|
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 19 2017 01:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:40 thePunGun wrote:On August 19 2017 01:30 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 01:27 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 01:23 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 19 2017 01:16 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 01:15 Broetchenholer wrote:
It's also really strange to see huge groups of potentially dangerous and violent people with assault rifles protesting in the streets and the police keeps a respectful distance when african Americans are getting shot when mentioning they own guns. I would have loved to see an actual arrest of one of the neo-nazis out of that group. Arrested for doing what? If the speech is protected, and the carrying of the firearm is lawful in that circumstance (I believe it was), what are the grounds for the arrest? Throwing a stone at someone. It's hypothetical. I find it extremely weird that african americans are being shot from officers conducting traffic controls and a huge block of dangerous people carrying assault rifles over their shoulders is not a problem. There were voices here that stated that the police should wait till those people commit an actual crime and then arrest those that commited a crime. When stated that it would be...threatening... to the cops to arrest someone among his ar-15 carrying friends, the answer was, well, that's how it works. And what i see from how nervous american cops seem to be around minorities, i would have liked to see how they treat those nice, peaceful genocide-lovers. The important lesson here is not to conflate problems. That the police are assholes to black people or anyone else has nothing to do with demonstration rights of Nazis. The law is often messy and cumbersome, but it should be universally adhered to. Society breaks down when it's not. Nobody is saying "these peoples' rights weren't respected so nobody's rights should be respected". The argument is "it's pretty fucked up that so many peoples' rights aren't respected but the right only comes out in force to defend civil rights when a Nazi is the one being oppressed". Well, techinically there's no such thing as rights, they're more like privileges granted by the government. The US government can also take away those privileges, whenever they please. Just google Japanese Americans and German Americans in the 1940s, they also thought they had rights.. didn't stop the US from detaining 110.000 Jap, Americans and 11.000 Ger. Americans. (Born Americans who's only fault was their parents were born in the wroong country) I don't think anyone here thinks internment is a good thing and should be repeated.
Just something to keep in mind, in times when people think they're entitled to those granted privileges. History tends to repeat itself, unfortunately.
|
United States42008 Posts
On August 19 2017 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:38 KwarK wrote:
Part of it is just the moral hazard intrinsic to giving the government power to ban ideologies. Can anyone say with certainty that MLK's rallies wouldn't have been banned, if it were legal to do so? Depends how the laws are written. If a requirement for banning is to say a race is superior to another, MLK would not have been banned.
Only if the guy making the decision doesn't think laws can be stretched a little and isn't more than a little bit racist. Remember that the US gov did a shitton of illegal crap to MLK. Part of the design of the US system is to make it resilient to exactly that kind of abuse by the user. I have zero faith that the racist establishment within the government wouldn't have used every tool they could think of to try and prevent the civil rights movement.
Getting rid of Nazis is very obviously a net good. I think even the likes of xDaunt and Danglars would prefer that there not be Nazis. But the creation of tools that can be used for that, well, not always so reliably good. In that I find myself agreeing with the framers of the constitution.
|
Canada11279 Posts
On August 19 2017 00:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 00:29 Falling wrote:On August 18 2017 23:58 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. You say that's it But this Vancouver human rights lawyer/ CUPE member seems to think it means a bit more https://player.vimeo.com/video/226046415Starting at the 1 minute mark Talking about ze 'or something else' (which is a lot of something else- I think it's over 50- (f)aer, pers, vis, xyr hir, etc) "So why does it matter? It's important to use the appropriate pronouns for trans people for a number of reasons. The first reason is that it's the law. Recent changes to the BC Human Rights Code and the Federal Human Rights Act, make discrimination on the basis gender-identity and gender-expression forbidden. Trans people have always been protected on the basis of sex, but the explicit protection makes our obligation as co-workers and union members, even more clear." ...which is exactly what professors Gad Saad and Jordan Peterson and lawyer Jared Brown were saying in the Senate Committee hearings. The law looks innocuous, but once it gets implemented at the human rights level, it is so broad that we have this lawyer arguing that it's a matter of discrimination which pronoun you use. And this is where the fears are overblown. Yes, with no other context on the laws or the past precedents set, a lay person may assume this law will apply to using the wrong pronoun. Except we've seen past precedent where calling people by racial slurs is, in itself, not enough to be charged under the anti-discrimination laws, and gender is not provided any higher protection that anything else on that list.
What is the lawyer arguing then? Because Adrienne Smith is for the law and seems to think it is applicable. In what way does Adrienne think the law is applicable?
|
President Trump has told senior aides that he has decided to remove Stephen K. Bannon, the embattled White House chief strategist who helped Mr. Trump win the 2016 election, according to two administration officials briefed on the discussion.
