|
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. |
I've always wondered, what is the goal of a bunch of people with detestable views holding a demonstration.
Is it: "hey, we're here too"
Is it them trying to spread their message?
Is it an attempt of them not trying to feel redundant?
Why is it important to have a gay parade, for example? I don't necessarily understand it. Sure, you have celebrate the fact that a hard fought (for some people at least) battle for sexual equality (that's still going on) needs to be addressed, but does it need to be so in your face?
Sometimes I feel like demonstration or public rallies or parades do nothing more than add oil to the fire. It's not productive.
@ZerOCoolSC2: you haven't necessarily lost it. Just start a group that advocates for restricting civil rights to groups that want to restrict civil rights. Make a paradigm shift in the way Americans look at free speech and voila, you have now redefined the American way.
|
I highly doubt that the nazi protestors at Charlottesville fit the description of a peaceful demonstration.
|
On August 27 2017 00:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Didn't xDaunt identify the core principle of western civilisation as Christianity... but not values such as tolerance of religion, rule of law, human rights and the scientific method?
Interesting takeaway from my posts on the subject.
|
On August 27 2017 00:56 Uldridge wrote:
I've always wondered, what is the goal of a bunch of people with detestable views holding a demonstration.
Is it: "hey, we're here too"
Is it them trying to spread their message?
Is it an attempt of them not trying to feel redundant?
Why is it important to have a gay parade, for example? I don't necessarily understand it. Sure, you have celebrate the fact that a hard fought (for some people at least) battle for sexual equality (that's still going on) needs to be addressed, but does it need to be so in your face?
Sometimes I feel like demonstration or public rallies or parades do nothing more than add oil to the fire. It's not productive.
@ZerOCoolSC2: you haven't necessarily lost it. Just start a group that advocates for restricting civil rights to groups that want to restrict civil rights. Make a paradigm shift in the way Americans look at free speech and voila, you have now redefined the American way.
The closest thing to pubic acceptance homosexuals were afforded prior to the pride era beginning in the 70s/80s took the form of "don't ask, don't tell" polices where homosexuals were literally told to hide any outward trace of their gayness if they wanted to keep their job. Because of the way sexual orientation works relative to outward signifiers, pride parades make unique sense for gay folk in a way that they do not for other groups. This is not to say that gays have dominion over "good" public demonstrations, rather that "why do they need to be so 'in everyone's face' about it?" sentiments miss the point entirely.
|
On August 27 2017 01:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I highly doubt that the nazi protestors at Charlottesville fit the description of a peaceful demonstration.
They don't and they should have been kept penned in like gorillas at a zoo. But you can't arbitrarily decide who might stay as a peaceful demonstration and who wont.
|
One day I will learn to separate the things in America that need to be changed and improved for the good of the country so that it can become great again and the things that can't ever be talked about at all because that would make you an unamerican villain for even wanting to bring it up.
|
On August 27 2017 01:14 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 01:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I highly doubt that the nazi protestors at Charlottesville fit the description of a peaceful demonstration.
They don't and they should have been kept penned in like gorillas at a zoo. But you can't arbitrarily decide who might stay as a peaceful demonstration and who wont.
That's why enforcement doesn't have to be arbitrary, picking out the dudes armed like Fallout 3 NPCs with the look of slight genetic infirmity seems easy enough.
|
On August 27 2017 01:15 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 01:14 Sermokala wrote:On August 27 2017 01:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I highly doubt that the nazi protestors at Charlottesville fit the description of a peaceful demonstration.
They don't and they should have been kept penned in like gorillas at a zoo. But you can't arbitrarily decide who might stay as a peaceful demonstration and who wont. That's why enforcement doesn't have to be arbitrary, picking out the dudes armed like Fallout 3 NPC's with the look of slight genetic infirmity seems easy enough.
