|
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 02:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote: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?
They were making the argument that the violation of PoC's rights isn't a significant problem in need of immediate and significant action. Their posts are relatively polite attempts at advocating for white supremacy. I don't think there's any reason to dance around it anymore.
|
On August 19 2017 02:01 KwarK wrote:
Oh, and they're really upset about a terror attack in Seattle too. Someone threw coffee at Alex Jones.
these people are bots. physically empty.
|
NORFOLK, Va. (AP) — A family has settled a lawsuit against the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for taking a girl’s unattended dog and euthanizing it, ending an attempt to effectively put PETA on trial for euthanizing hundreds of animals each year.
The agreement was confirmed Wednesday by PETA and the family’s attorney. The settlement dims what could have been a very public spotlight on the international animal rights organization and its controversial animal shelter in Virginia.
Wilber Zarate had sued PETA for taking his daughter’s Chihuahua from a mobile home park on the state’s Eastern Shore and putting it down before the end of a required five-day grace period.
Zarate had alleged that PETA operates under a broad policy of euthanizing animals, including healthy ones, because it “considers pet ownership to be a form of involuntary bondage.”
PETA denied the allegations and maintains the 2014 incident was a “terrible mistake.”
Two women affiliated with PETA, Victoria Carey and Jennifer Wood, traveled to Accomack, Virginia, because they said a mobile home park owner asked for help capturing wild dogs and feral cats.
The women removed an unattended and unleashed Chihuahua named Maya, which was a Christmas president to 9-year-old Cynthia Zarate.
Maya was put down later that day, a violation of a state law that requires a five-day grace period. PETA was fined $500 for the violation.
“The Zarate’s felt that the settlement reflects the grievous loss of their beloved Maya,” said the family’s attorney, William H. Shewmake. “And it allows the Zarates to bring some closure to a very painful chapter of their lives. They’re glad the case has been settled.”
A trial was scheduled for September, during which Zarate’s attorneys had planned to question current and former PETA employees about its euthanasia policy.
PETA said it will pay the family $49,000 and donate $2,000 to a local SPCA to honor Maya. The family had sought up to $7 million.
“PETA again apologizes and expresses its regrets to the Zarate family for the loss of their dog Maya,” both parties said in a joint statement. “Mr. Zarate acknowledges that this was an unfortunate mistake by PETA and the individuals involved, with no ill-will toward the Zarate family.”
PETA is mostly known for campaigns against factory farming and animal testing, often exposing unsavory practices through undercover operations. But it also runs a shelter at its headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia.
The shelter routinely dispatches veterinarians to care for local animals — but is also euthanizes ones that PETA deems too sick, aggressive or feral for adoption.
PETA has said the animals it puts down are often turned away by other shelters. And it said many pets are brought in by low-income owners who can’t afford to care for their elderly or sick animals.
The organization said it helps as many as 25,000 animals a year, spaying and neutering many for free. But the shelter’s euthanasia rate— it put down more than 1,400 of about 2,000 animals in 2016 — has drawn criticism from some in the so-called “no kill” shelter movement.
[...]
lawnewz.com
|
On August 19 2017 01:52 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 00:41 WolfintheSheep wrote: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?
Adrienne Smith is the person in the vimeo video? I'm not in a place where I can watch it.
If this is the quote you posted, then the context is not just pronouns. It's the same as current discrimination laws...basically, think of your current work place. If you made a sexist joke and ticked off a co-worker, you'd probably get written up by HR. Continue to do so, and you may get fired. Explicitly target a co-worker, and you may be on the receiving end of a harassment lawsuit.
We have several ongoing lawsuits in BC regarding discrimination (for example, sexism in the RCMP), and that's basically the level of repeated issues and systemic problems that it takes for human rights laws to be involved.
|
United States42009 Posts
On August 19 2017 02:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 02:05 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote: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? They were making the argument that the violation of PoC's rights isn't a significant problem in need of immediate and significant action. Their posts are relatively polite attempts at advocating for white supremacy. I don't think there's any reason to dance around it anymore.
In fairness you can be super fucking uppity at times. Whenever we come to blows in this topic it's because I'm a status quo statist and you just can't let me be. What'll it take? 40 acres and a mule?
edit: btw let me know if I'm ever struggling to get my tone across in posts such as these and I'll stop making them. I'm trusting that we've been doing this long enough that you know where my heart is when I call you uppity.
|
On August 19 2017 02:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 02:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2017 02:05 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote: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? They were making the argument that the violation of PoC's rights isn't a significant problem in need of immediate and significant action. Their posts are relatively polite attempts at advocating for white supremacy. I don't think there's any reason to dance around it anymore. In fairness you can be super fucking uppity at times. Whenever we come to blows in this topic it's because I'm a status quo statist and you just can't let me be. What'll it take? 40 acres and a mule?
...Maybe there are less charged words than uppity to use?
|
On August 19 2017 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 02:12 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 02:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2017 02:05 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote: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? They were making the argument that the violation of PoC's rights isn't a significant problem in need of immediate and significant action. Their posts are relatively polite attempts at advocating for white supremacy. I don't think there's any reason to dance around it anymore. In fairness you can be super fucking uppity at times. Whenever we come to blows in this topic it's because I'm a status quo statist and you just can't let me be. What'll it take? 40 acres and a mule? ...Maybe there are less charged words than uppity to use?
