There's a time for that discussion. But not now. Nazis, KKK, and white supremacists terrorized a town and killed a women. And our morally depraved president couldn't bring himself to put a name to evil.

>There's a time for that discussion. But not now.

No. The time is now.

Without going into my stance, I will say that in all my years observing politics, every single time I've heard this comment it's to hide a double standard. Not a single exception. How do I know this?

Because when that time does come (in this case it would be violence by the left), they are silent, and will not condemn.

This is as good a time as any.

Do you have some clear examples of this? Thinking back to the last notable American left-wing oriented violent act (the 2017 Congressional baseball game shooting), I cannot think of a major Democratic politician that did not strongly condemn the act. Who is the "they" you are speaking of?

In fact, regarding Charlottesville, this really isn't a right wing issue, it's a Trump issue. Most Republican leaders that I can think of condemned this immediately and strongly as well. Trump's response was unusually tepid at first, which is what people are taking issue with.

>Do you have some clear examples of this? Thinking back to the last notable American left-wing oriented violent act (the 2017 Congressional baseball game shooting), I cannot think of a major Democratic politician that did not strongly condemn the act. Who is the "they" you are speaking of?

By "they" I meant individuals I've interacted with, not a generic "they". My experience is with individuals who are polarized about various things (abortion, Middle East, etc) - I wasn't referring specifically to left vs right examples.

Some personal examples:

Muslims upset at a local newspaper for publishing certain cartoons. At the time they were protesting and demanding the editors get fired (one of them eventually was fired). I discussed it with them (friends, not just strangers), and they said a few things:

1. This isn't just about Muhammad but all of Islam's prophets (which includes Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc).

2. This isn't just about Islam - they'd complain even if it happened to reverent figures of other religions.

3. The very statement that is being discussed here: Those are not the current problems and they are discussions for another time.

I pointed out to them that the comic section of the same newspaper had some years prior published really "offensive" cartoons about both Moses and Jesus. Response was "Well we weren't aware". Fair enough. Then later there was a news item about people upset with offensive depictions of Jesus. I pointed it out to them, and their response was the equivalent of "Leave me alone." Happened again related to a Hindu god. Same response.

The examples suggest the three points were not true. When those events became current problems, they did not want to have a discussion about it at all.

Similar story regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. Without talking about which side did what, in one of the conflicts one side was accused of carrying out war crimes. Protests. I asked some of my friends (protesters) why this issue is so potent to them when similar or worse crimes are not. The response:

1. This is about human rights, not favoritism to a particular group. "We condemn it when it happens to any one".

2. This is the issue of the moment. Don't distract from it.

Sure enough, later there was another conflict so eerily similar to what they were protesting, but in a whole other part of the world. Point it out to them, and get the equivalent of "Leave us alone". And then of course much worse conflicts occur than in the Middle East (DRC, for example). Crickets.

This is what I meant when I said "Every single time I've heard this comment it's to hide a double standard."

And of course, I have to endure accusations of aligning with the other side (by both sides) whenever I ask these questions. I'm asking because I'm curious and want to know. In some cases I may be neutral, and in others I'm actually siding with one side. But my taking a stance to one side does not mean I'll blanket accept the hypocrisy by that side's proponents.

That's fair. But people in this thread are already comparing left and right wing politics. If it's too soon for this discussion, there are up-thread comments it would be appropriate to object to as well.

> He specifically named KKK, Nazis and white supremacists. But you wouldn't hear about that thanks to your echo bubble.

It took him two days and only after great pressure from people across the political spectrum. From Saturday when he gave his first statement to Monday before he gave the statement you referred to he refused to answer multiple times when he was asked by reporters to condemn white supremacy by name and call the attack an act of terrorism.

But when Merck's CEO resigns from the business council he was able to vehemently attack him and his company on twitter almost immediately. When a terrorist attacked the Louvre in France at 5 am Washington time it took him 3 hours to denounce 'radical Islamic terrorist'. His response to the London attacks also involving terrorists driving a car through crowds was just as swift and specific. But he holds off on calling out the neo-Nazis and KKK by name, disgusting.

