Any intelligent, non-trolling commentary on the terrorist act in Charlottesville is welcome here on the blog. Trying to fit it into a squabble about "both sides" will be edited.

Good faith, the Principle of Charity, clear points, least invective is favoured, since opinions are pretty rage-y on the subject.

Both sides!

Here is a thought from John Podhoretz ... trying to explain why it took the President two days to call out the evil by name.

Quote

It was not this nucleus that showed up in Charlottesville. These were, instead, subatomic elements inside what we might call the nucleolus of Trump’s support, the tiny machine inside the atomic machine that forms the core of the Trump base. And that nucleolus is governed by rage, hatred, a sense of being wronged, and the loathing of others due to race and national origin. They are numerically insignificant to a man who secured 63 million votes in November 2016. But he—he, not I—seems to feel they are necessary to the constitution of his core. And he basically let them off with a mild warning.

William,

Spirit of charity?

How about doing that for real and giving President Trump the benefit of the doubt--that he is truly trying to bring people together?

People can disagree with the way he is doing it without accusing him--and, apparently his supporters, of being complicit with racism like the quoted Podhoretz just did.

My way, to me, represents a true spirit of charity--that is, trying to give the best interpretation to a not-fully-understood statement. Instead, I see Podhoretz making negative inferences.

Michael

MSK suggested one of our OL members might be happier posting to Lindsay Perigo's website/forum, which has degenerated over time into an anti-Muslim hate site. I dunno.

Two posts so far on the topic of Charlottesville. Neither one mentioned the murder-by-automobile, and not one word about the injured victims of that act. "It's a funny old world."

I'll let folks explore on their own, at their own time, but here is a sample of the racialist hysterics of the last 48 hours.

Not one mention of the murder. Kinda reminds me of something ...

Quote

 

Yummy ...

Here's Lindsay

Quote

 

... and the racialist stylings of Kyrel ....

Quote

 

Does this seem like a place for you, Marcus?

4 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

My way, to me, represents a true spirit of charity [...]

That's nice. 

No one knows why you haven't mentioned the vehicular homicide in your front-page Charlottesville thread. I mean, that's your own business, but if you can't or won't, how about explaining why you don't?

Alternatively, comment on the racialism at Solopassion.com, comment on Kyrel and Lindsay not mentioning murder, expand on your opinion that Marcus might take himself off to that shit-drain of Objectivism

Why don't you mention the murder and those in the hospital?

"Tracking 101."

31 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Any intelligent, non-trolling commentary on the terrorist act in Charlottesville is welcome here on the blog. Trying to fit it into a squabble about "both sides" will be edited.

William,

Since you are all of a sudden setting yourself of as supreme connoisseur of O-Land forums, where, pray tell, does editing the posts of others sound like OL?

Think about it...

I've allowed moderators to delete trolling posts, but not edit what someone says (not to my knowledge, at least). I tried that once when I was learning how to run a forum, but it was a mistake. It always led to bad places and, I believe, it always will. Editing posts of others is the essence of intellectual bullying. It is taking over the voice of another.

Michael

23 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Any intelligent, non-trolling commentary on the terrorist act in Charlottesville is welcome here on the blog. Trying to fit it into a squabble about "both sides" will be edited.

Since you are all of a sudden setting yourself of as supreme connoisseur of O-Land forums, where, pray tell, does editing the posts of others sound like OL?

Domestic terrorism? [edit: insert smiley ]

Welcome to my blog, a little-read corner of Objectivist Living.

7 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Why don't you mention the murder and those in the hospital?

William,

I've got no problem with that. 

In my opinion, this was the work of a deranged individual (like the Bernie supporter who shot congressional people at baseball practice recently). I don't think Bernie supporters were planning that, nor do I think the outcome was what they wanted. It was a deranged individual among them who did that.

Ditto for these white nationalists. I don't think running a car into protesters, killing one and injuring a lot of others is what they were after with their demonstration. They were there to support a hateful world view that the US has moved on from, but I don't believe they showed up intending to kill and injure their enemies with terrorism.

If you believe that, it's your privilege. But it's not precise thinking. It's what the media agenda is right now, and I don't find the media circus at all rational.

If you are fishing for me to grandstand against racism, sorry. Not gonna do it. The ideas behind this affair are deeper. Besides, I was in love with a black woman once and lived with her a year. No regrets. My two boys have black blood in them. No regrets. I've lived what others like to play public shame-games with. Except I wasn't playing at life and virtue-signalling to my tribe and I don't have an ounce of shame in my soul.

Michael

9 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Domestic terrorism?

William,

So you think you are better suited to say what someone else wants to say--in their own voice--than they are just because of a choice of topic?

Why not let them speak for themselves and let the reader judge? (That, by the way, is the OL way.)

