So you are saying that both sides are the exact same shade of grey? Is that an honest observation or an unwillingness to look deeper?

Please nuke them Supreme Leader

She's stating that people seem to be more concerned about calling one another names and furthering their own personal agendas over showing any concern that someone was killed and others injured over opposing views.

1 Dead

Repeated twice, once in bold.

you really don't get it?
1 person died and all the rants in this thread are about stupid issues unrelated to it.

the fact is someone DIED, and all they do is point fingers at hitler, BLM, left, right, etc. it's completely disrespectful and stupid.

btw, thanks for the blacklist.

and that makes this death less important?

your point is?

What the living fuck?
Seriously.

That's the most ridiculous logic I've ever seen.

I give you that. My sources are unclear even if I try to search further. Seems there were some racist idiots. I am still searching for more data and numbers of people from all groups. I found out two more people died because of that riots aswell. Whom to blame, the ones making the rally or the ones trying to stop them (even by force)?

Sidenote to all: only 2 blacklists? Come on, you can do more!

Supporting fascism should be illegal, just saying. History will repeat itself if too many fascists will appear.
But who are these anti-fascists that are now fascists? I'm sure that they exist, but I can't see any currently.

Baloney.

Yeas me too but anti-nazis go extreme way too often. You can't fight for equality and other things but never being open to even listen to someone who isn't on your party. Have tried to talk with some people and they even talked politics while discussing Game of Thrones. I mean they get their party's line like they teach them what to say and blame anyone opossite as a neo-nazi.

If the right disappeared the left would too

Not so sure about this tbh. Although it would be nice and I get your point!

TL,DR: One side good, one side bad.

And they wonder why history repeats itself, allegedly.

While I still do not fully agree with you, I do commend you on making effort to help clarify your position and point by changing the title and editing your original post.

Yeah, 'cause I didn't talk about politics or controversial things then.

When is that? They still happen all the time. Own up to the fact that you only post when the perp and/or victim matches your agenda. I'm not saying that's bad, but just own your bias.

And this isn't a right left thing, it's a white nationalist and neo nazis v everyone else thing.

You named the discussion "Fight the Right." It's been changed since, so it looks like you rightly want to walk that back.

Wasn't my point but okay.

The problem is, that Hitler still gets shitons of cash after all the years he is dead from Meinkampf, his picture etc. There is an Discovery show that reveal some not well known facts alike it was not him, who killed French messenger durning WWI, but some jew, but propaganda makes miracles ya know? The show is called Hitler Definitive Guide.

So white people are less than 5 times more than black people and get shot only half as many times as white people?

I don't really understand this sentence could you rephrase it? White people do get shot more by white people and black people get shot the most by black people. And once again if we're going to look at statistics black people do attack white people more then vice versa. Here is a picture that summaries a study done by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Black people also have higher incarceration rates and jail sentences for the same crimes.

Source? if we're going to look at the data there are as many whites and blacks in jail of course because blacks do more crimes (not hating just stating proven facts here, it's a larger % of the population.

Blm isn't clean but your disagreement with it doesnt show that. Something that does, people have shot cops in the name of it.

There have been a lot of shootings in the name of Black Lives Matter, one is already too many.

And alt right, neo nazis and white nationalists are far right movements, they tried to unite with conservatives but have been rejected and condemned by a lot of them, but not the one in office.

What does that have to do with anything at all? Yes they're Right-Winged. Neo Nazi's are too but the original Nazi's can weren't Left or Right. If you look at the Nationalism part yeah they we're far right. But if we're going to look at the Socialism part they were far Left. So what's your point?

Nice you can have weapons to defend your home almost freely as Pepsi on your fridge.

Just please, all you are doing by posting this is making people hate you while at the same time starting arguments.

I never understood those categories, sometimes I post giveaways there

Thanks for proving my point. You just took an extreme example and used it as "justification" to generalize and dismiss.

That logic suggests that by being 100% against people who try to murder protesters in a car, they are in fact fuelling further acts of people trying to murder protesters with cars.

Both sides can only be equally wrong, if both sides are engaging in violence and under the same conditions. The fallacy lays within what causes the violence. For example, if a stranger A walks up to stranger B in the middle of a street and punches them in the face, if stranger B punches them back, they are NOT equally as bad as their attacker. People who face a proven threat and choose to stand their ground rather than retreat are not a direct and equal moral equivalent of their attacker. While the overarching situation is more complex than that, you have one political group who has core values relating to 'purity' and dehumanising those that do not fall in line, the reaction to these values angling for legal policies is outrage and decrying those people as monsters. Because the reaction was also to dehumanise, they are not 'equally as bad'. When violence is caused by quote-unquote 'extremists' of the purity groups, and people respond in turn by treating said groups as a physical threat (especially wherever they assemble or publicly espouse their values), that is not being equally violent.

If we myopically oversimplify the cause of the maniac in the car as "its a natural effect of being totally opposed to the alt-right", then that means we must either stop opposing groups who either outright have purity mentalities, or merely have 'tendencies' towards them, or we should just shrug and accept the attempted murders as a normal result. I have a drastic idea : We should do neither, and call it for what it is.

To focus on it being a natural side-effect of polar thinking in the face of the gravity of the tragedy, quite simply downplays the scope of the situation and falsely puts both sides on the same ground, effectively being a passive social permit to murder because they got disagreed with.

I do genuinely think that both sides are wrong. I think that the answer is somewhere in the middle. Some issues need a right-wing approach, some need the left-wing approach. Just because they're right on some of their points, doesn't mean that they're not wrong.

Unfortunately, this type of hemming and hawing often leads to generalization and inaction. People will use it as jaded proof of why they, "don't/won't participate in politics." Regardless of where the answer lies, people seem all to eager to "not care about politics," despite its real implications in their life, on the basis of this flimsy justification. As you pointed out, this middle-ground philosophy is, more often than not, an excuse to zone out.

Not an excuse to cop-out.

One person can also plan and carry out a hate crime. Terrorism is a bit tricky to define - international law is still struggling with that - and to prove.

I'd do as well..

But not long ago, I think two months or something, there was this guy in Washington D.C., attacking a bunch of politicians and staffers at a baseball game, almost murdering some member of congress or something.

Where was the clamor of "domestic terrorism" back then? Awfully silent on that front.

I don't know about you, but this double standard, this hypocrisy is what disturbs me more than anything else..

Perhaps but that has yet to be proven in this case. I honestly don't think this kid thought it through that far, and that this is basically a hate crime. But that is mere speculation on my part.
You seem to have made up a new term, institutionalized racism, which seems to be the equivalent to the definition that I used (which is the classic definition of the term). I am well aware that black people can exercise prejudice - I actually did say that. Discrimination, however, requires a power base.