes for the ideology of Muslim terrorists. But there are certain people who would be so quick to condemn the latter, but the former receives excuses. It’s hypocrisy.

cookieman's avatar

If you describe the actions or either group (Muslim terrorists, white supremacists), devoid of descriptive terms (gender, race, country of origin, etc.), they are the same.

This is likely true of all extremist groups when they act out.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

No way they get a pass, I just don’t think bigotry and hate are a persons natural state. It takes indoctrination and exploitation. Being mentally deranged certainly makes it easier. I agree with @cookieman. So say a group of terrorists are nearby. Do you go and taunt them or let the authorities handle it? Why does this have to be different? Nobody is giving them a “pass”

DominicY's avatar

I’m not going to blame one side for the violence. Both sides were prepared for violence. I’m sure some of the white supremacists were hoping they’d be taunted so they could react, and I’m sure some of the counter-protestors were hoping the white supremacists would react, so they could punch them, etc. People on both sides were looking for a fight. And I do not blame anyone at all for counter-protesting this (I blame those who got violent—and pictures show some people in the crowds had weapons); but if I had seen this happen in my town, I probably would’ve protested it as well. I’m not going to give them “space” to do it. I’m going to stay quiet, I’m not going to let them know they aren’t welcome in my town.

seawulf575's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me I haven’t seen that interview. Did it say he was going to protest or just going to the scene? And if he was just going isn’t it possible this was still an accident. Again, I wasn’t there, I don’t know the guy.
As for the bigotry and hate not being a person’s natural state, I agree. But the indoctrination and exploitation apply to both sides on this one. Witnesses saw a counter protester throw a rock at this guys car. Throwing rocks is not an innocent, loving action. It was an act of violence and hatred. We have seen this scenario play out time and again where someone goes to protest and another group shows up to protest the protesters. It often ends in violence. Both sides are guilty on this one. It is sad that people got hurt and killed. But none of the participants get a pass in my book.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

^^that was exactly my point.
Interview here

DominicY's avatar

Considering that the driver drove at high speed through the crowd, I find it hard to believe it was an accident. Nor was it justified by having a rock thrown at his car. But we shall see. There is information lacking in the story right now. I can assume what it was, just as I can assume that if a guy named Muhammad drives through a crowd of people it was probably Islamic terrorism, but in both cases we won’t be sure until more information comes out.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Pretty sure this was no accident.

Pachy's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me, as a final reply to your eyeroll, I suggest you read this,

Mariah's avatar

^ Yep, neo-nazis very pleased with Trump’s response. Here’s a quote from one of them:

“Trump comments were good. He didn’t attack us. He just said the nation should come together. Nothing specific against us.

He said that we need to study why people are so angry, and implied that there was hate… on both sides!

So he implied the antifa are haters.

There was virtually no counter-signaling of us at all.

He said he loves us all.

Also refused to answer a question about White Nationalists supporting him.

No condemnation at all.

When asked to condemn, he just walked out of the room.

Really, really good.

God bless him.”

Source: https://thinkprogress.org/white-supremacists-cheer-trumps-response-to-charlottesville-violence-3d0d50196c52/

stanleybmanly's avatar

@ARE you kidding me. There is little argument around whether or not a considerable percentage of those at the forefront of the march toward fascism are certifiably crazy. But in combating fascism, it is irrelevant whether or not its proponents are sufficiently crazy to appear en masse promoting the ideology. What matters is that they not be allowed to get away with the dangerous impression of growing public acceptance. A peaceful uncontested fascist parade is unthinkable, and participants should be taunted and harassed right up to legal limits.

stanleybmanly's avatar

You don’t fight fascists because they are crazy, or even because you think you must win. You fight them because they are fascists.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

“dangerous impression of growing public acceptance.”

Where is this? They’re not in any way accepted but they receive more attention than ever and that is about their only source of power.
People died during that protest… because of that protest. There has to be a better way. Both sides here were effectively looking for a fight.Trump did not cause that. He should have denounced them but he is not exactly known for saying the right things.

Mariah's avatar

A Facebook friend of mine put this more aptly than I could:

“So, just to be really clear, the line of argument summarized as, “This violence wouldn’t have happened if the ANTIFA counterprotestors had stayed home. It was a peaceful demonstration until they arrived,” leaves two things unaccounted for.

The first is, “If you don’t want people getting hurt, just don’t oppose the Nazis and their modern permutations,” is a pretty shitty premise. Your grandparents would be proud.

The second is: Ask yourself why, of all the ways that you could process this story, and of all the places the results could prompt you to spend time and energy, why did you choose, “Making sure to point out that the casualties had it coming,”?

Sit with that. And meanwhile,
https://media.giphy.com/media/3oriO3xoFSNW912GXK/giphy.gif

Y’knowwhat, I’m not done.

While we’re here, I’m gonna go ahead and award Bonus Points for making the indefensible claim that ideologies calling for a mono-ethnic state are capable of “peacefully” anything. When you see a countdown timer on a block of something sinister, that’s covered with a manifesto calling for the deaths and deportations of your fellow citizens, the “Good Person Answer” isn’t to lean back on American civic virtues about open public discourse, and it’s sure as hell not shielding that bomb from criticism until it kills more people. You cut the fucking green wire and you sleep well that night.

Repeat after me: “There is no such thing as a “peaceful ethnic nationalism protest”

That’s just a delayed reaction genocide. It’s larva. Either squash it or get out of the damn way while people with a conscience and a history book do. This isn’t hard. Civil discourse is for people who, when given power, Don’t say they plan to use it for ethnic cleansing. Seriously how monumentally insipid does a person have to be, to fail to get that? Civil Discourse is for issues where the stakes aren’t mass murder.”

janbb's avatar

What I saw from the counter-protesters were peaceful oldsters and many religious leaders. They came looking for a fight, seriously? What Kool-Aide are you drinking, @ARE_you_kidding_me ? Three people died when a racist drove a car into a crowd and you’re going to blame the crowd?

I’m sure there were Germans dismissing the Hitler Youth as just disaffected young men.

funkdaddy's avatar

The “accidental terrorist” in his uniform and article with more.

And video of the car accelerating into the crowd. Does anyone really believe this was an accident? photo

Soubresaut's avatar

I think we can have discussions about the “larger societal causes” or whatever that are inspiring, or exacerbating, political division.

However, that in no way precludes us from condeming someone driving into a crowd of protestors. If we’re keeping score, the protestors looked pretty benign in the video that funkdaddy provided—especially for someone in a car who started out dozens of yards away. But even if they were throwing stones, which someone claimed above, it doesn’t matter. He’s in a car. In a culture of civic discourse—which both protests and counter protests are a part of—he drives away, and that’s the end of it. What he chose to do instead is absolutely sickening… And there’s nothing partisan about saying so.

For the sake of civic discourse, we condemn these kinds of things. Protests, even contentious protests, should not be portrayed as the causes of this kind of violence. They also should not be portrayed as equivalent or proportional violence. Because they aren’t, and they aren’t. He made a choice to escalate. That choice was uncontroversially horrible.

One women is dead and 19 are injured because of his choice.

The FBI is investigating now.

stanleybmanly's avatar

ARE you kidding me I’m not claiming “growing public acceptance” a fact. I’m saying that a parade of fascists down the street must never be allowed to be viewed as routine or no big deal.

si3tech's avatar

@Mariah This whole thing reminds me of Ferguson MO. Many of those rioters were brought in from other states and paid to do just what they did. And HEY! There are no consequences for them. That same exact thing has been choreographed and played out several times in our country ever since. In our world today it isn’t acceptable to agree to disagree. Hell no! The one who disagrees must be destroyed viciously! Physically and verbally.

chyna's avatar

Some groups are planning for a similar meeting tonight at 7:00 p.m. in my state. I hope it’s peaceful. Here is the link.

News outlets are reporting that the driver that killed and injured people yesterday was a Neo-Nazi.

seawulf575's avatar

I’m a bit disconcerted by the rampant use of “Nazi” for the conservative protesters and, in fact, for Trump himself. Let’s go back and look at a few things that point to the exact opposite. First, when the Nazi’s came to power in Germany, everyone claims it was right wing. However, it was in fact a left wing organization. The National Socialist party. Socialists are ALWAYS on the left side of the political spectrum. But lets move on a bit more. During the drive to bring the Nazi’s to power, their tactics were several. First, they indoctrinated the youth into their way of thinking. That is a strictly liberal game plan. Who has been pushing for common core? Look at the huge liberal indoctrination in our colleges and universities. They don’t even want anyone to voice a dissenting opinion, much less actually teach it. Efforts have been made to punish those that dare to take actions for a conservative cause. Yet NEVER have you seen a college or university do the same to a liberal view. That is a Nazi tactic. The brown shirts in Germany used to gang up on and physically attack those that didn’t support them blindly. Sounds sort of like the BLM and the Antifa folks, doesn’t it? You really don’t find organized gangs of conservatives attacking helpless BLM and Antifa, do you? So Trump is a Fascist then, and not a nazi? So let’s look at the definition of Fascism from Merriam Webster:

Definition of fascism
1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

So which side of the political spectrum touts a powerful centralized government that has autocratic power? Which one believes that the central government should fully control the economics? And back to the forcible suppression of opposition, which party used the IRS to target opposition? Which has attempted to pass legislation (or at least floated the idea) of making the opposition illegal? Which was the first side of the spectrum to start the “Fake News” idea and has attempted to silence websites and news outlets that voice the opposition opinion? Which side of the political spectrum did the New Black Panthers, the BLM, and the Antifa groups support? Haven’t they all physically attacked those that opposed them for no other offense than voicing a dissenting opinion? All these things are efforts from the left, all are indicative of fascism.
Lastly, go to Dickinson’s political spectrum. This pretty well spells out where the parties fall. On the far left you have Democrats, 20th and 21st century liberals, socialists, fascists, nazis, islamists, and secular progressives. They are characterized as internationalists, authoritarian, oppressive, collective and totalitarian. Conservatives, conversely, fall to the right of center. They are characterized as 18th and 19th century liberals, Republicans, Libertarians, they believe in the rule of law, the rights of individuals in society, liberty, free will, capitalism, and free market economies. If you go WAY to the right you get to the anarchists that believe in no government, and no law.
What I see when I see people rushing to brand the conservatives “nazis” and “fascists” is a group of people that are projecting. They are trying to silence all opposition by calling them names that they know don’t apply and know that the recipients will try to avoid. That is a nazi tactic too.

DominicY's avatar

@seawulf575 Fascism is the extreme end of the right wing. Both the left and the right wing can be authoritarian. You have it completely backwards nonetheless. Anarchy is the non-authoritarian extreme of the left, not the right. Your entire spiel just anti-left bullshit and completely missing the point of this entire discussion. Congratulations on having learned nothing.

Yes, yes, conservatives are saints and the true bringers of utopia; liberals are responsible for everything wrong with the world. Do you hear yourself? I can’t believe I’m providing your word vomit of a response with an answer because it’s hardly worth one. The solution to one-sidedness is not to be more one-sided.

You offer no solutions. Just more finger-pointing and compartmentalization.

Soubresaut's avatar

… Who said the anti-demolition protestors were “conservative” (i.e., representative of all people who fall to the “right” of center)? I’m pretty sure everyone’s been saying “white nationalist” or similar terms, designating specific, radical groups which promote ridiculous, racist tenets. And true, they self-identify as Trump supporters and conservatives… deal with it. That’s how the demographics fall. Why defend their attempts to portray themselves as legitimate members of the mainstream right? Don’t give them legitimacy by mistakenly taking vitriol towards them as vitriol towards everyone who identifies as “right of center.”

DominicY's avatar

Some can’t bear the idea that there be those in their “group” who are nefarious. In the above-stated mindset, anyone who appears to be conservative but is obviously reprehensible (I. E. white supremacists) must actually be of the other side, must actually be leftists, because that’s the only rationalization that keeps this fragile and ludicrous worldview afloat. I have no problem admitting that anti-fa are leftist and represent some of the worst of the left. I do not feel all who identify as left wing are somehow my “brothers” that I need to spare from infamy. There are bad eggs in every group and I’ll admit to and condemn the ones in mine; I will not try to pawn them off to some other group so I don’t have to deal with them and their views.

One can recognize that there are bad people who are right-wing without thinking all right-wingers are bad people. I don’t judge all conservatives based on the actions of far-right ethno-nationalists. Same goes for the left.

Soubresaut's avatar

Ah, I see. ;)

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@DominicY rational and on point as usual. Thank you.
@Mariah,  “This violence wouldn’t have happened if the ANTIFA counterprotestors had stayed home” Yes, that person would still be alive. Period. Let that “sit for a while” Nobody is saying these white nationalists are not reprehensable because they are but you don’t always have to protest them. Sometimes the best thing to do is nothing Honestly the less attention they get the better. Understand that they literally thrive on this sort of thing. By showing these “people” if you call them that any attention you are feeding the neo-nazi troll, helping them get their message out and recruit more members. WTH were they really protesting other than their presence. This was a victory, the statue was being removed. So a few assholes wanted to fly nazi flags andvyell white power, so what? They were trolling for a reaction and got it. Why the hell would anyone want to take the bait, blow this up and make it worse. Just let them do their silly little protest and then collect their tears so you can bathe in them later. Stop fucking giving these assholes what they want. This was just all kinds of wrong.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 I’m not going to bother wasting time countering your truly laughable depiction of left and right in history, but instead warn you that any political spectrum listing Democrats on the far left is a not only a severe and obvious distortion of the truth. Employment of such a tool betrays whoever using it for the fool they most certainly must be. The idea is nearly as absurd as the conclusion that any idiocy promulgated is by definition leftist if the word socialist is mixed into its monicker as a tactic to deceive the gullible.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . Yeah. I didn’t think you were close on that latest post. To put it mildly.

