Charlottesville: State of emergency over US far-right rally

[ray245]

Yeah. What I am astounded by is how many Americans in this thread seems to accept political violence as a part of progress.

Americans live in a very violent society.

Which is not something I personally approve of, but that's the reality.

Well, it doesn't have to be this way. Hence the reason why I don't really see strong argument in favour of preserving American style freedom of speech laws as it is today. It's something that will be nice to have in an ideal world, but since people can't seem to stop abusing it, the toys might as well be taken away.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I agree. I for one would LOVE to see a constitutional amendment that basically says "Fuck. Nazis", but we don't have one. So the only option is counter-protesting them with a larger group, firing them from their jobs etc. And those counter-protests will always always always be violent, just because of the nature of the demonstrations and the people involved. Either some skinhead will start a fight, or one of the more volatile anti-fascists will (not that I blame them), and crowd dynamics take over.

Yeah. What I am astounded by is how many Americans in this thread seems to accept political violence as a part of progress.

It is the tradeoff we make for being able to say almost literally anything, and being able to express unpopular (but not rancid) views. The first amendment protects Nazis from interference by the state, but it also protected the formation of a Gay/Straight Alliance at my highschool in 2001, over the protestations of religious conservatives and school administration. There was nothing they could do to stop us legally. If we were to open that up so that the state and its agencies COULD shut Nazis down, there is a good chance whatever legislation enabled that would not be narrowly tailored enough for the task, and other groups would be caught in the backwash.

The tradeoff is that sometimes... the discourse that arises becomes violent, particularly when one side of the "debate" wants to round up their opposition and put them into death camps.

[Darth Lucifer]

Yeah. What I am astounded by is how many Americans in this thread seems to accept political violence as a part of progress.

Americans live in a very violent society.

Which is not something I personally approve of, but that's the reality.

Well, it doesn't have to be this way. Hence the reason why I don't really see strong argument in favour of preserving American style freedom of speech laws as it is today. It's something that will be nice to have in an ideal world, but since people can't seem to stop abusing it, the toys might as well be taken away.

Even the Supreme Court is loathe to go down that path because of the precedent it could set, and they speak of that in the relevant cases during oral arguments and opinions. The most recent cases that come to mind are Texas v. Johnson, United States v. Alvarez, and of course Snyder v. Phelps. (flag burning, Stolen Valor, and Westboro Baptist Church cases respectively)

[Flagg]

Well I see Joun never responded to my correcting him. I guess he can't admit his mental narrative of "waaa both sides are bad!" is bullshit. But I'll take that as a win.

[Simon_Jester]

Obama tried to stake his presidency on his ability to bring Americans together, but he left the presidency with an American society just as divided as ever.

When you try to hold a big party to unite the Red Tribe and the Blue Tribe and the Red Tribe doesn't show up, yeah, that's what happens.

Like I said, even I'm betting that it was some alt-right moron who did it and did it to hurt people but cannot be sure. Between the context (counter-protesters hurt) and my own biases (I hate fucking Nazis like my ass was red and I carry a giant revolver I can't hit the broad side of a barn with) I'm making an educated guess as to the perp but nothing based on anything solid.

I am aware you do not condone political violence, if nothing else we are in agreement on that.

There is certainly some blame that can be laid at the feet of the right and their willingness to go extreme any time a Democrat gets elected though you could also blame Dems for helping start people on the road to extremism by fucking with Constitutional rights and acting pretty damn criminal themselves in cases like the Waco BBQ and the Ruby Ridge turkey shoot. I'm sure there is probably something from the 80s causing Democrats to clamp the nuts of gun rights and nut cases, I remember that during the 80s crime was supposed to be sky high. Trying to find the root cause is important to solving the problem but also what is important is the violence in the here and now. And the here and now both sides are willing to escalate this war of words to a war of fists, bits of wood, and bike locks.

As for this case, I don't know whose primarily at fault. Certainly the blame can be laid on the shitbags white power cunts for showing up in the first place BUUUUTTTTT thats also a constitutionally protected right even for the reich. The real question is who started the violence which currently I don't have enough information and I don't know if enough information is available with much of it being he said she said bullshit blaming each other to make even an uneducated guess (my favorite kind of guesses) as to who lit the proverbial match setting off this powder keg of stupidity and violence and stupid violence.

Not going to lie though, I'd not be surprised if it should come to light Durr Furhrer's Fuckstains were the cause. But I'm also a bit biased and I'm totally 100 percent okay with that.

