The leader of a North Carolina based group associated with the Ku Klux Klan says he is glad that a woman died while taking part in a protest in Charlottesville, VA over the weekend.
Monday night, Justin Moore - the Grand Dragon for the Loyal White Knights of Ku Klux Klan, said he was glad Heyer died in the attack.
"I'm sorta glad that them people got hit and I'm glad that girl died," Moore said in a voicemail to WBTV's Steve Crump. "They were a bunch of Communists out there protesting against somebody's freedom of speech, so it doesn't bother me that they got hurt at all."
"I think we're going to see more stuff like this happening at white nationalist events," Moore warned.
"Nothing makes us more proud at the KKK than we see white patriots such as James Fields Jr, age 20, taking his car and running over nine communist anti-fascist, killing one [expletive]-lover named Heather Heyer," the recorded message says. "James Fields hail victory. It's men like you that have made the great white race strong and will be strong again."
Meanwhile, Heyer's father says he has forgiven the man charged with her death.
“I include myself in forgiving the guy who did this,” he said. “I just think about what the Lord said on the cross, ‘Forgive them, they don’t know what they’re doing.’”
Yikes....that guy is saying the POS Shields is a martyr.
I would also like to mention that the majority of Confederate statues around the US have little no real historical value. Many of them are roughly 50-60 years old, have an established record of how they were erected and commissioned, and are vastly overshadowed by the event that spurred their commission in the first place.
For a historian they are pretty worthless. Normally I am very sensitive about the destruction of historical artifacts but most of these statues don't carry much if any historical significance.
Last edited by Flash Walken; 08-16-2017 at 12:31 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
Those advances happened because we stopped treating people differently depending on inborn differences, and started regarding them as individuals who should be treated the same regardless of identity.
That would certainly help show how marginal their beliefs are.
Violently confronting them, however, only makes martyrs out of a bunch of losers, radicalises more borderline-losers, and legitimises political violence for everybody.
I don't know, it puts the president under pressure when there is violence and he has to choose a side. Like right now in the presser he is blaming the left. It may be a case of requiring fire to fight fire.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
That's how a lot of people in Virginia feel about Robert E Lee
Yes, and no. Lee was revered for his military service, and how he carried himself as a soldier/general, which is why he was pardoned by Andrew Johnson. Lee was also crucial to Reconstruction, which is why he has respect from both sides, as he helped in the healing of the nation. It should also be noted that part of his punishment for his involvement in the war was the seizure of his Virginia home - Arlington House - which would become Arlington National Cemetery. Lee is more of a hero in the deep south, or what is left of Dixie, than the state where his home was.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Yikes....that guy is saying the POS Shields is a martyr.
Frightening.
And sadly, I'm sure their "base" as it were gobbles it down like bratwurst.
How anyone would refer to the loser in question as a "great man" disgusts me. Yeah, like what a big, brave man he is, running down innocents in his sweet challenger that got him laid exactly zero times.
While talking with a friend a few weeks ago, we both were lamenting the loss of all our Great War veterans and soon enough, all our ww2 vets. Really wish people who believe in either side of the totalitarian coin could hear from the vets exactly how ####ty it was, and how it should never, EVER be accepted in our society. Can't believe that millions upon millions of people died and we have rather large segments of asshats today that think this is a good road to go down.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to 2Stonedbirds For This Useful Post:
Here is the key misunderstanding people have. “Liberals” are not primarily about tolerance. We are about justice. Tolerance is good insofar as a just society is tolerant of all races, religions, and cultures. But tolerance of injustice is, obviously, not just. And bigotry is unjust. People of justice must therefore be tolerant of bigotry.
We believe even in the rights of bigots to exist in freedom. Insofar as that goes, we “tolerate” bigots. Bigots should have access to free education, and clean water. Bigots should not starve if they are impoverished, nor go homeless. If a bigot gets cancer, I want my taxes to pay for that bigot’s treatment. If a bigot has a child, I want my taxes to pay for her education. If a bigot is imprisoned for a crime, I want that bigot to pay their debt without fear of further violence.