I’ll focus on one point, I guess. If I found myself on the same side as our nation’s most racist, ignorant, deplorable people, I would have to closely exam my views. Introspective thought though, requires accountability.

If you are at a protest, and the people on your side have Nazi flags, you might consider protesting the protest. Or at least seeing the TITANIC obviousness.

David Duke himself recently commented that he was disappointed in the POTUS,because he didn’t support “the ones who put him in office .”

Trump has indeed emboldened these types of people. Sadly, they still don’t have the courage to even admit their own bigotry…

This was 100% about racism. It was never going to hurt any of their privilege to remove that statue. It wasn’t going to change anything. Lots of civil war monuments, confederate flags etc were installed after the civil rights movement in the 60’s anyway. It was a rejection of integration, not memorial/respectful in motive.

seawulf575's avatar

To all the people that are claiming I am wrong. I suggest you dig into Dickinson’s Political Spectrum. There are pretty pictures so you don’t have to ingest the thinking behind it. Here’s a link to help: http://www.continuumofthinking.com/?p=236. I found the article a little too far to the right for my taste, but the picture is spot on. I also suggest you do some research into Fascism and the Nazi’s and their tactics of gaining control of Germany. Then if you take those ideals and actions and apply it to today’s world honestly, you will see that it is the Democrats, progressives, liberals, Antifa, BLM, and all their ilk that are acting like the true nazi’s. The true confusion comes from the labels that were applied to the nazis back in the 1920’s. They were definitely right of the communists which were the radical left in the Weimar…everyone was. But their attitudes by today’s standards in the USA are definitely left of center
I also want to point out that while a number of you have spewed off condescension towards my comment, not a one of you have produced a single fact to counter any of it. Just opinion you present as a valid fact. I could say the same to all of you as you have said to me…“you are wrong and misguided”. Funny how statements like that do nothing, isn’t it?
One last point. Go to YouTube and look up the clip labeled “Anti-Fascist, Trump protesters applaud speech comprised entirely of Hitler quotes”. It is absolutely scary. Some guy trolled an Anti-Trump protest and made a speech and the crowd went wild with support. The speech was made entirely of Hitler quotes. Think about that while you support these people.

stanleybmanly's avatar

What is wrong with you? The one thing Trump has in common with Hitler is that THEY BOTH TALK A LOT. Any 9 year old with time to waste, can delve through the pile of nonsense uttered by Trump and snatch enough phrases and clauses out of context to build a magnificent, even eloquent speech in praise of Obama. If I chose to go through the very words you have posted on this site, I could string together a speech passionately defending communism and crystal balls as cures for cancer.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 I looked at your Dickinson’s political spectrum and sure enough it has Democrats, Communists, Islamists, Nazis and theocrats all crowded against the left hand border. Republicans are in the middle range of the chart, in the section labeled moderates and to the right of them in the spot where one might expect to find the lunatic fringe we see libertarians. The chart has conveniently crowded the wingnuts into the liberal section of “leftists.”

The “spectrum” is less about accurate depiction of political reality than it is a radical revision of definitions to favor a libertarian perspective. It amounts to labeling a rooster as a rabbit to avoid the truth of that annoying crowing in the wee hours. As I said before, you can’t brandish that “spectrum” here to bolster your argument and expect to be taken seriously.

JLeslie's avatar

I skimmed through the answers above.

My thought is violence at protests are an embarrassment and stain on our country. It makes us hypocrites and idiots in the eyes of the world.

That this girl died, and so many were injured, is horrifying. A girl died! I just have a hard time taking it in. Someone above said more than this one woman died, I hadn’t heard that. If it’s so, then I want to acknowledge them too.

As far as Trump, yes, I want him to specifically name hate groups, but I really don’t have a problem with him denouncing all groups on all sides that are being violent. We have had months of incidents here and there because of protests related to the Trump presidency and recent politics, and it has to stop. Some of the people were far lefties doing these horrible things.

I do want Trump to specifically name the KKK and other white supremists groups as hate groups that have no place in America, I do feel he falls short, but the media dwelling on Trump saying “all sides” as a very negative thing is the “liberal” media dwelling on something that republicans will see as one sided and ridiculous. More ammunition for the right. I guess the liberal media is trying to say that at this particular incident there was no other “side” acting up, but we have condemned Trump in the past for not condemning violence in general at demonstrations. Plus, was there people on the left doing something violent? Above someone mentioned someone was throwing rocks at the car that wound up killing the woman. Throwing rocks? Is that true? Someone had a stash of rocks with them?

Edit: I agree these men in these hate groups are often drawn in, because they feel insecure, hopeless, and disconnected, and these groups, and like gangs, give them family, purpose, and a feeling of power.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . You say we spewed nonsense. No facts. I said that the protesters on the right had nazi flags. Was that not factual?..... Not all of course. But they certainly did.

Take all your ridiculous, fact less claims, and then just look at the protesters holding swastika signs, and flags.

I’ll take what I see with my own eyes, over your claim of knowledge of the 1920’s any day

Since you love “facts” so much, find one single photo of a person at that protest on the left holding a nazi flag, or anything with a swastika….

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly So all the only way Trump is like Hitler is that he talks a lot? Then every politician we have is a nazi. If that’s all it takes for this group to go postal on someone and start calling them a fascist and a nazi, then maybe some of those ought to look in the mirror as well.
As for Dickson’s political spectrum, yes, many of those groups are lumped together on one end of the political spectrum. And if you look at the traits of that spectrum, you see that they probably should be. Let’s pick a few out to look closely at them. Communists and Socialists. Pretty close to the same thing since they both believe the central government is all powerful and that everyone should work for the collective. Socialism is actually more of an adherence to an economic belief, but that belief leads quickly to communism. Democrats are pushing that agenda hard. In fact, during the last election look at their candidates…a democrat and a socialist. And when the democratic candidate AND the DNC chair were asked during interviews what the difference was between Democrats and Socialists, they couldn’t come up with an answer. When the candidates can’t tell the difference that means there isn’t any. And all their goals are to have an all powerful central government that has final say in everything. Sounds amazingly like the goals of Hitler, doesn’t it? The leaders on the left are looking for a totalitarian government in which the people serve it, not the other way around. That goal applies to Islamists as well in which their theocratic leaders are the sum of all law. It doesn’t matter what the law was yesterday or even today in another country, if the Imam says something is law, it is. The Dems would love that sort of power. Now, contrast that with Trump who wants to shrink the size of the federal government and to put power back into the hands of the states. How does that jibe with your idea that he is like Hitler? And who is battling him on these goals? Why the Dems and the establishment Repubs. Now if you wanted to hit me on anything in my initial statement, it would be that I categorized the Republicans with the Republic band of the spectrum. If you noticed, Republicans are between the left and the moderate on that spectrum. Ideally you could assume they are supporting the Republic, but that isn’t true in today’s society. They are serving themselves and the best way to do that is to do like the Dems and push for a strong, oversized federal government.
The fact that you don’t like what the spectrum spells out and the reasoning behind it, doesn’t mean it is wrong. You call the people crowded on the left “Wingnuts”. That include everyone except the 18th and 19th century liberals (which are today’s libertarians and conservatives), libertarians, moderates, part of the Republicans, and the anarchists.
If I were to categorize the players in Charlottesville, I would call the “neo-nazis” and the KKK and the white supremacists “Anarchists” based on the traits of Irrational, Isolationist, Unthinking, and Regressive. They are not looking for a strong country. They actually have no idea what they are looking for. The Antifa and the BLM and the rest of the counter-protesters are far to the left and are using the tactics of Nazi Germany to try gaining power. Their traits fall in as irrational, Collective, Oppressive, ideology based, internationalist, totalitarian and authoritarian. None of the players are rational and none of the players are looking out for the good of the country. They are both seeking power through violence and are not willing to concede a single inch in their belief system. But Trump has decried the KKK, the Neo-Nazis, and the White Supremacists and all the acts of violence. So how does that make him like a Nazi? Face it…the Trump haters are doing nothing but using names to brand someone they don’t like and those names are silly at the very best.

seawulf575's avatar

And to all, let’s look at the facts here a little closer. The protesters on the right had a permit for their protest. The government (democrats) tried suppressing their right to assemble and a court ordered that was unconstitutional. Meanwhile, the Antifa and BLM protesters felt they were above the law and didn’t even attempt to get a permit. So the government (democrats) tell the cops to stand down and not do anything with the protest. Then, when things degrade into mayhem, as they knew they would, the government (democrats) revoke the permit and try to lay all the blame on the lawful protesters. Am I supporting driving a car into people? Not at all. As I have said, if that guy did it on purpose he deserves to fry. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that it was the Antifa and BLM protesters AND with the aid of the democrats that took that actions of nazi thugs and brought violence to the party.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Trump is neither a Nazi nor a fascist. And the only trait he shares with Hitler outside of long windedness is an identical intense maniacal delusion regarding his own self importance. You delude yourself if you believe Trump’s stated position on anything. The man neither knows nor understands the basic workings of any ideology you care to name, including your own. The man is a straight up ignoramus, and Hitler would be justifiably insulted to find Trump classed beside him.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . I ask you again. Were any protesters from the left holding nazi signs, flags, or anything with a swastika?

You’ve truly outdone yourself claiming that the party literally holding nazi flags was the victim of nazi tactics. In what universe is this logic anything but laughable?

kenwor's avatar

Looks like a micro reenactment of blackshirts vs. reds. James, police, and counter-protesters are all at fault here. Only Unite The Right was in the right. They were the only group with a permit to protest.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 So I ask you, what makes a true nazi? Waving a flag of trying to intimidate by force? Wearing an armband or trying to establish an authoritarian rule? Talking gibberish or trying to indoctrinate children in schools? All these jellies that are prattling on about Trump being a nazi have no clue what a nazi really is. And I would put forth that any of the idiots protesting wearing armbands have no clue either.
You want to go strictly on looks then? Okay, then I would say that the counter protesters are terrorists. After all, they marched with helmets and shields, many wore masks to hide their faces. They came with weapons to fight, filling bottles and cans with concrete. Odd how your perceptions of the videos miss those things. Or maybe you just choose to miss them?

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly I entirely support your right to opinion on Trump. You will see him as you see him. I have stated in other posts that I’m not a huge Trump fan, but do believe we need to give him a chance and that neither the career politicians nor the media have done that. It is entirely okay to disagree with his policies…I disagreed with many from Obama. That’s how our system works. But you also said one thing that makes me curious. You stated Trump neither knows nor understands the basic workings of any ideology. So isn’t ideology one of the biggest problems in our country and government today? Too many ideologues? True moderates are rare these days in our government.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . I went with looks, because your manifesto was too polluted with bad points to garner my time countering. You prove yourself blind so often, that I figured I would keep it simple. You know, with pictures so even you could understand. Yet again, you prove your selective vision. You literally look past nazi flag waving people, and point the finger at the others. What an interesting world you must see as you walk along….

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 You and I are ideologues. That is what this conversation is about, competing ideologies. What I’m telling you is that the Donald is so devoid of information that his participation in the conversation here would be beyond problematic. And that sop about politicians and the media not giving him a chance is a deflection from the obvious. As a rational individual, it is impossible to view Trump’s screwups thus far as creations of his enemies or the press. For even if you accept the explanation of him being reviled by press and politicians, there is no getting around the fact that his “wounds” are self inflicted. Any misstep by any politician is going to be seized upon by his or her opposition. If it appears (as his defenders contend) that liberals and the press are “ganging up on him”, the question arises. “have you ever seen anyone who makes it so easy?” His supporters simply do not understand the extent of his insufficiencies, though there isn’t a day that passes when they aren’t blatantly flaunted in front of us.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 Actually, sir, I looked past the nazi flag waving folks which you already pointed out to the other idiots you were too blind to see. You literally looked past them to point fingers at the others. Welcome to the party.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly We are indeed ideologues. But I see things that you seem to miss whether on purpose or not. I may miss things you see. But I would love to learn. Let’s look at how the press and the establishment pols dealt with Donald on this event and then let’s contrast that to how they dealt with Obama on Ferguson MO, a very similar situation. The day this event happened…at least within 24 hours, both Trump and Pence came out and decried the violence and called out all parties including the neo-nazis and white supremacist. The media and the establishment pols were/are not satisfied with that. I’m not sure what else they want, though I have heard that he didn’t come out soon enough. That hits me as being a little unrealistic. Meanwhile, after Michael Brown was shot, Obama immediately came out against racist police. He sent his pet goons down there to “look into things” And the city went nuts. Days after the rioting started, he then came out and stated that the violence wasn’t the answer to anything and that he understands that many blacks don’t feel safe in their own neighborhoods from the police. Again, pointing blame at the cops. The media and the establishment pols were silent. Not to mention that after the whole investigation was done and they dragged Darrin Wilson through the grinder and to a Grand Jury which found him innocent and entirely supported the initial findings, Obama did not speak out at all. Yet no one held him accountable. The point is not that Obama is a pinhead, I take that as a given. It is that the media and the establishment pols are holding Trump to an entirely different and unreasonable standard, one that they have never applied to another president. Is Trump a dolt and does he tweet way too much? Sure. But it should be painfully obvious that the media will not give him a fair shake at all so he is left with the modern marvel of social media to reach the people.
But beyond that, I got sucked into this not because I was supporting one side or the other in the Charlottesville fiasco, but I was getting tired of what I deemed uninformed fools branding him a Nazi with no basis for it and with obvious misunderstanding of what nazis actually believe or how they have previously behaved. Charlottesville was a riot waiting to happen and, I would even say, encouraged. The Neo-nazi/white supremacists/KKK followed the law to obtain a permit to peacefully assemble. They are entirely allowed that right under the Constitution and in accordance with the state laws of Virginia. The local/state authorities attempted to devoid them of that right and it ended up going to court where those authorities were spanked with reality…that their blockage was unconstitutional. Then enter the BLM/Antifa dolts. They did NOT assemble legally. They did NOT come to be peacefully protesting the protesters. They came armed with piss balloons, concrete filled bottles and cans, carrying shields, wearing riot helmets, etc. You don’t happen to have those things on you when you decide to protest unless you are looking to do more than state your opinions.
The authorities told the cops to stay out of it, allowing the riot to start. None of that allows some moron to run his car into people, but does help lead up to it. All these heavy handed “protests” by Antifa and BLM over the past year or two are exactly the same sort of behavior that the Nazis used leading up to Hitler taking power. And let me point out another thing that everyone forgets about history: The KKK and the White Supremacists were all started by the Democrats. It is the Democrats that fought well into the 20th century to keep Blacks and other minorities as second class citizens. It was the Republicans that fought to make things even for all. Yes, LBJ was a Democrat when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1963, but he did so with almost no support from his own party and with a majority of support from the Republicans. Now the Dems are just fighting to keep blacks economic slaves since they can’t actually own any.

