New Mob, Same As The Old Mob, Just More "Tan"
Per the Cuban restaurant owner, several BLM protesters presented him with the letter with their "list of demands and said he 'better put the letter on the door so your business is not f*cked with.'"
Quote from an article in the Louisville Courier-Journal by Bailey Loosemore:
Members of Louisville's Cuban community plan to gather Sunday in support of a NuLu restaurant owner who says he was threatened by Black Lives Matter protesters during a recent demonstration.Fernando Martinez, a partner of the Olé Restaurant Group, was one of dozens of business owners in the downtown Louisville district who recently received a letter from protesters laying out demands that aim to improve diversity in the area, which is known for its locally-owned shops and restaurants.
Martinez has publicly denounced the demands on Facebook, calling them "mafia tactics" used to intimidate business owners. And on Thursday, a small group of protesters confronted him outside his newest restaurant, La Bodeguita de Mima, on East Market Street.
"There comes a time in life that you have to make a stand and you have to really prove your convictions and what you believe in," Martinez wrote in his Facebook post. "... All good people need to denounce this. How can you justified (sic) injustice with more injustice?"
...(A press) release states that La Bodeguita de Mima was forced to close July 24 during a demonstration that shut down East Market Street, at which several protesters presented Martinez with the list of demands and said he "better put the letter on the door so your business is not f*cked with."
The restaurant remained closed the next two days because "management and staff were concerned about safety," according to the release. "30+ staff members (mostly immigrants) were unable to earn a paycheck."
The demands:
•Adequately represent the Black population of Louisville by having a minimum of 23% Black staff;•Purchase a minimum of 23% inventory from Black retailers or make a recurring monthly donation of 1.5% of net sales to a local Black nonprofit or organization;
•Require diversity and inclusion training for all staff members on a bi-annual basis;
•And display a visible sign that increases awareness and shows support for the reparations movement.
Once again, we see grabs for unearned power over others dressed up as "social justice." Those of us who aren't drinking the "woke" Kool Aid see this for the race-driven theft, bullying, and thuggery it is.
Taking on just one of the above points, it's very hard for restaurants to stay afloat, especially in these COVID times. I would just hope that restaurants can buy from retailers who sell at prices low enough for them to make enough of a profit to stay in business.
That's what it means to be not a racist but a human who cares about her "co-humans" (my term from "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck"), and who sees skin color after common humanity (along with hair color, shoe color and any other incidentals about a person).
"This looks like a good shoot-em-up", my neighbor said, handing me a bag of Fatty Crunchy Snax. "Let's watch".
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 5, 2020 11:47 PM
(sarcasm)
How can that be?
Artemis has repeatedly told us that BLM it is concerned solely with injustice and police brutality.
He's also repeatedly told us that he forms his views based only on "facts." So, since this runs counter to to what "facts only" Artie insists BLM is all about, these extortionists must have been some of those white supremacists he says are the ones really causing all the trouble at those peaceful BLM protests.
(/sarcasm)
On a serious note:
Whether the folks making these demands actually represent the local chapter of BLM is not stated; just that they were in a BLM-sponsored or affiliated demonstration. However, the extortionists used the BLM imprimatur in their demands and it will be up to BLM to condemn the extortion, if not condoning it. If it doesn't condemn it, then the extortion is being done with the implicit consent of BLM.
We've yet to hear BLM condemn the looting and violence being done at their demonstrations nation-wide, so don't hold your breath.
BLM strikes me as a loose coalition only lately beginning to coalesce; meaning some, if not most, of the violence is being done by affiliated BLM entities and membership, probably under very little actual control by the national or local leadership. It's up to that leadership to clarify and enforce the mission of BLM. If not, violence and mayhem will be its de facto mission.
Dozens. Extortion on a mass scale. Don Corleone would be proud.
A "local black organization?" Like, say, yours? "Nice little business you got here. Be a shame if something were to happen to it." Where have we heard that before?
On average restaurants make only about a 3-5% net profit. This is not a rich neighborhood, so I'd guess the profit margin is closer to 3%. So, in demanding 1.5% of net sales, these guys are extorting roughly half the profits.
Net sales are gross sales less allowances, returns, and discounts. Net sales does not include cost of goods sold (i.e., the cost of the food); nor does it include labor and overhead (rent, taxes, etc.).
Add that extortion to the fierce competition and cyclicality of the restaurant business and this could put a serious dent into the willingness of restauranteurs to open a restaurant in that neighborhood. Hope the residents enjoy eating fast food and convenience store take-out.
Encouraging the restaurants to hire more black people or asking them to help develop a training program so black neighborhood residents have the skills to work in a restaurant would have been a less mafia way of achieving the diversity the extortionists claim is their true goal.
Interesting point (or not): the poisoned drink at the Jonestown complex was actually made with Flavor Aid, not Kool-Aid, but over the years, "drink the Kool-Aid" has become the standard figure of speech. "Drink the Flavor Aid" just doesn't have the same oomph.
Conan the Grammarian at August 6, 2020 6:50 AM
They fucking around with Cubans? bold strategy, let's see how that plays out.
https://twitter.com/PaulGamesAlot/status/1289256907652259842
I R A Darth Aggie at August 6, 2020 7:37 AM
Don Corleone would be aghast. It made the news. You've pulled the spotlight on yourselves.
I R A Darth Aggie at August 6, 2020 7:46 AM
Don Corleone would be aghast. It made the news. You've pulled the spotlight on yourselves.
I R A Darth Aggie at August 6, 2020 7:46 AM
This is extortion, and I would report it to the FBI. It is the kind of behavior that could lead to a successful RICO case, that would seize the assets of ActBlue (because ActBlue, the Democratic Party slush fund, is who gets the money people donate to BLM.org).
I also urge any employee anywhere who is forced to attend "diversity and inclusion training" to file a complaint of hostile-environment racial harassment. Which should be an open-and-shut case unless you draw a prejudiced judge.
jdgalt at August 6, 2020 8:34 AM
Hm. I wonder if the local black-owned soul food restaurant will be only 23% black. If everyone is sticking to percents (22.2%) of the city is Black, so that 23% is advantageous, that is only fair.
Jen at August 6, 2020 8:37 AM
Will the looters stop to examine the books and employment records before throwing bricks through the window?
Perhaps there could be a BLM-affiliated folks in brown or Black shirts going around and marking businesses that fail to comply; perhaps with a yellow star. That way, when the November Porgroms begin, everyone will know which businesses to loot and destroy.
Conan the Grammarian at August 6, 2020 9:05 AM
Typically you get a sticker or poster to put on the front of your business. Usually it has some vague leftwing political statement on it.
Ben at August 6, 2020 9:15 AM
Well I was wondering what would happen if a group of Latinos came out with Latino Lives Matter, aside from mainstream media hiding it.
Joe j at August 6, 2020 9:30 AM
Overt extortion is illegal. This seems as overt as it gets. More overt than mafia thugs (who know their business better). A cuban immigrant can start a business but local blacks can't? why not?
I bet the local media won't cover this extortion or will act like it is ok. Just like someone I just talked to who denies that there are violent protesters.
cc at August 6, 2020 12:23 PM
Or the DAs office will refuse to prosecute. We've seen lots of mayors telling their police to not stop violent people. Telling their DAs to do the same seems reasonable.
Ben at August 6, 2020 2:27 PM
Conan Says:
"Artemis has repeatedly told us that BLM it is concerned solely with injustice and police brutality."
Why are you utterly incapable of understanding nuance when it doesn't suit your purposes?
I've never insisted that every member of BLM is *solely* concerned with injustice and police brutality.
That is their primary mission statement... and since it isn't some homogeneous group there are bound to be folks who act outside of the norm.
You inherently understand this when it comes to many other movements.
For example it would be stupid for someone to look specifically at well documented instances of law enforcement engaging in criminal activity and then suddenly argue "I thought you said law enforcement was concerned solely with upholding the law".
Similarly it would be stupid for someone to to look specifically at well documented instances of pro-life advocates murdering abortion providers and then suddenly arguing "I thought you said pro-life folks were concerned solely with the preservation of live".
These aren't "gotcha" statements unless you can demonstrate that the bad actors are representative of the group or movement as a whole.
The BLM folks are primarily represented by people interested in things like injustice and police brutality... I have never once used the word *solely* anywhere in the context you dishonestly assert I have.
Why start being honest now though when you've been lying constantly for so many years.
If it is possible for officers of the law to violate the law from time to time and not be regarded as a criminal enterprise (which it shouldn't be)... then it should be possible for some self described members of BLM to operate outside of the core principles from time to time and not be considered representative of the organization as a whole.
What is amazing to me is that in our previous conversation you insisted that neo-nazi's were primarily interested in preserving historical statues despite their actual mission statement being to eliminate and subjugate so-called "inferior" races.