If something gets too offensive or troll-like, delete it. 

Michael

44 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

56 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Since you are all of a sudden setting yourself of as supreme connoisseur of O-Land forums, where, pray tell, does editing the posts of others sound like OL?

Domestic terrorism? [edit: insert smiley ]

Welcome to my blog, a little-read corner of Objectivist Living.

So you think you are better suited to say what someone else wants to say--in their own voice--than they are just because of a choice of topic?

Why not let them speak for themselves and let the reader judge? 

Lost in an unset edit above was a thank you -- for pointing out the 'optics' of an edit-threat. You are right. What I had in mind was off-topic racialist claptrap, and the word I should have used is "deleted."

It is still odd to me that it takes so much prodding to get someone to call out the evil by name. I think the President botched his reaction and damaged his standing as a leader ... 

I also think you failed to address the evil done by the young man in custody -- until prodded. 

Sometimes, as I am sure you would acknowledge, the President makes mistakes. I believe it was a mistake to drag out and delay a forthright denunciation of the racialized factions and the sickness of mind that drove a vehicle into a crowd with intent to injure.

To me it is no different than the evil impulse that led to the truck-rammings in Nice and in London. 

I am no fan of the anarchist black-bloc or workers-party fanatics that corrupt the public sphere with destructive violent acts -- such that attend every G20 meeting. In Charlottesville, in my opinion, however, the main violence-seekers were the "white power dudes." 

Thank you for finally mentioning the disturbing act of domestic terrorism ... I note again that Solopassion has failed to do so ...

I also wish you would apologize to Marcus for suggesting he belongs with Lindsay's hate mob.

2 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I also wish you would apologize to Marcus for suggesting he belongs with Lindsay's hate mob.

William,

I was with you until here.

(btw - I was specifically referring to the habitual picking a fight and bickering stuff they do over there, not the content of what they say.)

Michael

28 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

It is still odd to me that it takes so much prodding to get someone to call out the evil by name.

William,

This is more important than it seems.

Over the last eight years, the propaganda war has resulted in the current-day PC culture. Good people who are not racist and bigoted are sick and tired of being called racist and bigoted over and over and over and over and over. And the same accusatory people who want them to "call out evil by name" as you put it openly salivate (in the mainstream media) at trying to shame them into doing that.

The general attitude in return, though, is fuck 'em.

The good people know they are not evil and they know they don't like seeing evil. But they will be goddamned if they will allow oppressive busybodies who want power over them to get any satisfaction out of their thoughts and hearts.

The mainstream press doesn't want to "call out evil by name" in order to combat it. They want the good people they have been calling racist up to now (including President Trump) to "call out evil by name" and feel shame so the progressives can rule over them. It's not an honest game, but in my view, it's the exact reason for the delay.

Also, watching all those pundits and politicians sanctimoniously grandstanding on TV is stomach-churning. Does anyone really believe they believe what they are saying? Even on the left (but, this is not excusing the right). Remember Bob Beckel, for an easy example? He, the bastion of left-wing ideology bravely facing down the pundits of Fox News, was fired because he expressed racism in a spiteful manner to an employee. He literally didn't like her because she was black. (I mention him and not others because he got caught and they haven't yet.) If he were still on air, I have no doubt he would be one of the most sanctimonious of the lot in grandstanding about Charlottesville.

Who on earth wants to join in a chorus of yawp with these kind of people when they are hoot-n-hollering their virtue? 

Michael

There is no dissent at Solopassion, and no one countering the white supremacy of Kyrel or Lindsay, let alone anyone picking a fight over their demented prejudices. Those days are long gone. 

In other news, this is the basic line that many folks have taken with Trump's delay ... it may not be fair at all, but there it is. Trump needlessly dithered in this reading, and damaged his standing as a leader. Except with the cultists, of course.

20 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

In other news, this is the basic line that many folks have taken with Trump's delay ... it may not be fair at all, but there it is. Trump needlessly dithered in this reading, and damaged his standing as a leader. Except with the cultists, of course.

William,

Don't imagine your view is so prevalent. This is the same issue of visibility I constantly spoke of during the election. Just because you refuse to see people (and even call them cultists) doesn't mean they don't exist. (I want to make a quip about looking down at Trump supporters from the Olympian heights of the top one's own nose, but I'll bite my tongue.  )

Here's some food for thought. See if Paris Dennard is a cultist to you or if President Trump damaged his standing as a leader to him. This deals precisely with President Trump's delay. And who acted like the true racist on this panel?

Like Paris, there are many. They are all over the place (except, maybe, on mainstream media shows) and they are not going anywhere. 

All you have to do is look.

Michael

Well, I dunno. First to shout "racism", you win and that's the end of reason. Forgotten, that no one has the monopoly on being singled out and hated for their race (religion, gender, etc.). 

