Current Events > Charlottesville vs Barcelona car terror attacks, which was worse?

(+) Yeah! (+)

because the left seem to be more vocal about the Charlottesville incident

this is a bad topic, even for you
---

boxington posted...

this is a bad topic

---

Terrible topic, even
---

boxington posted...

this is a bad topic, even for you

Because it undercuts your narrative? You were fine comparing the actions of Antifa with the neo-Nazis, why it this comparison so hard for you?
---

This thread has been nominated for Shit Thread Of The Year. Congrats.
---

The Admiral posted...

boxington posted...

this is a bad topic, even for you

Because it undercuts your narrative? You were fine comparing the actions of Antifa with the neo-Nazis, why it this comparison so hard for you?

show me where I did this.

and no, I say it's a bad topic because comparing tragedies gets people nowhere.
---

boxington posted...

show me where I did this.

In the multiple topics where we argued about Trump's condemning of both sides.
---

GOATTHlEF posted...

boxington posted...

this is a bad topic, even for you

---

The Admiral posted...

boxington posted...

this is a bad topic, even for you

Because it undercuts your narrative? You were fine comparing the actions of Antifa with the neo-Nazis, why it this comparison so hard for you?

It's almost as if antifa and neonazis are related to the same political context, whereas an islamic terror attack on barcelona is a completely different scenario altogether
---

The Admiral posted...

boxington posted...

show me where I did this.

In the multiple topics where we argued about Trump's condemning of both sides.

I don't remember doing that, tbh, but I made my posting history public if you wanna check.
---

pinky0926 posted...

The Admiral posted...

boxington posted...

this is a bad topic, even for you

Because it undercuts your narrative? You were fine comparing the actions of Antifa with the neo-Nazis, why it this comparison so hard for you?

It's almost as if antifa and neonazis are related to the same political context, whereas an islamic terror attack on barcelona is a completely different scenario altogether

Neo-Nazis and radical Islamists have the same general ideology, simply swapping groups they want to see killed. The political comparison is perfectly valid. Especially if we want to discuss different levels of threats to western society.
---

Gamer99z posted...

GOATTHlEF posted...

boxington posted...

this is a bad topic, even for you

The Admiral posted...

boxington posted...

this is a bad topic, even for you

Because it undercuts your narrative? You were fine comparing the actions of Antifa with the neo-Nazis, why it this comparison so hard for you?

Because this topic is asking you to rank tragedies, you waste of bandwidth.
---

This is the shittiest episode of First Take
---

The Admiral posted...

pinky0926 posted...

The Admiral posted...

boxington posted...

this is a bad topic, even for you

Because it undercuts your narrative? You were fine comparing the actions of Antifa with the neo-Nazis, why it this comparison so hard for you?

It's almost as if antifa and neonazis are related to the same political context, whereas an islamic terror attack on barcelona is a completely different scenario altogether

Neo-Nazis and radical Islamists have the same general ideology, simply swapping groups they want to see killed. The political comparison is perfectly valid. Especially if we want to discuss different levels of threats to western society.

Okay, let's discuss the level of threat each poses.

Both embrace fascism, that is absolutely true.

Neo-nazis come from within. They are us.

Radical islam comes from without. They are strangers. Foreigners. They will never be able to integrate into our society.

I cannot imagine radical islam ever gaining a grip on our government. Ever. All muslims combined in the US are about one percent of the population. Radical muslims are a fraction of that.

Young american boys who are socially isolated do not embrace radical islam. They do sometimes embrace white supremacism. We see this among our current generational cohort, it's not just the ancient greybeards in charge. My wife went to high school with one of the leaders of the Charlottesville march.

Nazis currently have a sympathizer in the white house.

Evaluated: Nazis are the greater threat.
---

Darkman124 posted...

Nazis currently have a sympathizer in the white house.

This is the kind of post I expect from a lot of people on CE, but not from you.
---

And here we go
---

The Admiral posted...

This is the kind of post I expect from a lot of people on CE, but not from you.

You know, I considered dropping that, but I decided against it.

I think to call him that, I am obligated to go into detail as to "What is a Nazi sympathizer?"

Nazi sympathizer is a pretty vague term. At least to me, it doesn't mean "shares the view that white supremacy is the correct path forward." Sympathizer in general doesn't mean supporter.

One could be a sympathizer of a great many things. You could call me a communist sympathizer, in that I tend to point to dictatorships and authoritarian practices, rather than the communist economic philosophy, as the cause of history's great tragedies under the leadership of self-avowed communists.

It does mean "acts as apologist to the actions of a given group and attempts to avoid singling them out when they're the bad guy, and empowers them through inaction or introduction of red herrings."

It's clear that the Nazis themselves--David Duke, writers on the Daily Stormer, etc--think he's a sympathizer. I don't think Trump is a Nazi.