But police in riot gear is an escalating gesture. making them the reason why there are riots.
|
On August 27 2017 00:35 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 00:19 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2017 00:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 26 2017 23:53 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 23:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 26 2017 23:23 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 23:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 26 2017 23:06 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 15:19 Aquanim wrote:On August 26 2017 14:58 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Then we just apply your grasp of civil rights to the blacks, and StealthBlue's clones argue they're all druggies and gangbangers. Are you saying that it's unreasonable to do morally questionable things to people like the Nazis with the justification that their views and actions work against modern Western values? Don't try to weasel around with "morally questionable things." Show me you afford citizens their civil rights no matter who they are and how disgusted you are, or show me the criminal act justifying their removal. Otherwise you're regressing the civil rights movement and totally forgetful of American history. Did you just piggy back nazis on the back of the civil rights movement? StealthBlue talked about old school lynchings. Tell me, did the movement argue to just include blacks in the privileged classes that get civil rights, or was it pretty sweeping? I absolutely consider the disgusting attitude that your hate justifies your violence to be in kind with the attitudes civil rights leaders came against. My hate? This isn't about me. This is about what you posted. Don't turn it around and play innocent. Answer the question I asked. Did you just propose that nazi's were part of the civil rights movement to give disenfranchised minorities equal standing in the law? This is about your opinion on the matter. And let me laugh off your dishonest and foolhardy question. Of course it isn't piggybacking and why the rule applies universally (read it again). I brought up why I made the comparison to the civil rights movement, and why it was applicable. Did you just justify removing civil rights from groups you deem unworthy? (As an example of an equally dishonest question) Yes. I do. Nazi's do not have civil rights. It's like Nazi Germany didn't even fucking happen in your world. And the rule does not apply to hate groups that fought tooth and nail to keep those disenfranchised groups from being considered equal under the law that their counterparts enjoyed for a couple hundred of years. You seem to conflate people fighting for legitimacy in the eyes of the law with white privilege to be hateful and not be held accountable. You think there is a privileged class Nazi's should be joining? m4ini and others have been trying to tell you how it works in Germany regarding this group, but "America is a land with freedom of speech and assembly. You can't stop them from speaking! Civil Rights!" Then absolutely you're an authoritarian, piss all over the civil rights movement (civil rights for all, not some), and I'm damn happy these regressive attitudes didn't prevail when people fought and won equality under the law and the equal protection of this nation's laws. You would have to be made king and god to label who you like "hate groups" not afforded their civil rights. I see I chose my words well. You think some citizens according to how they express themselves and the beliefs they hold to have an illegitimate claim to the same police protection and protection of laws against violent acts. This is absolutely the same issue and America is not about you deciding which individuals are not worthy in your eyes of their inalienable rights. I was happy that so many in this thread defended their rights to march, to speak, and freedom from violence (in principle, if they do not exercise violence and trigger the self defense principle). It pains me to see the dissenters, but you have the right to your dissent and expressing your opinion. I'm not gonna label you a regressive left hate group and take away your rights, rest assured. Can you address the point that other democratic countries in the world (such as Germany) do have restrictions on the rights of groups like Nazis (I'll leave the exact wording to somebody more familiar with Germany's laws, or some other country where similar rules exist) and those restrictions do not appear to have resulted in particularly ill effects in those countries? There is some amount of distinction to be made between "restricting the civil rights of people on the basis of their skin colour, genetics, etc" and "restricting the civil rights of people based on the fact that they themselves seek to restrict the civil rights of others for reasons more similar to the first". I appreciate that that distinction does not (to the best of my knowledge) appear in the American constitution. + Show Spoiler +On August 27 2017 00:26 Danglars wrote:
...
I'm not sure what you mean or what context you're using that in. You would have to explain what you meant by using the term, since there's now broad disagreement in the states. It wasn't too long ago that xDaunt made an argument on Western civilization and listed core principles he identified with it and their historical origins. On August 27 2017 00:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Didn't xDaunt identify the core principle of western civilisation as Christianity... but not values such as tolerance of religion, rule of law, human rights and the scientific method? Relitigating that point is exactly what I'm trying to avoid.
