(08-13-2017 11:10 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(08-13-2017 10:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Again, really bad take here.

Had some terrorist not driven his car into a crowd of protestors and murdered someone, your point may be better taken. But again, real bad take.

The terrorist was still a single actor, who has been arrested, and will now undoubtedly be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

None of this had to happen. The revisionist history of treating Robert E. Lee with the same broad brush as Nathan Bedford Forrest, etc., when Lincoln, Grant and most contemporary Americans viewed him in a light that would find the current outcries about Lee's statue appalling, gave unnecessary opportunity for idiots and supremacists to protest. As I've pointed out before, the difference between Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee and their stances on Virginia and where they land on the issues of the time, was simply the specific years in which they lived, and the fact that Lee freed his own slaves and Jefferson impregnated his.

Oh and Lee led his men in battle and was loved by them, and respected by his opponents. Which of course is why he was so revered in the South, not because of any political stance.

You are correct in that white supremacists are on the wrong side of history. But your post that started this day's string off, painted with a huge, broad brush the hundreds of people on both sides in Virginia.

While there are obviously people there that could be characterized as wholly wrong, and many in control and blameless; labeling groups as wholly virtuous or wholly evil is an emotional response to a horrible tragedy and a crime committed by one person (as far as is known now).

With regard to statues, there is one on our campus of a known slaveholder, citizen of the Confederacy who bequeathed a fortune to an institution of higher learning for 'white Texans'.

Given the nature of the tragic events, I view your posts as a properly emotional response to a horrible crime.

But generally speaking, viewing large numbers of people as wholly virtuous or wholly reprehensible is a self-perpetrating exercise that only succeeds in escalating tension and does not foster understanding or reconciliation.

Lincoln understood this, as have other leaders throughout history.

Rick, I generally agree with what you're saying about painting with a broad brush and how dangerous is can be.

But how is painting a group such as white supremacists as being vile a bad thing? Or is your comment about painting with a broad brush talking about labeling the protesters as white supremacists?

If it's the latter, this is one event where I don't feel too bad doing it because of all of the signs, chants, language, and KKK-like images that came from the first night of protests.

(08-13-2017 11:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-13-2017 11:10 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(08-13-2017 10:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Again, really bad take here.

Had some terrorist not driven his car into a crowd of protestors and murdered someone, your point may be better taken. But again, real bad take.

The terrorist was still a single actor, who has been arrested, and will now undoubtedly be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

None of this had to happen. The revisionist history of treating Robert E. Lee with the same broad brush as Nathan Bedford Forrest, etc., when Lincoln, Grant and most contemporary Americans viewed him in a light that would find the current outcries about Lee's statue appalling, gave unnecessary opportunity for idiots and supremacists to protest. As I've pointed out before, the difference between Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee and their stances on Virginia and where they land on the issues of the time, was simply the specific years in which they lived, and the fact that Lee freed his own slaves and Jefferson impregnated his.

Oh and Lee led his men in battle and was loved by them, and respected by his opponents. Which of course is why he was so revered in the South, not because of any political stance.

You are correct in that white supremacists are on the wrong side of history. But your post that started this day's string off, painted with a huge, broad brush the hundreds of people on both sides in Virginia.

While there are obviously people there that could be characterized as wholly wrong, and many in control and blameless; labeling groups as wholly virtuous or wholly evil is an emotional response to a horrible tragedy and a crime committed by one person (as far as is known now).

With regard to statues, there is one on our campus of a known slaveholder, citizen of the Confederacy who bequeathed a fortune to an institution of higher learning for 'white Texans'.

Given the nature of the tragic events, I view your posts as a properly emotional response to a horrible crime.

But generally speaking, viewing large numbers of people as wholly virtuous or wholly reprehensible is a self-perpetrating exercise that only succeeds in escalating tension and does not foster understanding or reconciliation.

Lincoln understood this, as have other leaders throughout history.

Rick, I generally agree with what you're saying about painting with a broad brush and how dangerous is can be.

But how is painting a group such as white supremacists as being vile a bad thing? Or is your comment about painting with a broad brush talking about labeling the protesters as white supremacists?

If it's the latter, this is one event where I don't feel too bad doing it because of all of the signs, chants, language, and KKK-like images that came from the first night of protests.

