zlacker

I dunno; I feel like there's something about white supremacy, fascism, and literal nazism, that maybe precludes calling it "peaceful".

>>lostco+(OP)
And how many Walmarts were looted? Why is the leftist mob immune to criticism even when they are violent?

>>lostco+(OP)
That sounds sort of like the reverse-halo effect fallacy. Believe it or not terrible people don't necessarily do terrible things every time they do somethings. For example, Fidel Castro caused Cuba to have one of the highest literacy rates in the world. That is true no matter how many people he imprisoned, tortured or killed. Similarly people can peacefully protest even if they are white supremacy, fascism, or _neo_ nazis (pet peeve of mine, but I wouldn't call someone a literal nazi unless they were literally a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party between 1920 and 1945).

>>ponsin+I4
It’s sort of implied nowadays, few are alive who were. But in the 80s I was pretty annoyed when people were described as neonazis when in fact they were of the old guard.

>>lostco+(OP)
I see we have abandoned the facade of neutrality. The right to protest is the same regardless of your cause, as is the duty to remain peaceable.

>>ponsin+I4
When people are wearing swastikas on their arm and giving Hitler salutes, I'ma call them a literal nazi regardless of it no longer being 1945.

I'm also not really concerned what 'positives' their agenda might include, given the violence that is explicitly part of the ideology they are identifying with.

Even for those who aren't literally wearing symbols of the Nazi party, white supremacy isn't a non-violent ideology. It fundamentally seeks to supress, remove, or otherwise contain non-whites. Putting non-whites in camps is still violent. Expelling them from the country they were born into and lived in their entire lives is still violent. Etc. And if there's a "nice" white supremacist, who is "well, I think whites are better, but you know, live and let live, right?" I'm pretty sure they're not out marching.

>>wildmu+pG
I didn't say anything about the right to protest. I said a protest isn't peaceful when the protest is literally people saying "We hate (group)". You can't have an ideology of hatred that is also an ideology of peace.

>>lostco+782
The peacefulness of a protest has nothing to do with the political message. Not every concept is about your political bottom line. Friend and foe alike can engage in peaceful and violent protests.

A "violent protest" is a clear concept that means something. You can very easily imagine a peaceful protester with the most awful things written on their sign. And you can imagine the most violent rioters being inspired by the greatest message.

>>wildmu+Tr2
A sign with "Kill All The Jews" is a violent protest, even if they're doing nothing but standing there. Advocating violence is not peaceful, even if the individual is only saying it.