Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Charlottesville

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by mr_e View Post
    Glad it wasn't this thread specifically. I'm guessing it wouldn't have been necessary without the past relationship with Mr. Cantwell.

    I've most stayed out of this thread. I honestly don't know why anything more than "the initiation of violence is abhorrent and to be condemned" needs to be said. I'm tired of the myopia and the false equivalences. We've moved from virtue signaling to demanding that other people virtue signal or be condemned as bigots/racists/whatever.

    The intellectual dishonesty and it's widespread nature makes me want to weep for the future of humanity.
    "...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
    "The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys

    Comment


    • Updates:

      Strange snip of an interview Christopher Barker (actual leader of the KKK) gave to Univision...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by simpleman View Post
        Updates:

        Strange snip of an interview Christopher Barker (actual leader of the KKK) gave to Univision...


        Yes, that was the video that accompanied the article I posted about earlier. The woman went looking for hate-- I'm not sure exactly what she expected to find. I suppose she'll be telling us next that tigers will eat you if they're hungry, rattlesnakes will bite you if they're threatened, that grass is green and water is wet.

        Hate is hate. It doesn't matter what kind of hate it is. By the time you get to "hate"-- reason and rationality has completely gone out the window. It makes no sense. It is senseless.
        FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
        It's time to call it out for what it is.
        == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


        The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
        http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

        Comment


        • Originally posted by mr_e View Post
          Yes, that was the video that accompanied the article I posted about earlier. The woman went looking for hate-- I'm not sure exactly what she expected to find. I suppose she'll be telling us next that tigers will eat you if they're hungry, rattlesnakes will bite you if they're threatened, that grass is green and water is wet.

          Hate is hate. It doesn't matter what kind of hate it is. By the time you get to "hate"-- reason and rationality has completely gone out the window. It makes no sense. It is senseless.
          Sure... but there is people out there that think that tigers are cute and they make good pets... so sometimes it is healthy to remember their true nature...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by simpleman View Post
            Sure... but there is people out there that think that tigers are cute and they make good pets... so sometimes it is healthy to remember their true nature...

            Fair enough.
            FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
            It's time to call it out for what it is.
            == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


            The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
            http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

            Comment


            • Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
              Well I have to admit, I did think he was bringing some challenge to the forum offering balance on a wider perspective when there was a chance of right wing bias.

              But whereas members challenged the evidence and moved ever closer to some better conclusion on what the evidence says, he's just ranted more and more, the same old ever exaggerating accusations. I'd say he's aping left wing media but he's well ahead of them.



              Eric Berne described this behaviour: Now I’ve Got You, You Son of a Bitch (NIGYSOB)
              http://www.ericberne.com/games-peopl...bitch-nigysob/

              Whatever point he had, he's shat all over. He literally just wants to do what people have said on the forum is injustice. Arresting people who are guilty of association with Fields is wrong, it doesn't matter how despicable they are, or even how possible it was they filled his head with shit. Accusations are just one of consequences of free speech unless they have evidence that can stand up in court. Guilt by association, guilt by accusation are not acceptable in the enforcement of the law, even if they are allowed in free speech. An equal system of justice with the same evidentiary standards for all is something you must use free speech to defend.

              Time to apply the wisdom of the internets, invoke Godwin's Law and stop feeding the troll.
              Holy shit, there is actually another human who is familiar with The Games People Play and with it Transactional Analysis (TA). I read that book in high School and it is on my bookshelf to this day. One of the seminal works in understanding human interaction...for me any way. I recently discussed this in a conversation in a chat. Irony. Thx
              ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
              virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

              It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
              AVFM Mission Statement
              sigpic

              Comment


              • Originally posted by simpleman View Post
                I don't know if you have read all that have being said here... so I am giving a bit of of a frame to where I am coming from...

                Some people is suggesting that I am being manipulated by the mainstream media. I am sending them the same question back.

                Of course, when they ask me the question... it is a very reasonable and sensitive question to ask... no a single time there is a notion that they are calling me communist... Though I have directly being call an antifa...

                When I ask them the exact same question, back... well as you say... now I am calling members of the forum... neo-naizs...

                So why they can question my sanity but I can't question theirs?

                If you show me an article by a communist media outlet, with the same pictures and the same arguments that I am making... you will be sure that I will be questioning the shit out of my life, who I am and, what I stand for... Specially because I have a very negative idea about communism.




                No, there is not... Let's go back to the OP... the neo-nazis have a big body of anti semitic arguments, what they do is motivated by this arguments. There is all the videos and what you have seeing about this single incident, and then there is is a huge body of incidents that you are not aware of, they all acted out on this same ideology...