There were undoubtedly white supremacists in attendance.

However the motivation of every person at the protest was not the same.

Painting everyone with the same broad brush is not vile. But it's not fair either.

It's kind of the definition of bigotry and prejudice. I'm not saying you are a bigot or prejudiced.

I obviously don't attend alt-right protests (I did not vote Trump), nor am I a white supremacist.

But I find 21st century attempts to paint Robert E. Lee negatively (not saying he didn't have any bad qualities or ever make bad decisions) as unnecessary. The reason he was loved and revered was not because of racism, but because he was a leader who loved his men and who was considered honorable and of high character. He retired to be a university president.

Lumping Lee in with KKK leaders (much better targets of statue demolition) just isn't right. Not if you have a Thomas Jefferson memorial on the mall, or a statue of William Marsh Rice on our campus.

Whether Lee was a great general is subject to debate. But for more than 140 years both sides of the Mason-Dixon line regarded him as a man of noble character, worthy of respect.

I view the decision to take down Lee's statue as coming from an incredibly narrow perspective, unneeded, unnecessary, and frankly provocative to the elements you rightfully are concerned about. To the extent that Lee was beloved by the people of his era before and after the war, and that the reverence accorded him was helpful to many in moving on from their loss of the Civil War, viewing him as a "civil war general" is as tone deaf as allowing a statue of the founder of the KKK to remain in place.

Anyone who objects or objected to the decision to remove the statue on the basis I've outlined above, should not automatically be thrown into the category of racist or white supremacist, even if there were racists and white supremacists who used the decision as an excuse to protest.

Painting every person who lived in the pre-Civil War South with the same brush is wrong. Life is too complex for that.

And by the same token, painting everyone on both sides of the demonstrations (that could've been avoided altogether) with two broad brushes is equally unfair.

(08-14-2017 12:31 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  There were undoubtedly white supremacists in attendance.

However the motivation of every person at the protest was not the same.

You are normally one of the more level headed posters, Rick, but with all due respect, what planet are you on? It was an explicitly white supremacist march, organized by and for neo-Nazis and white supremacists, FFS. They were doing Nazi chants and salutes.

(08-14-2017 12:31 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I obviously don't attend alt-right protests (I did not vote Trump), nor am I a white supremacist.

But I find 21st century attempts to paint Robert E. Lee negatively (not saying he didn't have any bad qualities or ever make bad decisions) as unnecessary.

....

To the extent that Lee was beloved by the people of his era before and after the war, and that the reverence accorded him was helpful to many in moving on from their loss of the Civil War, viewing him as a "civil war general" is as tone deaf as allowing a statue of the founder of the KKK to remain in place.

Again, I am baffled by this. (Admittedly I don't understand the how or why so many Southerners can't move on from the Civil War 150+ years later, but that's not what I mean.) The KKK has literally murdered thousands of Americans. Removing a Lee statue is not equivalent to having a statue of the founder of the KKK unless you are arguing that the hurt feelings of a few Southern Whites is as important as the *murder* of thousands of African-Americans (and white "race traitors"). And people wonder where the phrase Black Lives Matter comes from...

BTW, the mayor of Charlottesville was against moving the statue. But the city appointed a commission that looked into the various confederate monuments in the city and had a long public process to decide what to do. I doubt few got exactly what they wanted, but I don't see how you can blame that community and the process for what happened.

Nazis are bad. The Klan is bad. Sometimes nuance is not necessary, and is in fact harmful.

Now to Rick's post about the dangers of 'painting with a broad brush' - I would point you to Tang's anti-Antifa rantings. I have a hard time telling to what degree this is just a talking point with a subset of conservatives vs. people actually thinking Antifa is coming to get them.

To be clear up front, I do not support what Antifa groups are doing. One, I'm against violence, and two, they hurt the causes they claim to support.

But acting like the only people protesting against the Nazis and white supremacists were antifa activists is either disingenuous or ill-informed. Newsflash: Many Americans find these people's beliefs offensive and show up to protest against them. I know many people who attended the post election demonstrations in Austin, often with their kids. There probably were a few antifa wannabes looking for trouble, but the overwhelming majority (like 98+%) were peacefully protesting the policies and attitudes of this president.