The president and senior White House officials were debating when and how to dismiss Mr. Bannon. The two administration officials cautioned that Mr. Trump is known to be averse to confrontation within his inner circle, and could decide to keep on Mr. Bannon for some time.
As of Friday morning, the two men were still discussing Mr. Bannon’s future, the officials said. A person close to Mr. Bannon insisted the parting of ways was his idea, and that he had submitted his resignation to the president on Aug. 7, to be announced at the start of this week, but it was delayed in the wake of the racial unrest in Charlottesville, Va.
Mr. Bannon had clashed for months with other senior West Wing advisers and members of the president’s family.
Trump pushes Bannon Out
|
I hate having to wait 30 or so minutes for the posts on t_d over this
|
On August 19 2017 01:52 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +President Trump has told senior aides that he has decided to remove Stephen K. Bannon, the embattled White House chief strategist who helped Mr. Trump win the 2016 election, according to two administration officials briefed on the discussion.
The president and senior White House officials were debating when and how to dismiss Mr. Bannon. The two administration officials cautioned that Mr. Trump is known to be averse to confrontation within his inner circle, and could decide to keep on Mr. Bannon for some time.
As of Friday morning, the two men were still discussing Mr. Bannon’s future, the officials said. A person close to Mr. Bannon insisted the parting of ways was his idea, and that he had submitted his resignation to the president on Aug. 7, to be announced at the start of this week, but it was delayed in the wake of the racial unrest in Charlottesville, Va.
Mr. Bannon had clashed for months with other senior West Wing advisers and members of the president’s family. Trump pushes Bannon Out
seems like the Charlottesville statue was his last horcrux
I don't think his base will like this move.
|
United States42008 Posts
I'm f5ing /r/t_d and will share the best of it but right now they're masturbating over the stabbing in Finland.
|
On August 19 2017 01:59 KwarK wrote:
I'm f5ing /r/t_d and will share the best of it but right now they're masturbating over the stabbing in Finland.
It's a strange dynamics how they basically cheer for Islamic terrorism.
|
United States42008 Posts
Oh, and they're really upset about a terror attack in Seattle too. Someone threw coffee at Alex Jones.
|
Glad Bannon is out on principle. Plus it hurts Trump. It hurts his image in his base severely (they're already furious Bannon is out and the globalists McMaster and Cohen stay) while doing little to help him with everyone else since he is still Trump and people aren't going to stop hating him over this. Nor will this make him much less obstructive to Republican plans.
|
On August 19 2017 01:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2017 01:38 KwarK wrote:
Part of it is just the moral hazard intrinsic to giving the government power to ban ideologies. Can anyone say with certainty that MLK's rallies wouldn't have been banned, if it were legal to do so? Depends how the laws are written. If a requirement for banning is to say a race is superior to another, MLK would not have been banned. Only if the guy making the decision doesn't think laws can be stretched a little and isn't more than a little bit racist. Remember that the US gov did a shitton of illegal crap to MLK. Part of the design of the US system is to make it resilient to exactly that kind of abuse by the user. I have zero faith that the racist establishment within the government wouldn't have used every tool they could think of to try and prevent the civil rights movement. Getting rid of Nazis is very obviously a net good. I think even the likes of xDaunt and Danglars would prefer that there not be Nazis. But the creation of tools that can be used for that, well, not always so reliably good. In that I find myself agreeing with the framers of the constitution.
I'm not sure if they had to choose between black people enjoying the protections of their constitutional rights or Nazi's that they would pick Black people, certainly doesn't appear so from their posts.
|
Per Brietbart Bannon actually resigned on Aug 7 but no-one knew...
|
On August 19 2017 02:02 On_Slaught wrote:
Per Brietbart Bannon actually resigned on Aug 7 but no-one knew...
Breitbart is about to get a lot more entertaining.
|
Canada11279 Posts
On August 19 2017 01:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:21 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2017 01:16 NewSunshine wrote:On August 19 2017 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 00:47 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:33 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 19 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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. Getting away from the topic of rioting and free speech for a second, what about the constant violations of the civil rights of the black population of Ferguson that the investigation revealed? Where were you in defence of their rights? I've made it clear previously that I am on board with the idea that the police need reforming and that there's a problem regarding how black people are treated by the justice system. So I'm not sure what else you want. Thank you for that. So presumably you disagree with Sessions ending the justice department investigations into these police departments? Will you be marching peacefully alongside BLM when the time comes? I'll consider it when you start showing a commitment to refraining from shitting up the thread with irrelevant tangents. Pretty telling that you would hold black support hostage to a petty squabble with a teamliquid forum moderator. As if anyone will be like "oh thank god! It is so relieving to know we have your support and can get so much done now!" I mean it would defeat my point, which is that xDaunt's racially neutral "I just really care about the civil rights of all people" seems to only pop up when white people are concerned. There is a very, very glaring discrepancy between xDaunt's stated beliefs and the fights he chooses to pick based upon those beliefs. It's almost as if he's.... lying about his beliefs.
