Jesus. I'm sorry I started this thread.

And before anyone jumps in with the "citizens right to make an arrest" let me point out that any person contemplating such action would be well advised to be very cautious about exercising that "right". Wrongful arrest, and unlawfully detaining a person against their will are classic causes of expensive litigation and damages payouts. A basic "rule of thumb" is if it's just a situation of property damage, property theft, hold back, get photographic evidence, document by writing notes, get witness details, and call the Police. Only act in self defense, and personal safety can most often best be found by avoiding direct confrontation, making a sensible retreat to safety, getting other potential victims out of harm's way etc. Actual physical confrontation should be a "last resort" NOT a "first response", imho.

@ Ogion. Cheer up we're not all selfish idiots. Obviously, because sweetypie James is one of the very small number of cork brained clowns I've had muted for some time, I've missed a "contribution" from him that, judging by your reaction, was of absolutely NO WORTH AT ALL.

I just feel like this websites members are wise enough to discuss things without wishing injury on each other. These vitriolic threads go nowhere - thats why forum games like mafia, survivor, and simulators provide a place for people of all opinions to come together and contribute positively. I dont think political discussions on webdip are constructive, theyre evil, hate filled and rife with fallacious straw man logic.

The smartest, most effective way to counter police violence/brutality/unlawful actions, imho, is not to "wade in with an equally violent response".. It's to photograph, film, then disseminate the video evidence publicly

Well I disagree Dipbro Brainbomb. I think if we give up, then the vulgarian extremists get to deny us by default of our right to expression

I didnt say give up. But the same 6 people always find 110 different ways to reinforce their bias. Thats really pointless

I think it's probably ways been the case, but is even more so in these "divisive times" that the most difficult and challenging task is to be a "sensible moderate". But the rewards for steadfastly challenging the extremists are significant.

Evil prospers when good persons remain silent.

And when good persons stand up, speak out, evil is exposed, defeated, and bullies run to hide

The governor gave a pretty good speech about it.

@Ogion "Most political change occurs without violence. Marriage equality, women's sugferage [sic], the endganered [sic] species act, the end of apartheid etc etc" you might want to fact check this statement.

I would never condone violence, but violence has been used to advance some causes in history.

To answer the original question, no I'm not scared of these clowns, you shouldn't be either. When push comes to shove we have the numbers the resources and the moral high ground, a few dozen mouth breakers with moobs spilling out their white polos changes that.

Most change in liberal democracies occurs without violence.

But remember Chairman Mao's dictum: "Power flows from the barrel of a gun."

*doesnt change that, despite how powerful their moobs are

@MM
1) kudos for pointing out the practical difficulties of citizens arrests
2) James is above all young. He is trying to think even if it goes awry at times. But he gets points from me for making the effort to think things through
3) yes, nonviolence is the most effective approach, which is why BLM and the civil rights movement have been intent on nonviolent protest. However, not all people who are angry about systemic police racism are of a similar mind. From what I've seen, there are many within the black community who feel the nonviolent approaches of MLK are useless. They're horribly wrong at a basic human level. The sniper is one, rioters are another.

3). James, saying "whites" are [insert whatever] is every bit a racist as Trump's Mexicans are rapists or the white supremacists. It is both false and also leads to a destructive failure to judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin
@PW, I'm not sure all white people benefit from white supremacy. First, I'd distinguish between white supremacy (a philosophy that white people are inherently superior) and white privilege ( a form of social inertia in which accumulated advantages of wealth and stereotypes cut in favor of white people). White supremacy serves only to make society odious and horrible and I'm not sure it benefits anyone since it forces the "banaficiaries" to live in a totalitarian society. White privilege does benefit white people, but even that it isn't all white people and furthermore it isn't a zero sum game. I am in no way harmed if cops treat black people with as much repeat as they do white people and don't shoot them. I might be marginally harmed by having more competition for jobs and the like,but then again a more broadly based wealth and opportunity creates more opportunity also, and a more virbrant society. Some white property are talented and hard working enough that they'd do well in either kind of society and have a marginal benefit outweighed by the losses from a white privileged society. Others don't have much accumulated wealth or status and aren't benefiting all that much from it now and would probably be in a similar situation regardless. There is a group who may be on the edge who would or might lose out in a just society if everyone enjoyed the same fair treatment.

So, it is a little more complicated than that I think

Finally, I shouldn't be surprised to see how much conservatives leap to the defense of white supremacists. Sadly, it just confirms just how foundational racism is to conservative philosophy. Usually, it's better hidden than that, but this kind of incident shines a bright light on how much neonazis are ideological cousins to the GOP

"Sadly, it just confirms just how foundational racism is to conservative philosophy."

Screw that

You were having such a good post until that moment too

With that sentence - Ogion countered his entire point. I'm not conservative - but the vast majority of conservatives I know are not racist...

Some of you have very limited definitions of white supremacy and racism. I don't have time to expand more right this minute, so I'll just leave this here.

https://easyyolktoo.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/white-supremacy-visual.jpg

That graphic actually lumps a lot of very disparate things together, and it looks like it does so out of A disparaging agenda, it appears.
You always have to ask what frame is being advanced here. By including things as "self-appointed ally," "colorblindness," the notion of a post racial effort in the mix, suggests strongly that either the author hadn't thought about this much or has some other agenda. Obviously there is a continuum here of a philosophical commitment, and simple social convention. However, this author displays a commitment to racist frames of dividing humans into groups and assuming bad intentions about particular groups. Ironic as hell that the author includes "claiming reverse racism" on the one hand, while failing to ignore that it is the mirror images of "not believing experiences of POc" on the other, because of course the casting aspersions on pointing out "reverse racism" (or more simply put racism), involves precisely this kind of denial of the experiences of others. Often it is followed up with "people of color can't be racist" (which ought to appear in here somewhere.). It is a "listening for me, but not for thee" attitude, which often accompanies the admonition that "we need a conversation about race" (as if this weren't something that had already been going on for seventy years at least).

Sure, most of it is spot on, but it is far from a virtuous philosophy displayed in some strains of what is found there

Bladerune r

So, how many leap to defend brutal cops, anti-immigration policies, Donald Trump and the Confederacy but "aren't racist?" For example, 70% of Trump voters were polled suggesting they support Confederate symbols.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/trump-voters-confederate-memorials-gop-healthcare-bill-2017-6

A majority of White Republicans oppose or strongly oppose the Balck Lives Matter movement...
https://www.google.com/amp/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/08/how-americans-view-the-black-lives-matter-movement/%3famp=1

And on and on

Tell me again how not racist most conservatives are...

Well, look. The woman who was killed was apparently a white "self-appointed ally" who was out marching. I guess she was covertly part of white supremacy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/charlottesville-victim-she-was-there-standing-up-for-what-was-right/2017/08/13/00d6b034-8035-11e7-b359-15a3617c767b_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_victim-1230pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.dbc8038517c2

And three more "self appointed allies"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/juliareinstein/these-are-the-victims-of-the-portland-train-stabbing-attack

This is perhaps the most ignorant statement on this issue I have seen Ogion. Both left and right radicals are at fault here and you are criticizing Trump for basically saying that? The riot was started by Antifa and BLM when they decided to go fight the White Nationalists. Obviously you won't hear that they are there because they the left and the MSM are calling them "counter-protesters" but they were at fault here as the White Nationalists.

You people on the left can never seem to realize when your own supporters grow Radical. You Radical lefties have been censoring speech destroying buildings and attacking innocent people since November 9th 2016 but I never hear you guys call them out. It's always the Alt-Right you guys call out. I am a conservative and I am willing to call out both the Alt-Right and the Radical Left for this violence and they both need to stop.

Well, enter right wing "alternative facts"

No, they were counter protestors who were attacked by the neo Nazis, first with mace and baseballs bats and then with a car. The neonazis are entirely at fault for attacking protestors. Those are simply the facts

But as advertized, conservatives will always reliably show up to defend the Klan and Nazis.

And conservative terrorism goes back 350 years.

Funny how mo one has shot nine people in a right wing church. That's only at mosques, Sikh temples, and black churches. Blowing up federal buildings? That's a right wing thing too

That's a crappy and specious defense.

"Attacking innocent people" is a laugh. Attacking "innocent people" who are violent and advocating genocide. Hilarious.

And we lefties don't recognize the radical left because radical left hate terrorist ground basically don't exist. And yeah, your neonazi speech is going to meet with strong denounciation because it's what it deserves

First, they came for the black people
And we said "not today motherfuckers!"