And another thing. The Klan has murdered thousands of Americans. Other white supremacists and neo-Nazis have too, though we don't keep good records on that apparently. Hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their lives fighting the Nazis and fascism. The Nazis murdered *millions* of people. But somehow a handful of misguided twenty-something activists are their moral equivalent because they got into fistfights or smashed some windows?

Please. Condemning Nazis, fascism, and white supremacy should be easy. The fact that this President can't make that call is shameful and despicable.

(08-14-2017 12:39 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Now to Rick's post about the dangers of 'painting with a broad brush' - I would point you to Tang's anti-Antifa rantings. I have a hard time telling to what degree this is just a talking point with a subset of conservatives vs. people actually thinking Antifa is coming to get them.

To be clear up front, I do not support what Antifa groups are doing. One, I'm against violence, and two, they hurt the causes they claim to support.

But acting like the only people protesting against the Nazis and white supremacists were antifa activists is either disingenuous or ill-informed. Newsflash: Many Americans find these people's beliefs offensive and show up to protest against them. I know many people who attended the post election demonstrations in Austin, often with their kids. There probably were a few antifa wannabes looking for trouble, but the overwhelming majority (like 98+%) were peacefully protesting the policies and attitudes of this president.

And another thing. The Klan has murdered thousands of Americans. Other white supremacists and neo-Nazis have too, though we don't keep good records on that apparently. Hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their lives fighting the Nazis and fascism. The Nazis murdered *millions* of people. But somehow a handful of misguided twenty-something activists are their moral equivalent because they got into fistfights or smashed some windows?

Please. Condemning Nazis, fascism, and white supremacy should be easy. The fact that this President can't make that call is shameful and despicable.

Have no real disagreement with this post.

(08-14-2017 12:21 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-14-2017 12:31 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  There were undoubtedly white supremacists in attendance.

However the motivation of every person at the protest was not the same.

You are normally one of the more level headed posters, Rick, but with all due respect, what planet are you on? It was an explicitly white supremacist march, organized by and for neo-Nazis and white supremacists, FFS. They were doing Nazi chants and salutes.

(08-14-2017 12:31 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I obviously don't attend alt-right protests (I did not vote Trump), nor am I a white supremacist.

But I find 21st century attempts to paint Robert E. Lee negatively (not saying he didn't have any bad qualities or ever make bad decisions) as unnecessary.

....

To the extent that Lee was beloved by the people of his era before and after the war, and that the reverence accorded him was helpful to many in moving on from their loss of the Civil War, viewing him as a "civil war general" is as tone deaf as allowing a statue of the founder of the KKK to remain in place.

Again, I am baffled by this. (Admittedly I don't understand the how or why so many Southerners can't move on from the Civil War 150+ years later, but that's not what I mean.) The KKK has literally murdered thousands of Americans. Removing a Lee statue is not equivalent to having a statue of the founder of the KKK unless you are arguing that the hurt feelings of a few Southern Whites is as important as the *murder* of thousands of African-Americans (and white "race traitors"). And people wonder where the phrase Black Lives Matter comes from...

BTW, the mayor of Charlottesville was against moving the statue. But the city appointed a commission that looked into the various confederate monuments in the city and had a long public process to decide what to do. I doubt few got exactly what they wanted, but I don't see how you can blame that community and the process for what happened.

Nazis are bad. The Klan is bad. Sometimes nuance is not necessary, and is in fact harmful.

Certainly don't blame the community for what happened. That's on the terrorist, and separately on those who choose to resort to violence.

My argument on the Lee statue isn't trying to relate people's hurt over it"s removal to people who've suffered at the hands of the KKK. I'm all for getting rid of statues honoring Nathan Bedford Forest and other Klan founders who were also Civil War vets. I believe Lee earned the level of respect given him and whether anyone understands the love soldiers have for their commanders or not, allowing the losing side to retain some of their heroes is a reasonable decision, and one that was made 150 plus years ago and ratified by time.

If you deny recognition to someone like Lee who was greatly respected on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line, you open the door for reactionaries to line up with the Nathan Bedford Forrests.

Frankly I would be less bothered by removing Willy's statue than Lee's. Not that I'm advocating that

(08-14-2017 12:39 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Now to Rick's post about the dangers of 'painting with a broad brush' - I would point you to Tang's anti-Antifa rantings.