I think a bigot should have equal treatment under the law and access to basic human needs, recognizing and dignifying the bigot’s humanity. I think the bigot should have all this, because the bigot is a human, and his humanity affords him these things by right. But I do not tolerate a bigot’s attempts to take these things from others. I protest his rhetoric that would strip others of their humanity. And THAT is the difference between the intolerance of bigots and the intolerance of the “so called tolerant” left.
The intolerance of people who seek injustice is an intolerance that seeks to gain advantage by stripping humanity from others. The intolerance of people who seek justice is an intolerance that demands equality, and protects the essential dignity & humanity of others. Tolerance, like intolerance, is only a tool. What matters is principal. Liberty and justice for ALL? That is a principal.
So scold those who defend the rights of others for their “intolerance,” by all means, and in so doing, reveal your priorities. I for one will count myself proud to be found intolerant of bigotry. I welcome the offense of those who work for injustice.
~ @JuliusGoat , Twitter, May 29, 2017
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Minnie For This Useful Post:
feel free to quote me on where I said that. "Not up to anything"?
About here:
Quote:
for a march that if it had proceeded would probably have resulted in no bodily harm to anyone
This is a completely ridiculous statement when we're talking about a Nazi march approaching Jewish quarters in 1936 Europe.
Quote:
You can try to characterize that as "protecting a space", but that's disingenuous. They sought a confrontation.
The goal of the anti-fascists was to deny the Nazis from marching through certain parts of London. If there is no confrontation, they would have won. Yet you're saying that the hundreds of thousands of people who showed up were there seeking a confrontation. No maybe's and gray areas, the only group who had no need or plans to do anything if nobody approached them was the most confrontational one.
Nazis saying they're going to march through the local Jewish quarter, fully aware that the Jewish community of the time is deeply entwined with the far-left. Not confrontational at all.
The police who kept attacking the anti-fascists for hours injuring over a hundred people, even though it was clear they didn't have much of a chance to push through. (Just look at the video. We're talking about an estimated mass of 300,000 protesters, before police had things like water cannons and tear gas.) That was just the police being very committed to their job. It could not possibly have been motivated by the fact that the anti-fascists were a bunch of no good commies, Irishmen, anarchists and other miscreants well-deserving a good batoning for daring to defy them.
Quote:
The state is required to be completely neutral as to the content of the speech in question, especially when applying state force. The anti-fascists certainly had a right to protest, so long as that protest does not infringe on the right of the people they don't like to exercise their own speech. This seems to have been less of a protest than an instance of "we don't like what you have to say, so we're going to fight you".
How is blocking Nazis from entering Jewish quarter blocking their free speech? The anti-fascists made no attempt to stop the Nazis from marching. They just did not let their march be used to intimidate local Jews.
In general I really fail to see how is the unambiguous intention of scaring a local ethnic minority and promoting violence and hatred towards them free speech that needs to be defended with violence if necessary. Especially when "we can not allow Nazis to intimidate Jews here" is somehow so far removed from free speech that it's not just acceptable but necessary to use violence against demonstrators who otherwise would just have eventually gone home.
I wonder, had the anti-fascist protesters been just Jews, would you still argue that the Jews were in the wrong in trying to stop Nazis from marching through their neighborhood?
Quote:
I'm saying that if you want a race war, if you want there to be actual full out fighting in the streets, well, that's certainly on the table right now.
Framíng this as a conflict between races instead of a conflict between ideologies is white power rhetoric. Let's remember that most people fighting in Cable Street, and in Charlottesville, were white. On all sides. Not that I think you're a Nazi sympathizer even a little, but when well-meaning and thoughtful people like you start internalizing white power rhetoric it really speaks volumes about where the conversation is at around you.
