I'm speaking in general to those (looking at you Goofle) who spout stuff like "I hate both sides".

Ineffectively.

Let's review

So what I mean here by using the qualifier of playing a role in the violence is that the opposition was not entirely made up of people prepared for violence, but the ones that were were members of Antifa. They are a gift to the right with their counterintuitive violent methods and the way that liberals view the political violence with a wink and a nod drives people away from identifying with that group. I would think you would find that as concerning as I do.

The sides are not equally responsible for the violence and did not participate in equal numbers, but that doesn't mean that one side is all evil bad guys and the other is all innocent and fair heroes. Political violence will always be abhorrent and if you think otherwise then your opinion is fueled by partisan irrationality. That is an inarguable fact.

(Not that I agree with calling dangerous language violence but) wouldn't responding to that with violence be succumbing to their level?

Ftr, I have no idea how to resolve the rise in this political ideology, but I don't think that violence is the right answer. Years ago, I might have said that sunshine is the best disinfectant, but I feel like the current state of the digital age has turned that concept into a thing of the past.

I don't think otherwise. Again, just countering broad brush statements about "the other side". I've watched a hell of a lot of the video coverage of the events and seen a lot of interviews of people from that side, and while there were definitely small pockets of folks who looked like they came looking for a fight, the overwhelming majority looked liked just regular folks.

When the worst part of the fighting broke out a lot of those folks got caught up in it. Heck, at one point an older guy with grey hair and a button down dress shirt gets pushed into the fray and ends up on the ground.

No way anyone can justify saying "both sides were equally wrong". ****ing Hannity starts his broadcast Tuesday night with "President Trump finally sets the record straight on Charlottesville".

Would it be considered political violence if I ever saw him on the street and walked up to him and broke his nose????

Yes. And the ones who came for violence are called Antifa. This is what I've been trying to convey to you ever since you asked "what do you call the other side?".

Cool. I've not said that though.

10000000000%

About 12 years ago there was a Nazi demo with around 200 Nazis here and there was a counter demo with about 3000 participants. The cops tried to separate them and us counter-protesters, but me, my then-girlfriend and 2-3 other friends managed to go around the cops and witnessed a scene where a dozen or so Nazis were encircled by counter-protesters and ****ing savagely kicked and beaten with everything they could grab (stones, planks, some discarded boxes).
Now I can't say I'm particularly sad when a Nazi gets a bit beat up, but the savagery of mob mentality is pretty damn disgusting and scary.
Not taking sides here or anything, just a story I remembered

I do hate both sides, and equally. One side wants to control race, the other to control ideas. And are willing to beat up and kill each other to reach their goals. I don't care if an individual is sympathetic to some of the political ideas held by Antifa types - let's say communism/socialism for example - you go ahead and agree with them on that issue. That's not the point. These people want you to think their way or else. You're a racist, sexist, Islamophobe, Nazi, booger picker if you don't think like them. And it's okay to shut down your events and punch you.

Obviously not everyone on either side wants to perpetrate violence, or has the fullest convictions in their beliefs - but fuck the ones who do.

Violence is the only answer for Nazis. This isn't just a simple disagreement over positions/ideas. They want me dead because they feel like their white male privilege and identity is under attack. Also **** the white women that are on their side but being ignored by the masses. They were over there screaming blood and soil as well. This is more than just combating thoughts. I want to hit up the Florida rally or maybe the one in Toronto soon. **** the hippie bull**** about non violence. If someone is in your face with a gun threatening to shoot you just for existing good luck talking them out of it because you are on your non violence BS.

Very very very very very very very very very to the 100000th power dangerous precedent you set with that philosophy.

No doubt convincing themselves they are the 'good guys' and 'doing it for the right reasons', really they are yobs who want an excuse to hand out beatings.

Is violence the answer for the women too?

Men women and children can catch these hands. Will even dropkick some babies.

The wheels have already been set in motion through their past action and calls for genocide.

"The Nazis are already doing it, so why shouldn't we?" Maybe don't aspire to Nazi values?

Political violence is a disservice to your own philosophy since it dilutes your message and only creates more passionate opponents.

lol made me laugh tbh.

So what would be your solution? Ignoring wouldn't stop the path that they are already on. It is just something that would look good for those that choose not to engage.

If your stance was logical you wouldn't have to bank on a false dilemma to justify it. But

Also, violence as a solution to this issue appears to have the opposite effect. It makes their side look good because people have this misguided notion that when someone is silenced, whatever they're saying was correct or important, not to mention how it makes you look violent and people don't want to be associated with that. You don't even have to be a pacifist to understand that this is absolute garbage PR for your point.

Put up or shut up, Nat Turner.

Yelp - Best Gun Store in New York, NY

But I didn't ask you. I asked Goofle who labeled the entire other side en masse.