MrGrimm888's avatar

It is a party!

MrGrimm888's avatar

How this is like Ferguson is beyond me. As it regards to the president. Obama stood by his/our people. Trump has made a condescending, patronizing, limp dick, half assed, 2 days late , denouncment of his party, I mean white supremacists sorry…

False analogy.

The Dems want black slaves too huh? Pfft… What a joke….

Mariah's avatar

Anyone with even a basic understanding of US history knows that the party titles back in the 1800’s have zero bearing on what the parties stand for today.

Watch this and tell me again that this protest was about a statue: https://news.vice.com/story/vice-news-tonight-full-episode-charlottesville-race-and-terror

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Those people are fucking terrorists…

stanleybmanly's avatar

The right loves to crow about racist Southern Democrats in the days of Jim Crow when the Republicans were the liberal party. You and I both know that if Lincon were alive today, the current conservative Republican party wouldn’t ttouch him with a 10 foot pole. Your interpretation of history is consistent with that bogus carnival sideshow Dickinson spectrum. By the way, the next time you pull up that silly piece of nonsense to buttress some argument, notice that the one group crucial to any CURRENT depiction of conservatism is curiously absent. That’s right (no pun intended) The racists are literally “off the chart” – not even mentioned. YOU make the crucial mistake of introducing them into your argument in an age when any fool can plainly see that bigotry and racism are 2 central pillars supporting the conservative tent. There has never been a a more dramatic demonstration of the political truth regarding racism in this country than the reversal of the magnetic political poles on the passage of Johnson’s Civil Rights act when virtually every racist in the country switched allegiance to the conservatives OVERNIGHT.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly you are being very naive to believe that racist all magically started supporting the conservatives overnight. I know it helps you try to rectify reality in your head, but it isn’t realistic. Let me point out that even as late as 1972, the Dems were still fielding racists for president. Look at George Wallace. So no, they didn’t suddenly change sides.
As for the republicans being the liberal party back in the day, I would say you were right. But at the time “liberal” had a different viewpoint. Again…look at Dickinson’s spectrum. 18th and 19th century liberals were farther to the right. the 20th and 21st century liberals are WAY over to the left. The older ones believed different things that liberals of today. In fact, if you carry this conversation to its logical conclusion, you will see that the conservatives at that time (the democrats) spawned the KKK. Yes, over time the two labels have switched, but the overall attitudes of the sides have not changed that much.
As for racists not being on the Dickinsons chart, you are absolutely correct. Racism is not a political leaning…it is a personal viewpoint. It is a label that today’s liberals love to throw around to try branding their opponents with a nasty name. Look at the parties involved in Charlottesville. I would suggest they are ALL racists. The white supremacists obviously. But look at the BLM gang. They are every bit as racists, just against a different races. And Antifa marches lock-step with them all the way.
And I disagree with the comment that any fool can plainly see that bigotry and racism are 2 central pillars supporting the conservative tent. I would suggest that ONLY fools see it that way. If you truly believe that racism and bigotry are the basics of conservative thinking, then you need to get out more….meet a few actual conservatives. I know many conservatives.
I consider myself a conservative. And most that I know don’t tolerate racism. In fact I live in a neighborhood that has both blacks and whites with a few latinos thrown in. We are all perfectly happy with each other. Your comment is childish in an effort to establish a strawman. Again, I give you BLM. They are based SOLELY on racism and bigotry. So by your definition, they are conservatives?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Racists are racists regardless of their political party. And it is true that prior to 64 Southern politics were dominated by Democrats who were decidedly racist. It was the only possible way to suppress the black population whose numbers guaranteed the end of white dominance once they acquired the vote. And of course not all conservatives are racists. BUT the problem for the conservative movement is that it is in exactly the same position as those pre civil rights Southern racists. THE NUMBERS ARE AGAINST THEM. Both you and that idiot chart are impossibly naive to state that racism is not a powerful political reality. To state that racism has nothing to do with politics because it is a personal matter is just plain ridiculous. Political affiliation ITSELF is a personal matter. And conservatives – racists or not will always be stuck with the racists just as they will be with the creationists and religious kook fundamentalists because those folks vote conservatively, and without them the conservative movement is rendered a powerless joke. Any spectrum you devise which does not reflect this fact is patently dishonest.

stanleybmanly's avatar

And of course both liberal and conservative viewpoints have shifted with time. It’s called PROGRESS, and to put it simply, progress in this country is best defined as the left (progressives) dragging the kicking and screaming right into the future.

seawulf575's avatar

And yet you ignore the racists on the left. Selective viewing? When you have groups on the left that target people because of their skin color that is racism. Face it…there are probably more active racist on the left than on the right. There was a college in California that just had a “Blacks Only” orientation. And examples of things like that at colleges and universities is commonplace. Segregation such as that is racist. BLACK Lives Matter is to its core a racist organization….and a violent one at that. The New Black Panthers mount marches in which they arm themselves to the teeth, dress in military garb and chant “Kill the Pigs”. Louis Farrakhan makes speeches encouraging people to go kill whites if they are feeling oppressed. Yeah, there are far more violent and vocal racists on the left than the right. Yet these are the groups that the left loves and embraces. So yes, liberals may be trying to drag the kicking and screaming right into the future but you might want to stop a moment and reflect on why they are kicking and what they are screaming about. The future the left apparently has in mind is one of hatred and violence, segregation and discrimination, distrust and anger, and not something that is healthy for a society or this nation.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Ah… True colors starting to show. Let me guess, Your not racist though right?...

News flash: Alt-right coward blames victims.

I’m getting confused now. You said they were nazis. Now they’re black panthers…. Hmm. What will the story be tomorrow?... Stay tuned!...

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 It’s truly fascinating how desperate the right is to invent racist hate groups on the left equivalent to their own embarrassing baggage. Thus the preposterous idea that BLM is equivalent to Nazis. I was looking at the footage of the confrontation at the statue for the contingent of “leftist racist hate groups”. I mean you gotta be curious as to why the vicious and violent BLM and New Black Panthers passed up an opportunity to beat up Nazis. I suppose the confrontation of exclusively lily white folks was a demonstration of leftist and right winged racists battling it out.

You have no idea how ridiculous your argument is regarding leftist “racists”. It’s equivalent to a slave master accusing runaway slaves of racial bias and bigotry. The accusation is stupid on its face, and you should know better. Neither the BLM nor the NBP are racial hate groups. The war cry is not “Kill ONLY the white pigs”.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 I don’t know where you get that the “left” loves and embraces groups like the black panthers? I have always been around Democrats, and none of them were happy about the black panthers when they came on the scene years ago, I don’t know what Democrats you’re talking about, but it certainly isn’t the majority.

I’ve actually been one of the few voices on fluther saying we should condemn the violent groups in opposition to the white supremacists along with the white supremacists groups, and I have had Jellies basically calling me names and trying to rip me to shreds, but even though I recognize there are other violent groups out there, I don’t agree with you that the “left” is racist against whites, or that having a meeting or club for black people is racist. However, I do think colleges, should not have a black orientation, are you sure that’s true? It’s not racist to have one, but I find it disconcerting.

I also prefer people not segregate themselves by having groups like that, but at the same time I understand it. It’s partly cultural, and also groups try to help their own. This is something I hear many white republicans talk about all the time, that the minority groups should be helping their own like they used to. Their words not mine. That new immigrants would help support their families and friends in the community when they were new to the country. Well, if you’re in favor of that, then you’re in favor of minorities having meeting places and associations and organizations too.

Are you in the South? The only place that I got the feeling the white people around associated the Democrats with blacks primarily was in the South. Me personally, in the places I’ve lived that was my experience.

A lot of white leaders have been trying to scare white Christians into thinking they are under attack. They aren’t. If you look at the statistics they aren’t. The hate crimes against Jews, Muslims, blacks, cannot be compared to attacks on white Christians. Its made up hysteria to rally the troops so they stay more committed to their faith and the Republican Party. It’s a purposeful ploy by many of these leaders who do it (and I’m not saying all white, Christian leaders do it, I’m talking about the ones who do) to unite their group.

Hear those NeoNazis chanting about the Jews? Scary shit. What minority group in America that is organized like these Nazis is walking around like that chanting about white people? None. You want to be nervous, go to synagogue every Friday night or Saturday for a while, or a black church on Sundays. Those are the places that are targets for violence all the time.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^ @seawulf575 is an example of the “not stupid” right. He has knowledge, and some humility. One could do worse.

But. He is firmly in the grips of the alt-right…

There is hope for him, and others. But they have a lot if introspective work to do…

Have the courage to see that you are wrong.

All you have to do is change. Throw away the fear, and hate. Let in/embrace the love.

We could really have a great planet, if we coexist.

JLeslie's avatar

^^I don’t know. @seawulf575 wrote, “The future the left apparently has in mind is one of hatred and violence, segregation and discrimination, distrust and anger, and not something that is healthy for a society or this nation.” That is so off the mark it’s mind blowing. Unless he is saying the left fears that will happen with the right in control? Maybe I am misinterpreting?

Go to the bluest states and they are typically the most diverse. It’s the Democrats (in general) whom are more open to immigration. It’s mostly the Democrats who favor affirmative action. How can it be the Democrats picturing a country with segregation and discrimination? The Democrats typically work hard to unite everyone.

Soubresaut's avatar

I think he’s trying to argue that programs like affirmative action, and groups like BLM, are the racist elements in society… which is a shocking blanket misrepresentation of those things, and other things “like” them (i.e., programs/groups trying to address systemic inequalities in various ways), but not (as far as I know) an uncommon argument. (In fact, the DOJ is apparently taking on the “affirmative action is racist” mantle now, at least according to Sessions…)

(I used a lot of parentheticals just now!)

For what it’s worth, @JLeslie, I think some people on here may just have been on edge because of what the President was saying. That’s what I choose to believe, anyway. Anyone trying to make a distinction between “white supremacist/nationalist groups are abhorrent” and “but violence in protests isn’t okay for anyone”—I think their point got lost when others heard echoes of the President’s own message, a message which was (I think, anyway) designed to obfuscate that very distinction. I’m not saying their reactions were fair or kind. They weren’t. I’m sorry you got “ripped to shreds” because of it all.

stanleybmanly's avatar

This need to redefine reality germinates more silliness in explanations than you can shake a stick at. I mean both seawulf and Trump talk as though Nazis acting up is somehow balanced by the antics of some mythical counterparts. I’m trying to recall the last time I heard any reports about a black, Hispanic or Jewish supremacist movement in the country.

JLeslie's avatar

@stanleybmanly Everyone is talking about many different things. I think that’s part of the problem. It’s a fact that far left groups (for lack of a better description) were causing disturbances and even lighting fires on college campuses. The left, in my opinion, needs to denounce it. The left should not be happy they stopped Ann Coulter from speaking, because her safety was in question.

As far as blacks, Jews, and Hispanics, I too haven’t heard of any militant groups lead by any of these minority groups, but if a bunch of extremists Jews banded together, and mowed down an innocent girl with their car, I would be right there critical of the “extremist Jews.” Just like I wasn’t ok with black panthers. The average white personal in America should be horrified by these neoNazis, and the liberals, including liberal Jellies should be bothered by groups willing to use violence against the right/republicans/Nazis.

Mind you, immunity saying we should not be prepared to defend ourselves, but being the instigator or aggressors makes us the same as “them.”

