PC censorship vs debate and free speech, worrying trends.
Discussion
rscott said:
Finally.
As for the rest - any evidence that all fights were started by the AntiFa? Are you seriously suggesting that the right wing protesters never initiated any of the physical confrontations? (apart from driving a vehicle into a non-violent protest) . I don't quite understand your failure to accept that both sides had a right to march (both had permits issued for that day) and that both sides went looking for, and got, trouble.
More pro-active policing, to keep the groups apart, rather than wait for trouble then wade in, would also have been more appropriate.
Saw this video which does not paint either side in a good light. As for the rest - any evidence that all fights were started by the AntiFa? Are you seriously suggesting that the right wing protesters never initiated any of the physical confrontations? (apart from driving a vehicle into a non-violent protest) . I don't quite understand your failure to accept that both sides had a right to march (both had permits issued for that day) and that both sides went looking for, and got, trouble.
More pro-active policing, to keep the groups apart, rather than wait for trouble then wade in, would also have been more appropriate.
It shows the car running into the crowd so WARNING: MAY CONTAIN UPSETTING SCENES
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a57009...
R1gtr said:
rscott said:
Finally.
As for the rest - any evidence that all fights were started by the AntiFa? Are you seriously suggesting that the right wing protesters never initiated any of the physical confrontations? (apart from driving a vehicle into a non-violent protest) . I don't quite understand your failure to accept that both sides had a right to march (both had permits issued for that day) and that both sides went looking for, and got, trouble.
More pro-active policing, to keep the groups apart, rather than wait for trouble then wade in, would also have been more appropriate.
Saw this video which does not paint either side in a good light. As for the rest - any evidence that all fights were started by the AntiFa? Are you seriously suggesting that the right wing protesters never initiated any of the physical confrontations? (apart from driving a vehicle into a non-violent protest) . I don't quite understand your failure to accept that both sides had a right to march (both had permits issued for that day) and that both sides went looking for, and got, trouble.
More pro-active policing, to keep the groups apart, rather than wait for trouble then wade in, would also have been more appropriate.
It shows the car running into the crowd so WARNING: MAY CONTAIN UPSETTING SCENES
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a57009...
rscott said:
Finally.
As for the rest - any evidence that all fights were started by the AntiFa? Are you seriously suggesting that the right wing protesters never initiated any of the physical confrontations? (apart from driving a vehicle into a non-violent protest) . I don't quite understand your failure to accept that both sides had a right to march (both had permits issued for that day) and that both sides went looking for, and got, trouble.
More pro-active policing, to keep the groups apart, rather than wait for trouble then wade in, would also have been more appropriate.
I'm quite sure that both sides were responsible for initiating violence and general muppetry, I don't support either side. What I'm getting at is why they were there at all: The nazis were there (as I understand it) to protest an issue (those statues) and generally promote their political agenda. On the opposing side there seems to be two groups of thought, those who want to peacefully express their opposing agenda and those who want to suppress the nazis from expressing theirs through violence, intimidation, 'naming and shaming' and any other tactic they can think of. The first is quite rightful, the second is wrong.As for the rest - any evidence that all fights were started by the AntiFa? Are you seriously suggesting that the right wing protesters never initiated any of the physical confrontations? (apart from driving a vehicle into a non-violent protest) . I don't quite understand your failure to accept that both sides had a right to march (both had permits issued for that day) and that both sides went looking for, and got, trouble.
More pro-active policing, to keep the groups apart, rather than wait for trouble then wade in, would also have been more appropriate.
rscott said:
Finally.
As for the rest - any evidence that all fights were started by the AntiFa? Are you seriously suggesting that the right wing protesters never initiated any of the physical confrontations? (apart from driving a vehicle into a non-violent protest) . I don't quite understand your failure to accept that both sides had a right to march (both had permits issued for that day) and that both sides went looking for, and got, trouble.
More pro-active policing, to keep the groups apart, rather than wait for trouble then wade in, would also have been more appropriate.
Over on the Trump thread (I refuse to go there) you seem to be excusing the 33 arrests and throwing of bottles of piss at the police,why aren't you condemning them? It must mean you condone the antifa for this behaviour.As for the rest - any evidence that all fights were started by the AntiFa? Are you seriously suggesting that the right wing protesters never initiated any of the physical confrontations? (apart from driving a vehicle into a non-violent protest) . I don't quite understand your failure to accept that both sides had a right to march (both had permits issued for that day) and that both sides went looking for, and got, trouble.
More pro-active policing, to keep the groups apart, rather than wait for trouble then wade in, would also have been more appropriate.
Your lack of condemnation says a lot.
Funkycoldribena said:
rscott said:
Finally.
