(02-18-2020 10:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 09:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 09:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 08:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]https://nypost.com/2020/02/17/brawl-brea...shirt/amp/
I guess in lads view, everyone at that Bernie Sanders rally should be culpable of assault.
Yep. Hit the nail on the head.
Interesting. Didn't like his political message, so he called him a racist. Then attacked him.
I wonder if that has ever happened before.
I think Lad is missing Tanq's point.
Yep. Hit the nail on the head.
I see no evidence that you are getting his point. If you do not want to discuss, just keep silent.
Any comment on the fracas at the bernie rally? If this was,, say, one old man hitting a Trump protester, we would never hear the end of it. In fact,, the one old man would be considered representative of all Trump supporters.
I think the attacker IS representative of left wing Bernie bros. The pattern is old - call the guy a racist, then attack him like the Antifas do.
Calling Owl#s - we need a speech sheriff here to chastise OO for trying to dictate who can and cannot post!
OO, I understand what point Tanq is making, but it's another one of those great leaps that he loves to take and I don't see a reason to respond because I've done it before.
Regarding the Bernie rally attack, the video doesn't show much, but I doubt the guy with the Black Guns Matter shirt did anything to justify being assaulted like he was. What was nice to see was that a number of attendees quickly jumped in and pulled the attacker off and kept them separated.
What do you think of the multiple people that broke up the fight and protected the guy being attacked?
(02-18-2020 10:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Calling Owl#s - we need a speech sheriff here to chastise OO for trying to dictate who can and cannot post!
OK, anybody can post whatever they want to (subject to reasonable rules of decency and such). Last I heard, this was still a free country and nobody died and left you in charge.
(02-18-2020 10:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 10:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 09:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 09:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Yep. Hit the nail on the head.
Interesting. Didn't like his political message, so he called him a racist. Then attacked him.
I wonder if that has ever happened before.
I think Lad is missing Tanq's point.
Yep. Hit the nail on the head.
I see no evidence that you are getting his point. If you do not want to discuss, just keep silent.
Any comment on the fracas at the bernie rally? If this was,, say, one old man hitting a Trump protester, we would never hear the end of it. In fact,, the one old man would be considered representative of all Trump supporters.
I think the attacker IS representative of left wing Bernie bros. The pattern is old - call the guy a racist, then attack him like the Antifas do.
Calling Owl#s - we need a speech sheriff here to chastise OO for trying to dictate who can and cannot post!
OO, I understand what point Tanq is making, but it's another one of those great leaps that he loves to take and I don't see a reason to respond because I've done it before.
Regarding the Bernie rally attack, the video doesn't show much, but I doubt the guy with the Black Guns Matter shirt did anything to justify being assaulted like he was. What was nice to see was that a number of attendees quickly jumped in and pulled the attacker off and kept them separated.
What do you think of the multiple people that broke up the fight and protected the guy being attacked?
Probably Republicans.
Just kidding.
I think they are probably better representatives of the movement than the one guy who started the fight - just like the overall group in Charlotte are better than the guy in the car or the crowd at the rally is better than the old guy who threw the punch. Which I think is tanq's point. Correct me if I am wrong - either of you.
(02-18-2020 11:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 10:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 10:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 09:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting. Didn't like his political message, so he called him a racist. Then attacked him.
I wonder if that has ever happened before.
I think Lad is missing Tanq's point.
Yep. Hit the nail on the head.
I see no evidence that you are getting his point. If you do not want to discuss, just keep silent.
Any comment on the fracas at the bernie rally? If this was,, say, one old man hitting a Trump protester, we would never hear the end of it. In fact,, the one old man would be considered representative of all Trump supporters.
I think the attacker IS representative of left wing Bernie bros. The pattern is old - call the guy a racist, then attack him like the Antifas do.
Calling Owl#s - we need a speech sheriff here to chastise OO for trying to dictate who can and cannot post!
OO, I understand what point Tanq is making, but it's another one of those great leaps that he loves to take and I don't see a reason to respond because I've done it before.
