╌>

Has false equivalency invalidated itself at this point?

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  yourlordandsavior  •  7 years ago  •  67 comments

Has false equivalency invalidated itself at this point?

By Peter Faden

As the primary talking point, not only here on Newstalkers, but in the news in general, I find myself contemplating the false equivalency of Trump's KKK rally statements balanced against the reality of hate in general.

What I mean by that is this: Trump was 100% wrong to say the "both sides" statement, especially when then asserting that there were fine people marching with the KKK. That showed us very clearly that Trump is at best stupid and at worst a complete racist. Both from my perspective. Acknowledging publicly and by name that the KKK and other white power groups are unacceptable, denouncing them, and conveying the need for them to be confronted rather than ignored is something we all have an obligation to.

However, after denouncing white power, we are still left with certain other uncomfortable realities. Antifa for example, despite having good intentions, has allowed itself to devolve to the point where the same critical observations can be made of them as of racist organizations. Not because they are the same philosophically, but rather because they have adopted similar methods for dealing with the things they oppose. 

So, where false equivalency was definitely a valid talking point after the Lee statue events took place, we presently need to shift our awareness a little bit, and start recognizing that groups dedicated to good causes are also employing what might be at best considered poor choices in their tactics. Would Ghandi have opposed racism through perpetuating the violence and hate? We know he wouldn't have. When you stand for something, you also should try your best to be a paragon for that belief.

I welcome all viewpoints on this topic as long as you discuss this or tangential issues and not allow yourselves to devolve into personal attacks.

edit: If you feel you can't or would prefer to not continue discussing or debating with an individual, please make use of Impasse. Hopefully that will tone down the potential for volatility here. Cheers.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Uncle Bruce
Professor Quiet
link   Uncle Bruce    7 years ago

Gotta disagree with you Peter.  The violent nature of ANTIFA and BLM were well known long before this rally, but ignored by the left and the media.  Trump was correct to say that there was blame on both sides.

There is no doubt that the Unite the Right rally was primarily a white supremacists rally.  However, there were two groups that showed up that are not white supremacists:  3 per centers, and Oath Keepers.  I don't know how many of them were there, or what their involvement was.

The fact is, this wasn't the first white supremacist rally in Charlottesville over the Robert E Lee statue.  On May 13,  white nationalist Richard Spencer led the 'Take-Back Lee Park' rally.  A counter protest was held that evening.

The KKK held a rally on July the 8th.  About 50 klan members faced off with 1000 counter protesters.  It lasted 45 minutes with no violence.

But then we have the Unite the Right rally.  Counter protesters included BLM and ANTIFA.  While I cannot say that the Unite the Right attendees didn't come expecting violent confrontations, I'm pretty confident that Antifa and BLM planned to be violent.  It's their modus operandi.

So I have to agree that you cannot simply condemn the Unite the Right without also condemning ANTIFA and BLM for their actions.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   XXJefferson51  replied to  Uncle Bruce   7 years ago

Well said...applausethumbs up there is no place for racism or violence in our political discourse.  

 
 
 
Pedro
Professor Participates
link   seeder  Pedro  replied to  Uncle Bruce   7 years ago

Yeah, that may be. 

I think the problem comes about when lumping them together.

I think the way things should probably have been handled is as follows (after Charlottesville anyway): simply condemn the white supremacists and don't qualify it. Then, once that was done, look towards antifa and company. Putting them together is where false equivalency comes about (and justifiably so in my estimation, since regardless of how bad these other groups are, white supremacists take the cake by a wide margin), and unfortunately makes it to where you can't condemn both without being accused of having sympathy towards one or the other. You can't combine messages of hate and peace, and so there is no way white supremacists rallying is a good thing ever, but also becoming a raving idiot to oppose them also becomes very counter productive.

Separating them seems a simple act that allows for critical analysis of all those groups without people being able to say that it's being used as false equivalency.

At least, from my perspective, based on what I've been seeing used as points of contention on this topic. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
link   Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Uncle Bruce   7 years ago

While I cannot say that the Unite the Right attendees didn't come expecting violent confrontations, I'm pretty confident that Antifa and BLM planned to be violent. 

