|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 18 2017 11:31 Lionsguard wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 11:25 semantics wrote:On August 18 2017 10:59 Plansix wrote:
Public education has failed him and us. Self proclaimed conservatives are the biggest whiners and snowflakes out there with huge persecution complexes. It's quite funny to me that many of them try to be like on a macho high ground while also constantly crying they're being attacked. Damore was fired for telling the truth you nimrod. His whole point was that echochambers exist in Google and conservatives are not welcome to voice their opinions, even if they're backed up by facts (like Damore's analysis of gender differences).
Truth and opinions are NOT the same!
The very essence of entitlement are 7 words, that define everything that's wrong with the world we live in:
"I have a right to my opinion."
There is no logic in this statement. But ironically most people these days tend to build their entire belief system around it.
The difference between an opinion and a fact is simple:
A fact is true whether you agree with it or not.
An opinion however represents a subjective assessment of reality by an individual (or group) and can be false.
|
United States42005 Posts
On August 18 2017 11:31 Lionsguard wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 11:25 semantics wrote:Self proclaimed conservatives are the biggest whiners and snowflakes out there with huge persecution complexes. It's quite funny to me that many of them try to be like on a macho high ground while also constantly crying they're being attacked. Damore was fired for telling the truth you nimrod. His whole point was that echochambers exist in Google and conservatives are not welcome to voice their opinions, even if they're backed up by facts (like Damore's analysis of gender differences).
And that part where he went into his suggestions about how he'd improve google, was that all facts too?
|
Also tickles me that "conservatives" are complaining that a private company fired an employee for whatever reason they saw fit.
Guess he should've been in a union.
|
On August 18 2017 11:31 Lionsguard wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 11:25 semantics wrote:Self proclaimed conservatives are the biggest whiners and snowflakes out there with huge persecution complexes. It's quite funny to me that many of them try to be like on a macho high ground while also constantly crying they're being attacked. Damore was fired for telling the truth you nimrod. His whole point was that echochambers exist in Google and conservatives are not welcome to voice their opinions, even if they're backed up by facts (like Damore's analysis of gender differences).
please refrain from name calling.
you're also factually wrong and clearly not aware of the actual situation; and are simply parroting some nonsense you heard that fits your biases rather than trying to seriously understand the issue. we've also litigated this issue in thread multiple times already, please go back and read one of those; or read some other serious analysis of the topic, rather than bring up nonsense that's already been disproven time and again.
|
On August 18 2017 10:53 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 08:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I would just point out that there is a division on the left among people who think having superficially diverse representation at the top of our capitalistic system will in turn make sure policy doesn't screw over the people who look like them (this is a fallacy imo).
Then there's the part of the left that thinks we have to rebuild the entire system with input from diverse (not just superficially) groups excluded in the previous iteration.
What does "rebuilding the entire 'capitalistic' system" actually entail in practice?
It would start by taking a genuine and in depth look at the consequences of capitalism as we practice it (slavery, extraction of wealth, etc...)
Ask ourselves questions like "is it logistically impossible to stop starvation or is it a choice we make?" "Is that choice the only or best choice we could be making?" "Can we find a better choice than accepting millions of starving people as an inevitability of humanity?"
Right now it's supposed to be accepted wisdom that people have to die from/suffer in poverty and that's the best possible way to handle it. "Rebuilding the entire system" begins by challenging this type of "wisdom".
What does the new system finally look like? That's probably a question that will be answered generations from now, but it's our responsibility to recognize we need to be asking and answering these questions.
|
The juiciest part of all this is what an ignorant, privileged fuck he makes himself out to be by whining so hard about being fired for being wildly unprofessional.
I think about myself sending a message like his (from ANY political perspective) and just laugh at how quickly I'd be chucked out the window. Big companies have zero reason to give a shit about this dime a dozen, self important martyr wannabe.
|
Geez, this thread moves fast.
