I don't read you walls of text

The antifa came for a fight. The protestors didn't. There have been zero reports and your quote of the police does counter that in any way shape or form

For example there is a video of a black kid getting beaten with bats after chanting at the KkK guys. Yep, that pretty clear.

As for the calls to bring arms, there are a ton of reports. Here is one report of a right wing talk show telling people to bring guns

https://www.google.com/amp/s/itsgoingdown.org/unite-right-organizers-encourage-guns-want-war/amp/

Also, it is absolutely unclear if the fascists would have let counter protestors protest if the antifa hadn't been there

Funny, how the defenders of the white supremacists have zero concerns about the free speech rights of protestors to protest without being threatened by thugs with guns.

And you're doing a great job of convincing me you're a neonazi sympathizer, James. Keep covering for them

@Ogion

"I don't read you walls of text"


"And you're doing a great job of convincing me you're a neonazi sympathizer, James."


HOW IS THIS MY FAULT?????


but moving forward:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE: i never sympathized with the neonazis. i ask ANYONE HERE to find a quote of me doing so. seriously. it hasn't happened.



"Funny, how the defenders of the white supremacists have zero concerns about the free speech rights of protestors to protest without being threatened by thugs with guns."

it's almost like we had a group of people to deal with this OH YEAH THAT'S THE POLICE

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

adding in violent protestors, to protect non-violent protestors, is not an adequate solution if you don't want more violence

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

secondly, a quick analysis of your logic:

you say that the white supremacists would have strong armed the protestors if the antifa hadn't been there, but you entirely ignore the binary opposite option of the fact that SINCE more violent antifa were there this could PROVOKE more violence.

(not that any violence is good, because we want non-violence - so you can't straw man me)

you CAN'T keep presenting only one side of this.

What this situation has brought up is an interesting conflict between the First and Second Amendments. If one group of protestors is armed better than the police, can the other side truly be able to enjoy their full First Amendment rights? Which wins when guns silence speech?

Also as a side note, why must there always be fights at protests? I mean, come on. Remove violence from the equation, period. No weapons. No shields. Just stay on your own side of the street and protest like good little children. Keep the cops in between you and arrest anyone who is armed or approaches the other side. Killing and injuring people is bad, mkay.

@goldfinger

1. does the simple presence of guns mean that the guns are the guns being used, or are being threatened to be used?
2. do the police REALLY have less firepower?

i mean, every NRA rally i've ever seen has had protestors and i haven't seen one erupt into violence, and those protestors were REALLY using their first amendment rights... i mean they were using first amendment rights i had never heard before. they got very creative with their first amendment right to speech

if you know what i mean

but i do celebrate you on your point about non-violence.

das ist sehr gut

@JY - there were reports from Charlottesville that the police were less well equipped, yes.

But, as to your point on the presence of guns silencing speech, I'm not sure. The brandishing of them? Maybe. In this instance I would think you'd allow that the presence of a well-armed alt-right amplified their threat and silenced any chance of productive discourse between protestor and counter-protestor

But to me it seems like a very SCOTUS-y question. For smarter minds than me.

Because remember the whole point of the First Amendment is to allow the free and unimpeded flow of ideas between different elements of the community. It is discourse that the First Amendment protects, not the ability to say what you want.

I should correct that. I don't read walls of YOUR text

You've been bending over backwards pushing a narrative that those nice Nazis were viciously attack by those evil BLM terrorists. Speaks for itself

No he hasn't.

Oh yeah, the KKK have never engaged in violence. Yeah right. They just hold lynchings to protect themselves against those nasty antifa.

What a load of neonazi bullshit.

Yeah. You both have.

@goldfinger jesus then the police really did fuck this up. sorry on that account, but i agree that stifling non-violent protest is bad



@Ogion

"You've been bending over backwards pushing a narrative that those nice Nazis were viciously attack by those evil BLM terrorists. Speaks for itself"

"Oh yeah, the KKK have never engaged in violence. Yeah right. They just hold lynchings to protect themselves against those nasty antifa.

