Talk:Unite the Right
Unite the Right 2: Electric Boogaloo[edit]
Not sure if anyone's aware of it, but there's going to be another Unite the Right rally in Washington, DC this year. I'd add a section for it on this page myself but I only know that it'll happen from August 11-12 again and that it'll be in Lafayette Park. (Why they'd even bother to do it with what happened last time, I don't know.)--69.138.27.21 (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Attack the smoke but not the Flame?[edit]
A lot of people here think that this even just appeared out of the ether by racists and bigots but what people don't realize is that this wouldn't have happened if the antifa thugs hadn't decided to censor history and tear down those statues. Once again you make your own monsters. Also the guy who ran his car into the crowd was a Hillary supporter. Context people, context matters. I don't want violent stuff like this to happen anymore. The best way for that to be achieve is not to blame people for getting angry over statues, it's just notTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for this "the murdered people were asking for it by not liking slavery" take. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Very fine people[edit]
@Bongolian From the section: Slow POTUS:
“”Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.
|
| —Donald Trump, August 14, 2017 (reading a statement) https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump/ |
The second quote is taken out of context and put after the first one so that it seems that Trump is saying that there were fine people among KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists, which is not true. The full context:
REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.
TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.
REPORTER: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.
TRUMP: Oh no, George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down – excuse me. Are we going to take down, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Okay, good. Are we going to take down his statue? He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? You know what? It’s fine, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people – and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too.
REPORTER: I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly?
TRUMP: No, no. There were people in that rally, and I looked the night before. If you look, they were people protesting very quietly, the taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day, it looked like they had some rough, bad people, neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call ‘em. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest, because you know, I don't know if you know, but they had a permit. The other group didn't have a permit. So I only tell you this: there are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country, a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country. Does anybody have a final – does anybody have a final question? You have an infrastructure question.
Thinker(unlicensed) 08:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- So you're saying Trump is not racist at all because he read something that some hack put in front of his face, right? Bongolian (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- A normal human person does not respond to a Neo-Nazi murdering someone by saying "hey, it's okay, because the neo-Nazis were protesting alongside some people who weren't so bad, and the really important thing here is the Confederate statue." Also, a bunch of neo-Confederates who want to keep a statue glorifying a traitor don't really meet my criteria for "very fine people."
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictatormoderator 19:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)- Aaron Blake has an analysis of the dog whistling and whitewashing that Team Trump has engaged in regarding Charlottesville.[1] Bongolian (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- "So you're saying Trump is not racist at all because he read something that some hack put in front of his face, right?"
- @Bongolian Nope. I'm not debating if Trump is or isn't racist. I'm saying that the second quote is taken out of context and put after the first one so that it seems that Trump is saying that there were fine people among KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists, while in reality he "condemned totally" neo-Nazis and white nationalists in the interview. Didn't you read the transcript I posted? Many legit criticisms of how Trump handled Charlottesville can be made, but this "taken out of context very fine people"-thing is not one of them. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Aaron Blake has an analysis of the dog whistling and whitewashing that Team Trump has engaged in regarding Charlottesville.[1] Bongolian (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
You are incorrect about this. This is what Aaron Blake as to say whether it is out of context:[2]
“”But some Trump supporters — and now Trump himself — have argued that he was taken out of context. They say he wasn’t referring to neo-Nazis, white supremacists and white nationalists when he referred to “very fine people” on both sides, but rather some other people who shared their cause of saving a statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee.
… The argument makes little sense when you consider the facts on the ground, and it ignores Trump’s regular use of dog whistles. Let’s recap what happened. After the death of Heather Heyer, Trump on Aug. 12 condemned “in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence — on many sides.” He then repeated “on many sides,” apparently emphasizing that the counterprotesters (which included many who were peaceful and some who weren’t) needed to be condemned, as well. After an outcry, Trump on Aug. 13 offered a more forceful denunciation of the white supremacists, neo-Nazis and white nationalists who had rallied in Charlottesville. But then, on Aug. 15, he again returned to the “both sides” commentary, saying there was both “blame” and “very fine people” on each side that day. … |
Bongolian (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- This Trump thing is like saying that there's "two sides" to the story of domestic abuse and legitimizes the Neo-Nazis. It weakens his condemning of Neo-Nazis and also places blame on counter-protestors. It's super dishonest. If there were decent people in the protests, they probably have left when they saw the copious amounts of Nazi-imagery on their side. Anyone who remains is either a Neo Nazi or an apologist since it apparently doesn't bother them. It means you're rancid either way. So UnlicensedThinker, you are a moron and shut up. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario!
- "You are incorrect about this. This is what Aaron Blake as to say whether it is out of context:"
- @Bongolian OK, so instead of reading the actual transcript of the quote we are discuss, you point me to the opinion of Blake, and then you block me for "Trolling talk pages: unabashed tool of Breitbart". I'm not going to comment further, it's clear that you have no intention of having a honest discussion. Thinker(unlicensed) 08:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- whats to discuss? the quote is representative of what was said in its entirety. equivocations, qualifiers, and inane nuance - all unnecessary serving only to obfuscate, downplay or otherwise undermine what should have been simple and not require prompting - a clear and unambiguous condemnation of nazi fuckwits. if it bothers you remove the first quote - that actually adds nothing to the section AMassiveGay (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Re: "very fine people on both sides". Say you're a resident of the South with no racist beliefs, a live and let live type, just an average non-extremist person. You honestly feel tearing down a statue of Robert E. Lee is silly and a gross overreaction. You grew up with these Confederate statues, and to you, they were never about slavery, they were historical, just part of the local flavor. So you find out a rally is being held to protest the statue's removal. Once you get there (either in the evening or during the march on the next day) you see a large number of people carrying Nazi flags and shouting Nazi slogans, who are taking part in the protest with you. Do you immediately leave, or do you stay? I think anyone who is not a moron would agree that those who stayed and marched with the Nazis (knowing full well they were Nazis) are not, by any stretch, "fine people". Our President is a moron. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- whats to discuss? the quote is representative of what was said in its entirety. equivocations, qualifiers, and inane nuance - all unnecessary serving only to obfuscate, downplay or otherwise undermine what should have been simple and not require prompting - a clear and unambiguous condemnation of nazi fuckwits. if it bothers you remove the first quote - that actually adds nothing to the section AMassiveGay (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
N31VA Crash Section[edit]
I'm not sure I follow what's being discussed in this paragraph - all the sudden there's discussion of a Dodge Challenger, a Honda, some other cars, and Water Street, there doesn't seem to be a lot of context for this and I'm not sure why it's in the article or what the importance of it is. Maybe there was context once but it's been cut from the article leaving this section without support? — Unsigned, by: 66.194.72.19 / talk
- That does seem to come out of nowhere, doesn't it? I'd just delete it. In fact, I may. Vivisectionist (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
heather heyer[edit]
https://mobile.twitter.com/RationalDis/status/1227297605882929152 SocialismDoneLeft (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)