|
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 22:53 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 22:49 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 22:47 JinDesu wrote:On August 18 2017 22:46 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 22:43 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 22:40 Plansix wrote:
Sorry, I forgot we needed a pile of bodies before we can discuss the safety issues with large groups of people carrying guns to protests. My mistake. The police should have arrested the people that were better armed than them. If the Nazis were doing something illegal, yes, the police should have arrested the Nazis. And if Nazis resisted or fought back, then I'd be all for the police responding in kind. And if the illegal actor is surrounded by like minded people with long rifles and body armor, the police are just supposed to wade into the mob and make the arrest? When the protesters outnumber the police? Yes. And during the arrest the better armed kkk members feel threatened by the counter protests and start pointing guns at the officer or protester, then what? What if they resist? Then arrest them to. Use appropriate force equivalent to the resistance. If the police are all killed by Nazi's in the ultimate scenario - then clearly those protesters have shown their hand and we have clear evidence to prosecute each and every one of them, we probably sufficient reasoning to claim that Nazi groups are terroristic and should not be allowed to congregate, and we can praise and mourn the hero police officers that did their job. For a society to work, the laws must be followed. If we state that a group of citizens armed better than the police is allowed to do what they want despite the law - then society has failed.
What if they don't have appropriate force? What if they are out gunned by the protesters and they know it? What if the police departments can't find anyone willing to get shot to defend Nazi free speech?(don't say fire them, there are not unlimited people to take their place)
|
On August 18 2017 22:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 22:53 JinDesu wrote:On August 18 2017 22:49 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 22:47 JinDesu wrote:On August 18 2017 22:46 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 22:43 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 22:40 Plansix wrote:
Sorry, I forgot we needed a pile of bodies before we can discuss the safety issues with large groups of people carrying guns to protests. My mistake. The police should have arrested the people that were better armed than them. If the Nazis were doing something illegal, yes, the police should have arrested the Nazis. And if Nazis resisted or fought back, then I'd be all for the police responding in kind. And if the illegal actor is surrounded by like minded people with long rifles and body armor, the police are just supposed to wade into the mob and make the arrest? When the protesters outnumber the police? Yes. And during the arrest the better armed kkk members feel threatened by the counter protests and start pointing guns at the officer or protester, then what? What if they resist? Then arrest them to. Use appropriate force equivalent to the resistance. If the police are all killed by Nazi's in the ultimate scenario - then clearly those protesters have shown their hand and we have clear evidence to prosecute each and every one of them, we probably sufficient reasoning to claim that Nazi groups are terroristic and should not be allowed to congregate, and we can praise and mourn the hero police officers that did their job. For a society to work, the laws must be followed. If we state that a group of citizens armed better than the police is allowed to do what they want despite the law - then society has failed. What if they don't have appropriate force? What if they are out gunned by the protesters and they know it? What if the police departments can't find anyone willing to get shot to defend Nazi free speech?(don't say fire them, there are not unlimited people to take their place)
If they don't have the appropriate force or they know they are outgunned - but they are willing to do their job, then we go back to what I said in what you quoted.
If the police are not willing to get shot to defend Nazi free speech, then clearly the society has failed in the concept of free speech for all. If you are willing to say - this society is based on free speech for some, the some that I agree with, then that's your excuse for that police department.
|
On August 18 2017 22:27 Uldridge wrote:
Privately, they can do whatever the fuck they want if they don't break any laws in the process. When you go out in public to show off your hatred for a whole lot of people that currently live in your society and you would rather see them dead/removed, you invite people to react to that.
It's walking around, continually saying: "fuck niggers, fuck jews, fuck immigrants, fuck the Muslims and fuck democarcy, I want those all to die."
How does that sit well with people that have to bear them doing this in public. Their entire ideology is a mistake. I'll never approve of violence, but being a Nazi and openly walking in the street in all your despicable glory is inviting people to become angry.
It's like standing all bent over with a straight back and a mocking smirk on your face saying: "you wouldn't daaaaare hitting me, would you? I didn't do anything wrong." At some point people will just boil over and go ham..
The people doling out the violence also shouldn't go unpunished though. They got provoked by an ideology.
I understand Danglars' though process though. Hey, it's free speech, this means people get to be/say and portray themselves however they want. They have the right to march, unified, down the street! They weren't doing anything violent, so why are they violently attacked? It's the attackers that shouldn't get empathy of the people and the Nazi's that should get empathy!
But nobody wants to support Nazis because they're Nazis.They're the archetype of intolerance. The ideology has an absolutely reprehensible history tagged to it and people become very riled up when they see them openly marching in the street like this, unified, like they actually have some kind of place in this society.
Oh, don't worry, I will defend your right to get angry. And it seems like you're okay with people that "boil over and go ham" getting their due punishment. So we're in agreement.
On August 18 2017 22:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 22:11 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 22:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 18 2017 22:05 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 21:57 Aquanim wrote:On August 18 2017 21:43 Danglars wrote:
...
Antifa makes mistakes, Nazis don't. Well, I'll admit you can't get much clearer than that.
... Assuming you disagree with that statement, can you make your disagreement with it a bit more explicit? Actually, I was disagreeing with a statement he made. Perhaps you also have an opinion on that? Violence against Nazis is a permissible offense (aka not threatening to societal health) in an existing free and open society (I really should say previously free and open society). Groups like Antifa are different, because they only rise to the level of making mistakes. THEY ARE FUCKING NAZIS DANGLARS. Are you serious? You're advocating for the well-being and protection of fucking nazis to assemble. Are they guilty of a crime beyond having a despicable ideology? I wasn't aware they surrender their rights of citizenship because you like the caps lock and have an opinion on the matter. Between denying civil rights and this newfound passion for destroying antiquities, we are getting our own little version of Taliban-lite in this country. And I'm highly amused by these arguments that police do not have an obligation to risk their lives or the appeals to the fact that the Nazis had guns. Whom, exactly, did the Nazis shoot? I haven't had enough coffee yet to tackle these mental gymnastics.
I appreciate the honesty from those two. Self defense from a armed mob looking to fight is an easy bastion, but initiation of violence against citizens following a particularly repugnant ideology is an opinion one would be likely to hide in other places. I'm with you and smirking at the thought that civil rights are fine in theory but not worth public protection. My, how far we've come.
|
On August 18 2017 23:03 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 22:57 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 22:53 JinDesu wrote:On August 18 2017 22:49 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 22:47 JinDesu wrote:On August 18 2017 22:46 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 22:43 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 22:40 Plansix wrote:
Sorry, I forgot we needed a pile of bodies before we can discuss the safety issues with large groups of people carrying guns to protests. My mistake. The police should have arrested the people that were better armed than them. If the Nazis were doing something illegal, yes, the police should have arrested the Nazis. And if Nazis resisted or fought back, then I'd be all for the police responding in kind. And if the illegal actor is surrounded by like minded people with long rifles and body armor, the police are just supposed to wade into the mob and make the arrest? When the protesters outnumber the police? Yes. And during the arrest the better armed kkk members feel threatened by the counter protests and start pointing guns at the officer or protester, then what? What if they resist? Then arrest them to. Use appropriate force equivalent to the resistance. If the police are all killed by Nazi's in the ultimate scenario - then clearly those protesters have shown their hand and we have clear evidence to prosecute each and every one of them, we probably sufficient reasoning to claim that Nazi groups are terroristic and should not be allowed to congregate, and we can praise and mourn the hero police officers that did their job. For a society to work, the laws must be followed. If we state that a group of citizens armed better than the police is allowed to do what they want despite the law - then society has failed. What if they don't have appropriate force? What if they are out gunned by the protesters and they know it? What if the police departments can't find anyone willing to get shot to defend Nazi free speech?(don't say fire them, there are not unlimited people to take their place) If they don't have the appropriate force or they know they are outgunned - but they are willing to do their job, then we go back to what I said in what you quoted. If the police are not willing to get shot to defend Nazi free speech, then clearly the society has failed in the concept of free speech for all. If you are willing to say - this society is based on free speech for some, the some that I agree with, then that's your excuse for that police department.
I feel we will find out exactly how far people are willing to go to defense Nazi free speech in the new few months. And if they are willing to do it if the Nazis have a clear intention to pick a fight. And we will also find out how willing police are to put other people's lives at risk to make an arrest in the middle of one of these events.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
So if you are going to interfere with justices of the peace, you are just asking to forfeit your right to peaceful assembly. There is, after all, no right to violent assembly. That right to peaceful assembly will be a far harder hit to the cause.
Again. The side that resorts to violence loses in our civil society and loses hard.
|
I understand and appreciate the principles of free speech and right to bear arms, and that the combination of both might lead to the completely legal situation where you have a group of heavily armed deplorable people shouting hateful slogans.
I can't help to think, however, that the way the Europeans handle it - where speech is often restricted in these cases and where the right to bear arms is much more limited - leads to a higher utility for everyone and is therefore preferable (other than the Nazis). I can't really think of what argument would convince me otherwise - would be open to hear it.
|
On August 18 2017 22:56 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 22:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 22:11 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 22:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 18 2017 22:05 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 21:57 Aquanim wrote:On August 18 2017 21:43 Danglars wrote:
...
Antifa makes mistakes, Nazis don't. Well, I'll admit you can't get much clearer than that.
... Assuming you disagree with that statement, can you make your disagreement with it a bit more explicit? Actually, I was disagreeing with a statement he made. Perhaps you also have an opinion on that? Violence against Nazis is a permissible offense (aka not threatening to societal health) in an existing free and open society (I really should say previously free and open society). Groups like Antifa are different, because they only rise to the level of making mistakes. THEY ARE FUCKING NAZIS DANGLARS. Are you serious? You're advocating for the well-being and protection of fucking nazis to assemble. Are they guilty of a crime beyond having a despicable ideology? I wasn't aware they surrender their rights of citizenship because you like the caps lock and have an opinion on the matter. Between denying civil rights and this newfound passion for destroying antiquities, we are getting our own little version of Taliban-lite in this country. And I'm highly amused by these arguments that police do not have an obligation to risk their lives or the appeals to the fact that the Nazis had guns. Whom, exactly, did the Nazis shoot? I haven't had enough coffee yet to tackle these mental gymnastics. Dont you think that's a bit of an overstatement of the situation? People want them taken off of their pedestal, not destroyed. For the life of me I cant understand the fascination with keeping these statues around, hell I dont even know why they were put up in the first place... Why would you commemorate in a positive way anyone who was a part of the group that literally tried to tear the country into two. Why would you celebrate anyone who fought in order to ensure that slavery would continue to be legal in any new states. Those statues aren't just pieces of history, they are celebrations of history. And I for one dont think
why they were put up:
they were largely put up during two spikes in time; one during jim crow c 1920s; and one during the civil rights era. They were meant to put blacks in their place and remind them of where the power was.
very few were put in during the actual aftermath of the civil war and when most of the people who lived through it were still alive.
that and the tribal politics using "the south" as a tribe. which many politicians took advantage of. just because they lost the war doesn't mean they admitted they did something wrong, and many took to blaming the north; surely you've heard of some who call it "the war of northern aggression"?
change can be scary; and the statues have been up for a long time; there's always people who resist change, and society has changed a lot in many ways.
|
On August 18 2017 22:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 22:11 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 22:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 18 2017 22:05 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 21:57 Aquanim wrote:On August 18 2017 21:43 Danglars wrote:
...
Antifa makes mistakes, Nazis don't. Well, I'll admit you can't get much clearer than that.
... Assuming you disagree with that statement, can you make your disagreement with it a bit more explicit? Actually, I was disagreeing with a statement he made. Perhaps you also have an opinion on that? Violence against Nazis is a permissible offense (aka not threatening to societal health) in an existing free and open society (I really should say previously free and open society). Groups like Antifa are different, because they only rise to the level of making mistakes. THEY ARE FUCKING NAZIS DANGLARS. Are you serious? You're advocating for the well-being and protection of fucking nazis to assemble. Are they guilty of a crime beyond having a despicable ideology? I wasn't aware they surrender their rights of citizenship because you like the caps lock and have an opinion on the matter. Between denying civil rights excercising civil disobedience and this newfound passion for destroying antiquities symbols glorifying the oppresion of Blacks in the country, we are getting our own little version of Taliban-lite civil rights movement in this country. And I'm highly amused by these arguments that police do not have an obligation to risk their lives or the appeals to the fact that the Nazis had guns. Whom, exactly, did the Nazis shoot? I haven't had enough coffee yet to tackle these mental gymnastics.
there's 2 sides to the coin, most of times.
Though I'm not on the train of, per se, prohibiting Nazis to march. It's all to be read in context.
Marching close to the holocaust memorial in Berlin for example obviously is a no-go as well as holding a rally in front of a Synagogue or even within earshot of one. (Or in a street named after some dickhead from the era (or a street named after a slave trader in the US wouldn't be acceptable in my opinion.)
Everything that supports the hateful part of their ideology doesn't have a place in society and is not to be allowed.
+ Show Spoiler [my thoughts on prohibiting Nazi symbols] +What I dislike here in Germany is, that they rarely are sufficiently prosecuted for using prohibited symbols. But they're not outlawed in the US, which I think is fine and people should be allowed to use them in art and such. The important distinction is that they must not glorify. And that's where it gets difficult to determine what is art and the like and what not.
e:fixing typos..
|
i find it fairly surprising that we are defending nazis free speech. i really thought it would be something people could get behind unilaterallly. luckily it seems even our republican leadership won't step out to speak up for the nazis.
part of me wonders how lost ones perspective is and how hard you want to either play devils advocate (lol almost literally) or just argue for the sake of arguing. and how much is a genuine belief that white supremacy is worth defending.
i mean when steve bannon steps out in front of you to condemn someone you haven't yet it really has to make you think right
fairly interesting post by artisreal, thanks for the perspective.
though i would quickly go on the record and say i'm against their right to march.
|
On August 18 2017 23:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:03 JinDesu wrote:On August 18 2017 22:57 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 22:53 JinDesu wrote:On August 18 2017 22:49 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 22:47 JinDesu wrote:On August 18 2017 22:46 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 22:43 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 22:40 Plansix wrote:
Sorry, I forgot we needed a pile of bodies before we can discuss the safety issues with large groups of people carrying guns to protests. My mistake. The police should have arrested the people that were better armed than them. If the Nazis were doing something illegal, yes, the police should have arrested the Nazis. And if Nazis resisted or fought back, then I'd be all for the police responding in kind. And if the illegal actor is surrounded by like minded people with long rifles and body armor, the police are just supposed to wade into the mob and make the arrest? When the protesters outnumber the police? Yes. And during the arrest the better armed kkk members feel threatened by the counter protests and start pointing guns at the officer or protester, then what? What if they resist? Then arrest them to. Use appropriate force equivalent to the resistance. If the police are all killed by Nazi's in the ultimate scenario - then clearly those protesters have shown their hand and we have clear evidence to prosecute each and every one of them, we probably sufficient reasoning to claim that Nazi groups are terroristic and should not be allowed to congregate, and we can praise and mourn the hero police officers that did their job. For a society to work, the laws must be followed. If we state that a group of citizens armed better than the police is allowed to do what they want despite the law - then society has failed. What if they don't have appropriate force? What if they are out gunned by the protesters and they know it? What if the police departments can't find anyone willing to get shot to defend Nazi free speech?(don't say fire them, there are not unlimited people to take their place) If they don't have the appropriate force or they know they are outgunned - but they are willing to do their job, then we go back to what I said in what you quoted. If the police are not willing to get shot to defend Nazi free speech, then clearly the society has failed in the concept of free speech for all. If you are willing to say - this society is based on free speech for some, the some that I agree with, then that's your excuse for that police department. I feel we will find out exactly how far people are willing to go to defense Nazi free speech in the new few months. And if they are willing to do it if the Nazis have a clear intention to pick a fight. And we will also find out how willing police are to put other people's lives at risk to make an arrest in the middle of one of these events.
I am for the law. I don't care who's side it is, they must obey the law. If they don't like the law, they can work to change the law - but they cannot break the law.
I cannot support assaulting a Nazi who has done nothing against the law. I cannot support the notion that we allow the Nazis to break the law, just because they are many and are better armed. If the Nazi do break the law, and then outright shoot at people and the police - then a reason is provided to bring the full force of the United States justice system into the location to defend the people and the law.
But until such a thing happens, and if they obey the law, then they have every right as anyone else to assemble and speak freely (to the limits of what free speech allows).
|
On August 18 2017 23:18 JinDesu wrote:...
I am for the law. I don't care who's side it is, they must obey the law. If they don't like the law, they can work to change the law - but they cannot break the law.
...
I would only say this is a reasonable position up to a certain point. There have been times and places in human history where I would have considered myself or anybody else entirely justified in breaking certain laws. I'll ask so that I'm clear on your position: do you disagree with that sentiment?
That being said, to the best of my knowledge that is not the case in this instance, and as such I don't disagree with your argument as a whole on the basis of that point.
|
On August 18 2017 22:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 22:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 18 2017 22:05 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 21:57 Aquanim wrote:On August 18 2017 21:43 Danglars wrote:
...
Antifa makes mistakes, Nazis don't. Well, I'll admit you can't get much clearer than that.
... Assuming you disagree with that statement, can you make your disagreement with it a bit more explicit? Actually, I was disagreeing with a statement he made. Perhaps you also have an opinion on that? Violence against Nazis is a permissible offense (aka not threatening to societal health) in an existing free and open society (I really should say previously free and open society). Groups like Antifa are different, because they only rise to the level of making mistakes. THEY ARE FUCKING NAZIS DANGLARS. Are you serious? You're advocating for the well-being and protection of fucking nazis to assemble. Are they guilty of a crime beyond having a despicable ideology? I wasn't aware they surrender their rights of citizenship because you like the caps lock and have an opinion on the matter.
If there was a war and you had to pick a side would you fight for the nazis or for the leftists ?
|
I will say I'm not sure you should be able to bring riot gear and tear gas as protesters on either side (or tiki torches). Police should 100% be able to say "hey, you can peaceably assemble, but no riot shields." I also don't think you should be able to open carry weapons at protests, even in areas that allow for open carry, but I can see how others might disagree with that.
|
I worked in the criminal justice system briefly and that killed my desire to look to law guidance on morality. All systems can be gamed, including the protections for free speech. Weapons have no place at a peaceful protest.
|
On August 18 2017 23:27 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:18 JinDesu wrote:...
I am for the law. I don't care who's side it is, they must obey the law. If they don't like the law, they can work to change the law - but they cannot break the law.
... I would only say this is a reasonable position up to a certain point. There have been times and places in human history where I would have considered myself or anybody else entirely justified in breaking certain laws. I'll ask so that I'm clear on your position: do you disagree with that sentiment? That being said, to the best of my knowledge that is not the case in this instance, and as such I don't disagree with your argument as a whole on the basis of that point.
I will say that yes - there will be a point where even I will break the law. When I am wronged by the laws in place or the laws do not protect me as they do protect anyone else, and I have no recourse to change the law as I am the minority in that situation - then I can only break the law. It is why I understand why people had to break the laws during the Civil Rights era. They were not protected by the law, the defenders of the law would actively harm them for trying to change the laws, and few would give them the time to listen.
But yes - in the case that we are discussing in this thread - it is not like that. Both the Nazi protestors and the Antifa counter-protesters were within their rights to protest and counter-protest, and no laws are in place that harm either unequally (afaik). As such, they should be allowed to protest and counter-protest, and if either breaks the law - then the police must act on the lawbreaker.
On August 18 2017 23:29 Plansix wrote:
I worked in the criminal justice system briefly and that killed my desire to look to law guidance on morality. All systems can be gamed, including the protections for free speech. Weapons have no place at a peaceful protest.
Yes - and so the law should be reviewed and adjusted as such. Peaceful assembly should be defined, and I agree that weapons - to an extent - should have no place at a peaceful protest.
On August 18 2017 23:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I will say I'm not sure you should be able to bring riot gear and tear gas as protesters on either side (or tiki torches). Police should 100% be able to say "hey, you can peaceably assemble, but no riot shields." I also don't think you should be able to open carry weapons at protests, even in areas that allow for open carry, but I can see how others might disagree with that.
I agree - the police should be able to say "an assembly of this many people with this much weaponry is beyond our control, and so a permit should not issued to allow this type of assembly. A permit should have some restrictions to allow for reasonable control in the event of a riot."
And then that sort of statement should be reviewed against the laws and the rights of the people, and adjusted to compromise.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
So Civil War itself it a contentious issue with many mythologies. We have a lot of revisionist history, with Lost Cause mythology as the most prevalent of all. It is under the Lost Cause mythology that we have "celebration of Southern heritage."
The most immediate cause of the Civil War was the Morrill Tariffs where US protectionism was a big problem for the South. Lincoln, at this time, was conciliatory to the South with guarantees for slavery in order to preserve the union. However, given how often the secessionist movement referenced slavery, the seceding states were acting preemptively against Lincoln's opinion of "house divided against itself" that predicted a total victory for slavery or abolitionists. But given the terrible 1857 Dredd Scott decision who could blame Lincoln for this 1858 opinion.
And during the Civil War itself, the "radicals" of abolition were in control. It was at this time, Lincoln chose to rip-off the bandaid with abolition becoming an eventuality. So while the initial rebellion "wasn't about slavery," Lincoln made it about slavery.
|
On August 18 2017 23:18 brian wrote:
i find it fairly surprising that we are defending nazis free speech. i really thought it would be something people could get behind unilaterallly. luckily it seems even our republican leadership won't step out to speak up for the nazis.
part of me wonders how lost ones perspective is and how hard you want to either play devils advocate (lol almost literally) or just argue for the sake of arguing. and how much is a genuine belief that white supremacy is worth defending.
i mean when steve bannon steps out in front of you to condemn someone you haven't yet it really has to make you think right
fairly interesting post by artisreal, thanks for the perspective.
though i would quickly go on the record and say i'm against their right to march.
Can you separate the ideas of defending the ideology of white supremacy and defending the free speech of US citizens not found guilty of crime?
What's your argument for the repeal of the right of the people peaceably to assemble?
|
On August 18 2017 23:27 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 22:11 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 22:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 18 2017 22:05 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 21:57 Aquanim wrote:On August 18 2017 21:43 Danglars wrote:
...
Antifa makes mistakes, Nazis don't. Well, I'll admit you can't get much clearer than that.
... Assuming you disagree with that statement, can you make your disagreement with it a bit more explicit? Actually, I was disagreeing with a statement he made. Perhaps you also have an opinion on that? Violence against Nazis is a permissible offense (aka not threatening to societal health) in an existing free and open society (I really should say previously free and open society). Groups like Antifa are different, because they only rise to the level of making mistakes. THEY ARE FUCKING NAZIS DANGLARS. Are you serious? You're advocating for the well-being and protection of fucking nazis to assemble. Are they guilty of a crime beyond having a despicable ideology? I wasn't aware they surrender their rights of citizenship because you like the caps lock and have an opinion on the matter. If there was a war and you had to pick a side would you fight for the nazis or for the leftists ?
What are your thoughts on "Violence against Nazis is a permissible offense (aka not threatening to societal health) in an existing free and open society?" What do you think about Antifa only getting in trouble if they make a mistake in identifying Nazis to be violent towards? Is free speech and the right to peaceably assemble and outdated concept in modern society?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 18 2017 23:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I will say I'm not sure you should be able to bring riot gear and tear gas as protesters on either side (or tiki torches). Police should 100% be able to say "hey, you can peaceably assemble, but no riot shields." I also don't think you should be able to open carry weapons at protests, even in areas that allow for open carry, but I can see how others might disagree with that.
As a non-american, this was the most insane part of these protests to me. I knew about US gun laws, obviously, but I just assumed that they wouldn't extend to something like a protest anymore than they apply for people going to school (school zones are exempt right...?).
|
On August 18 2017 23:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:27 ImFromPortugal wrote:On August 18 2017 22:11 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 22:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 18 2017 22:05 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 21:57 Aquanim wrote:On August 18 2017 21:43 Danglars wrote:
...
Antifa makes mistakes, Nazis don't. Well, I'll admit you can't get much clearer than that.
... Assuming you disagree with that statement, can you make your disagreement with it a bit more explicit? Actually, I was disagreeing with a statement he made. Perhaps you also have an opinion on that? Violence against Nazis is a permissible offense (aka not threatening to societal health) in an existing free and open society (I really should say previously free and open society). Groups like Antifa are different, because they only rise to the level of making mistakes. THEY ARE FUCKING NAZIS DANGLARS. Are you serious? You're advocating for the well-being and protection of fucking nazis to assemble. Are they guilty of a crime beyond having a despicable ideology? I wasn't aware they surrender their rights of citizenship because you like the caps lock and have an opinion on the matter. If there was a war and you had to pick a side would you fight for the nazis or for the leftists ? What are your thoughts on "Violence against Nazis is a permissible offense (aka not threatening to societal health) in an existing free and open society?" What do you think about Antifa only getting in trouble if they make a mistake in identifying Nazis to be violent towards? Is free speech and the right to peaceably assemble and outdated concept in modern society?
Answer the question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
