|
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 23:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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?
yes, of course. but when the citizen you are defending is a white supremacist, then no.
i think hate speech should be illegal. i think brandenburg v ohio set a precedent that i believe should be written law rather than precedent, and in this ideal world of mine they are no longer innocent.
i do understand the laws on hate speech have evolved since the decision and of course i disagree with the direction they've moved (which more strongly defends hate speech.)
|
On August 18 2017 22:45 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 22:38 Danglars wrote:
Oh, it wasn't the word mistake. It was the entire thought embodied by your words. You will condemn antifa when they make a mistake, you won't condemn antifa if they initiate violence against nazis. Thank God there's a second amendment in this country so people can defend themselves from like you who excuse violence. Does it ever occur to you that if you actually make your point instead of showing all of this outrage and some snide remarks, conversations tend to go faster?
You were perfectly clear at what you meant and I was perfectly clear about what I found objectionable. I never demanded you acknowledge my point, it's your right to note or not note our disagreement about the impact on civil society. Just don't try to skirt by it and pretend someone's zooming in on the word "mistake." That has a history of making conversations anything but conversations.
|
United States42008 Posts
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.
Your passionate defence of civil rights would seem a whole lot more genuine if you showed up when people who weren't Nazis were getting their rights infringed upon. If you turn a blind eye when non Nazis are impacted then it gives the appearance that it was never actually about rights, it was just about Nazis.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On August 18 2017 23:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:34 Danglars wrote: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.
This is not valid question. We are imposing a false dichotomy.
Whichever side is the aggressor get punished and society as a while has responsibility to mediate the violence.
|
On August 18 2017 23:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 22:45 Nebuchad wrote:On August 18 2017 22:38 Danglars wrote:
Oh, it wasn't the word mistake. It was the entire thought embodied by your words. You will condemn antifa when they make a mistake, you won't condemn antifa if they initiate violence against nazis. Thank God there's a second amendment in this country so people can defend themselves from like you who excuse violence. Does it ever occur to you that if you actually make your point instead of showing all of this outrage and some snide remarks, conversations tend to go faster? You were perfectly clear at what you meant and I was perfectly clear about what I found objectionable. I never demanded you acknowledge my point, it's your right to note or not note our disagreement about the impact on civil society. Just don't try to skirt by it and pretend someone's zooming in on the word "mistake." That has a history of making conversations anything but conversations.
No you weren't clear. Sorry if you thought you were.
|
On August 18 2017 23:36 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:32 Danglars wrote: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? yes, of course. but when the citizen you are defending is a white supremacist, then no. i think hate speech should be illegal. i think brandenburg v ohio set a precedent that i believe should be written law rather than precedent, and in this ideal world of mine they are no longer innocent. i do understand the laws on hate speech have evolved since the decision and of course i disagree with the direction they've moved (which more strongly defends hate speech.)
Yes of course you can separate a defense of the ideology and a defense of free speech ...
... but defending a citizen espousing that ideology and practicing his free speech means you can't separate the two topics? I'm more of the opinion of their separability, like "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" can hold true even if the speaker is a white supremacist by ideology.
The precedent was imminent violence (lawless action) and incitement to imminent violence (lawless action). Not hate speech, which has garnered a broad definition. Do you have evidence they tried to incite violence against blacks or other persons?
|
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.
The problem with limiting free speech (or the right to assemble) in any way is that you have to draw a line at what is illegal and what isn't. Everyone has different sensibilities, I find it offensive to deny the holocaust, some find drawing Mohammad offensive... And if you let the government decide what you are allowed to say, you might not like the outcome.
Obviously armed Nazis are a plague and having to deal with that kind of threat for the law enforcement is a dangerous and terrifying problem, but that comes less form the fact that they are Nazis and more with the fact that they are allowed to carry fucking AR-15 in the streets...
On the other hand I would really really like to hear what the Republican leaning people in this thread would say if instead of Nazis we had ISIS enthousiasts marching down the streets of a US town carrying their flags with semi-automatic weapons. I'm sure they would come at their defence full swing...
|
On August 18 2017 23:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:36 brian wrote:On August 18 2017 23:32 Danglars wrote: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? yes, of course. but when the citizen you are defending is a white supremacist, then no. i think hate speech should be illegal. i think brandenburg v ohio set a precedent that i believe should be written law rather than precedent, and in this ideal world of mine they are no longer innocent. i do understand the laws on hate speech have evolved since the decision and of course i disagree with the direction they've moved (which more strongly defends hate speech.) Yes of course you can separate a defense of the ideology and a defense of free speech ... ... but defending a citizen espousing that ideology and practicing his free speech means you can't separate the two topics? I'm more of the opinion of their separability, like "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" can hold true even if the speaker is a white supremacist by ideology. The precedent was imminent violence (lawless action) and incitement to imminent violence (lawless action). Not hate speech, which has garnered a broad definition. Do you have evidence they tried to incite violence against blacks or other persons?