What a load of neonazi bullshit."


QUOTE ME BITCH

ok...
one million dollars to whoever finds the quote of me saying neonazis were nice, or that the KKK never engaged in violence.

I've never said Nazis were attacked. I've never called Nazis nice. I never mentioned BLM myself.

Yanik is denying that the neonazis engaged in any violence even thought there are videos of gangs of these guys attacking black people (surprised? No. THATS WHY THEY WERE THERE!). All accounts show the neonazis came armed to attack people and just did that

And yeah. British troops were there to take objects. The neonazis committed terrorist acts intentionally. Big difference. Nazis intended to attack people. Redcoats were confiscating guns. If anything the antifa had BETTER justification since the KKK and neonazis by definition exist to kill and threaten people. That's their defining characteristic


No doubt you'll deny all that.

Oh and then deny you're a neonazi sympathizer.

"Yanik is denying that the neonazis engaged in any violence"

That is patently false. I don't know if you're strawmanning or just didn't read properly, but this is almost certainly defamation.

"Yanik is denying that the neonazis engaged in any violence even thought there are videos of gangs of these guys attacking black people (surprised? No. THATS WHY THEY WERE THERE!). All accounts show the neonazis came armed to attack people and just did that"

WHEN DID I SAY THIS
GIVE ME ONE QUOTE WHERE I SAID THIS

WHEN DID I SAY THIS
GIVE ME ONE QUOTE WHERE I SAID THIS

WHEN DID I SAY THIS
GIVE ME ONE QUOTE WHERE I SAID THIS

WHEN DID I SAY THIS
GIVE ME ONE QUOTE WHERE I SAID THIS

WHEN DID I SAY THIS
GIVE ME ONE QUOTE WHERE I SAID THIS

i only ever said that both sides instigated violence against one another, at some point or another. i never said "one side NEVER attacked the others." or anything of the sort

GIVE ME ONE QUOTE OGION ONE QUOTE



"And yeah. British troops were there to take objects. The neonazis committed terrorist acts intentionally. Big difference."

there to take guns, continue unrepresented taxation, and uphold a monarchal structure, and imprison colonists who DARED trade with the french, and execute many colonists for trying to evade the law.

and the neonazis and alt right and antifa and blm both engaged in violence, and one neonazi killed a protestor.

no the neonazis were not in the right. no violence was not good. and no the violence was not necessary at some rally were nothing the white nationalists said had any direct legal or economic effect on the antifa/blm/other protestors!

yes the colonists were in the right. no violence was not good. but it was necessary to defend their rights


"Nazis intended to attack people. Redcoats were confiscating guns."

you forgot "Nazis intended to attack people, and Antifa intended to attack people"

or are we assuming motive for one side, and ignoring it for another?


"If anything the antifa had BETTER justification since the KKK and neonazis by definition exist to kill and threaten people. That's their defining characteristic"

your analogy to old Britain fell apart and you know it, but i KNOW the KKK is bad, but being violent towards them makes it WORSE.

we've had MORE violence in the political spectrum in the last few years, and it has gotten WORSE.

is that so hard to understand????

Oh, you're right. He is pushing a notion that they didn't start anything or didn't come armed.

no, also not true. i fully admitted they came armed and i even addressed the fact that they started some of the fights.

i even gave you a specific video earlier back with raw footage of the fights, and mentioned how a guy with a confederate flag was an aggressor

Yeah, James keep standing up for how nonviolent white supremacists are
"some white guy in a street yelling f*** the blacks, while offensive, is less dangerous than laws, that if tyrannical in nature, could end up in armed men with guns, knocking down your door and dragging you to prison."

