Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by MAGAorMIGA, Jan 26, 2018.
agree Totally three Billboards was a stunning movie
Out to see The Post tonight. Loved 3 Billboards and enjoyed Darkest Hour so will see how it compares.
I didn't say they were.
I did say, however, that they glorify the man and the movement that were responsible for these crimes. That does imply that - in the main - they condone them / think that they were a good idea.
They are also guilty of murder (if you consider deliberately driving a car into a group of people, one of whom died as a result, as murder? I assume that you do.) Antifa (and I really dislike this term) - however irritating, are not guilty of the same crimes.
I worry that people think that there is some kind of moral equivalence between the two.
You are collectivising off of an individual action... If I was to write the same thing for the Manchester bombing [oh look, Muslims killing UK children] you'd be up in arms yet you are doing exactly the same thing...
You dislike what they call themselves?
Why? It's been common usage since 1932 in Germany...
You did. The pronoun "they" is plural.
Not necessarily. I think you'll find that most people balk at the idea of mass murder, not to mention collective guilt.
Was there a crowd of neo-nazis pushing this car at high speed or was it a single person of unspecified political membership behind the wheel? I'll check the footage and get back to you, meanwhile may Heather Heyer, H. Jay Cullen & Berke Bates rest in peace.
There can be no equivalence between, on the one hand, the easily identifiable mob antifa and whatever grouping of conservative minded people they decide are the nazis du jour.
I'm not very keen on Nazis
The originals, or any wannabe alt-right versions
I don't mind people grouping together to stop them either.
Very much enjoyed the film and Oldman's portrayal. He didn't over egg the Churchill cadences of voice etc. The tube scene was ridiculous and I don't think happened.
Churchill's entire life story is fascinating. An exceptional person. There's no doubt that Churchill had unpleasant and wrong views and opinions - they are out there in public record. However in May 1940, when leading politicians such as Lord Halifax and others as well as the King wished to do a deal with Hitler Churchill was having none of that. I think we should all be grateful for that.
We have those already. Courts, police &c.
Yes. That's why there has never been any Nazis.
Courts and police, not oracles.
The implication here is that you think that all Muslims are ISIL / Al Qaida sympathisers. I don't. The equivalent would be if a group of people were waving an ISIL flag, and claiming that the Manchester victims got what they deserved. If you condemned them, I would be more than cool with it. In fact I would have a rather similar opinion of them as I do the neo-nazis. I don't like the far-right, whatever their supposed religion.
Do they call themselves Antifa or Anti-fascist? My thought was the second. The first is one given to them by the alt-right.
No - his political sympathies are well known. He was a neo-nazi.
Conservatives are not Nazis. Far from it. Nazis, however, will often try to cloak their heinous views as either Socialist or Conservative. It's important not to fall for it.
PS - just seen Darkest Hour. Quite enjoyed it. Interesting that his biggest challenge was dealing with those who were trying to appease / normalise Britain's relationship with Nazis. A lesson to us all.
Not typically, I know.
So we should beware of anyone with a political viewpoint. Got it.
 Feelings have nothing to do with it - it is a fact that, for much of his second Premiership, Churchill was a semi-invalid. My use of the term "basket case" simply tells it like it was.
The fact is that, having been worsted in several other clashes with me, you thought you could put me down by pretending to be "appalled" by my use of that terminology. Your default mode in argument on this forum is to scoff, sneer and belittle those who have the gall to disagree with you. Would you like me to prove this with the copious evidence I can adduce from your published posts? Or are you prepared to accept that those who deal out insults render themselves liable to be insulted in return?
 "I'm really sorry you feel that way".
This seems to be your code for "I am wrong but I am too conceited to admit it".
It is also the kind of weaselly apology which exonerates the person offering it, and blames the person to whom it is offered. Says it all. I have your number, Red Observer.
James Alex Fields Jr
So you consider Nazism to be just another political viewpoint. Got it.
"Mr Fields is said to have harboured Nazi sympathies."
So as evidence that the man is a neo-nazi you're reporting a report of some unverified reports. Nice job.
No, I'm only acknowledging your warning that a Nazi could be disguised as a Conservative or a Socialist. Tricky types, those Nazis, but one things for certain:
So if you want to be certain who is a Nazi in disguise then pull a black scarf over your face so you can't be recognised, pull on a black hoodie to double your anonymity and then get a stick and try to put it up 'em. That's a sure fire way to ferret out them Nazis. There is no way that this plan could possibly go wrong.
Both. You can even find anfifa groups on Facebook
No, fully verified. You clearly don't want him to be a Nazi - why is that . . . ?
Not an action that I would condone - but I've already said that I don't support Antifa's methods. But as yet they haven't been reported as murdering anyone. Neo-nazis have. At least two that I can think of. One on each side of the pond. That's why I think that they are worse. Plus they support a man and movement who were responsible for mass torture and genocide.
Still don't like the term though.
So let's have the citation.
No, I'm just saying that if there is evidence that this murderous numpty is a Nazi then present it.
Will you join me in condemning antifa & neo-nazis?
Not for want of trying:
Stalin? Can't be. Antifa have dibs on him.
Nazism always raises difficulties for tolerant societies based on freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, freedom of religion. What do you do about groups whose raison d'etre is to demonise and persecute minority groups? What do you do about groups who, if they were by some ghastly mischance to achieve power, would smash the democratic system itself and stifle those very freedoms mentioned above? The answer is you throttle them at birth. You do not tolerate the intolerant. It is legitimate to use force against those groups which, had they sufficient support, would most certainly use force against us. I've no idea if Antifa have a guiding positive philosophy which they stand for, I doubt it. But their negative purpose - to prevent racism and fascism rearing their ugly heads above the parapet justifies their existence - and their methods.