 

That statement, itself, is a perfect specimen of false equivalency.  The nazis, kkkers and the like scumbags didn't come expecting violence.   They came to incite violence as they've done wherever they try to go to provoke that response. They came with malice in their hearts and firearms on their hips in many cases.  We have a video showing one of these POSs actually attempting to shoot one of the counter protesters.  They chant their disgusting racist, anti-semitic slogans and they deliberately target places where they know the resident population is most hostile to them.  Charlottesville residents are overwhelmingly in favor of removing Lee from the public space.  

I'm not claiming that BLM and antifa don't have their own bad-actors but they are not in the same league by any stretch as nazis and hate-mongers, despite how you're side keeps trying to falsely equate them. 

 
 
 
Pedro
Professor Participates
link   seeder  Pedro  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו   7 years ago

This is an interesting example of what I'm talking about.

Simply separating the two things would end the misunderstandings I think. I don't think anybody (well, most people anyway...Trump definitely was) is equivocating as it pertains to the White Supremacists. I just think that in not separating their outrage for white supremacists and groups like antifa whose tactics are becoming increasingly violent, the door for those accusations is opened because it seems like a qualification rather than simple condemnation.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
link   Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Pedro   7 years ago

It would seem that you didn't the part of my comment in which I conceded that antifa does bear responsibility for the violence at these events.  Antifa and BLM comprises only a tiny fraction of the counter demonstrators whereas the bulk of the nazis and racists in Charlottesville were there to deliberately incite that reaction and came armed with items that would be used as weapons (those "torches," the poles used to fly their disgusting banners and firearms and, of course, the vehicle, now a favorite weapon for terrorists--we saw all of them put to use for violent and deadly purpose).  

You can add up all the violence from the more extreme elements in the counter protest and it doesn't even come close.  

 
 
 
Pedro
Professor Participates
link   seeder  Pedro  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו   7 years ago

I read it.

"I'm not claiming that BLM and antifa don't have their own bad-actors but they are not in the same league by any stretch as nazis and hate-mongers, despite how you're side keeps trying to falsely equate them. "

"despite how you're side keeps trying to falsely equate them"

This is why I say that separating them is important in order to have civil discourse on the topic. If you re-read my response, I think you will find it to be consistent with this and an appropriate response to yours.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
link   Bob Nelson  replied to  Pedro   7 years ago

...  becoming increasingly violent... 

I'm seeing this all over the place. How is "increasingly violent" measured? Do you have numbers of broken bones per neo-Nazi? 

What we all know, without putting in self-righteous qualifications, is that antifa has never killed anyone. 

It will require quite a few broken neo-Nazi bones to balance Heather Heyer. 

 
 
 
Pedro
Professor Participates
link   seeder  Pedro  replied to  Bob Nelson   7 years ago

What would Gandhi have done?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  Pedro   7 years ago

Ghandi would have said that violence for hate's sake is wrong.

I don't suspect he would be an Antifa supporter, just as much as he would not support the KKK for the exact same reason.

(although he did on several occasions speak to violence being justified in some context's)

 
 
 
Pedro
Professor Participates
link   seeder  Pedro  replied to  Nowhere Man   7 years ago

He would have forsworn all violence in favor of peaceful protest.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  Pedro   7 years ago

You sure of that Peter?

He was a recruiter for the British Army in WWII, he was also a supporter of the private ownership of firearms.

When he was stabbed in a crowd at a demonstration, afterwards he was asked if his nonviolent stance would mean that his son should not use violence to defend him, his answer what that violence in defense of another was justified.

And then his statements about violence that I posted in response to Squirrel.

He recognized that man is violent, and violence is a proper response when left no other option.

I will dig out the quotes (in full context) if you wish me to.

 
 
 
Pedro
Professor Participates
link   seeder  Pedro  replied to  Nowhere Man   7 years ago

That may be, but his actual actions suggested that while he might have an awareness for man's violent nature, he opted to try peaceful resistance instead, and it was definitely successful. Maybe the single greatest success for an unorthodox approach in our history. Now, obviously before all that, he was a lawyer and such, and perhaps a different man, but we all grow into what we become.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  Pedro   7 years ago

I absolutely agree he was a non-violence advocate, his position on violence was that it was an absolute last resort when forced. He did not expect anyone to knuckle under but he also did not want anyone dying cause they failed to defend themselves.

He was a very unique man.

