Church statement on Charlottesville, Virginia

[The Nehor]

UPDATE: David Duke, prominent white supremacist douchebag, is now claiming the media bullied Trump into condemning white supremacist movements and insists that the President should not feel he has to do that. Duke also defended the nutcase who drove his car into people claiming it was self-defense and the poor Nazi driver just panicked because of the evil anti-Nazis marching nearby scaring this poor young Nazi into running them over.

[longview]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, it wasn't. He was drawing a false equivalency between white supremacists and those who oppose white supremacy. Then he felt the need to point out that the whole thing was not his fault as these kinds of things predate his presidency. Got to make sure no one blames him after.

Lame.   He blamed ALL sides.   It is utterly ridiculous for you to claim he was "drawing a false equivalency."   I consider Antifa (who are well paid agitators and thugs) to be just as abhorrent as neo-nazis.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, longview said:

Lame.   He blamed ALL sides.   It is utterly ridiculous for you to claim he was "drawing a false equivalency."   I consider Antifa (who are well paid agitators and thugs) to be just as abhorrent as neo-nazis.

To be fair your consideration is absolutely wrong.

[longview]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You defended the people at this rally who walked around with the Nazi flag. Yeah, literal Nazis.

This is an OUTRIGHT lie.  Why have you not provided a specific link to the post where I did the "defending?"

[Helmuth]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You want a rational explanation for why White Supremacy is bad. Fair enough.

That cover it?

 

I kind of do not think in pictures.  It is hard to apply Aristotelian Logic to pictures.  Maybe even other Alternative Culture Logics?

So it's going to be hard to continue a rational thread of thought and discourse with that method, much less begin one.  What should I do, post other pictures in refutation?

Plus, I didn't want an explanation of its "bad"-ness first.  I asked for a definition of what it is.  We cannot talk about a thing (rationally) until we know of what we are talking.

Of course, we can virtue-signal and talk about it irrationally all day.

[Dexter Eli]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Can you give me an example or two that you think are disparaging to people? If they're super easy to find, why not give an example or two that you think demonstrates this? I'm the one saying that I don't find any, and you (and others) say that they are legion and easy to find. So, it's not on me to post things that I think aren't disparaging.

Here are a thousand: http://www.mormonthink.com/QUOTES/blacks.htm

 

Here is one: "In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory."

-Mark E Petersen

 

[Helmuth]

25 minutes ago, Dexter Eli said:

What is the cause of the collapse, in your opinion? Be specific. 

Caloric excess.

[Helmuth]

32 minutes ago, Dexter Eli said:

What makes it so great? 

Beauty and truth.

[longview]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

To be fair your consideration is absolutely wrong.

In what way?   The LEFT desires to increase the hegemony of an overbearing state controlling the lives of the people.  Isn't that uncomfortably close to fascism?

[Helmuth]

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

“Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Who was it who wrote that?

[Dexter Eli]

5 minutes ago, Helmuth said:

Caloric excess.

Well, I was willing to seriously hear you out. But you obviously have no interest in actually expressing how you feel, so have a good one. I wish you well. 

[Darren10]

11 minutes ago, Dexter Eli said:

What unfounded rumors am I spreading? I don't like the guy who drove his car into a crowd of people. If he was openly a neo-nazi I am sorry but I will conclude a likely correlation. You're concerned about the potential damage to the character of a man who drove his car into a crowd of people? Surely you jest.  The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is to avoid sending innocent people to prison. It is not required for me to make a moral judgment about racists or white supremacists. If this man is mentally ill, no one will be more sympathetic than I will be. I am for humane treatment and against punishment for the sake of punishment, even if he is found to have not been suffering from a mental illness. 

"I don't like the guy who drove his car into a crowd of people."

What a coincidence, I don't either.

"If he was openly a neo-nazi I am sorry but I will conclude a likely correlation."

I am definitely open to that being the reason or a contributing factor.

"You're concerned about the potential damage to the character of a man who drove his car into a crowd of people? Surely you jest."

No jest at all. If you are allowed to condemn a man for something he did not do then that opens up for lots of condemnation from lots of people upon lots if other people they do not like. Not a good standard to like by nor for a society to flourish. 

[Darren10]

5 minutes ago, longview said:

In what way?   The LEFT desires to increase the hegemony of an overbearing state controlling the lives of the people.  Isn't that uncomfortably close to fascism?

No, that actually is fascism. 

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, Helmuth said:

Who was it who wrote that?

It sure as heck wasn't the alt – right!

it didn't originate here, but we adopted those principles before they were penned. That is the beauty of a melting pot of ideas.  Not all good things originate in the west.