well, to make it not broad, should we agree on terms? fighting words against a protected class on the basis of belonging to said class.
i think their message and words alone stand as evidence as an attempt to incite violence. you may note that the precedent does not explicitly say violence by the nazis against their targets, but rather any violence. and i think it holds that shouting the ideals of white supremacy as an assembled, armed people meets such a standard.
|
On August 18 2017 23:48 Diavlo wrote:Show nested quote +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. The problem with limiting free speech (or the right to assemble) in any way is that you have to draw a line at what is illegal and what isn't.
That's not a problem at all. We already do it.
|
United States42008 Posts
On August 18 2017 23:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:36 brian wrote:On August 18 2017 23:32 Danglars wrote: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? yes, of course. but when the citizen you are defending is a white supremacist, then no. i think hate speech should be illegal. i think brandenburg v ohio set a precedent that i believe should be written law rather than precedent, and in this ideal world of mine they are no longer innocent. i do understand the laws on hate speech have evolved since the decision and of course i disagree with the direction they've moved (which more strongly defends hate speech.) Yes of course you can separate a defense of the ideology and a defense of free speech ... ... but defending a citizen espousing that ideology and practicing his free speech means you can't separate the two topics? I'm more of the opinion of their separability, like "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" can hold true even if the speaker is a white supremacist by ideology. The precedent was imminent violence (lawless action) and incitement to imminent violence (lawless action). Not hate speech, which has garnered a broad definition. Do you have evidence they tried to incite violence against blacks or other persons?
While I'm largely on the same side as you in terms of free speech and right of assembly, isn't the distinction you're making here purely one of timescale? The distinction you're making is between a speech that rouses a mob to a lynching and a speech calling upon the American public rise up, Turner Diaries style, and create a white ethnostate. Doesn't that difference basically come down to "fuck this specific guy up, right now" vs "fuck those guys up, soon"?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On August 18 2017 23:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:45 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 23:36 brian wrote:On August 18 2017 23:32 Danglars wrote: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? yes, of course. but when the citizen you are defending is a white supremacist, then no. i think hate speech should be illegal. i think brandenburg v ohio set a precedent that i believe should be written law rather than precedent, and in this ideal world of mine they are no longer innocent. i do understand the laws on hate speech have evolved since the decision and of course i disagree with the direction they've moved (which more strongly defends hate speech.) Yes of course you can separate a defense of the ideology and a defense of free speech ... ... but defending a citizen espousing that ideology and practicing his free speech means you can't separate the two topics? I'm more of the opinion of their separability, like "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" can hold true even if the speaker is a white supremacist by ideology. The precedent was imminent violence (lawless action) and incitement to imminent violence (lawless action). Not hate speech, which has garnered a broad definition. Do you have evidence they tried to incite violence against blacks or other persons? While I'm largely on the same side as you in terms of free speech and right of assembly, isn't the distinction you're making here purely one of timescale? The distinction you're making is between a speech that rouses a mob to a lynching and a speech calling upon the American public rise up, Turner Diaries style, and create a white ethnostate. Doesn't that difference basically come down to "fuck this specific guy up, right now" vs "fuck those guys up, soon"?
The differentiation already has clear delineation and precedence in the 'clear and present danger' decision by Oliver Wendell Holmes.
|
On August 18 2017 23:44 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:39 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 22:45 Nebuchad wrote:On August 18 2017 22:38 Danglars wrote:
Oh, it wasn't the word mistake. It was the entire thought embodied by your words. You will condemn antifa when they make a mistake, you won't condemn antifa if they initiate violence against nazis. Thank God there's a second amendment in this country so people can defend themselves from like you who excuse violence. Does it ever occur to you that if you actually make your point instead of showing all of this outrage and some snide remarks, conversations tend to go faster? You were perfectly clear at what you meant and I was perfectly clear about what I found objectionable. I never demanded you acknowledge my point, it's your right to note or not note our disagreement about the impact on civil society. Just don't try to skirt by it and pretend someone's zooming in on the word "mistake." That has a history of making conversations anything but conversations. No you weren't clear. Sorry if you thought you were.
You stated the violence against Nazis were permissible and did not present a threat to society. You stated that your condemnation of Antifa was predicated on them making a mistake and not targeting Nazis. I think the protection of citizens against violence applies despite disagreeing with their words and opinions.