You just mix up and jumble core principles with ancillary behaviors as it suits you from one moment to the next.
What you are engaging in here is a hallmark of tribalism Conan... and it is clearer and clearer every day what tribe you believe you belong to and whose water you want to carry.
You don't have to be that person.
Artemis at August 6, 2020 3:03 PM
Law enforcement has an internal Affairs Bureau whose job it is to root out that corruption and illegal behavior - i.e., the behavior that deviates from law enforcement's stated objectives. In addition, law enforcement agencies are answerable to an elected government for any misbehavior.
BLM's leadership, both national and local, is ignoring deviations from what you say are its stated objectives, and thus tacitly endorsing those actions. Meanwhile, it's leadership has been publicly advocating positions and objectives very different from what you say are its stated objectives
When an influential BLM leader says they will "burn the system down" and you say they only want to protest injustice, there's a disconnect. I'll take the BLM leadership's word on what it wants over yours.
When a national BLM leader, the founder actually, says she admires Nicolas Maduro because he stands for freedom and democracy and invites him to address her organization, it's not tribalism to suspect that she's got a political agenda that goes beyond simply protesting injustice.
Artie, you keep your eyes and ears firmly closed and keep telling yourself that BLM is a benevolent organization that only wants to protest injustice. The rest of us can see what's clearly in front of us; we can see the burning buildings, hear the chants of "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon," and hear the crickets as we wait for BLM leaders to condemn the violence and mayhem being committed in its name. We can hear (and read on BLM's own Web site) the advocacy of left-wing political positions - disruption of the idea of the nuclear family, advocation for transgenderism, and dismantling "cisgender privilege."
Like most political movements, BLM has evolved and is no longer concerned solely with police misconduct.
Conan the Grammarian at August 6, 2020 4:26 PM
"What you are engaging in here is a hallmark of tribalism "
Like when the Ute and Navajo enslaved the Paiutes, or when the Crips and the Bloods kill each other in the streets, or when the Lutherans and the Methodists cheat at the inter-faith bingo tournament.
That sort of thing. Same-same.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 6, 2020 4:28 PM
That is not at all what I said, and you know it! Not even close. Way to distort things there, Artie. Don't even try to link me to neo-Nazis or say I defended their cause or downplayed the evil they represent.
You're flinging some mighty reckless accusations around there. Now I know why you zealously hoard any information about yourself and don't want anyone to be able to deduce where you live. I'm guessing you were the kid in school spreading half truths and lies, and getting beaten up at recess for spreading them.
Conan the Grammarian at August 6, 2020 4:48 PM
Conan Says:
"In addition, law enforcement agencies are answerable to an elected government for any misbehavior."
BLM people are citizens answerable to law enforcement.
Why are you operating under the presumption that these folks run the show?
You are arguing that we have mechanisms to hold law enforcement officials accountable... but regular citizens are able to just operate as they wish.
"BLM's leadership, both national and local, is ignoring deviations from what you say are its stated objectives, and thus tacitly endorsing those actions."
These are private citizens Conan... they don't report to some central agency and they cannot be fired.
You are holding BLM to an entirely different standard than any right wing movement I have seen you comment on.
Why weren't the standard bearers of the pro-life movement able to prevent members of their group from murdering people?
Let's get real for a moment.
People associated with pro-life groups have MURDERED people... and you don't condemn the entire pro-life movement for it or call them a cancer on society.
These BLM folks wrote a letter... they just wrote a letter.
In my opinion it is a stupid letter and doesn't actually serve their primary goals... but it is just a stupid letter.
You are willing to give the pro-life movement a pass when members MURDER people... but when BLM folks send someone a letter you don't approve of you lose your mind.
Artemis at August 6, 2020 5:39 PM
Conan Says:
"You're flinging some mighty reckless accusations around there."
Cut the shit Conan... when you post things on the internet they stay where they are and can be used to compare your stances on various issues.
Here is what you had to say about BLM just the other day:
"BLM is not trying to cure breast cancer. It is the cancer. The BLM folks are the ones stirring up anger and violence." - Conan the Grammarian at August 3, 2020 8:32 PM
This is what you has to say about white supremacists in Charlottesville back in 2017:
"The white nationalists in Charlottesville lost any pretext of a moral high ground when James Allen Fields drove his car into the crowd." - Conan the Grammarian at August 16, 2017 9:12 AM
You don't notice a different in your rhetoric here Conan?
So far as your statements are concerned apparently the neo-Nazi's who gathered for a rally back in 2017 had a stance consistent with a "moral high ground" and only lost if *after* someone tried and succeeded in murdering someone.
It took murder for them to lose the moral high ground in your eyes.
For BLM however, you never even talk about them in the context of having any legitimate issues at all... they are just a cancer... a disease.
The neo-Nazi's weren't a cancer... they just lost their moral high ground when one of them drove through a crowd of defenseless people and murdered someone.
You aren't applying even remotely the same standards.
Even in this thread you are deeply upset about a letter you happen not to like.
Letter = cancer... murder = lost high ground
Those are your words Conan, I didn't make it up.
Here is more evidence of your nonsense double standards though.
"No, "murder" has a specific legal definition and Breonna's death, while tragic, does not fit that definition." - Conan the Grammarian at August 4, 2020 4:58 AM
Great, so you are going to be a dictionary stickler and beat the BLM folks over the head with a technicality instead of empathizing with their outrage over an innocent person being shot 8 times when all she was doing was sleeping inside of her own home.
Yet... here you are talking about abortion:
"For instance, an abortion ban with exceptions for rape and incest is not inconsistent with the view that abortion is, in general, murder." - Conan the Grammarian at April 26, 2017 10:42 AM
Amazing isn't it?
Abortion doesn't fit the specific legal definition of murder either... and yet you are perfectly fine with it's usage in this case.
You are okay with people viewing abortion as murder... but when BLM folks view Breonna's death as murder suddenly you become a stickler on definitions.
That you may honestly believe you hold right wing and left wing movements to the same standards may be true... that the evidence clearly demonstrates that you do not is also true.
That is a reality you are going to have to learn to live with, or learn to change about yourself.
Artemis at August 6, 2020 6:10 PM
Doesn't matter what your opinion about the letter is. It's carried the BLM imprimatur and it's what they said they stand for. What matters is what they say their primary goals are, not what you say they are. BLM leadership, local or national, did not dispute the letter and condemn it, nor has it condemned the other violence and mayhem done in BLM's name.
I have never given anyone who murders people "a pass." Not the pro-life movement, nor BLM, nor neo-Nazis.
You're really stretching the truth here, Artie. Even for you, this is an egregious misrepresentation of the viewpoints of people who disagree with you.
When a Wichita abortion doctor was murdered by a pro-life advocate, the condemnation from pro-life organizations was quick:
AND
Is it so wrong to ask BLM to do the same?
Conan the Grammarian at August 6, 2020 6:12 PM
Wow, Artie, you really are obsessed with me.
If I wanted to find something someone on this forum posted even last year, I'd be hard-pressed to find it. Amy's search function isn't that detailed. You've got my old posts ready at-hand.
That's a bit stalker-ey, Artie. You should probably talk to your therapist about that.
Conan the Grammarian at August 6, 2020 6:18 PM
Conan,
I don't use Amy's search function... google works just fine and I can find old quotes by you or anyone else on any subject on this blog in seconds.
I don't have them ready at-hand... I just know how to use the internet.
Artemis at August 6, 2020 6:40 PM
Conan Says:
"Is it so wrong to ask BLM to do the same?"
If you spent even 1 second searching the internet you would find they have condemned violence and vandalism at protests... you just don't care because it doesn't fit the narrative you want, below are just 2 examples:
https://kutv.com/news/local/utah-black-lives-matter-leaders-condemn-violence-and-vandalism-at-protests
https://time.com/4400330/st-paul-protests-philando-castile-black-lives-matter/
The issue at play here is that you don't actively seek out information that disconfirms what you want to believe.
Artemis at August 6, 2020 7:35 PM
Not that I'm trying to provoke Conan. When it comes to Conan v. Artemis, I'm firmly on Conan's side.
But...
I don't BLM was ever concerned solely with police misconduct. Let's not forget that the event that supposedly started BLM (according to them) didn't involve police.
As far as their escalation of tactics, I'm starting to think that they are intentionally provoking law enforcement because they recognize that it's an established fact that blacks are not singled out for killing by the police -- in fact, based on encounters with police, whites are actually slightly more likely to die than blacks -- they're trying to prove their own premise.
Patrick at August 7, 2020 4:34 AM
Patrick Says:
"Not that I'm trying to provoke Conan."
The very fact that you feel you needed to say something like this prior to disagreeing with someone implies that you don't think they are psychologically resilient enough to deal with criticism.
