Trump's Instruction to Neo-Nazis: Stand Back and Stand By,

[ImmortalFlame]

They may have racist members but from their manifesto they aren't racist. They are not white supremacists, they are western supremacists.

When you cut through their rhetoric and the targets of their violence and ire, it's pretty clear that race plays a significant role in what they consider to be "western". Gavin McInnes has expressed some pretty racist sentiments masquerading as egalitarianism - he links race to IQ, believing black people are not as intelligent as whites, and uses talking points taken straight from white genocide conspiracy theories.

 

[Revoltingest]

You say both are weak (as is your custom) and yet, both candidates are on record. Their responses on this topic up to this point have clearly been different.

No answer to the question?
(It isn't rhetorical.)

To be "on record" as condemning the violence sounds like faint praise.
They're both weak because they didn't address it strongly enuf IMO.
This is particularly so with Trump, who bore the greater responsibility
as Prez to ease hostilities & clearly condemn all violence.

 

[tytlyf]

No, I don't. I don't read or watch either of those. Ever.

Why not? Did someone tell you not to watch those?

 

[Tambourine]

They may have racist members but from their manifesto they aren't racist. They are not white supremacists, they are western supremacists.

Just like Identitarians! Oh wait, those are Neonazis too.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No answer to the question?
(It isn't rhetorical.)

Your question "do you ever credit Trump" was not rhetorical? Okay. Yes I credit and debit. The result is a net debit. But you are changing the subject. I am not the one who volunteered "If Trump or Biden ever did X, I would give them credit" ... only to find out one of them has been doing X extensively, and offer no real mea culpa. That was you who drove straight into that pothole, and it was entertaining.

To be "on record" as condemning the violence sounds like faint praise.
They're both weak because they didn't address it strongly enuf IMO.
This is particularly so with Trump, who bore the greater responsibility
as Prez to ease hostilities & clearly condemn all violence.

Thank you.

 

[Heyo]

Just like Identitarians! Oh wait, those are Neonazis too.

I don't know enough about them to decide what their real agenda is and what is just propaganda. What both sides seem to agree upon is that they are militants and ready for violence, that they are supremacists, that they are chauvinists and that they don't allow women into their club.
That's enough for me to not like them.
Aside from that I want to warn everybody to misrepresent an opponent. If you believe it, you're going to underestimate them. If others believe you and find out the truth later, you have lost credibility.
"Know your enemy!" - Sun Tsu

 

[Mr Spinkles]

He didn't just say "riots bad". He specifically said that rioters and looters should be treated as criminals, with no real consideration for why they are rioting and looting.

Yes, that is fair he essentially said that. I believe his words were if you unlawfully destroy or steal property, you should be prosecuted. This is not the same as ignoring the injustices that led to the rioting and not addressing those injustices. Quite the contrary. Again, Biden believes we ought to be able to walk and chew gum. I suspect the vast majority of Americans can get on board with this.

And condemning police brutality is not the same thing as condemning police violence. If he truly supported BLM and opposing police violence, he would support defunding efforts.

Well, that is your view. We can have a debate about whether we should "defund the police". Senator Cory Booker does not agree with using that term for example, it's not just Biden by any stretch.

But that wasn't why I posted those excerpts from Biden's speech. Remember, the criticism of Biden I was addressing is that he is basically a left-wing mirror image of Trump: someone who won't criticize violent extremists when they are perceived to be on his "side", such as Antifa. This is not even half true. That's why I quoted those excerpts.

Both are pretty bad. Biden is just more capable than Trump of standing up to fascists, which is the absolute bare minimum I tend to expect of a human being. I just find this particular quote in which he evokes MLK while condemning rioters to be hugely hypocritical.

I don't think MLK's point was "rioting is good". I think his point was we should not condemn social unrest while neglecting the causes of that unrest. Biden is not doing that. Trump is doing that.

That being said, I think you make an airtight point about the false equivalence between Trump and Biden. It's fairly obvious that Biden is more consistent than Trump with regards to condemnation of violence on both left and right, I just disagree with the specifics of Biden's statements.

Thanks. Biden is not the perfect emblem of BLM, I admit. We can't win on that anyway when 40% of the country thinks Trump is the greatest thing since Lincoln. Want Trump to win? Keep pushing "defund the police" and tell Biden not to condemn Antifa. Think another 4 years of Trump will serve the BLM cause?

 

[Revoltingest]

Your question "do you ever credit Trump" was not rhetorical? Okay. Yes I credit and debit. The result is a net debit. But you are changing the subject.

You asked a question.
I answered.
I asked a corresponding question.
You call it changing the subject.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You asked a question.
I answered.
I asked a corresponding question.
You call it changing the subject.

Let’s not argue about the argument. I answered your question; Biden has condemned violence including Antifa. Trump has COVID. The system works.

 

[Tambourine]

I don't know enough about them to decide what their real agenda is and what is just propaganda. What both sides seem to agree upon is that they are militants and ready for violence, that they are supremacists, that they are chauvinists and that they don't allow women into their club.
That's enough for me to not like them.
Aside from that I want to warn everybody to misrepresent an opponent. If you believe it, you're going to underestimate them. If others believe you and find out the truth later, you have lost credibility.
"Know your enemy!" - Sun Tsu

Okay, first of all, please do not assume that I call certain people or political groups "Neonazis" or "fascists" out of ignorance about their beliefs, rhetorics, or political platform. I am making deliberate judgement calls on when and where I use these terms, and I find it incredibly rude to infer ignorance on my part based on what amounts to a disagreement in opinion.