I actually condemned both Antifa and the Spencerites. I suggest you re-read.

Quote:To be clear up front, I do not support what Antifa groups are doing. One, I'm against violence, and two, they hurt the causes they claim to support.

Fantastic ! I do not support what the Spencerites are doing. One, I'm against violence, and two, well, nothing to really state positively about them. On top of it I am fully on board with your above statement, to a tee.

Quote:But acting like the only people protesting against the Nazis and white supremacists were antifa activists is either disingenuous or ill-informed.

Please state where said or implied that 'the only people protesting against the Nazis and white supremacists were antifa activists'. Again, please re-read. What I *did* say is that both groups *did* turn up, and both groups *were* looking for a rumble. The events that unfolded in the street melee Saturday is testament to that fundamental fact.

If you *really* believe that I think that the 'only people protesting against the Nazis and white supremacists were antifa activists' could be as disingenuous or ill-informed as you complain of about me. Again, I look forward to your cite where I either state this directly or imply it.

Quote:Newsflash: Many Americans find these people's beliefs offensive and show up to protest against them.

Hate to burst your bubble I too would likely show up to protest against white supremacists.

Quote:I know many people who attended the post election demonstrations in Austin, often with their kids. There probably were a few antifa wannabes looking for trouble, but the overwhelming majority (like 98+%) were peacefully protesting the policies and attitudes of this president.

Please note where I have equated any peaceful center-left demonstration with antifa leanings. And kudos for the peaceful expression of disapproval.

But please don't put arguments into my mouth (or keyboard) that simply -- aren't.

Quote:Please. Condemning Nazis, fascism, and white supremacy should be easy.

Correct. That is why I did so. Repeatedly. I also condemn those who wish to shut down opposing viewpoints with violence, from either side of the debate.

The only difference in this instance is that I am calling *everyone* jaunting down a public avenue with a baseball bat or makeshift flamethrower a rioter wannabe, regardless of their political or moral persuasion. But note, I have not claimed in any way, shape, or form that the protesters (on either side) there consisted solely of such wannabe thugs. In that manner, your complaint about me seems a tad mischaracterized.

Quote:The fact that this President can't make that call is shameful and despicable.

I suggest you look at today's news. When you do and note he said

Quote:“Racism is evil,” Mr. Trump said. “And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the K.K.K., neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

will you back off your your above comment? But, my guess is that you will state 'too little, too late' in order to avoid giving *any* kudos whatsoever.

(08-14-2017 01:44 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(08-14-2017 12:21 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-14-2017 12:31 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  There were undoubtedly white supremacists in attendance.

However the motivation of every person at the protest was not the same.

You are normally one of the more level headed posters, Rick, but with all due respect, what planet are you on? It was an explicitly white supremacist march, organized by and for neo-Nazis and white supremacists, FFS. They were doing Nazi chants and salutes.

(08-14-2017 12:31 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I obviously don't attend alt-right protests (I did not vote Trump), nor am I a white supremacist.

But I find 21st century attempts to paint Robert E. Lee negatively (not saying he didn't have any bad qualities or ever make bad decisions) as unnecessary.

....

To the extent that Lee was beloved by the people of his era before and after the war, and that the reverence accorded him was helpful to many in moving on from their loss of the Civil War, viewing him as a "civil war general" is as tone deaf as allowing a statue of the founder of the KKK to remain in place.

Again, I am baffled by this. (Admittedly I don't understand the how or why so many Southerners can't move on from the Civil War 150+ years later, but that's not what I mean.) The KKK has literally murdered thousands of Americans. Removing a Lee statue is not equivalent to having a statue of the founder of the KKK unless you are arguing that the hurt feelings of a few Southern Whites is as important as the *murder* of thousands of African-Americans (and white "race traitors"). And people wonder where the phrase Black Lives Matter comes from...

BTW, the mayor of Charlottesville was against moving the statue. But the city appointed a commission that looked into the various confederate monuments in the city and had a long public process to decide what to do. I doubt few got exactly what they wanted, but I don't see how you can blame that community and the process for what happened.

Nazis are bad. The Klan is bad. Sometimes nuance is not necessary, and is in fact harmful.

Certainly don't blame the community for what happened. That's on the terrorist, and separately on those who choose to resort to violence.