Liberals and conservatives have been united in their condemnation of Trump's failure to call out evil by it's name. You are the one living in an echo chamber that is willing to defend white supremacists and their President.

> When a muslim plows into a crowd it's a lone wolf and we should jump to conclusions. But now that it was a white guy the second it happened the media reached the consensus that it was an act of terrorism. This kind of double standard is what fuels white supremacists.

The "lone wolf" moniker has something to do with the proximity to and coordination with other wolves. When a white supremacist commits homicide at a white supremacist rally the label would not seem to apply.

> The guy wasn't at the rally at the time

He was photographed marching with Vanguard Of America[1] carrying a Vanguard shield shortly before his attack with the car.

[1] Who are now desperately disavowing any knowledge of him

> On the other hand most or all of the recent Islamic terrorist attacks have been centrally coordinated down to the last detail

Completely untrue.

Nazi's have a bit of a history, which you would do well to familiarize yourself with. See, as soon as people like that start talking about 'taking their country back' and feel that they now have their man in charge it is time to get really worried about where your country is headed. Lest you end up arguing the equivalent of 'I didn't know' a couple of years down the line, which to many 'moderate Germans' must have been quite a hard time.

A couple of crazy religious people we can deal with, they are nowhere near to overtaking any Western country. But the largest Western country just got taken over by the ultra-right, according to their own statements. Whether or not that is factually true remains to be seen but for now Bannon, Miller, Gorka and Trump seem to be pretty secure in their positions.

> This kind of double standard is what fuels white supremacists.

Absolute and complete bullshit. What fuels white supremacists is a combination of idiocy, hatred and personal failure.

>When a muslim plows into a crowd it's a lone wolf and we should jump to conclusions

That is literally the opposite of the actual media narrative associated with Muslims, and is often held out as the difference in coverage between Muslim-related incidents and non-Muslim ones (for want of a better differentiator).

Muslim/brown/whatever attackers are always framed in terms of their religious affiliations, and white attackers are almost always described as "lone wolves".

It beggars belief that you are trying to present that switched, with a straight face.

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the guidelines.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

There is violence on all sides ... however, only one side appears to have the tacit approval of POTUS. I think we can safely assume that he already (and quite rightly) disapproves of left wing violence -- but a lot of us remain unconvinced by his seemingly forced and totally unconvincing denunciations of violence committed by those who also vocally support him and claim to act in his name. WE need to condemn violence on both sides. The president, on the other hand, particularly and specifically needs to convincingly disown right wing violence and the language of division and hatred. We will take a lot of convincing after this.

Why don't we demand the same disavowal of left wing radical groups like Antifa from Democratic politicians. There is countless footage of peaceful right-wing protesters getting beat, fire bombed, etc. at Berkeley and elsewhere.

If don't you listen, you don't hear:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-ann-coult...

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/elizabeth-warren-to-berkeley-pro...

re: Scalise Shooting: In a statement, Senator Sanders wrote that he had been “informed that the alleged shooter at the Republican baseball practice is someone who apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign.” He went on to say: “I am sickened by this despicable act. Let me be as clear as I can be. Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms.” https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/scalise...

edit: and Obama on the BLM shooting in Dallas rightly called it a racist hate crime http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/obama-dallas-police-sh...

That's my 5 minutes of doing your research for you. High ranking Democrat politicians don't tolerate heckler's veto, much less violence. Republicans are so cowed by losing support from their radicals that they can barely bring themselves to speak up against them. Charlottesville is notable in that its pretty much just Trump who failed to speak up.

And Trump tweeted:

> We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/89642082278044467...

He didn't fail to speak up.

> not to mention other places you may have frequented.

Thanks for demonstrating the kind of character assassination the left so frequently tries to use against moderates.

