LDS Church denounces racism

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Mike said:

The only one of the four that seems even remotely applicable in the context of this thread is number one, which is problematic to determine before the fact. And of course all items in the list are based upon experiences that made the justifications obvious. Without resort to legal counsel since you and I are not experts does it seem to you that a clear and present danger to others exists when participants such as those in Charlottesville are involved?

If you want to make a point.  Make it.  I'm not playing pedagogue with you.  I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that with me.  That really is rude.

[anatess2]

50 minutes ago, Mike said:

So you're saying that the unwanted outcome of Heather Heyer's murder was EXACTLY desired (by someone)? 

The events leading to Heather Heyer's murder including the attention given to the neo-nazis and KKK are exactly the desired outcome.  The murder was icing on the cake as it allowed the major networks to do wall-to-wall 100% coverage (never before seen in the history of the US since 9/11).  Note that the Scalise baseball practice shooting barely made a ripple in the news cycle last June.

The next question would be... why would they desire 100% coverage?

Edited August 17, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

57 minutes ago, Godless said:

And he lets it happen. If he spent half as much energy attacking neo-Nazis as he does attacking CNN and the New York Times (and Nordstrom, and Merck, and well, you see where I'm going with this), I think the David Dukes and Richard Spencers of the world would have a very different view of his relationship to their cause. His combination of silence and weak, scripted remarks make it hard not to perceive him as an ally to white supremacists. 

You are a victim of Fake News.  And that's why the Fake News is more dangerous than the KKK and the neo-Nazis combined.

Here.  Watch this:

 

@NeuroTypical.  What did I tell ya about being called neo-Nazi regardless of your vehement statements to the contrary?  Am I right or what?

Edited August 17, 2017 by anatess2

[Mike]

27 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

And I'm sure that you perceive Obama as an ally to islamic terrorism since not once in his 8 years, despite tens of thousands of murders worldwide, including no small number in our own country, he never denounced them once.  Right?

I agree with you that President Obama erred in failing for example to call Islamic Extremism for what it is. Since President Trump does not make that particular mistake, don't you think it's more productive to call him out, since he *is* the current occupant, on failures in his own right at calling what is definitely without doubt home-grown terrorism for what it is? 

Edited August 17, 2017 by Mike

[Mike]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

If you want to make a point.  Make it.  I'm not playing pedagogue with you.  I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that with me.  That really is rude.

I see. I'm sorry to have done so. 

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Mike said:

I agree with you that President Obama erred in failing for example to call Islamic Extremism for what it is. Since President Trump does not make that particular mistake, don't you think it's more productive to call him out, since he *is* the current occupant, on failures in his own right at calling what is definitely without doubt home-grown terrorism for what it is? 

Exactly how did he fail to do that?  Did you watch the press conferences?  There were several of them where he did all the "calling out" as you call it.

Edited August 17, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, Mike said:

I agree with you that President Obama erred in failing for example to call Islamic Extremism for what it is. Since President Trump does not make that particular mistake, don't you think it's more productive to call him out, since he *is* the current occupant, on failures in his own right at calling what is definitely without doubt home-grown terrorism for what it is? 

Trump can't win. If he says something sensible, the Trumperdoodles will say he sold out. If he says something that reminds us all of our drunk uncle at a party-the left will go nuts. If he acts like a grown up and says nothing, everyone gets angry at him for saying nothing. 

[anatess2]

50 minutes ago, Mike said:

The only one of the four that seems even remotely applicable in the context of this thread is number one, which is problematic to determine before the fact. And of course all items in the list are based upon experiences that made the justifications obvious. Without resort to legal counsel since you and I are not experts does it seem to you that a clear and present danger to others exists when participants such as those in Charlottesville are involved?

I'll pick this up for @Carborendum if I may.

One cannot curtail the free speech of an individual or a group - not even when it is agreed upon by everybody that it is "Hate Speech" - for fear that a counter-protest is going to be present and violence may erupt.  This is called Heckler's Veto and there are case laws on it.

Basically, you can't remove rights by prophecy.

In this sense, the USA free speech principle is the most free there is anywhere on the planet.

 

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by anatess2

[NeuroTypical]

27 minutes ago, Mike said:

I agree with you that President Obama erred in failing for example to call Islamic Extremism for what it is. Since President Trump does not make that particular mistake, don't you think it's more productive to call him out, since he *is* the current occupant, on failures in his own right at calling what is definitely without doubt home-grown terrorism for what it is? 