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly So you think it is normal and acceptable behavior to stage an unpermitted protest and bring clubs, bottles and cans filled with concrete and balloons filled with piss? That is acceptable to you? I just want to hear you say it. Because that is EXACTLY what the BLM and Antifa idiots did. And so we are clear, if I formed a club whose goal was to call on White people to love White, live White and buy White, keeping straight cis White men in the front of the movement while our sisters, queer and trans and disabled folk take up roles in the background or not at all, you wouldn’t say that was racist? I’m struggling to find what you actually believe. You have been great at just trying to say I’m wrong, but your own arguments are starting to smear over themselves. You are right…racism can be on any political belief. BUT, you refuse to admit there can be any LIBERAL racists. Your rose tinted glasses keep you from seeing the evil in the liberal world while they magnify the evil in the conservative world. Here’s a nice exercise…please define racism for me. Don’t give me examples, give me a definition and then we will see how it applies to both liberals and conservatives.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie You are indeed a breath of fresh air. Yes! You are pretty much saying what I am saying, or at least what I am trying to say. I am not condoning the violence by the neo-nazis/kkk/white supremacists. But I am pointing out that there was violence by both sides. I am pointing out that as loony and potentially dangerous as the neo-nazis/kkk/white supremacists are, the BLM and Antifa gang are just as bad.
I say that the Dems love the BLM and Antifa (and to be honest, the Occupy Wall St gangs before that) because they have never denounced them. In fact, when Ferguson MO was first happening, Obama jumped in on the side of Michael Brown and the rioters…before all the facts were in. And even when it came out that the cop was justified in shooting Brown, Obama’s only denouncement was a backhanded attempt. “Violence really isn’t going to solve the problem of police targeting blacks” was the basic tone of that denouncement. So until the democratic leadership comes out and totally denounces the violence that has been done by BLM and Antifa, they leave with the idea that it is acceptable.
Forming groups that omit other parts of society is just another way to segregate society. I fully support celebrating your heritage. I fully support working with your neighborhood to make things better. I fully support even having pride in who you are and where you come from. But when those things turn to segregation and violence, it misses the point entirely and needs to end.
As for the black orientation, yes it is true. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/08/15/university-of-san-francisco-black-student-orientation/
And yes, it is disturbing. That takes us back to restaurants that don’t serve blacks. That is the same mentality.
I currently reside in the south. I grew up in the north and spent a chunk in the middle traveling the country. The neighborhood I live in is very much unsegregated and I love it. I am white, my neighbor is black and one of the nicest guys I know. I don’t fear blacks because they are black. I do have some neighborhoods in the nearby city that I wouldn’t want to walk around in and yes, they are mainly black areas. But it isn’t the black issue, it is the high crime issue. I don’t really care who is committing the crimes, I just don’t want to be one of the victims of those crimes.
You wrote: ”“The future the left apparently has in mind is one of hatred and violence, segregation and discrimination, distrust and anger, and not something that is healthy for a society or this nation.” That is so off the mark it’s mind blowing. Unless he is saying the left fears that will happen with the right in control? Maybe I am misinterpreting?” Here is my meaning. The left talks a great story about inclusion and tolerance, yet as I have pointed out, they refuse to denounce the violence brought on by groups like BLM or Antifa. A guy attacks a bunch of people shouting “Allahu Akbar!” and they cannot admit that his religion has anything to do with it. If someone went nuts and shot up a bunch of people shouting “Jesus is Great!” as he did it, I would gladly say it was his religious beliefs that were in play. The Dems have not denounced a single act of violence and in some cases have protected the perpetrators of the violence. So when you start comparing the words and the actions and see that they don’t agree, you have to start asking what they REALLY are trying to do. And with all the violence they have supported yes, with all the efforts at keeping as many rifts in society as possible, it is in my opinion a fair assessment that the future they present is one filled with hate, distrust, anger and violence.
As for things like immigration, you, I think, miss an important word. Legal. I totally support legal immigration and fully support the idea of streamlining our immigration process. I have personally known people that have immigrated here and ran into all sorts of issues. BUT, illegal immigration is wrong. You cannot have open border and have a nation. What you have is an open area of land in which anyone can stay and do whatever they want to do. Society (any society) is only as good as its laws. If you are not going to have laws, you are asking for chaos. If you have laws and refuse to enforce them, you dealing with anarchists and you are asking for chaos. Do we have stupid laws? Yep…some of them are totally stupid. But we have processes for changing them. And to attempt change without following those rules is inviting chaos. You are allowing mob rule.

seawulf575's avatar

@Soubresaut You are a wise soul as well. I personally think that things like affirmative action are indeed racist though. I think at one time they had a purpose. When America was still silently trying to keep blacks and women down it had a huge purpose. But times have changed. Now, as with many bureaucratic efforts, it almost swings too far the other way. Here’s an example. I know two girls. They were in High School together. They both had identical GPAs (3.98). They both applied to and were accepted to the same college. Both got scholarships. But one was named Cooke and the other was Rodriguez. The one named Rodriguez got an extra $10k in scholarship. So what was the difference between the two? When you over reward because of race or sex, it is just as bad as discrimination because that is exactly what it is…in reverse.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 I am generally a little left of your point of view.

I think both sides are getting ridiculous about how things are said, and don’t really listen to each other.

Why was the left reluctant to say Muslim Extremists? Because there is so much hate and violence against Muslims already. It isn’t the Muslim religion that is the problem, it’s the homicidal idiots who use the religion as a tool for evil that is the problem.

What you don’t realize is Muslims truly are at more risk for violence against them than any white, Christian, straight male will ever comprehend. Who cares if we say Muslim Extremists or not? Why is that such a big deal? I personally know people who believed Obama was a Muslim, and they said it like he was the antiChrist. Being a Muslim was something to fear according to them. My Muslim friends are wonderful people, it’s ridiculous. It’s not that important.

It like these white supremacists, they identify as Christians. Should we call the Christian extremists? The KKK in history did use Christianity to validate their hate. Some Christians today use their religion to treat gay people as unequal citizens. Should we dwell on it being the religion? I’m not sure. I’ve certainly said at times that the Christian Right blah blah blah, but then ALL Christians seem to get offended no matter how I clarify. It’s exhausting. It’s hypocritical.

Like when my Trump supporting friends posted on Facebook “I guess I’m deplorable.” My response was that Hillary was talking about the people who are deplorable, not everyone who supports Trump. Just like Trump talked about the people coming across the border who are criminals, not that everyone who comes across is a criminal.

I’m tired of it. Tired on the twisting of words.

As far as affirmative action, 20 years ago I was leaning towards there was a time for it, and now things are more balanced we don’t need it, but then I moved to the Mid South, and I changed my mind again. There is still work to be done. It’s complicated. There are some situations I’m against it, and some I’m for it.

When it comes to scholarships, are they government scholarships or private? Private individuals certainly can fund whomever they want. Public funds, I too think it should be based on income or merit, and not on race or ethnicity.

I’d rather look at why the hell tuitions are so high than be upset about who is getting a scholarship.

Legal immigration is easy to say, but our immigration laws need to be changed. Plus, let’s say everyone here was legal, it’s not like suddenly all the people upset about immigrants will be ok with them. There are people who simply don’t want so many Hispanics, Asians, name a group, in the country. Go to Miami, in Miami-Dade County 70% of households have at least one Spanish speaker. When I’m there, in certain areas, sometimes people address me in Spanish first. Most of the people there are legal. I’ll never forget walking with a neighbor through our neighborhood, first time I met her, and she says to me she doesn’t like shopping at Walmart, because there are so many Mexicans and blacks. See, there are a lot of people like that. She doesn’t really give a shit if they are legal or not. There are too many people like her.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

^^ we are on the same page.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 as requested here’s the google definition Racism: prejudice discrimination or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I thhink we are talking at cross purposes. So let’s look at some facts. Neither BLM nor Antifa pass the test as racist according to that definition. To pretend that they do is either obtuse or flat out dishonest Neither BLM nor Antifa are about discriminating against white folks. They are indeed about putting the tough to Nazis, who are worthy of all the discrimination that can be arranged to befall them. And the BLM is not an organization advocating black supremacy nor keeping white folks “in their place”. It is a protest movement contesting the rather glaring statistics involving the mowing down of black people by the nation’s police forces. Antifa, if behaving criminally is the paradigm example of white on white crime——end of the racism argument. And I have heard not word one about BLM involvement in Charlottesville.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Here is the problem with the argument from you and Trump. It amounts to a roundabout defense of the proposition that to oppose Nazis is somehow racist. And finally, violence, bottles of concrete or piss, even hatred itself, none of those things define racism.

JLeslie's avatar

^^Did Trump say to oppose Nazis is racist? I definitely missed that.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie I am okay with you being a little left of me. I tend to the right, but certainly do not support the crazies. My biggest irritant in these discussions is not that someone is attacking the right or attacking Trump. It is that either they are falsely attacking them on subjects or they are totally giving the same behavior on the left a pass and in fact trying to justify it. If someone says they don’t like Trump because they think he acts like a petulant child at time, I’m perfectly okay with that. When they start calling him a nazi or even supporting the nazis I tend to get annoyed. That, in my view, isn’t a truth. It isn’t even an informed opinion. Even now, Trump came out and named the groups on the right in a speech denouncing their actions. Yet there are many here that still act like that is just a show and that he is secretly in league with them. He didn’t denounce them quickly enough. I don’t know…maybe he didn’t call each one of them out by name. Amazingly you and I are probably the moderates in the group. We are willing to look with open eyes at all the players and call out the bad behavior when we see it.
As for some of the rest, I think it is important we call out the Muslim extremists. I think it is probably more important for the Muslims to call out the Muslim extremists. You are correct that not all Muslims are bad. And there is the argument that it might make more tension against Muslims to call out their extremists. But let me toss out another thought along those lines. We have no problem calling out the “alt-right” which is a really vague way of saying Conservative Extremists. It is perfectly acceptable by our leaders and by the media. Yet we can see even on these pages that “alt-right” is then used as a tool to brand anyone with a differing opinion. So I would suggest we either need to go the route taken with the Muslim extremists and not name them, keeping comments only to individuals and ignoring their reasons for their actions OR we open up our minds and mouths and actually call out these dreadful groups in our society and start really holding them accountable for their actions. People do things for reasons. The people that do bad things do them for bad reasons.
Hillary’s comment was a really bad move for a politician. She may have meant only some, but her comment was that half of Trump supporters belong in a basket of deplorables, that are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamaphobic. The implication or the way it came out is that if you don’t support all her views, you fall into one of these categories and belong in a basket of deplorables. She did go on to say that the other half felt the government has let them down and are desperate for change. I think that you could hold that last statement true about all Trump supporters. From a political stance, it was a foolish thing for her to say. She was basically writing off a large chunk of this country as being beneath her…that chunk which disagreed with her.
Tired of twisting words? I’m with you. But as I said, you are a breath of fresh air. You obviously think about things. Affirmative action is complicated. Why are tuitions so high? All these sort of comments tell me you go beyond the surface of issues to actually get into the meat of them. I love it. Can we clone you a few times?

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 Saying alt-right is one thing, I personally don’t like that label. I’m saying, what if we call the alt-right Christian extremists? What if the news and all over Facebook we were calling the KKK Christian Extremists? That would be the analogy to using the term Muslim Extremists.

I really think a significant part of the right, mainstream right, has no clue what it’s like to be a minority, and they don’t care to put themselves in that place even as a mental exercise.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly Check out:
http://www.cleveland19.com/story/32814897/men-chant-black-lives-matter-before-viciously-attacking-white-victims

You Tube video labeled:Black Lives Matter Kick Homeless Man For Being White! Charlotte North Carolina Riot Attack Homeless!

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/milwaukee-protests-asian-american-black-lives-matter-214184

And the BLM movement has created racial hatred and promotes violence against police:

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016/09/21/teen-sisters-hurt-during-stockton-protest-felt-targeted-because-they-are-white/

http://narrative-collapse.com/2017/06/17/blm-attacks-officers-while-trying-to-disrupt-columbus-gay-pride-parade/

Look up
YouTuber Savagely Attacked By Blacks Over Holding Up An All Lives Matter Sign!

The list goes on and on. In every one of these cases, it is either BLM causing violence directly or violence is being done based on their influence. And it is all race based. Sorry boss, that puts it directly in the racist world. Going to Merriam Webster we find these three definitions:

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a: a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3: racial prejudice or discrimination

When you attack someone because of the color of their skin, you are trying to show your superiority based on race. You are showing racial prejudice and discrimination. You are racist.
And I haven’t missed the fact that you entirely ignored 90% of my previous comment and opted for not actually trying to say what you see as acceptable behavior. My guess is that if you actually the time to answer that you would either end up denouncing BLM and Antifa or you would show yourself to be an extremist idiot.

MrGrimm888's avatar

There’s definitely an extremist idiot on this thread….

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 Pretty much all the incidents are random hoodlums. A bunch of black young men beat up some white guys. Men can be really stupid. All races.

That’s different than organizing a white supremists groups. Every group has some rowdy criminals in it.

Soubresaut's avatar

[Sorry to all for the length. It’s due to explaining cited material.]

@seawulf575, on the Cooke/Rodriguez anecdote: That story’s fine, as long as you realize you’re missing most of the most relevant factors for scholarships. I don’t know of a college in the country that only takes GPA into account for acceptance, let alone awarding scholarships. The financial standing of the student or their family, the student’s extracurriculars, “soft” application items like personal statements and letters of recommendation, the kinds of classes the student took, etc., all come into play. You also didn’t mention whether these were scholarships the students had to apply for, who was awarding them, or what the qualifications were. I guess you’ll tell me those were identical, too, and I’ll have to take your word for it.

Overall trends do not show favoritism for minority groups with regards to grants/scholarships. This study looks at data from 2007–2008, which is a little outdated by now, but it was the most thorough analysis of grant and scholarship financial aid I could find. (I don’t mean most thorough that agrees with “my” perspective. I just mean most thorough, period.) Overall, it finds that minority students tend to receive more needs-based grants, but only incidentally – the needs-based grants follow income distribution patterns (10). It finds that Caucasian students are more likely to receive merit-based grants, which the author explains as economic strategy by the colleges: that colleges tend to offer merit-based aid to “attract academically talented and wealthier students to the college as a form of financial aid leveraging. A full-pay student—even with a significant discount in the form of a merit-based grant – still yields more net revenue to the college than low or moderate-income students” (8)—the “wealthier” part of the equation would tend to favor Caucasian students because of those same income distribution patterns. He also finds that, as far as private scholarships go, “programs tend to perpetuate historical inequities in the distribution of scholarships according to race. This does not appear to be due to deliberate discrimination, but rather as a natural result of the personal interests of the scholarship sponsors” e.g., equestrian sports, golf, etc. (18).

In other words, there’s no evidence of some anti-white agenda at colleges—and because of various socioeconomic mechanisms still in play, white students do still enjoy an edge over other groups. Also, the study helps illustrate how inherently complex measuring educational equality is, something which @JLeslie mentioned earlier.

BLM.
It gained momentum as a movement, and as a slogan, when there were a number of police shootings on young black men that made national headlines. You may call into question the circumstances surrounding Michael Brown’s death. Statistics tell a national story that unarmed black men are more likely to be killed, and released police body cam footage and smart phone footage continue to show differences in the ways members of minority groups are treated by police compared to white individuals. These are averages. I know this isn’t true of every police officer. I have an extended family member who’s a cop—who I love dearly—so if anything, I’m a bit more defensive of police than a random person. But the patterns are clear, are concerning, and need to be addressed.