As a white guy coming into this conversation and learning what happened, my own takeaway is "fuck, we need to stop laying down ANY damn kind of covering fire for these fuckers."

I mean, imagine that there is a battle for the future of America, and the battle is over whether the greatest problem in 21st century American political discourse is going to be Nazis, or Tumblr feminists going overboard. I don't know about you, but I'd rather deal with the angriest, craziest Tumblr feminists that ever tumbled while feminine, than have to deal with a bunch of actual-factual Nazis.

So just... no laying down covering fire for Nazis. No wasting time and mental energy trying to make excuses for actual Nazis. No supporting people who then shelter Nazis by saying "oh, it wasn't the Nazis' fault that a Nazi kid decided to run over twenty anti-Nazis with his car." Or "not all Nazis" or whatever.

It's just not worth it. There is no position that involves defending any part of this behavior that is worth my time and mental energy.

And as someone else noted, yeah, these actual-factual Nazis are the same people who go online and become the nastiest shitlords that the "SJW" crowd have been complaining about. They were in fact fighting these Nazis, at least online, well before anyone else noticed them. They may have been a bit indiscriminate or goofy at times, but they were fighting among other people a bunch of Nazis. And yep, those Nazis turned out to be real Nazis, not just imaginary Nazis that existed only in their minds.

Again, defending Nazis, or supporting people who will predictably shelter Nazis? Not fucking worth it.

You feel what I'm saying here?

[Ralin]

https://twitter.com/GoDaddy/status/896935462622957573

Well, that escalated quickly.

On my phone, but read the thread for context. From an article smearing the counter-protester who got run down to Go Daddy pulled their hosting to the woman who complained being doxxed by neo Nazis to Anonymous hacking the website and threatening the neo Nazi organizing the complainant's stalking.

All in under four to five hours

[Flagg]

Obama tried to stake his presidency on his ability to bring Americans together, but he left the presidency with an American society just as divided as ever.

When you try to hold a big party to unite the Red Tribe and the Blue Tribe and the Red Tribe doesn't show up, yeah, that's what happens.

Like I said, even I'm betting that it was some alt-right moron who did it and did it to hurt people but cannot be sure. Between the context (counter-protesters hurt) and my own biases (I hate fucking Nazis like my ass was red and I carry a giant revolver I can't hit the broad side of a barn with) I'm making an educated guess as to the perp but nothing based on anything solid.

I am aware you do not condone political violence, if nothing else we are in agreement on that.

There is certainly some blame that can be laid at the feet of the right and their willingness to go extreme any time a Democrat gets elected though you could also blame Dems for helping start people on the road to extremism by fucking with Constitutional rights and acting pretty damn criminal themselves in cases like the Waco BBQ and the Ruby Ridge turkey shoot. I'm sure there is probably something from the 80s causing Democrats to clamp the nuts of gun rights and nut cases, I remember that during the 80s crime was supposed to be sky high. Trying to find the root cause is important to solving the problem but also what is important is the violence in the here and now. And the here and now both sides are willing to escalate this war of words to a war of fists, bits of wood, and bike locks.

As for this case, I don't know whose primarily at fault. Certainly the blame can be laid on the shitbags white power cunts for showing up in the first place BUUUUTTTTT thats also a constitutionally protected right even for the reich. The real question is who started the violence which currently I don't have enough information and I don't know if enough information is available with much of it being he said she said bullshit blaming each other to make even an uneducated guess (my favorite kind of guesses) as to who lit the proverbial match setting off this powder keg of stupidity and violence and stupid violence.

Not going to lie though, I'd not be surprised if it should come to light Durr Furhrer's Fuckstains were the cause. But I'm also a bit biased and I'm totally 100 percent okay with that.

As a white guy coming into this conversation and learning what happened, my own takeaway is "fuck, we need to stop laying down ANY damn kind of covering fire for these fuckers."

I mean, imagine that there is a battle for the future of America, and the battle is over whether the greatest problem in 21st century American political discourse is going to be Nazis, or Tumblr feminists going overboard. I don't know about you, but I'd rather deal with the angriest, craziest Tumblr feminists that ever tumbled while feminine, than have to deal with a bunch of actual-factual Nazis.

So just... no laying down covering fire for Nazis. No wasting time and mental energy trying to make excuses for actual Nazis. No supporting people who then shelter Nazis by saying "oh, it wasn't the Nazis' fault that a Nazi kid decided to run over twenty anti-Nazis with his car." Or "not all Nazis" or whatever.