On August 17 2017 04:23 Plansix wrote:
The threat of white supremacist taking over the country has alway been small. Their threat to communities around the country is ever present. It is hard to look at North Carolina and claim the threat of racism and white supremacy is minor.
And you are changing subjects. I never talked about their right to peacefully assemble. I talked about engagement in debate and the public discourse.
I'm not changing subjects because my first post in this thread on this topic was addressing Antifa's intimidation tactics. However, being able to assemble in public is part of a public discourse, along with debate, discussions, education, and use of social media. Having a rally shows a physical presence, which has always been important, and remains a relevant way to show support for a cause.
On August 17 2017 04:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 04:14 ninazerg wrote:On August 17 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 02:57 ninazerg wrote:
In our current culture, I don't see alt-right ideology being challenged on an intellectual level and debated properly. It seems to me like the left would rather say "Shut up bigots", and then claim some sort of moral victory, and because of this, the alt-right is gaining traction because they are explaining their ideas and making points virtually uncontested. It's not enough to simply go "Well, everyone just knows Nazism is bad, end of discussion." and if the left wants to 'win' in the marketplace of ideas, shutting down dissent, relying on Antifa for physical intimidation, refusing to engage in debate, and calling political-moderates names for asking questions is ultimately going to be counterproductive to their platform.
From someone who spent a lot of time studying the rise of fascism and authoritarian governments, that is how you beat them. Fascist, the KKK, Nazis and the alt-right have no interests in free exchange of ideas or any of the liberal democratic ideals that hold up our Republic. But they express those views in the hopes of obtaining a platform to gain power. They have no respect for the rule of law, good faith or human rights. They simply lie about respecting those to gain power. Our democratic system is an barrier to their goals, not something they want to protect at all costs. The way you beat Nazis and the KKK is to deny them new recruits and followers, which we have failed at in recent years. You don’t give them a platform along side people champion equality and expect anything productive go come out of the discussion. America has fundamental rights that will not be debated. And the first one is the right to life. To live in this country free of fear of being killed by the goverment or other citizens without cause. The KKK and Nazis won't even agree that every citizen has the right to life, so the debate is over before it starts. I don't believe there is a recipe for preventing the rise of an authoritarian government. If people are generally uneducated, misinformed, or afraid for their safety, they will ask the government for protection in exchange for personal liberties. In this case, the American Left feels afraid, and they're willing to forfeit the civil liberty of free speech in exchange for safety from "Nazis". The truth of the matter, however, is that extremist right-wing groups make up a very small percentage of the population. Their presence is often amplified by the media, which is not a new phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination. If you go back to the 1980s with The Order committing armed robberies and murdering Alan Berg, you'll see the same sort of media-fueled frenzy over white supremacists that eventually led to the Ruby Ridge fiasco. Ruby Ridge was a huge, blown-up incident that put a spotlight on white supremacists yet again. Truthfully, I believe that because of the minuscule size of the KKK and Aryan Nation (not to mention their unpopularity among the general public) it is unlikely that they will be able effectively institute a dictatorship over the United States. I could see a scenario in which a left-wing dictatorship rises out of hysteria towards the 'threat' of neo-nazi groups, but even then, there is no centralized leader of the left who would be able to fulfill such a role. Contrary to what you believe, most of the KKK membership and even neo-nazis do follow the rule of law, even if they resent it. They are often instructed at protests not to engage in illegal activity by their leaders. The young man who murdered a counter-protester obviously did not get the memo, or simply did not care. In my conversations with white supremacists, and in interviews that I've seen, their goal is not to kill every non-white, but apparently to have a community set apart from black people, Latinos, Arabs, etc., and keep their "race" separate from other races. The utmost extreme of the extreme-right are the ones who openly break the law and commit hate crimes by attacking people. This isn't to say that I am saying #NotAllNazis or am siding with white supremacists. I am very simply putting forth two propositions: 1. The actual threat from white supremacists is overblown to create a sort-of scapegoat for the left. 2. The right of people to assemble peacefully and express their views should not be infringed upon as an emotional response to a perceived threat. The man who used his car as a weapon to take the life of a young woman will be held accountable, as he should be. You're presenting a false choice between a Nazi totalitarian dictatorship and everything being great and saying that clearly we don't live under Nazi rule so why is anyone complaining. It's not that simple. Justice Department investigations into police departments under Obama repeatedly came to the conclusion that systematic racism within the police force leads to routine differences between the way white people and black people are treated by the police. Trump and the mainstream "non-racist" Republicans characterized these investigations as a war on police and pledged to end them. That runs contrary to your insistence that the authoritarian left want to silence everyone unlike the patriotic freedom loving right, and shows that the right are still firmly in the camp of preserving white privilege within America at the expense of everyone else. The Nazis are the foam on the crest of the wave. You're separating the one guy who drove a car into protesters from the millions who liked/retweeted/forwarded memes about how awesome it'd be if a guy drove a car into protesters.
