New Charlottesville 'white civil rights rally' in DC (Unite the Right 2)

[Fuzzy Bear]

An American citizen requests a permit for him and his group to publicly assemble in Washington, DC.  Just exactly why is this newsworthy?  Folks regularly request such permits; why is this one such a big deal?

Don't bother.  I know why this one is SPECIAL.  The folks who hate Trump more than they hate this clown WANT him to protest.  They WANT counterdemonstrators to be there (that's why the word of this is being disseminated).  They HOPE for violence, because violence feeds into the "White Supremacist" narrative about Trump that they are vested in.  A violent incident will give the "Resistance" (including the Antifa and alt-left types) some sort of moral high ground.  And, of course, Antifa, BLM, and all the other groups of that type will just have to serve as "counterdemonstrators" so "their voices can be heard".  And, once again, the folks that will suffer the most will be folks who are not vested in the alt-right extremist movements, or the countering leftist fringe.  (Or, for that matter, "The Resistance" that eggs on the fringe.)  The folks who are vested in their families and their lives, but not in the histrionic drama of demonstrators and counterdemonstrators will pay for what goes wrong, and Trump will be pilloried as a racist/fascist/deliverer of wedgies to folks with diarrhea by the cackling news media and the commentariat.  

I know that the possibility that tragic events that occur when these alt-right-paloozas are well attended by Klansman and Antifa alike in a closed space, and I know the motivation being on TV gives to both the white supremacists and Antifa.  But is a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?  If the alt-right holds a demonstration and none of the media show up, does it make an impact?

The wise thing for a society to do is to NOT GIVE THESE FOLKS MEDIA ATTENTION.  Media attention exaggerates their numbers and their real influence.  Unfortunately, the media has the ability to raise the celebrity status of David Duke (for their own purposes), regardless of collateral damage that may cause.  I really do know I ask for too much, but perhaps the media can stop giving these events and these clowns attention.  That MIGHT actually prevent another Charlottesville.  On the other hand, the media WANTS another Charlottesville, and bigger.  (I don't think anyone really disagrees with me, regardless of what they post.)

I will be praying for God's protective hand on DC, and on America, particularly on that day.  I will pray that He will bring people to their senses to skip the foolishness, and to express their views in more coherent ways.  And I will pray for the Chicken Littles of the Resistance to stop screaming that the Sky is Falling.  We really aren't on the verge of an alt-right takeover any more than the Commies were coming over the Brooklyn Bridge in the 1950s.  The Fascists aren't in power, except in the minds of some Atlasians who view even Andrew Cuomo as a right winger.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Recently, I’m beginning to wonder if Fuzzy Bear is a real Christian.

You would think more of me if you believed I weren't.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Have you considered that the increasing activity of these groups is an actual indicator of increasing radical rightism in the U.S., and not a completely unrelated coincidence used by those violent leftists to spread their shrill propaganda?

These people are coming in to attempt to intimidate those they see as lesser. This is why they come to the most left-leaning cities in the nation - Charlottesville, Richmond, Boston, and now DC - because they all dream of being 'based stick man' and seeing their political opponents fear them. This is provocation, and cannot be ignored by the residents who just want to live in peace. Where those flags go unopposed, burning crosses are not far behind. You can continue to see this as baseless hyperbole if you want, until these people show up at your front door.

Your post is thoughtful and constructive, unlike much of the partisan drivel in this thread.

I certainly agree with your assessment of the motivations of these folks.  They DO wish to intimidate.  But one of their tools is to make themselves appear to be bigger and greater than they already are.  That's one of their tools of intimidation; blow themselves up, image-wise, to something bigger than they really are.  

The media, due to their bias and their blind hatred for Trump (as well as the preservation of a dramatic narrative), unwittingly (I'm giving them a lot of benefit of the doubt here.) feed this "movement" to where it appears to be bigger than it really is.  That allocation of media attention to these groups makes recruiting easier, particularly to the mentally unstable types who have delusions of glory, and who want to be a negative media star, even if it proves lethal to someone else.  The media is giving these folks free coverage, free exposure, and free opportunities to get their "message" out on a grand scale, through the national news outlets.

If this is true; if these alt-right hate groups (the real thing, not just folks wrongly labeled as such for political reasons) are truly on the march, this can be documented with fact-finding journalism.  People can watch this or download it without "promoting their event" (which the media unwittingly does).  We don't need to give these folks a microphone from a national news network; some fly-by-night outlet from a website that will give your computer a virus will surely have an "exclusive".  And we don't need to make martyrs out of these people on behalf of anyone.  We also don't need to make martyrs out of "counterdemonstrators"; these folks add to the problem without promoting confrontation against folks they KNOW to be both hateful, unreasonable, and itching for a fight.

I will also say this:  I can never think of a time when Martin Luther King, or Dr. Ralph Abernathy, led folks in "counterdemonstrations" against hostile planned demonstrations by hate groups.  Those groups showed up to THEIR demonstration as "counterdemonstrators", but Dr. King's marchers, to my knowledge, never acted as "counterdemonstrators".  And they would have been justified, in the words of the late Mike Royko, "the worst elements of Southern beer-belly manhhood were allowed to provide the response (to the civil rights marchers)".  But it would have been a disaster.  It would have been bloodier than it was, and it would have cost the Civil Rights Movement as a whole much hard-won good will.  Whether that good will should have had to be hard to win is irrelevant; the fact is that it WAS hard to win and would have been costly to lose.

I get it.  A lot of folks here are little more than trolls (at least when it comes to Trump), wishing to feed the "Racist Orange Fuehrer" narrative, regardless of facts, and would rather a tragedy occur that makes this narrative stick than apply wisdom and restraint to prevent damage to lives and property.  And we have a mass media that is totally shameless and self-serving.  Somehow, I believe that some folks might be willing to come to their senses on this issue of how to respond.  These alt-right folks are evil and intentionally intimidating, but they are also (for the most part) self-controlled.  Their violence is intentional and calculated; they don't just "lost it".  Perhaps a more realistic response to this march will happen for the benefit of citizens, who, indeed, have the right to just live in peace.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Fully expecting the media to give the alt-right exactly the attention they want.

They got a ton of coverage at Charlottesville, none of it positive

Negative attention is still attention.

DavidB. is absolutely correct.

"Negative" is a very subjective term.  For the kind of person that has the kind of worldview that a prospective hate group member might have, or is developing, the attention given to the Charlottesville alt-right crowd might be considered "positive", and an inducement to join such a group.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Looking forward to many of these marchers getting fired after their identities are made known to their employers.

Why should this happen if these folks break no laws and are not causing a hostile work environment at their job?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Looking forward to many of these marchers getting fired after their identities are made known to their employers.

Why should this happen if these folks break no laws and are not causing a hostile work environment at their job?

A new all-time low for FuzzyBear.
Now he is defending bigoted, white-nationalist Nazis.

I can understand doing this to folks whose job requires objectivity.  Teachers, police, counselors, probatoin officers, professions with codes of ethics and codes of conduct in place.

But folks who are not so employed?  Whose jobs don't involve codes of ethics and such?  You'd call their employers and bring this up, hoping they'd get fired?  Is there, perhaps, something a but wrong with that?  A bit un-American with that?

There are two (2) kinds of folks in these alt-right gatherings; the leaders (pretty hard core) and the followers (a mixed bag).  And some folks who are a combination of curious and stupid.  Are you really OK with ruining someone's life for something that really doesn't affect his/her job, doesn't impact compliance with a professional code of ethics, and doesn't create a hostile work environment.

What amazes me is that most of the folks who'll take issue with my position here would be royally indignant if someone made an issue of what they do in THEIR non-working hours.  Freedom of Speech for me, but not for thee. 

If that's the case, should I report Antifa membership to those folks' employers?  Should I report BLM membership to those folks' employers.  Should I hope THEY get fired?  How about the followers of the racist Louis Farrakhan?  Many of his followers are diligent workers with strong work ethics that are assets to their employers; should I move for them to get fired? 

I don't endorse the alt-right and their extreme views.  (And their views go well beyond a Wall and reduced immigration.)  But I'm not rooting for their lives to be ruined; I'm praying from they to come to their senses.  And those prayers have been answered and people have, indeed, come to their senses on the issue of the racism of the alt-right.  Lots of folks lambaste folks like me as "judgmental", but it seems that folks are willing to throw someone's whole life in the sewer for participating in something that, while objectionable, isn't breaking any laws. 

I know this means nothing to most who read this, but God loves every alt-right marcher as much as the most Massive FFs that ever walked the Earth.  God even loves those here who curse Him, or behave in ways that are an affront to Him.  God gave his Son to die for the sins of alt-right members just as much as he did for the sweet little old lady who'd never hurt a fly.  These folks may or may not be saved, but even if they are not God's Children (per John 1:12), they are His Creation, and He loves them that much. 

"Father, forgive them; they know not what they do!"  Jesus said this of those who imposed a painful, bloody death of the body on Him at Calvary.  And as His Blood poured for the sins of all mankind that would ever be, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and, yes, even Donald Trump crossed His mind.  If He died for them, did He not die for some stupid clown blinded by Evil that would know better if his blindness was removed?

I don't defend the politics or the actions of white nationalist Nazis, but God loves them as much as he loves any other person that ever existed.  What I will do is pray for these folks that they come to their senses, and that their march be a trivial event, if not a non-event.  That's that only thing that can be done that will have an impact, and I would hope like-minded folks would join me in this.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Nobody's going to read all that.

Of course they will.  This is Atlas.  Someone will read it all for no other reason than to find something to quote out of context and bang me over the head with, lol.

[Fuzzy Bear]

An American citizen requests a permit for him and his group to publicly assemble in Washington, DC.  Just exactly why is this newsworthy?  Folks regularly request such permits; why is this one such a big deal?

Don't bother.  I know why this one is SPECIAL.  The folks who hate Trump more than they hate this clown WANT him to protest.  They WANT counterdemonstrators to be there (that's why the word of this is being disseminated).  They HOPE for violence, because violence feeds into the "White Supremacist" narrative about Trump that they are vested in.  A violent incident will give the "Resistance" (including the Antifa and alt-left types) some sort of moral high ground.  And, of course, Antifa, BLM, and all the other groups of that type will just have to serve as "counterdemonstrators" so "their voices can be heard".  And, once again, the folks that will suffer the most will be folks who are not vested in the alt-right extremist movements, or the countering leftist fringe.  (Or, for that matter, "The Resistance" that eggs on the fringe.)  The folks who are vested in their families and their lives, but not in the histrionic drama of demonstrators and counterdemonstrators will pay for what goes wrong, and Trump will be pilloried as a racist/fascist/deliverer of wedgies to folks with diarrhea by the cackling news media and the commentariat.  

I know that the possibility that tragic events that occur when these alt-right-paloozas are well attended by Klansman and Antifa alike in a closed space, and I know the motivation being on TV gives to both the white supremacists and Antifa.  But is a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?  If the alt-right holds a demonstration and none of the media show up, does it make an impact?

The wise thing for a society to do is to NOT GIVE THESE FOLKS MEDIA ATTENTION.  Media attention exaggerates their numbers and their real influence.  Unfortunately, the media has the ability to raise the celebrity status of David Duke (for their own purposes), regardless of collateral damage that may cause.  I really do know I ask for too much, but perhaps the media can stop giving these events and these clowns attention.  That MIGHT actually prevent another Charlottesville.  On the other hand, the media WANTS another Charlottesville, and bigger.  (I don't think anyone really disagrees with me, regardless of what they post.)

I will be praying for God's protective hand on DC, and on America, particularly on that day.  I will pray that He will bring people to their senses to skip the foolishness, and to express their views in more coherent ways.  And I will pray for the Chicken Littles of the Resistance to stop screaming that the Sky is Falling.  We really aren't on the verge of an alt-right takeover any more than the Commies were coming over the Brooklyn Bridge in the 1950s.  The Fascists aren't in power, except in the minds of some Atlasians who view even Andrew Cuomo as a right winger.

Wow lol. Reading this panicked reaction, you could almost think you want to defend these people. Almost.

Also, I love the equalization of neo Nazis who want to kill Jews and Muslims to... Angry black people? Please.

I don't wish to defend these people.  They do have rights to peaceably assemble, however awful they are.  I view ignoring these folks and not giving them the attention they want is making the best of that.

My sympathies in all of this demonstrating is with normal, decent people who want to live their lives free of turmoil, most of which is unnecessary.  I'd prefer that these folks march with the only cameras on them being the surveillance cameras of law enforcement if they insist on going through with this thing.  I view that as sensible, but I doubt sense will carry the day. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

A new all-time low for FuzzyBear.
Now he is defending bigoted, white-nationalist Nazis.

If that's the case, should I report Antifa membership to those folks' employers?  Should I report BLM membership to those folks' employers.  Should I hope THEY get fired?  How about the followers of the racist Louis Farrakhan?  Many of his followers are diligent workers with strong work ethics that are assets to their employers; should I move for them to get fired? 

[/quote]

*phone rings*

Fuzzy Bear: Hi, I'd like to file a complaint against one of your employees.

Applebees Manager: Oh my. What seems to be the problem.

Fuzzy Bear: Well... one of your employees follows the teachings of Louis Farrakhan! He should be FIRED immediately.

Applebees Manager: Louis who? Fork ham? Who the hell is that? Get the hell off my line weirdo.
[/quote]


I would not do such a thing.  

I would also hope that a manager would not, willy-nilly, fire someone because someone called him and said he was a Nazi, alt-right scumbag, etc., unless they are engaging in CONDUCT that is illegal, threatening, or creating a hostile work environment.  Reprehensible people have rights in employment, speech, and assembly; it is becaush THEY do that the rest of us do.

That being said:  If a person is a Nazi, alt-rightist, etc, and he/she is putting it on display for all to see, they are going to bring negativity on themselves.  They are, indeed, provoking people to wrath, and while some of the more extreme reactions to this aren't the right thing to so, when you provoke people to wrath as some of these folks do, bad things happen.  I really believe that the immediate solution is for the media and the rest of the world to put all of this on ingnore, given that these alt-righters seem bound and determined to go through with this.  It does seem, however, that all parties here are going to be governed by their Id and not by their Superego (let alone anything God might have to say on the issue).  I suppose that this is the law of sowing and reaping.  It is God's Mercy, alone, that provides grace from that.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Here's to hoping both the Nazis and the people out there counter protesting can get their act together and not escalate things.  

When has there ever been a time where "Nazis not escalate things?" (Either in the early 1940's or today?)
They're Nazis!

I find it hilarious you're not also calling out the "Punch a Nazi" idiots.

"Both sides do it!"

You have to be quite morally vacant to unironically argue from that standpoint.

Assaulting someone because you don't like their views is stupid, plain and simple. Not hard to understand.

You don't have any room to talk about someone being morally vacant if you seriously think that's acceptable.

LOL! Fighting Nazis is "assaulting someone because you don't like their political views"? So the soldiers in the trenches of Europe in WWII shooting at the Germans were "assaulting someone because they don't like their views"?

Fighting in an actual war with real Nazis that were responsible for the deaths of millions =/= punching some alt-right "Nazi" scumbag cause they said awful things.

If you honestly think those two are even remotely the same things, please do yourself a favor and go back to school, visit a Holocaust museum, and watch some videos or read stories from survivors. If you do all those things and still think they're the same, I feel sorry for you.

So, wait, fighting Nazis is okay... but only AFTER they come to power and murder millions of innocent people? When they're just drumming up support and openly promising to commit genocide once they get enough supporters, that's just peachy and we should look the other way? Because that's exactly what "awful things" these people are saying. They're advocating genocide.

Bolded the key word there. They are saying dumb sh*t. But they are not actually doing the dumb sh*t.

What they are advocating is absolutely not okay, and at no point have I ever defended the things they are saying. But they have the right to assemble and make fools of themselves when they speak. People who don't like it have every right to publicly disagree with them, their employers have every right to fire them for taking part in it, if they own a business, people have every right to no longer spend money at their establishment, their loved ones have every right to not associate with them. But people do not have the right to physically harm them because they don't like what they are saying.

If someone on their side crosses the line and actually does harm someone, we have laws that ensure they are held accountable for it. There is no need for some Antifa supporter to step in and take it into their own hands.

Indeed. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

If you're calling both antifa supporters and nazis "scum" without distinguishing between the two at all, then you're still making a moral equivalence between both sides, which I think is a cowardly position to take.  One side says they want to violently oppress vulnerable people, and anti-fascists...want to stop that from happening.  Nazis are the inciters, not the other way around.

Moral equivalence, or lack of same (A) is in the eye of the beholder in many cases, and (B) does not mean that the morally superior group has more of a right to peaceably assemble and seed redress of their grievances than the morally inferior group (assuming there's a consensus on which group is which.  This is a concept that the ASLs (Atlas Slow Learners) don't seem to grasp, but it's really big as a house; indeed, it's as big as the Universe.

American Nazis, as indefensible as they are, have as much right to stand in public, assemble, demonstrate, and not be punched by people who disagree with them; indeed, they have a right to not be punched by people with good reason for hating them, but who are not in immediate danger of being harmed by the gruop.  They have a right for their demonstrations to not be interrupted any more than other groups' demonstrations if they've made the legal arrangements for a public permit.  This goes for all other groups that people would clearly find reprehensible.  And they have a right to do this where others will see them.  This is the First Amendment at its fullest application.

Moral Equivalence is not a precondition for exercising enumerated Constitutional Rights.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Punching nazis is morally right. It's nowhere near the same as believing in ethnic cleansing and genocide and white only ethnostates. Nazis are evil and no amount of "you can't punch people who disagree with you uwu". Naziism wants Jews, gays, lesbians, transgender people, muslims, black people, and many more to be either dead, deported, segregated, and in second class positions in society. If you think that that's a simple "disagreement" you are foolish and very clearly privileged if you think the difference between you and nazis is a disagreement and not a matter of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Obviously of you're a white straight "moderate" man you won't really be threatened by neo nazis.

Punch 'em. They're murderers and genocidaires.

Sorry, but you're wrong:

"Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing." 1 Peter 3:9 (ESV)

When they kill, arrest them.  When they attempt genocide, go to war against them.  When they demonstrate peaceably, you have no moral authority (other than what comes from your own ego) to go up and punch them.

You're flat out wrong.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Here's to hoping both the Nazis and the people out there counter protesting can get their act together and not escalate things.  

The counterprotestors are there specifically to escalate things.

This cannot be overemphasized.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Punching nazis is morally right. It's nowhere near the same as believing in ethnic cleansing and genocide and white only ethnostates. Nazis are evil and no amount of "you can't punch people who disagree with you uwu". Naziism wants Jews, gays, lesbians, transgender people, muslims, black people, and many more to be either dead, deported, segregated, and in second class positions in society. If you think that that's a simple "disagreement" you are foolish and very clearly privileged if you think the difference between you and nazis is a disagreement and not a matter of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Obviously of you're a white straight "moderate" man you won't really be threatened by neo nazis.

Punch 'em. They're murderers and genocidaires.

Sorry, but you're wrong:

"Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing." 1 Peter 3:9 (ESV)

When they kill, arrest them.  When they attempt genocide, go to war against them.  When they demonstrate peaceably, you have no moral authority (other than what comes from your own ego) to go up and punch them.

You're flat out wrong.

Anyways... Punch a nazi if you see them demonstrating. And it's impossible for neo-nazis to demonstrate peacefully due to their inherently racist and violent ideology. Therefore, Nazis demonstrating chanting "Jew will not replace us" and generally being there to espouse genocidal policies is a violent demonstration and such a demonstration being met with violence is not immoral or wrong.

And LOL at the bible quote... I mean... Okay!!!

I don't have a problem with people who do as you say going to jail, being tried, being convicted, and being sentenced.

Scripture aside, people like you are bound and determined to pull down the rule of law, and then lay the blame on your enemies.  Your logic convinces me that my public safety, and the safety of ordinary law-abiding citizens (which you profess not to be, quite frankly) is more immediately threatened by you and people who follow your lead than by the alt-Right demonstrators.

You're the primary problem.  You and folks who think like you on this issue.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Here's to hoping both the Nazis and the people out there counter protesting can get their act together and not escalate things.  

The counterprotestors are there specifically to escalate things.

This cannot be overemphasized.

Yes it can, and has been. Badly.

Not at all. 

The issue is NOT the merit of each side; it's the prevention of violence, injury, and death.

The idea that the counterprotesters are needed to convince America that the alt-right are wrong is ridiculous.  It feeds into a narrative that serves people who WANT violence at the expense of alt-right types.  The issue is not the nobility of each side or the merits of their arguments; the issue is whether or not people whose purpose at a lawful demonstration is to bait, goad, and ultimately incite to violence another group that, however reprehensible, is exercising a lawful First Amendment right.  In truth, much of the behavior of counterprotesters rises to the level of inciting riots.  Is inciting riots the pathway to a better America.

What is behind much of this is the unspoken desire for many here to simply be able to engage violently with the alt-Right, as if we are at war with them, legally and lawfully.  Many people here, including some who would oppose the death penalty for mass-murderers of children on principle, are, in their hearts, OK with just going to war with anyone they choose to label "alt-Right".  They WANT violence to occur, and they WANT the alt-Right to suffer losses, while they walk, legally, in the name of "self-defense" (although it doesn't usually play out that way).

I have no use for the alt-Right, but I do have use for upholding their Constitutional right to peaceably assemble, and without prior restraint.  If, in their assembly, they actively incite people to violence, that's another issue, but they have the same First Amendment rights you and I do.  To put it more succinctly, if the alt-Right does not possess First Amendment rights, then you and I don't either; our freedom of expression is determined by standards of Political Correctness, period, and those standards have, indeed, been different over the years.

My rights and the rights of some extremely reprehensible people are intertwined.  I question the commitment to enumerated Constitutional liberties of persons that don't get this and seem to believe that violence against groups they find extreme (but who are not acting violently or inciting to riot) is OK.  It does appear in America that self-restraint is in short supply.  There are a number of you here that need to look in the mirror before you post your "What about Trump?" post in five . . . four . . . three . . . two . . .

[Fuzzy Bear]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

I was alive for the events unfolding in Skokie in the late 1970s.  The Supreme Court upheld the the National Socialist Party Of America's petition to hold a march in Skokie, IL, a community with a significant Jewish population, including many living Holocaust survivors.  After winning there case, the march was a flop; it lasted for something like 10 minutes and people were shouting them down from their homes.