My argument on the Lee statue isn't trying to relate people's hurt over it"s removal to people who've suffered at the hands of the KKK. I'm all for getting rid of statues honoring Nathan Bedford Forest and other Klan founders who were also Civil War vets. I believe Lee earned the level of respect given him and whether anyone understands the love soldiers have for their commanders or not, allowing the losing side to retain some of their heroes is a reasonable decision, and one that was made 150 plus years ago and ratified by time.

If you deny recognition to someone like Lee who was greatly respected on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line, you open the door for reactionaries to line up with the Nathan Bedford Forrests.

Frankly I would be less bothered by removing Willy's statue than Lee's. Not that I'm advocating that

Few are advocating to no longer recognize these people. It's the memorializing of them that is the issue. These statues belong in a museum, bit in a square celebrating them.

(08-14-2017 12:21 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-14-2017 12:31 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  There were undoubtedly white supremacists in attendance.

However the motivation of every person at the protest was not the same.

You are normally one of the more level headed posters, Rick, but with all due respect, what planet are you on? It was an explicitly white supremacist march, organized by and for neo-Nazis and white supremacists, FFS. They were doing Nazi chants and salutes.

I probably need to clarify my position. First, my understanding of the situation in Virginia was primarily focused on the news of the individual who had killed one person, and injured a number of others with their car.

Second, the limited reading I had done on the rallies indicated that the attendees "included white supremacists, neo-Nazi's and alt-right groups" (as well as counter protestors).

The word 'included', as well as a list of at least three types of groups, led me to believe that there were a variety of people in Charlottesville, and that the range of their beliefs might not be narrow enough that they should all be lumped together.

In perusing articles and photos today, there were clearly disturbing elements in attendance (which I believe I have already acknowledged). I trust that everyone on this forum understands I have zero sympathy with neo-Nazis or white supremacists. If that needs to be said explicitly, consider this an explicit statement.

Having said that, the word 'included' does suggest that the protests included people (Lord knows at what percentage, but it's the same valid point made with regard to defending the range of people in the counter protest groups) who don't meet the definition of white supremacist or neo-Nazi.

You are correct that there is no nuance in 'KKK' or 'Nazi'. I will charitably (and only where applicable, not trying to excuse the behavior on film) assume that there were people who attended, who, once they saw what some of their bedfellow groups consisted of, regretted coming. I will also assume that the news media, rightly, focused on the large, extremist element of the gathering, and had no reason or interest in looking for people who were leaving town thinking, 'geez, how did this turn out like this, where did this turn into 1930's Germany?"

While I anticipate the response "they should've known", I'll point out that young people easily get swept into activities they regret, some immediately, some after time.

At any rate, my aggravation with the characterization of Robert E. Lee, which I've expressed prior to this tragedy, is my only motivator in commenting, as the statue debate was a trigger. I think concepts - - racism, slavery, the KKK - - - are what we should be describing as abhorrent. I think when we start down the path of trashing individuals, it ought to be based on actual actions (hence the Nathan Bedford Forrest distinction. No one is defending Hitler or Pol Pot), and not demonize people carte blanche because of the time period in which they lived.

Charity, assuming or looking for the best in people, was in short supply in Virginia. When it comes to Nazis and the KKK, charity is not required. However, giving every group that showed up the label of KKK or Nazi is probably not fair either, even if it was only 25%, 10% or even 5% that deserve that charity.

(08-14-2017 07:15 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Charity, assuming or looking for the best in people, was in short supply in Virginia. When it comes to Nazis and the KKK, charity is not required. However, giving every group that showed up the label of KKK or Nazi is probably not fair either, even if it was only 25%, 10% or even 5% that deserve that charity.

Again, no. I don't know where you got the original "included" report, but at this point there should be no doubt it was a KKK/Nazi/white supremacist rally. Period.

Ironically given your concern about Robert E. Lee memorials, this whole incident will probably lead to a lot more being removed a lot faster. Robert E. Lee elementary is in the process of being renamed already, and now there is a move to rename Robert E. Lee Street(Blvd?) here in Austin.

(08-14-2017 01:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:The fact that this President can't make that call is shameful and despicable.

I suggest you look at today's news. When you do and note he said

Quote:“Racism is evil,” Mr. Trump said. “And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the K.K.K., neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

will you back off your your above comment? But, my guess is that you will state 'too little, too late' in order to avoid giving *any* kudos whatsoever.