And yes I agree with his position on the christian religion, and I'm a christian.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
link   Bob Nelson    7 years ago

Antifa for example, despite having good intentions, has allowed itself to devolve to the point where the same critical observations can be made of them as of racist organizations. Not because they are the same philosophically, but rather because they have adopted similar methods for dealing with the things they oppose. 

No! 

That is exactly the "false equivalence" trap into which the fascists and their fellow-travelers would have us all fall. 

There is no equivalence. 

Antifa "violence" has never killed anyone. 

Antifa "violence" is strictly directed against fascists, whose terrorist murders have taken the lives of thousands of innocent people. 

Antifa opposes terrorist murderers and their fellow-travelers and facilitators. 

Equating the two is doubly awful. It reduces the fascists' terrorism to banal "violence" and it ignores the targeted aspect of antifa. 

I'm sure you did not intend it... but your article serves fascist terrorism. 

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
Professor Quiet
link   Uncle Bruce  replied to  Bob Nelson   7 years ago

I see.  So what you are saying is Antifa violence is good.  Violence against First Amendment Rights to Free Speech and Free Assembly are good.  Beat the hell out of a Trump supporter and all is good.

Got it!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
link   Bob Nelson  replied to  Uncle Bruce   7 years ago

Nice try, Bruce. I'm sure you're doing your best for your friends, and it can't be easy.

Let's stay focused. 

We have American terrorists - neo-Nazis and White-supremacists - who have murdered thousands of innocents. You ignore their crimes. 

And we have some people (who have never killed anyone) who perturb the terrorists' parades. You make a great deal of noise about this. 

Apparently, for you, disrupting a fascist parade is far graver than murdering innocents. Comment removed for skirting the CoC [ph]

Right, Bruce? 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  Bob Nelson   7 years ago

Lets get into specifics here.

SO Bob, when did any of those groups Antifa is terrorizing kill anyone? and if they did how many?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
link   Bob Nelson  replied to  Nowhere Man   7 years ago

Nowhere Man, 

You're joking, right?

Heather Heyer, two weeks ago? Dylan Roof? Oklahoma City? Google "American terrorist attacks" for as many as you need. 

I have a big bunch of lynching photos, but Perrie gets upset when I post them. I seeded an article about lynchings a while back, with the 4000. 

Then Google "antifa terrorist attacks". Nothing there... 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  Bob Nelson   7 years ago

Thank you for responding Bob.

And, your response was just what was expected. So your arguing that the right wing in america today is responsible for and has to wear the mantle of every crazy murderer that came before.

All I said is the Marxist Antifa, judging by their self proclaimed loyalties established by flying marxist and communist banners and flags during their "confrontations" also are responsible for and have the wear the banner of their forebears.

Who have murdered millions upon millions of people. More than any other political philosophy in history.

They do not get a pass cause they haven't successfully killed anyone yet, but they have put people in the hospital in intensive care. so I guess they are lucky in that respect, cause that is the only reason they haven't killed anyone, they have been lucky.

They align themselves with the most murderous political philosophy in human history, in that respect they wear all the murders perpetrated by that philosophy.

Exactly the same argument your making about what you claim as fascists and white supremacists.

What is interesting is you rejecting that argument for your beloved socialism at the same time making it for your hated enemies. (conservatism)

thank you for proving my point. you are no better than those that you claim to be fighting.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
link   Bob Nelson  replied to  Nowhere Man   7 years ago

Are you saying that a murderer must be a card-carrying member of the American Nazi Party before you consider his deed to be "neo-Nazi"? 

By that standard, practically no terrorist attacks can be assigned to any group. 

Those four thousand lynchings are just tough luck! No "White-supremacist Party card-carrying member" was arrested so we don’t know who did it, do we? 

That's pitiful! 

 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  Bob Nelson   7 years ago

The Debate is over bob, my point is made.

You know what establishes that?

Your juvenile changing of the point, excuse making, rationalization.

You cannot get away from the fact that you are just as bad as those you rail against.

Your shifting of the argument establishes your understanding of that also.

Have a nice day.

and yes, I agree, your position is a pitiful one.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
link   Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Nowhere Man   7 years ago

The Debate is over bob, my point is made.

 

I love it when your sort declares itself the "WINNER" and walks away.  That's something that we see on pre-school playgrounds all the time.  

