|
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 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:54 Danglars wrote: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.
Obviously, you don't agree with me, because you're carving an exemption for Nazis that they don't deserve the ordinary protection of their persons against violence that other US citizens enjoy. What about their chosen ideology causes them to forfeit their constitutional rights and police protections? Since you don't accuse me of being unclear now, I won't re-quote the reason you omitted as to why I think your opinion is dangerous to society.
|
United States43753 Posts
On August 19 2017 00:01 killa_robot 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.) 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.
The Nazi hate speech isn't just "we don't like brown guys". It's "we don't like brown guys so we should kill all of them". I suspect the objections would still apply in some convoluted hypothetical where they didn't hate brown guys but still wanted them all killed. If the Nazi platform was filled with hate and also respect for human dignity, regardless of race, creed, gender, sexual preference and so forth then we'd not be having this conversation.
|
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.
I never really have much of an opportunity to defend the leftist free speech rights because people on the right -- even the extreme right -- seem to be better at tolerating public discourse and don't try to start shit at lawful rallies. But when Ann Coulter shows up at Berkeley, that's a five-alarm fire for the various asshole factions of the left.
|
On August 18 2017 23:49 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:48 Diavlo 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. 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.
Yeah and maybe we shouldn't. A French comedian has been sentenced to jail for racist comments and denying the holocaust in a show and I'm not sure this is the path we are supposed to take.
I don't often buy in the slippery slope argument because it's usually used to prevent progress (like gay marriage or euthanasia) but it's different when it comes to restricting civil liberties, it always starts with something small like bringing back sentences for insulting the head of state or slowly changing what you are allowed to watch on the internet but it creeps up.
|
On August 18 2017 23:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:49 brian wrote: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?
of course i do. there are countless videos of protestors shouting 'death to ' whatever they hate most. while armed and carrying torches to signify a literal mob, that is clear and explicit hate speech leading to imminent violence (also evidenced by the forthcoming violence.)
seeing the violence that was imminent, the assembly is no longer lawful. so again- i'm against their right to march.
i'm not sure what you mean by 'rather keep it at the precedent..' as i've not yet misstated it. instead i made mention that the assembling party need not be the ones to start the violence to trigger the rule of law. oh, unless the 'it' is the definition of hate speech. which is in agreement with the decision from the case, in which case your preference makes no sense.
|
United States43753 Posts
On August 19 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:43 KwarK wrote: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. I never really have much of an opportunity to defend the leftist free speech rights because people on the right -- even the extreme right -- seem to be better at tolerating public discourse and don't try to start shit at lawful rallies. But when Ann Coulter shows up at Berkeley, that's a five-alarm fire for the various asshole factions of the left.
Are there any civil rights beyond free speech that you think aren't being respected in modern America? And if not, what evidence would change your mind?
|
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 doubt that denying free hate-speech to Nazis gets you closer to a Taliban society. Germany is not closer to the Taliban just because we don't allow people to deny the holocaust. If you can't argue with an idea in a society, you need to prohibit it. And if the argument is that the Holocaust did not happen and was a propaganda lie from the jewish/communist society or that non-whites are less human then whites, there is nothing you can say to win the argument.
I also don't understand the prevalent thought in the thread that you have to live with packs of armed hate-spewing bigots because that's the law. The law can be changed. If you find it apalling that neo-nazis can march through your country, bringing automatic weapons and shields and clubs with them and chanting Sieg Heil, there is an easy solution. Change the law. You did it before. There was a time where you thought your country was the best and most free country in the world while your slaves worked the plantations. You can improve on your constitution! The eagles won't go extinct because Nazis can't gather with M4s anymore.
|
On August 19 2017 00:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On August 18 2017 23:54 Danglars wrote: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. Obviously, you don't agree with me, because you're carving an exemption for Nazis that they don't deserve the ordinary protection of their persons against violence that other US citizens enjoy. What about their chosen ideology causes them to forfeit their constitutional rights and police protections? Since you don't accuse me of being unclear now, I won't re-quote the reason you omitted as to why I think your opinion is dangerous to society.
You have portrayed my objection to the idea that nazism is deserving of free speech as being due to the fact that I disagree with them politically. That was incorrect. This is not why I don't think nazis deserve free speech. I agree with you however that people who disagree with me politically deserve free speech, so your objection to my position was unfounded.
|
On August 19 2017 00:08 Diavlo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:49 Nebuchad wrote:On August 18 2017 23:48 Diavlo 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. 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. Yeah and maybe we shouldn't. A French comedian has been sentenced to jail for racist comments and denying the holocaust in a show and I'm not sure this is the path we are supposed to take. I don't often buy in the slippery slope argument because it's usually used to prevent progress (like gay marriage or euthanasia) but it's different when it comes to restricting civil liberties, it always starts with something small like bringing back sentences for insulting the head of state or slowly changing what you are allowed to watch on the internet but it creeps up.
Okay, but that's a different argument from the one you made earlier. Earlier you said that it was hard to put a limit on free speech based on hate speech. Now you're saying that you disagree with the way the limit was put.
|
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"?