I do think Trump is a Nazi sympathizer. He publicly attempts to dilute the seriousness of their actions by making public statements suggesting they and their ideology are not the problem.

So you can quote me with this wherever, because I stand by my statement:

I think Donald Trump is a Nazi sympathizer.
---

Barcelona was worse. More people died and the problem will continue. The Nazis we have more control over. It's an issue we can actually address.
---

Just looking at the numbers, would say barcelona. 14 dead as of now compared to 1. It's clear cut
---

there are several metrics by which to judge an attack as "worse". sheer loss of life, impact on our daily lives, how close to home or unexpected something was, the reaction of public officials, desensitization, etc. people are more likely to be surprised and uneasy about a neo-Nazi rally in their backyard than Islamic terrorists across the Atlantic

Darkman124 posted...

It's clear that the Nazis themselves--David Duke, writers on the Daily Stormer, etc--think he's a sympathizer. I don't think Trump is a Nazi.

Whether or not you think what Trump said/did qualifies him as a sympathizer, I wouldn't trust David Duke's opinion. It would be in his best interest to portray the Trump as one.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

Whether or not you think what Trump said/did qualifies him as a sympathizer, I wouldn't trust David Duke's opinion. It would be in his best interest to portray the Trump as one.

I consider the reaction of a group, and the leaders of said group, to an elected official's public statements to be part of the body of evidence one must use to judge said official's sympathies for that group.
---

Bleeding assholes versus bleeding vaginas. Which is worse?
---

The Admiral posted...

Neo-Nazis and radical Islamists have the same general ideology, simply swapping groups they want to see killed. The political comparison is perfectly valid. Especially if we want to discuss different levels of threats to western society.

We weren't really discussing different levels of threats to society though. As far as I can make out, TC just wants to have a "gotcha, liberals!" moment because...apparently people aren't upset enough about it?

American Nazis attacking Americans on American soil is understandable a very different kind of problem to radicals in Barcelona committing Islamic terror attack #34567.
---

Darkman124 posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

Whether or not you think what Trump said/did qualifies him as a sympathizer, I wouldn't trust David Duke's opinion. It would be in his best interest to portray the Trump as one.

I consider the reaction of a group, and the leaders of said group, to an elected official's public statements to be part of the body of evidence one must use to judge said official's sympathies for that group.

I would say it's more fair to say that Trump's weak response was the type of opportunity the people like David Duke look for to convince others that they're more relevant than they actually are rather than using his claim as evidence for Trump being a sympathizer.
---

pinky0926 posted...

The Admiral posted...

Neo-Nazis and radical Islamists have the same general ideology, simply swapping groups they want to see killed. The political comparison is perfectly valid. Especially if we want to discuss different levels of threats to western society.

We weren't really discussing different levels of threats to society though. As far as I can make out, TC just wants to have a "gotcha, liberals!" moment because...apparently people aren't upset enough about it?

American Nazis attacking Americans on American soil is understandable a very different kind of problem to radicals in Barcelona committing Islamic terror attack #34567.

yeah i think we can all agree that OP has removed three ribs so he can suck his own dick

but i think admiral's post does allow for a more interesting discussion of the relative danger to our society from radicalized sociopaths living in it vs radicalized sociopaths living outside of it (and to be clear, i don't just mean that radical islamists aren't in the US physically, but that they are not an integrated cultural group that can blend into the masses, the way a white supremacist can)
---

Leight_Weight posted...

Bleeding assholes versus bleeding vaginas. Which is worse?

...bleeding assholes. One happens naturally all the time. The other is a medical emergency. So....
---

Awful topic

Trump is a Nazi sympathizer the same way Obama is a radical Islamic terrorist sympathizer if these are the terms we're using to determine it.
---

Darkman124 posted...

yeah i think we can all agree that OP has removed three ribs so he can suck his own dick

but i think admiral's post does allow for a more interesting discussion of the relative danger to our society from radicalized sociopaths living in it vs radicalized sociopaths living outside of it (and to be clear, i don't just mean that radical islamists aren't in the US physically, but that they are not an integrated cultural group that can blend into the masses, the way a white supremacist can)

It's interesting how it's developed because it's been such a sleeper. Everyone can uniformly condemn Islamic terrorism, but this entire Nazi business seems to have people confused.
---

pinky0926 posted...

Everyone can uniformly condemn Islamic terroris

news to me
---

Both are equally as awful imo
---

pinky0926 posted...

Everyone can uniformly condemn Islamic terrorism, but this entire Nazi business seems to have people confused.