I saw some really far-right German groups marching in the streets and the papers and ordinary citizens condemning them. So it depends on their restriction, it depends on their constitution, and it depends on what kind of input the German people had on it. It's not really something I'm willing to get too far into in a US Pol thread. I'm sure we'd come down to some things that I'd oppose--but I have no vote in their Bundestag and I'd probably waste my breath as a foreigner telling them the societal harms. Other countries don't have the same free speech traditions or underlying societies. If they want more of what America's got (or had, in some ways), they can take a look.
And "they themselves seek to restrict?" I mean, legislatively? Constitutionally? We have many strong institutions left and it takes supermajorities in Congress AND the states to undo a constitutional amendment. We have the courts if they have some nefarious undermining plans, and common sense people will oppose their legislative agenda for all times. I don't see their ideology as infectious ... for example, this forum didn't get any new converts to Nazism based on their march. So I see strong institutions as the necessary and present guard against that small group. We don't have to erode the republic to preserve the republic; naturally, that's the recipe for abuse of power. The federalists and other drafters wrote protections against the power of the mob as well as against monarchs ruling from afar.
|
On August 27 2017 01:19 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 01:15 farvacola wrote:On August 27 2017 01:14 Sermokala wrote:On August 27 2017 01:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I highly doubt that the nazi protestors at Charlottesville fit the description of a peaceful demonstration.
They don't and they should have been kept penned in like gorillas at a zoo. But you can't arbitrarily decide who might stay as a peaceful demonstration and who wont. That's why enforcement doesn't have to be arbitrary, picking out the dudes armed like Fallout 3 NPC's with the look of slight genetic infirmity seems easy enough. But police in riot gear is an escalating gesture. making them the reason why there are riots.
That's not how escalation works; the private actors who show up armed to the teeth and in discount army surplus fatigues have already done the escalating, the state has the duty to then respond proportionally and do its part to make the exercise of 1st Amendment rights safe within constitutional boundaries. Sure, that also means arrest the weapon bearing black mask folk, but so be it.
It also bears worth mentioning that these extremely basic 1st Amendment absolutists need to spend more time thinking on the vast web of US common law that hems in and narrows the scope of constitutional protections afforded speech acts in concert with our nation's storied past relative to state interference with speech. Yes, we have some of the broadest protections in history in a formal sense, but one look at 20th century and onward US history should put away this notion that normative idealism has much relevance to government action in policing speech. Just like the individual pot smoker does his civil disobedience right by suffering the risk of being fined and/or jailed for breaking the law, the government actor/entity thinking itself bound to bend or break a rule in pursuit of more effectively discharging its duties does so when the circumstances call for it, and these sorts of marginally constitutional decisions/acts happen literally every day when immigration agents try to trick people into thinking their administrative warrants give them domicile entrance without consent, the IRS threatens an audit on someone they can't actually afford to pursue in the hopes that they simply fork over more cash, or the local cop who turns walking black into reasonable suspicion enough to search people on main street he simply doesn't like. So when folks quack out "either everyone gets protection or no one does, that's the way it is!", it's probably time to start relearning what happened in the 1950s while police water cannoned the shit out of every black person they could see. Selective escalation and enforcement schemes may no longer look as outwardly insidious, but state acts of cowardice in the face of militia support for a white supremacist march speak for themselves.
As an aside, there's a good reason why the best source for information on white supremacist groups comes from a non-government entity that formed in response to the abject lack of interest among law enforcement officials when it came to keeping track of the people who firebombed black churches and lead lynch mobs.
|
On August 27 2017 00:56 Uldridge wrote:
I've always wondered, what is the goal of a bunch of people with detestable views holding a demonstration.
Is it: "hey, we're here too"
Is it them trying to spread their message?
Is it an attempt of them not trying to feel redundant?
Why is it important to have a gay parade, for example? I don't necessarily understand it. Sure, you have celebrate the fact that a hard fought (for some people at least) battle for sexual equality (that's still going on) needs to be addressed, but does it need to be so in your face?