I didn't say any of that. A large part of the extreme left narrative is that we are already living under a fascist regime, and are using that premise as an excuse to physically assault people that are critical of progressivism. The actual 'threat' from the actual Nazi party is incredibly small. However, the actual crimes they commit will be dealt with by law enforcement, and should not be dealt with by people in black masks with clubs.
Also yes, I am separating the guy who committed an actual crime from internet trolls. That's only because I'm rational and sane, though.
I have not asserted that there is a choice between any form of totalitarianism and(or?) everything being great and(again... or?) 'saying that clearly we don't live under Nazi rule so why is anyone complaining[?]'. People have the right to complain. People have the right to discuss this. I've never disputed that. I think this conversation we're having is healthy. I disagree with you on certain things, but I've never thought, "Kwark should be silenced for his dissent." and I don't think that about any left-wing group, or Antifa, or right-wing groups, or even the goddamn Westboro Baptist Church. They, and you, should be protected -- by law -- against threats of physical assault. That's where I draw the line, when a group like Antifa beats people with clubs, or the KKK kills someone by hanging, and things of that nature.
As far as the statue goes, I don't care about it. Tear it down for all I care. But when a Democrat mayor denies US citizens a permit to protest, then gets sued by the ACLU, and then the Governor tells the police to stand down after directing Antifa -- a group with a track record for assault -- into the protestors, then you have an instance where the left is deliberately stoking physical violence. Let's be perfectly fucking clear here: I think white supremacists are morons, are their views are based on a lack of education and life experience. That does NOT mean that they broke any laws by holding their rally, and that does not mean that they deserve to be beaten. If, somehow, you get that I am supporting the white supremacists in any way after reading this, then I can only assume that you have some kind of learning disorder. I am supporting freedom of expression for all American citizens, even the ones I vehemently disagree with.
|
There's nothing that I can argue with that, basing it on the fact that you're advocating for the protection of all citizens to have the right to assemble. What I do argue, is that nazis and their ilk shouldn't be given that. No hate group should be given that platform. That's one of the failings of the US. The right to assemble. Any hate group with a track record should not be allowed to assemble in a public setting such as a rally or march, because it inherently invites confrontation/violence.
Call it what you will, but there needs to be something set that doesn't let anything like this get out of hand. I'd take Germany's example of not giving any quarter for hate groups to assemble. Cut that out at the root and progress from there. Of course, my opinion.
|
On August 18 2017 08:40 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I feel like nina is missing the forest for the trees. People in the US poli thread have no problem condemning antifa or whatever that is. And they condemn mostly all acts of violence no matter who it originates from. That thread was specifically talking about nazis. You can't co-opt that and bring in antifa. That's not the topic of conversation. Focus on what was being discussed and if someone brings it up, then it should be imperative that you get the conversation back on track.
I don't want to talk about trade policies when we're discussing systemic racism/oppression in america. That's a topic for another day. That simple.