Regarding the Bernie rally attack, the video doesn't show much, but I doubt the guy with the Black Guns Matter shirt did anything to justify being assaulted like he was. What was nice to see was that a number of attendees quickly jumped in and pulled the attacker off and kept them separated.
What do you think of the multiple people that broke up the fight and protected the guy being attacked?
Probably Republicans.
Just kidding.
I think they are probably better representatives of the movement than the one guy who started the fight - just like the overall group in Charlotte are better than the guy in the car or the crowd at the rally is better than the old guy who threw the punch. Which I think is tanq's point. Correct me if I am wrong - either of you.
And I agree. The problem with Charlottesville, is that the rally was FULL of Nazis and White Supremacists...
(02-18-2020 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 10:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 10:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Yep. Hit the nail on the head.
I see no evidence that you are getting his point. If you do not want to discuss, just keep silent.
Any comment on the fracas at the bernie rally? If this was,, say, one old man hitting a Trump protester, we would never hear the end of it. In fact,, the one old man would be considered representative of all Trump supporters.
I think the attacker IS representative of left wing Bernie bros. The pattern is old - call the guy a racist, then attack him like the Antifas do.
Calling Owl#s - we need a speech sheriff here to chastise OO for trying to dictate who can and cannot post!
OO, I understand what point Tanq is making, but it's another one of those great leaps that he loves to take and I don't see a reason to respond because I've done it before.
Regarding the Bernie rally attack, the video doesn't show much, but I doubt the guy with the Black Guns Matter shirt did anything to justify being assaulted like he was. What was nice to see was that a number of attendees quickly jumped in and pulled the attacker off and kept them separated.
What do you think of the multiple people that broke up the fight and protected the guy being attacked?
Probably Republicans.
Just kidding.
I think they are probably better representatives of the movement than the one guy who started the fight - just like the overall group in Charlotte are better than the guy in the car or the crowd at the rally is better than the old guy who threw the punch. Which I think is tanq's point. Correct me if I am wrong - either of you.
And I agree. The problem with Charlottesville, is that the rally was FULL of Nazis and White Supremacists...
And that thought crime is enough for you to indict every single person with the act of one. Sounds like fun to me.
For the record, I dont tag the entirety of the Bernie rally with the one act. I would find that pretty much stupid to do.
(02-18-2020 11:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 10:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Calling Owl#s - we need a speech sheriff here to chastise OO for trying to dictate who can and cannot post!
OK, anybody can post whatever they want to (subject to reasonable rules of decency and such). Last I heard, this was still a free country and nobody died and left you in charge.
I'm a mod... so it actually IS my place to say this.
Anyone can post whatever they want, subject to reasonable rules of decency etc... but also,
in the interest of furthering discussion
If you don't want to discuss an issue, nobody is under any obligation to do so. I'd also say that it's pretty good advice to not do so (similar to what OO has said) rather than to engage in (as an example) 'I know you are but what am I' sort of foolishness (not that this has happened here, but as a very clear example of unacceptable behavior). Something like that IS a violation of the AUP. Contrary to the belief of some, this IS a moderated forum... though we tend to let most things work themselves out.
(02-18-2020 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 10:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Calling Owl#s - we need a speech sheriff here to chastise OO for trying to dictate who can and cannot post!
OO, I understand what point Tanq is making, but it's another one of those great leaps that he loves to take and I don't see a reason to respond because I've done it before.
Regarding the Bernie rally attack, the video doesn't show much, but I doubt the guy with the Black Guns Matter shirt did anything to justify being assaulted like he was. What was nice to see was that a number of attendees quickly jumped in and pulled the attacker off and kept them separated.
What do you think of the multiple people that broke up the fight and protected the guy being attacked?
Probably Republicans.
Just kidding.
I think they are probably better representatives of the movement than the one guy who started the fight - just like the overall group in Charlotte are better than the guy in the car or the crowd at the rally is better than the old guy who threw the punch. Which I think is tanq's point. Correct me if I am wrong - either of you.
And I agree. The problem with Charlottesville, is that the rally was FULL of Nazis and White Supremacists...
And that thought crime is enough for you to indict every single person with the act of one. Sounds like fun to me.