I will say that it's better than him having continue to not say anything. But yes it's too little too late. He doesn't hesitate to attack and condemn usually. But whether it's David Duke during the campaign or neo-Nazis now, all of a sudden he can't do it. It's a pattern. The AP reported he only did yesterday's statement after pressure from his new Chief of Staff. And then later he tweeted essentially "I didn't want to, they made me do it". (And then retweeted a picture of a "Trump Train" running over a CNN reporter. Because two days is enough to make right wingers running people over with vehicles funny again.)

Stephen Colbert put it well when he wondered why he can't get as mad about “neo-Nazis murdering people in the streets as he has been about Hillary Clinton, New York Times, CNN, Joe Scarborough, Kristen Stewart, the cast of Hamilton, Diet Coke, Nordstrom not selling his daughter’s clothes, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the mayor of London Sadiq Khan, me, the state of New Hampshire, gold-star families, Penn Jillette’s Las Vegas show, Django Unchained, Meryl Streep, and Lady ghostbusters.”

(08-15-2017 11:29 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-14-2017 01:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:The fact that this President can't make that call is shameful and despicable.

I suggest you look at today's news. When you do and note he said

Quote:“Racism is evil,” Mr. Trump said. “And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the K.K.K., neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

will you back off your your above comment? But, my guess is that you will state 'too little, too late' in order to avoid giving *any* kudos whatsoever.

I will say that it's better than him having continue to not say anything. But yes it's too little too late.

Color me not surprised in the slightest.

(08-15-2017 11:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 11:29 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-14-2017 01:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:The fact that this President can't make that call is shameful and despicable.

I suggest you look at today's news. When you do and note he said

Quote:“Racism is evil,” Mr. Trump said. “And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the K.K.K., neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

will you back off your your above comment? But, my guess is that you will state 'too little, too late' in order to avoid giving *any* kudos whatsoever.

I will say that it's better than him having continue to not say anything. But yes it's too little too late.

Color me not surprised in the slightest.

So you think it wasn't too little too late?

You think that, just because the POTUS, after three days of intense condemnation and pressure on all sides of the aisle, made a statement (that he then basically ran over via is own twitter), we should pat him on the back?

Had Trump came out in his initial statement with the same force, then yeah, he would get a pat on the back. But all he gets now is a D+.

(08-15-2017 10:44 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-14-2017 07:15 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Charity, assuming or looking for the best in people, was in short supply in Virginia. When it comes to Nazis and the KKK, charity is not required. However, giving every group that showed up the label of KKK or Nazi is probably not fair either, even if it was only 25%, 10% or even 5% that deserve that charity.

Again, no. I don't know where you got the original "included" report, but at this point there should be no doubt it was a KKK/Nazi/white supremacist rally. Period.

Ironically given your concern about Robert E. Lee memorials, this whole incident will probably lead to a lot more being removed a lot faster. Robert E. Lee elementary is in the process of being renamed already, and now there is a move to rename Robert E. Lee Street(Blvd?) here in Austin.

sigh, unfortunately there's a good chance you're right. It's going to be a knee jerk reaction. There are already reports of demonstrators physically toppling statues dedicated to Civil War soldiers who lost their lives in the war as a result of this weekends events.

There is a point where all you are doing is eradicating history and perspectives.

I suppose as a private institution, Washington and Lee University will be able to withstand the storm. As would Rice University for the same reason.

The 'included' language was straight from a news article, and not one excusing the demonstrations.

I doubt that anything that PDT will ever do, say, or stand for will ever get a vote of "passable job" (let alone "good job") from certain people.

I believe that Trump’s original official statement was exactly what it was: denouncing hatred, intolerance, and violence. But PDT's statement didn't pretend that it only takes place solely and exclusively among the Klan and the Nazis.

It was silly to do a follow-up on Monday to satisfy the press because *nothing* he could have said at any point would have satisfied the people who have sure that he’s is Satan's representative on Earth.

But since I interestingly believe that two groups showed up to rumble on Saturday, I guess this is just another "rant", eh?

(08-15-2017 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I doubt that anything that PDT will ever do, say, or stand for will ever get a vote of "passable job" (let alone "good job") from certain people.