Bitch and moan all you want. You and xD and the others who try to muddy the issue being discussed are the problem with having an open and honest fucking debate. Focus on the fucking topic we are discussing and stop trying to take it somewhere else. When you bring up the 14 points and say it's not white supremacy or that antifa deserves the same credit of condemnation as nazis, you're guilty of hijacking the thread to get away from a topic you're not comfortable discussing. If you don't like the topic being discussed, stay the fuck out of it.
I removed myself from talking about military veterans and benefits and how that would help ease some of the problems.
I also haven't weighed in on the topic currently being discussed about race and systemic oppression. I have first hand experience with both of those topics and it makes no sense to allow my emotions to get in the way. I won't change their minds and if people haven't served in the military or have had 3 generations of your family toe the poverty line seemingly your entire life, then you have no leg to stand on in the conversation. But the pseudo-fucking-intellectuals in that thread will have you fucking believe they have the answers to everything and ask roundabout questions without getting anywhere.
tl;dr don't be so sensitive to the bullshit being espoused in that thread ninazerg.
If you read my first post here, I was responding specifically a post about Antifa:
+ Show Spoiler +On August 17 2017 02:57 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 01:50 Nevuk wrote:
Personally I think antifa may have a point, but I recognize I'm probably alone in the thread for thinking that. The point of Antifa is to dress in all black with masks, and assault people that they arbitrarily label as "white supremacists". People on the left don't need a wing of thugs when protesting. I don't like Neo-Nazis at all, and I absolutely think their views are abhorrent, along with the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nation, and so on. Despite this, I have never said that any individual or any group should ever be banned from public discourse or have their views censored. As long as there is no intent to commit acts of violence, I also have no problem with Antifa protesting. Same with all these right-wing groups. Same with the Westboro Baptist Church. If the larger picture, from an Antifa standpoint, is to create an atmosphere of intimidation for right-wing groups -- as Antifa alleges that right-wing groups do for marginalized groups of people -- then they themselves are becoming that which they hate. Not everyone accused of being a 'white supremacist' is a white supremacist. Therefore, what Antifa is doing is creating a larger specter of terror for conservatives, libertarians, and even centrists, who question the motives and political stances of the far-left. If an idea is inherently 'bad', it should be able to be broken down in a public forum easily. However, from my personal experience, the people I've seen on the far-left are unable to express or debate an idea in a public forum without resorting to personal insults, and simply declaring their opposition to be uneducated. Such condescension does not fare well in an open debate. I will not, of course, say that right-wingers don't also sink to the same level of mud-slinging without making any actual point, but I often find that right-wingers will attempt to explain (even if what they are saying sounds utterly insane to me) why they believe what they believe. An actual white supremacist will take the time to send me a link to Justice Department statistics for crime among African-Americans to attempt to make their point that black people are inherently more crime-prone. Naturally, while I disagree, and would put forth a counter-argument, the fact of the matter is that they bothered to back their view up with evidence or what they believe to be evidence. Yes, I have had arguments with conservatives where they just go "Get educated" and ask me about my level of education, and "I bet you think communism is good", but the discourse I have had with the far-left has been virtually non-existent, because they refuse to debate. Of all the groups of people I have ever debated in my life, far-left progressives have been the most resistant to having an actual discussion with me. Not even a 'debate'. Just a discussion. And this is a problem because people who hold these beliefs (I know I'm not being very specific here, but I don't want to get into that right now. That's another discussion for another time.) sit in influential positions in some cases. This failure to articulate and defend ideas with evidence and reason is a hallmark of intellectual laziness, and when some white supremacist posts anywhere on any website that has a public forum, I kind of expect the internet to do what the internet does and brutally assail them in written form, but I would also expect people who consider themselves to be 'intellectual' to engage them in a serious discussion. For example, if a Neo-Nazi says something like "Jews control all the banks" or something to that effect, my first thought would be to open a tab up and look up the CEOs of major banks to see if they're actually all Jewish or not. I don't even consider myself to be a very 'intellectual' person, but I consider myself smart enough not to immediately just go straight to personal insults in a discussion. In our current culture, I don't see alt-right ideology being challenged on an intellectual level and debated properly. It seems to me like the left would rather say "Shut up bigots", and then claim some sort of moral victory, and because of this, the alt-right is gaining traction because they are explaining their ideas and making points virtually uncontested. It's not enough to simply go " Well, everyone just knows Nazism is bad, end of discussion." and if the left wants to 'win' in the marketplace of ideas, shutting down dissent, relying on Antifa for physical intimidation, refusing to engage in debate, and calling political-moderates names for asking questions is ultimately going to be counterproductive to their platform.