Sometimes I feel like demonstration or public rallies or parades do nothing more than add oil to the fire. It's not productive.
I think the general idea of such a rally, whether it's something detestable like being a Nazi or KKK member, or it's unifying over a common racial or gender identity, is "We exist, we're proud of who we are, we won't be silenced, and we have just as much a right to speak and march and be here as anyone else does." It's productive in the sense that other people who try to ignore their existence will eventually need to come to terms with reality. What I don't think is productive is trying to pretend that bad groups (KKK, Nazis, etc.) or certain identities (LGBT, etc.) don't exist. Ignorance may be blissful, but that's not how we progress as a society. We need to address the very real issues that exist for certain groups and ideals.
|
On August 27 2017 01:13 farvacola wrote:
The closest thing to pubic acceptance homosexuals were afforded prior to the pride era beginning in the 70s/80s took the form of "don't ask, don't tell" polices where homosexuals were literally told to hide any outward trace of their gayness if they wanted to keep their job. Because of the way sexual orientation works relative to outward signifiers, pride parades make unique sense for gay folk in a way that they do not for other groups. This is not to say that gays have dominion over "good" public demonstrations, rather that "why do they need to be so 'in everyone's face' about it?" sentiments miss the point entirely.
And so the parades need to be perpetuated ad infinitum? Or will they stop naturally once the entire world is accepting of non-heterosexuals?
And tell me, what is the sentiment of their parades (by the way, I just used a gay parade as an example)? Is it because they finally got public agreement (from the city/authorities) to express themselves? If it's not that, please, enlighten me.
I just don't get why people want so badly for their descriptors to be recognized by other people. People are already so bad at approaching reality in a nuanced way and flaunting some intricacies of yourself only adds to the contrasted views some people of you will have. Identity isn't solely made up of: I'm x and y and z. But because it's put in public like that, many people will take that as the leading thing making who you are.
Me being heterosexual has nothing to do with how I am as a person. Of course someone will answer me with: "but you don't understand, homosexual people have had their identity forced like this because they couldn't be how they wanted to be."
I understand that being suppressed in that one part of your identity makes it possible for your entire identity revolve around it at some point. But is sexuality such an important part of who you are?
What does expression of sexuality actually entail, if I may ask? Is it the possibility to be openly gay (why is it a necessity to tell other people you're gay)? Is it the possibility to come together with people like yourself or at the very least come together with people that understand you (I understand if this is restricted and you need some kind of outlet)? Is it being accepted by fellow human beings of your sexuality? The last one is so nebulous. Someone can dislike you because he doesn't like your personality which incidentally is tied to you being gay; does that make him homophobic? Does that make him non-accepting of gay people? Or does his personality just not jive well with yours?
I get that you want to feel like you're not being judged for what you are, that you can just be whoever you want to be and that this doesn't hamper your private and professional life. I'll probably never understand this. What makes it so important that your coworkers know that you're a homosexual? Sure, they might find out and then what. What happens then, they're fired?
I don't understand social norms because it's all trivial and blown up bullshit to me.
On August 27 2017 01:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I think the general idea of such a rally, whether it's something detestable like being a Nazi or KKK member, or it's unifying over a common racial or gender identity, is "We exist, we're proud of who we are, we won't be silenced, and we have just as much a right to speak and march and be here as anyone else does." It's productive in the sense that other people who try to ignore their existence will eventually need to come to terms with reality. What I don't think is productive is trying to pretend that bad groups (KKK, Nazis, etc.) or certain identities (LGBT, etc.) don't exist. Ignorance may be blissful, but that's not how we progress as a society. We need to address the very real issues that exist for certain groups and ideals.
Addressing real issues is not done by having parades or by allowing some groups of people to show that they do, in fact, exist.
I might understand that it may be useful in a sense to make people understand that those groups of people are significant and have a voice.
|
Claiming "[m]e being heterosexual has nothing to do with how I am as a person" is the stuff of utter delusion, so perhaps you should start there. Unless you are of a uniquely hermaphroditic or asexual character, there is precisely zero chance that you live in a way totally divorced from your drive to have sex with a woman (or a man or something else for that matter). That's bonkers.
|
So I understand that my sexual preference has an impact on me, because I am a sexual being. This doesn't mean that I let it have any significant influence on me as to how I shape myself mentally. Sure, it induces physiological changes in me and I have a certain spot for that in my behavior, but I don't let it have an impact on me of how I am as a person, regarding other people and how I see the world.
I understand that under certain conditions the primal urges almost override your rational self and I can even agree that this has a time and a place for that, but I can keep that strict divide. I won't (dis)advantage a beautiful woman or one that I completely connect with mentally. I've seen much too frequently how that turns out..
I see it more than an innate/acquired reflexive state than one that contributes to my cognitive self.
Edit: and I actually see it as some kind of a burden too. Sure, when you're all high on sex hormones and want to get it on it's all great, but again, that's the overriding force and I just feel like it wastes my time, so in a sense I'd like to be asexual.
Also, good way of answering the entire post, guy, you really hit the nail on the head with telling me I was delusional for thinking I don't let my sexuality define me as a person!
Edit2: @Plansix: how is this not self aware? I literally explain to you how I view my sexuality. Your choice of words make no sense.
|
These are some of the least self aware posts about sexuality, gender and relationships I've seen in a while.
|
On August 27 2017 01:47 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 01:13 farvacola wrote:
The closest thing to pubic acceptance homosexuals were afforded prior to the pride era beginning in the 70s/80s took the form of "don't ask, don't tell" polices where homosexuals were literally told to hide any outward trace of their gayness if they wanted to keep their job. Because of the way sexual orientation works relative to outward signifiers, pride parades make unique sense for gay folk in a way that they do not for other groups. This is not to say that gays have dominion over "good" public demonstrations, rather that "why do they need to be so 'in everyone's face' about it?" sentiments miss the point entirely. And so the parades need to be perpetuated ad infinitum? Or will they stop naturally once the entire world is accepting of non-heterosexuals?
Well as long as there's discrimination, there are reasons to have rallies and protests. Blacks and women are still being discriminated against, ubiquitously, so we're certainly nowhere near accepting an even smaller niche identity like the LGBT community. So even if the answer to your hypothetical question is "Sure, protesting for equal rights and recognition and respect would probably stop when Group X actually receives equal rights and recognition and respect"- which I think would be a sensible conditional statement- we couldn't possibly see such a conditional occur for at least another generation or so (probably longer).
And tell me, what is the sentiment of their parades (by the way, I just used a gay parade as an example)? Is it because they finally got public agreement (from the city/authorities) to express themselves? If it's not that, please, enlighten me.
I just don't get why people want so badly for their descriptors to be recognized by other people. People are already so bad at approaching reality in a nuanced way and flaunting some intricacies of yourself only adds to the contrasted views some people of you will have. Identity isn't solely made up of: I'm x and y and z. But because it's put in public like that, many people will take that as the leading thing making who you are.
Because those people are directly disenfranchised for having a specific identity that they can't (nor should need to) change.
Me being heterosexual has nothing to do with how I am as a person. Of course someone will answer me with: "but you don't understand, homosexual people have had their identity forced like this because they couldn't be how they wanted to be."
I understand that being suppressed in that one part of your identity makes it possible for your entire identity revolve around it at some point. But is sexuality such an important part of who you are?
The short answer is Yes.
The longer answer is that a person shouldn't be forced to hide in a closet to avoid inappropriate discrimination, especially when it's related to your race or gender or sexual orientation. When you're part of a minority group who is killed for simply being themselves, and (on a lesser scale) is not granted certain rights (marriage to the person you love, the ability to serve your country in the military, etc.), and your identity is at odds (according to many Christians) with the most popular religion in the country and world (i.e., "your identity and lifestyle goes against God's Will", which is a pretty big deal to people who believe that), then this part of your identity gets defined for you, anyway. Every LGBT person I know just wants to sit back and chill and enjoy their lives the way non-LGBT people can, but they hit legal and social roadblocks all the time. That's why they take action. That's why they protest and ask for fairness.
What does expression of sexuality actually entail, if I may ask? Is it the possibility to be openly gay (why is it a necessity to tell other people you're gay)? Is it the possibility to come together with people like yourself or at the very least come together with people that understand you (I understand if this is restricted and you need some kind of outlet)? Is it being accepted by fellow human beings of your sexuality? The last one is so nebulous. Someone can dislike you because he doesn't like your personality which incidentally is tied to you being gay; does that make him homophobic? Does that make him non-accepting of gay people? Or does his personality just not jive well with yours?
I get that you want to feel like you're not being judged for what you are, that you can just be whoever you want to be and that this doesn't hamper your private and professional life. I'll probably never understand this. What makes it so important that your coworkers know that you're a homosexual? Sure, they might find out and then what. What happens then, they're fired?
I don't understand social norms because it's all trivial and blown up bullshit to me.
I think that societal acceptance and getting over the "Ew!" factor goes a long way. I don't find my gay friends to be any more promiscuous or sexually open than my straight friends, but there is a huge issue with many people (who aren't accustomed to homosexual public displays of affection) when they see two guys kissing (although, ironically, not so much when two girls kiss). I'm not a huge fan of being around over-the-top PDA by anyone, but there is certainly a double standard that straight couples can be romantic and hug and kiss and hold hands in public, yet gay people are actively ostracized for doing that and accused of being too sexual when it's the exact same actions.
Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 01:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I think the general idea of such a rally, whether it's something detestable like being a Nazi or KKK member, or it's unifying over a common racial or gender identity, is "We exist, we're proud of who we are, we won't be silenced, and we have just as much a right to speak and march and be here as anyone else does." It's productive in the sense that other people who try to ignore their existence will eventually need to come to terms with reality. What I don't think is productive is trying to pretend that bad groups (KKK, Nazis, etc.) or certain identities (LGBT, etc.) don't exist. Ignorance may be blissful, but that's not how we progress as a society. We need to address the very real issues that exist for certain groups and ideals. Addressing real issues is not done by having parades or by allowing some groups of people to show that they do, in fact, exist. I might understand that it may be useful in a sense to make people understand that those groups of people are significant and have a voice.
The people marching and protesting are absolutely trying to address the real issues. All you need to do is read their signs or shirts, or speak with them 
|
On August 27 2017 02:10 Uldridge wrote:
So I understand that my sexual preference has an impact on me, because I am a sexual being. This doesn't mean that I let it have any significant influence on me as to how I shape myself mentally.
Because society hasn't forced you to hide your sexuality or risk disenfranchisement or death, nor have you lost any rights or social status due to being a heterosexual. And neither have I, so we're both lucky in that respect. We generally don't think twice about being straight, because it's the norm and pretty much universally acceptable. That's not what the LGBT community experiences on a daily basis, however, because certain cultures have defined them as being inferior. However, I don't think anyone should have to receive such discrimination just because of their sexuality, whether it's the same as mine or different.
Edit: The part of my response that I just underlined is pretty much the definition of Straight Privilege. We don't need to feel guilty that we benefit from being "the norm" in terms of sexual orientation, but it's important that we recognize that non-straight individuals are frequently mistreated legally and socially for not being heterosexual, and that we don't have to deal with those kinds of issues for our sexuality. Upon such recognition, I find it important to support those who don't have the same benefits as I have, instead of just ignoring them or thinking that they inappropriately have a chip on their shoulder.
|
Mental self-shaping is one thing, but the public performance of the role of a person in-the-world necessarily includes both conscious and subconscious nods towards sexual identity and preference. Without getting into all the mirror game problems implicated by self-image and its relation to outward manifestations of behavior/appearance, I don't think its controversial to suggest that dress, speech, and overall affect oftentimes (if not always) implicate some aspect of sexuality. Thus, to the extent that non-conforming folks have had to conform in order for society to not fire, beat, or kill them, celebrating the fact that they no longer have to hide who they are should make sense.