For the record, I dont tag the entirety of the Bernie rally with the one act. I would find that pretty much stupid to do.
Agree with Tanq.
So how would you describe a protest that was full of white supremacists and nazis?
(02-18-2020 11:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Probably Republicans.
Just kidding.
I think they are probably better representatives of the movement than the one guy who started the fight - just like the overall group in Charlotte are better than the guy in the car or the crowd at the rally is better than the old guy who threw the punch. Which I think is tanq's point. Correct me if I am wrong - either of you.
And I agree. The problem with Charlottesville, is that the rally was FULL of Nazis and White Supremacists...
And that thought crime is enough for you to indict every single person with the act of one. Sounds like fun to me.
For the record, I dont tag the entirety of the Bernie rally with the one act. I would find that pretty much stupid to do.
Agree with Tanq.
So how would you describe a protest that was full of white supremacists and nazis?
An exercise in the right to free speech and an exercise of the right to assemble. Not one I would attend.
Same as i would a protest that was full of socialists wanting to remove the duly elected president from office. Not one I would attend.
(02-18-2020 12:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And I agree. The problem with Charlottesville, is that the rally was FULL of Nazis and White Supremacists...
And that thought crime is enough for you to indict every single person with the act of one. Sounds like fun to me.
For the record, I dont tag the entirety of the Bernie rally with the one act. I would find that pretty much stupid to do.
Agree with Tanq.
So how would you describe a protest that was full of white supremacists and nazis?
An exercise in the right to free speech and an exercise of the right to assemble. Not one I would attend.
Same as i would a protest that was full of socialists wanting to remove the duly elected president from office. Not one I would attend.
And why wouldn't you attend the rally?
(02-18-2020 11:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 10:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Calling Owl#s - we need a speech sheriff here to chastise OO for trying to dictate who can and cannot post!
OK, anybody can post whatever they want to (subject to reasonable rules of decency and such). Last I heard, this was still a free country and nobody died and left you in charge.
Completely unsurprising that you respond to me with this line AND exclude out OO's comment that says STFU.
Do you remember this post???
(02-16-2020 11:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2020 10:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Ham, I did not start or intend to talk about acceptable vs unacceptable forms of protest.
Who died and left you in charge of what is discussed on here?
Last I checked, we were still a free country.
(02-18-2020 11:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 10:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Calling Owl#s - we need a speech sheriff here to chastise OO for trying to dictate who can and cannot post!
OK, anybody can post whatever they want to (subject to reasonable rules of decency and such). Last I heard, this was still a free country and nobody died and left you in charge.
Completely unsurprising that you respond to me with this line AND exclude out OO's comment that says STFU.
Do you remember this post???
(02-16-2020 11:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2020 10:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Ham, I did not start or intend to talk about acceptable vs unacceptable forms of protest.
Who died and left you in charge of what is discussed on here?
Last I checked, we were still a free country.
(02-18-2020 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 10:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Calling Owl#s - we need a speech sheriff here to chastise OO for trying to dictate who can and cannot post!
OK, anybody can post whatever they want to (subject to reasonable rules of decency and such). Last I heard, this was still a free country and nobody died and left you in charge.
Completely unsurprising that you respond to me with this line AND exclude out OO's comment that says STFU.
Do you remember this post???
(02-16-2020 11:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2020 10:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Ham, I did not start or intend to talk about acceptable vs unacceptable forms of protest.
Who died and left you in charge of what is discussed on here?
Last I checked, we were still a free country.
Really? You read STFU into what I said? what I was saying is that if you are not going to engage in discussion, might as well not talk. Acting haughty and indifferent is not helpful. But it does make me think you will make a wonderful wife some day.
(02-18-2020 12:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 10:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Calling Owl#s - we need a speech sheriff here to chastise OO for trying to dictate who can and cannot post!
OK, anybody can post whatever they want to (subject to reasonable rules of decency and such). Last I heard, this was still a free country and nobody died and left you in charge.
Completely unsurprising that you respond to me with this line AND exclude out OO's comment that says STFU.
Do you remember this post???
(02-16-2020 11:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2020 10:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Ham, I did not start or intend to talk about acceptable vs unacceptable forms of protest.
