Name a site that logs reports of left wing violence and harassment against right wing folks if you can, then you can replace breitbart with that site if you wish, till then, that's what we've got. There are very few prominent sites that report and file left wing violence against right wing parties. As for undermining my source, I do so because it’s a fact. They have a clear bias, and I pointed such out. That said, my point is that the left commits more acts of violence and harassment in general than the right. Is most of it nonlethal? Yes, but again, not for lack of trying. Throwing moltov cocktails and rocks into a crowd of people, or stalking and jumping people, or beating people in the head with a baseball bat while they're in the bathroom, can easily become fatal, or at least crippling. It’s only sheer luck that nobody has died yet. Sending kids to deliver a bomb that injures ten cops is attempted murder, and no cop dying was only by the greatest possible stroke of luck. As for breitbart, death threats, rape threats, physical assaults, vandalism, direct harassment, barring from stores, online harassment, robbery of possessions, calls for the death of the president (and republican senators), media defense of violent actions against normal people, left wing politicians calling for violence and incivility against political opponents, open incitements of violence against the right by politicians and celebrities, ect. all add up. There are indeed frivolous cases, but there are actual crimes there, and were the tables turned, would you be fine with left wing folks being barred from businesses simply because they have a hat? Would you be fine with parents or teachers teaching their children to disrespect their political opponents? Would you be fine with groups of people being bombed only because they were trying to keep the peace? Yeah, they’ve got slant, but they have a point. The violence and slander against anybody even remotely right wing has escalated over the past few years, and nobody wants to call it out.
I could also post video by video by video of violence against cops, reporters, and regular people by the left wing terrorist group antifa, pushing the number up by dozens, if not hundreds of cases. Hell, the “say no to marxism” rally, was attacked by antifa, and multiple assaults there weren’t even in the list, nor were many other antifa related assaults, or blm related cop killings. It’s simple there’s more violence against the right than against the left. There’s more discrimination towards right wingers than left wingers as well.
“pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon (relating to police)” is one of their most well-known chants, yet they hold no responsibility for inciting the actions of those who attempt to kill cops? Building racial tension on any case even remotely related to black people being injured is the bread and butter of many BLM groups, rioting whenever a black person is shot, before even a single fact is out on the case. Tell me then, at what threshold does BLM share some of the blame for endorsing the act of cop killing? I’m not going off gavin’s assertion, I already stated he was wrong with the ISIS thing. I’m going off the people who actually say “today I gave a pig wings” when discussing a cop they killed. I’m going off of some of their biggest names being known cop killers (Assata shakur, huey newton, Michael finney, ect.) they idolize cop killers, they chant about killing cops, heavily endorse violence at their allies instead of discouraging it. and they endorse rioting and destruction of private property. Why exactly would they get a free pass when cop killers are among the main idols, and their rhetoric is literally all about killing cops?
You seem to have missed a few key details of the quotes you’re tossing out there. Unlike 1968, We aren’t talking about getting black people civil rights here. We have rights, we have opportunities, black people get ahead and black people fall back every day, just like everybody else. We aren’t children who need to throw tantrums and damage the property of others when we don’t get what we want from society. The second point that you missed was that while he understood the cause, he did not endorse said riots. He was firmly against them, and called them counterproductive. And the last detail you missed is that black people have all the tools to move up in America that they could ever need. They simply don’t know how to use them, and rioting reduces the amount of options available. Who’s going to open up a store where people are constantly in the mood to riot over any and every issue? Advocating riots is the same as advocating that all intelligent businesses should avoid your neighborhood like the plague. Protesting is one thing, MLK both understood and endorsed protest, as do I, but rioting is another beast entirely. Understanding it is one thing, endorsing it, alongside endorsing the death of police, is to embrace the death of your community as a whole. Businesses will not come to your residences, because they fear losses from violent riots, police will be driven out of your hood, as has happened in Chicago, and violence will likely rise in prominence due to the lack of authority figures, which means even when the cops do show up (less frequently due to the anti-cop rhetoric), they’re more likely to encounter dangerous situations, which might lead to higher losses of life on both sides, which will only feed into the cycle. Understanding that violence is a response doesn’t change the fact that peaceful protest was and is the correct approach, and is the reason his name is even half as powerful as it is today. Tell me how much longer he’d have lived, or how much further he’d have gotten by attacking any and everybody who remotely opposed him? His peaceful method was what brought so many people of all races over to his side. His peaceful method was what lead to him being immortalized as a standard for discussion. Had he engaged in riots like others did, his name would not have the effect that it does today.
Oh boy, not this line again.
The "main argument" is that people will be called Nazis because of the specific beliefs, actions, and attitudes that they display. You yourself admitted that even if Spencer is not entirely a Nazi, he at least does seem to be a sympathizer. Reducing it to "everybody they don't like is a Nazi" is purposefully ignoring what people are actually saying, and you're instead assigning your own assumptions about an argument to those people.
There's no common ground to be had here because when you reduce someone's argument to just "You call everybody they don't like a Nazi!", you are putting words in their mouth. I've been focusing on maybe men two at most and why I believe their use of actual Nazi rhetoric and gestures reflects their genuine beliefs. When you brought up Richard Meyer, I never called him a Nazi. I explained why I dislike him because of the harassment campaigns he has personally orchestrated. While I am critical of many of the individuals you brought up, I feel confident in my arguments because I recognize them as individuals.
That's fair enough for the first point, at least on your own end. Just remember, one of the people being called a nazi happens to be the exact kind of person who would check off nearly every gas chamber candidate box, and has publicly criticized and ridicules the alt right and racists as much, if not more than he's actually used their symbols to troll people. He might be chill with people like Spencer, but he is not their ally so much as he's just not their enemy. (talking about milo here, the gay jew who likes black men, his very existence checks just about all the boxes that a nazi would hate)
as for the part about people advocating violence here that's a straight up fact.