(02-03-2017 07:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 03:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I find it very interesting that some tell others that they need to quote the extremists like Spencer and try to associate that ilk with anything on on the Republican side, but utterly fail to do the same association with the extremists (or 'rioters') associated with their own side of the pond.

Alt-right might be a problem, but it seems that it is the fing riots of the alt-left that tend to burn cars, buildings, atms.....

This is not a defense of wackjobs like Spencer and Duke, but when you are complaining about extremism, at least dont seemingly be blind to the left-side of extremist thought. (unless riots aren't extremism in your mind...)

Hate to tell you but the violence from the left isn't constrained to Berkeley --- looking back on it the riot and assualts at the Trump rally in San Jose during the campaign season wasn't a one-off it was just seemingly a precursor to what the alt-left *actually* seems to do very well these days.

Edited to add:

another wonderful example of alt-left tolerance in action:

http://www.nyunews.com/2017/02/02/2-2-news-gavin/

Just putting this up there as a reminder that the issues with extremism is not limited to the right.....

First of all, I am not trying to stretch and associate Spencer and Duke with the Republican side - they are doing it themselves out in the open.

The problem you have here is a logical one that automatically assumes a bilateralism --- the implicit idea here is to indict all on the 'right' because wackjobs say they align there. I have no problem with you griefing the Spencers, the Dukes, the Westboros etc., but you implicitly extend the individual indictment of them to anyone 'they' say they associate with.

By that extension perhaps the 'right' should indict all the 'left' for all the wackjob anti-Trump violence that is becoming more and more common. But being rationally minded, I dont.

But when *you* want to preach on extermism and blindingly overlook the see are ay pee that is equivalently on the other side.

Quote:And the key problem with your comparison between the anarchist rioters and these public figures is that these rioters were not aligning themselves with a particular person on the left - there were no chants for Hillary, Schumer, or even Bernie. So that is a key distinction - Spencer and Duke are publicly supporting a candidate and their action associated with one of the mainstream parties, while the other group you mention (these anarchists) are not.

lol -- so the only difference is whether one wackjob "align[s] themselves with a particular person on the left" or not..... that is NOT a relevant distinction and a bad case of dancing around the real issue. With that illuminating distinction, one could yell "Yay Trump" and punch someone in the face and the 'right' be *wrong*, while the person who yells "F--K Hillary" and punches someone in the face and the 'left' would not be. That is a farcical distinction.....

Quote:So you're right, there are extremes on the left side of the ideological spectrum, but the reason they are not getting the same attention is because either: 1) they aren't in direct support of a candidate; 2) they are being actively denounced by a candidate they are associated with; or 3) the actors aren't even associated with the party.

And in the 'left's' mind there will always be dog whistles and associations. Kind of gets old......

Quote:There is no attempt on my part to try and avoid the acts of violence perpetrated by some individuals like the anarchists in Berkley recently. These acts are senseless, illogical, illegal, and cruel.

And openly to the left on political spectrum, you forgot to add.

Quote:But I do not see Democratic politicians openly calling for violence

Nor Republicans sir, so please don't make the implication by omission.

Quote:or dog whistling calls to arms. If you want to provide me some sources saying otherwise, I'd be happy to read them.

Of course, the vaunted left leaning dog whistle..... Life can never be good without *something* to get stirred up about or to be aggrieved over.

Problem is that what invariably gets pulled out is some bs Gabbie Giffords type allusion for a "call to arms", kind of like when Biden said that someone should knock Trump off his chair... No offense but the supposed 'dog-whistles' go both ways, and in most respects they are utter bs.

Problem is that rational people really don't 'blame' the mainstream left for the riots and punching bag syndrome that suddenly seems to be the fashion du jour, nor would they be openly be chastising the mainstream left for the *actions* (actions, mind you) that the alt-left seems to like to leave in its smoking wake these days.

But the left seems very worked up to blame the mainstream right for the words (yep, words, not actions) of the alt-right and very easily blames the mainstream right for the alt-right without ever bothering to see that it enjoys (imo) pretty much the same relationship with the alt-left.... its a very interesting (ironic) dichotomy there in my opinion.

So what we are left is that wackjobs openly support one side and say bad things, so it is okay and decent to apportion that bad stuff to side with that 'support' notwithstanding the relationship isnt bilateral. But blame dogwhistles and secret decoder rings and secret commands and surreptitious support (because they are racist, of course).....

Then we have wackjobs who openly support the other side and burn property, destroy property, loot, and beat people who support those who openly support Trump, and it is not okay to apportion that stuff to the the political side that they support. Sounds logical to me......

Side note: does anybody find a strong bit of irony in a crowd, carrying anti-fascism slogans, being complicit in inaction (or the odd bit of cheering) while those who they disagree with politically are beaten or pepper-sprayed? It is really disturbing, but still ironic....