It's just not worth it. There is no position that involves defending any part of this behavior that is worth my time and mental energy.

And as someone else noted, yeah, these actual-factual Nazis are the same people who go online and become the nastiest shitlords that the "SJW" crowd have been complaining about. They were in fact fighting these Nazis, at least online, well before anyone else noticed them. They may have been a bit indiscriminate or goofy at times, but they were fighting among other people a bunch of Nazis. And yep, those Nazis turned out to be real Nazis, not just imaginary Nazis that existed only in their minds.

Again, defending Nazis, or supporting people who will predictably shelter Nazis? Not fucking worth it.

You feel what I'm saying here?

He really doesn't. He can't be bothered to get his facts straight about supposed "Democrats being just as bad". One example (where he described the murder of a woman, her baby, and her 14 year old son as a "turkey shoot") happened under a Republican Presidency and the other (where he described batshit crazy cultists led by a pedophile who self-immolated, killing 2 dozen children, as a "BBQ") which started around a month after the aforementioned Republican President left office, so being kind you can split the difference (as Joun so loves to do) between Bush I and Clinton since it was the Bush ATF.

Why would you expect him to grasp a concept like "one side is worse than the other, period" when he lies or just doesn't give a fuck about the facts he uses as his foundation for his house of dumbshit mindless middle douchebaggery?

[Simon_Jester]

Well, I'm gonna wait for a response from him, but I'm not optimistic anymore, because the "I'm a sympathetic guy with cool quirky speech patterns but when the chips are down you've gotta feel for the assholes in this case, because the people they're opposed to are also assholes because I thought i heard one of them fart one time" is kind of... a consistent theme, yeah.

I'd like to be proven wrong for a happy change.

Well, that escalated quickly.

On my phone, but read the thread for context. From an article smearing the counter-protester who got run down to Go Daddy pulled their hosting to the woman who complained being doxxed by neo Nazis to Anonymous hacking the website and threatening the neo Nazi organizing the complainant's stalking.

All in under four to five hours

Everyone is on red alert, and the Internet can run stupidfast.

[ray245]

It is the tradeoff we make for being able to say almost literally anything, and being able to express unpopular (but not rancid) views. The first amendment protects Nazis from interference by the state, but it also protected the formation of a Gay/Straight Alliance at my highschool in 2001, over the protestations of religious conservatives and school administration. There was nothing they could do to stop us legally. If we were to open that up so that the state and its agencies COULD shut Nazis down, there is a good chance whatever legislation enabled that would not be narrowly tailored enough for the task, and other groups would be caught in the backwash.

The tradeoff is that sometimes... the discourse that arises becomes violent, particularly when one side of the "debate" wants to round up their opposition and put them into death camps.

If that's the only thing protecting minorities, then I think you guys have already lost. It's effectively putting neo-nazis on the same level (legally speaking) as a gender rights group.

Sure, you might have rights to counter-protest Nazis, but there's really nothing really stopping Nazism from growing again. It's a rather weak defense mechanism against political extremism. Your only hope is that counter-protest can outnumber neo-nazis.

[mr friendly guy]

the war continues

WHITE nationalists who appeared at the deadly demonstrations in Charlottesville are being outed on social media — with at least one being fired from their job after his name and picture was posted online.
Cole White, of California, was axed from his restaurant position in Berkeley on Sunday just hours after being publicly identified by a Twitter account known as “Yes, You’re Racist”.

Peter Cvjetanovic, 20, has gotten so much backlash as a result of “Yes, You’re Racist” identifying him on Saturday night as one of the “angry” torchbearers from Friday’s Emancipation Park rally that he tried to clear his name in an interview with a local TV station in his home city of Reno, Nevada.

Well so we know the name of one of these scumbags.

His response is

“As a white nationalist, I care for all people. We all deserve a future for our children and for our culture. White nationalists aren’t all hateful; we just want to preserve what we have,” he told Channel 2 News.
“I came to this march for the message that white European culture has a right to be here just like every other culture,” Cvjetanovic said.
“It is not perfect; there are flaws to it, of course. However I do believe that the replacement of the statue will be the slow replacement of white heritage within the United States and the people who fought and defended and built their homeland. Robert E Lee is a great example of that. He wasn’t a perfect man, but I want to honour and respect what he stood for during his time.”

Reminds me of the White Triangle terrorist group from Legion of Superheroes in the late 90s early 2000s. They were a human supremacist group who on questioning, explained away his alien hatred as the fact he just loves his own species.