Nothing you said involved personal insults... nothing you said is even that far off from his position.
You literally are expressing disagreement over one word... "evolved"... and yet you have concluded that even that most mild of differences in perspective is enough to potentially set Conan off.
Stop operating like you are in some kind of abusive relationship where you need to walk on egg shells.
If you disagree with someone just express yourself and stick to the facts... it's really pathetic that you feel the need to prostrate yourself in advance of talking to another adult on the internet.
What exactly are you afraid Conan is going to do to you if he is "provoked"?
Artemis at August 7, 2020 5:08 AM
Context, Artie, context. Again, you cherry picked part of a post out of context.
Let's look at my full quote (I've italicized the part you quoted):
Hmm. My comment seems a bit more condemnatory in the whole than it does in the small part of it you cherry-picked, Artie.
Conan the Grammarian at August 7, 2020 7:51 AM
I'd like to see the full statement. But when your rejection of violence contains the line “Destroying property and setting fires cannot be your only activism.” followed by "We have seen the damage in Salt Lake City. We have heard people blaming us for that damage. We have not seen people care about black lives, as much as they care about damage to buildings."
This isn't condemnation of violence. They appear to be clearly stating that the Salt Lake City BLM chapter views arson as an acceptable activity. One they approve of. Just that you need to do more than just arson.
Ben at August 7, 2020 7:53 AM
Conan,
There is no "context" that adjusts the meaning of your words Conan.
My point was and is that you don't measure BLM and white supremacists with the same measuring stick.
The point isn't that you are all in favor of neo-Nazi's... it is that you seem to have more of a soft spot for them that isn't at all justified.
Show me an example of when you talk about BLM ever having a "moral high ground"... or indicating that you think they can gain "even a smidgen of legitimacy"?
You have out and out called BLM a cancer... but for you the KKK was apparently redeemable up until the point they supported the murder of an innocent person.
You do realize that historically speaking this wasn't the first time white nationalists murdered someone, right?
And yet here you are in this thread losing your shit over a letter some BLM folks wrote.
Your standard for writing off white nationalists is a recent murder (historical murders weren't sufficient to have them already on the ash heap of history)... but BLM is a cancer and your evidence is a piece of stationary.
Context doesn't help you here... nor does it help you in your disparate standards for the use of the word "murder".
Artemis at August 7, 2020 10:02 AM
Ben Says:
"This isn't condemnation of violence."
You conveniently left out this part:
"“If we catch any members destroying property or inciting violence they will be removed from the chapter and I will testify against them myself,” said Scott."
What Scott is saying is that they have no evidence that any destruction or violence is directly related to their group... that they cannot account for each and every person who shows up in public... that if all someone is doing is destroying things that they aren't part of the movement.
They are disavowing those violent folks and stating that if they catch anyone they will personally turn them in and testify against them.
Yet this doesn't count.
Here is what tribalism gets you... any perceived imperfection from those in a different tribe is viewed in the most negative light possible... any serious flaw in ones own tribe gets glossed over and excused away with soft language.
Again... prolife people have murdered people in the past and blown up buildings, and yet no one here has called their movement a cancer or treated it with the kind of disdain you have for BLM.
That is what is known as philosophical inconsistency.
Artemis at August 7, 2020 10:47 AM
Well, Conan doesn't always understand where I'm coming from. For instance, he seemed to take umbrage when I referred to him as "Conehead." I meant it only as a term of endearment, the way Crid sometimes refers to him as "Coney," but instead, he used it as some argument for my offensive behavior.
Okay, so he dislikes being called "Conehead." Noted.
But, since Conan brought this up...
As a matter of fact, the White Nationalists did not lose the moral high ground when James Allen Fields did his despicable act, for which he was appropriately sentenced. That, in and of itself, did not discredit them. (Their responses to that act is another matter.)
His was the act of an individual who was among the White Nationalists. And as far as anyone knows, it was a spontaneous act, not planned in advance among the shakers and movers among the White Nationalists. This is distinct from the counterprotesters, who came en masse armed with baseball bats and bottles of urine. They arrived at that event with every intention of engaging in violence.
Had the White Nationalists condemned the actions of James Allen Fields, they might have retained the moral high ground. The counterprotesters, by contrast, would have a much harder time disowning their own actions. Basically, everyone did it and it was planned in advance.
Patrick at August 7, 2020 10:58 AM
Conan,
Remember the other day when I indicated that there were people on the political far right who frequented this blog and you insisted that wasn't the case... does this count?
"Had the White Nationalists condemned the actions of James Allen Fields, they might have retained the moral high ground. The counterprotesters, by contrast, would have a much harder time disowning their own actions. Basically, everyone did it and it was planned in advance."
Let's be clear on what Patrick is saying.
There were a bunch of people carrying torches chanting "blood and soil", which is a Nazi slogan... who in Patrick's estimation had the "moral high ground".
However... counter protestors to neo-Nazi's didn't have an argument for holding the "moral high ground".
You don't think this perspective is a far right one?
Conan... I think you've fallen in with a bad crowd but don't really want to see it for what it is.
Artemis at August 7, 2020 11:09 AM
No Arty. Once again you are putting your words in other people's mouths.
As for what that chapter of BLM actually said, I really want to see the whole statement. As it was presented they do not condemn property damage or violence. The statements of support negate any condemnation they gave.
Once again Arty doesn't get to decide what Scott said. Scott does.
Ben at August 7, 2020 11:14 AM
No Arty. What Patrick wrote isn't far right. You have no idea how far that right can go.
Ben at August 7, 2020 11:15 AM
Ben Says:
"No Arty. What Patrick wrote isn't far right. You have no idea how far that right can go."
So your perspective is that being a neo-Nazi sympathizer is consistent with being a mainstream conservative?
Artemis at August 7, 2020 11:21 AM
What Patrick is saying is the the White Nationalists didn't necessarily lose the moral high ground because of the actions of James Allen Fields. It was their failure to condemn it.
They might have been able to say, at least, "We weren't the ones advocating violence. We weren't the ones bring baseball bats and bottles of urine, intending to start a fight."
Let's not forget, before the counterprotesters showed up, they had one full day of protest, without incident. They presented their views -- however wrongheaded is not the issue -- as is their right.
Patrick at August 7, 2020 11:38 AM
Patrick,
Let's cut to the chase, in your opinion did the white nationalists who carry swastika flags and chant "blood and soil" while marching with lit torches in lockstep in Charlottesville ever have the "moral high ground"?
Artemis at August 7, 2020 11:45 AM
Fully expecting you to take my answer out of context, but here goes.
Yes, they did have the moral high ground.
So many, apparently yourself included, seem to think Antifa has the morally superior position. I disagree. I consider both sides equally repulsive. If both sides managed to kill each other without harm to anyone else, I would consider that a blessing that would renew my faith in God.
However, I have no problem with even the morally repulsive being allowed to air their views, while those who oppose them present their counterarguments.
The unintentionally-ironically-named Antifa does not agree with me and believes that morally repulsive ideas should not be allowed to be aired at all. And any means, including violence and destruction of property (including the property of those who have nothing to do with the White Nationists) is fair and appropriate to prevent these ideas from being aired.
I consider this incredible irony, because Antifa fails to even consider themselves as anything but moral and virtuous, failing to see that they themselves are morally repulsive.
At the very least, the White Nationalists support free speech and peaceful assembly, which is more than Antifa can say.
So, to answer your question -- which is like asking whether Hitler is morally superior to Stalin -- yes, the White Nationalist have the moral high ground when compared to Antifa.
Patrick at August 7, 2020 12:44 PM
Patrick Says:
"Yes, they did have the moral high ground."
Okay... so you can properly be defined as a neo-Nazi sympathizer.
"However, I have no problem with even the morally repulsive being allowed to air their views, while those who oppose them present their counterarguments."
Patrick... everyone should be able to air their views... but if the views are repulsive we don't refer to them holding a "moral high ground" unless we sympathize with their cause.
Let me how you how it is done:
"Statement on the Rally at the University of Virginia
I have seen tonight the images of torches on the Grounds of the University of Virginia. When I think of torches, I want to think of the Statue of Liberty. When I think of candelight, I want to think of prayer vigils. Today, in 2017, we are instead seeing a cowardly parade of hatred, bigotry, racism, and intolerance march down the lawns of the architect of our Bill of Rights. Everyone has a right under the First Amendment to express their opinion peaceably, so here's mine: not only as the Mayor of Charlottesville, but as a UVA faculty member and alumnus, I am beyond disgusted by this unsanctioned and despicable display of visual intimidation on a college campus." - Mike Signer
See how easy that was?
One only states that a group or person has the "moral high ground" is their cause is morally justified.