> how there was an attempt to murder a crowd of people.

Trump also retweeted this:

the DOJ is opening a civil rights investigation on the car attack in Charlottesville

This horrible thread is a perfect example of why HN users should reliably and diligently flag pure political stories like this one.

Agreed. I sleep much more comfortably not knowing the (sometimes extreme) political views of my fellow hackers.

1. The statement (politico) you refer to was made 5 days after the incident, in a private meeting, Obama said it was "hate crime", did not use the word "racist", did not mention they were BLM sympathizers.

2. Obama did speak up just one day after the events [1], but he did not specifically mention BLM in particular, claiming lack of confirmed info (justifiably so)

Trump immediately spoke up, but did not mention white supremacists, drawing huge criticism.

I am far from a Trump enthusiast, but can you not see double standard applied here?

[1] Full transcript here: http://fortune.com/2016/07/08/transcript-obama-dallas-police...

We can and we should. Democratic politicians need to strongly disavow and condemn violence in general and left wing violence in particular and in exactly the same manner Republican politicians need to strongly disavow and condemn violence and right wing violence in particular. I would also like to see politicians from across the political spectrum come together to endorse peaceful political processes and to emphasise that the criminality of violence and hate has no place in a democratic society.

So, what's your position then regarding:

- BLM

- Antifa

- the 'alt right'

- the Neo Nazis / white supremacy groups

Pure cancer. All of them.

A group asking police not to kill them in such great numbers should be grouped with white supremacists? Do you really believe that?

Which part of the group? The part that calls for an end to violence or the part that openly calls for violence against police officers?

Lumping people into groups often times hides the positives and negatives of individuals.

Crooked police should be combated; police who do not stop crooked police should be combated.

But, you seem to, at least, acknowledge that BLM has positive aspects. What positive aspects are there to white supremacists?

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31/the-fbi-has-quietly-inve...

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/060.html

Sorry, I don't play the game of false equivalence by comparing opposing groups.

Especially in today's political and social climate.

Then what are you saying? I posted a screenshot of this conversation below.

1. Poster asks about other poster's position on the groups in question. 2. Other poster says, 'Pure cancer. All of them.' 3. I ask if poster is really equating groups like BLM to white supremacists. 4. You ask which part of the group. 5. I ask you what positive aspects can we attribute to white supremacists - since you seemed to be backing the guy grouping them together. 6. You say you don't compare opposing groups.

So, why did you respond to the 3rd reply listed above with the 4th reply? If you don't want to compare groups, why are you injecting yourself into a conversation comparing groups?

https://image.prntscr.com/image/4uCX51xFThaPUQ_HS-zinQ.png

I don't take responsibility for what others have stated. Since I'm not the one comparing groups I fail to see how I can be held responsible for that. I can have my opinion in the conversation without having to be lumped into something I didn't state. Stop trying to paint me into a corner so that you can label me in a negative way for your own benefit. You are attempting to do the childish response of "if you say this then you obviously must support that". Which is utter nonsense and you really should stop.

Things like your response is exactly why I stated I don't like playing the game of false equivalence by comparing opposing groups.

edit: let's try it this way, I wasn't doing the comparing, I was asking for clarification of what was being compared

There was also the assassination of police officers in Dallas last year. That's on top of a series of ambush style killings of police officers.

EDIT: Would downvoters care to explain where I'm mistaken?

On the internet these days take it as a badge of honor honestly.

You hear people chant speak truth to power when they repeat the safe narrative and everyone pats their back.

The fact that the media, large corporate business leaders, online forums, and government representatives are dog piling all over this narrative and ignoring even basic facts and events that happened in very recent memory, it should shock anyone paying attention to what is currently going on.

It's called censorship to blatantly disregard and shout down any opinion or factual information that works against the popularly driven editorial narrative, which is now apparently that Trump and his supporters are extremist violent Neo nazi kkk communist Russian spies, and I'm not even joking when I put that list together.

So let's talk about that.

On the day the shooter was killed, Obama gave a press conference[1] where he said:

We still don’t know all the facts. What we do know is that there’s been a vicious, calculated and despicable attack on law enforcement. Police in Dallas were on duty, doing their job, keeping people safe during a peaceful protest. These law enforcement officers were targeted, and nearly a dozen officers were shot, five were killed.... According to police there are multiple suspects. We will learn more undoubtedly about their twisted motivations, but let’s be clear, there is no possible justification for these kinds of attacks. Grave violence against law enforcement. The FBI is already in touch with the Dallas police; anyone involved in these senseless murders will be held fully accountable. Justice will be done.

Three days later he had returned from Spain (before planned) to visit the survivors, where he ... described the Dallas shooting as a "hate crime" against police, according to a top law enforcement representative in the meeting with Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. One really striking thing the president said in his opening remarks was that the shooting in Dallas in many ways was strikingly parallel to the Dylann Roof shooting in Charleston in the sense that it was a hate crime[2]

The Dallas shooting were a terrible thing, and Obama seems to have responded as one would expect a President should.

Outside the Dallas shooting, Obama himself seems to have had some issues with police behavior. But that didn't stop him saying what should be said.

[1] http://fortune.com/2016/07/08/transcript-obama-dallas-police...

[2] http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/obama-dallas-police-sh...

Let's not forget that Obama immediately used the Dallas shootings as an opportunity to aggrandize gun control at the same time. During his Paris release he also said:

"We also know when people are armed with powerful weapons, unfortunately, it makes attacks like these more deadly and more tragic, [...] In the days ahead, we will have to consider those realities as well. In the meantime, today, our focus is on the victims and their families."

I don't know if that's something I would consider to be in the wheelhouse of what the president should do, as it reads like exploitative base rallying to me, which is something I've accused Trump of as well. I get it, never waste a good tragedy and all that, but it seems modern presidents are far too open about using tragedy to push an agenda.

An attack on heavily armed police by one guy with an assault rifle is a pretty good time to talk about gun control.

So are politicians just supposed to reply "That was horrible" and not look at the underlying causes or events that allowed it to happen?

You forgot to add "our hopes and prayers" to their shocked, shocked I tell you response to gun violence.

Obama was a decent human being and Trump had to coerced into being one, yep. I was just pointing out "left wing" violence. Insofar as skinheads are "right wing".

The right-wing violence runs a lot further than that, all the way back to the Civil War and the people who went to war to defend their "right" to violence against black people. There is a continuous line between that and today. The Charlottesville protests were centered on a statue: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-rally-...

> The Charlottesville protests were centered on a statue

You know, in Seattle there is a rather grand looking statue of Lenin. He was a rather evil guy. Who gets to decide which statue stays and which goes?

> You know, in Seattle there is a rather grand looking statue of Lenin. He was a rather evil guy.

The Seattle Lenin is privately owned, so not parallel to the Lee statue in Charlottesville.

> Who gets to decide which statue stays and which goes?

The owners of the statues?

A fair point. I see how the two situations are different.

Did the Americans ask the Iraqi zoning board before pulling down all those statues of Saddam Hussein?

Less controversially, there is actually a political process here, and in the normal manner the city had decided to remove the statue. The white supremacists decided to demonstrate against this, sparking the violence.

The statue recently pulled down in Durham NC is a different Confederate statue.

Left-wing violence goes back just as much.

Those people defending their "rights" in the Civil War were Democrats.

Democrats today are not Democrats of yesteryear. The ideology of the two parties switched during the Civil Rights movement. The Civil War was not “left wing violence”.

That's a pretty gross simplification. Around the time of the Civil War, there were more than two significant parties (including Whigs, Progressives, etc) and they were much less clearly left/right polarized in today's terms. Over the next 100+ years, there was a lot of shifting of policy priorities (from war, to slavery, to business, to civil rights, etc) followed by consolidation culminating with LBJ that left us with the two modern parties.