In response to the BLM movement, The Washington Post went and looked for data to support or refute the claim that minority groups, in particular unarmed black men, are more likely to die at the hands of police than white individuals – because up to that point, no effort had been made to even look into the matter; (i.e., here’s some data to back up @stanleybmanly’s point). Their research got pulled into a study that was published in the Police Chiefs Magazine, and the “analysis of the 990 fatal shootings in 2015” found things like: ”‘the police exhibit shooter bias by falsely perceiving blacks to be a greater threat than non-blacks to their safety,’” and “[b]lack individuals shot and killed by police were less likely to have been attacking police officers than the white individuals fatally shot by police.” WaPo talks about their research, and the study’s findings, in this article. Notice how the findings aren’t saying there’s massive, deliberately racist behavior. They’re finding a distorted perspective of reality that hurts members belonging to specific segments of the society. This issue is about as clear-cut an example as one can get of terms like “implicit bias” and “systemic racism,” and of how they are real forces with measurable consequence.

None of that would have happened without the BLM movement. (“That” being the research data that supported the anecdotal claims of black communities, and the publication of that research in a police-focused periodical, and discussions on how to fix this issue.) Does that mean I support violence in protests? Hell no. However, the violent actors of the BLM are a small subset. The majority of the movement has been peaceful vigils, peaceful demonstrations, rational discussions, etc. It would be a mistake to ignore the social progress the civil activists have earned. In fact, I think it’s important to emphasize the influence that peaceful means of protest have on our society. The more we show its power, the less people will feel the need turn to more extreme means to be heard.

BLM in a nutshell: Not racist. Not radical. Not hateful. Just doing its part in fighting racial injustice.

Violence and protests.
I in no way condone violence in protests. It’s the lowest form of “argumentation,” and the least persuasive. It damages the reputation of a group trying to deliver a message, and it hurts other human beings. I would be lying if I said I didn’t understand the impulse to punch white supremacists/nationalists in the face. But that will never rid them, or society, of the beliefs they espouse.

However, I will also not back down in the face of violence, or let people use it to make false equivalences. I am not going to look at a situation where white supremacist/nationalists got into a fight with groups who oppose them and say, “Oh, well, they both hit each other with sticks and sprayed each other with pepper spray, so both of their messages are of equal merit.” Because that’s nonsense.

And anyway, if we’re going to focus on violence in the demonstration, if we’re going to compare the violence, there is an unequivocal, hate-fueled winner.

JLeslie's avatar

@Soubresaut About universities. When various California universities did away with affirmative they cited that many of the minorities getting in couldn’t do the work. Maybe it was quotas not affirmative action, I don’t remember. So, “white” kids weren’t getting in, because their spot was given to a minority and that didn’t seem right, in fact according to the studies, supposedly it was a waste. They decided merit and achievement were better, and I tend to agree, assuming any tests, essays, interviews that are done aren’t harshly biased against minorities.

I am NOT saying minorities are less intelligent or less smart, what I am saying is if they aren’t prepared to do the work they are set up to fail if they get accepted. Letting a kid into a school that they can’t do the work isn’t helping anyone.

Now, the kids who can do the work, I don’t want them to miss out because their poor. I’m more concerned about that. I don’t want someone academically inclined to not have the opportunities to follow that path.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

I’m sending you virtual hug for that. I have often felt that quota systems were condescending, unfair and actually put minorities at a disadvantage. I see it a lot, people see a miority in a typically “white male” field and they assume they are “just a diversity hire” and disregard them right out of the gates. It makes them have to work even harder to gain respect. When it’s all qualification/merit based that is not part of the equation.

JLeslie's avatar

^^I have mixed feelings about it. With the universities I feel more comfortable excluding race considerations altogether. Regarding jobs, it depends. It depends the type of job and the place. Some employers do tend to hire people who look like themselves, and when it’s mostly whites at the top, that means the whole organization will be white. Soooo, if qualifications are equal I completely understand having quotas to make up for the inequity in the past. But, in the universities, from what I understand, the kids were dropping out or flunking out. They weren’t as qualified as the white kids. Again, I don’t mean all the minorities were less qualified, I only mean forcing the numbers wasn’t making sense for anyone.

seawulf575's avatar

@Soubresaut so BLM is a harmless group. Yet they come to protests armed to cause trouble, just as they did in Charlottesville. No, all the trouble was not on them, don’t try reading into that. But if they were truly the innocent, peace-loving group you are trying to sell, they wouldn’t bring clubs and prepared things to throw to a protest. Sorry, facts shoot you down. Not to mention all the links I provided above show BLM behavior at their protests as well as the negative impact they are having on society as a whole. And here’s the kicker…it took me only about 5 minutes to find and cite all those links. If I can 3 links to examples of where BLM perpetrated violence specifically against whites (which is a racist act) and 3 more where their violent actions were used as a point of reference for other violence and it only takes me 5 minutes, there is a whole lot more out there. So no, you aren’t going to convince me that BLM is anything other than a bunch of racist thugs…right up there with the KKK and the neo-nazis.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie The alt-right label is just as polarizing as Muslim Extremists. And as I said, if a group like the KKK was doing violence while shouting “Jesus is Great” I would gladly categorize them as Christian extremists. You must remember that is one of the characteristics of the Muslim extremists…they shout “Allahu Akbar” as they are slashing or shooting at some unarmed innocent. Apparently they are so engrained in their beliefs that they see their actions as a tribute to Allah. And if it was only one guy or gal, it would be a non sequiter. But it happens over and over again. And here is the other part of the equation…the rest of the Christian community would denounce the actions of someone doing violence in the name of Jesus loud and often. All you really hear out of the Muslims is that we can’t identify the murderers as Muslim Extremists because they don’t like that label. They aren’t denouncing the violence though.
As for the BLM: I cited several items. The first three I referenced were BLM activists attacking people because they were white. It isn’t just a few dolts (well, yes they are dolts), they are actually part of the BLM group. Their actions are condoned by that group. The other items I referenced showed their influence on the rest of society. In these examples you see people targeting cops and whites because that is the message they are hearing from BLM. Oh, and BLM doesn’t denounce these actions either. In fact the last one was particularly disturbing. Now it is fairly limited in population, but the guy holding up a Black Lives Matter sign in a predominately white neighborhood had no problems. In fact most of the people merely pointed out that ALL lives matter…color doesn’t matter. But when the same guy does the same thing in a predominately black neighborhood but this time with an All Lives Matter sign, he gets physically attacked several times. This is the influence of the violence that BLM brings to the party. Racism and violence is what their actions state to the world. Until everyone can actually come to terms with that and call out disapproval at their violence and racism, it will continue.

MrGrimm888's avatar

In threads like these, I wish I could give “bad answers.”

@seawulf575 . Have ever even been to a protest involving any of the groups you mention? I have. You grossly misrepresent all parties. Your heavily flawed thinking is precisely what Trump is in trouble for. And similar to Trump, you keep trying to make false analogies, that you can’t excuse without obvious bias. You don’t seem stupid, so I can only assume you are going so far out of your way to make yourself feel better about your own views. That’s sad…

I’m happy you have another list though. I’d like to tell you where you could put it, but you’d have to remove your head from there first. With all due respect…

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 But, the KKK does claim to be a group that is adhering to Christianity and Christian morality, and wanting to make America Christian again. The way they want to do it is ridding the country of Jews, Catholics, blacks, etc. White has never been enough. Believe me, those Irish Catholics are white. They have still always been part of the target of the klan.

The major Christian sects in America denounce the KKK, but their schtick is definitely associated with Christianity in their minds. Christianity is part of how they justify their actions. It’s not their custom to scream out Jesus Christ almighty, but it doesn’t change that part of what they use to recruit people is Christianity. Mind you, I’m not blaming Christianity, just like I didn’t blame the Muslim faith, I’m blaming leaders who use religion for evil.

What if the Muslim terrorists weren’t screaming out Allah, but still claimed Islam as the justification for killing? As long as they don’t scream it out then you view them differently, and are willing to drop the “Muslim” part of extremists.

http://www.kkk.com

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

I highly recommend you read the Wikipedia link. The beginning tells you about its Christian roots. If you read the section about the klan from the 1940’s to today it tells you about violence and murders they have committed more recently.

JLeslie's avatar

I forgot to add that plenty of Muslims and Muslim leaders denounce the violence. It isn’t reported enough.

I do have a serious problem with the Muslim theocracies in the Middle East. Don’t get me wrong.

My most religious Muslim friend, she was a very successful business owner, very independent. She is the farthest a woman could be from being controlled or having to submit to a man.

seawulf575's avatar

MrGrimm…eyewitnesses indicated clubs, rocks, bottles and cans filled with concrete, shields, and other implements of mayhem in use by BOTH SIDES. Why is it that even when there are eyewitness accounts you can’t admit the truth? Both sides in Charlottesville came to promote violence. Both Sides. The Cops were told to let the violence happen because the administration is concerned about an interaction with BLM and cops turning into some multimillion dollar riot like has happened in Ferguson, Baltimore, Charlotte NC, Milwaukee, and many other places.
And with all due respect, I can only assume you dodge the truth because your head is in the place you assume mine is.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie The KKK is indeed a fringe group in my mind. But they are not out killing in the name of the Lord. They are a political group that has an extremely skewed view of what a Christian based society should look like. If you go back to the two links you cited and read through, you will see they didn’t take the actions they did because they felt God wanted them to do that. That is the HUGE difference between groups like the KKK and the Muslim Extremists. Additionally as you and the Wikipedia article both identified…Christian groups around the country (world) denounce the behavior of the KKK. But you don’t see the Muslim groups around the country (world) denouncing the violence of the extremists. There is another HUGE difference. But as I was reading the article from Wikipedia, I came across this paragraph that really hit home with me:
“During the tenure of Bull Connor as police commissioner in Birmingham, Klan groups were closely allied with the police and operated with impunity. When the Freedom Riders arrived in Birmingham in 1961, Connor gave Klan members fifteen minutes to attack the riders before sending in the police to quell the attack.[38] When local and state authorities failed to protect the Freedom Riders and activists, the federal government began to establish intervention and protection.”
When I read that, I look at what just happened in Charlottesville VA. The cops were told to let the BLM/Antifa groups have unfettered access to the KKK/White Supremacist/neo-nazis, and were only sent in to quell the attacks when things got out of hand. So what I see is an eerie similarity between those that supported the KKK in their hey-day and those supporting BLM/Antifa today.
As for the terrorism by Muslims….did you actually read what you wrote? “What if the Muslim terrorists weren’t screaming out Allah, but still claimed Islam as the justification for killing? As long as they don’t scream it out then you view them differently, and are willing to drop the “Muslim” part of extremists.” What that looks like is that you are more concerned about the term Muslim Extremists, than about the terrorist acts they commit. Shouting Allahu Akbar is merely a dead giveaway indication that they are doing these acts in the the name of Islam. If they didn’t shout it but later claimed credit for Islam killing the infidels, what’s the difference? But apparently there is a big difference to the left. It isn’t the actions, its the name we attach to the perpetrators that is the real issue, right? And in the end, the Muslim community isn’t denouncing the violence, but like you, only the name that is attached to it.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie ” plenty of Muslims and Muslim leaders denounce the violence. It isn’t reported enough.” Now I’m a guy that wants things to make sense. Outside of totally insane people, most things should make sense. So if there are plenty of Muslim and Muslim leaders denouncing the violence, why ISN’T it being reported on? There are plenty of reports that slam people that are calling the perpetrators “Muslim Extremists”. There is even a push to ban that sort of term as “hate speech”. Yet all it would take to stop all that sort of stuff would be for a few reports about the Muslims denouncing it and offering to work with the world to stop these extremists and suddenly not only would the label of the terrorist become less inciting, but there might actually come some sort of solution to the problem. But it is time to be honest…how many Christian armies are out there committing atrocities in the name of the Lord? How many Christians are being taught that God wants them to go out and kill anyone that disagrees with their view of God? Yet on the Muslim side there ARE whole armies that are working towards killing the infidels and installing their theocracy across the world. There are whole terrorist networks with the same goal. So at some time, the world is either going to have to face these facts or the violence and chaos is going to continue to ramp up every day.

JLeslie's avatar

^^We just completely disagree on this. Just because in this point in time there are horrible leaders, who have a lot of followers, using the Muslim religion as a basis to kill people doesn’t mean there won’t be a crazy leader in the future who uses Christianity the same who gets a bunch of followers. Don’t feel so immune. I’m not picking on Christianity, it can happen with any religion, any nationality, and society.

I really don’t care that much either way if we call the Muslim Extremists or not, but I think people who really believe it is that religion that is all bad, and doesn’t see it’s more a matter of the religion being used as a tool, is too busy thinking their religion is better than everyone else’s.

You can’t ignore the many millions of peaceful and good people who are Muslim.

I’m with you that both sides came in armed and ready for violence, some were hoping for it. But, I depart from you fast in defending the “white” side. I’m critical of the violence on both sides period. As far as being white, my experience is most white people have no clue what it’s like being a minority. Are you actually worried some minority person is going to harm you for being white? I don’t mean at a protest, I mean random on the street, or at your church? Are you worried about the school your kids go to teaching a religion you don’t agree with or having prayers you don’t practice led by teachers or coaches? is the history of your people in the last 100 years include being, hated, enslaved, killed, tortured, used for science, in any sort of systematic way?