Who died and left you in charge of what is discussed on here?
Last I checked, we were still a free country.
Really? You read STFU into what I said? what I was saying is that if you are not going to engage in discussion, might as well not talk. Acting haughty and indifferent is not helpful. But it does make me think you will make a wonderful wife some day.
To the bold - ????
I actually didn't care that you said it, just found it utterly hilarious that a day or so after Owl#'s tried to chastise me for doing something he interpreted as policing language, one of of Three Amigos did the exact same thing; unsurprisingly, Owl#s was silent.
(02-18-2020 12:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 12:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 10:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Calling Owl#s - we need a speech sheriff here to chastise OO for trying to dictate who can and cannot post!
OK, anybody can post whatever they want to (subject to reasonable rules of decency and such). Last I heard, this was still a free country and nobody died and left you in charge.
Completely unsurprising that you respond to me with this line AND exclude out OO's comment that says STFU.
Do you remember this post???
(02-16-2020 11:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2020 10:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Ham, I did not start or intend to talk about acceptable vs unacceptable forms of protest.
Who died and left you in charge of what is discussed on here?
Last I checked, we were still a free country.
Really? You read STFU into what I said? what I was saying is that if you are not going to engage in discussion, might as well not talk. Acting haughty and indifferent is not helpful. But it does make me think you will make a wonderful wife some day.
To the bold - ????
I actually didn't care that you said it, just found it utterly hilarious that a day or so after Owl#'s tried to chastise me for doing something he interpreted as policing language, one of of Three Amigos did the exact same thing; unsurprisingly, Owl#s was silent.
You hit the nail on the head. (like that?) Was my sarcasm level evident enough?
I think your Three Amigos comment is racist and demeaning, implying that I wear a Sombrero.
J/K. But why Three Amigos and not Three Musketeers? I think there is some french ancestry in my background. I like candy. One for all and all for one.
Actually, not only have I not told you to STFU, but I have tried to get you to join the discussion in a meaningful way. You keep going with the passive aggression. I must admit your non-responses reminded me of the days when I was married. But I bet she was prettier, if not as smart.
(02-18-2020 11:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Probably Republicans.
Just kidding.
I think they are probably better representatives of the movement than the one guy who started the fight - just like the overall group in Charlotte are better than the guy in the car or the crowd at the rally is better than the old guy who threw the punch. Which I think is tanq's point. Correct me if I am wrong - either of you.
And I agree. The problem with Charlottesville, is that the rally was FULL of Nazis and White Supremacists...
And that thought crime is enough for you to indict every single person with the act of one. Sounds like fun to me.
For the record, I dont tag the entirety of the Bernie rally with the one act. I would find that pretty much stupid to do.
Agree with Tanq.
So how would you describe a protest that was full of white supremacists and nazis?
I would describe it as a protest that was full of white supremacists and nazis. Duh.
That isnt the point. I wouldnt castigate any one of them for a crime that they did not personally commit -- which is what you seem so doggedly absolute about. No matter what their personal beliefs might include, or exclude.
(02-18-2020 01:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And I agree. The problem with Charlottesville, is that the rally was FULL of Nazis and White Supremacists...
And that thought crime is enough for you to indict every single person with the act of one. Sounds like fun to me.
For the record, I dont tag the entirety of the Bernie rally with the one act. I would find that pretty much stupid to do.
Agree with Tanq.
So how would you describe a protest that was full of white supremacists and nazis?
I would describe it as a protest that was full of white supremacists and nazis. Duh.
That isnt the point. I wouldnt castigate any one of them for a crime that they did not personally commit -- which is what you seem so doggedly absolute about. No matter what their personal beliefs might include, or exclude.
Can you should me where I have "doggedly" and "absolutely" castigated the people for the murder? From my memory, the closest I've come is saying that their presence helped to create the situation that led to the murder. But I could be wrong - sounds like you've got a good memory for what I type, since you can speak about it with such vigor.