Edited August 14, 2017 by pogi

[Darren10]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

To be fair your consideration is absolutely wrong.

Antifas are the precise Nazi precursors. That are the brown shirts/jack boots who went out to pick a physical fight with those whom they optically disagreed. 

[Dexter Eli]

13 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"I don't like the guy who drove his car into a crowd of people."

What a coincidence, I don't either.

"If he was openly a neo-nazi I am sorry but I will conclude a likely correlation."

I am definitely open to that being the reason or a contributing factor.

"You're concerned about the potential damage to the character of a man who drove his car into a crowd of people? Surely you jest."

No jest at all. If you are allowed to condemn a man for something he did not do then that opens up for lots of condemnation from lots of people upon lots if other people they do not like. Not a good standard to like by nor for a society to flourish. 

But he did do it. I never said we should condemn someone for something he did not do. Please explain. 

[Duncan]

6 hours ago, oremites said:

I assume that's a jab at President Trump, but since he did, in fact, tweet and condemn the violence, how exactly is that saying it "best".

do you think he would have said anything if he didn't give into political pressure? There aren't "many sides" to the neo nazi movement, they are and were always on the wrong side

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Helmuth said:

Oh?  Can you tell me what it is that makes one ideology "true" and one "false"?

Could you explain "their" ideology to me in your own words?  That's usually a good test of whether you understand something.  Explain it to me, as if I were a smart 10-year-old.  You don't have to say why it's "false" or whatever, just explain to me, accurately, what it is. 

OK. Have a minute longer. 

I am talking about this specific ideology as opposed to all ideologies out there. 

Alt-right, white nationalists, etc may vary a little in terminology and emphasis. I'm a curious sort, so I spent a little time on a popular white nationalist board a few years back to get an idea of how they thought. Even debate them a little bit (as much as that board would allow, which was EXTREMELY limited). The Alt-right movement, from what I've read, has worked to modernize the basic message to be more accessible or presentable to the main public. Which is why some of the rhetoric is couched in ethnic solidarity to piggy back or alter their approach to one that is simply about celebrating their culture or preserving it. While ignoring the fact that most ethnic minorities in the US sense of cultural solidarity does not include the nasty bite of denigrating other cultures. This part of the message focuses on reestablishing "white cultural" traditions. That's in quotation marks because that can be sort of all over the place and can have an odd pan-european feeling that's not really accurate to the varying ethnic cultures. Still they gripe about losing "white culture" when what that is isn't even well defined and ironically their amalgamation of several european ethnic groups is doing the same thing. But whatever, white pride is exactly like the back pride movement....minus the crushing social circumstances that denigrated black status. 

 There's usually a trend of feeling marginalized. This marginalization can vascilate into victimhood of the culture overrun by jews and minorities. To a sense of being "woke" to the true nature of the american/european landscape. 

Within both of these is a sense of tribalism and phobia/degredation of non-white cultures, race mixing, immigrants, etc. The more subtle Alt-right wing will highlight stories that funnel around stereotypes and shows the violent or dangerous nature of whatever non-white they have. They'll describe their own white cultural heritage in regal terms while describing the others in terms that are unflattering at best. They may also be proponents of having white homelands. Which in the US starts to sound really silly....so they may cushion that as having white enclaves, black enclaves, hispanic, etc. This of course ignores that the majority of the US doesn't want that. Their motto on Reddit is that all races are NOT created equal. That says it all. 

Needless to say, to back up their claims takes a very distorted view of history, current events, race relations, diversity, and so much more. 

 

By the Gospel of Jesus Chrst, this should become apparent that it's really really wrong. Their ideal is in my mind little different that the fractured people who were in tribes based on immediate kin....you know, right before the major destruction that cleared the way for Christ's visit. It goes against us all being the same before the Lord. That all are equally welcome and needed in the family of God. That we're FAMILY. On a less spiritual level, their ideas only take about 2 minutes before it hits a logical fallacy or become extremely self-absorbed/insulting. For example their world vision has no place for people like me, who thrive in diversity, have a diverse background, and also participates and appreciates my european heritage. You know, because I'm mixed and diluting the pure Aryan line of blondes. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, longview said:

This is an OUTRIGHT lie.  Why have you not provided a specific link to the post where I did the "defending?"

You defended them by equating them with the opposition. False equivalency is a defense.

[longview]

NEWS FLASH:

The chancellor, the president at UC Berkeley, they just built a $9,000 escape door for the chancellor in the guy’s office to escape students who might protest and become violent.

Now, who are the students at UC Berkeley that might become violent and protest, necessitating an escape door in the office of the chancellor?

