Current Affairs The Far Right

[Adam-GOTTV]

Looks like you're doing that...

Be good if you or anyone else who liked that could actually specify where I'm sticking up for the far right/white supremacists? I mean, I thought that bit about me calling them the worst people ever might have quashed any concerns but evidently not. Again, being concerned by the violent tactics deployed by both far left and far right doesn't make you sympathetic to either.

 

[peteblue]

How come every far left movement has been "exploited by evil people"?

There's lots of evil people on the far left ?........

 

[peteblue]

Be good if you or anyone else who liked that could actually specify where I'm sticking up for the far right/white supremacists? I mean, I thought that bit about me calling them the worst people ever might have quashed any concerns but evidently not. Again, being concerned by the violent tactics deployed by both far left and far right doesn't make you sympathetic to either.

Youre either with them or against them unfortunately, objective assessment is not allowed apparently.......

 

[Tubey]

Youre either with them or against them unfortunately, objective assessment is not allowed apparently.......

It's called drawing a moral equivalency between the two. They are not the same thing; not even remotely the same thing.

A couple of posts in here have been nothing short of disgraceful IMO.

 

[peteblue]

It's called drawing a moral equivalency between the two. They are not the same thing; not even remotely the same thing.

A couple of posts in here have been nothing short of disgraceful IMO.

I never mentioned 'moral equivalency' I said objective assessment.......

 

[Tubey]

I never mentioned 'moral equivalency' I said objective assessment.......

So what's this?

You quite literally couldn't have posted a more 'moral equivalency' aimed post if you tried.

Basically, you feel compelled to defend the right no matter what the logic of doing so is. That's your prerogative, but you should at least be intellectually honest about it.

 

[peteblue]

So what's this?



You quite literally couldn't have posted a more 'moral equivalency' aimed post if you tried.

Basically, you feel compelled to defend the right no matter what the logic of doing so is. That's your prerogative, but you should at least be intellectually honest about it.

You regard it as a defence of the right, I regard it as a defence of objectivity, I cannot abide any group described as 'far'. They are not equivalent, they are obnoxious in different ways. It always seems hard for people on the left, who assume that they hold some moral high ground, to accept that 'far' left is just as disgusting as 'far' right.......

 

[Tree13]

#bashthefash

But remember, we must NOT condemn violence from all sides. Because:

1) The left aren't violent.
2) Except when they are, in which case pointing it out makes you a racist, right-wing apologist.

Far-anything is bad. The clue is in the prefix, indicating that the ideology concerned, be it left-leaning or right-leaning, is generally viewed by any objective, rational person as being unacceptably extreme. Not difficult to understand, really.

Anyone who lays into the far-right for any of its abhorrent behaviour, but refuses to acknowledge even the existence of far-left behaviour is demonstrating a political bias and using it to justify or vilify extremist behaviour according to the political leaning of the persons carrying out the behaviour. Dangerous hypocrisy and very intolerant.

 

[Tubey]

You regard it as a defence of the right, I regard it as a defence of objectivity, I cannot abide any group described as 'far'. They are not equivalent, they are obnoxious in different ways. It always seems hard for people on the left, who assume that they hold some moral high ground, to accept that 'far' left is just as disgusting as 'far' right.......

That's not objectivity, it's the opposite. Objectivity would be looking at the causation of both - one is violent as they are quite literally rabid racist white supremacists, and the others are violent in response to that alone.

Can you seriously not see the contradiction in the bolded bits here? They are not just as disgusting - they're not even close. If you can't see that, you are a pro-active apologist for white supremacy, because you aren't saying the left should peacefully protest rather than be violent; you are quite literally saying they are 'just as disgusting' as white supremacists.

This goes beyond left and right politics - it's about what is actually dangerous. You're right wing, fine, but that shouldn't cloud your judgement. It is sad that it does - that you can't bring yourself to see beyond political identity on any given issue.

 

[Clint Planet]

Stop watching CNN.

Why would I watch CNN? I'm British.

 

[peteblue]

That's not objectivity, it's the opposite. Objectivity would be looking at the causation of both - one is violent as they are quite literally rabid racist white supremacists, and the others are violent in response to that alone.

Can you seriously not see the contradiction in the bolded bits here? They are not just as disgusting - they're not even close. If you can't see that, you are a pro-active apologist for white supremacy, because you aren't saying the left should peacefully protest rather than be violent; you are quite literally saying they are 'just as disgusting' as white supremacists.

This goes beyond left and right politics - it's about what is actually dangerous. You're right wing, fine, but that shouldn't cloud your judgement. It is sad that it does - that you can't bring yourself to see beyond political identity on any given issue.

You're talking about C'ville. I was not.....that's how disagreements begin......

 

[Tubey]

But remember, we must NOT condemn violence from all sides. Because:

1) The left aren't violent.
2) Except when they are, in which case pointing it out makes you a racist, right-wing apologist.

Far-anything is bad. The clue is in the prefix, indicating that the ideology concerned, be it left-leaning or right-leaning, is generally viewed by any objective, rational person as being unacceptably extreme. Not difficult to understand, really.

Anyone who lays into the far-right for any of its abhorrent behaviour, but refuses to acknowledge even the existence of far-left behaviour is demonstrating a political bias and using it to justify or vilify extremist behaviour according to the political leaning of the persons carrying out the behaviour. Dangerous hypocrisy and very intolerant.

... nobody is saying anything other than that, but the difference here is the far left are reactionary to a dangerous societal threat by the far right. They have no aim other than opposing the far right. That's not the case the other way around, as they are literally advocates for white supremacism.

This hsouldn't be hard to understand.

 

[peteblue]

Why would I watch CNN? I'm British.

Yeah, we've got our own left wing broadcaster called the BBC........

 

[Clint Planet]

Yeah, we've got our own left wing broadcaster called the BBC........

Populated almost entirely by Tories. But you just carry on talking rubbish....

 

[Tubey]

You're talking about C'ville. I was not.....that's how disagreements begin......

No actually, I'm talking about the current state of activists in western politics. In terms of a clear and present danger, the far right are far more dangerous than the far left. Objectively.

Again, really struggling to understand how people aren't getting this. You might disagree with some or even all of left wing politics, but they ultimately don't have elements that want a return to Jim Crow.