You can thank the media for lazily misusing this description and labeling everyone at Charlottesville a Nazi. The reason Trump minced his words was because he literally said he knew not all of the protesters at the rally were white supremacists, and many were there because of the statue removal. But the garbage media leaves that part out and just goes to the "both sides" part of the quote because it fits their narrative and gets clicks.
---

The Admiral posted...

and many were there because of the statue removal.

Only associating with neo-nazis, but not a neo-nazi...

sounds kinda iffy.

The Admiral posted...

The reason Trump minced his words was because he literally said he knew not all of the protesters at the rally were white supremacists,

The protest was sponsored by white supremacist groups. The people who protested the statues removal were chanting "blood and soil" and "jews will not replace us." If anyone showed up or remained after that stuff started, they should be held accountable.
---

cuteandkawaii posted...

The Admiral posted...

and many were there because of the statue removal.

Only associating with neo-nazis, but not a neo-nazi...

sounds kinda iffy.

Just like the protesters at a BLM rally who march alongside black supremacists, right?

Can't exactly cherry pick your "guilt by association" arguments.
---

You guys took Admiral's bait and you should be ashamed
---

The Admiral posted...

Just like the protesters at a BLM rally who march alongside black supremacists, right?

Can't exactly cherry pick your "guilt by association" arguments.

lol fuck BLM.

The Admiral posted...

Just like the protesters at a BLM rally who march alongside black supremacists, right?

Yes. And when BLM flyers feature Black Panther imagery anyone who shows up is probably a black supremacist. And the instant the group stops chanting "black lives matter" and goes into "kill whitey," anyone still there should be held accountable for associating with black supremacists. So we're in agreement then. Most of the people at the charlottesville rally, even those there to protest the statues, were either white nationalists or agreed with their ideology. Great.
---

Darkman124 posted...

The Admiral posted...

This is the kind of post I expect from a lot of people on CE, but not from you.

You know, I considered dropping that, but I decided against it.

I think to call him that, I am obligated to go into detail as to "What is a Nazi sympathizer?"

Nazi sympathizer is a pretty vague term. At least to me, it doesn't mean "shares the view that white supremacy is the correct path forward." Sympathizer in general doesn't mean supporter.

One could be a sympathizer of a great many things. You could call me a communist sympathizer, in that I tend to point to dictatorships and authoritarian practices, rather than the communist economic philosophy, as the cause of history's great tragedies under the leadership of self-avowed communists.

It does mean "acts as apologist to the actions of a given group and attempts to avoid singling them out when they're the bad guy, and empowers them through inaction or introduction of red herrings."

It's clear that the Nazis themselves--David Duke, writers on the Daily Stormer, etc--think he's a sympathizer. I don't think Trump is a Nazi.

I do think Trump is a Nazi sympathizer. He publicly attempts to dilute the seriousness of their actions by making public statements suggesting they and their ideology are not the problem.

So you can quote me with this wherever, because I stand by my statement:

I think Donald Trump is a Nazi sympathizer.

"I don't think he's a Nazi, but I think he's a Nazi sympathizer" -- because he also called out a terrorist group that has been terrorizing his supporters throughout the year. One of these terrorists was convicted of conspiring to gas a deploraball attended by regular Trump supporters -- the same guy showed up at this rally and videotaped one of his cronies assaulting a reporter while he smirked.

http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/convicted-disrupt-j20-organizer-still-willing-to-do-whatever-it-takes-to-stop-trump-agenda-video/

There's not one iota of evidence that Trump is a Nazi sympathizer but you definitely sympathize with antifa terrorists who plot to gas Trump voters and assault reporters.

The Admiral posted...

cuteandkawaii posted...

The Admiral posted...

and many were there because of the statue removal.

Only associating with neo-nazis, but not a neo-nazi...

sounds kinda iffy.

Just like the protesters at a BLM rally who march alongside black supremacists, right?

Can't exactly cherry pick your "guilt by association" arguments.

I think Ben Shapiro is supposed to speak at Berkeley within the next month or so and will likely be protested by Antifa. I'm not counting on it, but I would hope that those who stand along aside Antifa will be ostracized. Because all the decent people on the left who simply don't like conservative ideas should immediately leave when people in masks who use violence and destruction to silence people they don't like start showing up.
---

Ammonitida posted...

"I don't think he's a Nazi, but I think he's a Nazi sympathizer" -- because he also called out a terrorist group that has been terrorizing his supporters throughout the year. One of these terrorists was convicted of conspiring to gas a deploraball attended by regular Trump supporters -- the same guy showed up at this rally and videotaped one of his cronies assaulting a reporter while he smirked.

http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/convicted-disrupt-j20-organizer-still-willing-to-do-whatever-it-takes-to-stop-trump-agenda-video/

There's not one iota of evidence that Trump is a Nazi sympathizer but you definitely sympathize with antifa terrorists who plot to gas Trump voters and assault reporters.