+ Show Spoiler +On August 18 2017 20:46 Nebuchad wrote:
Hi ninazerg. When people get violent against nazis, I don't really feel that my society is under threat. I see a lot of the liberal response of condemning both sides in this thread but as a leftist I can't say I really associate.
Will condemn antifa every time they make a mistake and attack someone else. But as long as one of the side is attacking nazis and the other side is being nazis, I won't be talking about both sides.
I think we should talk more often though. On August 18 2017 22:22 TanGeng wrote:
Violence is violence. And the politic claims to have a monopoly on it. If the politic is not stepping in on violence, it becomes state-sanctioned violence against people for holding odious opinions.
You don't need to admit these guys as polite company. You certainly don't want them in political power. Actively initiating violence here is simply going to engender more violence.
On August 18 2017 22:38 Danglars wrote:
You can put the simple argument in two sentences and people will still deny one leads to the other.
|
On August 18 2017 23:43 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:36 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 23:34 Danglars wrote: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. This is not valid question. We are imposing a false dichotomy. Whichever side is the aggressor get punished and society as a while has responsibility to mediate the violence.
The problem with this discussion is that the simplistic metric that the instigator is party to throw a punch first. That showing up in full body armor with rifles, bats and shields isn’t in itself some form of intimidation and therefore violence. The argument that pointing a rifle at someone isn’t violence unless the trigger is pulled.
|
On August 18 2017 23:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:44 Nebuchad wrote:On August 18 2017 23:39 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 22:45 Nebuchad wrote:On August 18 2017 22:38 Danglars wrote:
Oh, it wasn't the word mistake. It was the entire thought embodied by your words. You will condemn antifa when they make a mistake, you won't condemn antifa if they initiate violence against nazis. Thank God there's a second amendment in this country so people can defend themselves from like you who excuse violence. Does it ever occur to you that if you actually make your point instead of showing all of this outrage and some snide remarks, conversations tend to go faster? You were perfectly clear at what you meant and I was perfectly clear about what I found objectionable. I never demanded you acknowledge my point, it's your right to note or not note our disagreement about the impact on civil society. Just don't try to skirt by it and pretend someone's zooming in on the word "mistake." That has a history of making conversations anything but conversations. No you weren't clear. Sorry if you thought you were. You stated the violence against Nazis were permissible and did not present a threat to society. You stated that your condemnation of Antifa was predicated on them making a mistake and not targeting Nazis. I think the protection of citizens against violence applies despite disagreeing with their words and opinions.
I agree with you. Protection against violence applies despite disagreeing with their words and opinions. The problem with the nazis isn't that I disagree with their words and opinions. It's that they're nazis.
I would never hold the position that I hold if the only problem with the nazis was that I disagreed with them politically.
|
On August 18 2017 16:03 Schmobutzen wrote:
Yeah, I don't know about Canadas anti - discrimination laws. Just look at the mess that is bill c-16...
On August 18 2017 16:33 Jockmcplop wrote:
C-16 is a poorly thought out badly written bit of legislation for sure, but it is coming from the right place and certainly has nothing on Trump's attempted pro discrimination laws.
This has come up a few times now, and I'm really curious if people actually understand Bill C-16, or they are just seeing it through a filtered internet view.
Canada has existing anti-discrimination laws. It is a very specific list, which covers things like race, sex, marital status, national origin, pardoned convictions, etc.
Bill C-16 takes the existing list, and adds "gender identity or expression" to it. That's it. Now, if the argument is on the "gender identity or expression" is poor wording, okay, that's a discussion point.
|
On August 18 2017 23:43 KwarK 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. Your passionate defence of civil rights would seem a whole lot more genuine if you showed up when people who weren't Nazis were getting their rights infringed upon. If you turn a blind eye when non Nazis are impacted then it gives the appearance that it was never actually about rights, it was just about Nazis.
Remember that one time in Ferguson?
|
On August 18 2017 23:49 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:45 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 23:36 brian wrote:On August 18 2017 23:32 Danglars wrote: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? yes, of course. but when the citizen you are defending is a white supremacist, then no. i think hate speech should be illegal. i think brandenburg v ohio set a precedent that i believe should be written law rather than precedent, and in this ideal world of mine they are no longer innocent. i do understand the laws on hate speech have evolved since the decision and of course i disagree with the direction they've moved (which more strongly defends hate speech.) Yes of course you can separate a defense of the ideology and a defense of free speech ... ... but defending a citizen espousing that ideology and practicing his free speech means you can't separate the two topics? I'm more of the opinion of their separability, like "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" can hold true even if the speaker is a white supremacist by ideology. The precedent was imminent violence (lawless action) and incitement to imminent violence (lawless action). Not hate speech, which has garnered a broad definition. Do you have evidence they tried to incite violence against blacks or other persons? well, to make it not broad, should we agree on terms? fighting words against a protected class on the basis of belonging to said class. i think their message and words alone stand as evidence as an attempt to incite violence. you may note that the precedent does not explicitly say violence by the nazis against their targets, but rather any violence. and i think it holds that shouting the ideals of white supremacy as an assembled, armed people meets such a standard.