Now back to the other white supremacist, and the wanker is fired.

White, who worked for the Top Dog restaurant chain, was the very first person that “Yes, You’re Racist” exposed this weekend. His employers said he was fired as a direct result of his involvement in the “Unite the Right” demonstrations.
“The actions of those in Charlottesville are not supported by Top Dog,” the restaurant said in a statement, which was posted outside their Berkeley location on Sunday.
“We believe in individual freedom, and voluntary association for everyone,” they added.

Also anonymous has claimed to have taken over the Daily Stormer.

Its going to be funny when more of these scumbags are outed. No doubt they will cry over how mean people are to them.

*************************************
You know what would be good. Someone makes a website of all these outed Neo Nazis for future employers.

[Civil War Man]

Yeah. What I am astounded by is how many Americans in this thread seems to accept political violence as a part of progress.

To be completely frank, that's because it is. It's not the ideal situation, but it's impossible to escape the fact that violence is an inherent part of achieving any sort of meaningful change. This is true even of the quintessential non-violent revolutions led by people like Gandhi or MLK, because they both had other revolutionary groups that perpetrated violence, and their tactics of non-violent disruptions to the status quo provoked (in some cases intentionally) a violent response from the state or other groups opposed to them.

The whole idea that progress can be accomplished without any violence at all is somewhat paradoxical, because it raises the question that, if people opposed to the change are not willing to fight, die, and/or kill to prevent it, why has it not already happened?

[Flagg]

This wasn't a protest. It wasn't a rally. It wasn't a demonstration. This was an attack. Protesters don't show up with clubs and shields. They should round these cunts up and charge them with terrorism. At least all the ones with a shield or a club in their hand.

[ray245]

Yeah. What I am astounded by is how many Americans in this thread seems to accept political violence as a part of progress.

To be completely frank, that's because it is. It's not the ideal situation, but it's impossible to escape the fact that violence is an inherent part of achieving any sort of meaningful change. This is true even of the quintessential non-violent revolutions led by people like Gandhi or MLK, because they both had other revolutionary groups that perpetrated violence, and their tactics of non-violent disruptions to the status quo provoked (in some cases intentionally) a violent response from the state or other groups opposed to them.

The whole idea that progress can be accomplished without any violence at all is somewhat paradoxical, because it raises the question that, if people opposed to the change are not willing to fight, die, and/or kill to prevent it, why has it not already happened?

And yet by and large change has happened in other countries without resorting to violence. Most other countries managed to avoid civil wars for abolition.

[Civil War Man]

And yet by and large change has happened in other countries without resorting to violence. Most other countries managed to avoid civil wars for abolition.

That is not even remotely true. Not many countries have engaged in civil wars specifically for abolition, but to argue that somehow that makes the US unique in having political violence to enact social change is absurd. It outright ignores revolutions, riots, and even official military campaigns that have happened across the planet over the course of centuries of recorded history.

[ray245]

That is not even remotely true. Not many countries have engaged in civil wars specifically for abolition, but to argue that somehow that makes the US unique in having political violence to enact social change is absurd. It outright ignores revolutions, riots, and even official military campaigns that have happened across the planet over the course of centuries of recorded history.

And neither is it true that social changes required violence. Gay marriage was passed in many parts of Europe without relying on any major acts of violence, same with laws regulating hate speech and etc.

[Crazedwraith]

Heard on the radio that Trump had said the required things. Of course raising the question of whether he means it or the PR team sat on him.

[Flagg]

That is not even remotely true. Not many countries have engaged in civil wars specifically for abolition, but to argue that somehow that makes the US unique in having political violence to enact social change is absurd. It outright ignores revolutions, riots, and even official military campaigns that have happened across the planet over the course of centuries of recorded history.

And neither is it true that social changes required violence. Gay marriage was passed in many parts of Europe without relying on any major acts of violence, same with laws regulating hate speech and etc.

Gay marriage is the law here, too. I don't recall a civil war over that. And Europe is hardly the standard bearer for peaceful change since much of it was deporting Jews (and gays) to gas chambers about 75 years ago and was under the thumb of a brutal dictatorship 30 years ago.

People are people. We all suck in our own special way.

[ray245]

Gay marriage is the law here, too. I don't recall a civil war over that. And Europe is hardly the standard bearer for peaceful change since much of it was deporting Jews (and gays) to gas chambers about 75 years ago and was under the thumb of a brutal dictatorship 30 years ago.

People are people. We all suck in our own special way.

Which makes the whole point about seeing violence as a necessary part of social change even more ridiculous. It's not. There are plenty of solutions that can prevent Nazis from expanding their influence without relying on counter-protest as the primary means.

[Civil War Man]

And neither is it true that social changes required violence. Gay marriage was passed in many parts of Europe without relying on any major acts of violence, same with laws regulating hate speech and etc.

Except same-sex marriage was not passed in a vacuum. It was one of the larger and more visible fronts of the fight for gay rights in general, which has had and continues to have a long and bloody history.

Also, assuming that it was passed without major acts of violence presupposes that hate crimes against gay people during that time had nothing to do with the fight for marriage equality. When I say that violence is inevitable when fighting for major social change, I'm talking just as much about violence committed against the people fighting for that change as I am about the violence committed by the people fighting for it.

Which makes the whole point about seeing violence as a necessary part of social change even more ridiculous. It's not. There are plenty of solutions that can prevent Nazis from expanding their influence without relying on counter-protest as the primary means.

History has shown us that silence in the face of Nazis is viewed by them as a tacit endorsement of their ideology and an invitation to go further.

[Broomstick]

And yet by and large change has happened in other countries without resorting to violence. Most other countries managed to avoid civil wars for abolition.

Really?

Sure, many other nations abolished slavery without a civil war, but France had it's post-Revolution Terror, England had its own civil war in the 1640's which I'm told could be counted as either one war or three depending on how you look at it, Germany was so fragmented into the 19th Century that while German states might engage in battle you really couldn't call it a civil war because they weren't one sovereign nation... and so on and so forth. And let's not forget the Russian Revolution that lead to the Soviet Union, Mao in China, the Khmer Rouge....

I think, perhaps, that violent change may be more distant in time in other countries, or more recently in countries outside of Western Europe, but the US is not an aberration for having political violence.

[Broomstick]

Which makes the whole point about seeing violence as a necessary part of social change even more ridiculous. It's not. There are plenty of solutions that can prevent Nazis from expanding their influence without relying on counter-protest as the primary means.

History has shown us that silence in the face of Nazis is viewed by them as a tacit endorsement of their ideology and an invitation to go further.

Which is exactly why they felt emboldened enough to rally in Charlottesville - too much silence at their presence at political rallies and the like.

[ray245]

Except same-sex marriage was not passed in a vacuum. It was one of the larger and more visible fronts of the fight for gay rights in general, which has had and continues to have a long and bloody history.

Also, assuming that it was passed without major acts of violence presupposes that hate crimes against gay people during that time had nothing to do with the fight for marriage equality. When I say that violence is inevitable when fighting for major social change, I'm talking just as much about violence committed against the people fighting for that change as I am about the violence committed by the people fighting for it.

I'm assuming you mean requiring violence to enact change ala Black Panther/Malcolm X. You're the one that talks about how MLK have his more violent counterparts and etc.

History has shown us that silence in the face of Nazis is viewed by them as a tacit endorsement of their ideology and an invitation to go further.

And outright banning of Nazi iconography like in Germany is silent treatment? I don't think so.

Really?

Sure, many other nations abolished slavery without a civil war, but France had it's post-Revolution Terror, England had its own civil war in the 1640's which I'm told could be counted as either one war or three depending on how you look at it, Germany was so fragmented into the 19th Century that while German states might engage in battle you really couldn't call it a civil war because they weren't one sovereign nation... and so on and so forth. And let's not forget the Russian Revolution that lead to the Soviet Union, Mao in China, the Khmer Rouge....

I think, perhaps, that violent change may be more distant in time in other countries, or more recently in countries outside of Western Europe, but the US is not an aberration for having political violence.

I never said political violence is non-existence in those countries. They do exist and events like WW2 caused European countries to shift their thinking on many issues. But at the same time, Europe did manage to change their stance on many social issues without requiring violence. The transitions from monarchism to democracy (and expansion of rights for minorities) for many European states have also been relatively peaceful.

[LadyTevar]

It gets better:

NPR

Neo-Nazi Site Daily Stormer Is Banned By Google After Attempted Move From GoDaddy
Aug, 14 2017 — —
Updated at 2:30 p.m. ET

After a purported hack and a 24-hour deadline to relocate its Web domain, the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website that promoted the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Va., moved its site to Google before its registration there was also refused.

"We are cancelling Daily Stormer's registration with Google Domains for violating our terms of service," a Google spokesperson told NPR on Monday.