                To understand why he run people down with a car, we should not be looking into the events that happened that day, but into the books the man have being reading months or years before the incident.



                I am going to be malicious and say that he did it on purpose... if saying that is being malicious...



                He is wearing the same uniform too... Just look at that picture and tell me that you think it is credible that he is not part of the group of men around him...



                So... how many shields they brought that day to give around? Vanguard America must be doing really well on the finances, if this is the souvenirs they give around...

                I can joke all day long about this claim here... I don't even grasp to understand how you think this is a "credible" claim...

                On the pictures, the shields don't even look new, some even look older than others, the colors fading and stuff...



                So you agree with me that the leader of this Vanguard America should face some charges too?

                Here I come from an argument presented to me that Fields is mentally impaired, he suffer some conditions that make him a kid not as bright as the normal kids... if that is the case, then someone must have taken advantage of the retard and used him as a shield co carry out his own actions... I think that legally the leader of Vanguard America should face some charges too...

                As you know about due process... you think I have a credible argument here?



                Your notion that I am equating members of this forum with neo-naiz is BS.

                Though I understand how uncomfortable it must be for you to find out that your same picture with your same argument is published in a neo-naiz news outle... But it is not my fault that both of you coincided in such a way... you can't blame this on me... they posted the picture, you posted the same... all I did was to point out such unusual coincidence.

                Where you got the picture from, anyway?



                Yeah, yeah.. my evil agenda... I must be a jew and a mason too...



                I literary ask the exact same question back.

                I was questioned, and I now question back the same...

                How is now disappointing, when I ask?

                It is like... you talk about my "bias and political trick..." and I ask you if you are sure you are not being guilty of the same... Then we find out that when you question me, it is all right, but if I question back... then I am accusing you of the worse things in humankind... don't you think it is funny how that works?
                Don't Obfuscate my message with a wall of text and blatherings. I chose my words carefully and stand by them. I was being generous. If you are having a hard time comprehending I'll make it simple...don't attempt to use false associations to tarnish those who disagree with you. Make your argument and let it stand on its merrits without the character work.
                ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
                virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

                It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
                AVFM Mission Statement
                sigpic

                Comment


                • Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                  I doubt you'll find a single one of us shedding any tears or losing any sleep over them. But there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between not agreeing with them (even passionately and with every fiber of your being) and actually PREVENTING THEM from speaking / exercising their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to expression.

                  The rest of us *ALSO* have the right to free expression-- and the BEST expression, IMO, would be to LAUGH OUR ASSES OFF at everything stupid thing that comes out of their mouths-- up until the point that doing so becomes active suppression of their right to speak / express themselves.

                  Understanding the rights we have in this country is sometimes a bit of a challenge. Living our lives in such a manner that we are *TOLERANT* of opinions we do not agree with-- even more so. And that is both the promise of America, and the reality of America. And the challenge we all face as Americans. We claim that we are great because we are a free, open and tolerant society. But the true test of our values and beliefs comes not when it is easy-- but when it is *HARD*.
                  MrE you hit the nail on the head. Those ideologues with an agenda are attempting to make their argument by cornering folks with freedom as their primacy. Protecting free speech or any other constitutional Protection is not an endorsement of an ideology as they would want us to believe and try to shame folks with. In Charlottesville we had a known group who's goals are to create violence with Black Block tactics setting out to disrupt an otherwise equally detestable group. What they hoped to achieve is exactly what we are seeing in the media...associating anyone with a Constitutional judicial temperament as siding with the opponent/equally detestable group while morally giving a pass to the other setting out to commit violence. There is a moral equivalent between Antifa and the KKK when it comes to violence. The difference is, One is attempting to remove Constitutional freedom under the guise of a righteous cause.
                  ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
                  virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

                  It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
                  AVFM Mission Statement
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
                    MrE you hit the nail on the head. Those ideologues with an agenda are attempting to make their argument by cornering folks with freedom as their primacy. Protecting free speech or any other constitutional Protection is not an endorsement of an ideology as they would want us to believe and try to shame folks with. In Charlottesville we had a known group who's tactics are to create violence with Black Block tactics setting out to disrupt an otherwise equally detestable group. What they hoped to achieve is exactly what we are seeing in the media...associating anyone with a Constitutional judicial temperament as siding with the opponent/equally detestable group while morally giving a pass to the other setting out to commit violence. There is a moral equivalent between Antifa and the KKK when it comes to violence. The difference is, One is attempting to remove Constitutional freedom under the guise of a righteous cause.
                    Yes and that seriously distresses me not merely because it is wrong, but because as far as I can see there is practically nothing that can be done to counter it. Any source you point to gets branded as "Nazis helping Nazis" and is tainted thus ever after. Any evidence you offer up is dismissed as circumstantial, spun, or fabricated out of whole cloth. You cannot employ logic or reason to wake these people up. They believe what their delusions tell them to believe and any evidence to the contrary is ignored, rejected, overlooked, or rationalized away. Thus the really sad and dangerous part is that they leave little options for response apart from total capitulation or conflict.