No, I'd rather keep it at the Brandenburg vs Ohio precedent since you thought that precedent should be written law. Imminent lawless action and incitement to the same. Do you have an example of their words and why you think it was an attempt to incite violence?
You also said that when the speaker is a white supremacist, you will not separate a defense of their ideology from a defense of their right to speak. What is this founded on?
|
On August 18 2017 23:36 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:32 Danglars wrote: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? yes, of course. but when the citizen you are defending is a white supremacist, then no. i think hate speech should be illegal. i think brandenburg v ohio set a precedent that i believe should be written law rather than precedent, and in this ideal world of mine they are no longer innocent. i do understand the laws on hate speech have evolved since the decision and of course i disagree with the direction they've moved (which more strongly defends hate speech.)
Making hate speech illegal is weird when you consider how much the US values free speech. You're basically saying you can say what you want, and hold whatever opinions you want, so long as it's not for these reasons.
It's not like hating someone because of their skin colour is worse than hating someone because of a football team they support, or because they're vegan. They're all moronic reasons to hate someone.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On August 18 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:43 TanGeng wrote:On August 18 2017 23:36 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 23:34 Danglars wrote: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. This is not valid question. We are imposing a false dichotomy. Whichever side is the aggressor get punished and society as a while has responsibility to mediate the violence. The problem with this discussion is that the simplistic metric that the instigator is party to throw a punch first. That showing up in full body armor with rifles, bats and shields isn’t in itself some form of intimidation and therefore violence. The argument that pointing a rifle at someone isn’t violence unless the trigger is pulled.
This is silly. US supreme court already has multiple ruling on threatening postures. It is a non-issue on deciding the line where violence starts.
|
I used to work at a bank (in Chicago, coincidentally) and I actually did our redlining statistical analysis for regulators. What they requested from us was to determine whether the amount of money we lent the and number of loans were significantly different from our "peer group." As I mentioned in a previous post though, banks aren't allowed to ask for racial information on loan applications. So what our bank did was to have a guy sort through loan applications and assign each person a race based on their name (the regulators see no problem with this, hilariously enough). Obviously, this brings into pretty serious question the quality of the data. More importantly though, asking whether a bank is "significantly different than the mean of their peer group" and using a p-value cutoff like 0.05 makes the test a self-fulfilling that some banks are going to fail--because it's a comparative test in the first place.
Doing a test like this provides no way of telling you whether a bank is "racist." It tells you if this bank "more racist" (I'll get to more on this in a minute) than other banks. And some banks, by definition, are going to be "more racist" than other banks.
Moreover, this has a whole host of other problems. Our bank failed the test, though I don't think a case was ever brought against us. Were we racist? No. Our business was mostly (~90%) Commercial Real Estate loans, Commercial and Industrial loans, and insurance products for high net-worth individuals. Do you know how many profitable CRE and C&I loans there are on the South Side (i.e. where there's barely any businesses in the first place)? And how many high net-worth individuals there are to lend to there? Banks fight over the few profitable opportunities that do exist on the South Side in an attempt to avoid regulatory scrutiny without losing a bunch of money.
The only lending categories that are even potentially profitable (in theory) down there are mortgage originations (that you subsequently sell to Freddie or Fannie) and consumer lending (credit cards and payday loans). The latter of which probably isn't a net positive for the South Side's economy, and it's not really a profitable segment for banks, in general, anyway due to regulations.
Given I know a little bit about banking, this statement from the author:
The case is not about doling out mortgages to minority households that wouldn't otherwise qualify for them — it's about offering equal access to families that look just as eligible on paper as white homeowners nearby.
with no support and a broken link to the case, is literally worthless.
I have a fair amount of experience with banking regulators, and they were all undoubtedly the least effective people at doing their jobs that I've ever met. I can agree and support a lot of the ideas behind banking regulation, but the current implementation of it is a joke. We had anti-fraud regulators that didn't understand that our anti-fraud program was a total and utter sham/joke that doesn't really catch anything. We had a stress testing program that was literally worthless (mostly because of regulatory guidance). In both cases, the regulators were pleased because we had a large team assigned to working on the problem and thousands of pages of documentation for everything they did though. Which the examiners then tried to read and understand in their one week annual examination, only to not understand it and provide essentially random advice to make it look like they're doing their jobs.
Unsurprisingly, that's what happens with organizations that are set up and managed by politicians focused on elections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