Quote:
You have two options here; conversation, or killing people whose views you don't like before they can kill you. There is almost no scenario where I will pick the latter, when given that choice. Again, it appears we differ in that view.
Did the anti-fascists physically standing up to police and fascists mid and late 1930's lead to a violent killing spree inside the country? No. So clearly these are not the only two options. Conversation and being willing to put yourself in harms way to defend what you believe in are not mutually exclusive things.
Quote:
Really, all I'm getting from your posts is that it's okay for you, or people who think like you, to do violence to your opponents, because you're right.
Then you should try to work harder to understand, because there's much more to what people are saying.
That said, there is some truth to that. When you start fighting for a cause and try to change the world, you are always at risk of being wrong, of making the world worse. There's just no way around that problem, it's just a risk you have to take. You can't even escape that with inaction, because sometimes the people who say we should try to avoid fighting are also wrong.
Yes, and no. Lee was revered for his military service, and how he carried himself as a soldier/general, which is why he was pardoned by Andrew Johnson. Lee was also crucial to Reconstruction, which is why he has respect from both sides, as he helped in the healing of the nation. It should also be noted that part of his punishment for his involvement in the war was the seizure of his Virginia home - Arlington House - which would become Arlington National Cemetery. Lee is more of a hero in the deep south, or what is left of Dixie, than the state where his home was.
It's important to note that much of Robert E. Lee's personal papers are kept out of the hands of researchers by the descendants of Lee, so much of the narrative of Lee was shaped by his descendants.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cal_guy For This Useful Post:
This is a completely ridiculous statement when we're talking about a Nazi march approaching Jewish quarters in 1936 Europe.
Well, that's a reasonable question. If they were planning to head to the Jewish quarters to start attacking Jews, then I would want the police to deal with it, ideally. If that had occurred, and the police didn't do anything about it, I'd agree that at that point, you're essentially acting in self defense or defense of others. But I don't know that that's the case.
We're speaking in hypotheticals, which is fine, so let's put it this way. If the march was to be a peaceful, if horrifying, demonstration of hate, then attacking them was, in my view, the wrong thing to do (though whether the state should allow demonstrations of this sort is a reasonable question of public policy). If it was a parade of anti-semites heading down to start violence themselves, then the police should have shut it down, and if the police had refused to protect the people, I'd be right there with you smacking around skinheads with a baseball bat.
Quote:
The goal of the anti-fascists was to deny the Nazis from marching through certain parts of London. If there is no confrontation, they would have won. Yet you're saying that the hundreds of thousands of people who showed up were there seeking a confrontation. No maybe's and gray areas, the only group who had no need or plans to do anything if nobody approached them was the most confrontational one.
That's my understanding, and it seems pretty much plain to me. If you have one group that you know is marching in particular place, and another group says, "hey, let's show up and block them", it's pretty obvious that they're seeking a confrontation.
Take Seattle a few days ago - you had a group, at least some of whom were assuredly white nationalists, set up a "freedom" demonstration in a park. You had another group, some of whom were assuredly antifa, who were attempting to get into the park to confront the demonstration. Police barred them from getting there. For me, that's exactly what the Police should do. The group trying to get into the park, thankfully in this case, just stopped at calling the police KKK members and throwing garbage at them and covering them with silly string. If they'd attacked the police, that would have been a bad thing, even if the demonstration in the park was overtly awful.
Quote:
Nazis saying they're going to march through the local Jewish quarter, fully aware that the Jewish community of the time is deeply entwined with the far-left. Not confrontational at all.
Not unless violence starts. Expression, like a march or demonstration, is not violence. It is, as noted, deplorable, but it's much worse to start a brawl.
Quote:
The police who kept attacking the anti-fascists for hours injuring over a hundred people, even though it was clear they didn't have much of a chance to push through. (Just look at the video. We're talking about an estimated mass of 300,000 protesters, before police had things like water cannons and tear gas.) That was just the police being very committed to their job. It could not possibly have been motivated by the fact that the anti-fascists were a bunch of no good commies, Irishmen, anarchists and other miscreants well-deserving a good batoning for daring to defy them.