This post is so scummy I almost didn't respond to it.

Almost.

I think Trump is a Nazi sympathizer because in a scenario where a widely dangerous and widespread extremist group killed someone, he felt it necessary to call attention to the much lesser actions perpetrated by the group that was there in response to them.

Some of what antifa did in the city was wrong. Much of what they've done outside of Charlottesville is unquestionably wrong and meritorious of condemnation, but we weren't discussing that. Admiral has spent a great deal of energy drawing attention to the improvised flamethrower one of them created. At this point, I see no defense for that. But what the white supremacists did was a thousand times worse, and equating the two is fundamentally a red herring with one purpose--reducing the guilt of the greater evil.

Criticizing 'all sides' in this scenario is the worst example of "same thing both sides" possible, because while neither side is pure and innocent, the crimes of one side vastly dwarf the crimes of the other. Again: someone died.

When a person is killed, you don't talk about how they had it coming because their friends were provoking their murderer. You talk about their murder and why it was wrong, and the rest of it is left out because it would distract from their murder. Unless you want to distract from their murder.

Lastly, calling me an antifa sympathizer based on no evidence at all is simply an ad hominem argument, and nobody should ever take you seriously when you do this. It's the last resort of a person who's run out of arguments or the first resort of a dedicated troll. I know which you are. It's also less important than whether Trump is one, because I don't lead America.
---

The Admiral posted...

cuteandkawaii posted...

The Admiral posted...

and many were there because of the statue removal.

Only associating with neo-nazis, but not a neo-nazi...

sounds kinda iffy.

Just like the protesters at a BLM rally who march alongside black supremacists, right?

Can't exactly cherry pick your "guilt by association" arguments.

You've done exactly that in the past.
---

treewojima posted...

Gamer99z posted...

GOATTHlEF posted...

boxington posted...

this is a bad topic, even for you

---

Darkman124 posted...

Ammonitida posted...

"I don't think he's a Nazi, but I think he's a Nazi sympathizer" -- because he also called out a terrorist group that has been terrorizing his supporters throughout the year. One of these terrorists was convicted of conspiring to gas a deploraball attended by regular Trump supporters -- the same guy showed up at this rally and videotaped one of his cronies assaulting a reporter while he smirked.

http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/convicted-disrupt-j20-organizer-still-willing-to-do-whatever-it-takes-to-stop-trump-agenda-video/

There's not one iota of evidence that Trump is a Nazi sympathizer but you definitely sympathize with antifa terrorists who plot to gas Trump voters and assault reporters.

This post is so scummy I almost didn't respond to it.

Almost.

I think Trump is a Nazi sympathizer because in a scenario where a widely dangerous and widespread extremist group killed someone, he felt it necessary to call attention to the much lesser actions perpetrated by the group that was there in response to them.

Some of what antifa did in the city was wrong. Much of what they've done outside of Charlottesville is unquestionably wrong and meritorious of condemnation, but we weren't discussing that. Admiral has spent a great deal of energy drawing attention to the improvised flamethrower one of them created. At this point, I see no defense for that. But what the white supremacists did was a thousand times worse, and equating the two is fundamentally a red herring with one purpose--reducing the guilt of the greater evil.

Criticizing 'all sides' in this scenario is the worst example of "same thing both sides" possible, because while neither side is pure and innocent, the crimes of one side vastly dwarf the crimes of the other. Again: someone died.

When a person is killed, you don't talk about how they had it coming because their friends were provoking their murderer. You talk about their murder and why it was wrong, and the rest of it is left out because it would distract from their murder. Unless you want to distract from their murder.

Lastly, calling me an antifa sympathizer based on no evidence at all is simply an ad hominem argument, and nobody should ever take you seriously when you do this. It's the last resort of a person who's run out of arguments or the first resort of a dedicated troll. I know which you are. It's also less important than whether Trump is one, because I don't lead America.

Pathetic. You're ignoring that antifa has been assaulting his supporters throughout the fucking year including plotting mass gas attacks with acidic fumes. They've nearly killed people on several occasions. Trump is aware of this and has tweeted about this violence in the past. I'm sure that was on his mind when he learned about the violence at this rally. In fact, those very TERRORISTS who plotted that gas attack attended this rally as "counter-protestors" and committed even more assaults. Not on Nazis, but on reporters who dared to record their violence. They're scum and the left wing has been defending them.

He called attention to the hate on many sides, as he should have. He condemned all of it. Not just the violence at that rally but at other rallies in which these left-wing idiots attacked his voters. Then he specifically singled out Neo-Nazis for condemnation. Only after reporters pressed him on that "many sides" comment was he forced to focus on "one side" and defend himself.

None of that makes him a "Nazi sympathizer". That's utterly bullshit and you know it.