I thought I was clear enough here that I was not on board with the white nationalists. I've been critical of Antifa for awhile now, albeit off of Teamliquid, so this is not an instance of me suddenly hearing about Antifa and deciding they're bad. I don't care for political violence, or the encouragement of political violence. You hear these phrases like "Punch a Nazi"... well, who is a Nazi? In some cases, it's pretty clear, because they have a bunch of Nazi tattoos. But when Antifa decided that everyone right-of-center or anyone who voted for Donald Trump is a Nazi, then that's a major problem, because half of the US population has been put in their cross-hairs. Ostensibly, being the anti-censorship gal that I am, I'm not going to demand the censorship of the phrase "Punch a Nazi", but I will use my own freedom of speech to argue against the encouragement of further political violence, and to call on the political left in the US to condemn political violence conducted by Antifa.
To conclude, I originally came in discussing the topic at hand. If it takes the conversation in a different direction for whatever reason, then maybe that's what people want to talk about. I'm not trying to hijack anything or derail anything. It's pretty damn easy to condemn the views of the Nazis, who want to deport all non-whites out of the US. I don't believe you need pages and pages of discussion to agree that Nazism is a bad idea.
|
On August 18 2017 15:04 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 08:40 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I feel like nina is missing the forest for the trees. People in the US poli thread have no problem condemning antifa or whatever that is. And they condemn mostly all acts of violence no matter who it originates from. That thread was specifically talking about nazis. You can't co-opt that and bring in antifa. That's not the topic of conversation. Focus on what was being discussed and if someone brings it up, then it should be imperative that you get the conversation back on track.
I don't want to talk about trade policies when we're discussing systemic racism/oppression in america. That's a topic for another day. That simple.
Bitch and moan all you want. You and xD and the others who try to muddy the issue being discussed are the problem with having an open and honest fucking debate. Focus on the fucking topic we are discussing and stop trying to take it somewhere else. When you bring up the 14 points and say it's not white supremacy or that antifa deserves the same credit of condemnation as nazis, you're guilty of hijacking the thread to get away from a topic you're not comfortable discussing. If you don't like the topic being discussed, stay the fuck out of it.
I removed myself from talking about military veterans and benefits and how that would help ease some of the problems.
I also haven't weighed in on the topic currently being discussed about race and systemic oppression. I have first hand experience with both of those topics and it makes no sense to allow my emotions to get in the way. I won't change their minds and if people haven't served in the military or have had 3 generations of your family toe the poverty line seemingly your entire life, then you have no leg to stand on in the conversation. But the pseudo-fucking-intellectuals in that thread will have you fucking believe they have the answers to everything and ask roundabout questions without getting anywhere.
tl;dr don't be so sensitive to the bullshit being espoused in that thread ninazerg. If you read my first post here, I was responding specifically a post about Antifa: + Show Spoiler +On August 17 2017 02:57 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 01:50 Nevuk wrote:
Personally I think antifa may have a point, but I recognize I'm probably alone in the thread for thinking that. The point of Antifa is to dress in all black with masks, and assault people that they arbitrarily label as "white supremacists". People on the left don't need a wing of thugs when protesting. I don't like Neo-Nazis at all, and I absolutely think their views are abhorrent, along with the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nation, and so on. Despite this, I have never said that any individual or any group should ever be banned from public discourse or have their views censored. As long as there is no intent to commit acts of violence, I also have no problem with Antifa protesting. Same with all these right-wing groups. Same with the Westboro Baptist Church. If the larger picture, from an Antifa standpoint, is to create an atmosphere of intimidation for right-wing groups -- as Antifa alleges that right-wing groups do for marginalized groups of people -- then they themselves are becoming that which they hate. Not everyone accused of being a 'white supremacist' is a white supremacist. Therefore, what Antifa is doing is creating a larger specter of terror for conservatives, libertarians, and even centrists, who question the motives and political stances of the far-left. If an idea is inherently 'bad', it should be able to be broken down in a public forum easily. However, from my personal experience, the people I've seen on the far-left are unable to express or debate an idea in a public forum without resorting to personal insults, and simply declaring their opposition to be uneducated. Such condescension does not fare well in an open debate. I will not, of course, say that right-wingers don't also sink to the same level of mud-slinging without making any actual point, but I often find that right-wingers will attempt to explain (even if what they are saying sounds utterly insane to me) why they believe what they believe. An actual white supremacist will take the time to send me a link to Justice Department statistics for crime among African-Americans to attempt to make their point that black people are inherently more crime-prone. Naturally, while I disagree, and would put forth a counter-argument, the fact of the matter is that they bothered to back their view up with evidence or what they believe to be evidence. Yes, I have had arguments with conservatives where they just go "Get educated" and ask me about my level of education, and "I bet you think communism is good", but the discourse I have had with the far-left has been virtually non-existent, because they refuse to debate. Of all the groups of people I have ever debated in my life, far-left progressives have been the most resistant to having an actual discussion with me. Not even a 'debate'. Just a discussion. And this is a problem because people who hold these beliefs (I know I'm not being very specific here, but I don't want to get into that right now. That's another discussion for another time.) sit in influential positions in some cases. This failure to articulate and defend ideas with evidence and reason is a hallmark of intellectual laziness, and when some white supremacist posts anywhere on any website that has a public forum, I kind of expect the internet to do what the internet does and brutally assail them in written form, but I would also expect people who consider themselves to be 'intellectual' to engage them in a serious discussion. For example, if a Neo-Nazi says something like "Jews control all the banks" or something to that effect, my first thought would be to open a tab up and look up the CEOs of major banks to see if they're actually all Jewish or not. I don't even consider myself to be a very 'intellectual' person, but I consider myself smart enough not to immediately just go straight to personal insults in a discussion. In our current culture, I don't see alt-right ideology being challenged on an intellectual level and debated properly. It seems to me like the left would rather say "Shut up bigots", and then claim some sort of moral victory, and because of this, the alt-right is gaining traction because they are explaining their ideas and making points virtually uncontested. It's not enough to simply go " Well, everyone just knows Nazism is bad, end of discussion." and if the left wants to 'win' in the marketplace of ideas, shutting down dissent, relying on Antifa for physical intimidation, refusing to engage in debate, and calling political-moderates names for asking questions is ultimately going to be counterproductive to their platform. I thought I was clear enough here that I was not on board with the white nationalists. I've been critical of Antifa for awhile now, albeit off of Teamliquid, so this is not an instance of me suddenly hearing about Antifa and deciding they're bad. I don't care for political violence, or the encouragement of political violence. You hear these phrases like "Punch a Nazi"... well, who is a Nazi? In some cases, it's pretty clear, because they have a bunch of Nazi tattoos. But when Antifa decided that everyone right-of-center or anyone who voted for Donald Trump is a Nazi, then that's a major problem, because half of the US population has been put in their cross-hairs. Ostensibly, being the anti-censorship gal that I am, I'm not going to demand the censorship of the phrase "Punch a Nazi", but I will use my own freedom of speech to argue against the encouragement of further political violence, and to call on the political left in the US to condemn political violence conducted by Antifa. To conclude, I originally came in discussing the topic at hand. If it takes the conversation in a different direction for whatever reason, then maybe that's what people want to talk about. I'm not trying to hijack anything or derail anything. It's pretty damn easy to condemn the views of the Nazis, who want to deport all non-whites out of the US. I don't believe you need pages and pages of discussion to agree that Nazism is a bad idea.
I'm agreeing with you. I just focused on the nazi's and KKK. Antifa can be included in my previous post as well. I don't think that should be up for debate. And I'm not accusing you of being onboard with them at all either. We had pages of discussion with xD and some others about this already, so I won't bring it up again.
But see where I'm saying that we were only talking about one group and then some tried to bring in another group for equivocating reasons.
|
On August 18 2017 15:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
There's nothing that I can argue with that, basing it on the fact that you're advocating for the protection of all citizens to have the right to assemble. What I do argue, is that nazis and their ilk shouldn't be given that. No hate group should be given that platform. That's one of the failings of the US. The right to assemble. Any hate group with a track record should not be allowed to assemble in a public setting such as a rally or march, because it inherently invites confrontation/violence.
Call it what you will, but there needs to be something set that doesn't let anything like this get out of hand. I'd take Germany's example of not giving any quarter for hate groups to assemble. Cut that out at the root and progress from there. Of course, my opinion.
I have to honestly disagree with that. To give an example: I am pro-choice. I know that certain anti-abortion activists have killed abortion doctors and have bombed clinics in the past, however, I would not deny anti-abortion protestors the right to assemble because of the acts of certain individuals that identified as a part of that group. The Charlottesville fiasco could have been easily prevented because the police heavily outnumbered the white supremacist protestors, and could have done what they do in pretty much every heated protest situation, which is to keep the sides separated. The city of Charlottesville knew the protest was coming months in advance, but deliberately did nothing.
|
United States42005 Posts
I recall reading that the permit being revoked issue you referenced was the Nazis being told to rally in another park that wasn't 100 yards from the park the protesters were rallying in. You can't simultaneously criticize the city for poor management and attack the solutions. The revoking of the permit to rally in the one park, with the offer of a larger park further from the protesters, was the solution you insist the city lacked. But you characterized that as an attempt at repression of the Nazis.
|
On August 18 2017 15:12 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 15:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
There's nothing that I can argue with that, basing it on the fact that you're advocating for the protection of all citizens to have the right to assemble. What I do argue, is that nazis and their ilk shouldn't be given that. No hate group should be given that platform. That's one of the failings of the US. The right to assemble. Any hate group with a track record should not be allowed to assemble in a public setting such as a rally or march, because it inherently invites confrontation/violence.
Call it what you will, but there needs to be something set that doesn't let anything like this get out of hand. I'd take Germany's example of not giving any quarter for hate groups to assemble. Cut that out at the root and progress from there. Of course, my opinion. I have to honestly disagree with that. To give an example: I am pro-choice. I know that certain anti-abortion activists have killed abortion doctors and have bombed clinics in the past, however, I would not deny anti-abortion protestors the right to assemble because of the acts of certain individuals that identified as a part of that group. The Charlottesville fiasco could have been easily prevented because the police heavily outnumbered the white supremacist protestors, and could have done what they do in pretty much every heated protest situation, which is to keep the sides separated. The city of Charlottesville knew the protest was coming months in advance, but deliberately did nothing.
And if we just ban hate groups from assembling, then we can circumvent all of that. We can get into the constitution and how it really needs to be fixed to be more inline with the realities of the times, but it's getting late for me here, so I won't start that debate.
|
On August 18 2017 15:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 15:12 ninazerg wrote:On August 18 2017 15:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
There's nothing that I can argue with that, basing it on the fact that you're advocating for the protection of all citizens to have the right to assemble. What I do argue, is that nazis and their ilk shouldn't be given that. No hate group should be given that platform. That's one of the failings of the US. The right to assemble. Any hate group with a track record should not be allowed to assemble in a public setting such as a rally or march, because it inherently invites confrontation/violence.
Call it what you will, but there needs to be something set that doesn't let anything like this get out of hand. I'd take Germany's example of not giving any quarter for hate groups to assemble. Cut that out at the root and progress from there. Of course, my opinion. I have to honestly disagree with that. To give an example: I am pro-choice. I know that certain anti-abortion activists have killed abortion doctors and have bombed clinics in the past, however, I would not deny anti-abortion protestors the right to assemble because of the acts of certain individuals that identified as a part of that group. The Charlottesville fiasco could have been easily prevented because the police heavily outnumbered the white supremacist protestors, and could have done what they do in pretty much every heated protest situation, which is to keep the sides separated. The city of Charlottesville knew the protest was coming months in advance, but deliberately did nothing. And if we just ban hate groups from assembling, then we can circumvent all of that. We can get into the constitution and how it really needs to be fixed to be more inline with the realities of the times, but it's getting late for me here, so I won't start that debate.
You're right. We should enact that immediately, and let the President and Congress set guidelines for what constitutes a hate group.
|
On August 18 2017 15:27 Savant wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 15:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 18 2017 15:12 ninazerg wrote:On August 18 2017 15:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
There's nothing that I can argue with that, basing it on the fact that you're advocating for the protection of all citizens to have the right to assemble. What I do argue, is that nazis and their ilk shouldn't be given that. No hate group should be given that platform. That's one of the failings of the US. The right to assemble. Any hate group with a track record should not be allowed to assemble in a public setting such as a rally or march, because it inherently invites confrontation/violence.
Call it what you will, but there needs to be something set that doesn't let anything like this get out of hand. I'd take Germany's example of not giving any quarter for hate groups to assemble. Cut that out at the root and progress from there. Of course, my opinion. I have to honestly disagree with that. To give an example: I am pro-choice. I know that certain anti-abortion activists have killed abortion doctors and have bombed clinics in the past, however, I would not deny anti-abortion protestors the right to assemble because of the acts of certain individuals that identified as a part of that group. The Charlottesville fiasco could have been easily prevented because the police heavily outnumbered the white supremacist protestors, and could have done what they do in pretty much every heated protest situation, which is to keep the sides separated. The city of Charlottesville knew the protest was coming months in advance, but deliberately did nothing. And if we just ban hate groups from assembling, then we can circumvent all of that. We can get into the constitution and how it really needs to be fixed to be more inline with the realities of the times, but it's getting late for me here, so I won't start that debate. You're right. We should enact that immediately, and let the President and Congress set guidelines for what constitutes a hate group.
Okay. I'll bite. What would be your guidelines?
|
Canada11279 Posts
"and let the President and Congress set guidelines for what constitutes a hate group. "
Therein lies the rub. Who decides what is a hate group and are the conditions? It might seem obvious when it's the KKK, but people already paint with a wide brush, and it's something that easily gets wider. It's those edge cases everytime. Once you start down the path of denying the right of free assembly to one, who's to say someone else comes to power and turns that sword elsewhere. It's not a sword I want in the hands of government.
|
This is easy to settle. The First and the Second amendments can't be allowed to mix. You aren't peacefully protesting if you brought guns, clubs, gas, and bricks. The First Amendment only protects the speech, not the armaments.
|
Well, you're perfectly welcome to use some of Canada's anti-Hate Propaganda and anti-Discrimination laws as a reference.
|
Canada11279 Posts
Or they can use them as non-examples 
But yeah- police should keep the protestors and counter-protestors a part and showing up to a protest armed to the teeth needs to stop. Something worse than one crazy in a car is bound to happen with the amount of guns being packed around at these things.
|
I guess, if anything it's a good example of how far away it is from a slippery slope, when such laws tend to be a gentle nudge at the start of a slight incline with parking brakes locked in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