Second of all, an honest question to you:
Given how closely connected these groups are in terms of ideology, rhetorics, recruitment, and political leaders and issues they support, do you find it really meaningful to distinguish between Neonazis, Fascists and White Supremacists in practical terms?

 

[Secret Chief]

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, that is fair he essentially said that. I believe his words were if you unlawfully destroy or steal property, you should be prosecuted. This is not the same as ignoring the injustices that led to the rioting and not addressing those injustices. Quite the contrary. Again, Biden believes we ought to be able to walk and chew gum. I suspect the vast majority of Americans can get on board with this.

I suppose that's fair enough. Perhaps I am just too used to politicians focusing exclusively on the criminality angle to the detriment of examining causative factors. I would need to read a bit more widely on what Biden's stance has been.

Well, that is your view. We can have a debate about whether we should "defund the police". Senator Cory Booker does not agree with using that term for example, it's not just Biden by any stretch.

Naturally. I am just very wary of people who talk about supporting BLM, but aren't willing to stick to those principles when it comes to carrying out the legislation which BLM is actively seeking. It's like standing with climate change campaigners while refusing to regulate the fossil fuel industry.

But that wasn't why I posted those excerpts from Biden's speech. Remember, the criticism of Biden I was addressing is that he is basically a left-wing mirror image of Trump: someone who won't criticize violent extremists when they are perceived to be on his "side", such as Antifa. This is not even half true. That's why I quoted those excerpts.

Yeah, I think you made that point successfully.

I don't think MLK's point was "rioting is good". I think his point was we should not condemn social unrest while neglecting the causes of that unrest. Biden is not doing that. Trump is doing that.

I would also agree with this, but I would need to hear some more of Biden addressing those issues, because the quote you provided certainly comes across as a pure condemnation of rioters.

Thanks. Biden is not the perfect emblem of BLM, I admit. We can't win on that anyway when 40% of the country thinks Trump is the greatest thing since Lincoln. Want Trump to win? Keep pushing "defund the police" and tell Biden not to condemn Antifa. Think another 4 years of Trump will serve the BLM cause?

I personally don't think either will, it's just that Biden will still serve the cause marginally better (or is marginally more likely to). I'm just sick of having to choose between a scumbag who has nobody's best interests other than their own at heart, and a scumbag who has slightly more than just their own interests at heart. While one is better, it's still clear that the range of acceptable political candidates (and positions) is being extremely limited to the detriment of any kind of political thought that may actually produce real and tangible change. If the full range of credible politics in America sits within "far right to slightly right of centre", then America may forever lack even the capacity to even examine the problems caused by its own systems (i.e: no capitalist system will ever enable it's people to acknowledge "maybe the problem is capitalism?").

 

[tytlyf]

And that was from 2016. Same people, same radical ideologies. The sad part is they don't even realize their beliefs are radical.

 

[Mock Turtle]

MAGA - Make America Grate Again.

 

[Secret Chief]

And that was from 2016. Same people, same radical ideologies. The sad part is they don't even realize their beliefs are radical.

Yes; when I watched it just, I assumed it was referring to the current campaign.

 

[fantome profane]

Yes; when I watched it just, I assumed it was referring to the current campaign.

Just shows that Trump’s racism was well known even then.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I suppose that's fair enough. Perhaps I am just too used to politicians focusing exclusively on the criminality angle to the detriment of examining causative factors. I would need to read a bit more widely on what Biden's stance has been.


Naturally. I am just very wary of people who talk about supporting BLM, but aren't willing to stick to those principles when it comes to carrying out the legislation which BLM is actively seeking. It's like standing with climate change campaigners while refusing to regulate the fossil fuel industry.


Yeah, I think you made that point successfully.


I would also agree with this, but I would need to hear some more of Biden addressing those issues, because the quote you provided certainly comes across as a pure condemnation of rioters.


I personally don't think either will, it's just that Biden will still serve the cause marginally better (or is marginally more likely to). I'm just sick of having to choose between a scumbag who has nobody's best interests other than their own at heart, and a scumbag who has slightly more than just their own interests at heart. While one is better, it's still clear that the range of acceptable political candidates (and positions) is being extremely limited to the detriment of any kind of political thought that may actually produce real and tangible change. If the full range of credible politics in America sits within "far right to slightly right of centre", then America may forever lack even the capacity to even examine the problems caused by its own systems (i.e: no capitalist system will ever enable it's people to acknowledge "maybe the problem is capitalism?").

Thanks. Points well taken. I wish the discussion in our country was more along the lines of what you and I are discussing right now: there’s a problem. We need to solve it. How? Instead of: there’s a problem. “But he’s kneeling during our anthem!”

 

[Heyo]

Second of all, an honest question to you:
Given how closely connected these groups are in terms of ideology, rhetorics, recruitment, and political leaders and issues they support, do you find it really meaningful to distinguish between Neonazis, Fascists and White Supremacists in practical terms?

Yes, I do. Maybe it has to do with me being in groups which are often mislabeled or misunderstood. I think words have meaning and I like to use the correct words so that I don't accidentally build a straw man.

 

[tytlyf]

Here's the leader, a Nazi sympathizer. Millions seem to support Nazi sympathizers.

Gavin McGinnis

 

[Tambourine]

Yes, I do. Maybe it has to do with me being in groups which are often mislabeled or misunderstood. I think words have meaning and I like to use the correct words so that I don't accidentally build a straw man.

So do I. And in my opinion, there simply isn't enough meaningful difference between these groups to make the kind of sharp distinctions in terminology that you seem to demand.

Just like it's often not meaningful to make sharp distinctions between sociopaths and psychopaths, as outside the world of cinema, both are frequently treated as different expressions of Antisocial Personality Disorder.