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 Promoting or condoning violence is not acceptable behavior. Hangers on and hooligans attaching themselves to BLM activities is a major problem for that organization, which contrary to your insistence was in no way involved with the melee in Charlottesville. And while you may be correct in stating that both sides were guilty of violence in the Charlottesville demonstration, there is ONLY one side that is avowedly racist. And there is of course little point in denouncing the BLM if they didn’t show up. Of course there are racists sprinkled in with every ethnic group, but like it or not, violence against Nazis is not racism. Perhaps there’s validity to your charge that I’m an extremist and if so it might be responsible for my difficulty in coming up with a single example of a “liberal racist”. Maybe our dispute is about a confusion in terminology, because our definitions don’t coincide. To my mind liberal racist is one of those impossible contradictions like clean coal or contemplative Trump.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie You get no argument from me that not all Muslims are bad. But the current situation in the world today is that there are hundreds of thousands of Muslims that are attacking, raping, beating, and killing others…often in the name of Allah. And I have read a portion of the Koran so I know it isn’t that far removed from the bible, so I know it isn’t a religion of violence. But Islam is more than a religion…it is a political structure as well. So until the Muslims step in to deal with what looks like a growing trend of violence in the name of that religion/theocracy, or even to loudly denounce the violence, nothing will change.
And you don’t need to depart from me from defending the “white” side. I absolutely believe both sides in the Charlottesville debacle were wrong…both sides were there to promote violence, came ready for it in fact. It may look like I am totally blaming BLM or Antifa, but I am merely responding to some that are trying to claim they were innocent and that they are peace-loving groups. They are just as bad as the KKK/neo-nazi camp on the other side.
I personally don’t worry about being attacked because I am white. But it is happening more and more in this world. Remember the “knock out” game? Groups of blacks randomly attacking some innocent, usually white, person on the street with the goal of seeing if they could knock that person out with one sucker punch? That sort of ended when one supposed victim pulled out a gun and defended himself. My kids are all out of public schools, but again, there are more and more examples of cases where Islam is being used in the classrooms. Remember the case of the school that was using the Islamic affirmation prayer as a “calligraphy” exercise? As for the world of the past 100 years treating my ancestors as dirt, I am about half Irish. We are probably the most discriminated against group in the history of the world. But I am not living in the past and am not holding any grudges against anyone that I think may have done something wrong to my ancestors. I currently live in a very mixed neighborhood with whites, blacks, and hispanics all living in harmony. There is no strife and I enjoy the friendship I have with my black neighbors. I don’t even really see them as black. THAT is how it should be in society today. But when we continue to try forcing differences to the forefront, it will never be that way.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly your liberal shades are continuing to block your vision. BLM was not involved with Charlottesville? Really?!? Or are you just trying to say that they did nothing?

https://news.vice.com/story/armed-white-supremacists-march-in-charlottesville-state-of-emergency-declared

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/charlottesville-white-supremacist-rally-erupts-in-violence-w497446

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/08/12/photos-violence-charlottesville/M6SLPmlA7kAa4WCQIv7GkM/story.html?pic=9

http://wtop.com/media-galleries/2017/08/photos-white-supremacists-clash-protesters-charlottesville/slide/24/

http://wtop.com/media-galleries/2017/08/photos-white-supremacists-clash-protesters-charlottesville/slide/36/

All of these links attest to BLM being present. You can again bury your head, wherever, but facts again prove you wrong. BLM was there. Across this nation, most of the riots that have taken place are when BLM shows up. Seems excessively naive to believe they do nothing and violence just erupts wherever they go. As for the KKK being the only avowed racists, you are again wrong. First off, the KKK doesn’t avow that they are racist. Granted you and I may think they are, but they do not. Likewise, BLM does not avow that they are racists either. Yet they are, just as the KKK is. Their actions at many of the riots that have happened bear that out, where they are targeting only white people for no other crime than being white.
Liberal Racists are just as prevalent as Conservative Racists. The liberal media loves to brand all conservatives as racists, but that is extraordinarily inaccurate. But it does help make the liberal agenda more sound and it does help further divide the country. Just as Conservative news outlets try to brand all liberals as being control freaks that will do anything to anyone that opposes their views, it isn’t true.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^No amount of links will excuse your thinking. No lists. No BS. You seem like most alt-right people. Not enough courage to just come out and say you’re racist.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 and no amount of links and proof will ever make you admit you might be wrong. got it. Might as well come out and admit that you are close-minded and incapable of admitting error. I actually feel sorry for you.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Aw…Your pity wounds me…~

You are correct though. No amount of “proof,” will paint people who protest white supremacy as you do. No amount of “proof,” will justify supporting nazis. No amount of “proof,” will legitimize the alt-right’s agenda or actions.

As these “unit the right” protests spread (emboldened by the POTUS) across our country, I recommend that you go take a look in person. No lists from the web. No spin from the right.
Just your own eyes.

See the hate of the side you support.

See the messages they spout.

See the shirts, hats, signs, and hear their baseless/ignorant rhetoric.

Look at the other side(the anti-white supremacists.)

See the fear, and confusion in their eyes.

See the bravery at facing down an opponent who is willing to oppose everything that our nation stands for.

See their unity.

See their love.

See their hope.

See the people who won’t sit back, and watch the racists, and nazis, and xenophobes take this country down a path of evil.

To some. Doing nothing about the alt-right, is in line with condoning their actions.

When you return home, I recommend you take a moment to look in the mirror. Introspection is a powerful thing.

seawulf575's avatar

^ and your answer again proves my point that facts don’t matter one whit to you…only raving. I would challenge you to show me where I have protested for white supremacy. It hasn’t happened. In fact I have pointed out what pinheads they are. Likewise I would challenge you to show me were I supported nazis. And I would gladly look at where I legitimized the “alt-right”, though to be fair, that label has a very nebulous meaning to the left. Anyone that says the lefties are loonies as well as the righties is considered “alt-right” to the loony lefties, such as yourself.

It isn’t “unit the right”, it’s “Unite the Right”. Learn to spell. It will help make you look semi intelligent until you start raving.

The rest of your rant is idiotic for all the same reasons. I have never supported the loonies on the Right. In fact I have called them repeatedly “loonies” and called them out for the same evils I have seen on the loonies on the left. So your strawman effort to brand me in with that group is sad and useless. A simple look back at my posts will prove you to be a moron.

And when I look at the left, I see the exact same thing I see by those on the right. There isn’t bravery in facing down anyone there. There is anger. There is blind hatred. There is violence. There is total contempt for the laws of this land. there is unity, though it is of a demented sort. There is no love. Love requires forgiveness and caring. Jesus even says to love thine enemies. You cannot show a single example of that sort of behavior by the BLM or the Antifa so you don’t get to claim that. You claim these people are willing to face down opponents that oppose everything this nation stands for. So let’s look at the behavior by the BLM and Antifa in this country so far. Riots, vandalism, assaults, violence, attempted murders, murders…these are apparently the sort of characteristics you see as what this country stands for. Funny thing…these are the same tactics as those of their opponents. Except honestly, you don’t see as much of this from the neo-nazis and the KKK. Not that they are above it, but they haven’t exposed the country to as much in the past 2 years.

So I will turn it around on you. Doing nothing about this sort of behavior is in line with condoning it. You might need to go home and take that long look in the mirror yourself. Do as I have recommended a number of times…open your mind and your heart to see reality not as the slave you seem to be, but as the human you are supposed to be. I have no problem seeing the evil on both sides. You cannot. That means either your eyes or your mind is closed.

See, I could say all of these things, but it all applies logic and you have proven time and again that you don’t care about facts and logic…only the liberal agenda.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 You might want to watch this clip.. Towards the middle this former neoNazi talks about how the Supremicist groups useChristianity just like the Middle East terrorists use the Muslim religion.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie I have no doubt that giving legitimacy to their actions is all part of their indoctrination. But you heard the guy say it himself: the attacks are all based on fear and anger. They did not attack because God demanded it. With the ISIS groups and those that adhere to their lunacy, it IS God that demands the actions. ISIS brings this all back to Islam themselves: ISLAMIC State of Iraq and Syria. They are claiming Islam as their basis. I didn’t create that…they did. I didn’t create that they continually commit atrocities while shouting “Allahu Akbar!”...they did. I didn’t make up the idea that they need to kill all that don’t believe exactly as they do…they do. They will kill other Muslims if they don’t exactly follow the religious guidance as defined by the ISIS leaders. I will say it again: There has probably never been a terrorist in this world that commits the crime while shouting “Jesus is Great!”. And you can bet that most Christian groups would totally denounce that person or persons if they did. You don’t see a bunch of Christian groups jumping up to defend any of the idiots in Charlottesville, right? Yet when some terrorist flies a plane into a building, killing thousands, he is revered by many in Islam. If Islam is really not the problem, then the Muslims need to deal with their idiotic problem children…at least come out loudly denouncing their violence.

MrGrimm888's avatar

So. Burning a cross has no religious implications?

What about when the KKK protests homosexuality with signs like “God hates fags?”

If we look back in time, we see a little thing called “the Crusades.”

I personally see a parallel.

And, to my knowledge, lots of Muslims do denounce Islamic terrorists.

Extremists are a natural, inevitable, byproduct of organized religion… (Yes, for another thread.)

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 Again trying to get off topic. First off, let’s get it straight that I am not defending the KKK. I am merely pointing out the difference in the depth of religion in the ideology between the KKK and the Islamic extremists. Look at your examples. All are examples of protests, not violent acts. I can give you examples of KKK violence but it is never motivated by the religious teachings, it is motivated by hate and racism. They don’t shout religious things as they commit their violence. And the Crusades?!? Really?!? you do know those ended 726 years ago, right? The KKK was not around then….just thought you’d like to know. Not really relevant to today’s world. Shoot, I believe it was you that was trying to ignore the role of the Democrats in racism up through the 1970’s, saying it was a whole different story today. But I understand you are scrambling to find something that you can use. You want historical differences between KKK and Islamists? Okay…the KKK was fighting to keep slavery as a practice in this country 100 years ago. Islam is the basis for slavery today in some parts of the world. But don’t let that fact interrupt your lofty dreams. Here’s another BIG difference: The KKK is a bunch of individual groups that do very little actual violence. Yes, they are more violent than some in this world, but gangs in our cities do far worse every year. And when you compare that to ISIS, who literally has armies to kill in the name of their god, and those armies and adherents are growing every day, there really is no comparison. As I have said, I don’t believe all Muslims are violent, nor do they support violence. But with the growing terrorist activities that are coming from ISIS, they need to start policing their own. Who leads these violent groups? Who is funding them? Which Imams and Mosques are spouting the violent rhetoric? These are all questions that Muslims can answer far more easily than non-Muslims, and they can do far more to remove these terrorists from the name of Islam than anyone else.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@JLeslie brought up the religious variable, not me. So no. I wasn’t getting off topic, anymore than you were by addressing her statement.

The Crusades were a big deal. It was a war on the Islamic world, fueled directly by Christianity. The war shaped what we now know as Europe, and the Middle East, with parts of Northern Africa. Yes. Three of the habitable continents. Ramifications were also felt all the way across the silk road in Asia. Many Middle Eastern people still think that it is very relevant. The ramifications of that war are hardly overstated, even to the most ignorant of history.

The KKK wasn’t around then? Ya don’t say, neither was ISIS. There is an obvious parallel with both being extremist groups that claim religion as their roots.

Again, you circumvented the most obvious, undeniable fact. Those who protest homosexuality, do indeed spout “God hates fags.” Or what of the burning of crosses? Can there be a more direct, in your face religious tie?

Again, you say you aren’t supporting any of these groups. Yet again, you give them a small mention, and focus on the Democrat’s far smaller roles, if any, involving the agendas being pushed by the right. And I NEVER said anything about anything being “a different story today.”

You seem to try and excuse the behavior of the KKK, by mentioning gang violence. Talk about a false analogy. And I can only imagine why you think the KKK gave up on slavery 100 years ago. Do you think they don’t support it anymore?

You follow the same thinking that has people mad at Trump over Charlottesville. You are ignoring the problem, apparently because it hits too close to your beliefs. And you are trying to direct focus on the left, but there are no realistic comparisons.