1. It's a 'check your bias' moment for a lot of people.  Some folks harp on political person X for doing something so utterly horrible, so inconceivably unforgivable, and then they think for the first time about how political person Y did stuff far, far worse for far, far longer.  And it never dawned on them until that moment to even think about it in that light, well, they've got silly blinders on and their lives would be better spend with them off.  (Not saying you are like that, Mike, but a crapton of people are.)

2. If we're going to call dood and his car an example of home-grown terrorism, that's fine.  It's still appropriate to think about Antifa and elements of BLM in that light as well.  (And again, Obama invited BLM leaders into the white house.  And never called Islamic militant killings in the US what they were.)

3. Productive is to have perspective.  Maybe 3000 neo-Nazis and KKK folks in the whole country.  How many organized BLM violent professional rioters get bussed around from place to place?  How many cop killings spawned from BLM ideologies?  How many paramilitary Black Panthers threaten violence at voting centers?  

Yeah, Godless' "hard not to perceive him as an ally to white supremacists" comment gets less and less valid, the more in-context it becomes.

Edited August 17, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[person0]

I find this political cartoon applicable to the topic of discussion, and one that establishes an important truth:

[Guest Godless]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

And I'm sure that you perceive Obama as an ally to islamic terrorism since not once in his 8 years, despite tens of thousands of murders worldwide, including no small number in our own country, he never denounced them once.  Right?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/14/statement-president-trump

 

My thoughts on Obama's soft-handed approach to addressing Islamic terrorism is well-documented on this forum. I've also addressed the reality that peaceful Muslims too often get lumped in with their extremist counterparts, an association that white people are generally able to avoid. Thus, the issue of Islamic terrorism is one that should be approached delicately, and I don't think that either Obama or Trump have taken the right approach. If anyone came close to finding that middle ground in condemning Islamic terrorism without painting a target on peaceful Muslims, it was Bush. 

As for Trump's statement on Monday, that came two days after he botched his first opportunity to unequivocally denounce white supremacist groups and activities in the US. And he's dedicated quite a bit of time and energy since Monday to act as an apologist for the alt-right. His statement on Monday was well-written, clear, and strong. It's a pity that it took him two days to make that statement, and significantly less time to undermine it afterward.  

[JoCa]

I fall very much in line with 

if this viewpoint, as someone who enjoys European culture and enjoys my heritage of this country, where my ancestors came from, etc. and makes me part of  "white supremacy" or racist or under condemnation from the Church that I love so much. Whelp as David Farragut said "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead".  Maybe I just ain't fit for whatever this new modern age is.
 

Edited August 18, 2017 by JoCa

[JoCa]

And lest there be any doubt.  When I talk heritage I mean:

http://www.waaytv.com/story/36162583/southern-anger-nazis-kkk-hijacking-confederate-debate

"When I was growing up it was like a badge of honor to be proud of your Southern heritage. It was taught and it was part of who you were," said Castello, 58. "To see it denigrated down to the point of Nazis is disgusting."

Amen brother, preach on, preach on!

[anatess2]

13 hours ago, JoCa said:

I fall very much in line with 

if this viewpoint, as someone who enjoys European culture and enjoys my heritage of this country, where my ancestors came from, etc. and makes me part of  "white supremacy" or racist or under condemnation from the Church that I love so much. Whelp as David Farragut said "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead".  Maybe I just ain't fit for whatever this new modern age is.
 

Unfortunately, this caused Faith Goldy to get canned from Rebel Media.  Ezra told her specifically not to cover Charlottesville for her safety and Faith went anyway (understandable).  Faith's wrong move was to then publish her piece on The Daily Stormer (a neo-nazi platform).  Ezra had no other choice but to can her.

[anatess2]

16 hours ago, Godless said:

As for Trump's statement on Monday, that came two days after he botched his first opportunity to unequivocally denounce white supremacist groups and activities in the US.

Really?  Are you sure you're not just taking the Fake News' word for it?

You have a  problem with THIS statement?  Made on August 12 (not 2 days later like you claim)?  Because he condemned the violence on MANY sides and not just neo-Nazis?  REALLY???  So you're going to give Antifa a pass, huh?  YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A PARTISAN HACK.  And you are part of the problem/  Even Heyer's own mother praised Trump's statements.

 

Edited August 18, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

12 hours ago, JoCa said:

 "To see it denigrated down to the point of Nazis is disgusting."

Which is kinda funny because the Southern heritage was left-wing.  So, I guess now we can now put this to bed that the Nazis are not right-wing after all? 

 

Edited August 18, 2017 by anatess2

[NeuroTypical]

Yep, if the right has problems with neo-Nazis in their midst...

[Guest Godless]

28 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Really?  Are you sure you're not just taking the Fake News' word for it?