That you are willing to say that they had the "moral high ground" prior to failing to condemn a murder means you were perfectly okay with all the swastika flags and Nazi slogan chanting.
So I'll ask you again... did the neo-Nazi's who showed up in Charlottesville ever have the "moral high ground"?
Keep in mind that this isn't about comparison to any other group... because this question could have been asked even if no counter protestors were present at all.
Artemis at August 7, 2020 12:53 PM
“That you are willing to say that they had the "moral high ground" prior to failing to condemn a murder means you were perfectly okay with all the swastika flags and Nazi slogan chanting.
So I'll ask you again... did the neo-Nazi's who showed up in Charlottesville ever have the "moral high ground"?
Anyone who protests peacefully has the moral high ground.
No matter how odious I personally might find their views.
Jadams at August 7, 2020 2:05 PM
Like sands through the hourglass… These are the Days of Our Lives.
If Orion says something interesting, someone shoot me an email.
Crid at August 7, 2020 2:07 PM
Jadams Says:
"Anyone who protests peacefully has the moral high ground."
It certainly didn't seem like this was the conservative stance when it came to Colin Kaepernick.
It doesn't seem like this was the conservative stance on anyone who peacefully put their knee on the ground in silent protest.
Just neo-Nazi's are referred to as having the "moral high ground".
Artemis at August 7, 2020 2:32 PM
Artie, "moral high ground" is a subjective term. Yet you keep using it as if it were an identifiable piece of real estate, a point on an actual map; as if there is a rigid set of rules declaring what is "moral."
You may be surprised to find this out some day, Artie, but even the most evil people in the world can view themselves as moral.
As Master Po once asked, "Where is the evil? In the rat, whose nature it is to steal grain? Or in the cat whose nature it is to kill the rat?
The Nazis thought they were saving Germany from an international conspiracy, from Soviet and communist domination, from social and cultural decay (jazz, modern art, sexual deviancy, etc.).
The Stalinists thought they were morally superior to the West and America. After all, the Americans had smutty films, racial unrest, raucous music, modern art, sexual deviance, and crime; whereas the Soviet Union was orderly. The Americans, of course, saw things differently.
Both abolitionists and slave-holders viewed their position as morally superior and cited selected Bible passages as justification.
In the Charlottesville case, the white nationalists had applied for and gotten a permit to march in Lee Park. The city tried to make them move the rally to another park, but a judge issued an injunction permitting the rally to be held in Lee Park.
The ACLU praised the judge's decision immediately afterward, later taking issue with the open carrying of firearms by the white nationalists during the rally (open carry is legal in Virginia), but the ACLU needed a pretext to separate themselves from the group after supporting the request for a permit and the park site.
No, I said they were holding this rally to protest the removal of a Confederate statue, specifically a statue of Robert E. Lee in Lee Park.
No one thinks white nationalists are a historical preservation society. No one but you could even think that was what someone meant.
And what was one of the reasons cited by the judge in issuing the injunction allowing the use of Lee Park? Lee Park is where the statue of Robert E. Lee was located. Because, now say it with me, the pending removal of that statue (and renaming of the park) was the primary motivation for holding the rally.
Artie, this is the same Patrick whose statement about me you relied on and cited (in fact, the only one you cited) when you said that I was "considered the most dishonest interlocutor on this forum." I believe that was shortly before you called me a "dishonest loathsome piece of human garbage" and claimed I was being uncivil to you.
Then, Patrick was a reliable source. Now, when he disagrees with you, he's a neo-Nazi sympathizer. Hmmm.
Artie, I'm pretty sure Patrick is not a neo-Nazi sympathizer.
If you read what he's saying, it's something along these lines: "The neo-Nazis were conducting a peaceful rally until the counter protestors showed up with baseball bats and bottles of urine; i.e., they were there to incite violence. He who starts the violence does not hold the moral high ground. Where the neo-Nazis lost the moral high ground is in not forcefully condemning the vehicular murder conducted in their name."
Correct me if I misinterpreted your commentary, Patrick.
IIRC, you used it as a pejorative at that time, so I may have reacted with some hostility.
Conan the Grammarian at August 7, 2020 2:36 PM
FYI - You don't use an apostrophe when you're pluralizing a word, Artie. The plural of Nazi is Nazis. Apostrophes are used to indicate possession and the missing letters in contractions.
It'll end up in your junk folder. Not even Microsoft's filters are prepared to believe that.
Conan the Grammarian at August 7, 2020 2:49 PM
Conan Says:
"...even the most evil people in the world can view themselves as moral."
Of course Conan... no one typically believes themselves to be the villain of their life story.
That being said, one can delve too deep into moral relativism... and you guys have gone too deep... way way too deep.
For example, here:
"Both abolitionists and slave-holders viewed their position as morally superior and cited selected Bible passages as justification."
Great... but if a modern day person were to say that the slave-holders had the "moral high ground" over the abolitionists it tells you something about what they value. It tells you something about their own moral compass.
Hence when you say the following:
"Artie, "moral high ground" is a subjective term. Yet you keep using it as if it were an identifiable piece of real estate, a point on an actual map; as if there is a rigid set of rules declaring what is "moral.""
It tells me that your moral compass doesn't seem to have a heading.
Morality doesn't have to have a rigid set of rules for one to understand that freeing people from enslavement is the morally superior option to keeping people enslaved.
"In the Charlottesville case, the white nationalists had applied for and gotten a permit to march in Lee Park. The city tried to make them move the rally to another park, but a judge issued an injunction permitting the rally to be held in Lee Park."
Great... and the counter protesters ALSO had an approved permit to protest.
To assert that the white nationalists had the "moral high ground" all the way up until the point they murdered someone says something about your personal values.
The counter protestors were protesting against white supremacist hate mongering... while the white supremacists were shouting Nazi chants.
That you and Patrick apparently see the shouting of Nazi chants as morally superior to protesting against hate speech prior to any violence taking place says something about what you believe.
"Then, Patrick was a reliable source. Now, when he disagrees with you, he's a neo-Nazi sympathizer. Hmmm."
One has nothing to do with the other... I told you that you were regarded as dishonest... You told me to offer a citation. I linked you to an example of Patrick saying you were dishonest.
You do realize that it is both possible for you to be dishonest and for Patrick to sympathize with neo-Nazi protestors, right?
These are not mutually exclusive things... an honest person would know this.
Artemis at August 7, 2020 3:03 PM
No correction needed. You understood me perfectly. I wouldn't suggest you have to agree with me, but you have summed up my position with consummate accuracy.
It is interesting that I opened my previous post by stating that I'm certain Artemis would take my quotes out of context. I see that it didn't disappoint.
I also plainly stated that if Antifa and the White Nationalists would kill each other, and not harm anyone else in the process, I would consider it so much better for the rest of us. Does that sound like I'm in sympathy with them?
I also said that I consider both Antifa and the White Nationalists to be equally morally repulsive.
Yet, I am a neo-Nazi sympathizer?
I think in Charlottesville, they had, prior to Antifa showing up, conducted their protest in compliance with the law regarding peaceful assembly.
Yes, they looked ridiculous in their preppy outfits and carrying tiki torches. Yes, their views are revolting. But the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed.
And I support free speech, even abhorrent free speech. I believe the airing of ideas, even offensive ideas, and hearing the rebuttals keeps us all intellectually sharp as a society.
It was not my intention to call you a "Conehead" as an insult. If I wanted to insult you, I would use something less ambiguous. Conehead can be a flattering term, as they were highly intelligent, if ultra-nerdish.
I remember seeing the Coneheads on an episode of Family Feud (when Richard Dawson hosted the show), and they were asked to name something that people bite. One of them responded, "organic meat or vegetable matter between two starch planes."
"Survey said..." bellowed Dawson.
And "Sandwich" displayed on the board. I find the Coneheads utterly hilarious.
So, while I understand that with our history of hot-and-cold interactions, you might have construed "Conehead" as an insult. But I promise that was not my intention. I intended it as a cute pet name, like Crid does when he calls you "Coney."
Patrick at August 7, 2020 3:10 PM
Conan,
I'll also note that you have conveniently ignored the very clear double standard I pointed out when it came to your usage of the word "murder".
I'll remind you in case you forgot:
"No, "murder" has a specific legal definition and Breonna's death, while tragic, does not fit that definition." - Conan the Grammarian at August 4, 2020 4:58 AM
"For instance, an abortion ban with exceptions for rape and incest is not inconsistent with the view that abortion is, in general, murder." - Conan the Grammarian at April 26, 2017 10:42 AM
Please explain how you have apparently been perfectly fine with the pro-life movements erroneously using the term "murder" for close to 50 years... but for Breonna Taylor, who was killed about 5 months ago, you suddenly had an epiphany that when social movements use the word "murder" it needs to be restricted only toward cases where it fits a "specific legal definition".