Yeah. They're not dangerous at all


Tell that to Jesse Washington
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_of_Jesse_Washington

Tell that to Clementa Pinckney
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementa_C._Pinckney

Tell that to Paramjit Kaur and Satwant Singh Kaleka

Tell that to Timothy Caughman

Didn't read this thread, did want to point out that

"I posit that violence is not justified as a political tool ever"

Violence against Nazi's is not political. No political group wishes to commit genocide against a people. Violence against those who wish you did is questionable morally, but it is NOT political.

WIt that's the opposite of what he just said.

That was to Ogion

"Yeah, James keep standing up for how nonviolent white supremacists are
"some white guy in a street yelling f*** the blacks, while offensive, is less dangerous than laws, that if tyrannical in nature, could end up in armed men with guns, knocking down your door and dragging you to prison."

Yeah. They're not dangerous at all"

CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING CHERRYPICKING

i hate that i have to comment in these large blocks overtime you do this Ogion

here is the FULL block i RESPONDED to.



""Once you start accepting violence you've got some tricky line drawing to do"

accept i haven't accepted violence. not once. the british were passing LAWS that we rebelled against.

some white guy in a street yelling f*** the blacks, while offensive, is less dangerous than laws, that if tyrannical in nature, could end up in armed men with guns, knocking down your door and dragging you to prison.

those are the ultimate ends results of resisting laws. speech has no inherent effect on people, unless it is a direct incitement of violence or chaos."



i didn't say the individuals weren't dangerous, i said AND I HAVE TO QUOTE MYSELF BECAUSE YOU CAN'T READ

"speech has no inherent effect on people, unless it is a direct incitement of violence or chaos."


the actual action of speech is what i was talking about.

here is what you said that I said:


"Yeah, James keep standing up for how nonviolent white supremacists are
...{my quote}... Yeah. They're not dangerous at all"


THIS IS FACTUALLY WRONG OGION
THIS IS FACTUALLY WRONG OGION
THIS IS FACTUALLY WRONG OGION
THIS IS FACTUALLY WRONG OGION
THIS IS FACTUALLY WRONG OGION
THIS IS FACTUALLY WRONG OGION
THIS IS FACTUALLY WRONG OGION
THIS IS FACTUALLY WRONG OGION
THIS IS FACTUALLY WRONG OGION
THIS IS FACTUALLY WRONG OGION
THIS IS FACTUALLY WRONG OGION
THIS IS FACTUALLY WRONG OGION
THIS IS FACTUALLY WRONG OGION
THIS IS FACTUALLY WRONG OGION

I SAID THAT THE SPEECH. the SPEECH wasn't going to hurt you (unless directly inciting violence)

you misrepresented me by pretending that i said that the PEOPLE weren't dangerous. no, the SPEECH isn't dangerous.

If someone says the words "f*** black people" that is far less dangerous than tyrannical laws.

laws are backed by the full authority of the united states state and federal police and criminal justice system.

speech that does not call for violence, (THAT DOES NOT CALL FOR VIOLENCE)

as i said in my example, (TWICE NOW)

will not kill you.






keep lying to people Ogion. It helps destroy your credibility on this site.

Yeah, there were people attacked with zero provocation and no retaliation. (Hard to do when a gang of thugs are beating you with sticks


I'm looking for the longer video, but it shows a bunch of marchers and a black guy yells at the neonazis, then a bunch of them chase him into this garage and beat him with stick yelling "die nigger!"

This links has the attack

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/charlottesville-cops-hunt-suspect-brutally-beat-black-vic-article-1.3413769
Here is what he remembers:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-charlottesville-beating-20170813-story.html

"you have no basis to say that the supremacists would act violently if not faced with non violent protestors. you have no evidence of this. you have not sourced this. you have not quoted a member of the white nationalists saying this."

No basis? Yeah. No basis, unless you know the slightest damn thing about the history of white supremacists

Then there is this guy:
"If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell.."

Tell it to Ricky Best and Taliesin Namkai-Meche