As for the rest - any evidence that all fights were started by the AntiFa? Are you seriously suggesting that the right wing protesters never initiated any of the physical confrontations? (apart from driving a vehicle into a non-violent protest) . I don't quite understand your failure to accept that both sides had a right to march (both had permits issued for that day) and that both sides went looking for, and got, trouble.
More pro-active policing, to keep the groups apart, rather than wait for trouble then wade in, would also have been more appropriate.
Over on the Trump thread (I refuse to go there) you seem to be excusing the 33 arrests and throwing of bottles of piss at the police,why aren't you condemning them? It must mean you condone the antifa for this behaviour.As for the rest - any evidence that all fights were started by the AntiFa? Are you seriously suggesting that the right wing protesters never initiated any of the physical confrontations? (apart from driving a vehicle into a non-violent protest) . I don't quite understand your failure to accept that both sides had a right to march (both had permits issued for that day) and that both sides went looking for, and got, trouble.
More pro-active policing, to keep the groups apart, rather than wait for trouble then wade in, would also have been more appropriate.
Your lack of condemnation says a lot.
rscott said:
Boydie88 said:
Eric Mc said:
The Boston Rally seems to have passed off without any serious issues. Trump claims they were anti-police agitators. Maybe they agitate policemen by hugging them.
https://twitter.com/jessweiss1/status/898934176115...https://twitter.com/K_y_l_e___/status/898983213959...
Not to mention the Police mentioning the bottles of piss being thrown at them. There wasn't much Police hugging going on.
Just to show not all those taking part on it were like those 2 tweets - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/boston-free-sp...
TurboHatchback said:
I'm quite sure that both sides were responsible for initiating violence and general muppetry, I don't support either side. What I'm getting at is why they were there at all: The nazis were there (as I understand it) to protest an issue (those statues) and generally promote their political agenda. On the opposing side there seems to be two groups of thought, those who want to peacefully express their opposing agenda and those who want to suppress the nazis from expressing theirs through violence, intimidation, 'naming and shaming' and any other tactic they can think of. The first is quite rightful, the second is wrong.
Quite right. Colonial said:
Mothersruin said:
It was interesting that the LL Antifa lot said to that guy in the video that if you don't actively support the Antifa position you are condoning the Nazis.
I wonder if that works for any other points of view?
It's basically the PH position on Muslims isn't it?I wonder if that works for any other points of view?
If we don't condemn the Nazis every second post we must be a member or racist.
king noble of you, sparing us proles the benefit of your wisdom.Funkycoldribena said:
Colonial said:
Mothersruin said:
It was interesting that the LL Antifa lot said to that guy in the video that if you don't actively support the Antifa position you are condoning the Nazis.
I wonder if that works for any other points of view?
It's basically the PH position on Muslims isn't it?I wonder if that works for any other points of view?
If we don't condemn the Nazis every second post we must be a member or racist.
I've condemned the violence from both sides, but also said both sides should be entitled to protest peacefully, no matter what I personally think of their views.
rscott said:
Not-The-Messiah said:
Stickyfinger said:
rscott said:
I don't see anyone posting on this thread who doesn't condemn violence from the AntiFa/ extreme left. There are some who are very reluctant to blame the right, even trying to excuse their behaviour.
Show me where please .................Edited by Not-The-Messiah on Sunday 20th August 15:03
Take this post
PorkRind said:
I had a very similar debate with some leftist at work about how I thoight violence could have been avoided at charlotavile had the right loonies been allowed to do their thing without being harangued by the loony left.
He said that any form necessary was acceptable to stop the rise of nazis. Whilst I don't condone the nazis I also don't condone the reg left method of using violence to shut people down they don't agree with. This article echos my debate with the guy at work
Blames the violence in Charlottesville on the fact the left turned out to oppose them. No hint that violent elements within both sides (almost certainly a minority of those protesting on each site) were all spoiling for a fight.He said that any form necessary was acceptable to stop the rise of nazis. Whilst I don't condone the nazis I also don't condone the reg left method of using violence to shut people down they don't agree with. This article echos my debate with the guy at work
Then says the left use violence to stifle those they disagree with, implying the right don't do that.
Funkycoldribena said:
rscott said:
Thought it would. Let me help - it's complementing the vast majority of protesters who didn't engage in violent confrontation, not excusing the muppets who decide violence would help.
But you still haven't condemned them.See how this works?
I've already posted on this, and other, threads that I don't condone violent protests at all and that if a 'side' starts trouble, then they should immediately lose the right to protest.
2/10 for trolling.
rscott said:
I see how your mind 'works'..
I've already posted on this, and other, threads that I don't condone violent protests at all and that if a 'side' starts trouble, then they should immediately lose the right to protest.
2/10 for trolling.
And no one seems to be racist or a nazi or condone violence but you keep labouring it.I've already posted on this, and other, threads that I don't condone violent protests at all and that if a 'side' starts trouble, then they should immediately lose the right to protest.
2/10 for trolling.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff