|
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. |
|
|
@DPB: you've answered in ways that I already know of. I know why people protest.
Again, it would be preferential that someone should never have to hide in the closet, obviously, but I don't even understand that sexuality in the workplace is such an issue. I guess it's because I've grown up understanding the equality "issue" and just accepted it as normal.
I find over the top PDA ridiculous when any party's involved.
I understand that there's still a long way to go to shape society to include everyone in the same boat, because legally speaking there weren't any laws regarding same sex issues, because that stuff came relatively recently and society changes slowly. I'd love it if everyone could be treated the same way by the bureaucratic monster that is society, but it needs time obviously.
I'm pretty sure that a lot of people in the parades just want to have some good fun. The streets are barricaded so you can't even join them or talk to them...
Let's say there's a gay person working in a law firm. Is it necessary he discloses his sexual orientation? Is it relevant? What about the army? What about sports? I only starts to matter once you are being discriminated based on your sexuality; but other than that, I don't think it's relevant. Keep your professional side divided from your private side. For all I care, everyone should be asexual in the workplace.
Also, the community isn't a homogeneous entity, there are different account everywhere; probably homosexuals that have had wonderful lives and have probably never been discriminated against. Most, probably have, because kids are assholes and adults are assholes and dangerous, but you don't just let an indoctrinated asshole come to terms with your sexuality by forcing it down his throat. I'm pretty sure the acceptance of different sexual orientations will be largely accepted over the next few decades though (in the West).
@farvacola: yes, my speech is something that I've practiced endlessly so that I can surely be recognized as 100% heterosexual. But to be serious, I don't care about my speech, I don't really care about my appearance that much (I would like clothes to be asexual and bathrooms to be asexual places) and I don't present myself to be masculine or heterosexual per se. I recently walked past a shop that had a raincoat for females I wanted to buy, because I liked how that piece of clothing looked. I don't give a fuck about how the world perceives me. I'm low key enough that my controversial views aren't publicly known and I'm smart enough not to spread them publicly (unless the time is right for it).
@Igne: my rational person is what I can logically (to me; because it could be wrong) extract from my surrounding based on my cognitive function. It manifests itself through experience and innate capabilities. How my body reacts to certain stimuli given from other people is definitely NOT rational, but I can act on it rationally. I can choose to let it sweep me away or I can choose to keep it subsided.
|
On August 27 2017 02:33 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 01:31 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
I expect a free thinking people to organize their own countermarches saying how this or that constitutional amendment is perilous. Under the same laws protecting the first set of demonstrators. And you think the danger is people accepting that Nazism is a pretty good ideology just because it's supporters were allowed to march. Poppycock. Absolutely sleazy argumentation. Their ideas should be in daylight, exposed to the world and ridiculed (AND IT FUCKING IS THIS DAY). The recent protests included neonazis absolutely looking for a fight, and we looked on in horror and revulsion.
Preventing free speech rights because you're scared of an ideology spreading indicates you have no understanding of what a free society means. What you aren't allowed to say by your moral betters ... that's a sure fire way of increasing its reach. And the second they turn to violence or break the law in any way, they get treated just like any other band of miscreants (vermin?)
Allow bad ideas to be heard and bear scrutiny. Don't think the free society is so weak that it must be broken to allow for thought police and ideological codes.
|
On August 27 2017 03:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 02:33 r.Evo wrote:On August 27 2017 01:31 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I expect a free thinking people to organize their own countermarches saying how this or that constitutional amendment is perilous. Under the same laws protecting the first set of demonstrators. And you think the danger is people accepting that Nazism is a pretty good ideology just because it's supporters were allowed to march. Poppycock. Absolutely sleazy argumentation. Their ideas should be in daylight, exposed to the world and ridiculed (AND IT FUCKING IS THIS DAY). The recent protests included neonazis absolutely looking for a fight, and we looked on in horror and revulsion. Preventing free speech rights because you're scared of an ideology spreading indicates you have no understanding of what a free society means. What you aren't allowed to say by your moral betters ... that's a sure fire way of increasing its reach. And the second they turn to violence or break the law in any way, they get treated just like any other band of miscreants (vermin?) Allow bad ideas to be heard and bear scrutiny. Don't think the free society is so weak that it must be broken to allow for thought police and ideological codes.
It's a great idea while it works - until it doesn't.
The plan for "What do we do if these movements become strong enough to actually act on their ideologies?" that you're offering boils down to: "We're enlightened enough that it will never come that far."
Sure, this approach has the exact same goal of preventing some kind of takeover from occurring, but the underlying assumption is that a sizable portion of the population will never accept these kinds of vile ideologies and reject them by all means necessary. It's relying on a massive amount of people behaving like rational actors, it even relies on a massive amount of people putting values of the system itself above their own in a lot of cases.
Honestly, I think it's a bit admirable having this type of noble view of humanity - the view that 'bad' ideas won't be able to reach a majority or a position of power because 'good' people would never stoop to that level, they're obviously always the majority and will be able to keep convincing other 'good' people of their cause.
But based on human history and... pretty much any mass of people ever in any context that perspective is at least as naive as it is admirable.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Harvey seems to be winding down. Frankly all I can think to say after reading the damage reports is, "it could have been worse." The Arpaio news managed to overshadow this as well.
|
On August 27 2017 04:53 LegalLord wrote:
Harvey seems to be winding down. Frankly all I can think to say after reading the damage reports is, "it could have been worse." The Arpaio news managed to overshadow this as well.
My friend in Houston says she might get rain nonstop until Tuesday.
|
On August 27 2017 00:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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: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.
This has to be some sort of reddit meme or something. You can't have actually wrote this thinking it would be taken seriously?
You frame your argument around civil rights, but your total lack of concern for people that aren't Nazis vs the in depth and repeated defenses of Nazi civil rights show's it's not the civil rights you prime on defending, it's the Nazis. Again not because you're concerned about everyone having civil/constitutional rights respected, but because you want Nazis to be able to spread their genocidal message of the complete destruction of people like me.
It's completely and wholly disgusting to me at this point that you all keep doing this and keep pretending it's about their "rights". This has nothing to do with Nazi's constitutional rights and we shouldn't keep pretending that it is.
|
Never felt safer. Both sides or something.
|
Both the Nazis and the police were complicit in violence. Both sides were at fault for what happened.
|
On August 27 2017 05:12 GreenHorizons 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. This has to be some sort of reddit meme or something. You can't have actually wrote this thinking it would be taken seriously? You frame your argument around civil rights, but your total lack of concern for people that aren't Nazis vs the in depth and repeated defenses of Nazi civil rights show's it's not the civil rights you prime on defending, it's the Nazis. Again not because you're concerned about everyone having civil/constitutional rights respected, but because you want Nazis to be able to spread their genocidal message of the complete destruction of people like me. It's completely and wholly disgusting to me at this point that you all keep doing this and keep pretending it's about their "rights". This has nothing to do with Nazi's constitutional rights and we shouldn't keep pretending that it is.
Was going to make a post similar to this but instead I'll just quote yours.
I'd find Danglars intentions more honest if he drew his sword over all civil rights infringements in the same or similar fervor as his defense of Nazi rallies. I don't think Danglars is a Nazi or a Nazi-sympathizer, he's just far too deep in the partisan hole that he finds himself having to die on some 'civil rights hill' to defend the far right, while simultaneously and consistently shrugging off the impact and severity of civil rights violations of other groups. It's not a good look.
|
On August 27 2017 05:27 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 05:12 GreenHorizons 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. This has to be some sort of reddit meme or something. You can't have actually wrote this thinking it would be taken seriously? You frame your argument around civil rights, but your total lack of concern for people that aren't Nazis vs the in depth and repeated defenses of Nazi civil rights show's it's not the civil rights you prime on defending, it's the Nazis. Again not because you're concerned about everyone having civil/constitutional rights respected, but because you want Nazis to be able to spread their genocidal message of the complete destruction of people like me. It's completely and wholly disgusting to me at this point that you all keep doing this and keep pretending it's about their "rights". This has nothing to do with Nazi's constitutional rights and we shouldn't keep pretending that it is. Was going to make a post similar to this but instead I'll just quote yours. I'd find Danglars intentions more honest if he drew his sword over all civil rights infringements in the same or similar fervor as his defense of Nazi rallies. I don't think Danglars is a Nazi or a Nazi-sympathizer, he's just far too deep in the partisan hole that he finds himself having to die on some 'civil rights hill' to defend the far right, while simultaneously and consistently shrugging off the impact and severity of civil rights violations of other groups. It's not a good look.
I've posed similar questions without answer, but if forced to choose between a country where BLM got their way or Nazis I'm not sure they wouldn't choose Nazis.
|
United States42010 Posts
On August 27 2017 00:50 micronesia wrote:
ZerOCoolSC2 that is just contrary to American principles. If a group of people with detestable views want to perform a peaceful demonstration, they can here. If they manage to convince every American that their views are the best, then so be it. People can oppose this transition using the same methods available to the group with the detestable views.
You're surely aware of the paradox of tolerance.
|
On August 27 2017 02:33 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 01:31 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Is the threat of a Neo-Nazi takeover really greater than the threat of some Putin/Trump/Erdogan-esque politician opportunistically eliminating political enemies by taking advantage the loss of civil rights/liberties by those associated with "enemy groups" though? The slippery slope argument goes both ways.
Moreover, what exactly does banning groups like the KKK from publicly organizing even do to stop them from gaining popularity? If they aren't having public demonstrations, they'll still convene on websites, pass out fliers, hold meetings in private, etc. If the proposed solution has (very) questionable efficacy, I'm not on board with increasing other societal risks by restricting civil liberties in implementing it.
A fundamental societal commitment to maintaining civil rights and liberties is its own check on hate groups. By devaluing such a commitment (to civil rights/liberties) in the name of restricting hate groups, you're weakening the institutional barriers protecting the victims of hate in the first place.
|
|
|
On August 27 2017 05:12 GreenHorizons 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. This has to be some sort of reddit meme or something. You can't have actually wrote this thinking it would be taken seriously? You frame your argument around civil rights, but your total lack of concern for people that aren't Nazis vs the in depth and repeated defenses of Nazi civil rights show's it's not the civil rights you prime on defending, it's the Nazis. Again not because you're concerned about everyone having civil/constitutional rights respected, but because you want Nazis to be able to spread their genocidal message of the complete destruction of people like me. It's completely and wholly disgusting to me at this point that you all keep doing this and keep pretending it's about their "rights". This has nothing to do with Nazi's constitutional rights and we shouldn't keep pretending that it is.
Because nobody wrote "THEY'RE THE FUCKING BLM DANGLARS." They did that to the neonazi marchers. So umm I'll keep calling it like I see it. I didn't see a lot of concern from you. Furthermore, stop denying its about civil rights. If you want to ever have legitimacy on the other side, you better not be hyperpartisan on the issue ... rights for me but not for thee.
|
On August 27 2017 05:27 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 05:12 GreenHorizons 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. This has to be some sort of reddit meme or something. You can't have actually wrote this thinking it would be taken seriously? You frame your argument around civil rights, but your total lack of concern for people that aren't Nazis vs the in depth and repeated defenses of Nazi civil rights show's it's not the civil rights you prime on defending, it's the Nazis. Again not because you're concerned about everyone having civil/constitutional rights respected, but because you want Nazis to be able to spread their genocidal message of the complete destruction of people like me. It's completely and wholly disgusting to me at this point that you all keep doing this and keep pretending it's about their "rights". This has nothing to do with Nazi's constitutional rights and we shouldn't keep pretending that it is. Was going to make a post similar to this but instead I'll just quote yours. I'd find Danglars intentions more honest if he drew his sword over all civil rights infringements in the same or similar fervor as his defense of Nazi rallies. I don't think Danglars is a Nazi or a Nazi-sympathizer, he's just far too deep in the partisan hole that he finds himself having to die on some 'civil rights hill' to defend the far right, while simultaneously and consistently shrugging off the impact and severity of civil rights violations of other groups. It's not a good look.
He just said it wasn't about constitutional rights. So you're literally quoting a guy who doesn't think it's the same.
|
The strongest hurricane to hit the US in 13 years smashed into the Texas coast then moved inland on Saturday, deluging Houston, killing at least one person, and bringing fears of disastrous sustained flooding in the country’s fourth-largest city.
More than 300,000 customers across Texas were without electricity as Harvey threatened to stall, setting up for several days of rainfall that could tally 50in (127cm), more than 4ft (1.2m), by Wednesday in some spots. Texas governor Greg Abbott said about 20in (50.8cm) of rain had fallen in the Corpus Christi area and 16in (40.6cm) in the Houston region.
“There is the potential for very dramatic flooding,” he said in an afternoon media conference in Austin. “Our biggest concern is the possibility of between 20 and 30 more inches of rain in areas ranging from Corpus Christi over to Houston.”
Abbott expanded his declaration of a state of disaster by 20 counties, to 50. Numbers of injuries and fatalities were not yet clear, he said.
In the small seaside town of Rockport, which was directly in Harvey’s path when it came ashore and was particularly badly hit. One person was killed in a house fire, the mayor said. The Coast Guard reported that helicopters rescued 18 people from boats and barges in distress.
Dozens of Houston-area roads were reported flooded. As of midday, 704 flight cancellations had been announced at George Bush Intercontinental airport and 123 at Hobby, though a break in bad weather allowed departures to resume at Bush.
Brock Long, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema), said on Twitter that the storm was transitioning into a “deadly inland event”.
In a Saturday morning update, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) said that though winds had slowed to a maximum 80mph, Harvey was “moving slowly over Texas producing torrential rains … catastrophic flooding expected over the next few days”.
Houston, about 200 miles north-east of where Harvey made landfall, began seeing wind and rain on Friday. It is notoriously flood-prone and more than 6.5m people live in the metropolitan area. Though officials decided against ordering a mass evacuation from central Houston, voluntary and mandatory evacuations were issued on Saturday for parts to the south west, near two rivers in Fort Bend County.
Levels in Houston’s bayous were increasing, giving rise to the prospect that they will burst their banks if the rain continues as predicted.
“This is just day one,” Houston mayor Sylvester Turner told Good Morning America. “We anticipate a lot of rain over the next four or five days.”
Traffic was light in the city and many stores were closed, though an exception was a doughnut shop in the suburb of Katy, where Don Mach and his Keeshond dog, Bo, were having breakfast.
Mach said he was “very concerned” about Harvey. “We got 5.5in of rain last night. That came down probably in about four hours,” the 70-year-old said. “That water can only go so many places.”
Oil companies began shutting down operations in and along the Gulf in anticipation of the storm, and gas prices rose. There was anxiety that Harvey could provoke flooding to hit the region’s vast refining and petrochemical facilities and unleash toxic discharges into adjacent communities or Galveston Bay.
Juan Parras, an environmental campaigner in east Houston, said he was worried severe flooding or a storm surge could cause leaks or dislodge chemical tanks.
Source
|
I feel like using Twitter is a mistake for anyone aside from journalists
User was warned for this post
|
On August 27 2017 06:46 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 02:33 r.Evo wrote:On August 27 2017 01:31 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Is the threat of a Neo-Nazi takeover really greater than the threat of some Putin/Trump/Erdogan-esque politician opportunistically eliminating political enemies by taking advantage the loss of civil rights/liberties by those associated with "enemy groups" though? The slippery slope argument goes both ways. Moreover, what exactly does banning groups like the KKK from publicly organizing even do to stop them from gaining popularity? If they aren't having public demonstrations, they'll still convene on websites, pass out fliers, hold meetings in private, etc. If the proposed solution has (very) questionable efficacy, I'm not on board with increasing other societal risks by restricting civil liberties in implementing it. A fundamental societal commitment to maintaining civil rights and liberties is its own check on hate groups. By devaluing such a commitment (to civil rights/liberties) in the name of restricting hate groups, you're weakening the institutional barriers protecting the victims of hate in the first place.
In the Vice documentary they were stoked about having such a large demonstration. It's a big, loud statement that tells other shitholes or potential shitholes debating their thoughts that their beliefs aren't complete and utter trash and there's a place for it.
I would have found TL a lot faster if there was a Starcraft club in my highschool as opposed to finding it myself because I was bad and sucked at the campaign.
|
If the context isn't obvious please provide context for your tweets. ScottBaio is an actor who supports trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