Goofle, you say one side wants to control race and the other ideas.

I say one side wants to promote hate, bigotry, racism, and fear and the other side is not going sit by idle.

The Klan, and White Nationalist have a long history of violence and murder. And we all know the history of Nazism. Lots of people I saw interviewed talked about how they either had family members or knew of people who did who died as a result of those evil ideologies. It's no wonder passions would run high with some of those while listening to a bunch of dudes screaming racists and hateful crap at the top of their lungs.

Putting both sides on equal standing is simply wrong on so many levels from where I sit. I'm not advocating violence. It's wrong. It's not the answer. But one of the things I was reminded of by my doctor after I had that fugue is that the majority of our brain is no different than an animal. The logic portion is actually quite small. It's really easy to sit in front of a computer thousands of miles away and preach. But maybe standing right next to it might cause you to ignore normal logic a bit.

And then once the first punch is thrown the animal takes completely over with a lot of people.

Anyway, rant over.

Maybe when the other side adapts that philosophy to justify their political own violence, you'll understand why I find this concerning. Kind of like how Trump helped people realize that Obama's expansion of the executive office was not a great idea, even if Obama used that expansion for mostly good efforts.

In a court of law, is "but I was super mad" a defense?

Not the point dumbass.

What was the point then? What I got from it was violence is justified in the event that people are worked up.

In the case of modern Nazis what are you hoping to achieve? Do you think starting a riot will convince the Nazis of the error of their ways? Will it make them too scared to throw down again? Will it convince the populace watching it on the news that your side is right? What exactly is the benefit? Their ideology is already marginalized in the extreme, and the racialist bits that they share with mainstream strong conservatives aren't going to be discredited by knuckles and bicycle chains.

I didn't say justified. But smetimes it just happens when passions boil over. Ever been in a fight? Ever started a fight?

Not everyone has the same level of passive restraint either. We're all wired differently.

You don't know much about Antifa and other more violent left wing protest groups do you? They don't just shut down white supremacy events, they protest and attempt to prevent public speakers they don't agree with from being able to talk. They burn stuff and throw bricks at people who disagree.

As I said, you may agree with their dislike of Ben Shapiro - for example - but do you agree that Ben Shapiro should be able to go and give a talk without having people blocking the entrance? Trying to shut down that exchange of ideas.

Look up the word infer

The only violence I can respect is assassinating some influential hitlery political leader.
Beating up some right wing dumbass on the street is surely satisfying but pointless as ****.

Yes I do. But the vast majority of the protesters in Virginia were not Antifa.

It was not Nazis vs Antifa like you are trying to make it out to be.

Ever been in a fight? Ever started a fight?

Oh, ok. That's fine then. Like I said, I haven't been paying attention, my information is still like two days old.

I've been in 3 fights, only one of which I started and not a single one was a justified use of violence. By the time I got to my second year of making people angry at college parties, I began taking the de-escalation approach which usually involves a bear hug where I bring them to the ground until they chill out.

And have you forgotten that personalization does nothing for me in an argument? Go toss your schmaltzy Tom Hanks film reasoning at someone else.

Unless you're like, talking about the people who willingly took part in the violence and stuff.

Frowny, look up Eristic. It's so you.

Already addressed this, but of course you ignored me.

It's true, I absolutely love debate. It can be very informative and eye-opening if both sides are willing to participate like adults.

I wasn't talking to you.

Not everyone who was there protesting on the "alt-right" side was a Nazi or white supremacist. That's the truth, but it runs counter to the narrative the media are trying to spin.

And in the spirit of fairness, I'll also say that ANTIFA and BLM didn't make up the majority of the counter protestors either.

This situation is a good example of a case where a little nuance would have gone a long way. But as usual, the media are opportunistic and Trump's brazen language (and ill-thought out metaphors) only spurred them on.

I haven't even Breitbart try to discredit that it was a white supremacist rally. Keep breaking that ground ant.

But no-one's eyes ever get opened much here. Everyone is pretty dug in so it ends up coming off more like just arguing for aguments sake.

Did you see weapons in the hands of every single person protesting the Robert E. Lee statue's takedown? I didn't see that to be the case, least in all the vids I've seen. We should respect the rights of people who want to protest (for whatever reason they want to protest) as long as its done peacefully. The problem is when people resort to violence, which is where they crossed the line.

Again, a little nuance goes a long way here. I've followed the story extensively and just pointing out inconsistencies.

I can see why you feel that way given how you approach debate. I have had 5 star debates with DWV, grindy, Janzsoon, and tore (who might be before your time) to name a few where I came out of the discussion with a different viewpoint. It's actually why this thread was made in the first place, because people who weren't approaching debate constructively were dominating the conversation and DWV wanted to actually learn something instead of read boring personal insult based ****storms.