I can’t imagine that your arguments even hold water in the echo chamber of alt-right talk radio.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 Okay, so we will dig up all the past. How about the Barbary slave trade? Many whites enslaved by blacks and Muslims. How about the Crusades? There were two sides to that conflict and one of the was Islamic so you might as well cancel that out. How about all the arab nations and Israel? Those at heart are religious in nature. Maybe we should be slamming Jews and Muslims alike, eh? How about EVERY conflict in mankind’s history? I mean after all, they all involved one group that disagreed with another group. I can easily make a tie to all the crap going on in the US today. And in the end, it doesn’t change a thing about the US today. So your crusades comments are ignorant and stretching. However when I try to bring it much, much closer to real history in the US, you immediately try acting like it didn’t happen or that it wasn’t important. Why? Because it points a very ugly light right at the Dems. You ask me if I think the KKK doesn’t support slavery anymore? Well let’s dig in a bit. The KKK was all DEMOCRATS!!!!! It was those same DEMOCRATS that were pushing to keep blacks as second class citizens well into the 1970’s. It was Stanleybmanley that commented the Dems just woke up one day and said “Hey! We’ve been wrong all along so we will no longer make life miserable for blacks” You just jumped in to give him support when I spanked him with that idea. And if you really believe that then why is it that the KKK couldn’t do the same? They came from the same group with the same past and the same mentality.
I have already acknowledged that the KKK uses religion as a basis for their indoctrination. But their violence is based on hatred and fear, not on some passage out of the bible where God tells them to go kill blacks and make whites supreme. I would challenge you to go to the bible and find where that passage exists. Meanwhile, you continue to support Islam where there are numerous passages that tell good Muslims that it is there holy duty to kill infidels. Now I have also acknowledged that not all Muslims are nutty and are out for blood or that they even support the terrorism. But the guidance is still there and the nut-jobs do use it as marching orders. If the Bible did give guidance to kill blacks I am quite certain you would see the KKK trying to use that as a holy duty as well.
As for the gangs, go back and read the whole comment, not just cherry pick the select lines you like. I brought up gangs as a comparison. I pointed out all the violence that Muslims are doing around the world. I compared that with the relative small amount that the KKK actually does. I then compared the amount of violence the KKK actually does with the gang violence in this country. Another situation of relatively small groups, doing violence for the sake of hate. Yet you want to totally discount that. Why don’t the lefties, such as yourself, ever want to actually attack the real issues? Gang violence is huge. By FBI records, it accounts for about 8000 gun deaths each year. When you get into violence against blacks, it is mostly blacks terrorizing blacks, not whites on blacks. Yet you loonies on the left refuse to look at these issues. And you are doing it again in this thread. As soon as I mention it you go way over the top to try making the conversation go away.
You made a statement that seems to scream out another question for you. You state “Yet again, you give them a small mention, and focus on the Democrat’s far smaller roles, if any, involving the agendas being pushed by the right”. Dems are almost entirely on the left so why WOULD they have roles on the agenda of the right? But here’s the real question and one I would love to hear you state for the world to see: What do you see as the agenda of the right?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Well here is where it all bubbles up. Because it is in the definitions of these things that the problems arise. That crazy chart of yours is actually an attempt to get around the fact of where things lie on the scale of left to right in our common vernacular. Take for example that little term you invented, “racist liberal”. I ask you again to try to name just one. Everyone reading this knows EXACTLY on which end of that scale the word “racist” belongs. You should also pause a minute from the exertions involved with spanking me to consider whether antifa and BLM are indeed Liberal movements, why it is that Democrats are NOW almost exclusively to the left of center, and whether or not there is any chance of reconciling left with right in this country. I’m not going to bother with which side is right or wrong. But I DO want to point out a little fact you may not have noticed in your excursions through history regarding the dance of liberals and conservatives, and the reason racism must remain on the stinky right side of the border.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Simply put, the social history of this country can be defined as forces on the left dragging the right into the future. Pick any issue you choose: slavery, gay rights, women’s suffrage, child labor laws, the 40 hour work week, environmental protection, it doesn’t matter. Then look at the positions of left vs. right on the struggles over these matters. What for example was (and often clandestinely remains) the conservative position on slavery or public education? There have been setbacks, but progress is irresistible as long as ignorance and stupidity can be kept at bay. Trump is the swollen gland that should notify anyone with a lick of sense that those 2 lethal diseases are gaining ground.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly Racist liberal: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters, Louis Farrakhan, All of BLM, All of Antifa The list does go on, but these are the ones that have most demonstrated a penchant for selecting race as a primary goal of almost all their actions. When you actively work against skin color, you are a racist. When you want to make any and every action that occurs all about race, you are a racist or worse…a race hustler. Those that profit from fanning the flames of racial hate.
And anyone that believes that racism belongs on only one side of the political spectrum is a fool. Racism is separate from political views. It is hate based and trust me…there are a ton of haters on the left and the right.
As for the left dragging the right into the future: You have a skewed view of things. You assume that we on the right are against all those things. We aren’t. Slavery…it was the Dems that were for it and for Jim Crow Laws, and efforts to keep blacks down well into the 1970’s. Republicans fought against the south in the civil war and continued the effort to gain equal rights for blacks as time went on. Dems didn’t just suddenly change their stripes and force the Republicans to change theirs. Gay rights: I don’t know a conservative that cares enough if gays have equal rights, but we do reserve the right to have our own opinions about a gay lifestyle. Women’s Suffrage: I personally don’t have a problem with women voting and never have. But a funny thing…many women didn’t WANT the right to vote. There were many anti-suffrage movements against it that were mainly from women. The left apparently didn’t care what the women wanted, they were going to force it onto them anyway. THAT is the big difference between the left and the right, I think. The left wants anything and everything to be great and acceptable with no thought to any impact on society or the country AND they want to force everyone else to go along with it. The Right typically (yes there are always the fringe groups) is willing to think about things and they don’t slam it down everyone’s throat. So I guess if you want to say “Drag into the future” when you mean “force regardless of opposition” then you might be right. But here’s a thought you might want to think about: Liberals are supposed to stand for liberty and equality. Yet what they actually stand for is force. They don’t want to hear opposing views. They want to take away civil rights in an effort to make their own views the only ones that can be heard. You mentioned public education. A Conservative will tell you that public education CAN be a good thing, but that it is being hijacked to be an indoctrination center for liberal views. A strong educational system will promote free thought. It will promote values. It will promote learning through discussion and debate. It will promote life lessons. The current public education system is lacking in all those things. In fact, there have been multiple examples of where children were being forced to do things they didn’t want to do by the school. Example: Being forced to write out the Islamic Affirmation Prayer which went against at least one student’s religious views. So the school was going to punish her until she did it. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the Liberals that fought to keep church out of school? Isn’t it the liberals that bring law suits against schools if a H.S. coach does a silent, personal prayer on the 50 yd line after a football game? Of course it was a CHRISTIAN prayer. But when the Affirmation Prayer issue was going on, the liberals were jumping to the defense of the school. Slavery is just a foolish thing for you to even say. It is gaining ground?!?!?! Really?!?!?!? Grow up. Show me one place in the US where there is even discussion of legalizing slavery again. I’ll wait. I can show you many places overseas where it is alive and well, yet these are the areas from which the liberals are fighting to force the US to let in unvetted “refugees” and the liberals are fighting to force the rest of us to accept their lifestyle, regardless of what it is. So I will ask you, Mr. Manly, What exactly do you see as the liberal values that we should all accept and WHY should we accept them?

stanleybmanly's avatar

That’s quite the tirade. Where to begin? Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Maxine Waters are all liberals. Louis Farrakhan is decidedly not a liberal, and is about as conservative an individual as you’re likely to find. As for the first 3 individuals, your simplistic assumption that they are racists because they appear driven by racial issues ignores the fact that this is STILL a society with glaring racial inequities, laws and traditions LEVERAGED against black people. The inane charge of racism against 3 black survivors of the civil rights struggle could only be made by ignoring the ACTUAL history of this country as well as its CURRENT reality. It’s equivalent to accusing turkeys of bigotry for an obsession over Thanksgiving.

Do you actually believe that you can bolster the conservative argument against women’s suffrage with the asinine assertion that some women didn’t want the vote? There is always some ludicrous argument from the right such as “my slaves don’t want freedom”. And I never claimed that slavery was the current model in the country. Your own words prove my assertion, regarding the left pulling the right toward progress. Because whether or not the right wants slavery legalized or women denied the vote TODAY, you will not get around the fact that these were DEFINING issues at the HEART of mainstream conservatism. If you dummies must be FORCED to abolish slavery——so be it!

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . I don’t have to go pouring through the Bible to find passages that tie the KKK’s actions to Christianity, just as much as indoctrination. I am simply repeating their own rhetoric, and actions. And so, I will ask you for a third time.

If they aren’t using Christianity as a basis/reason for their actions, what’s up with “God hates fags?” Is that in the Bible? And the burning of crosses?

I have to use the term “yet again” with you, because I’m having to go over the same material “yet again.” And you deflect, yet again…

I only mentioned thelast Crusade, because it was the last one. It is the one,that shaped history the most. Not a stretch at all.

What is, to me, the agenda of the right? Make America great again. Obvious translation, when viewing attempted actions, and agendas = Make America white again.

The ridiculous wall. Dismantling the ACA. Voter ID laws. Immigration reform, namely the push to ensure that any immigrants speak english, and/or predominantly accept “American culture.” Cutting the amount of immigrants in half.Deportation of mainly Latinos. Pardoning a white man for abusing Latinos (hasn’t been done, but was suggested.)
Travel bans for Muslim countries. Tax breaks for the wealthy. Easing of restrictions on pollution control (helps rich white people.) Removal of affirmative action. Hiring Bannon in the first place. Supporting the same agendas as the alt-right IS the agenda of the right. Ask David Duke.

I’ll suply more later.

Now it’s your turn to blame all these things on some left group. Make sure your analogies are baseless. If you don’t like something I mentioned, call it fake news, or the media bullying Trump.

As I’ve said before, all white Trump supporters aren’t racist. But all white racists, are Trump supporters…

If my agenda, and that of the white supremacists, were the same, I’d have some thinking to do…

Oh. I have to touch on something else. Public schools are” hijacked to be a indoctrination center for liberal views.” Why, because they want to teach evolution, and global warming? What a load of crap. Forcing kids to do stuff they don’t want to. That’s what 80% of school is…

The problem of course, is those on the right teach their children one way. Then, as the child is educated, it sees the obvious problems with those things they were taught. As usual, you’re confusing intelligent, educated thought, with “liberalism.”

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly Sorry boss, Farrakhan is most definitely a liberal. He has fought against everything that conservatives would like to see…law and order for example. He is one of your examples of a liberal trying to drag the right into the future.
As for your sudden denial of your idiotic statement, let me quote: “What for example was (and often clandestinely remains) the conservative position on slavery or public education? There have been setbacks, but progress is irresistible as long as ignorance and stupidity can be kept at bay. Trump is the swollen gland that should notify anyone with a lick of sense that those 2 lethal diseases are gaining ground.” Apparently you believe that those 2 lethal diseases (slavery and public education) are gaining ground. So my challenge stands, despite your effort to try changing your words. I quoted you twice now and your response so far has been to try changing my words. Please show me where I accused you of claiming that slavery was the current model in our country. Changing another person’s words is a typical and equally useless ploy by liberals to avoid saying “sorry, my bad”.
And I see you have taken a huge drink from the rhetoric jug. Glaring racial inequities, laws, and traditions against black people? Please…show me the laws that are against black people. Show me the traditions? Even the racial inequities…while I will admit there is still racism alive and well in this country and have stated so many times, you would have to go a long stretch to consider them “glaring”. You have the obvious ones of groups like the KKK or the neo-nazis, but really….how much impact do they really have on anything? They aren’t doing a lot of physical attacks against blacks, they certainly don’t have a lot of political pull, so I’m failing to see how “glaring” this can be. Please, enlighten me. And specifically, point to me the laws that are geared AGAINST black people. I’ll tell you what, for every one you can show, I will show you two that are in favor of black people.
Anti-suffrage: Do a google search. That’s all I’m going to say. You can look for facts yourself. Well, you could if you really wanted to learn something instead of holding to your nazi-like liberal mindset.

But it didn’t escape me that you, like most liberals, avoided the specific question I asked. What are EXACTLY the values that you and your ilk hold that you are trying to drag the rest of us to?

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 And for the THIRD time, I will say it again…the KKK does use religion in their indoctrination to give legitimacy to their cause. BUT, I will say it again, for the THIRD time, when you look up violent attacks by KKK, you will find that in every case, it is driven by hate and racism and you will never find them saying that God wants them to do it. And I will say for the SECOND time, holding up a sign that says “God Hates Fags” would reflect their indoctrination but is not an act of violence. Beating or shooting someone IS an act of violence. And every example I can find of that shows that God had no hand in it and is never an excuse for their actions. I know you want to try ignoring what I write, but it is all there.
You mention the Crusades because you were trying to find some violence that was done in the name of Christianity to try negating all the violence done in the name of Islam. You had to go back to something that ended over 700 years ago to really find it. Good job. It has no relevance in this discussion other than to give you something that shows violence was once done in the name of Christianity.
Okay…so you have interpreted the conservative agenda, as you see it. EXCELLENT! Now, let’s look at each of the items you have listed and we will see what a conservative wants and what a liberal wants (based on your despite of conservative views.)
The wall along our southern border: The point of the wall is to stop the unremitting flow of illegal aliens into this country. Conservatives believe that you cannot have a country without borders. Conservatives believe that immigration through legal means is great, but that illegal immigration is actually a crime. Something has to be done to stem the tide and the wall represents that. That is a conservative view point. So contrarily, the liberal view point must be: Anyone should be able to enter our country any time they want, we should have no borders and therefore no real country. Apparently we should all just fall under a one-world government.
Dismantling the ACA: The ACA is unsustainable and has actually driven up healthcare costs. People are paying more health insurance that provides less coverage. Our national debt is going up because of the ACA and it will eventually break the bank on its own. A Conservative recognizes this hazard and wants to avoid it. We believe that there are ways to reduce healthcare costs without the ACA. And some of us will tell you that when a bill is over 2000 pages long, it is too complex and misses the point entirely. Apparently, the liberal view is the exact opposite: The ACA will continue because the want it to continue, regardless of the facts. They don’t care what it does to our national debt and would gladly sacrifice the entire economy for it. And eventually it will lead to socialized medicine, after it destroys the country.
Immigration Reform: A Conservative views legal immigration favorably. I, personally, feel that the existing immigration laws need to be streamlined, but still need to be in existence. A Conservative believes that immigration laws are designed to help build our nation. And yes, part of that is that immigrants should learn the language of the land they are entering and yes, they should accept our culture. After all, if they don’t want our culture, why are they coming here at all? If you immigrate to another country, they would expect you to learn their language and their culture…this is not an unreasonable thing. And the laws should control the number of immigrants that enter this country, to be balanced with the economic factors of this country. This is responsible immigration. Yes, illegal immigrants should be deported. They broke our laws to enter this land and should be sent back to wherever they come from. I will say that deportation should not be used as a reason for rejecting a legal application for entry, though. A conservative will not want to pardon a white man for abusing anyone. We believe in equal application of the law. In fact it is one of our biggest gripes that the law is not applied equally to those in power. Apparently the liberal view is that legal immigration is a silly thing and should just be done away with. They believe we should reward those that enter our country illegally and break our laws. They believe that when someone enters this country, the country should adapt to them, not the other way around. Of course that means that we have no culture at all, but that seems to be the goal.
Voter ID: A conservative believes in this. We do believe that there is voter fraud in this country and that voter fraud robs us of our power of the vote. We do believe it takes the form of illegal aliens voting, dead people voting, and people voting multiple times. Voter ID laws would help eliminate this problem. It is not going to stop all voter fraud, but would deter a lot. Apparently a liberal believes in voter fraud because they fight fully against any efforts to curb it.
Travel Bans for Muslims: First off, this is an inaccurate statement. The travel ban is from specific nations that have been shown to support terrorism. Conservatives do view this as a common sense thing. ISIS has admitted that they are sending soldiers into other countries disguised as “refugees”. ISIS has admitted they want to destroy our nation. Allowing them unfettered access to our nation seems a really silly thing. Liberals apparently support their goals. As you say, supporting the goals of their agenda is supporting their agenda. You even try changing the wording and meaning of the travel ban to help promote that agenda. It isn’t a travel ban on Muslims. Many nations that have a majority of their people that are muslims are not on the list. If it was a muslim travel ban, all these nations would be on the list as well. Apparently liberals support the ISIS agenda.
Tax Breaks for the Wealthy: A conservative believes that everyone should be treated alike. Many of us believe a flat tax should be used to tax everyone at the same rate without the use of deductions or loopholes. Wealthy people would, by necessity, pay more than someone on welfare. But it would be the same percentage across the board. And a simple flat tax would eliminate the need for an IRS the size it is. Yet every time this is proposed, it is resisted from both Dems and Repubs alike. Apparently Liberals believe that if you are successful, you should be punished more than someone that is not successful.
Easing environmental controls: A conservative believes that the environment is important and that it needs to be protected. But they also recognize that passing rules may not always be doing that or are not going to actually give the results desired. An example is the recent issues of the farmer facing fines for plowing his field. Passing rules that require a permit to plow a field is foolish. Claiming that dirt tilled up while plowing is the same as discharging spoils is foolish. These are laws that don’t gain anything but cause much mischief. The Clean Water Act was purposely written vaguely to allow more power to the US government and make individuals subservient. Conservatives think this sort of thing is evil. Apparently a liberal doesn’t care about what the law is, as long as it sounds like it should do some good.
Removal of Affirmative Action: Yes. A conservative does support this. Again, we favor things that apply to everyone equally. Affirmative Action had a point in time that it was needed to force the equality. In today’s environment, it has outlived its usefulness and is becoming a tool to force things the other way. A conservative believes in equality. Apparently a liberal believes in favoritism.
Public Schools: I said it once, I will say it again: a conservative believes a strong educational system will promote free thought. It will promote values. It will promote learning through discussion and debate. It will promote life lessons. I stated liberals have hijacked the education system not because they want to teach evolution or global warming, but because they want to teach those things (and many others) without giving both sides of the story. They only want to teach one side and not open up the minds of the children. They want to teach evolution, but refuse to talk about creationism. They want to talk about global warming, but refuse to talk about why there are skeptics. They want to push Islam in the classroom but bring lawsuits if Christianity comes within 100 feet of the school. They want children to become transgenders but refuse to go into any of the detriments of that or to even discuss why anyone would think anything else. They want to take away the actual teaching of children in favor of pushing an agenda. These are the things liberals value, not actually teaching children to think. Want other proof? Okay, more conservatives homeschool than liberals. Liberals continually fight against homeschooling. Yet children that are homeschooled consistently score better on aptitude tests than those from public school. Yet you can bet those from the public school could spout the liberal agenda items verbatim.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 In my link basically God is telling him to hate and harm.