                    Someone made the point tonight-- attributed to Jordan Peterson...

                    What do you call people you can't talk to?

                    Enemies.
                    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                    It's time to call it out for what it is.
                    == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


                    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
                    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                    Comment


                    • More on my takes on free speech...

                      The system should guarantee the freedoms that don't harm the system... in other words, the system itself have its own limitations and it should not protect more than what it can afford to protect.

                      For example communism is an ideology that plaint upfront wants to destroy the system... communism want to take away all the individual freedoms, they should not have the freedom to promote this cause, because this is the demanding to exercise a freedom that they will not give to anyone ones they get to the power.

                      Likewise neo-nazis should have at least a restricted freedom... why a judge though it was a good idea to let them have their protests? Why they have torches and talk about burning down a synagogue? Can we even aford to give them this freedom to run rampants like this?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mifune View Post
                        This issue, or this thread in particular?
                        Aye, I've not phrased that well. The thread is about a very controversial issue. The debate on the thread is an important one, even if there are tensions and frustrations. I think that these topics and the discussion are allowed here is good. That it is taboo and silenced in so many real life places, from work, school, university, social gatherings even family conversations is very damaging and perpetuates the division. It's hard to predict what will happen, odds on it will burn itself out this time, some other story will drag attention away. But each time a societal division like this flares up and isn't actually resolved, that people just reach a point where it won't be discussed anymore the really dangerous tensions being stored up increase a bit more.
                        "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
                        Originally posted by menrppl2
                        Can't live with em, life is great without them.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by simpleman View Post
                          The system should guarantee the freedoms that don't harm the system... in other words, the system itself have its own limitations and it should not protect more than what it can afford to protect.
                          The current US political troubles and the events in Charlottesville are not really my remit, but wrt. principles ...

                          I agree that the problem you sketch above is a paradox that goes to the core of it.
                          It's no more than commonsensical that any system can't live with rules that allow for, or even lead to, the undermining or destruction of that system.

                          The most important real-world example is the undermining of the fragile democracy of the Weimar Republic in Germany.
                          The Weimar Republic did not curb political agitation that demanded the end of the Weimar Republic.
                          The result was Hitler's take-over, and then WW2.
                          The Germans took a lesson from that, and the FRG banned political agitation for the overthrow of the republic.
                          I gues that is where the example and the rationale originally arose.

                          The questions that are often asked:
                          Should our freedom of speech protect the speech that demands the elimination of the freedom of speech?
                          Should our tolerance include tolerance for the intolerant?
                          Must we protect out attackers?

                          Few countries have problems with this when the enemy is foreign.
                          It's much more agonizing when having to deal with enemies domestic.

                          I sincerely wish all of you who are in the US the best of luck resolving those current issues.

                          M

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by simpleman View Post
                            More on my takes on free speech...

                            The system should guarantee the freedoms that don't harm the system... in other words, the system itself have its own limitations and it should not protect more than what it can afford to protect.

                            For example communism is an ideology that plaint upfront wants to destroy the system... communism want to take away all the individual freedoms, they should not have the freedom to promote this cause, because this is the demanding to exercise a freedom that they will not give to anyone ones they get to the power.

                            Likewise neo-nazis should have at least a restricted freedom... why a judge though it was a good idea to let them have their protests? Why they have torches and talk about burning down a synagogue? Can we even aford to give them this freedom to run rampants like this?

                            I don't know that you can simply declare any system to be anything one way or another in such a cut-and-dried manner. For one thing, there is a huge difference between how the system is proposed, written down, and then actually implemented. Additionally there is a lot of variance in the attitudes and opinions of the people who actually implement it-- provide it animus.

                            For example, the pure idea of communism isn't really such a bad concept-- in theory. The problem is that there has never been a *TRUE* communist system, but only bastard versions that sort of claim that they're communist-- or that other people label them communist-- without really getting into the subtleties and nuances of implementation and practice that make up the difference between it and the ideal. Pure Democracies are also rare. Switzerland is the only nation that really even gets close these days-- so far as I can recollect. Many so-called 'Democracies' are really Republics, such as is the United States, wherein the citizens vote for people to represent their interests in government-- however you feel that works out for you. Monarchies haven't been all bad-- Constitutional Monarchies have an even better track record, in general. My recollection is that the folks in Denmark think it works pretty well for them-- perhaps someone else here (Manalysis?) might have some better input on that.