And I’ll tell you this: It ain’t the Nazis, and it ain’t the white supremacists at UC Berkeley that they’re scared of.     <<<<<<hint:  radical professors, irresponsible students, Antifa, other leftist>>>>>>

It was a Project Veritas video. He admitted that he was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton. So we know this happens on both sides. It undeniably happens on both sides. We also know that most of this stuff is instigated primarily by one side. And yet that side I guess is to never be mentioned. In order for Trump to have passed this test, he was only supposed to condemn one side in this dispute. And he didn’t do that. Very obviously, Trump was supposed to condemn the white supremacists. He was supposed to condemn the Nazis and stop.

[The Nehor]

42 minutes ago, Helmuth said:

I kind of do not think in pictures.  It is hard to apply Aristotelian Logic to pictures.  Maybe even other Alternative Culture Logics?

So it's going to be hard to continue a rational thread of thought and discourse with that method, much less begin one.  What should I do, post other pictures in refutation?

Plus, I didn't want an explanation of its "bad"-ness first.  I asked for a definition of what it is.  We cannot talk about a thing (rationally) until we know of what we are talking.

Of course, we can virtue-signal and talk about it irrationally all day.

I refuse to hold a rational civilized debate on the pros and cons of white supremacy. That gives the whole concept a dignity it does not deserve. Partially for being morally abhorrent but also being responsible for the perpetuation of atrocities. Not a few here and there but whenever it gains power it opens the floodgates. Understand it? Sure. I have done some reading in that area. Know thy enemy. But hold a nice debate? No.

And those images are horror enough to bring to any decent human the thought: "Never Again!"

Most likely it will happen again in a slightly new form. I am not going to help it.

Edited August 14, 2017 by The Nehor

[longview]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You defended them by equating them with the opposition. False equivalency is a defense.

Your intolerance is breath taking!   Your reasoning ability is sadly deranged.   There is NO defending when I oppose all sides in this sick event.   I do not have to follow your rules of conduct.  You sound like a Saul Alinsky disciple.

[The Nehor]

40 minutes ago, longview said:

In what way?   The LEFT desires to increase the hegemony of an overbearing state controlling the lives of the people.  Isn't that uncomfortably close to fascism?

If the Left goes bad it will be something comparable to Stalinist communism. When the Right goes bad it is fascism. There are a few differences. The Stalinist version tends to look to a future utopia while fascism seeks to resurrect a mythical golden age. Historically Stalinism is more repressive internally but it is questionable whether that is intrinsic to that form of totalitarianism or if it was due to Russia being less civilized and easier to control to that level. Both are horrific to undesirables and they tend to have different definitions of who the undesirables are. I pray that the Left does not skew towards totalitarianism to combat the current menace. I have seen no indication of it and believe that your overbearing state is more propaganda then an actual goal of the American Left.

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Antifas are the precise Nazi precursors. That are the brown shirts/jack boots who went out to pick a physical fight with those whom they optically disagreed. 

They went out to counter protest literal Nazis who were carrying literal Nazi flags and they are the real Nazis? That seems..........dubious. I bet the actual Nazis are a bit offended. How much more blatant do they have to be to win the Nazi competition?

[Calm]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865686794/Op-ed-Why-Mormons-who-are-alt-right-are-not-right.html

"While alt-right activists celebrate ethnicity as a binding force, the Mormon vision of a Zion community celebrates a oneness of heart. Having attended and addressed an Igbo-speaking LDS ward in Nigeria, a Hmong-speaking ward in Wisconsin and an ethnically integrated ward in South Africa, I have experienced a taste of this fellowship in a number of venues.

While Mormon leaders have condemned all forms of racism past or present, Mormon alt-right nationalists celebrate the racial divides of the past, hoping to return the political power structure of the United States to Euro-descended men. Though Mormon alt-right nationalists regularly manipulate and miscontextualize Islam, Latter-day Saint leaders have shown respect for the Muslim faith.

Bred from the vulnerability that seeks validation through a robust social media following, these alt-right advocates, as House of Cards president-tyrant Frank Underwood envisioned, seek to write our "wildest dreams” even as they are “crafting (our) worst fears.” Whatever their personal plight, we must be vigilant to guard against those among us who, like Rachel, speak our common tongue, understand our insecurities, but try to exploit them for their celebrity status.

It is insufficient to respond to these factions with denunciation alone, though denunciation is in order. We must preserve and promote Latter-day Saint spaces as sites where individuals are welcomed for their complexity and layeredness. May we make the Latter-day Saint faith a “welcome table” at which, in the words of the old gospel spiritual, “all God’s children gonna sit together one of these days.”"