 
 
 
Pedro
Professor Participates
link   seeder  Pedro  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו   7 years ago

Alright, tighten things up. Y'all are going from attacking an idea to attacking each other. Let's not let it devolve please.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו   7 years ago

Well usually when it comes down to throwing insults, the debate is over as Peter articulated. (the side throwing the insult has lost)

Atheist:

Adding your insult to a conversation you were not involved in drives home the point. Although I believe Bob appreciates the moral? support.

No point in going further so I ended the conversation.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
link   Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Nowhere Man   7 years ago

Well usually when it comes down to throwing insults, the debate is over as Peter articulated. (the side throwing the insult has lost)

Right...just keep telling yourself that lie if it makes you feel better for losing on the facts and truth.  After all, it's just one of thousands in your repertory. 

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
Professor Quiet
link   Uncle Bruce  replied to  Bob Nelson   7 years ago

I'm sure you're doing your best for your friends

That's the third time you've made some reference to some imaginary friends of mine Bob.  The comment is being flagged for Skirting the CoC.  You need to explain exactly what "friends" you are referring to Bob.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
link   Bob Nelson  replied to  Uncle Bruce   7 years ago

Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Uncle Bruce   7 years ago

No chance. Some folks are wedded to innuendo. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Cerenkov   7 years ago

Bob.. 

One warning on this. You are taunting and that is against the CoC. knock it off.

Cernekov, don't inflame the situation. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
link   Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   7 years ago

The interesting aspect of this, Perrie, is that I have said nothing. Any allusions I have made have been to... nothing.

If anything is happening, it is entirely in the minds of readers. If all those readers have the same thoughts... 

 
 
 
Pedro
Professor Participates
link   seeder  Pedro  replied to  Bob Nelson   7 years ago

I don't agree. My article illustrates the fact that we don't just have one issue to deal with right now, and that turning a blind eye on one because of our focus on another is perhaps not the way to approach things. 

I don't believe in lumping them together as they aren't the same, but that doesn't mean they don't exist separate to one another.

We should always condemn racism in every form and speaking only for myself, do in fact condemn it, but that doesn't mean we should accept extreme activity from groups that start out with good intentions either. As we all know, sometimes the best intentions end up causing more harm than good. However, we also shouldn't equate one with the other, since they are inherently different.

I felt that was at least moderately clear in my OP. Perhaps not though.

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
Professor Quiet
link   Uncle Bruce  replied to  Pedro   7 years ago

The only matrix you can apply to a level of violence is punishment by a court. 

That being said, the fact that either form of violence is unlawful means just that. Violence, in any form, cannot be tolerated within a civilized society. 

Saying that ANTIFA is only using violence to stop fascism, and that it's okay supports a vigilante form of justice.  But even worse, it supports a vigilante form of rights suppression. 

As vile and unacceptable as the Neo-Natzie White Supremacist movement is, they have a Constitutionally protected right to free speech and free assembly.  Think about the Westboro Baptist Church protests at funerals.  That case has been decided by SCOTUS, which acknowledged that the behavior of the group is reprehensible and vile, but protected by the Constitution.

The protests in Berkely have shown that the Antifa movement is centered on using violence to shut down free speech. 

There is no place in America for White Supremacists.  But at the same time, there is no place in America for violent suppression of free speech.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
link   Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Uncle Bruce   7 years ago

 But at the same time, there is no place in America for violent suppression of free speech.

Even you must know that the first amendment only applies to the government being prohibited from suppressing speech.  Private entities can and do suppress it all the time and that's perfectly legal.  There's no prohibition on private individuals limiting free speech.  For example, there's no law against a counter demonstration drowning out the speech of a hate group.  And there's no law requiring one group to give way to another in public.  Of course, the authorities may try to impose limits one what opposing groups may do and where but it's not a violation of the first amendment if one group decides not to yield to the other. No one is ever charged with violating the first amendment if they're arrested at these events.   White supremacists (e.g.,the kkk) and nazis  have violence at the core of their creation.  All of them exerted and held their power through terror, murder and brutality.  They have to be shown that they are not going to get away with that again, not in this land. 