Uncle Tom-ish?
|
On August 19 2017 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 02:12 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 02:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2017 02:05 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote: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? They were making the argument that the violation of PoC's rights isn't a significant problem in need of immediate and significant action. Their posts are relatively polite attempts at advocating for white supremacy. I don't think there's any reason to dance around it anymore. In fairness you can be super fucking uppity at times. Whenever we come to blows in this topic it's because I'm a status quo statist and you just can't let me be. What'll it take? 40 acres and a mule? ...Maybe there are less charged words than uppity to use?
Holier-than-thou?
|
On August 19 2017 02:09 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:12 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
It depends on his body language and if he is holding a weapon. A bunch of factors. If they reasonably feel like he was going to harm them, it isn't protected speech.
|
|
|
On August 19 2017 02:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 02:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2017 02:05 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote: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? They were making the argument that the violation of PoC's rights isn't a significant problem in need of immediate and significant action. Their posts are relatively polite attempts at advocating for white supremacy. I don't think there's any reason to dance around it anymore. In fairness you can be super fucking uppity at times. Whenever we come to blows in this topic it's because I'm a status quo statist and you just can't let me be. What'll it take? 40 acres and a mule? edit: btw let me know if I'm ever struggling to get my tone across in posts such as these and I'll stop making them. I'm trusting that we've been doing this long enough that you know where my heart is when I call you uppity.
Oh yeah I got it, I lol'd.
|
On August 19 2017 02:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 02:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2017 02:05 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote: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? They were making the argument that the violation of PoC's rights isn't a significant problem in need of immediate and significant action. Their posts are relatively polite attempts at advocating for white supremacy. I don't think there's any reason to dance around it anymore. In fairness you can be super fucking uppity at times. Whenever we come to blows in this topic it's because I'm a status quo statist and you just can't let me be. What'll it take? 40 acres and a mule? edit: btw let me know if I'm ever struggling to get my tone across in posts such as these and I'll stop making them. I'm trusting that we've been doing this long enough that you know where my heart is when I call you uppity.
If anyone wondered how to respond when you do something that could be viewed as racist: this is how.
|
On August 19 2017 02:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 02:09 Acrofales wrote:On August 19 2017 01:12 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It depends on his body language and if he is holding a weapon. A bunch of factors. If they reasonably feel like he was going to harm them, it isn't protected speech.
What constitutes a "reasonable threat" certainly takes race into consideration.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/E6jCrb7.jpg)
|
On August 19 2017 02:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 02:09 Acrofales wrote:On August 19 2017 01:12 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It depends on his body language and if he is holding a weapon. A bunch of factors. If they reasonably feel like he was going to harm them, it isn't protected speech.
Is it possible to unreasonably feel like they might harm you if you get verbally abused by a mob of skinheads?
So, assuming it isn't, I don't really see how it is "better" to advocate purging the country/world of black people than insulting one black person (without explicitly threatening physical violence) who just happens to be in close proximity.
Mind giving me a crash course on how this can work legally, because to me it seems like both should be against the law (as they are in most of Europe).
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tgE4Hhz.jpg)
On August 19 2017 02:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 02:21 Plansix wrote:On August 19 2017 02:09 Acrofales wrote:On August 19 2017 01:12 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It depends on his body language and if he is holding a weapon. A bunch of factors. If they reasonably feel like he was going to harm them, it isn't protected speech. What constitutes a "reasonable threat" certainly takes race into consideration.
In this instance, the guy is seen as "probably a good guy who is just in a bad place right now" as opposed to "uncontrollable animal who, in the end, is actually not worth very much and is probably a criminal and probably is on welfare and well shit i may as well just shoot it"
just so god damn sad.
|
On August 19 2017 02:11 IgnE wrote:these people are bots. physically empty.
Pretty amusing source, Jack Posobiec was tight with the son of General Flynn and I recall basically everything conspiracy-esque from the alt-right being tweeted around by him. Here some more background on the guy - Pizzagate, Macronleaks, you name it. He's also close with Trump since months or at least a regular at his resorts and at various related events.
In other news Bannon being fired is a bit surprising to me, I wonder what Murdoch has to say about that. Could get interesting if the new Fox/Breitbart angle becomes anti-Trump and pro-Pence.
|
On August 19 2017 02:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 02:21 Plansix wrote:On August 19 2017 02:09 Acrofales wrote:On August 19 2017 01:12 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It depends on his body language and if he is holding a weapon. A bunch of factors. If they reasonably feel like he was going to harm them, it isn't protected speech. What constitutes a "reasonable threat" certainly takes race into consideration.
We always need to keep in mind that US police have problems with racial bias.
|
United States42009 Posts
|
Canada11279 Posts
@Wolf
Yes, the speaker is Adrienne Smith and that is the exact quote. I don't see how it's in another context or do you mean that if you don't seek out and establish a person's pronouns and subsequently 'mispronoun' that constitutes something akin to sexism in the workplace? Or is it that if you refuse to use squeak, elkself, squeakself, tik, dai, necro, frankenself, merself, vamp, witchself, whomp (that's a great one), botself, mechie, and so on (man, tumblr is educational), then this would constitute harassment and workplace discrimination?
|
Thank you so much <3 It is funny that people actually think Bannon will continue to be influential. It is very clear that Kelly and McMaster are trying to insulate Trump from people who would drag him down. They will do just fine at making him essentially a military puppet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/ot7ua7qmyigz.png)
