|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 27 2017 20:41 Sermokala wrote:
Talking with my cousins on the farm what he's saying is pretty correct. I was surprised but long time blue bleeding union and coop voters went red in the midwest this election. The loss of jobs and livelyhoods due to the pain of economic transiston caused by automaton was definitely a factor. These people didn't vote for Reagen for gosh sake. It's very dishonest to group a section in support for him without any official opposition to him. Paul Ryan was a major GOP player and was presented as this sort of opposition to Obama. If Trump went against a visual democratic leader I think his support would waver to be a lot less than a third.
I'm not denying these things played a role, I'm doubting that economic concerns were a primary factor without actual data to back up that statement.
Which specific policies and proposals convinced people that Trump will help their personal economic situation? What concrete actions has the Trump administration taken so far to alleviate these concerns?
What does "going against a visual democratic leader" mean in this context? He already condemned the media, the courts, other politicians, even those from his own party and that's again just the tip of the iceberg. What does he have to do on top of everything we've heard and seen so far for people who currently support him to drop their support and say: "Okay, that was too unethical or too un-American for us to tolerate anymore"?
edit:
On August 27 2017 20:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 19:05 r.Evo wrote:
I fully agree that Trump is merely a symptom of underlying issues, but even without willing right-wing extremism into existence he sure tapped into the potential it seems to have in the US - which emboldened these types of movements quite a bit. Again, if someone like Richard Spencer considers himself a winner then maybe the candidate stood for more than financial relief for people who are hurt economically.
Can you source the bolded claim, that those were the two major factors that swayed people to vote for Trump? Just to have a reasonable starting point. Which parts of his program promised realistic help against automation? How is he helping people who are hurt economically right now? There is no easy answer to the damage of automation and globalization, its something the entire world struggles with to this day. The 'easiest' road is when you start before the problem starts, this is where countries switched themselves to a more and more service based economy. Because they saw they could never compete with low wage countries in industry. The people who flipped to Trump over their job situation didn't do it because Trump offered detailed realistic plans to help them but because he told them "I will make things right for you". Its a strait up lie ofcourse because he can't but the people don't want to hear the realistic, slow and painful plans of the Democrats. They want someone who lies to them with a miracle cure. People don't like to be told "there is little we can do for you because we're 20 years late in acting". Even if its the realistic answer.
That's pretty much the point I'm trying to make. I have a hard time accepting "economic concerns" as a reason to support someone when no realistic solutions to these concerns were ever offered. Analogue I have a hard time understanding continuous support for "economic reasons" if no solutions even seem in sight.
At some point "because economic concerns" becomes a euphemism for "because he's a populist and I fell for it".
|
Less than reliable yellow press sites are suggesting that Arpaio's pardon has caused more Republican-side impeachment talk than ever before, but we'll see if that's actually true.
|
mozoku -> not using reply cuz the quote chain was too big;
trump was already known, yet he benefitted a lot from press coverage during the election, even the negative coverage.
When it comes to social phenomena, things often don't act as we expect them to, so it's best to be cautious with assumptions; the ones you're making might not hold up at all in fact, there's no need to make reckless assumptions.
|
On August 27 2017 18:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 07:06 Danglars wrote: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:
[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. 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. I actually think your posts represent some of the most despicable parts of this country, but to your point, no I don't support the "right" to advocate genocide equally to people demanding their access to and affirmation of their constitutional rights/ right to exist. That you do, says more than I think you ever intended. I've been pretty clear on it, so there is no issue surrounding hypocrisy. Note: None of the conservatives said "Of course I would prefer BLM getting their way over Nazis".
Then you can get off your moral high horse. You and others don't think they have a constitutional right to free assembly and free speech. The post prior, you complain that's I don't put as much concern on other groups with supposed violation of rights. Well, you have your answer: you won't even admit ten pages of people saying it's too dangerous in theory to let them march peaceably involves trampling on their constitutional rights. That's something not shared by African Americans or the BLM who have never had those rights rejected here. Trust me, I consider that double standard equally despicable.
|
On August 27 2017 22:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 18:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 27 2017 07:06 Danglars wrote: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:
[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. 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. I actually think your posts represent some of the most despicable parts of this country, but to your point, no I don't support the "right" to advocate genocide equally to people demanding their access to and affirmation of their constitutional rights/ right to exist. That you do, says more than I think you ever intended. I've been pretty clear on it, so there is no issue surrounding hypocrisy. Note: None of the conservatives said "Of course I would prefer BLM getting their way over Nazis". Then you can get off your moral high horse. You and others don't think they have a constitutional right to free assembly and free speech. The post prior, you complain that's I don't put as much concern on other groups with supposed violation of rights. Well, you have your answer: you won't even admit ten pages of people saying it's too dangerous in theory to let them march peaceably involves trampling on their constitutional rights. That's something not shared by African Americans or the BLM who have never had those rights rejected here. Trust me, I consider that double standard equally despicable.
I think you're arguing for two different interpretations of free speech. The American way, which is pretty much "anything goes", with some minor sidenotes about directly instigating violence against a specific person (or group). And the European way, which explicitly excludes "hate speech" from those things that are free to say.
Neo-nazi rallies in (most of) Europe are quite explicitly not included under freedom of speech. Neo-nazis have snuck in some rallies by posing as something other than neo-nazis, but generally they get shut down hard the moment the swastikas come out. The same goes for any other rally promoting a hateful ideology (for instance, ISIS, ETA, IRA). You can have a protest promoting the independence of the basque countries. You cannot have a protest glorifying violence in order to obtain independence.
So if you're discussing freedom of speech from an ethical point of view, you need to first define it (clearly from a legal point of view there is no question: American neo-nazis have the right to demonstrate and promote their ideology), rather than having this bizar back-and-forth, because there is quite clearly a difference between BLM and neo-nazis. BLM does not promote, let alone glorify violence, in pursuit of their goal. Neo-nazis, on the other hand, both promote and glorify violence in pursuit of their goal. In fact, violence is one of the core tenets of the ideology, and in fact, of fascism in general (in fascism, violence is simply one means to an end, no better or worse than any other means to obtain and hold power, and war is generally glorified). So you'd need to argue why the right to glorify violence is worthy of protection. I personally feel it isn't, and neo-nazis should not have the right to promote their ideology. Yes, that is a limitation on the freedom of speech. But no freedom is absolute.
And on a pragmatic note: I will reiterate that if you show up to a rally with riot shields, and open-carrying guns, your intent to "peacefully demonstrate" is highly questionable. Moreso still if the ideology you are demonstrating in favor of promotes violence.
|
On August 27 2017 22:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 18:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 27 2017 07:06 Danglars wrote: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:
[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. 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. I actually think your posts represent some of the most despicable parts of this country, but to your point, no I don't support the "right" to advocate genocide equally to people demanding their access to and affirmation of their constitutional rights/ right to exist. That you do, says more than I think you ever intended. I've been pretty clear on it, so there is no issue surrounding hypocrisy. Note: None of the conservatives said "Of course I would prefer BLM getting their way over Nazis". Then you can get off your moral high horse. You and others don't think they have a constitutional right to free assembly and free speech. The post prior, you complain that's I don't put as much concern on other groups with supposed violation of rights. Well, you have your answer: you won't even admit ten pages of people saying it's too dangerous in theory to let them march peaceably involves trampling on their constitutional rights. That's something not shared by African Americans or the BLM who have never had those rights rejected here. Trust me, I consider that double standard equally despicable.
Did GH ever say he doesn't think Nazis should be able to march? IIRC he thinks they should, he just doesn't care nearly as much as other flagrant cases of constitutional rights being systematically violated. It's absurd to call that a double standard, and I'm sure you do it too. Example: I think ICP music videos are protected speech. I also think online discussion of political events is protected speech. But I'd be a lot more upset if the government shut down the latter than the former.
Understand that we're not in a situation where currently everyone's civil liberties are being respected, but some people want to change that to "everyone but Nazis." We're in a situation where a lot of people's civil liberties are systematically ignored, but a few people want to officially add Nazis to the list of people whose civil liberties aren't respected. That's a big difference.
I don't support that change, although I don't find it "despicable" either (quite a word to use in the same post as telling someone to get off their moral high horse). There's even something to be said for arguing for this (edit: that is, arguing for respecting Nazis' civil liberties) rather than focusing on other more flagrant violations of civil liberties simply because the first amendment answer here is easy. So let's settle that and move on to more difficult problems (e.g. how do we get cops to respect the civil liberties of black people?)
Since he's in the news, let's start with this. Sheriff Arpaio left a trail of thousands, if not millions, of people whose civil liberties were systematically violated. What was the cost for these people? Did they want to hold a rally, but were forced to change their weekend plans? No, they spent years of their lives being tortured in prison. Many commit suicide. What remedy do we have for these people whose civil liberties were violated? How can we assure a similar systematic violation never arises again?
And what kind of respect for their civil liberties did Trump show when he pardoned their torturer?
|
oops, hit quote instead of edit
|
On August 27 2017 23:25 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 22:36 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2017 18:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 27 2017 07:06 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I actually think your posts represent some of the most despicable parts of this country, but to your point, no I don't support the "right" to advocate genocide equally to people demanding their access to and affirmation of their constitutional rights/ right to exist. That you do, says more than I think you ever intended. I've been pretty clear on it, so there is no issue surrounding hypocrisy. Note: None of the conservatives said "Of course I would prefer BLM getting their way over Nazis". Then you can get off your moral high horse. You and others don't think they have a constitutional right to free assembly and free speech. The post prior, you complain that's I don't put as much concern on other groups with supposed violation of rights. Well, you have your answer: you won't even admit ten pages of people saying it's too dangerous in theory to let them march peaceably involves trampling on their constitutional rights. That's something not shared by African Americans or the BLM who have never had those rights rejected here. Trust me, I consider that double standard equally despicable. I think you're arguing for two different interpretations of free speech. The American way, which is pretty much "anything goes", with some minor sidenotes about directly instigating violence against a specific person (or group). And the European way, which explicitly excludes "hate speech" from those things that are free to say. Neo-nazi rallies in (most of) Europe are quite explicitly not included under freedom of speech. Neo-nazis have snuck in some rallies by posing as something other than neo-nazis, but generally they get shut down hard the moment the swastikas come out. The same goes for any other rally promoting a hateful ideology (for instance, ISIS, ETA, IRA). You can have a protest promoting the independence of the basque countries. You cannot have a protest glorifying violence in order to obtain independence. So if you're discussing freedom of speech from an ethical point of view, you need to first define it (clearly from a legal point of view there is no question: American neo-nazis have the right to demonstrate and promote their ideology), rather than having this bizar back-and-forth, because there is quite clearly a difference between BLM and neo-nazis. BLM does not promote, let alone glorify violence, in pursuit of their goal. Neo-nazis, on the other hand, both promote and glorify violence in pursuit of their goal. In fact, violence is one of the core tenets of the ideology, and in fact, of fascism in general (in fascism, violence is simply one means to an end, no better or worse than any other means to obtain and hold power, and war is generally glorified). So you'd need to argue why the right to glorify violence is worthy of protection. I personally feel it isn't, and neo-nazis should not have the right to promote their ideology. Yes, that is a limitation on the freedom of speech. But no freedom is absolute. And on a pragmatic note: I will reiterate that if you show up to a rally with riot shields, and open-carrying guns, your intent to "peacefully demonstrate" is highly questionable. Moreso still if the ideology you are demonstrating in favor of promotes violence.
Nazis rallying getting protection is very normal. They might promote a horribe ideology, but they are people and citezens, and it happens that they are the attacked, not the attackers. If nothing else, police should be present to prevent the situation to get out of control.
Please do not promote any violence, including gloryfying nazis being hit. In fact, extensive street violence is often a natural possibility for dictators to sieze more power, to bring "order." Don't fall into that trap, violence is their game, do not play it! There are much better ways to fight these groups, one whole Nazi community was shut down after the city hall sent them to Auswich, or the German city which turned a rally into a walkaton for an anti-nazis cause.
|
On August 28 2017 00:29 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 22:36 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2017 18:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 27 2017 07:06 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I actually think your posts represent some of the most despicable parts of this country, but to your point, no I don't support the "right" to advocate genocide equally to people demanding their access to and affirmation of their constitutional rights/ right to exist. That you do, says more than I think you ever intended. I've been pretty clear on it, so there is no issue surrounding hypocrisy. Note: None of the conservatives said "Of course I would prefer BLM getting their way over Nazis". Then you can get off your moral high horse. You and others don't think they have a constitutional right to free assembly and free speech. The post prior, you complain that's I don't put as much concern on other groups with supposed violation of rights. Well, you have your answer: you won't even admit ten pages of people saying it's too dangerous in theory to let them march peaceably involves trampling on their constitutional rights. That's something not shared by African Americans or the BLM who have never had those rights rejected here. Trust me, I consider that double standard equally despicable. Did GH ever say he doesn't think Nazis should be able to march? IIRC he thinks they should, he just doesn't care nearly as much as other flagrant cases of constitutional rights being systematically violated. It's absurd to call that a double standard, and I'm sure you do it too. Example: I think ICP music videos are protected speech. I also think online discussion of political events is protected speech. But I'd be a lot more upset if the government shut down the latter than the former. Understand that we're not in a situation where currently everyone's civil liberties are being respected, but some people want to change that to "everyone but Nazis." We're in a situation where a lot of people's civil liberties are systematically ignored, but a few people want to officially add Nazis to the list of people whose civil liberties aren't respected. That's a big difference. I don't support that change, although I don't find it "despicable" either (quite a word to use in the same post as telling someone to get off their moral high horse). There's even something to be said for arguing for this (edit: that is, arguing for respecting Nazis' civil liberties) rather than focusing on other more flagrant violations of civil liberties simply because the first amendment answer here is easy. So let's settle that and move on to more difficult problems (e.g. how do we get cops to respect the civil liberties of black people?) Since he's in the news, let's start with this. Sheriff Arpaio left a trail of thousands, if not millions, of people whose civil liberties were systematically violated. What was the cost for these people? Did they want to hold a rally, but were forced to change their weekend plans? No, they spent years of their lives being tortured in prison. Many commit suicide. What remedy do we have for these people whose civil liberties were violated? How can we assure a similar systematic violation never arises again? And what kind of respect for their civil liberties did Trump show when he pardoned their torturer?
He quoted my response to someone who did as a "Reddit meme."
He said "your posts represent some of the most despicable parts of this country." I think not defending the civil rights of all law-abiding citizens as despicable behavior.
I protest heavily "a lot of people's civil rights are being ignored." I hear more about extensive positive rights not found in the constitution and very little about civil rights. Also, tons of opinion statements declaring the opposite side to be against rights. Political tomfoolery, not rampant rights violations.
In the case of Arpaio, he was a clear example. There's also not dozens of him all over. Anecdotes won't help you. Trump's in the extreme here.
|
|
|
|
|
This wapo article is excellent coverage of the storm and its effects on Houston :
Basically it is really bad, 2 feet of water in houston so far with potential to get much worse (Harvey may go back into the gulf and then make landfall again according to some computer models).
www.washingtonpost.com
|
I honestly have to say that it feels that it could have been a lot worse than it was.
|
On August 28 2017 01:24 LegalLord wrote:
I honestly have to say that it feels that it could have been a lot worse than it was.
Really? It doesn't look like it's over yet by any means.
edit - twitter.com - Weird, twitter isn't preloading on TL for me atm.
|
There's flooding. That's essentially a given since this was that strong of a hurricane, and it's certainly a royal PITA to deal with floods. Compare it to the large-scale disaster that was Katrina though, and frankly Texas can't be said to be doing all that badly.
|
On August 28 2017 02:10 LegalLord wrote:
There's flooding. That's essentially a given since this was that strong of a hurricane, and it's certainly a royal PITA to deal with floods. Compare it to the large-scale disaster that was Katrina though, and frankly Texas can't be said to be doing all that badly.
There's still time. At least 2-3 more days of rain and then there's the flooding that will probably take at least 2 weeks to be gone. Not to mention the rescue efforts and who knows how many bodies will be found once that operation begins.
|
The thing about flooding (and many other things) is there's threshold effects; as long as it doesn't get above a certain threshold, the systems in place handle it fairly well, if it goes past though, things can get real bad real fast.
so best to hold off on judging damage until it's all passed.
|
It seems to be working through TeamLiquid and not working through liquidDota and LiquidHearth.
I think in terms of the damage to the immediately impacted area, it wasn't as bad as it could have been. A lot of homes and businesses are heavily damaged, which is still really tough for the people impacted, but the casualties were low for people who stayed (none from Port Aransas at least). My understanding is that the eye went just north enough to avoid the majorly populated areas since north of the eye is much more dangerous than the west of the eye.
The real threat is definitely the rain. Houston is already in really bad shape, with crazy flooding and people being stranded.
|
|
|
On August 28 2017 00:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 00:29 ChristianS wrote:On August 27 2017 22:36 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2017 18:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 27 2017 07:06 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I actually think your posts represent some of the most despicable parts of this country, but to your point, no I don't support the "right" to advocate genocide equally to people demanding their access to and affirmation of their constitutional rights/ right to exist. That you do, says more than I think you ever intended. I've been pretty clear on it, so there is no issue surrounding hypocrisy. Note: None of the conservatives said "Of course I would prefer BLM getting their way over Nazis". Then you can get off your moral high horse. You and others don't think they have a constitutional right to free assembly and free speech. The post prior, you complain that's I don't put as much concern on other groups with supposed violation of rights. Well, you have your answer: you won't even admit ten pages of people saying it's too dangerous in theory to let them march peaceably involves trampling on their constitutional rights. That's something not shared by African Americans or the BLM who have never had those rights rejected here. Trust me, I consider that double standard equally despicable. Did GH ever say he doesn't think Nazis should be able to march? IIRC he thinks they should, he just doesn't care nearly as much as other flagrant cases of constitutional rights being systematically violated. It's absurd to call that a double standard, and I'm sure you do it too. Example: I think ICP music videos are protected speech. I also think online discussion of political events is protected speech. But I'd be a lot more upset if the government shut down the latter than the former. Understand that we're not in a situation where currently everyone's civil liberties are being respected, but some people want to change that to "everyone but Nazis." We're in a situation where a lot of people's civil liberties are systematically ignored, but a few people want to officially add Nazis to the list of people whose civil liberties aren't respected. That's a big difference. I don't support that change, although I don't find it "despicable" either (quite a word to use in the same post as telling someone to get off their moral high horse). There's even something to be said for arguing for this (edit: that is, arguing for respecting Nazis' civil liberties) rather than focusing on other more flagrant violations of civil liberties simply because the first amendment answer here is easy. So let's settle that and move on to more difficult problems (e.g. how do we get cops to respect the civil liberties of black people?) Since he's in the news, let's start with this. Sheriff Arpaio left a trail of thousands, if not millions, of people whose civil liberties were systematically violated. What was the cost for these people? Did they want to hold a rally, but were forced to change their weekend plans? No, they spent years of their lives being tortured in prison. Many commit suicide. What remedy do we have for these people whose civil liberties were violated? How can we assure a similar systematic violation never arises again? And what kind of respect for their civil liberties did Trump show when he pardoned their torturer? He quoted my response to someone who did as a "Reddit meme." He said "your posts represent some of the most despicable parts of this country." I think not defending the civil rights of all law-abiding citizens as despicable behavior.
I protest heavily "a lot of people's civil rights are being ignored." I hear more about extensive positive rights not found in the constitution and very little about civil rights. Also, tons of opinion statements declaring the opposite side to be against rights. Political tomfoolery, not rampant rights violations. In the case of Arpaio, he was a clear example. There's also not dozens of him all over. Anecdotes won't help you. Trump's in the extreme here.
Your posts indicate the bold part is simply not true. I guess people will play along with you for now, but it's clear to me what you are representing.
I'll ask again. Given the choice between BLM or Nazis getting what they want, which would you prefer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
