To join or not to join

[IndyDave1776]

[Jamil, I'm having a bit of difficulty with this. Specifically I don't see how a WN (White Nationalist) could by definition be supporting a cause that wasn't racist on some level or whose rally would not be completely composed of racist **** by definition. Maybe you could argue that if they were rallying to support entitlement reform or the voter fraud commission you could make the case that someone might support the cause without supporting the group but it would be hard to get beyond the racist subtext of the group sponsoring the rally - such as whose entitlements they most would like to see reformed]

While on one hand I can understand this sentiment, on the other there is the recurring danger of identity politics in which people labeled with an identity are seen as being flat characters with only one defining characteristic. I rather doubt that many within that group are obsessed with race 24/7 in everything they do, just like on the other hand, homosexuals are just as complex as any of us and don't spend all day every day obsessing about buggery. There is no reason why a WN can't
grumble about the county increasing its wheel tax but they still haven't fixed the damned holes in the road without race every entering his thought process on the matter.

 

[jamil]

So about WN, to be consistent, I think I'd have to say the same. So if I thought they're actually going to rally for the cause, and not start chanting all the racist ****, I'd consider attending for those causes. And if they started in on all the racist ****, I'd still proclaim MY cause. And maybe I'd change the sign I'm carrying to fit the new circumstances. So, if it's a free speech rally and they start in on the racist ****, maybe I'd change the sign to say, "Even racists should be free to proclaim their ideas in open, where those ideas can die from honest public scrutiny." That's not the same thing as standing shoulder to shoulder.

[Jamil, I'm having a bit of difficulty with this. Specifically I don't see how a WN (White Nationalist) could by definition be supporting a cause that wasn't racist on some level or whose rally would not be completely composed of racist **** by definition. Maybe you could argue that if they were rallying to support entitlement reform or the voter fraud commission you could make the case that someone might support the cause without supporting the group but it would be hard to get beyond the racist subtext of the group sponsoring the rally - such as whose entitlements they most would like to see reformed]

Okay, say it's a free speech rally. Or a gun rights rally. That's different than a "unite the right" rally. Free speech and gun rights are ideas I can get behind, and if the rally is organized and arranged in such a away that it doesn't matter who the attendees are, I could probably attend that. But once it becomes apparent that people are going to start making it about something else, then I'm not going to support that. It would be a mistake to leave though.

So let's say at a gun rights rally, I see someone with a sign that says "gun rights are for white people". Okay. Now they're trying to make the rally be about something I don't agree with. I'm not interested in grouping rights. But I'm not going to leave in a huff, believing my moral superiority will be a shining beacon to my peers. I don't want people looking at that sign and deciding that pro gun people are racists. So I'm gonna make a sign that counters the racist and stand right next to him.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Dave, far be it from me to support in any way what this man has become; and I have stated elsewhere that I think perhaps the character he exhibited at the time in question is his true character - amoral and perhaps sociopathic

But just a quick word towards what I take to be one of T.Lex's points. The video consists of a short outtake of an interview devoid of context. Moreover the text wrap states "Soros was in charge of confiscating the land of the Jews in Hungary" which is an obvious falsehood and irretrievably damages any credibility the clip may have had as anything other than propaganda

This discussion, which I am guilty of turning in this direction, in my opinion is suffering from massive precession and I'm out. Lates

I don't blame you for moving on here. My hope is that most of us can filter out added on hyperbole while listening to the words the man said himself, which is why I posted the long version in addition to that short clip after I found it. So far as I am concerned, accounting for the maturity level of a child is not the issue, but rather the fact that an old man who actively participated in one of history's greatest evils sees nothing wrong with it today. Had he taken the approach of saying that he didn't understand it to be wrong through the lens of an adolescent, that would be different, but to hold up that time as his personal 'good old days' is a bit too much.

 

[T.Lex]

I don't blame you for moving on here. My hope is that most of us can filter out added on hyperbole while listening to the words the man said himself, which is why I posted the long version in addition to that short clip after I found it. So far as I am concerned, accounting for the maturity level of a child is not the issue, but rather the fact that an old man who actively participated in one of history's greatest evils sees nothing wrong with it today. Had he taken the approach of saying that he didn't understand it to be wrong through the lens of an adolescent, that would be different, but to hold up that time as his personal 'good old days' is a bit too much.

Indeed, this is a bridge too far for this thread.

The hyperbole belongs to those who believe Soros was complicit in Nazi evil. He was not. Those judging him (for that) do so from their own glass houses. Again, there are plenty of real reasons to dislike, perhaps even hate, Soros that this doesn't need to be part of the debate.

In other news, I wonder if Indianapolis will ever get the kind of RAHOWA attention that Boston is getting. I hope not. I'd rather not have this poll become an actual choice.

 

[Trigger Time]

Indeed, this is a bridge too far for this thread.

The hyperbole belongs to those who believe Soros was complicit in Nazi evil. He was not. Those judging him (for that) do so from their own glass houses. Again, there are plenty of real reasons to dislike, perhaps even hate, Soros that this doesn't need to be part of the debate.

