• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

500 "supremacists" estimated... and both sides engaged in violence...

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
47,431
Reaction score
53,093
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The "alt-right" protesters were estimated to number 500 total.

This may be high. I've talked to people who say they never saw more than about 150 in any one place.

Doesn't sound like they have the numbers to take over the country any time soon.

Both sides initiated violence.

Beginning in the morning, ahead of the rally's official noon start time,[SUP][69][/SUP] "protesters and counterprotesters faced off, kicking, punching, hurling water bottles at and deploying chemical sprays against one another."[SUP][70][/SUP][SUP][71][/SUP] An estimated 500 protesters and more than a thousand counterprotesters were on the site.[SUP][70][/SUP] At least 19 people were injured in "street brawls" and other violence at the rally.[SUP][3][/SUP]

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





If five hundred is the best they can do, they're not much of a threat. Bear in mind this was many different groups, not all of them supremacist necessarily, and certainly far from united and organized... some of them can barely tolerate each other under normal circumstances.
 
The "alt-right" protesters were estimated to number 500 total.

This may be high. I've talked to people who say they never saw more than about 150 in any one place.

Doesn't sound like they have the numbers to take over the country any time soon.

Both sides initiated violence.



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





If five hundred is the best they can do, they're not much of a threat. Bear in mind this was many different groups, not all of them supremacist necessarily, and certainly far from united and organized... some of them can barely tolerate each other under normal circumstances.

We are in Post-Fact America....with the bosses being at least a guilty as the Little People of not caring where the truth is.
 
Congratulations for the "likes."
 
Guilt by association?.....:lamo

C'mon, man you aren't that thick?




I think you're reading things into my post that I didn't say.


If there was something I was trying to say, I would have said it flat out and you wouldn't need to wonder.
 
The "alt-right" protesters were estimated to number 500 total.

This may be high. I've talked to people who say they never saw more than about 150 in any one place.

Doesn't sound like they have the numbers to take over the country any time soon.

Both sides initiated violence.



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





If five hundred is the best they can do, they're not much of a threat. Bear in mind this was many different groups, not all of them supremacist necessarily, and certainly far from united and organized... some of them can barely tolerate each other under normal circumstances.

So, I don't understand what you're getting at. There weren't that many of them, so it's ok?
 
The "alt-right" protesters were estimated to number 500 total.

This may be high. I've talked to people who say they never saw more than about 150 in any one place.

Doesn't sound like they have the numbers to take over the country any time soon.

Both sides initiated violence.



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





If five hundred is the best they can do, they're not much of a threat. Bear in mind this was many different groups, not all of them supremacist necessarily, and certainly far from united and organized... some of them can barely tolerate each other under normal circumstances.

I'm not surprised that everyone finds it easy to denounce the alt-right. Our entire education system has the implicit bias within it that the left always has grand intentions and that the right should always be viewed suspiciously.

What I'm more surprised about, though not totally, is how the right not only totally condemned the alt-right, not only how they exclusively blamed them, but how they extol antifa! These are open Communists/anarchists, and serious GOP leaders defend them, praise them, and even compare them to American soldiers fighting Nazis! I never completely bought into the notion of controlled opposition, but now I'm far more open to it.
 
I think you're reading things into my post that I didn't say.


If there was something I was trying to say, I would have said it flat out and you wouldn't need to wonder.

Clearly if you don't think there are 1 billion+ neo-Nazis in this country and if you don't defend people who wave Communist flags, you're a Nazi yourself, Hitler.
 
I think you're reading things into my post that I didn't say.


If there was something I was trying to say, I would have said it flat out and you wouldn't need to wonder.



God Damn, if it has to be explained it loses some of the steam! Who jumped on the "like" of your OP? Must make you proud!


If I go more transparent, you will want to assign me points and stuff! Can't name names........
 
So, I don't understand what you're getting at. There weren't that many of them, so it's ok?

It's ok for them to voice their opinion, no matter how despicable.

What's not OK is physical assault or violence.
 
I'm not surprised that everyone finds it easy to denounce the alt-right. Our entire education system has the implicit bias within it that the left always has grand intentions and that the right should always be viewed suspiciously.

I'm not surprised that there are some people who simply can't grasp the fact that 'alt-right' was a euphemism for 'white nationalist' and/or 'white supremacist' created and adopted by the very same people.

It's quite easy for any intellectually honest adult to denounce white supremacy.
What I'm more surprised about, though not totally, is how the right not only totally condemned the alt-right, not only how they exclusively blamed them, but how they extol antifa! These are open Communists/anarchists, and serious GOP leaders defend them, praise them, and even compare them to American soldiers fighting Nazis! I never completely bought into the notion of controlled opposition, but now I'm far more open to it.

Huh. So you're surprised by something that isn't happening? OK.
 
It's ok for them to voice their opinion, no matter how despicable.

What's not OK is physical assault or violence.

That's fine, but why the rush from the right to defend them?
 
Clearly if you don't think there are 1 billion+ neo-Nazis in this country and if you don't defend people who wave Communist flags, you're a Nazi yourself, Hitler.


Looks that way. Apparently anything that might be considered "implied" is also assumed to be correct if it casts me in a bad light.
 
God Damn, if it has to be explained it loses some of the steam! Who jumped on the "like" of your OP? Must make you proud!


If I go more transparent, you will want to assign me points and stuff! Can't name names........



Ah. Zing. Well you sure got me good.



