![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've seen a lot of people framing the events in Charlottesville as a peaceful, legal (permitted) gathering to protest the removal of some statues. This gathering was disrupted by violent counter-protestors.
This is not an accurate accounting of events.
The white supremacists (Nazi and KKK) who gathered there did not gather to protest the removal of monuments. They were not local people who were unhappy that the landscape of their town was changing, they were people who came in from all over the country, to rally their cause. They shouted anti-minority slogans. Maybe the lying media chose not to cover the part where they cried real tears over the loss of their history, but if so, I doubt those people were the ones in KKK uniforms, or were the ones carrying shields and wearing helmets.
So yes, the counter-protestors turned violent. The supremacists defended themselves. Both sides had sticks and helmets and pepper spray. If this were supposed to be a peaceful gathering, why were the supremacists armed and armored? Some had body armor, and many had shields. It's because they knew there would be violence. How did they know? You might say that they understand their views are so repugnant that they attract violence. But it's more specific than that. It's because they incite it. They depend on it. It serves two purposes. It makes the people who fight against them look bad, and it helps rally themselves to their cause.
So they deliberately incite violence. This is not constitutionally protected free speech.
Many people feel that it is OK to attack them. That "it's OK to punch a Nazi." This feels wrong both to people who abhor violence, and people who are stuck on that free speech argument. But here's why (aside from the incitement issue) it's not OK to let these people have their rallies. They are not simply stating an opinion. They are making threats. They said "Jews will not replace us." This is a far different message than if they had said "we don't like Jews." The latter is a simple opinion. The former is a threat. They carried torches as a reminder of burning crosses and burning homes. This protest was not a protest but a rally. It was to rally its people behind the cause. To push them to action, or at least get them ready for it. Their anger has been building since they saw a black president. All those years, they had to keep quiet. But now they have a president who agrees with them, to some extent, and they're emboldened. They're becoming more active and more visible. I believe they're moving closer to widespread action, instead of isolated incidents like Dylan Roof.
How many mass murders will there have to be before we put a stop to these rallies?
This is not an accurate accounting of events.
The white supremacists (Nazi and KKK) who gathered there did not gather to protest the removal of monuments. They were not local people who were unhappy that the landscape of their town was changing, they were people who came in from all over the country, to rally their cause. They shouted anti-minority slogans. Maybe the lying media chose not to cover the part where they cried real tears over the loss of their history, but if so, I doubt those people were the ones in KKK uniforms, or were the ones carrying shields and wearing helmets.
So yes, the counter-protestors turned violent. The supremacists defended themselves. Both sides had sticks and helmets and pepper spray. If this were supposed to be a peaceful gathering, why were the supremacists armed and armored? Some had body armor, and many had shields. It's because they knew there would be violence. How did they know? You might say that they understand their views are so repugnant that they attract violence. But it's more specific than that. It's because they incite it. They depend on it. It serves two purposes. It makes the people who fight against them look bad, and it helps rally themselves to their cause.
So they deliberately incite violence. This is not constitutionally protected free speech.
Many people feel that it is OK to attack them. That "it's OK to punch a Nazi." This feels wrong both to people who abhor violence, and people who are stuck on that free speech argument. But here's why (aside from the incitement issue) it's not OK to let these people have their rallies. They are not simply stating an opinion. They are making threats. They said "Jews will not replace us." This is a far different message than if they had said "we don't like Jews." The latter is a simple opinion. The former is a threat. They carried torches as a reminder of burning crosses and burning homes. This protest was not a protest but a rally. It was to rally its people behind the cause. To push them to action, or at least get them ready for it. Their anger has been building since they saw a black president. All those years, they had to keep quiet. But now they have a president who agrees with them, to some extent, and they're emboldened. They're becoming more active and more visible. I believe they're moving closer to widespread action, instead of isolated incidents like Dylan Roof.
How many mass murders will there have to be before we put a stop to these rallies?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2017-08-17 05:42 am (UTC)From:What has been the question in my mind during all of this crap is if there are certain personality types that become members of hate based organizations... well, that may be too broad, so let me say become a member of racist organizations because of their personality profile.
Part of that for me is questioning their rational, because I just cannot believe that a rational human being can actually BELIEVE the stuff those groups espouse. I wonder too if I am wrapping myself in naivete to shield myself from the viciousness of their voiced beliefs.
None of that answers your question though. I think however the increase in violence since the election is a direct result of who is in office. It isn't just white supremacy groups that are emboldened by this administration.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-17 10:27 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2017-08-17 01:57 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2017-08-17 10:42 am (UTC)From:#1 - As repulsive as these neo-whatevers are... yes, they have the right to rally... disgusting as it may be. Coming from all over the country? Not right... and how do they finance that?
#2 - The other people protesting (I feel) are granting the rallies too much attention and are endangering themselves in the process. There might be better ways to put them down than to actually confront them...
#3 - I heard a smart woman psychologist talking about the profiles of many of the neo-alt.whatevers. I really thought she was right on when she compared them to the street gangs. Often they are "loser" types (almost always young males) who feel they gain personal power by being members of those hate organizations. It makes them think they gain worth to join those rallies. Some of them have no clue what it will mean to their lives in the long run. Note that many of them have already been fired from their jobs.
I honestly laughed at the "leader" kid who was in tears online because he was "afraid" of being arrested. The idiot displayed guns publicly. What does he expect?
no subject
Date: 2017-08-17 04:56 pm (UTC)From: