Current Events > MLK: The Hottest place in Hell is Reserved for Those who remain Neutral during -

(+) Yeah! (+)

times of great moral conflict.

It's really, really quite simple. NO MORE fucking fence-sitting.

Which side would Jesus side MORE with?

Richard Spencer, Kessler, David Duke, and the Unite the Right?

Or the Counter-Protesters who showed up to oppose their message.

Who are the bad guys in this situation??
---

Well, I'm sure that Jesus would denounce the violence on both sides as well. He would more strongly condemn those that spread hateful rhetoric on top of that.
---

I doubt Jesus would side with those that would wish harm upon his people
---

Alucard188 posted...

Well, I'm sure that Jesus would denounce the violence on both sides as well.

Jesus:

Hey Nazis STOP killing ppl.

Yo Anti-Fas, stop poking at them...
---

Jesus would side with the counter protesters, but like in a genocidal way
---

I mean I'm incredibly fucked here.

In the literal scenario you laid out I would be with the counter protesters.

But I also hate a lot of shit in this country that happens but happens because it's allowed by the law. While the rally fucking sucks and is stupid I also agree the stupid permits and all that shit made it legally allowed and all that shit.

It's just fucking stupid. I'll stop sitting on the fence when America itself stops sitting on the fucking fence with all its shit. In this situation and in all situations that's how I feel for the most part.

You wanna talk about some fucked up shit (not as fucked up as this though) we should talk about ethics in sciences lol.
---

lydiaquayle posted...

Alucard188 posted...

Well, I'm sure that Jesus would denounce the violence on both sides as well.

Jesus:

Hey Nazis STOP killing ppl.

Yo Anti-Fas, stop poking at them...

They were doing more than poking them, dude. They weren't running people over with cars, but they have been doing some pretty aggressive and violent acts as well. You don't have to keep the bar at "don't kill people".
---

Why do people always equate moderates with fence sitters
---

jesus would be wondering why nobody is preaching about the soon to come end of the world and beginning of the Kingdom of God.
---

lydiaquayle posted...

Who are the bad guys in this situation??

Whoever is starting violence.
---

This seems like the sort of situation where Jesus would crouch down and draw in the sand for several minutes.

LethalAffinity posted...

Why do people always equate moderates with fence sitters

It's easier to hate the people who don't side with you. The public discourse has been "with us or against us" for decades; it's just much harder to ignore now.

Questionmarktarius posted...

This seems like the sort of situation where Jesus would crouch down and draw in the sand for several minutes.

I'm imagining Jesus being some sort of magician in an attempt to calm people down.

"Hey, hey - who wants to see me make a whole cart full of bread?"
---

LethalAffinity posted...

Why do people always equate moderates with fence sitters

What is a moderate
---

Alucard188 posted...

They were doing more than poking them, dude. They weren't running people over with cars, but they have been doing some pretty aggressive and violent acts as well. You don't have to keep the bar at "don't kill people".

I would equate this to a big-ass school bully constantly yelling and poking, and spitting, and screaming, and intimidating his victim for the entire school year, until the little school kid finally has enough and punches, or spits at him back.

What the little school kid did probably wasn't right, and he should go to detention for it, but I completely empathize why he did it.
---

LethalAffinity posted...

Why do people always equate moderates with fence sitters

if in times of "great moral conflict" (i.e. the Civil Rights Era) a person's position is to not take a side, then a that's basically what they are.
---

LethalAffinity posted...

Why do people always equate moderates with fence sitters

So what is the moderate position here? Nobody is endorsing any Counter-Protesters committing any violent acts.

The moderate position is to condemn the message of Unite the Right, yes?
---

lydiaquayle posted...

Alucard188 posted...

They were doing more than poking them, dude. They weren't running people over with cars, but they have been doing some pretty aggressive and violent acts as well. You don't have to keep the bar at "don't kill people".

I would equate this to a big-ass school bully constantly yelling and poking, and spitting, and screaming, and intimidating his victim for the entire school year, until the little school kid finally has enough and punches, or spits at him back.

What the little school kid did probably wasn't right, and he should go to detention for it, but I completely empathize why he did it.

So, who's who in your analogy?
---

If one more chucklefuck brings up the "good on both sides of the Holocaust" aspect of being a moderate I'm gonna laugh

Taking a different side on various aspects of a single subject is pretty much the entire point of it
---

Moderates are fucking useless. They act like they have the moral high ground when in fact they have no ground to stand on.
---

Alucard188 posted...

The public discourse has been "with us or against us" for decades; it's just much harder to ignore now.

Well, it literally is 'against us' if the status quo was NOT to fix segregation, Jim Crow, and NOT to support the Civil Rights Acts.
---

The Admiral posted...

lydiaquayle posted...

Who are the bad guys in this situation??

Whoever is starting violence.

i'd say white nationalists and neo-nazis are always bad guys

or are you just playing semantics and going by the legal definition of "bad guys"
---

Delirious_Beard posted...

The Admiral posted...

lydiaquayle posted...

Who are the bad guys in this situation??

Whoever is starting violence.

i'd say white nationalists and neo-nazis are always bad guys

or are you just playing semantics and going by the legal definition of "bad guys"

If a Black Panther member and a neo-Nazi both start a fire in the name of promoting their cause, they're both arsonists and therefore "bad guys".

What makes you think that the label is exclusive to only a certain few groups?
---

Great JFK quote TC
---

thompsontalker7 posted...

If one more chucklefuck brings up the "good on both sides of the Holocaust" aspect of being a moderate I'm gonna laugh

Taking a different side on various aspects of a single subject is pretty much the entire point of it

Wait can you explain that to me?

I've never heard a "good on both sides of the holicaust" (except from literal racists here I guess). But that's a lot different than not taking a side today, that's taking a side that what the nazis did is a good thing.

You could sum it up that the original rally being allowed to happen falls under the definition of what America considers "freedom" to mean.

its just a stupid situation all around in a lot of ways.
---

thompsontalker7 posted...

If a Black Panther member and a neo-Nazi both start a fire in the name of promoting their cause, they're both arsonists and therefore "bad guys".

Counter-Protesters =/= Black Panthers.
---

thompsontalker7 posted...

Delirious_Beard posted...

The Admiral posted...

lydiaquayle posted...

Who are the bad guys in this situation??

Whoever is starting violence.

i'd say white nationalists and neo-nazis are always bad guys

or are you just playing semantics and going by the legal definition of "bad guys"

If a Black Panther member and a neo-Nazi both start a fire in the name of promoting their cause, they're both arsonists and therefore "bad guys".

What makes you think that the label is exclusive to only a certain few groups?

are you equating those counter-protesters with fucking black panthers?
---

thompsontalker7 posted...

Delirious_Beard posted...

The Admiral posted...

lydiaquayle posted...

Who are the bad guys in this situation??

Whoever is starting violence.

i'd say white nationalists and neo-nazis are always bad guys

or are you just playing semantics and going by the legal definition of "bad guys"

If a Black Panther member and a neo-Nazi both start a fire in the name of promoting their cause, they're both arsonists and therefore "bad guys".

What makes you think that the label is exclusive to only a certain few groups?

Yup. It's not a battle of moral heuristics if they're all doing violence and shit to spread their belief. We can rightfully condemn them for their beliefs, but people remember the actions.

Delirious_Beard posted...

are you equating those counter-protesters with fucking black panthers?

He's equating violent action with violent action.
---

Delirious_Beard posted...

are you equating those counter-protesters with fucking black panthers?

Here's the equation when it comes to accuracy to scale:

100% EVIL
|___

White Supremacists/Neo Nazis
|___
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Black Panthers
|
|___

NEUTRAL
|___
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Counter-Protesters
---

Remember that time Jesus literally smashed tables and whipped the money changers in the temple?

He'd be with antifa in a heartbeat.
---

Like. Jesus literally said violence is necessary to defend others. I don't get how anyone thinks he'd condemn those who dirty their hands for the greater good.
---

lydiaquayle posted...

Delirious_Beard posted...

are you equating those counter-protesters with fucking black panthers?

Here's the equation when it comes to accuracy to scale:

100% EVIL
|___

White Supremacists/Neo Nazis
|___
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Black Panthers
|
|___

NEUTRAL
|___
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Counter-Protesters

wrong

the black panthers were arguably the group in the US that had the most positive influence. if not THE group, then certainly one of them. they're not evil.
---

the Black Panthers had some positive influence, but the New Black Panther Party is a hate group, and is more comparable with neo-nazism
---

averagejoel posted...

the black panthers were arguably the group in the US that had the most positive influence. if not THE group, then certainly one of them. they're not evil.

---

Who do you side with if you're Jewish? Because evidently both groups hate them.
---

YourDrunkFather posted...

Who do you side with if you're Jewish? Because evidently both groups hate them.

Liberals don't have a problem with Jews - seeing as how the vast majority of Jews are liberals.

Liberals have a problem with Israeli oppression of Palestinians.
---

Delirious_Beard posted...

thompsontalker7 posted...

Delirious_Beard posted...

The Admiral posted...

lydiaquayle posted...

Who are the bad guys in this situation??

Whoever is starting violence.

i'd say white nationalists and neo-nazis are always bad guys

or are you just playing semantics and going by the legal definition of "bad guys"

If a Black Panther member and a neo-Nazi both start a fire in the name of promoting their cause, they're both arsonists and therefore "bad guys".

What makes you think that the label is exclusive to only a certain few groups?

are you equating those counter-protesters with fucking black panthers?

Ffs no lol

Alucard188 posted...

violent action with violent action.