Really. I watched that statement in its entirety the day Trump made it. I don't need the media to tell me what to think of it. As it turns out, my thoughts immediately went to this:

 

28 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You have a  problem with THIS statement?  Made on August 12 (not 2 days later like you claim)?  Because he condemned the violence on MANY sides and not just neo-Nazis?  REALLY???  So you're going to give Antifa a pass, huh?  YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A PARTISAN HACK.  And you are part of the problem/  Even Heyer's own mother praised Trump's statements.

I got my statements right. The statement you posted had potential, but failed to call out the hate groups unequivocally and by name (and yes, that includes Antifa). He didn't do that until two days later (in the statement @NeuroTypical referenced here) after taking a tremendous amount of heat (from "many sides", if you will) for his lack of clarity in his first statement. It should also be noted that David Duke and The Daily Stormer were singing Trump's praises after the first statement because he failed to name them. When I said that Trump was making himself an ally to white supremacists, that's what I was referring to. It took him two days to denounce white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and KKK sympathizers by name. Two days after he blew a perfect opportunity to declare in no uncertain terms that those groups are enemies to everything America stands for. 

And yes, I have very clear biases. I'm not going to deny it. I don't condone the methods and ideologies of Antifa, and I have no problem with the president and others denouncing them, so long as they name and condemn the white supremacist groups as well. I don't like Antifa. I do, however, see them as the lesser of two evils in this scenario. I don't condone violence, but it's hard for me to completely condemn a group that acts violently towards white supremacists. It's wrong, I know, but right now overt displays of racism are my bigger concern. "Enemy of my enemy" and whatnot. In case you couldn't tell, I have very strong feelings towards white supremacists, and racism in general. It would be nice to see that kind of outrage from our president. 

[NeuroTypical]

Hi Godless, care to comment on the clips from this video, one going back 17 years?

 

[Just_A_Guy]

On 8/16/2017 at 11:30 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

@eddified, as it pertains to her specifically I have three thoughts:

First, hit birds flutter.  If she didn't think the Church was talking about her with its references to white supremacy, why'd she react so viscerally to their statement?

Second, she's palling around with people who are overtly white supremacists.  She was apparently on the speaker roster at Charlottesville but cancelled at the last minute due to security concerns.  She routinely retweets white supremacists who champion ideas she claims (when outsiders are watching) not to embrace.  Moreover, she herself has challenged her readers to produce white babies.  Notice that--she doesn't encourage *adopting* babies of other ethnicities and *raising* them in "white culture".  The babies themselves must be white.

And third:  while much of the things we love about American civic culture may have been pioneered and developed by Europeans or "whites", I disagree with the notion that those attributes are supposed to remain "white".  Individual liberty, rule of law, limited government, self-sufficiency, "Protestant" work ethic--these values should be viewed as divine inspiration, entrusted first to their earthly promulgators for distribution to the entire world regardless of race.  WWP ought to be advocating these virtues on their own merits, rather than defending them on the basis of the racial identity of their earliest practitioners.

So, I came across an article last night that makes my third point much more eloquently than I did.  Well worth a read, imho:  

http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/18/no-thing-white-cultural-heritage-wests-legacy-open/

[AnthonyB2]

Just_A_Guy,

Thanks the article was very good.

BTW If you have ever wondered, what a left leaning Trump figure would be like, Billy Hughes, Australia's WW1 PM would be a great fit, although he was probably much more witty then Trump....Quote from an article I found....
 

Quote

 

my favorite anecdote being when he was in the role of enfant terrible as a member of the British Empire Delegation to the Peace Conference in 1919, and was striving to secure German New Guinea as a mandated territory of Australia, in a bid to help improve the security of Australia’s northern seaboard. His dialogue with the US President Woodrow Wilson ( the two men did not get on) is believed to have taken the following format, with David Lloyd George attempting to referee the confrontation:

Wilson:“Do I understand that Australia in the face of the wishes of the world would insist upon having her own way?” Hughes: “That’s about the size of it, Mr. President.”

Wilson continued: “Do you think 5 million Australians should hold to ransom the 1,200 million represented by the Conference”. Hughes: “I speak for sixty thousand (war) dead. For how many do you speak?” which as everyone knew was more than Wilson did.   Trying to defuse the situation, Lloyd George only sent it further into the depths of farce, asking:

“Would you allow missionaries free access to New Guinea?” Hughes responded: “Of course, I understand these poor people are very short of food, and for some time past they have not had enough missionaries.”  Little wonder perhaps that Wilson described Hughes as a “pestiferous varmint”.