The point is that the people who used to be known as Democrats did not share the same belief that modern Democrats share, so comparing them to each other is ridiculous. It’s like saying “Roman Republicans owned white slaves so all Republicans hate white people”. It’s the same word, yes, but not the same beliefs.

That's the only reason I post such a statement. To see how the myth of the switching parties is still being pushed.

I don’t understand that. Democrats today fight for civil rights for minorities. Surely you can’t argue against that. It’s part of the core platform. Democrats of the 1860s fought to keep black people enslaved. You yourself said this.

So with those two statements, how can you then argue that the positions have not flipped? How does that even reconcile in your mind?

Just because the Democrats altered their message doesn't mean that the Republicans had to have changed in response.

You're right, it doesn't mean they had to. But they did. The Civil War was fought to abolish slavery, basically a civil rights argument. It was fought and won by the Republicans. Where do the Republicans stand on civil rights issues today? Would Republicans fight a war to protect gay marriage? Would they fight a war to keep businesses from hiring illegal immigrants and paying them pennies on the dollar while working them in horrible conditions? Once upon a time they fought a war to protect the rights of workers and humans who were being taken advantage of, would they do the same today?

Even more recently, Ronald Reagan supported strong gun control. He's the reason California has such strict gun laws. How about Nixon, a Republican who created the EPA that modern Republicans hate so much? Lincoln was also strongly pro-immigration, saying at one point "Foreign immigration... should be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and just policy". By 1920, they said "the practical exclusion of Asiatic immigrants is sound and should be maintained". Seems like a pretty big shift to me!

The Republicans of today, even moderate Republicans, are not the Republicans of yesterday, or yesteryear. It would be political suicide to run on some of the most successful Republican platforms from even 30 years ago.

So again I ask, how can you reconcile in your mind the idea that ye olde Democrats are pro-slavery and ye olde Republicans are the party that fought against the South in the Civil War with your claim that they have in no way changed positions over the years?

That's a nice speech, but I have not claimed that they have not changed positions over the years. I am disagreeing with the notion of the "switch" that supposedly happened in response to the Democrats changing some of their positions.

Both parties have altered their message and platform over the years for various reasons.

>the "switch" that supposedly happened in response to the Democrats changing some of their positions

But no one argued that. No one argued that the Democrats changed so the Republicans said "oh man, guess we have to switch too". It was a gradual shift over decades to the point where Democrats are now the civil rights party when they used to be the pro-slavery party and the Republicans are now the party of holding back civil right progress when they were literally willing to start a war to abolish slavery.

Setting aside the one point that literally only you are arguing, I'm glad we've come to the point where we can realize that we actually do agree. Our only disagreement is that you think the word "switch" implies a sudden and coordinated effort to flip places.

Democrats and Republicans, through decades of policy shifts, now represent views they have historically been against. The point of that is "the party of Lincoln" and "the party of Reagan" is Republican in name only, not in actual policy, and the Democrats surely are not the pro-slavery party anymore.

>> Democrats and Republicans, through decades of policy shifts, now represent views they have historically been against.

That's the part I'm disagreeing with. I'm not arguing against a "sudden switch" as you put it. I'm arguing against the entire notion that the two parties switched at all, be it suddenly or over decades. The two parties have adjusted over time to their needs over the years to the point that, fundamentally, they are not that much different other than their fringe elements, which does not define them as a whole.

How about the French Revolution?

If we're bringing European politics into a US discussion, then we should arrest everyone displaying Nazi symbols or using the Nazi salute, and we should probably also ban displays of the Confederate flag as well. Also now the Democratic party is far-right extremism, and the Republicans are banned by law.

I'm loving my new single-payer healthcare and free college tuition, though.

There are some times when "technically correct" is most definitely not the best kind of correct. This is one of those times.