|
On August 27 2017 01:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 00:35 Aquanim wrote:On August 27 2017 00:19 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2017 00:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 26 2017 23:53 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 23:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 26 2017 23:23 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 23:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 26 2017 23:06 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 15:19 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
Are you saying that it's unreasonable to do morally questionable things to people like the Nazis with the justification that their views and actions work against modern Western values? Don't try to weasel around with "morally questionable things." Show me you afford citizens their civil rights no matter who they are and how disgusted you are, or show me the criminal act justifying their removal. Otherwise you're regressing the civil rights movement and totally forgetful of American history. Did you just piggy back nazis on the back of the civil rights movement? StealthBlue talked about old school lynchings. Tell me, did the movement argue to just include blacks in the privileged classes that get civil rights, or was it pretty sweeping? I absolutely consider the disgusting attitude that your hate justifies your violence to be in kind with the attitudes civil rights leaders came against. My hate? This isn't about me. This is about what you posted. Don't turn it around and play innocent. Answer the question I asked. Did you just propose that nazi's were part of the civil rights movement to give disenfranchised minorities equal standing in the law? This is about your opinion on the matter. And let me laugh off your dishonest and foolhardy question. Of course it isn't piggybacking and why the rule applies universally (read it again). I brought up why I made the comparison to the civil rights movement, and why it was applicable. Did you just justify removing civil rights from groups you deem unworthy? (As an example of an equally dishonest question) Yes. I do. Nazi's do not have civil rights. It's like Nazi Germany didn't even fucking happen in your world. And the rule does not apply to hate groups that fought tooth and nail to keep those disenfranchised groups from being considered equal under the law that their counterparts enjoyed for a couple hundred of years. You seem to conflate people fighting for legitimacy in the eyes of the law with white privilege to be hateful and not be held accountable. You think there is a privileged class Nazi's should be joining? m4ini and others have been trying to tell you how it works in Germany regarding this group, but "America is a land with freedom of speech and assembly. You can't stop them from speaking! Civil Rights!" Then absolutely you're an authoritarian, piss all over the civil rights movement (civil rights for all, not some), and I'm damn happy these regressive attitudes didn't prevail when people fought and won equality under the law and the equal protection of this nation's laws. You would have to be made king and god to label who you like "hate groups" not afforded their civil rights. I see I chose my words well. You think some citizens according to how they express themselves and the beliefs they hold to have an illegitimate claim to the same police protection and protection of laws against violent acts. This is absolutely the same issue and America is not about you deciding which individuals are not worthy in your eyes of their inalienable rights. I was happy that so many in this thread defended their rights to march, to speak, and freedom from violence (in principle, if they do not exercise violence and trigger the self defense principle). It pains me to see the dissenters, but you have the right to your dissent and expressing your opinion. I'm not gonna label you a regressive left hate group and take away your rights, rest assured. Can you address the point that other democratic countries in the world (such as Germany) do have restrictions on the rights of groups like Nazis (I'll leave the exact wording to somebody more familiar with Germany's laws, or some other country where similar rules exist) and those restrictions do not appear to have resulted in particularly ill effects in those countries? There is some amount of distinction to be made between "restricting the civil rights of people on the basis of their skin colour, genetics, etc" and "restricting the civil rights of people based on the fact that they themselves seek to restrict the civil rights of others for reasons more similar to the first". I appreciate that that distinction does not (to the best of my knowledge) appear in the American constitution. + Show Spoiler +On August 27 2017 00:26 Danglars wrote:
...
I'm not sure what you mean or what context you're using that in. You would have to explain what you meant by using the term, since there's now broad disagreement in the states. It wasn't too long ago that xDaunt made an argument on Western civilization and listed core principles he identified with it and their historical origins. On August 27 2017 00:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Didn't xDaunt identify the core principle of western civilisation as Christianity... but not values such as tolerance of religion, rule of law, human rights and the scientific method? Relitigating that point is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I saw some really far-right German groups marching in the streets and the papers and ordinary citizens condemning them. So it depends on their restriction, it depends on their constitution, and it depends on what kind of input the German people had on it. It's not really something I'm willing to get too far into in a US Pol thread. I'm sure we'd come down to some things that I'd oppose--but I have no vote in their Bundestag and I'd probably waste my breath as a foreigner telling them the societal harms. Other countries don't have the same free speech traditions or underlying societies. If they want more of what America's got (or had, in some ways), they can take a look. And "they themselves seek to restrict?" I mean, legislatively? Constitutionally? We have many strong institutions left and it takes supermajorities in Congress AND the states to undo a constitutional amendment. We have the courts if they have some nefarious undermining plans, and common sense people will oppose their legislative agenda for all times. I don't see their ideology as infectious ... for example, this forum didn't get any new converts to Nazism based on their march. So I see strong institutions as the necessary and present guard against that small group. We don't have to erode the republic to preserve the republic; naturally, that's the recipe for abuse of power. The federalists and other drafters wrote protections against the power of the mob as well as against monarchs ruling from afar.
The basic issue is that by allowing everyone the same absolute rights to spread their ideology, including those who want to get rid of these institutions and legislations that are in their way, you risk these kinds of ideologies being supported by a sizable portion of the population, or even a majority.
All these safeguards are utterly irrelevant if the population doesn't back them up.
The lesson to learn from Nazi Germany is that you don't get an authoritarian regime overnight and neither do you get popular support for it. There is no "oh shit, now we need to violently rise against this regime because now it went too far"-moment for the majority of the population. These movements grow over years or even decades and are carefully nurtured by those behind them who have bigger plans in mind. There won't be some kind of actual overreaching attack on institutions or legislations until it's highly likely that such an attack will be successful. In the case of Nazi Germany all that was needed was 33% of the popular support, fanatical supporters including a paramilitary force and people who underestimated those who pushed to power until the very last moment in one way or another.
And until that point such a movement is able to argue: "But see, this is just our opinion and we're free to share this with everyone!"
This approach allows those who want to abolish core values such as freedom and democracy to use these very tools to drive them into the ground - while being defended by everyone else who assumes "Oh, they could/would never go that far" until it's too late.
That's the inherent danger of choosing to go down that path and trying to apply the same absolute rules to everyone - including Neo-Nazis, left-extremists or religious extremists who aim for nothing less but the destruction of these rules for everyone but themselves.
|
On August 27 2017 02:10 Uldridge wrote:
So I understand that my sexual preference has an impact on me, because I am a sexual being. This doesn't mean that I let it have any significant influence on me as to how I shape myself mentally. Sure, it induces physiological changes in me and I have a certain spot for that in my behavior, but I don't let it have an impact on me of how I am as a person, regarding other people and how I see the world.
I understand that under certain conditions the primal urges almost override your rational self and I can even agree that this has a time and a place for that, but I can keep that strict divide. I won't (dis)advantage a beautiful woman or one that I completely connect with mentally. I've seen much too frequently how that turns out..
I see it more than an innate/acquired reflexive state than one that contributes to my cognitive self.
Edit: and I actually see it as some kind of a burden too. Sure, when you're all high on sex hormones and want to get it on it's all great, but again, that's the overriding force and I just feel like it wastes my time, so in a sense I'd like to be asexual.
Also, good way of answering the entire post, guy, you really hit the nail on the head with telling me I was delusional for thinking I don't let my sexuality define me as a person!
Edit2: @Plansix: how is this not self aware? I literally explain to you how I view my sexuality. Your choice of words make no sense.
oof man, what do you think your "rational person" is and how do you think "how [you] are as a person" manifests? I guess you can keep the "strict divide" because you have a little chief homunculus sitting over all the others able to see exactly what they all do. you know Freud's been around for more than a century now …
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