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
Professor Quiet
link   Uncle Bruce  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו   7 years ago

But there are laws against violent counter protests.   It's called Assault. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
link   Bob Nelson  replied to  Uncle Bruce   7 years ago

Heather Heyer's free speech is kinda sorta finished. By an American fascist.

 

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
Professor Quiet
link   Uncle Bruce  replied to  Bob Nelson   7 years ago

And her killer is in jail, charged with her murder. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
link   Bob Nelson  replied to  Uncle Bruce   7 years ago

Her free speech is kinda sorta compromised, don't you think, Bruce?

And maybe some antifa protesters will hesitate next time...

That's the purpose of terrorist murder, after all.

Right, Bruce ? 

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
Professor Quiet
link   Uncle Bruce  replied to  Bob Nelson   7 years ago

I wouldn't know Bob.  I'm not a terrorist, nor do I condone terrorist behavior, Be it KKK and their white supremacist notions, BLM with their all whites are racist and cops must die position, or ANTIFA and their violent nature of shutting down speech they find offensive.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell  replied to  Uncle Bruce   7 years ago

I've been reading all this back and forth about "antifa" on this site lately with a mode of bored bemusement.

This all grew into a "thing" because of the right wing's need to defend Donald Trump after he said "many sides" were at fault for Charlottesville. The reason that Trump wanted to apportion equal blame between racists and anti-racists was because "white nationalists" and white nationalist sympathizers are a noticeable part of Trump's political support. Trump made a fool out of himself, objectively, in his 'analysis' of Charlottesville, and his presidency was seen as sinking into irrelevancy.

Then the right wing media machine rides to the rescue. Suddenly we hear that "antifa" , a part of the anti-racist presence at Charlottesville, is overall the greatest threat to American peace and security since the Black Panthers , the Weather Underground, and "union goons" rolled into one.

What "violence" has antifa perpetrated in present day America? I am hearing of a couple instances of "rioting" in California (Berkeley) and in Washington DC on inauguration day.

How many attacks have been perpetrated by Antifa? Where, when?

America is in no threat of falling prey to anarchism or communism. The idea is absurd. We live in the greatest consumer economy in the history of the world. It is not going to change because a minute group of anarchists run around making 'trouble'.

-

Donald Trump is not competent to be president of the United States. That is the issue before this country, not this nonsense about Antifa.

The 'Antifa' business is an intentional distraction by right wing and alt-right media to try and rehabilitate Trump's shredded image.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  JohnRussell   7 years ago

Really John?

I think the people in the hospitals would beg to differ with you.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man   7 years ago

Please list all the dates and locations that you can find of "antifa" directed political violence in the United States in the last 5 years. 

Let's see what kind of scope we are talking about.   Dates and locations.  I am not talking about protests, I'm talking about violent attacks on citizens.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell    7 years ago

Antifa is a worldwide movement. It IS revolutionary in terms of wishing to overthrow the present global power structures of capitalism and white supremacy. Antifa is largely an anarchist group. There is no reason to believe masses of Americans will ever embrace anarchy (or communism) as a political philosophy to govern the American people.

White supremacy has been a constant for much of the history of this continent, post 1492.  There are literally tens of millions of white racists in the United States.  Any movement that attempts to make such racism into a positive "good" is dangerous and despicable.

-

The violence of both groups must be opposed totally. But the ideological and societal threats posed are not equivalent.

 
 
 
Pedro
Professor Participates
link   seeder  Pedro  replied to  JohnRussell   7 years ago

"The violence of both groups must be opposed totally. But the ideological and societal threats posed are not equivalent."

Exactly. You said it better than I had.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
link   Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell   7 years ago

John, 

White-supremacists kill innocent people. 

Antifa has killed no one. 

Do you see the difference? 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
link   Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell   7 years ago

John, 

White-supremacists kill innocent people. 

Antifa has killed no one. 

Do you see the difference? 

 
 
 
Squirrel!
Freshman Silent
link   Squirrel!    7 years ago

-

Headline:  Has False Equivalency Invalidated Itself At This Point?

 

definition of:  False

not according with truth or fact; incorrect.

 

definition of: Invalid

being without foundation or force in fact, truth, or law an invalid assumption declared the will invalid

 

Common Synonyms:

erroneous, inaccurate, incorrect, inexact, off, unsound, untrue, untruthful, wrong, off base

 

Let's ask this question another way shall we?