In other news, I wonder if Indianapolis will ever get the kind of RAHOWA attention that Boston is getting. I hope not. I'd rather not have this poll become an actual choice.

Nope he is guilty and was a nazi sympathizer. You are wrong on this. Watch and listen to his own live words about it

You can bet soros money is behind all of the recent protests and anti protest. He's a.terrorists

 

[IndyDave1776]

Indeed, this is a bridge too far for this thread.

The hyperbole belongs to those who believe Soros was complicit in Nazi evil. He was not. Those judging him (for that) do so from their own glass houses. Again, there are plenty of real reasons to dislike, perhaps even hate, Soros that this doesn't need to be part of the debate.

In other news, I wonder if Indianapolis will ever get the kind of RAHOWA attention that Boston is getting. I hope not. I'd rather not have this poll become an actual choice.

It looks like we are not going to agree on this one. He said himself that he was complicit. He further said it was the best time of his life. He makes no apology to this day for being complicit, and that is the primary point on which I judge him. He could just as easily dismissed it in the same way any of us would dismiss the fact that we once crapped diapers but grew out of it. He made it clear that in the present, not just his youth, he found it an enjoyable time and has no compunctions about that in which he was participating.

 

[T.Lex]

Nope he is guilty and was a nazi sympathizer. You are wrong on this. Watch and listen to his own live words about it

You can bet soros money is behind all of the recent protests and anti protest. He's a.terrorists

It looks like we are not going to agree on this one. He said himself that he was complicit. He further said it was the best time of his life. He makes no apology to this day for being complicit, and that is the primary point on which I judge him. He could just as easily dismissed it in the same way any of us would dismiss the fact that we once crapped diapers but grew out of it. He made it clear that in the present, not just his youth, he found it an enjoyable time and has no compunctions about that in which he was participating.

Oy vey.

In other discussions, he clearly stated he was not complicit. It would have happened with or without his presence. At most, he participated passively, as an observer.

But whatevs. Indeed, I don't see any common ground being reached.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Oy vey.

In other discussions, he clearly stated he was not complicit. It would have happened with or without his presence. At most, he participated passively, as an observer.

But whatevs. Indeed, I don't see any common ground being reached.

Funny thing, he used the same damned excuse for the economic crashes he has caused, as in if he didn't do it, someone else would to the same result (which may or may not be true).

 

[Trigger Time]

Oy vey.

In other discussions, he clearly stated he was not complicit. It would have happened with or without his presence. At most, he participated passively, as an observer.

But whatevs. Indeed, I don't see any common ground being reached.

Lol, "with or without"
I agree it would have happened anyways but I'd like to believe that in the hour of my death i would stand for what i believe and they'd have to kill me and find someone else because I wouldn't help the enemy.
If everyone stood up then the Nazis WOULDN'T have been able to do what they did.
What s the saying? All that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do,nothing. Or something a long those lines

 

[Thor]

Alt-Right = actual Left. NAZI = socialists. I will watch both sides from home...heavily armed.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Alt-Right = actual Left. NAZI = socialists. I will watch both sides from home...heavily armed.

Your logic is baffling.

 

[jamil]

Alt-Right = actual Left. NAZI = socialists. I will watch both sides from home...heavily armed.

Your logic is baffling.

Ya, that's not accurate. Socialism isn't confined to the left. Nationalist socialism is right wing. Alt-right principles are an extreme brand of conservatism. It's okay if we admit that we got some nutballs in our tribe, and treat them like nutballs. It'd be nice if the left could do that with their nutballs.

 

[Que]

Ya, that's not accurate. Socialism isn't confined to the left. Nationalist socialism is right wing. Alt-right principles are an extreme brand of conservatism. It's okay if we admit that we got some nutballs in our tribe, and treat them like nutballs. It'd be nice if the left could do that with their nutballs.

If there wasn't sides other than right and wrong, that would help. I know that's not realistic in politics, but it should be so in how we treat each other.

 

[jamil]

If there wasn't sides other than right and wrong, that would help. I know that's not realistic in politics, but it should be so in how we treat each other.

That's impossible though. Too much diversity of personalities not to have a diversity of opinions. If people understood and exercised the principles of right and wrong in their practice of politics, we'd have a more civilized discussion of our differences.

I remember a time when the nutballs didn't have a very loud voice. We could mostly ignore them. Now they carry torches by 10 thousands in a show of racial force, and people dressed head to toe in black, wearing masks, commit violence against everyone who disagrees with them. People could peacefully hold diverse ideas if they all understood and exercised the principles of right and wrong.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If there wasn't sides other than right and wrong, that would help. I know that's not realistic in politics, but it should be so in how we treat each other.

 

[Thor]

Getting to be time to water the Liberty Tree.

 

[T.Lex]

Lord, I hope not.

 

[Trigger Time]

Getting to be time to water the Liberty Tree.

Is this a trap? This feels like a trap

 

[printcraft]

Getting to be time to water the Liberty Tree.

It's getting watered right now, the only problem is that it's ****.

 

[T.Lex]

It's getting watered right now, the only problem is that it's ****.

OMG, let's not turn this into another American beer v. craft beer thread....