Shortly after we received that message, the Daily Stormer site began to go offline at least intermittently, displaying the message, "We're having an outage. it'll be a minute."

The moves come after GoDaddy cut ties with the Daily Stormer late Sunday. The Web hosting service had received calls to ban the site over its hate-filled stories — particularly an article mocking Heather Heyer, 32, an anti-white nationalist protester who was killed in Charlottesville, Va., this weekend.

After posting an article that claimed the site had been hacked — and that it was under threat of being deleted within 24 hours — the Daily Stormer's founder, Andrew Anglin, announced early Monday afternoon, "I've retaken control of the site."

A look at Web domain data for DailyStormer.com shows that it was registered through Google, in records that were updated on Monday.

GoDaddy had banned the site after receiving complaints from the public led by women's rights advocate Amy Siskind, who‏ wrote via Twitter, "@GoDaddy you host the Daily Stormer — they posted this on their site. Please retweet if you think this hate should be taken down & banned."

More than 6,500 people retweeted her message, and the Web service replied late Sunday night: "We informed the Daily Stormer that they have 24 hours to move the domain to another provider, as they have violated our terms of service."

Anglin and the Daily Stormer were seen as trying to spin the threat of being taken down, posting a story that claims to be written by hackers affiliated with the activist group Anonymous. But a main source of news about Anonymous says the group doesn't seem to have been involved.

In a page on the Daily Stormer, the purported hackers said the site would be deleted — on the same timeframe set by GoDaddy. In a break with notable hacking takeovers, the story didn't appear as a message plastered on the front of the site; instead, it was published alongside other stories, including the one about Heyer.

The Daily Stormer was founded by Anglin, who also writes much of its most high-profile content; the site is supported by reader donations rather than by advertising.

The alleged hackers' message included the hashtag #TANGODOWN — a term that was quickly used by opponents of the site's views to celebrate its seeming demise. News organizations around the world ran stories about the apparent takeover, which had included the explanation, "this evil cannot be allowed to stand."

But a Twitter account that often relays news about Anonymous states, "We have no confirmation that 'Anonymous' is involved yet. Looks more like a DS stunt. Wonder if they are having issues finding a new host."

Referring to the all-caps message posted on the site — about an elite team targeting Anglin and his site — the account states, "We find [the] claim that it took a 'UNITED FORCE OF ELITE HACKERS' to hack a CMS run by amateurs incredibly amusing."

People commenting on the Daily Stormer site also found the situation amusing, noting that the supposed hackers had said they had located Anglin and would be "sending our allies in Lagos to pay him a visit in person."

"LOL, this meme just won't end," one person wrote about the Lagos reference.

Anglin revisited the idea in his update, stating, "I want to thank the Nigerian government for their help."

Earlier this year, Anglin's website was linked to an office in Worthington, Ohio, the Columbus suburb where he went to high school. As Columbus Alive reported, "Anglin's current whereabouts remain unknown."

The most popular response on the comment board was one that mocked people on Twitter who had announced the Daily Stormer had been taken over.

"Anglin you are a legend," one person wrote.

Missing some content? Care to comment? Check the source: NPR

[Flagg]

Gay marriage is the law here, too. I don't recall a civil war over that. And Europe is hardly the standard bearer for peaceful change since much of it was deporting Jews (and gays) to gas chambers about 75 years ago and was under the thumb of a brutal dictatorship 30 years ago.

People are people. We all suck in our own special way.

Which makes the whole point about seeing violence as a necessary part of social change even more ridiculous. It's not. There are plenty of solutions that can prevent Nazis from expanding their influence without relying on counter-protest as the primary means.

Since when is counter protest "violence". Violence is shits in armor with shields and clubs, not people holding signs.

And sorry sport, but sometimes social change does require violence. It's human nature. And nature always wins. Or would you prefer Japanese occupation?

[ray245]

Since when is counter protest "violence". Violence is shits in armor with shields and clubs, not people holding signs.

I never said counter-protest itself is violent. I'm saying being solely dependent on counter-protest as a means to stop neo-nazis from threatening people means the risk of violence is higher because people are more desperate. Considering that some news are saying the state police were afraid of the neo-nazis because they carried weapons, I think the risk is extremely high on the people trying to stop neo-nazism.

And sorry sport, but sometimes social change does require violence. It's human nature. And nature always wins. Or would you prefer Japanese occupation?

Sometimes, certainly not all the time. And certainly not the sole means if other options do work. I'm not sure how is an actual war somehow the same as trying to enact social change.