Okay, well, now you're arguing that the police tactics in that particular case in resisting the anti-protestors constituted excessive force, which... okay, fine, you could very well be right. But I don't see how that's relevant to the current situation?
Quote:
How is blocking Nazis from entering Jewish quarter blocking their free speech? The anti-fascists made no attempt to stop the Nazis from marching. They just did not let their march be used to intimidate local Jews.
This is the exact same logic that sees certain administrators try to limit expression to small "free speech" zones. They have the right to protest on all public property, barring a public policy reason against it (e.g. "you can't block the George Washington bridge during rush hour") and even those limits are free speech limits. It's just a matter of what, as a society, we're willing to accept and prescribe into law. But regardless, that can't be decided by the metric of "whoever can put together a mob of sufficient size to stop the people they don't like gets to dictate the terms of their protest to them".
Quote:
In general I really fail to see how is the unambiguous intention of scaring a local ethnic minority and promoting violence and hatred towards them free speech that needs to be defended with violence if necessary.
Well, that's fair enough. It's clearly free speech, but the question is whether it's free speech worth defending. As discussed, in Canada, we say it isn't. In Charlottesville, VA, and everywhere else in the United States, it is. But either way, again, that's not for an ideological group to decide for itself.
Quote:
Especially when "we can not allow Nazis to intimidate Jews here" is somehow so far removed from free speech that it's not just acceptable but necessary to use violence against demonstrators who otherwise would just have eventually gone home.
Again, this just seems like an approval of violence because they're wrong and you're right. In this case I agree that you are and they are, but I don't trust you to make that judgment and I don't trust anyone else to, either, aside from the Supreme Court and hopefully a law-making process that takes long enough to prevent knee-jerk reactions.
Quote:
I wonder, had the anti-fascist protesters been just Jews, would you still argue that the Jews were in the wrong in trying to stop Nazis from marching through their neighborhood?
Yes, if they sought to use violence to prevent them from doing so.
Quote:
Framíng this as a conflict between races instead of a conflict between ideologies is white power rhetoric. Let's remember that most people fighting in Cable Street, and in Charlottesville, were white.
You're right, it is more of an ideological war, just largely cast in terms of race. I didn't mean that it would be black vs. white vs. asian vs. whoever. Just that race would be largely what the whole dispute would be about, particularly on the side of the white nationalists.
Quote:
Not that I think you're a Nazi sympathizer even a little, but when well-meaning and thoughtful people like you start internalizing white power rhetoric it really speaks volumes about where the conversation is at around you.
Yeah, no. This is highly inappropriate. You're attempting to undercut my credibility by attributing false implied or unconscious biases to me. You're poisoning the well in the most debasing possible way. Do not do that. It is discrediting to you, but more importantly, hugely insulting. Seriously, this would be the end of any face to face conversation I had with anyone, and I'm trying to restrain myself in order to put that very mildly.
Quote:
Did the anti-fascists physically standing up to police and fascists mid and late 1930's lead to a violent killing spree inside the country? No. So clearly these are not the only two options. Conversation and being willing to put yourself in harms way to defend what you believe in are not mutually exclusive things.
We're seeing it right now. First, people will simply blockade entrances to buildings, or scream invectives into the faces of the people they disagree with, or try to drown them out with bullhorns, or disrupt events. Next, they start throwing garbage, or threatening them, or intimidating them. Then they move to violence. That violence is then reciprocated. It escalates. People start getting killed (for example, run over by cars). This justifies higher levels of violence. Given that tensions are high, everyone thinks they have moral virtue on their side, and there are weapons everywhere, it's really not that hard to see how this is going to turn out.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Jimmy Fallon went a long way to humanizing Trump and making him palatable to people who otherwise may not have been willing to vote for him, so he can keep his boohooing. Too little too late.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
Here is the key misunderstanding people have. “Liberals” are not primarily about tolerance. We are about justice.
Well yeah. The word "liberal" in the modern American political lexicon means something fundamentally different from what it means in plain English, or in other political cultures (including the U.S. 30+ years ago).
If you're liberal in the traditional sense, you have to resign yourself to all sorts of awful and unwelcome speech and behaviour. You do so not because you don't find it awful and unwelcome. You do so because you find the alternative - that whoever is in power can decide what people are allowed to say and do - to be worse.
As for justice, everyone has different notions of what it means. For some it means everyone gets to keep what they earn. For others it means safeguarding against exploitation. For some it means the imposition of strict punishments for breaking laws. For others it means striving for rehabilitation.
For some it means equality of opportunity. For others it means equality of outcome. For some it means public recognition of your group identity. For others it means treating everyone as individuals.
These values are often deeply-held. So how does a democracy prevent differences from tearing apart society? With liberalism (read "personal freedom"), and with pluralism, which is the recognition of the legitimacy of different values and political agendas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
I wonder, had the anti-fascist protesters been just Jews, would you still argue that the Jews were in the wrong in trying to stop Nazis from marching through their neighborhood?
This isn't a theoretical. I cited the National Socialist Party of America vs Village of Skokie case up-thread, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on that exact scenario, and declared the march legal. The Nazis were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the same organization that has:
Defended Communists from persecution
Won the case that made it unconstitutional for white homeowners to refuse to sell their houses to people of color
Extended conscientious objector status to atheists who oppose war.
Struck down a law preventing married women from secretly using contraceptives.
Defended the right to burn flags.
Helped ensure the Pentagon Papers could be published.
Won the landmark decision that declared racially segregated schools unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of education).
Invalidated the criminal ban on interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia).
Helped ensure the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy (Roe v Wade).
Extended laws prohibiting sexual harassment to include same-sex harassment.
In other words, a genuinely liberal organization.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Anyone have fox news? I just went to see what they were saying and realized we dont get that channel.
Are they denouncing his insanity or trying to spin it?
In typical Fox News fashion they react like regular journalists in the moment, and have called out his incoherent rambling and insane support of the unsupportable. This will all change tomorrow, and they will revert to the apologia, as they receive their talking points and marching orders from management. They will go into full spin and damage control mode in the morning, starting with Fox and Friends, President Comacho's favorite show.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Anyone have fox news? I just went to see what they were saying and realized we dont get that channel.
Are they denouncing his insanity or trying to spin it?
I think we have to special order that in Alberta, don't we?
I know my Mother in law pays for it, and strangely enough is a big supporter of Trump and hates crooked Hillary and Obama. She can never give a good explanation of why though.
Which Governor McAuliffe, in fairly authoritarian fashion, blamed for causing the whole weekend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McAuliffe
The City of Charlottesville asked for that to be moved out of downtown Charlottesville to a park about a mile and a half away to a park with a lot of open fields. That was the place where it should have been. We were unfortunately sued by the ACLU. The judge ruled against us. That rally should not have been in the middle of downtown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACLU Statement
We are horrified by the violence that took place in Charlottesville on Saturday and the tragic loss of life that resulted from it. The ACLU of Virginia does not support violence. We do not support Nazis. We support the Constitution and laws of the United States. We would be eager to work with the governor and the attorney general on efforts to ensure that public officials understand their rights and obligations under the law.
But let’s be clear: our lawsuit challenging the city to act constitutionally did not cause violence nor did it in any way address the question whether demonstrators could carry sticks or other weapons at the events.
We asked the city to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and ensure people’s safety at the protest. It failed to do so. In our system, the city makes the rules and the courts enforce them. Our role is to ensure that the system works the same for everyone.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Bah.