:roll:
 
What does the number, or the fact that antifa and white nationalists have been known to use violence at protests/rallies, etc., have to do with anything? I think you and others like you, miss the entire point.

There are two major elements here that have turned this into this big of spectacle.

1. As part of a white nationalist protest of the removal of a controversial statue that to some represented the fight to keep slaves in the south, an alleged white nationalist allegedly ran his car into a crowed of opposition protestors, injuring many and killing one.

2. Trump, the President of the United States, when commenting on this, did not initially, and for some time to come, condemn the white nationalist movement specifically and without qualification. This is typical for a variety of reasons, as a world leader and all. But even more critical with Trump, since he's seen to be implicitly supporting white nationalists in his support of Steve Bannon, and in general, his dog-whistle type signalling to people that sympathize with some aspects of white nationalism to gain support. He chose, willfully, to simply condemn violence "on all sides". Which as you have done, misses the entire point. And by missing the point...he made his case clear.

The numbers are irrelevant. The number of racist people in the U.S. is undoubtedly higher than 500, along with people who sympathize in other ways with white nationalist/alt-right style views. How many people regularly read Breitbart for it's good content? We have people who quote it regularly on the forums even.

That both committed protest-related assaults (hitting each other, etc.) is largely irrelevant. Both are known to support violence, and to agitate. To suggest this is big news, is absurd. (It's news and would make headlines, but nothing like Trump's scandal).

The issue with Trump is that he screwed up (no surprise). He had an opportunity to lead, but he chose to divide, and he clearly chose the side of the alt-right. The fallout is much worse than I would have imagined, and yet, maybe it's not even as bad as it should be.

This has *nothing* to do with the obligation of all government to support rights to free speech, either. Touting out all these irrelevant issues makes people who do, look like white nationalist apologists to me, personally. Or people who like to be contrarian I suppose...a few may fit that role.
 
Last edited:
I'm not surprised that there are some people who simply can't grasp the fact that 'alt-right' was a euphemism for 'white nationalist' and/or 'white supremacist' created and adopted by the very same people.

It's quite easy for any intellectually honest adult to denounce white supremacy.

White nationalism is not the same as white supremacy. You seem to conflate the two.
 
White nationalism is not the same as white supremacy. You seem to conflate the two.

We are under no obligation to recognize marketing name changes and sanitizing of a cause, because they are ashamed and are trying to re-brand to gain support and credibility.
 
Yawn. They're both based on racial superiority and/or white separatism. A distinction w/out a difference.

Israel has a Jewish ethnostate. They believe in Jewish nationalism. Are they Jewish supremacists?
 
We are under no obligation to recognize marketing name changes and sanitizing of a cause, because they are ashamed and are trying to re-brand to gain support and credibility.

Whites wanting a country for themselves is supremacy?

According to that logic, Japanese are supremacists. Jews are supremacists. Are you going to make that argument?
 
White nationalism is not the same as white supremacy. You seem to conflate the two.

Which one would you say you are more aligned with? (HINT: Feel no pressure to choose just one.)
 
What does the number, or the fact that antifa and white nationalists have been known to use violence at protests/rallies, etc., have to do with anything? I think you and others like you, miss the entire point.

There are two major elements here that have turned this into this big of spectacle.

1. As part of a white nationalist protest of the removal of a controversial statue that to some represented the fight to keep slaves in the south, an alleged white nationalist allegedly ran his car into a crowed of opposition protestors, injuring many and killing one.

2. Trump, the President of the United States, when commenting on this, did not initially, and for some time to come, condemn the white nationalist movement specifically and without qualification. This is typical for a variety of reasons, as a world leader and all. But even more critical with Trump, since he's seen to be implicitly supporting white nationalists in his support of Steve Bannon, and in general, his dog-whistle type signalling to people that sympathize with some aspects of white nationalism to gain support. He chose, willfully, to simply condemn violence "on all sides". Which as you have done, misses the entire point. And by missing the point...he made his case clear.

The numbers are irrelevant. The number of racist people in the U.S. is undoubtedly higher than 500, along with people who sympathize in other ways with white nationalist/alt-right style views. How many people regularly read Breitbart for it's good content? We have people who quote it regularly on the forums even.

That both committed protest-related assaults (hitting each other, etc.) is largely irrelevant. Both are known to support violence, and to agitate. To suggest this is big news, is absurd. (It's news and would make headlines, but nothing like Trump's scandal).

The issue with Trump is that he screwed up (no surprise). He had an opportunity to lead, but he chose to divide, and he clearly chose the side of the alt-right. The fallout is much worse than I would have imagined, and yet, maybe it's not even as bad as it should be.

This has *nothing* to do with the obligation of all government to support rights to free speech, either. Touting out all these irrelevant issues makes people who do, look like white nationalist apologists to me, personally. Or people who like to be contrarian I suppose...a few may fit that role.



My point was the way many people are acting as if we on the verge of a Nazi takeover of the gov't, and acting as if not counterprotesting such a march will leave the door open to some kind of Brownshirt Coup. Given the numbers they managed to scrape together by combining efforts of a dozen different groups, that seems improbable.

Secondly, that both sides engaged in violence IS relevant. One person on one side ESCALATED the LEVEL of violence to an extreme, but given how violent so many of these clashes have become that should be no real surprise to anyone... which leads back to my assertion that sensible people stay away from these kinds of events.
 
Back
Top Bottom