This difference also says something about what you value.
It's almost as if one might say that Breonna Taylors life didn't matter as much to you as an embryo.
I wonder what one might want to call a movement to call attention to something like this?... Maybe we should call it Breonna's life matters... or perhaps just BLM for short.
Artemis at August 7, 2020 3:17 PM
Patrick Says:
"I also said that I consider both Antifa and the White Nationalists to be equally morally repulsive."
Yes you did... but you also selected one as morally superior to the other and hence your sympathies are with that group.
You see Patrick, it's not that I took you out of context, I was setting things up for the moral relativism nonsense I was seeing coming down the road.
If "moral high ground" is some subjective and relative nonsense that can be so easily applied to two groups you say are repulsive... "sympathizer" can also be used in an overly subjective manner.
The same way you believed neo-Nazi's held the "moral high ground" over counter protestors... you also sympathized with them over the counter protestors.
Isn't subjectivity and relativism fun?
Artemis at August 7, 2020 3:23 PM
Patrick,
Also... you said something here that suggests you don't have all the facts:
"Yes, they looked ridiculous in their preppy outfits and carrying tiki torches. Yes, their views are revolting. But the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed."
The counter protest was also approved.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/aug/17/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-charlottesville-counter-protest/
Do you care to revisit your "moral high ground" claim now?
Artemis at August 7, 2020 3:26 PM
Artemis:
No. Did White Nationalists come with baseball bats and bottles of urine? The counterprotesters came spoiling for a fight as evidenced by their bringing obvious and potentially deadly weapons. It isn't that difficult to kill with a baseball bat, to say nothing of the use of glass bottles.
Incidentally, I never addressed "the moral high ground" question when speaking of the two factions in general. I was referring specifically to Charlottesville and Charlottesville alone.
I can't decide if you're a troll or just stupid, but I'm leaning toward the latter. You try vigorously to present yourself as an intellectual with the use of a few words that might go above a seventh grade leading level. But your arguments are absolutely embarrassing.
Patrick at August 7, 2020 3:37 PM
Patrick Says:
"No. Did White Nationalists come with baseball bats and bottles of urine?"
Not sure... but they did show up with guns:
https://6abc.com/charlottesville-virginia-violence-timeline/2305769/
It seems to me this doesn't help your argument either unless you want to now argue that a bottle of urine is more deadly than a rifle.
Artemis at August 7, 2020 3:45 PM
Patrick,
So let's sum up... you are arguing that the white nationalists had the "moral high ground" versus counter protestors when talking specifically about Charlottesville and Charlottesville alone.
First you tried to back this up by saying you support everyone's right to protest assuming they do it legally... but this has been shot down because the counter protestors were also approved to protest... so in principle you should be supporting their rights as well.
Second you tried to back this up by saying that the counter protestors came prepared for a fight because they had potentially deadly weapons... but it turns out the white nationalists showed up with even deadlier weapons.
What's your third excuse for how you have concluded the white nationalists had the "moral high ground"?
Artemis at August 7, 2020 3:59 PM
Carrying a gun is not an indication of intent to shoot someone. If it were, our Constitution would not allow us to keep and bear arms. On contrary, most people carry guns in hopes that they won't have to use them, but recognizing the possibility that they might. How many shots were fired on the first day of their protest, the day before Antifa arrived? That would be zero.
However, bringing baseball bats and bottles of urine to a protest is a pretty good indicator that you're spoiling for a fight, and a dangerous, even deadly one.
Patrick at August 7, 2020 4:14 PM
Patrick,
Got it... counter protestors show up with "potentially deadly" weapons and it is an indictment of their character... white nationalists show up with deadly weapons and it shows no ill intent at all.
This is what happens to your brain when you are motivated by political allegiances and not logic.
Something tells me you would not have preferred if the counter protestors showed up armed to the teeth with rifles, camo, and body armor.
When the white nationalists do it though... nothing to see.
And this is when we are talking about the group that ultimately murdered someone and injured several others by plowing through unarmed counter protestors with a vehicle.
Your ability to reason has become severely distorted by your politics.
Artemis at August 7, 2020 4:26 PM
My mistake. I apologize.
According to 18 U.S. Code § 1111, murder is "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought."
To pro-life groups, a fetus is a human being and, in an abortion, is killed by the doctor in an action that was planned and carried out with the specific intent to kill that human being. Pro-choice advocates disagree with the view that the fetus is a human being.
The police did not enter Breonna's apartment with the specific intent to kill anyone. They reacted when her boyfriend fired his legal handgun at them thinking they were her ex-boyfriend's drug-dealing cronies.
See the difference? One is an operation with the specific intent to kill a fetus (regarded by pro-choice folks as an invasive tissue mass, but by pro-lifers as a human being). The other was an operation with no specific intent to kill that went bad. One is murder in the eyes of those opposed to it and the other was a tragic and horrible mistake, manslaughter perhaps.
Artie, you have a very difficult time with nuance; as well as with arguments and viewpoints that run counter to yours. To someone who views a fetus as a human being, deliberately killing it would be considered murder - correctly using the term.
Now, let's look at the entire quote. I was responding to lenona's post linking to a chart created by a pro-choice activist.
In context, it's a bit different from what you're trying to portray.
Conan the Grammarian at August 7, 2020 4:39 PM
I give props to Conan for his willingness to engage you, Artemis. You're a tiresome and not particularly adept dissembler. Still, I suppose engaging you allows someone to practice framing their arguments carefully, least someone like you try to distort them.
The White Nationalists came, had one day of protests, no incident despite being armed. Antifa came, having secured a permit for the same day in the same location. And they came armed with bats and bottles of urine.
So, can you ascertain beyond any reasonable doubt that the White Nationalists had any ill intent beyond peaceful protest? You cannot.
Considering that Antifa took the trouble to secure a permit for the same location at the same day and show up with bats and urine bottles, can you reasonably assume they had peaceful intentions? Again, you cannot.
It is you that is sorely deficient in logic, Artemis. But I'm not surprised. You once accused me of being a flat-earther immediately after I gave a definition of planet which included an object "pulled spherical by its own mass."
Do you not understand what is meant by the word "spherical" or will you try to argue that earth is not a planet?
Patrick at August 7, 2020 5:17 PM
Conan Says:
"According to 18 U.S. Code § 1111, murder is "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
To pro-life groups, a fetus is a human being and, in an abortion, is killed by the doctor in an action that was planned and carried out with the specific intent to kill that human being. Pro-choice advocates disagree with the view that the fetus is a human being."
None of this helps you Conan.
Even if pro-life groups are granted that a fetus is a human being... even if they are granted that the action was planned with the specific intent of killing a human being... you've neglected a key component of the specific definition of murder...
That key component is the word "unlawful".
Abortion is lawful and has been for nearly 50 years.
Therefore it cannot be considered murder either.
"The police did not enter Breonna's apartment with the specific intent to kill anyone."
Intent isn't the only component of the law Conan.
These two situation fall into the same boat if we are going to be sticklers for legal definitions.
I'll presume that you looked over the "unlawful" part in error and adjust your perspective on the usage of the word "murder" by pro-life groups to match your stance when it comes to Breonna.
Artemis at August 7, 2020 5:42 PM
Patrick Says:
"So, can you ascertain beyond any reasonable doubt that the White Nationalists had any ill intent beyond peaceful protest? You cannot.
Considering that Antifa took the trouble to secure a permit for the same location at the same day and show up with bats and urine bottles, can you reasonably assume they had peaceful intentions? Again, you cannot."
These are two different standards.
For the white nationalists you are asking if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they had ill intent.
For the counter protestors you are asking if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they had peaceful intentions.
One group you have deemed innocent until proven guilty and the other guilty until proven innocent.
That right there is the massive flaw in your reasoning when it comes to this situation.
"Do you not understand what is meant by the word "spherical" or will you try to argue that earth is not a planet?"
The earth is a planet and if we want to be sticklers for geometrical definitions the best description for it's shape is not "spherical"... although it is close enough for most purposes and suitable for teaching children.
A much better definition is that the earth is an oblate spheroid with non-zero surface roughness.
This accounts for the bulging around the equator.
Just thought you should learn something useful here since things like ethics, morality, and logical consistency appear to be foreign concepts.
Artemis at August 7, 2020 6:03 PM
Do you get the sense that he's a Chinaman or other foreigner pretending to be conversant in American idioms as perceived through electronic media?
Crid at August 7, 2020 8:09 PM
Te deum laudamus is a hymn to God.
Tedium laudanum is the sense that, like Poe, it would be better to overdose on laudanum than continue with this.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 7, 2020 8:13 PM
Crid, I just get the impression that he's a moron who is trying desperately to convince everyone (starting with himself) that he's an intellectual.
