Invite Friends

Topic: Social Issues

White supremacist 'Unite the Right' rally gets violent. Support right to march?

  • Comments: 473 |
  • Votes: 45
  • Share
Picture?type=square
Discussion started by Tok Staff:
A state of emergency has been declared after a torchlight nighttime rally and more the next day. Do white supremacists have a right to demonstrate?
Background article: ... Read more
Results in this view: Y-free Speech 22% - Convince Me 9% - N-preach Hate 70%
Picture?type=square
  • 6
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 7
Picture?type=square
  • 38
Picture?type=square
  • 20
Picture?type=square
  • 27
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 7
Picture?type=square
By Craig Coelho America lost 400,000 of her best and brightest, fighting in opposition to Nazi Fascism, and to allow its ascendance here in the 21st century is to spit on the graves of everyone who died in the defence of freedom and "the American Way".
Picture?type=square
  • 59
Picture?type=square
  • 18
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 4
Picture?type=square
  • 2
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 57
Picture?type=square
  • 45
Picture?type=square
  • 6
Picture?type=square
  • 15
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 3
Picture?type=square
  • 3
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris I agree that their vile putrid philosophy spits on the graves of the WW2 vets, but the Constitution protects that vile speech. Only when they use violence or make threats does their protection end.
Picture?type=square
By Craig Coelho We have to understand as a multi-racial society that Nazism and white supremacist philosophies are inherently violent, and tolerating its proliferation as defending "America's European culture" is to be complicit with them. There is no white genocide as they claim, but they're 100% ready to implement policies which'd mirror those of 1930s Germany for the purpose of ethnic and racial cleansing. They aren't an idle threat that can be tolerated, that's how Germany fell to fascist rule, and we have ample evidence of the same thing (possibly) happening here.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Once it turns to violent actions or threats SLAM the hammer down on them.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Craig, I agree with you that their views are repugnant and should not be defended, but ostracized, which I do 100%, but their right to say it as long as they do not make or act out violence should be defended. Even the ACLU agrees with me.
Picture?type=square
By Craig Coelho It's not the 1st time neither I nor SCOTUS have disagreed with the ACLU, which, this time, is failing to recognize they're defending not an existential threat, but one which intends to shred the Constitution (like so many evangelofascists) for the purpose of stripping large swaths of America's citizens of their Constitutional rights.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris The ACLU is 100% correct to defend the free speech of these dirt bags. Only when they turn to violence should they be arrested, like in the case of the car guy.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Well what about antifa, they want to shred the Constitution, so they have no right to speak either? They actually cause violence and throw urine and concrete bottles at people when they don't like their speech.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Antifa has started all the violence, and the racists have not been violent until the wack job with the car.
Picture?type=square
By Craig Coelho Really, did you just read Antifa wants to shred the Constitution somewhere? And no, don't even pretend that the Nazis, KKK and White Supremacists are non-violent, it's just a ridiculous claim.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Craig, I did not mean the nazis are peace loving. What happened in Cville is the nazis came knowing it would incite the radical left group antifa to be violent. The nazis did no violence on purpose (with exception to the nut in the car), The antifa commie goons took the bait and started the violence, then the car nut did his thing. And the C'ville government let it happen. The C'ville gov was supposed to heavily guard the vile nazis from the violent antifa commies, but stood down when antifa started violently attacking the nazis. Gov. Terry did send in the national guard but in response to the violence. He should have sent them in ahead of the event. I think the C'ville government and the Governor's hate for the nazis (well deserved) lead them to not 'protect the vile nazis', which lead to the violence. They all fed right into the nazis plan.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris And Antifa has said they want to overthrow the government and install a communist government...way before Trump.
Picture?type=square
By Craig Coelho I can't take anything you say seriously when you claim the Nazis did no violence on purpose when there's ample video of them attacking people, including terrorizing clergy in a church, during their night parade. If you want to be America's Vichy have at it, but have the courage of your conviction and quit making easily disproved claims: aka Trumpentruths, aka Lies.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris No Craig, again you misunderstand me. I did not mean they did no violence the whole time. I meant the leaders planned no violence, so they could provoke the violent antifa So the nazis could play the victim.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris PS, I am no Trumpkin. Despise him and them.
Picture?type=square
By Craig Coelho It's absurd to claim they planned no violence when they arrived in riot gear, armed with bats, batons, and guns. And, FYI, the ATIFA aka Anti-Fascists, aren't Nazis, the Nazis were with the KKK and other white supremacist groups.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris I never said antifa were nazis. Unless a typo. Antifa came in iot gear, so not absurd. The nazis are for violence just like antifa, but they are doing peaceful PR to try and play the victim.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

― Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Disagree 100% with "any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law". It is unpopular speech that needs protecting, not popular speech. And there are things that should not be tolerated. Who would decide what is good or bad intolerance of something?
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman the only way for our society to survive is to realize we are at war
you dont let your enemies to be armed or spread propaganda
all we need to do with our enemies is kill them
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris That is how tyrants just as bad as the ones you want to kill for free speech act. The war is with ourselves IF we act as you say.
Picture?type=square
By Larry W. Gray They died in the defense of freedom, INCLUDING the Right of Free Speech. Like the saying goes, "Those who give up essential freedoms to achieve safety, deserve neither safety or freedom."
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

― Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris That is how tyrants just as bad as the ones you want to kill for free speech act. The war is with ourselves IF we act as you say.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman we are at war already
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Yeah at war with authoritarians.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman at war with laissez faire capitalism the worst fascism of all the most authoritarian nightmare of them all we are the libertarians of old anarcho communism
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris No dude. Real free market capitalism is not the worst fascism of all the most authoritarian nightmare of them all. You are thinking of crony capitalism aka government/corporate hybrid.
Picture?type=square
By Don Harris I love how quick some are to stand on the graves of men they hardly know. They do make a tempting soapbox, I suppose.
There were Nazis in the U.S at the time of World War II. The first British pilot to be killed fighting over Germany was a member of the British Union of Fascists. America's current Nazi party was founded by World War II veteran, George Lincoln Rockwell.
They have every right to march, because EVERY American has the right to march, and to say anything he likes, and you can't take that right from anyone, without eventually taking it from EVERYONE.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Larry W. Gray Right to march...peacefully.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Don Harris Yes, peacefully, but that goes for the counter protestors, too. The moment one side starts an attack, they are no longer protestors, and have simply become rioters.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Larry W. Gray Anyone that thinks that White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis are there to peaceably assemble is dreaming. They invite violence, they want it, it gets them publicity. I'm not making excuses for the others, they are all there to riot.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Don Harris Nominally, they were there to protest the removal of a statue. It was the other guy's choice to show up, and it was the actions of the city council, and the mayor as well as the Police Chief's decision to obey foolish orders, which made a riot inevitable.
We are all responsible for the things we do or don't do.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Larry W. Gray Maybe you should have been there to offer them moral support.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Craig Coelho It's a laughable claim that Nazis from Northern, "Union" states give a damn about Jim Crow statues memorializing the South's failed secession from these United States.

The only connection Nazis and Klansmen share with 'antebellum lost' is white supremacy, and their collective determination to subjugate, culturally and ethnically cleanse a country which lost more than a million men fighting the Fascism they represent.

I agree with Karl Popper's assertion, "The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Don Harris (1) Robert E. Lee had literally nothing to do with Jim Crow and opposed both secession and slavery. As I recall he entered on the side of the CSA out of loyalty to Virginia, as the idea of an overarching loyalty to the centralized power of Federal Government (which is ALL that D.C has ever represented) was not a part of the American character yet, and indeed, was something the Founders appeared to be worried about; if you have read the "Anti-Federalist Papers" there really isn't another conclusion to come to in that regard. Not one person's life will be improved by the destruction of memorials, it is purely dullards desperately seeking to signal their virtue to their fellow dullards, and there is nothing more to be gained than that.
(2) All that is required to deal with "intolerance" is for society to simply not play along. It doesn't require balloons of urine, baseball bats, spray bottles of acid, bear mace, Molotov cocktails, or destruction of property. Therefore Mr. Popper's assertion is not an inevitability, but only a possibility, and only if society agrees, in which case there was an underlying issue all along.
(3) Riots are pretty easy to avoid, actually. Forbid wearing masks or facial coverings in public; which is probably already on the books from previous laws meant to combat the Klan, arrest people with weapons, and don't let two rival groups hold rallies in close proximity. Auburn University demonstrated the effectiveness of this strategy earlier this year.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Craig Coelho Seriously, obtuse much? I stopped reading your comment after the first sentence.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Don Harris Too much info for your mind to grasp?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Craig Coelho You flatter yourself needlessly, and the statue memorializing Lee wasn't commissioned until almost 50 years after his death, at the height of the Jim Crow era.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman robert e lee was a convicted traitor
they need to build statues to bill sherman he won
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman a nazi by definition is an inherently violent creature
if they were not violent they would not choose to be a nazi
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman the pen i s mightier than the assault
i am going to prove that to you
prepare for war
you dont stand a chance btw you are only half armed for a battle of wits
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Don Harris Yet you are entirely unarmed. I sincerely lost all respect for you like 3 days ago.
By the way
(1) Robert E. Lee was not convicted of treason. You may want to spend some time looking up information before sputtering it out.
(2) The war criminal Sherman has plenty of statues. He is not a beloved figure in Virginia.
(3) Being a National Socialist does not have violence by definition. It merely requires to combination of Socialism with Nationalism. We see this with Strasserists, for instance. This does not mean that I support them, however if they wish to hold a rally they have that legal right.

Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman look buddy i am unarmed, and thats probably a very good thing i have owned guns and emotionally i am not suited
they never brought me anything but lots of trouble, they did not make me safer they never do
people that keep guns in the home are 5 times more likely to shoot themselves or a family member than they are to use them for self defense
you should not have guns i am just waiting for you to print something stupid
online threats are all i need to send law enforcement to disarm you
dude we are all interdepedent
i know people influencial people
i dont need to be armed all i have to do is make a few phone calls
play nice or dont be stupid
i'd love to send a sswat team to disarm you
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman During and after the Civil War, Northern states and leaders were able to reconcile a heartfelt hatred of the Confederate Rebels with an overwhelming record of leniency concerning treason, a new book argues.

The US Constitution defines treason as levying war against the government and aiding and abetting its enemies. By that definition, every Confederate soldier in the Civil War—as well as every political leader—was a traitor.

But no one was executed for treason, and Confederate President Jefferson Davis was not even tried for the crime.

“The literature of the Civil War era is massive, but a study of how Northerners conceived of, and acted upon, treason was missing,” says William A. Blair, professor of history at Penn State and author of With Malice Toward Some: Treason and Loyalty in the Civil War Era.

Disloyal acts

Treason occurred as a topic in public discourse—pamphlets, newspapers, public gatherings, and the like—as often as commentary on the progress of the war and the concern for soldiers, Blair says.

Popular notions of treason, as opposed to court decisions, drove policymaking and caused members of the public sometimes to take matters into their own hands, such as storming a newspaper office or punishing an outspoken minister.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman did you ever go to law school or study law? i did, shut up and learn something grunt
Reply
  • | about 1M ago