And no, you should note that due to our discussion that a good deal of blame does lie on both "militias".

I believe that Trump’s original official statement was exactly what it was: denouncing hatred, intolerance, and violence. But PDT's statement didn't pretend that it only takes place solely and exclusively among the Klan and the Nazis.

It was silly to do a follow-up on Monday to satisfy the press because *nothing* he could have said at any point would have satisfied the people who have sure that he’s is Satan's representative on Earth.

But since I interestingly believe that two groups showed up to rumble on Saturday, I guess this is just another "rant", eh?

No, a good deal of blame does NOT lie on both sides.

Sure, the instigating antifa protesters were bad, but to try and make them equivalent is to ignore the context of the protests and the events that occurred outside of the clashes between the antifa and the white supremacists. If you're looking just at those clashes, then yeah, blame falls on both sides.

But one side created the original protest, one side organized a protest one night with flaming torches (which they used to beat non-Antifa counter protesters), one side had member fully armed to such a level that the police did not feel comfortable intervening because of how armed they were, one side was protesting against other races and religions and advocating for racial superiority, one side had an associated person use their vehicle to mow down a crowd of peaceful protesters.

Sure, both side proactively engaged in violence at some point, and as I said, if that was all that happened, then sure, let's lay blame evenly.

Hey, watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg

edit: an explanation of what this is - it's a boots on the ground news story from Vice that had a reporter following and working with members of the white supremacists. It's haunting.

(08-15-2017 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I doubt that anything that PDT will ever do, say, or stand for will ever get a vote of "passable job" (let alone "good job") from certain people.

I believe that Trump’s original official statement was exactly what it was: denouncing hatred, intolerance, and violence. But PDT's statement didn't pretend that it only takes place solely and exclusively among the Klan and the Nazis.

It was silly to do a follow-up on Monday to satisfy the press because *nothing* he could have said at any point would have satisfied the people who have sure that he’s is Satan's representative on Earth.

But since I interestingly believe that two groups showed up to rumble on Saturday, I guess this is just another "rant", eh?

Really, straightforwardly condemning a group of neo-Nazis who murdered an innocent woman should be a no-brainer, my mind boggles that you don't get this.

(08-15-2017 12:41 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I doubt that anything that PDT will ever do, say, or stand for will ever get a vote of "passable job" (let alone "good job") from certain people.

I believe that Trump’s original official statement was exactly what it was: denouncing hatred, intolerance, and violence. But PDT's statement didn't pretend that it only takes place solely and exclusively among the Klan and the Nazis.

It was silly to do a follow-up on Monday to satisfy the press because *nothing* he could have said at any point would have satisfied the people who have sure that he’s is Satan's representative on Earth.

But since I interestingly believe that two groups showed up to rumble on Saturday, I guess this is just another "rant", eh?

Really, straightforwardly condemning a group of neo-Nazis who murdered an innocent woman should be a no-brainer, my mind boggles that you don't get this.

Because apparently two wrongs cancel each other out.

If Trump had been a normal president who can use his words to express complex thoughts, he could have actually touched on the issues presented by the Antifa present (using force to try and quell the free speech of others) and not sounded like he was minimizing the dangers posed by violent neo-Nazis.

Instead, he was Trump and didn't do that.

(08-15-2017 12:41 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I doubt that anything that PDT will ever do, say, or stand for will ever get a vote of "passable job" (let alone "good job") from certain people.

I believe that Trump’s original official statement was exactly what it was: denouncing hatred, intolerance, and violence. But PDT's statement didn't pretend that it only takes place solely and exclusively among the Klan and the Nazis.

It was silly to do a follow-up on Monday to satisfy the press because *nothing* he could have said at any point would have satisfied the people who have sure that he’s is Satan's representative on Earth.

But since I interestingly believe that two groups showed up to rumble on Saturday, I guess this is just another "rant", eh?

Really, straightforwardly condemning a group of neo-Nazis who murdered an innocent woman should be a no-brainer, my mind boggles that you don't get this.

You are absolutely correct, it is a no brainer. And not justifying neo-Nazis or the disturbing videos or the other displays of violence (in any way, shape or form) . . . . ALL of the neo-Nazis should be condemned, but it was ONE neo-Nazi that murdered the woman and injured 19 with the car.