                            Further, you would have to define what you mean by "Protect" and what you mean by "Cost". There are many ways to define those terms based upon who is asking and who is answering and what their attitudes and opinions are-- and whether or not they're holding a rifle in their hands as they're asking...

                            Frankly, I'm generally of the opinion that the ones who are willing to lay their lives on the line in order to defend their system, their rights, and so forth, are *really* the ones who should be making those decisions. And after them, the people who have skin in the game-- own property or businesses or pay taxes should be next in line. And I'd be okay giving people who work in public service a voice. And I'd be perfectly fine with letting all the rest suck hind tit. That way there would be a number of ways that one could become "enfranchised" and "invested" in one's country and its operation and future. For people who are unable to buy their way in, and unwilling to serve the public in some manner-- tough shit.

                            That *used* to be the way it was here in America, after a fashion. And I agree that there were some problems in the way it was interpreted and who ultimately was permitted to be enfranchised and how. And I further agree that actions needed to be taken to remedy those situations and work to fix it so that everybody had the same *right of opportunity* to become enfranchised. But that's not what actually did happen-- they skipped that "of opportunity" part and just went straight for the goal of everybody having "equal rights" without everybody having to have equal responsibilities and obligations-- and most especially the one about being willing to put one's life on the line to defend one's own rights.
                            FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                            It's time to call it out for what it is.
                            == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


                            The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
                            http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
                              Aye, I've not phrased that well. The thread is about a very controversial issue. The debate on the thread is an important one, even if there are tensions and frustrations. I think that these topics and the discussion are allowed here is good. That it is taboo and silenced in so many real life places, from work, school, university, social gatherings even family conversations is very damaging and perpetuates the division. It's hard to predict what will happen, odds on it will burn itself out this time, some other story will drag attention away. But each time a societal division like this flares up and isn't actually resolved, that people just reach a point where it won't be discussed anymore the really dangerous tensions being stored up increase a bit more.
                              Don't count on it-- our mainstream media (in the US) is aggregated now into just SIX large corporate owners. That's everything you read (newspapers and magazines), everything you head (radio), and everything you see (TV, Cable), and everything on the Internet. Even just a few years ago it was funneled through the hands of just FIFTY companies-- still extremely bad, but a whole order of magnitude better than it is now-- and ten years before that it was hundreds.

                              So the question is-- whose thoughts are you REALLY thinking???

                              This article is from last year-- it has already aggregated further since then.

                              NPR.ORG - Big Media Companies And Their Many Brands — In One Chart
                              http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechc...s-in-one-chart

                              An older, similar article from 2012 and updated at the end of 2016:

                              NPR: National Public Radio Or National Propaganda Radio?
                              http://12bytes.org/articles/exposed/...opaganda-radio






                              (Below, From 2011)

                              FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                              It's time to call it out for what it is.
                              == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


                              The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
                              http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                                The current US political troubles and the events in Charlottesville are not really my remit, but wrt. principles ...

                                I agree that the problem you sketch above is a paradox that goes to the core of it.
                                It's no more than commonsensical that any system can't live with rules that allow for, or even lead to, the undermining or destruction of that system.

                                The most important real-world example is the undermining of the fragile democracy of the Weimar Republic in Germany.
                                The Weimar Republic did not curb political agitation that demanded the end of the Weimar Republic.
                                The result was Hitler's take-over, and then WW2.
                                The Germans took a lesson from that, and the FRG banned political agitation for the overthrow of the republic.
                                I gues that is where the example and the rationale originally arose.

                                The questions that are often asked:
                                Should our freedom of speech protect the speech that demands the elimination of the freedom of speech?
                                Should our tolerance include tolerance for the intolerant?
                                Must we protect out attackers?

                                Few countries have problems with this when the enemy is foreign.
                                It's much more agonizing when having to deal with enemies domestic.

                                I sincerely wish all of you who are in the US the best of luck resolving those current issues.

                                M

                                That works out great when your opponents are out there with signs "I want to take away your rights and overthrow the government".

                                Not so much when the issues are more subtle and nuanced. One man's freedom is another man's totalitarianism.

                                It all depends upon which side of the razor wire you're standing on.
                                FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                                It's time to call it out for what it is.
                                == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


                                The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
                                http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X