^^^^^^

To elaborate, the general gist I'm getting here is that violent action is okay by certain groups because it's not nearly as extreme as the other, when it really isn't.
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

thompsontalker7 posted...

If one more chucklefuck brings up the "good on both sides of the Holocaust" aspect of being a moderate I'm gonna laugh

Taking a different side on various aspects of a single subject is pretty much the entire point of it

Wait can you explain that to me?

I've never heard a "good on both sides of the holicaust" (except from literal racists here I guess). But that's a lot different than not taking a side today, that's taking a side that what the nazis did is a good thing.

You could sum it up that the original rally being allowed to happen falls under the definition of what America considers "freedom" to mean.

its just a stupid situation all around in a lot of ways.

The stupid conception is that a moderate will find good and bad in clearly bad things like The Holocaust due to the nature of their apparent indecision.

Without meaning to sound pretentious, I view the moderate viewpoint as a means to weigh in the pros and cons of both sides before deciding what viewpoint suits the situation more.

In the case of the whole Charlottesville thing, the initial overwhelming reaction is "holy shit this is terrible how can anyone agree that this is anything but evil", and to that I think, "I concur, this is a shitty situation caused by a bunch of terrible people with nothing better to do. But I hope a bunch of bleeding heart liberals didn't think they were helping by being there and instigating violent conflict." I then weigh in the man who ran down Heather with the car, a deplorable act of course. But I can't help but be disappointed at the fact that the liberals now have a martyr to rally against even though they know that's a terrible idea, and that will only proceed to push violence further until one side decides to stop. And the side that stops will only do so when the other is completely and utterly defeated.

It's a shitty situation overall, but I can't help but remain moderate on it all the same, because while the blame on both sides is clearly disproportionate, the responsibility is equal in the sense that one is allowing the other to continue.
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

Far right and regressive left are equally trash.
How devastatingly moderate!

The left clearly feels they're in the right in this whole situation however, and that's where I disagree. They fucked that up the moment things got violent, no matter who started it first. That doesn't necessarily mean that I therefore concur that the supremacists are therefore correct as a result. People seem to think that a moderate perspective on this whole is basically the same as Trump's "good people on both sides" statement.
---

thompsontalker7 posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

thompsontalker7 posted...

If one more chucklefuck brings up the "good on both sides of the Holocaust" aspect of being a moderate I'm gonna laugh

Taking a different side on various aspects of a single subject is pretty much the entire point of it

Wait can you explain that to me?

I've never heard a "good on both sides of the holicaust" (except from literal racists here I guess). But that's a lot different than not taking a side today, that's taking a side that what the nazis did is a good thing.

You could sum it up that the original rally being allowed to happen falls under the definition of what America considers "freedom" to mean.

its just a stupid situation all around in a lot of ways.

The stupid conception is that a moderate will find good and bad in clearly bad things like The Holocaust due to the nature of their apparent indecision.

Without meaning to sound pretentious, I view the moderate viewpoint as a means to weigh in the pros and cons of both sides before deciding what viewpoint suits the situation more.

In the case of the whole Charlottesville thing, the initial overwhelming reaction is "holy shit this is terrible how can anyone agree that this is anything but evil", and to that I think, "I concur, this is a shitty situation caused by a bunch of terrible people with nothing better to do. But I hope a bunch of bleeding heart liberals didn't think they were helping by being there and instigating violent conflict." I then weigh in the man who ran down Heather with the car, a deplorable act of course. But I can't help but be disappointed at the fact that the liberals now have a martyr to rally against even though they know that's a terrible idea, and that will only proceed to push violence further until one side decides to stop. And the side that stops will only do so when the other is completely and utterly defeated.

It's a shitty situation overall, but I can't help but remain moderate on it all the same, because while the blame on both sides is clearly disproportionate, the responsibility is equal in the sense that one is allowing the other to continue.

Ohhhhhh, I get what you mean now. I thought you were saying moderates were stupid because they all use the whole "good and bad in the holocaust" thing and was gonna counter with how that makes no sense at all lol.

My bad, you summed up my thoughts 100% on the matter and why I'm "on the fence" like that other topic talks about.

Edit: this is the topic that talked about fence sitting >.>
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

thompsontalker7 posted...

-Gavirulax- posted...

Far right and regressive left are equally trash.
How devastatingly moderate!

The left clearly feels they're in the right in this whole situation however, and that's where I disagree. They fucked that up the moment things got violent, no matter who started it first. That doesn't necessarily mean that I therefore concur that the supremacists are therefore correct as a result. People seem to think that a moderate perspective on this whole is basically the same as Trump's "good people on both sides" statement.

I've lost count of the amount of times I've had some emotional regressive call me alt-right for criticism of Islam or because I value free speech without violence lol.

Hypocrisy is one of the bigger traits of the liberal perspective, so I tend to sound like I lean more right overall as a result of recognizing this too lol
---