Quote:Can you should me where I have "doggedly" and "absolutely" castigated the people for the murder? From my memory, the closest I've come is saying that their presence helped to create the situation that led to the murder. But I could be wrong - sounds like you've got a good memory for what I type, since you can speak about it with such vigor.
On well more than one occasion you have noted how the group was responsible for the murder. 'Doggedly' for well more than a couple of times; 'castigate' for the responsibility you continuously lay on their shoulders as a collective. Sound good to you?
Or how about a simple search example?
Quote:Not hard to say that one shouldn't give any credence to a march full of literal Nazi's and Klansmen that ended up killing someone.
The above sounds a tad more than 'the presence of the match helped create the situation' to me. How does it sound to you? In fact, you absolutely and explicitly tell us that the "march" killed someone above.
Multiply by a god score over the last number of years, and there you go. You 'doggedly' refer to the collective 'march' that somehow killed someone. That is opposed to saying 'some shitbag in the rally killed someone'. Shall I find more for you?
(02-18-2020 03:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Can you should me where I have "doggedly" and "absolutely" castigated the people for the murder? From my memory, the closest I've come is saying that their presence helped to create the situation that led to the murder. But I could be wrong - sounds like you've got a good memory for what I type, since you can speak about it with such vigor.
On well more than one occasion you have noted how the group was responsible for the murder. 'Doggedly' for well more than a couple of times; 'castigate' for the responsibility you continuously lay on their shoulders as a collective. Sound good to you?
Or how about a simple search example?
Quote:Not hard to say that one shouldn't give any credence to a march full of literal Nazi's and Klansmen that ended up killing someone.
The above sounds a tad more than 'the presence of the match helped create situation' to me. How does it sound to you?
Multiply by a god score over the last number of years, and there you go. You 'doggedly' refer to the collective 'march' that somehow killed someone. That is opposed to saying 'some shitbag in the rally killed someone'. Shall I find more for you?
If you want to interpret that last sentence that way, where you believe that I'm saying multiple people killed Heather Heyer, that is your prerogative. But, as my response to this comment clearly indicated, I was talking about one of the many Nazi's/White Supremacists that killed Heather Heyer.
You should read that as "a march full of literal Nazi's and Klansmen,
one of which ended up killing someone."
(02-18-2020 03:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2020 03:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Can you should me where I have "doggedly" and "absolutely" castigated the people for the murder? From my memory, the closest I've come is saying that their presence helped to create the situation that led to the murder. But I could be wrong - sounds like you've got a good memory for what I type, since you can speak about it with such vigor.
On well more than one occasion you have noted how the group was responsible for the murder. 'Doggedly' for well more than a couple of times; 'castigate' for the responsibility you continuously lay on their shoulders as a collective. Sound good to you?
Or how about a simple search example?
Quote:Not hard to say that one shouldn't give any credence to a march full of literal Nazi's and Klansmen that ended up killing someone.
The above sounds a tad more than 'the presence of the match helped create situation' to me. How does it sound to you?
Multiply by a god score over the last number of years, and there you go. You 'doggedly' refer to the collective 'march' that somehow killed someone. That is opposed to saying 'some shitbag in the rally killed someone'. Shall I find more for you?
If you want to interpret that last sentence that way, where you believe that I'm saying multiple people killed Heather Heyer, that is your prerogative. But, as my response to this comment clearly indicated, I was talking about one of the many Nazi's/White Supremacists that killed Heather Heyer.
You should read that as "a march full of literal Nazi's and Klansmen, one of which ended up killing someone."
So he should read it using words that aren't there as opposed to using the ones that are?
I get what you're saying Lad, but it seems once again, you're either bothered because people read something into something you said, or that they didn't. Just as an aside... In comment one, it is 'the march' that killed someone, implicating everyone there. In the second, it is one person who attended the march. Especially in that it is being implied that (at least almost) everyone at the march was a nazi or klansman and thus deplorable to begin with
I also think it not just unlikely, but virtually IMPOSSIBLE that every single person there who was against the renaming of the park was a literal nazi or klansman. I've never seen a true nazi or klansman who would show their face, but miss an opportunity to display their 'colors', yet there were plenty of people there not carrying nazi signs or wearing hoods etc etc etc.