 

Question:  At This Point Is An Invalid Equivalency False?

 

Answer 1:  False is false.

 

Answer 2:  Invalid is invalid.

 

Answer 3:  Neither is equivalent to anything except both being synonyms for being erroneous, inaccurate, etc... or just being wrong.

 

What is the point?

 

False Equivalency has always been Invalid.  That is what "False Equivalency" means.

 

 

So, I ask again, WHAT IS THE POINT?

 
 
 
Pedro
Professor Participates
link   seeder  Pedro  replied to  Squirrel!   7 years ago

The point of the title was to catch people's attention. That is what title's are for. I think that was successful.

As for the point of the article, that was clearly addressed both within the text of the article and in greater depth via the comments. I would love to read your impressions on that, and see your interaction with the conversations happening within. I think everybody has a valid viewpoint and am interested in reading them.

 
 
 
Squirrel!
Freshman Silent
link   Squirrel!  replied to  Pedro   7 years ago

I would love to read your impressions

Okay, since you asked:

The people in Charlottesville were NOT protesting the removal of the Lee statue.  The rally the night before (with the asshole Neo-NAZIs carrying Tiki Torches) was all Anti-Jew, Anti-Semitic and had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Lee or the Civil War.  They used the statue and the park as an excuse to spread their hate.

The violence the next day was all about WHITE SUPREMACY and keeping THE BLACKS in their place, which is why the statue was erected in the first place.  (Remembering The Civil War was just an excuse.)

What Trump said, all 3 times, even when he contradicted himself and then contra-contradicted himself was NOT a 'False Equivalency', it was just pure out and out BULLSHIT.

What people have said to justify any of the violence was not a 'False Equivalency', it was just pure BULLSHIT!

Violence, from any side, Right or Left, is pure BULLSHIT!

Calling anything a nice 'Politically Correct Term' like a "False Equivalency" is very much like trying to put lipstick on a pig to make it look prettier.  People should just be honest and call it what it is:  BULLSHIT!

Those are my impressions.  And, I really don't care what anyone thinks of them.  Okay?

 
 
 
Pedro
Professor Participates
link   seeder  Pedro  replied to  Squirrel!   7 years ago

"What Trump said, all 3 times, even when he contradicted himself and then contra-contradicted himself was NOT a 'False Equivalency', it was just pure out and out BULLSHIT."

I tend to favor this opinion.

 
 
 
Squirrel!
Freshman Silent
link   Squirrel!  replied to  Pedro   7 years ago

I am happy we can agree on something here.  Thanks!

 
 
 
Pedro
Professor Participates
link   seeder  Pedro  replied to  Squirrel!   7 years ago

Of course. Your opinions are always welcome, and I'm sure we will find ourselves in agreement more often than you might think.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
link   Kavika     7 years ago

The history of the KKK and Neo Nazi's/white supremists is a history of violence. AntiFa has a short history in this country (which is what we're discussing) it has been violent, but as far as I know they have killed anyone and KKK and other such groups have.

AntiFa is heading in a more violent direction, what will happen is anyone's guess, but it does look like the confrontations will be often and could be much more violent. 

IMO, to call these two groups equal is false. One has killed numerous people, the other has not (as far as I know). A much better way to deal with this would be to separate the groups and deal with each on it's own.

The KKK and Neo Nazi's joined hands in U.S. the result was the Greensboro massacre. 

A story worth reading....

I have read the article on DHS and the FBI report on AntiFa..Interesting reading.

Bottom line for me is is that both sides are violent. But IMO they are not equal at this point. 

All the groups have to be looked and dealt with as the organization that they are.

 

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
Professor Quiet
link   Uncle Bruce  replied to  Kavika   7 years ago

Violence is violence. Regardless of whether it results in a death or a broken arm.   If you don't lump them together then you accept that the use of violence to shut down dissenting opinion is valid.  Then you must define what offensive opinion warrants such violence.   SCOTUS ruled that unconstitutional with respect to the Western morons. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
link   Kavika   replied to  Uncle Bruce   7 years ago

Yes violence is violence, but the breaking of someone's arm and killing someone is quite different in the eyes of the law. 

No, I don't accept that the use of violence to shut down dissenting opinion is valid. What I am saying is that both sides are violent and should be dealt with and separate entities.

In the article that you posted regarding the DHS/FBI report on AntiFa states that the more violent that KKK/Nazi's and white supremists get that they will be more violence from AnitFa in response.

It would seem to me instead of trying to debate who is what and doing what to who, would be to confront the problem of violence of the groups and attack them all through  lawful means.  

 
 
 
Squirrel!
Freshman Silent
link   Squirrel!  replied to  Kavika   7 years ago

Okay, I have to agree with Therealbruce in a way, because violence is violence regardless of which side has the bigger kill stats.

But, I'm going to do it in my own way that will probably piss everyone off, including Therealbruce.

Let's look at The Left versus the Right, specifically the Pro-Choicers versus the Pro-Lifers.  (Oh damn!  I've stepped in it now, I know it.)

Typically most (not ALL, but most) people who claim to be on the RIGHT are Pro-Life.

And typically, most people on the left (not ALL but most) are Pro-Choice.

The Righties call the Lefties PRO-ABORTION, and the Lefties call the Righties ANTI-ABORTION.

So far so good, right?

BUT!

Typically most (not ALL) Righties are Pro-Capital Punishment, while typically most (not ALL) Lefties are Anti-Capital Punishment.

So, you have two groups.

On the Right you have people who want to BAN ABORTION but believe in THE DEATH PENALTY, and on the Left you have people who want to ABORT BABIES but NOT EXECUTE PRISONERS.

On BOTH sides you have people who want to KILL other people.  (Most of them anyway, but not ALL of them, okay?)

So, like the Alt-Right and the so called Alt-Left (as dubbed by Trump) you have people who want to kill or harm other people to get their way.

Then you have those of us in between the two extremes who say "STOP ALL THE GODDAMN KILLING AND VIOLENCE PERIOD! OKAY?"

Violence is violence.  Killing is killing.  That's how WARS get started people!

None of it is necessary.  

NONE OF IT!

 
 
 
Pedro
Professor Participates
link   seeder  Pedro  replied to  Kavika   7 years ago

"It would seem to me instead of trying to debate who is what and doing what to who, would be to confront the problem of violence of the groups and attack them all through  lawful means.  "

This seems correct to me.

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
Professor Quiet
link   Uncle Bruce  replied to  Kavika   7 years ago

It would seem to me instead of trying to debate who is what and doing what to who, would be to confront the problem of violence of the groups and attack them all through  lawful means.

I agree.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
link   Kavika   replied to  Uncle Bruce   7 years ago

The story of George Lincoln Rockwell as founder of the American Nazi party, former naval commander, is quite interesting. He was assassinated in VA. by a former follower. What is really quite interesting is that he was friends with Elijah Mohammed and Malcolm X...More irony.

Thanks for the interesting debate folks. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   XXJefferson51  replied to  Uncle Bruce   7 years ago

I agree too which is why Antifa should heed warnings that's it's on the path to be the 21st century KKK.  

 
 
 
Steve Ott
Professor Quiet
link   Steve Ott    7 years ago

False equivalency is a form of logical fallacy. See @squirrel.

The idea itself is not invalid. The form of its use in most of the media is a logical fallacy and therefore an invalid argument.

The use of such forms in the media comes not from logical reasoning, but from an attempt to persuade or even enrage.

Most of this is lost on the general public because the general public is rather a non-thinking couch potato waiting to be fed. " And what does the mob of Remus say? It follows fortune, as it always does, and rails against the condemned. That same rabble, if Nortia had smiled upon the Etruscan, 11  if the aged Emperor had been struck down unawares, would in that very hour have conferred upon Sejanus the title of Augustus. Now that no one buys our votes, the public has long since cast off its cares; the people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions and all else, now meddles no more and longs eagerly for just two things----Bread and Games!"

So, where false equivalency was definitely a valid talking point after the Lee statue events took place, we presently need to shift our awareness a little bit, and start recognizing that groups dedicated to good causes are also employing what might be at best considered poor choices in their tactics.

 

False equivalency is still a valid talking point, but it is just that, A POINT. It is not the entirety of the discussion. But the media and the public seem not capable of stringing together two or more ideas in a day. Just too damn much work doing all that thinking.

 
 

Who is online

Vic Eldred
Dragon


60 visitors