Like a dyed-in-the-wool beta male trying to convince the world he's an alpha male.
But for the sake of argument, I will ask Artemis again.
If you see a group of protesters who have, for one day, carried on a peaceful protest without incident (even if they are carrying firearms but in compliance with the law), can you assume they have malicious intent?
Yes, I suppose you could argue they could be "biding their time," planning some major league mayhem once they lulled the population into unwariness.
Yes, it's possible they could have been doing just that. But where's the evidence? What proof do you have? What communications have you tracked down that support this contention?
So, lacking evidence that these people intend harm, beyond spreading their harmful ideas, I have to assume that they aren't intending violence and the guns are merely a "just in case." As is their right. That's why we have a Second Amendment.
Now, after one day of protests Group 2 shows up the next day. Now, a couple of things we know about Group 2: They are violently opposed to Group 1; and they don't mind using violence and vandalism to prevent speech they don't like from being heard.
Aside from this, they are also bringing baseball bats and bottles of urine.
So, what would any reasonable person assume, regarding their intentions. What were those bats for? Were they going to challenge the White Nationalists to a softball game afterwards?
Patrick at August 8, 2020 1:35 AM
Hey, Conan! I thought you might like to see this. It's the time when The Coneheads appeared on Family Feud. I think it's rather funny that I saw it all those years ago, but how many details I distorted in my memory of it, in contrast with what I accurately remember from it.
Turns out, it was an SNL skit, and Richard Dawson wasn't there. It was Bill Murray, doing an excellent job of imitating Dawson. (It's to his credit as an actor that he so successfully imitated Dawson that I remembered it as Dawson himself.)
But while I forgot it was Bill Murray, and that this was an SNL skit, I remembered the Coneheads' description of a sandwich to near perfection.
Here it is, if you care to see it. I personally thought it was hilarious.
Patrick at August 8, 2020 3:04 AM
Patrick Says:
"Crid, I just get the impression that he's a moron who is trying desperately to convince everyone (starting with himself) that he's an intellectual."
Good grief... I wouldn't exactly rank any of these discussions as being intellectually challenging.
I literally just had to point out to Conan that the reason the legal definition for murder doesn't apply to abortion is because it isn't a crime.
Let's repeat that... I am debating a person who apparently overlooked the fact that abortion is legal.
My discussion with you also isn't particularly difficult, your facts and reasoning are way off and/or inconsistently applied. I'll explain below.
"If you see a group of protesters who have, for one day, carried on a peaceful protest without incident (even if they are carrying firearms but in compliance with the law), can you assume they have malicious intent?"
I wouldn't presume anyone carrying anything in compliance with the law has malicious intent without further evidence.
You're the one who said this:
"Did White Nationalists come with baseball bats and bottles of urine? The counterprotesters came spoiling for a fight as evidenced by their bringing obvious and potentially deadly weapons. It isn't that difficult to kill with a baseball bat, to say nothing of the use of glass bottles."
In other words... you are the one imparting an inference of malice on the basis of someone showing up with "potentially deadly" weapons... and yet you impart no inference at all on the basis of someone showing up with actual deadly weapons.
"I have to assume that they aren't intending violence and the guns are merely a "just in case." As is their right. That's why we have a Second Amendment."
Right... so these folks are presumed innocent.
"Now, a couple of things we know about Group 2: They are violently opposed to Group 1; and they don't mind using violence and vandalism to prevent speech they don't like from being heard."
Group 1 is also violently opposed to Group 2 and thy don't mind using violence.
Remember how you said this earlier:
"Incidentally, I never addressed "the moral high ground" question when speaking of the two factions in general. I was referring specifically to Charlottesville and Charlottesville alone."
See how in order to even try and make the argument that the counter protestors had some kind of malicious intent you are bringing in information outside of Charlottesville and Charlottesville alone?
All of a sudden the history of the counter protestors is important for you to try and make your case... but you can't do that... you've already declared that any information outside of what occurred at "Charlottesville and Charlottesville alone" isn't admissible in this conversation.
If it was admissible then we could discuss the enormously violent history of white nationalists... but that doesn't help you advance the argument you'd like to make.
Logically you need to pick one lane... either we ignore everything outside of "Charlottesville and Charlottesville alone"... or we can include historical context and behavior.
Neither of those options is helpful to your argument.
The only thing that helps your argument is if we treat the white nationalists in a very isolated way ignoring their history of violence... while still allowing discussion of possible historic motivations of the counter protestors.
In other words... you need to invoke a double standard to actually have any chance to construct the argument you would like to advance.
"So, what would any reasonable person assume, regarding their intentions. What were those bats for?"
You presumed that the white nationalists showed up with lethal weapons "just in case"... we can presume the same thing for the counter protestors.
See that... we just used the same standard for everyone.
Artemis at August 8, 2020 4:05 AM
Patrick,
I also wanted to address this nonsense claim you had earlier:
"This is distinct from the counterprotesters, who came en masse armed with baseball bats and bottles of urine."
This contention has no support.
The overwhelming majority of the counter protestors were completely unarmed.
When a white nationalist plowed through an entire crowd of counter protestors with murderous intent... killing one person and sending 19 others to the hospital... those people were unarmed.
Heather Heyer wasn't some baseball bat wielding violent criminal... she was just a peaceful counter protestor who was murdered.
Most of the counter protestors were akin to Heather.
You keep railing on and on about baseball bats and bottles of urine "en mass" though... reality doesn't serve your argument.
Artemis at August 8, 2020 4:22 AM
You keep telling yourself that, Artie. You're willfully dense, Artie. You refuse to consider viewpoints that don't match your own.
"Murder" is willful killing. With that in mind, I can understand pro-lifers calling abortion murder. I may not wholly agree with them, but I can understand their argument. You can parse the "unlawful" part in the US law definition all you want.
That BLM wants to hyperbolize the tragic death of Breonna Taylor into murder to partially justify their rampages through American cities is specious at best.
Let's presume that. After all, doesn't everyone carry a jar of urine with them "just in case?"
Now, I may not agree with Patrick that the white nationalists had only peaceful intent in their march, that they were not in fact hoping counter-protestors would attack and they'd get to mix it up, but Artie, the weakness in your argument only serves his argument.
That some counter protestors in Charlottesville were peaceful and unarmed does not disprove the argument that some were armed and up to no good. Nor does it prove that all of the white nationalists were intent upon mayhem and destruction. Nor is Patrick saying that Fields' vehicular attack on the crowd was justified in any way.
Learn to read for comprehension, Artie, even the stuff with which you don't agree. And then you'll be able to attack the actual weakness of your opponent's argument, not the one you made up from cherry-picked quotes.
I'm stealing that. It's my new motto for dealing with Artie.
Conan the Grammarian at August 8, 2020 8:13 AM
Conan Says:
"You keep telling yourself that, Artie. You're willfully dense, Artie. You refuse to consider viewpoints that don't match your own."
You've got things completely backwards Conan.
I'm just applying the rationale you advanced to argue that none of the folks the BLM folks say were "murdered" were to conservative groups.
As I suspected... you have a massive double standards, no surprises there.
""Murder" is willful killing. With that in mind, I can understand pro-lifers calling abortion murder. I may not wholly agree with them, but I can understand their argument. You can parse the "unlawful" part in the US law definition all you want."
All of a sudden we aren't using the "specific legal definition" anymore when it comes to pro-life groups... we are now using a different more colloquial definition.
Remember when you said this after I pointed out the generally accepted colloquial usage of the word "murder":
""No, "murder" has a specific legal definition and Breonna's death, while tragic, does not fit that definition." - Conan the Grammarian at August 4, 2020 4:58 AM"
When it suits your political purpose you will beat the BLM folks over the head with strict legal definitions... and when it doesn't suit your political purpose you will abandon that strict legal definition and assert that now we are just "parsing".
There is no parsing here Conan... if you want to use the following definition:
"According to 18 U.S. Code § 1111, murder is "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.""
The unlawful part isn't just an unimportant add on.
Many people are killed willfully in a lawful manner.
So this won't help you either from a conservative political perspective.
By shifting definitions to only include "willful killing" without regard to things like the lawfulness of the action you now get the following result:
All people put to death by the death penalty have now been "murdered"
All members of the military who went on missions with the intention of killing targets have now committed murder as well.
Once you've eliminated the "unlawful" piece the definition and fall back on just "willfulness" you've now opened the door that our country is full of veterans who are murderers.
I doubt you will find that a very satisfying result.
The only way you achieve your goal is to use completely different definitions of the word "murder" to suit your momentary political leanings.
This is called having a double standard and is logically inconsistent.
The "specific legal definition" can only be applied to unlawful killing... that is just a reality you need to live with.
Artemis at August 8, 2020 10:52 AM
Conan,
Just to be clear... if you were logically consistent you would say something like the following:
""murder" has a specific legal definition and abortion, while tragic, does not fit that definition."
That would be you treating different social advocacy groups the same.
However all the evidence indicates that isn't how your mind works.
First you figure out what your desired conclusion is based on your political leanings... then you try and rationalize a way to get there.
This is very crappy reasoning.
Artemis at August 8, 2020 10:57 AM
Conan Says:
"That some counter protestors in Charlottesville were peaceful and unarmed does not disprove the argument that some were armed and up to no good. Nor does it prove that all of the white nationalists were intent upon mayhem and destruction."
More faulty reasoning Conan.
The only way you manage to get where you want to be politically is to use a double standard.
The argument you and Patrick are advancing is that the white nationalists are innocent until proven guilty and that the counter protestors are guilty until proven innocent.
That is what it means when you say a burden exists to prove the counter protestors weren't up to no good... and that a burden exists to prove that the white nationalists were up to no good.
Since you guys have claimed that the white nationalists had the "moral high ground" it is up to you to prove a difference based on equal standards.
However the evidence doesn't support such a conclusion.
Artemis at August 8, 2020 11:04 AM
Conan:
Very wise. I'm getting the impression that it* is more interested in playing inept gotcha games, rather than arriving at the truth of the matter.
It has "gotcha-ed" its way into calling me a neo-Nazi. I could go another round to defend myself, but I realized, Artie is the person whose opinions on others are the least valued among regulars and semi-regulars on Amy's blog. That would, incidentally, include me. If I inadvertently started reading one of his comments and he decided you were, I don't know, "a garbage human" or whatever, I probably wouldn't even remember its opinion by the time I got to the end of the post, much less care about it. Besides, Artie's a relatively knew arrival. I think I've interacted with the other denizens of this blog much longer than it has. Why should I value its opinion over mine? I never deemed it especially insightful or wise. On the contrary...
While the ideals of both Antifa and the White Nationalists are repugnant (and there's no point quibbling over which one is worse; I could not, in good conscience side with either), the Neo-nazis have at least proven that they can conduct a protest in good order and in compliance with the law. Antifa has not.
When Charlottesville first broke out, a Jewish Facebook friend of mine, and a new lawyer, candidly admitted he was more scared of Antifa than the neo-Nazis.
*He or she; I was never clear on that. I realize that Artemis is a Greek goddess, which would suggest that Artie is female. On the other hand, I've known two men in my life who bear the name, but I've never met a woman with this name. I'm leaning toward male. I've never encountered a female who was quite so clumsily boorish.
Patrick at August 8, 2020 2:06 PM
Patrick Says:
"I'm getting the impression that it* is more interested in playing inept gotcha games, rather than arriving at the truth of the matter."
You've got things all wrong Patrick.
Expecting people to hold consistent definitions and principles when evaluating different items isn't a "gotcha".
It is about ensuring that people stay logically consistent and not just shifting word usage from topic to topic to fill whatever politically motivated need you have at the moment.
Conan has a history of being promiscuous with language... he cheats on his usage as he deems necessary in any particular moment. I'm just holding his feet to the fire when I notice he is stepping out on the definition he insists he is married to in a given discussion.
"It has "gotcha-ed" its way into calling me a neo-Nazi."
I never called you a neo-Nazi Patrick.
I called you a sympathizer... those are different things.
You and Conan decided to take an extreme moral relativistic stance when it comes to the usage of the phrase "moral high ground"... the term sympathizer is also a relative one.
If you don't like extreme relativistic usage of language then don't engage in it.
Just to be abundantly clear, both you and Conan always had the option to say something like the following:
'I despise what both of these groups stand for... here is no moral high ground to be found here'
You *could* have done that.
However you didn't, both of you insist that the white nationalists had the moral high ground and none of your arguments thus far have demonstrated a logical difference you can latch onto without first declaring they have a historical clean slate and that them harboring lethal weapons says nothing about their intentions... but the counter protestors harboring less than lethal weapons indicates violent intent.
You've only gotten to your conclusions by logical inconsistency and double standards.
This isn't a great way to demonstrate you have an unbiased view of the events in question. Your bias resides on the side of the white nationalists... that means this is where your sympathies lie in a comparative sense.
If you don't like where that puts you, you don't have to stay there. You are always free to change your position as new evidence and logical reasoning is made available to you.
The choice is yours.
Artemis at August 8, 2020 3:18 PM
Just be glad you aren't related to him, Patrick. Now you can see why I don't talk much with my sister.
Ben at August 8, 2020 3:23 PM
Nope.
Learn to read Artie.
Yep.
Artie's never been interested in honest debate or truth; not as Artemis, nor as Orion. He looks for quotes he can cherry pick and twist into proof of the moral inferiority of others and, by implication, his own moral superiority.
He's been told it's moral to hate white supremacists and you defended their right to march, so you must be a neo-Nazi sympathizer, and thus morally inferior to him. He ignores he fact that the ACLU has defended highly objectionable speech in the name of free speech on many occasions, including the Skokie Nazis and the Charlottesville rally. Feelings, not principles, guide his philosophy.
He'll be the first one to turn his neighbors in to the KGB to save his own hide, but he'll rationalize himself to be morally superior for doing so because they once defended the right of Nazis to have a viewpoint.
Conan the Grammarian at August 8, 2020 5:58 PM
Artemis:
'I despise what both of these groups stand for... here is no moral high ground to be found here'
I'm not sure how much clearer I could have made it.
And you could also admit that the White Nationalists, repulsive as they are, at least did things in compliance with the law, at least on the first day, until Antifa showed up.
They did exactly what the Framers of the Constitution would have wanted. They aired their beliefs, allowing the public in attendance to make up their own minds. This is what James Madison had in mind when he wrote the First Amendment, that all ideas, even the repulsive ones, have their right to be heard.
Conan:
That wouldn't have exactly made them wrong, I will point out. They were airing their views and if someone attacks them for exercising their First Amendment rights, they do have the right to defend themselves, and if someone attacks them deadly force, they have the right to respond in kind.
They don't lose this right because their points of view are repugnant.
But returning to you, Artie, the question going through my mind right now is "who the fuck do you think you are?"
You have plainly admitted that I have denounced both sides as equally repulsive. Nonetheless, you decided to paint me as a Nazi-sympathizer, which you have already admitted is a lie.
So, what I'm getting from you right now is this attitude of "You will denounce the White Nationalists in precisely the terms I say you will, or else I will demonize you with all the horrible accusations I can muster, even if I know these accusations aren't accurate!"
No wonder you have so much sympathy for Antifa; you're exactly like them. You abhor free speech and anyone who doesn't agree with you completely on these issues will be stigmatized as Nazis, whether it's true or not.
So, I ask again, "Who the fuck do you think you are?"
So, if I wish to point out that at least the White Nationalists have respect for the law, the Constitution, personal property and can conduct a protest in a manner that the Framers of the Constitution themselves would have agreed with, that doesn't make me their sympathizer or supporter.
I do not answer to you for my views. Nor do I have any obligation to frame my arguments in terms you consider appropriate, you smug, arrogant, revolting, self-righteous shit.
Patrick at August 8, 2020 6:01 PM
Conan,
I've only ever been interested in discussing facts and truth.
The problem is that for you facts are just matters of present convenience and truth is whatever your conservative politics demands that it must be in any given moment.
"He's been told it's moral to hate white supremacists and you defended their right to march, so you must be a neo-Nazi sympathizer, and thus morally inferior to him."
You are being obtuse as usual Conan.
I never criticized anyone's right to protest or march.
In fact it was Patrick who impugned the character of the counter protestors simply for choosing to counter protest:
"Considering that Antifa took the trouble to secure a permit for the same location at the same day and show up with bats and urine bottles, can you reasonably assume they had peaceful intentions? Again, you cannot." - Patrick at August 7, 2020 5:17 PM
He is saying that the very fact that someone opted to counter protest in the same location (which incidentally is standard operating procedure for counter protests... usually counter protests don't occur in an entirely different place on a completely different day) is indictive of non-peaceful intent.
He doesn't know this... that is just his own biases.
It isn't logical or reasonable to say that the white nationalists had the "moral high ground" because they chose to protest first... and the counter protestors had the comparatively "moral low ground" because they chose to protest second.
The fact that anyone brought weapons of any kind isn't a distinguishing feature either... and in fact the white nationalists came armed with *more* lethal weapons.
I seriously doubt your or Patrick's issue with the counter protestors is that they didn't arrive with lethal enough weapons.
Again we have no logical basis to describe the white nationalists as having the "moral high ground" in comparison to anyone.
Lastly... and this is the part of the discussion neither of you really want brought up, but I'll bring it up anyway:
https://www.businessinsider.com/extremist-killings-links-right-wing-extremism-report-2019-1
"All of the extremist killings in the US in 2018 had links to right-wing extremism, according to new report"
Get that... ALL extremist killings in the US in 2018 are associated with right-wing extremism.
And this:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/04/mass-shootings-white-nationalism-linked-attacks-worldwide
"More than 175 killed worldwide in last eight years in white nationalist-linked attacks"
It is the white nationalists who have been murdering people over and over and over again over the last several decades.
None of your outrage against counter protestors will help you here.
I support the right of white nationalists to peacefully demonstrate... but to use conservative talking points... they are just a bunch of murderous thugs.
They don't get the opportunity to hold the "moral high ground" after their repeated history of murdering people.
And lastly... it is relevant to note that even at the demonstration we are talking about... it was once again a white nationalists who murdered someone.
That is called a trend... one that allows us to make predictions about where violence stems from.
The violence doesn't stem from the counter protestors... it stems from the group constantly associated with murdering people.
Artemis at August 8, 2020 8:00 PM
Patrick Says:
"So, if I wish to point out that at least the White Nationalists have respect for the law, the Constitution, personal property and can conduct a protest in a manner that the Framers of the Constitution themselves would have agreed with, that doesn't make me their sympathizer or supporter."
Except you only get here by adamantly insisting that we forget about all of the historical events both recent and old that indicate that none of this is true.
These are fascists Patrick... they have no respect for the law, the constitution, or personal property.
That is why they have been consistently murdering people.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/04/mass-shootings-white-nationalism-linked-attacks-worldwide
"After authorities shut down a violent white supremacist and neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, one of the men who had been photographed with a white supremacist group drove his car into a crowded street full of counter-protesters. Heather Heyer, 32, who was there protesting the far-right supporters, was killed. Dozens more were injured, many seriously. The killer had been obsessed with Hitler as a teenager, according to a former teacher. He was sentenced to life in prison."
"Two men were killed and one injured after they tried to intervene to protect young women on a public train who were being targeted with an anti-Muslim tirade. Their alleged killer shouted “Free speech or die” later in a courtroom, and “Death to Antifa! You call it terrorism, I call it patriotism!” The suspect is awaiting trial."
"Caughman, a 66-year-old “can and bottle recycler”, had lively social media accounts full of photographs with celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey. His killer, an American military veteran, said he targeted a random black man on the street in New York City as a “practice run” for a bigger attack."
The list goes on and on and on.
These are the folks you insist showed up with the "moral high ground"... and no one had any reason to believe they might be violent.
Good grief... get your head out of your ass already.
Artemis at August 8, 2020 8:11 PM
Patrick,
I also wanted to address this:
"You have plainly admitted that I have denounced both sides as equally repulsive. Nonetheless, you decided to paint me as a Nazi-sympathizer, which you have already admitted is a lie."
No Patrick... you haven't denounced them as "equally" repulsive.
As you and Conan pointed out the "moral high ground" in your view is a subjective and relative term regardless of how odious the positions we are talking about.
When you claim the white nationalists had the "moral high ground" this means they were *less* repulsive than the counter protestors... not "equally" repulsive in your estimation.
When I refer to you as a neo-Nazi sympathizer it is in exactly the same vein as the subjective moral relativistic framework you and Conan want to operate from.
I don't personally follow such a flexible moral framework... but you guys do apparently... so I am demonstrating for you logically what it entails.
Hypothetically, if someone asks you who had the "moral high ground" between slave-owners and abolitionists... and you responded the slave-owners because in your view they were just following the law and the abolitionists were breaking the law... don't act all surprised if someone calls you a slave-owner sympathizer.
This example isn't even one I just decided to insert for shock value either... this was an example of subjective moral relativism that Conan himself advanced in this thread:
"Both abolitionists and slave-holders viewed their position as morally superior and cited selected Bible passages as justification."
What he is saying is true of course... even people taking part is deplorable acts try to defend their position on dubious moral grounds... people of good character resist this nonsense and keep to their true north.
The point is, that it says something about you when you claim a group has the "moral high ground" when they are a hate group.
You don't even need to go there Patrick.
Just say you defend their right to protest peacefully and leave it at that.
Artemis at August 8, 2020 8:27 PM
Because there's more to it than that.
They have proven that they can peacefully assemble and express themselves in compliance with the law.
Antifa has yet to prove they can do this, and they have proven they do not respect anyone else's right to do this.
Do you understand? To the best of my knowledge, the White Nationalists have never tried to shut anyone down. They have never tried to prevent anyone from speaking.
Antifa has decided that they have the right to tell you who you're allowed to listen to.
And this doesn't bother you? What on earth is wrong with you?
Patrick at August 9, 2020 1:52 PM
Patrick,
The facts you are working off of are very distorted and in error. In addition the rationale you have provided is inconsistent and illogical.
Let's start here:
"Incidentally, I never addressed "the moral high ground" question when speaking of the two factions in general. I was referring specifically to Charlottesville and Charlottesville alone." - Patrick at August 7, 2020 3:37 PM
If you were evaluating things as if there was no history to anyone or any group involve as you insisted the other day... how can you now claim this:
"They have proven that they can peacefully assemble and express themselves in compliance with the law."
They haven't proven anything if you are looking at "Charlottesville alone."... what is the basis for having "proven" anything without any history to go back on?
Furthermore, historical white nationalist protests are you referring to that went peacefully in the presence of counter protestors?
Furthermore, if they have been historically peaceful in the presence of counter protestors... then logic would dictate that the counter protestors were ALSO peaceful.
"Antifa has yet to prove they can do this, and they have proven they do not respect anyone else's right to do this."
Based on what?... you insist you have no history involved in your assessment.
Was that statement a lie?
Furthermore, a counter protest is in compliance with the law even if you happen to be protesting against someone else's right to protest.
People have the right to protest, people have the right to protest someone else's protest, people have the right to then protest the protest of the first protest... you get the idea.
This is the way all this works.
So long as people are peaceably assembling the content of their protest shouldn't be a major issue for you if you are working off of the premise that you are in support of peoples right to protest.
Surely if you are okay with people protesting the very existence of minority groups with chants of "blood and soil"... you should be in support of people protesting that protest... unless of course you are sympathetic to the white nationalist cause (which you insist you aren't).
"Do you understand? To the best of my knowledge, the White Nationalists have never tried to shut anyone down. They have never tried to prevent anyone from speaking."
So you are just against counter protests.
This is an unconstitutional stance.
One group gets to shout one thing in protest while another gets to shout against them at the same time.
That is just how things work in our form of government.
That is what a counter protest is.
Now so far as violence goes, that is another story... but here is the problem for you, I've looked into it, and it turns out the white nationalists actually did show up en mass with bludgeons, sticks, poles, and shields in addition to some of them having actual fire arms.
There are images of them surrounding an isolated and unarmed black man and beating him with a pole... there are images of them standing off against an entire crowd of protestors whose front lines were composed of older women in pink helmets holding pink shields and loads of other people holding up cameras.
Based on the video and photo evidence alone I cannot identify a single baseball bat amongst the counter protestors... but the white nationalists have loads of weapons and were clearly using them.
All of this was before one of their number plowed through a crowd of unarmed counter protestors and murdered someone.
There is video evidence of a white nationalists who was sprayed with pepper spray (a non-lethal deterrent)... and in that video one of his white nationalist buddies can be heard indicating how they were going to kill counter protestors in retaliation.
So I will respond with the following:
This doesn't bother you? What on earth is wrong with you?
Artemis at August 9, 2020 7:53 PM
Patrick,
Also, please carefully read this... I mean really read it and take in what is going on here:
"Two men were killed and one injured after they tried to intervene to protect young women on a public train who were being targeted with an anti-Muslim tirade. Their alleged killer shouted “Free speech or die” later in a courtroom, and “Death to Antifa! You call it terrorism, I call it patriotism!” The suspect is awaiting trial."
There was a white nationalist on a public train harassing and verbally accosting a woman on a train... three people tried to intervene to protect this woman... he proceeded to stab two of them to death and injure the third.
He is on the record stating that he was defending his right to free speech.
No one has free speech rights to harass women on public transit Patrick.
These people aren't interested in free speech... they are interested in terrorizing innocent people and murdering folks when they try and step in to protect those innocent people from harassment.
If you were on a public train and someone started screaming homophobic slurs at you in an intimidating manner, would you call that them expressing their freedom of speech?... or do you have the right not to be verbally abused and intimidated on a train?... furthermore, why shouldn't someone else have the right to step in and support you without being stabbed to death?
I am concerned that you seem quite happy to be their willing dupe.
Artemis at August 9, 2020 8:24 PM
Leave a comment