Leading up to all of this, there was much division on the issue.  Most Jews in Skokie advocated a moderate response to ignore them and let them get it over with, but there were also many that were not down with that at all.  Cooler heads prevailed in the end, but divisions remained.  Many Jews, including many liberal Jews, as well as some non-Jewish liberals, resigned from the ACLU (who represented the Nazis in their case) over this matter; they could not stomach Nazis subjecting Jews, and especially Holocaust survivors, to re-traumatization.  One of my oldest friend's mother was such a Jew; she was one of the sweetest, kindest and most sincere people I have ever known, and her parents were immigrants from Eastern Europe; her response was one of being betrayed (by the ACLU and stupefied at the same time.  It is a circumstance where I could agree intellectually with the ACLU, but emotionally agree with my friend's mother and the people that turned in their membership cards. 

In remembering this, I have reconsidered some of my First Amendment writings here.  I can certainly see issues in the Skokie matter that would suggest a Court might have erred.  The march was chosen by the Nazis to be held in Skokie SPECIFICALLY for its demographic (although this was more of a legal strategy than pure vindictiveness; they initially tried obtaining parade permits in other nearby localities and were denied) and many residents there had not only SUFFERED under the Nazis; they had been TRAUMATIZED, and the activity of Nazis arguably marching in Skokie would be a re-traumatizing event that could, arguably, be considered to be conduct with malicious intent at some level.  That's a slippery slope, but something like that is not an unreasonable conclusion to reach, and it's an argument that may have been made if the Court were deciding this matter today.

This is Atlas, however, and folks here are always lecturing on "false equivilencies".  So, in the Sprit of Atlas, I've come to the conclusion that Nazis marching in front of Holocaust survivors is a false equivilence with Unite the Right Jackasses sponsoring a legal public demonstration.  It is not aimed specifically at a person, or even at a group, and certainly not at a group that lives in Charlottesville, that has been traumatized at their hands.  If I'm wrong, let someone bring this forth in Court.  But PTSD is a real condition.  TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) is an excuse for immaturity and irrationality.  The Court did the right thing, all things considered, in Skokie, and the ending of it all was anticlimactic and non-violent.  Whether that happens in Charlottesville this year is almost entirely in the hands of the "proposed counterprotesters" at this point. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Punching nazis is morally right. It's nowhere near the same as believing in ethnic cleansing and genocide and white only ethnostates. Nazis are evil and no amount of "you can't punch people who disagree with you uwu". Naziism wants Jews, gays, lesbians, transgender people, muslims, black people, and many more to be either dead, deported, segregated, and in second class positions in society. If you think that that's a simple "disagreement" you are foolish and very clearly privileged if you think the difference between you and nazis is a disagreement and not a matter of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Obviously of you're a white straight "moderate" man you won't really be threatened by neo nazis.

Punch 'em. They're murderers and genocidaires.

When your rhetoric pushes away moderates specifically, that’s how you lose elections.

[Fuzzy Bear]

My ancestors fought to secure freedom and independence for their homeland, and to defend their homes and their families against hostile, pillaging invaders. They went through hell to do it.
They hardly had as much as two coins to rub together, asserting that they were fighting and sacrificing their lives "for money" or to defend some rich peoples' wealth is not so much laughable as it is a horrible distortion of the truth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your ancestors fought to keep millions of men, women and children in bondage, pain and suffering, for the economic benefit of the society in which they lived. I don't care what other excuses they had. Nothing justifies that. Their war, which they began, was unjust. And the biggest tragedy is that, for all the price in blood and death and pain that was paid, their descendents in blood or ideology did not learn that they were wrong.

My ancestors never had any economic benefits from slavery, hell, they lived rougher lives than most slaves did. They fought to defend their homeland against an invading army, and revisionist history will never change that fact.The South did not begin the war, and we will never be wrong for having wanted nothing more than self-determination and sovereignty.