No, it must remain to be always white on black, Christian on Muslim, etc. - when the complete reverse silently goes on in places, off the CNN/BBC radar screen. 

I would suggest the obvious: that a radical fringe does not represent America - but many radical Lefties would wish it to be so. Away from the fringe, I suggest again, that there is a solid core of Americans who had been so marginalized and lorded over by previous Admins and creeping progressivism that they lost their voices and kept quiet for a long while, until lately. It is a terrible shame that now, that fringe is trying to ride their coat tails.

So what's worse here? Racism - Progressivism?

Answer: equally the same tribalism-collectivism. Let not the one evil be a distraction of the other. But Progressivism has held sway for a longer time. Racism is easily pointed out and argued down, progressivism lurks and spreads. It is improbable that racism will dictate terms and policy to governments of fairly free countries, the ideology of progressivism has already infected them.

6 minutes ago, anthony said:

So what's worse here?

Oh, most dramatic. Did you ever speak out when cars driven into people was an ongoing occurrence in Israel, William?

Racism also.

It seems the "terrorist" driver of the car that killed the woman was terrorized by a mob hitting his car with bats and he panicked.

--Brant

3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

It seems the "terrorist" driver of the car that killed the woman was terrorized by a mob hitting his car with bats and he panicked.

Can you back up that "terrorized by a mob"? Where did you gather that impression?

Maybe ...

https://squawker.org/culture-wars/new-video-evidence-proves-james-fields-charlottesville-car-wrecker-was-attacked-by-antifa/
http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/137321223
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/12/violence-charlottesville-driver-slams-crowd-1-killed/
http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1502666132780.webm

Trump RT'd this pic showing a CNN journalist hit by a train days after a white nationalist ran his car into activists, killed Heather Heyer. pic.twitter.com/tWjdoE70AS

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) August 15, 2017

An arguably reasonable video report from VICE:

"A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state ..."

Photo credit to Sean Rayford (from a page of photographs at http://www.seanrayford.com/blog/2017/8/photos-unite-the-right-rally-turns-deadly---charlottesville-va )

On 8/14/2017 at 2:21 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If something gets too offensive or troll-like, delete it. 

I have second thoughts, understanding your objections above. One can't get a discussion going  if one deletes ... and a responsible moderator-of-his-own-blog will (in my mind and experience) draw out the warrants and evidence leading to a conclusion. As with Brant, who is suggesting that a mob terrorized the alleged terrorist behind the wheel of a Challenger, all one can do is ask for elaboration ... and if one has the time, to patiently try to reconstruct the 'where you are coming from.' 

Here is a video from FoxNews, a discussion between hostess Abby Hostman and two guests. It can be hard to understand just why a "both sides" equivocation is felt so emotionally by some people. Hostman did her best to tease out a few emotional underpinnings and biases ... 

Buzzfeed Media is one of those outfits that fits uneasily under the 'Mainstream' heading, although I acknowledge some partisans will sweep it and all its writers and management under the unfortunate weasel-word "FAKE NEWS."

Bearing in mind a likely "progressive" bias, interested readers may want to explore the Fact Landscape spied out by on-the-ground reporter Blake Montgomery. It's ~2400 words:

Here’s What Really Happened In Charlottesville

Bonus track ...

-- I was wondering when the monument to Robert E Lee was erected in Charlottesville. I had thought it would have been in the 1880s or 1890s. It appears it wasn't forged until 1924.  Another interesting side-track for me is that Lee himself was supposedly opposed to monuments to the Confederacy: 

Robert E. Lee opposed Confederate monuments

5 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

One can't get a discussion going  if one deletes ...

William,

The key word is "discussion."

When everything starts getting laced with calling you, the blog owner, names and preaching how dishonest you are, you, William, might call that a discussion. (And, granted, it is entertaining when one is not the owner.  )

I don't.

In my world, disagreement is a discussion. Trolling is not.

The good news is that it's still a relatively free speech world in America. People can still set the terms of discussions on their own turf, at least so far. 

Michael

23 hours ago, WSS, quoting Brant Gaede ... said:

On 8/15/2017 at 5:53 AM, Brant Gaede said:

It seems the "terrorist" driver of the car that killed the woman was terrorized by a mob hitting his car with bats and he panicked.

Discuss. Discuss? Mis-cuss ...

Why should the person with tools to 'set the terms' here not transport this to an "Unpersuasive Suasion" section of Friends and Foes? The comment opened a door and closed off elaboration. 

"It seems" that the comment was a discursive 'hit and run."  What are rational parameters of response to this kind of hit and run, I wonder.

On a somewhat related note:

The complete story of what happened in Charlottesville, according to the alt-right

I don't "hit and run," but I have very little time to read and write.

--Brant