I see no reason to change precedent in Watts vs United States and NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co on that case.
|
On August 19 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:43 KwarK wrote: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. I never really have much of an opportunity to defend the leftist free speech rights because people on the right -- even the extreme right -- seem to be better at tolerating public discourse and don't try to start shit at lawful rallies. But when Ann Coulter shows up at Berkeley, that's a five-alarm fire for the various asshole factions of the left.
Wasn't everybody protesting at Ferguson vermin? I remember you advocating they send in the national guard and didn't really care what happened to them if and when that happened.
|
On August 19 2017 00:03 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Well I guess that clears it up and it's a non-issue. Good to know. We will get the word out to all police during chaotic protests.
|
United States43753 Posts
On August 19 2017 00:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:51 KwarK wrote: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"? I see no reason to change precedent in Watts vs United States and NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co on that case.
If Nazism started gaining momentum in the US would that change your mind at all? Do you view the threat embodied by those speeches as being remote?
|
The First Amendment does mean that Nazis shouldn't be prevented from speaking or subjected to violence. Where I disagree with the right is when they excuse Trump for using phrasing that leaves room for Nazis to praise him and believe he shares their beliefs, and when they call for cultural and immigration resistance to Muslims but not white nationalists/Nazis.
|
On August 19 2017 00:13 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 00:04 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On August 18 2017 23:54 Danglars wrote: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. Obviously, you don't agree with me, because you're carving an exemption for Nazis that they don't deserve the ordinary protection of their persons against violence that other US citizens enjoy. What about their chosen ideology causes them to forfeit their constitutional rights and police protections? Since you don't accuse me of being unclear now, I won't re-quote the reason you omitted as to why I think your opinion is dangerous to society. You have portrayed my objection to the idea that nazism is deserving of free speech as being due to the fact that I disagree with them politically. That was incorrect. This is not why I don't think nazis deserve free speech. I agree with you however that people who disagree with me politically deserve free speech, so your objection to my position was unfounded.
Ideologies don't have free speech, individuals have free speech. I'm having a dickens of a time learning on why grounds you permit violence against a US citizen professing nazism. I think they're deserving a protection against violence, and I'm going to need more than "It's that they're nazis," for your rationale.
Since this is our fourth or fifth go-around, I'm leaning towards your unstated reason being that certain classes of citizens are just so sub-human that they're asking for it.
So, for the last time, do you have a specific reason for your justification of violence against Nazis beyond "It's that they're nazis?"
|
On August 19 2017 00:15 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 23:43 KwarK wrote: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. I never really have much of an opportunity to defend the leftist free speech rights because people on the right -- even the extreme right -- seem to be better at tolerating public discourse and don't try to start shit at lawful rallies. But when Ann Coulter shows up at Berkeley, that's a five-alarm fire for the various asshole factions of the left. Wasn't everybody protesting at Ferguson vermin? I remember you advocating they send in the national guard and didn't really care what happened to them if and when that happened.
If BLM wants to demonstrate peaceably, I have no problem with that. I expressly referred to the rioters and looters as vermin. There is no constitutional protection to destroy the property of others. When that happens, regardless of who is doing it, I will always advocate sending in the authorities to clear the vermin out, whether it be BLM, Nazis, or the Girl Scouts of America.
|
On August 19 2017 00:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 00:15 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 23:51 KwarK wrote: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"? I see no reason to change precedent in Watts vs United States and NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co on that case. If Nazism started gaining momentum in the US would that change your mind at all? Do you view the threat embodied by those speeches as being remote?
That would be NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. The justices analyzed true threats. The first statement of the case was Watts vs United States. I think you'll get a better understanding of my limits from both of those.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On August 19 2017 00:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 00:03 TanGeng wrote:On August 18 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Well I guess that clears it up and it's a non-issue. Good to know. We will get the word out to all police during chaotic protests.
Sarcastic remarks like this isn't doing yourself any favors.
Legality of threatening behavior is well-establish. If it wasn't police would have an impossible time doing their job of peacekeeping. Continuing along this line of argument is simply trolling.
|
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?
The thing is that not commiting a crime and being on very thin ice morally due to ones worldview are wholly separate things. This is where abiding or not abiding to law becomes difficult to determine. Is it still free speech or is it propagation of white supremacism, which btw should be classified as an offence due to its innately violent nature towards those not idetified as white.
When I go about peacefully and proclaim all whites should be restricted to South Carolina and shouldn't be able to vote, is that peaceful?
|
On August 19 2017 00:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 00:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 19 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 23:43 KwarK wrote: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. I never really have much of an opportunity to defend the leftist free speech rights because people on the right -- even the extreme right -- seem to be better at tolerating public discourse and don't try to start shit at lawful rallies. But when Ann Coulter shows up at Berkeley, that's a five-alarm fire for the various asshole factions of the left. Wasn't everybody protesting at Ferguson vermin? I remember you advocating they send in the national guard and didn't really care what happened to them if and when that happened. If BLM wants to demonstrate peaceably, I have no problem with that. I expressly referred to the rioters and looters as vermin. There is no constitutional protection to destroy the property of others. When that happens, regardless of who is doing it, I will always advocate sending in the authorities to clear the vermin out, whether it be BLM, Nazis, or the Girl Scouts of America.
Wasn't it also noted that those rioters and looters were not form Ferguson and that they had the explicit intent on causing mayhem? Why would you call BLM vermin and not the fringe that joined the party to start shit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