The residents of Winston County, AL (aka "The Republic of Winston) may disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Winston

[Fuzzy Bear]

From Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The crushing defeat of the Confederacy was a Judgement of God against a Cruel People whose hearts had hardened against not only to their fellow countrymen (let alone the human beings they enslaved, or whose slavery they sanctioned), but against God, Himself; they would not be shown their sin, even as they prayed and even as they searched the Scriptures.

I go back and forth on the issue of Confederate monuments, but, honestly, their existence rises to the level of rebellion against the True and Righteous Judgement of the Lord, Himself.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The atlas deranged right has reached a new low: "my ancestors had it worse than slaves"

Sureeee Jan

The life of non-slaveowning whites in the antebellum South was an extremely hard life.  Those people were dirt poor, ekeing out subsistance livings.

The question I would have for my friend, Yellowhammer is this:  Would you prefer to be in a minimum security prison (say, a work release center, where there were even occasional weekend furloughs) or would you prefer to be homeless?

I vote "homeless", where my life is still my own.  Inmates are slaves, no matter the comfort of their confinement; their lives are not their own.  What say you?

[Fuzzy Bear]

The question I would have for my friend, Yellowhammer is this:  Would you prefer to be in a minimum security prison (say, a work release center, where there were even occasional weekend furloughs) or would you prefer to be homeless?

Right, minimum security and weekend furloughs. Don't mind the chains, whips, and rapes.

You all need to get it together. The suffering of poor Southern whites isn't special or deserving of the martyrdom you would like to give it to minimize the suffering of chattel slaves. It sucks to be a poor person in the 19th century. That's not up for debate. But it has no bearing on the incredible inhumanity perpetrated by the Southern aristocratic class and defended by force by the oh-so-oppressed poor Southern white.

I will agree to that, but the poverty of Southern whites who didn't own land was pretty harsh.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In Southern Politics, V. O. Key, in the chapter on Louisiana, discussed the issue of "Why a Huey Long?".  He referenced Long's Evangeline Oak speech and noted that the harshness and cruelty of the poverty of poor Louisianans was, indeed, harsher than most.  This is not to equate their poverty with the harshness of slavery.  But the poverty of the poor Southern white person has never received the kind of sympathy that other poor folks in other parts of the world, or even of America, have received.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5105/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

FDR did not minimize the poverty of the South, white and black.  Why should folks on Atlas?  Is that a liberal or progressive thing to do?

[Fuzzy Bear]

FDR did not minimize the poverty of the South, white and black.  Why should folks on Atlas?  Is that a liberal or progressive thing to do?

No one is 'minimizing' the poverty of the South; rather, they are objecting to it being used to deflect from the issue at hand, which is the gross human rights violation of Southern slavery.

I get that, but slavery ended in 1865.  The crushing poverty endured by persons of both races in the South continued well into the 20th century.

[Fuzzy Bear]

FDR did not minimize the poverty of the South, white and black.  Why should folks on Atlas?  Is that a liberal or progressive thing to do?

No one is 'minimizing' the poverty of the South; rather, they are objecting to it being used to deflect from the issue at hand, which is the gross human rights violation of Southern slavery.

I get that, but slavery ended in 1865.  The crushing poverty endured by persons of both races in the South continued well into the 20th century.

New and different cruelties were inflicted on African-Americans in the South after 1865, including lynching, vagrancy laws, and arresting people to be prison labor, that persisted the racial divisions of slavery without exactly the same methods. It’s about more than poverty, but even then, poverty was experienced differently and to a different degree.

I'm not denying that.  But at a certain level, people can't feel other people's pain; they can only feel their own.  Empathy, even great empathy, only goes so far.

One reason many are angry in America is that they are constantly referred to the man with no feet when they have no shoes.  Yes, the man with no feet is worse off, but they live in a world of shod people and they have to walk a mile to work barefoot.

The guy who has it hard, but is 1 or 2 levels from the bottom of the barrel gets the least empathy in just about any situation.  Look at your life and experience, then tell me if it's true or not.