But the action you are requiring of him to prove his neutrality is not equal to what he is already doing. You are asking him to go out physically go out in the streets to balance out forum post defence of free speech. Wouldn't the equal scale be that he defend the free speech of BLM in forum posts? If he was out in the streets demonstrating on behalf of the white supremacists right to free speech, your demand would make sense. But his level of commitment to this debate didn't include physical demonstration, so why would you require it in the opposite vein?
On August 19 2017 01:16 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 00:47 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:33 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 00:24 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Getting away from the topic of rioting and free speech for a second, what about the constant violations of the civil rights of the black population of Ferguson that the investigation revealed? Where were you in defence of their rights? I've made it clear previously that I am on board with the idea that the police need reforming and that there's a problem regarding how black people are treated by the justice system. So I'm not sure what else you want. Thank you for that. So presumably you disagree with Sessions ending the justice department investigations into these police departments? Will you be marching peacefully alongside BLM when the time comes? I'll consider it when you start showing a commitment to refraining from shitting up the thread with irrelevant tangents. Pretty telling that you would hold black support hostage to a petty squabble with a teamliquid forum moderator.
Again. Why is this the requirement when he is not demonstrating in the streets now? Can you just demand things of people, and if they don't do it that confirms your opinion of them?
|
On August 19 2017 01:39 Nevuk wrote:
They might be bummed out when they get there. Durham is almost 40% black and not a college town. Ripping down statues may pull 200 protesters from the left, but I think opposing Nazis is going to pull a lot more.
|
United States42008 Posts
On August 19 2017 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:49 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2017 01:38 KwarK wrote:
Part of it is just the moral hazard intrinsic to giving the government power to ban ideologies. Can anyone say with certainty that MLK's rallies wouldn't have been banned, if it were legal to do so? Depends how the laws are written. If a requirement for banning is to say a race is superior to another, MLK would not have been banned. Only if the guy making the decision doesn't think laws can be stretched a little and isn't more than a little bit racist. Remember that the US gov did a shitton of illegal crap to MLK. Part of the design of the US system is to make it resilient to exactly that kind of abuse by the user. I have zero faith that the racist establishment within the government wouldn't have used every tool they could think of to try and prevent the civil rights movement. Getting rid of Nazis is very obviously a net good. I think even the likes of xDaunt and Danglars would prefer that there not be Nazis. But the creation of tools that can be used for that, well, not always so reliably good. In that I find myself agreeing with the framers of the constitution. I'm not sure if they had to choose between black people enjoying the protections of their constitutional rights or Nazi's that they would pick Black people, certainly doesn't appear so from their posts.
Which is what I've been trying over and over to get a straight answer out of them on. If this is about rights, and not about race or ideologies, where were you when the rights of people of a different race or an opposing ideology were being infringed?
|
On August 19 2017 02:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 02:02 On_Slaught wrote:
Per Brietbart Bannon actually resigned on Aug 7 but no-one knew... Breitbart is about to get a lot more entertaining.
The deep state has won against the man of the people, powered by Seinfeld royalties.
|
Gorka has to be next, no? Why remove one white supremacist and keep the Nazi?
|
On August 19 2017 02:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Gorka has to be next, no? Why remove one white supremacist and keep the Nazi?
Without Bannon to shield him, McMasters will force them all out. I question if Miller will make it.
|
On August 19 2017 01:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:09 Artisreal wrote:On August 19 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 19 2017 00:50 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 19 2017 00:39 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 19 2017 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:15 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
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? You are badly missing the point. I don't give a fuck who they are. But you seem to care that antifa counter-protested nazis. I'm just trying to understand your point of views. No, you really aren't. Give this a try. Stop using the terms BLM, Nazis, or Antifa, and use the generic term "Party A." What should the police do if "Party A" demonstrates peaceably? What should the police do if "Party A" tries to start a fight with "Party B?" What should the police do if Party A sets fires to buildings, cars, and loots stores? I swear, half of the Left has forgotten why there's a blindfold on Lady Justice. Except you can't use generic terms. Because these are Nazis. So "demonstrating peacefully" means "we are very nicely promoting the ideas of white supremacy and ethnic cleansing that our idol espoused". Looks like you need a refresher course in what free speech actually means. Yes, free speech means that Nazis get to promote white supremacism. It may also mean that they get to advocate ethnic cleansing (like I said, I don't know where the boundary on content is). If that truly constitutes free speech. My lord... It does in the US. We have a very hands off view on speech. Ethnic cleansing is not considered a direct threat.
What about a crowd of skinheads yelling"fuck you, nigger" to black passers by? Clearly not a threat, because they aren't advocating anything, definitely not violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