Mind you, I know the majority of Christians are peaceful loving people. I don’t think anyone here is criticizing Christianity, so if you are being defensive because of that you are off base. All of the Abrahamic religions have some crap in them better ignored, and that can be used to justify harming others if you want to pick and choose from the text.

I really really don’t understand why this bothers you so much

As far as Farrakhan I don’t give a damn what political party he is associated with. He’s antisemitic and creates havoc in my opinion. He is definitely politically conservative in many of his views. I don’t know which party his voter’s registration says, but I can’t tell you I know tons of black people who are socially conservative (which often amounts to discrimination) and fiscally liberal. The socially conservative part is almost always tied to religion—Christianity or Islam.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie Everybody likes to say Farrakhan is a conservative. I suspect that is because they like the narrative that only conservatives hate. But let me point out that he has preached espousing hatred and violence against whites. He supports attacks on police. and I’m sorry, I know everyone on here loves them, but BLM has the same attitudes and they are most definitely liberals. They have consistently protested and rioted in the name of the liberal agenda. They have NEVER protested against a Democrat. I will say that Farrakhan is probably more of an individual than the robots in BLM and is capable of seeing conservative values that would help blacks, but that’s about it. But isn’t it funny that nobody wants him in their camp?

JLeslie's avatar

^^Well, like most very religious people he is against gay rights, abortion, and other positions that are socially conservative.

No one wants him because he is antisemitic, which he denies, and in my opinion incites bad behavior.

Black oeople against gay rights really gets to me. I know so many blacks who were really angry it was called a “civil rights” issue. I just think they are ignorant idiots.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 There is little point in treating you to a dissertation on my view of liberal values. As I’ve already mentioned, the 2 of us have very divergent definitions for things I regarded as more or less immutable. This discussion around Farrakhan for example illustrates the problem. Until you understand why it is that regardless of political persuasions, no one familiar with Farrakhan’s history or doctrinal declarations could rationally catalog the man as liberal, there can be no agreement. If one of us says “fork” and the other hears “teakettle” all discussion is useless. Go in peace.

seawulf575's avatar

You too, @stanleybmanly. Have a great day.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Schools should teach the “other side” of evolution? There is no other side… Now we’re getting to the root of @seawulf575 ‘s problem. Not a surprise…

stanleybmanly's avatar

@JLesie He is in fact a Muslim fundamentalist.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 I know you aren’t that foolish. If you don’t believe in evolution, you are a creationist. Not many other options there.
But after all that I wrote, that is all you had to comment on? Here’s a thought…you aren’t defending the liberal agenda. Not a surprise there either….

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Because. I’m not a liberal. Never claimed to be…
You have felt comfortable putting me there, so I have let you bark in that direction.

I do hate Trump, as POTUS, and his supporters.

I do hate the alt-right.

I disagree with most Republicans. (Because they share ideology with the alt-right, and /or most white supremacy groups. Ideology that I firmly oppose.)

I am certainly not a Democrat, nor a liberal.

Your rants are so full of nonsense, I usually just stick to the most glaring point of debate that comes close to relevance to the thread.

In this case, I focused on your most flawed logic. And there was much to “cherry pick” from…

The fact that your logic leads you to even remotely entertain teaching creationism to our children, invalidates pretty much all of your material.

Another thing I can’t just sit on is immigration. I don’t have to know you, to know that you are the offspring of immigrants. The “American” culture, that you support, is that of immigrants. That makes you, without argument, a hypocrit. By your logic, YOU should adopt native American culture, and language. Or you shouldn’t be here, right?

In addition, here is some more science. Diversity is a strength. Not a weakness…

Having a diverse population, is the only way to truly thrive in this world. Are you so obtuse, that you think speaking only one language is a benefit in 2017? US citizens are FAR behind the rest of the developed world there.

One culture prepares our children for interactions in an ever growing,connected world?

A healthy immigration supply, is key to genetic, linguistic, religious, ideological, and cultural immersion/coexistence . Those things will be necessary for our country to have positive momentum. Isolationism, is moronic. Now is a time that the whole world is intertwining. It is NOT the time to be divided. Those who foolishly bury their heads, will be left behind…

The division comes from the right’s inability/refusal to accept that change is not only inevitable, but very beneficial to human society.

So what if your grandkids speak Spanish. Is it so wrong to speak another European language? Yeah. English came from Europe. Most of those languages originated from Latin.
It’s ALL trickle down/melted culture.

Immigrants are a great resource, and our country’s best connection to the international community. Make no mistake, integration of these many culture’s, ideas, concepts, DNA, religions, food, and technology IS what makes America great.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 I label you a liberal because all the thoughts you express, the way you express them, and the personal attacks you make while expressing them are all textbook liberal. You can try denying it, but it shines through for all to see. You certainly aren’t a moderate and you aren’t a conservative. You hate conservatives and you are so blinded by that hate you can’t even get to the middle ground of opening your mind to consider their thoughts so you cannot be a moderate. You slam Republicans and assign ALL of them certain thoughts and then slam them some more for your flawed interpretation. Yet oddly you have never done that for a single Democrat and have, in fact, attacked me when I pointed them out. So you aren’t a Republican, your glaring demands to follow a set agenda say you aren’t a libertarian…the field is narrowing…Most independents are moderates and as I have already covered, you can’t be a moderate so independent is out. I guess that leaves you pretty much as a Democrat, a Socialist, or a Nazi. I think you fit into any of these pretty well.
Sorry hoss, deny, deny, deny…but can’t hide. The only thing you manage to vaguely do is try to avoid having to the lunatic liberal agenda, which you then try to defend. So let’s go back over it again. This time, read ALL the words, not just the cherry-picked ones you think you see.

Creationism: Why is your mind so closed that you can’t entertain an alternate view? There are many things in this world that I disagree with, but I am open to hearing them so I can then weigh the pluses and minuses of them, as I see them. That is what an open mind does. A diverse education would do that as well…expose all topics to the children to let them develop their own minds on things. Apparently you don’t want that so that puts you right back into the liberal agenda.

Immigration: You apparently missed everything I stated before, whether through ignorance or through purpose. I don’t oppose immigration. I DO oppose illegal immigration. I support a healthy immigration system. And in answer to your idiotic analogy for the native American culture and language, I will point out the obvious flaw in your thought pattern. There is no such thing as a “Native American Culture and Language”. There were Cree, Sioux, Cherokee, Lumbee, Apache, Arapaho, Blackfoot, Cheyenne, Comanche, Crow, Navajo, Pawnee, Shoshone, and many, many more. All had their own cultures and languages. Now, If I immigrated to an area where one of these actually had a country, for instance if the Lakota Indians ever won their case to reclaim their native lands, I would consider it my responsibility to learn their language and culture. That doesn’t mean I have to give up mine, but I should not expect them to give up theirs because I move in. According to you, that is exactly what we should do…give up our culture to accommodate any and all immigrants.

Diversity CAN be strength. As you say, we can all learn from each other. But Diversity can also be mayhem. Ever notice that Muslims and Jews don’t get along real well? How about many of the tribes in Africa? Liberals and Conservatives? You talk a good story on diversity, but fail to actually follow what you write. You talk about diversity being strength, but then completely ignore anything anyone that isn’t a liberal says or thinks. As I mentioned before, Conservatives believe in healthy immigration and think it is a great way to help our nation. I personally think being multilingual is a great thing as well. But I do believe that having one COMMON language is vital to keeping our world moving. It lays a basis for communication across nations and cultures. If I speak to you in English and you only speak Swahili, we aren’t going to get much done. But there is another funny thing: Your liberal counterparts rave about Michelle Obama who only spoke one language (English) but rant about Melania Trump who speaks 6 fluently (English, French, Italian, Serbo-Croatian, German, and Slovenian). Barack Obama spoke only one language (English) but rant about Trump who speaks 4 (English, German, Serbian, French). So while you are ranting about diversity, you might want to look at the traits of those you idolize and those you hate.

Your proposal that division comes from the right’s inability/refusal to accept that change is inevitable but very beneficial to human society is pure ignorance. I would like to point out that Barack Obama, a leftie from the word go, was the most divisive president in our nations history. He was trying to split the nation along every difference he could find: Race, sex, age, wealth, national heritage, religious beliefs….you name it, he was doing it. The right refuses to believe that all change is good. That is where you fall flat. Liberals believe that change, no matter what it is, should be embraced without any consideration for its impact on society as a whole. And, in true nazi fashion, they verbally and physically attack those that don’t go along with their ideals. And here is the hypocrisy in your thinking: Whenever someone (non-liberal) proposes something, liberals automatically deny and oppose that idea. But when something they proposes falls flat, they blame others. The examples are endless. Obamacare is a fine example. Republicans offered many ideas for healthcare reform during the discussions before Obamacare. Yet the liberal democrats totally ignored them because the Dems held the majority in the House and the Senate. They put whatever idiotic ideas they had into it and then rammed it down our throats. Now it is falling apart and they are attempting to blame Republicans for the mayhem, all while they refuse to admit it is an error. Want another example? Okay…Sequestration. It was something that was created by Obama, Jack Lew, and Gene Sperling and proposed to the House by Tom Harkin (D-IA). It was an idiotic idea, yet Dems and Repubs alike supported it. Then, when it kicked in, the Dems (liberals) blamed the Republicans for the whole thing, claiming it was their idea.

So let’s recap: You are for diversity, providing it doesn’t impact your ideas on education, immigration or really anything opposing the liberal agenda. You cannot be diverse enough to consider anything proposed by a non-liberal. You believe that change for the sake of change is great, but adding thought and consideration into the mix is outrageous. does that about cover it? Oh, and you are in deep denial about being a liberal.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Oh my. You are so lost…

I’m not sure why you feel the need to put me in some box, with a label. But waste your time, if it floats your boat…

I think the funniest thing you mentioned was Trump fluidly speaking 4 languages. He has the vocabulary of a third grader, in English. His writing skills wouldn’t even be good enough for Fluther. Our standards are higher than the apparent education of our POTUS… So, that leaves 3 languages, that you allege he speaks…
As for his wife, please… A prostitute, who hides in Trump tower, to avoid her slob husband. Yeah. Her linguistic skills are very relevant. LOL…

As far as my Native American analogy goes, I stand by it. It makes perfect sense. Pick whichever tribe was robbed of the land in your hometown. If you follow YOUR values, you should be adhering to their culture. Or you should go. That’s a “healthy immigration system.”..

seawulf575's avatar

^Typical liberal response full of hate and vitriol. Not a lick of sense to it, no logic, not even any real point other than to bad mouth people. Carry on, libby.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Well, then maybe we can end this thread, that went off the rails long ago…

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther