|
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. |
Anarchists gunna be anarchists. Hopefully some of them get arrested this time.
|
On August 28 2017 10:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +Black-clad anarchists on Sunday stormed into what had been a largely peaceful Berkeley protest against hate and attacked at least five people, including the leader of a politically conservative group who canceled an event a day earlier in San Francisco amid fears of violence.
The group of more than 100 hooded protesters, with shields emblazoned with the words "no hate" and waving a flag identifying themselves as anarchists, busted through police lines, avoiding security checks by officers to take away possible weapons. Then the anarchists blended with a crowd of 2,000 largely peaceful protesters who turned up to demonstrate in a "Rally Against Hate" opposed to a much smaller gathering of right-wing protesters.
Berkeley police chief Andrew Greenwood defended how police handled the protest, saying they made a strategic decision to let the anarchists enter to avoid more violence.
Greenwood said "the potential use of force became very problematic" given the thousands of peaceful protesters in the park. Once anarchists arrived, it was clear there would not be dueling protests between left and right so he ordered his officers out of the park and allowed the anarchists to march in. Chicago Tribune
Both, what I assume to be antifa, and the cops are complete asshats here. Showing up and bopping people on the head is only going to make the right wing extremist show up with more long guns and riot shields. That's just going to cause a spiral of more and more well armed protests that will lead to higher and higher body counts. The fact that the police just let them go is beyond stupid to me. So you stop blocking them from people they are trying to harm to... protect people? Literally makes zero sense.
I'd rather the police not have to be armed like the gendarmerie because idiots are itching for a fight.
|
|
|
I'm 99% sure you're not supported to do that.
|
inb4 "Other people in the company did it, he didn't know!"
|
Different set of rules at that point in time. A candidate that is a businessman has no reason to not conduct business. However, once he became head of the gestapo, that should have been pulled. Does it say he was successfully granted the clearance to build?
|
On August 28 2017 03:28 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 00:50 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I also remember him saying that he doesn't think people who punch Nazis should be free from legal punishment. He just also isn't gonna start clutching his pearls when a Nazi gets punched, when meanwhile black people across the country are roughed up by cops on a daily basis. But I don't need to speak for GH, so let's focus on the latter bit of what you said here because I'm honestly a little confused about what you're saying. I read the bolded as you saying you don't think it's true that many (black) people's civil liberties are being systematically violated across the country. Is that what you're saying? GH is probably better informed than me on all the examples of this. Obviously many of the most flagrant examples are anecdotal, and it takes some work to extrapolate to a systemic issue. I'll try to put it in terms I think we can agree on. The relationship between policeman and citizen is a critical one in a civil society, and as it exists now, it is very much characterized by rule of man more than rule of law. A cop makes judgments about who to pull over, how to treat the person when they get pulled over, and whether to chsrge them with something if he finds any lawbreaking. In theory he can't charge them for something if they haven't broken the law, but in most places there are laws on the books specifically to give cops the power to arrest someone without having to find something illegal to arrest them for; "disturbing the peace" and "drunk and disorderly" laws are usually intentionally vague to give cops a lot of leeway. I don't think I have to explain to you why favoring rule of man over rule of law is problematic and leads to a lot of potential for abuse of power. When cops get to make judgment calls about when to enforce the law, racial bias inevitably creeps in. I have a lot of friends and acquaintances that have stories about getting caught by the cops with weed. All these have two things in common: 1) the cop always let them off, sometimes with a call to their parents or something, and 2) all these friends were white. Hell, one of them said the cop didn't even confiscate the weed. Given all this, it shouldn't surprise you that blacks are far more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession. And you shouldn't assume that's because blacks are more likely to be guilty; from what I've seen the evidence suggests it's used at similar rates across races. It's what conservatives are always warning us about: without rule of law, the system gets unevenly applied, creating unfair outcomes and lots of opportunities for abuse of power. Regarding Arpaio, were you agreeing with my characterization but arguing he's an isolated case that doesn't represent the country as a whole? And does Trump being in the extreme mean you agree that he was wrong to pardon, and showed blatant disrespect to the rights of the people Arpaio hurt?
And if this is your only comment when I twice stated why it isn't the case, then I'm afraid we're at an impasse and there's no sense in continuing. You can follow up the quote chain for his interjection when Zerocool and I discussed the civil rights of law-abiding US citizen neonazis. I disagree strongly with your framing and dismissal of my arguments. I don't think it's worth continuing to falsely generalize to other topics. PM if you still don't understand the quote chain and interjection (Civil rights discussion is a "Reddit meme" har har)
BLM and Antifa aren't going away, so I'm positive we'll have plenty of opportunities to honestly talk about policing and African American citizens as part of current.
On August 28 2017 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 00:50 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
Twice now you've deflected to some binary choice between BLM and Nazis. If you have no argument besides outright rejection, we're also not getting anywhere and should leave the back and forth as-is.
|
On August 28 2017 10:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 03:28 ChristianS wrote:On August 28 2017 00:50 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I also remember him saying that he doesn't think people who punch Nazis should be free from legal punishment. He just also isn't gonna start clutching his pearls when a Nazi gets punched, when meanwhile black people across the country are roughed up by cops on a daily basis. But I don't need to speak for GH, so let's focus on the latter bit of what you said here because I'm honestly a little confused about what you're saying. I read the bolded as you saying you don't think it's true that many (black) people's civil liberties are being systematically violated across the country. Is that what you're saying? GH is probably better informed than me on all the examples of this. Obviously many of the most flagrant examples are anecdotal, and it takes some work to extrapolate to a systemic issue. I'll try to put it in terms I think we can agree on. The relationship between policeman and citizen is a critical one in a civil society, and as it exists now, it is very much characterized by rule of man more than rule of law. A cop makes judgments about who to pull over, how to treat the person when they get pulled over, and whether to chsrge them with something if he finds any lawbreaking. In theory he can't charge them for something if they haven't broken the law, but in most places there are laws on the books specifically to give cops the power to arrest someone without having to find something illegal to arrest them for; "disturbing the peace" and "drunk and disorderly" laws are usually intentionally vague to give cops a lot of leeway. I don't think I have to explain to you why favoring rule of man over rule of law is problematic and leads to a lot of potential for abuse of power. When cops get to make judgment calls about when to enforce the law, racial bias inevitably creeps in. I have a lot of friends and acquaintances that have stories about getting caught by the cops with weed. All these have two things in common: 1) the cop always let them off, sometimes with a call to their parents or something, and 2) all these friends were white. Hell, one of them said the cop didn't even confiscate the weed. Given all this, it shouldn't surprise you that blacks are far more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession. And you shouldn't assume that's because blacks are more likely to be guilty; from what I've seen the evidence suggests it's used at similar rates across races. It's what conservatives are always warning us about: without rule of law, the system gets unevenly applied, creating unfair outcomes and lots of opportunities for abuse of power. Regarding Arpaio, were you agreeing with my characterization but arguing he's an isolated case that doesn't represent the country as a whole? And does Trump being in the extreme mean you agree that he was wrong to pardon, and showed blatant disrespect to the rights of the people Arpaio hurt? And if this is your only comment when I twice stated why it isn't the case, then I'm afraid we're at an impasse and there's no sense in continuing. You can follow up the quote chain for his interjection when Zerocool and I discussed the civil rights of law-abiding US citizen neonazis. I disagree strongly with your framing and dismissal of my arguments. I don't think it's worth continuing to falsely generalize to other topics. PM if you still don't understand the quote chain and interjection (Civil rights discussion is a "Reddit meme" har har) BLM and Antifa aren't going away, so I'm positive we'll have plenty of opportunities to honestly talk about policing and African American citizens as part of current. Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 28 2017 00:50 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Twice now you've deflected to some binary choice between BLM and Nazis. If you have no argument besides outright rejection, we're also not getting anywhere and should leave the back and forth as-is.
You could answer GH last question. BLM or Nazis? 1 or 2?
|
On August 28 2017 11:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 10:44 Danglars wrote:On August 28 2017 03:28 ChristianS wrote:On August 28 2017 00:50 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I also remember him saying that he doesn't think people who punch Nazis should be free from legal punishment. He just also isn't gonna start clutching his pearls when a Nazi gets punched, when meanwhile black people across the country are roughed up by cops on a daily basis. But I don't need to speak for GH, so let's focus on the latter bit of what you said here because I'm honestly a little confused about what you're saying. I read the bolded as you saying you don't think it's true that many (black) people's civil liberties are being systematically violated across the country. Is that what you're saying? GH is probably better informed than me on all the examples of this. Obviously many of the most flagrant examples are anecdotal, and it takes some work to extrapolate to a systemic issue. I'll try to put it in terms I think we can agree on. The relationship between policeman and citizen is a critical one in a civil society, and as it exists now, it is very much characterized by rule of man more than rule of law. A cop makes judgments about who to pull over, how to treat the person when they get pulled over, and whether to chsrge them with something if he finds any lawbreaking. In theory he can't charge them for something if they haven't broken the law, but in most places there are laws on the books specifically to give cops the power to arrest someone without having to find something illegal to arrest them for; "disturbing the peace" and "drunk and disorderly" laws are usually intentionally vague to give cops a lot of leeway. I don't think I have to explain to you why favoring rule of man over rule of law is problematic and leads to a lot of potential for abuse of power. When cops get to make judgment calls about when to enforce the law, racial bias inevitably creeps in. I have a lot of friends and acquaintances that have stories about getting caught by the cops with weed. All these have two things in common: 1) the cop always let them off, sometimes with a call to their parents or something, and 2) all these friends were white. Hell, one of them said the cop didn't even confiscate the weed. Given all this, it shouldn't surprise you that blacks are far more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession. And you shouldn't assume that's because blacks are more likely to be guilty; from what I've seen the evidence suggests it's used at similar rates across races. It's what conservatives are always warning us about: without rule of law, the system gets unevenly applied, creating unfair outcomes and lots of opportunities for abuse of power. Regarding Arpaio, were you agreeing with my characterization but arguing he's an isolated case that doesn't represent the country as a whole? And does Trump being in the extreme mean you agree that he was wrong to pardon, and showed blatant disrespect to the rights of the people Arpaio hurt? And if this is your only comment when I twice stated why it isn't the case, then I'm afraid we're at an impasse and there's no sense in continuing. You can follow up the quote chain for his interjection when Zerocool and I discussed the civil rights of law-abiding US citizen neonazis. I disagree strongly with your framing and dismissal of my arguments. I don't think it's worth continuing to falsely generalize to other topics. PM if you still don't understand the quote chain and interjection (Civil rights discussion is a "Reddit meme" har har) BLM and Antifa aren't going away, so I'm positive we'll have plenty of opportunities to honestly talk about policing and African American citizens as part of current. On August 28 2017 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 28 2017 00:50 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Twice now you've deflected to some binary choice between BLM and Nazis. If you have no argument besides outright rejection, we're also not getting anywhere and should leave the back and forth as-is. You could answer GH last question. BLM or Nazis? 1 or 2?
The fact that he feels thats a serious questions shows how much in bad faith GH argues.
|
On August 28 2017 05:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Cause what the area needs is more law enforcement side tracked to protect this asshole instead of helping out the affected areas.
Mexico stands with the United States, even when the United States doesn't stand with Mexico.
|
On August 28 2017 11:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Mexico stands with the United States, even when the United States doesn't stand with Mexico.
It's certainly a good opportunity to act as a foil to Trump, who's done everything possible to posture against Mexico. Whether they genuinely seek to improve ties with us or not, it's a good move.
|
On August 28 2017 11:22 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 11:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 28 2017 10:44 Danglars wrote:On August 28 2017 03:28 ChristianS wrote:On August 28 2017 00:50 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I also remember him saying that he doesn't think people who punch Nazis should be free from legal punishment. He just also isn't gonna start clutching his pearls when a Nazi gets punched, when meanwhile black people across the country are roughed up by cops on a daily basis. But I don't need to speak for GH, so let's focus on the latter bit of what you said here because I'm honestly a little confused about what you're saying. I read the bolded as you saying you don't think it's true that many (black) people's civil liberties are being systematically violated across the country. Is that what you're saying? GH is probably better informed than me on all the examples of this. Obviously many of the most flagrant examples are anecdotal, and it takes some work to extrapolate to a systemic issue. I'll try to put it in terms I think we can agree on. The relationship between policeman and citizen is a critical one in a civil society, and as it exists now, it is very much characterized by rule of man more than rule of law. A cop makes judgments about who to pull over, how to treat the person when they get pulled over, and whether to chsrge them with something if he finds any lawbreaking. In theory he can't charge them for something if they haven't broken the law, but in most places there are laws on the books specifically to give cops the power to arrest someone without having to find something illegal to arrest them for; "disturbing the peace" and "drunk and disorderly" laws are usually intentionally vague to give cops a lot of leeway. I don't think I have to explain to you why favoring rule of man over rule of law is problematic and leads to a lot of potential for abuse of power. When cops get to make judgment calls about when to enforce the law, racial bias inevitably creeps in. I have a lot of friends and acquaintances that have stories about getting caught by the cops with weed. All these have two things in common: 1) the cop always let them off, sometimes with a call to their parents or something, and 2) all these friends were white. Hell, one of them said the cop didn't even confiscate the weed. Given all this, it shouldn't surprise you that blacks are far more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession. And you shouldn't assume that's because blacks are more likely to be guilty; from what I've seen the evidence suggests it's used at similar rates across races. It's what conservatives are always warning us about: without rule of law, the system gets unevenly applied, creating unfair outcomes and lots of opportunities for abuse of power. Regarding Arpaio, were you agreeing with my characterization but arguing he's an isolated case that doesn't represent the country as a whole? And does Trump being in the extreme mean you agree that he was wrong to pardon, and showed blatant disrespect to the rights of the people Arpaio hurt? And if this is your only comment when I twice stated why it isn't the case, then I'm afraid we're at an impasse and there's no sense in continuing. You can follow up the quote chain for his interjection when Zerocool and I discussed the civil rights of law-abiding US citizen neonazis. I disagree strongly with your framing and dismissal of my arguments. I don't think it's worth continuing to falsely generalize to other topics. PM if you still don't understand the quote chain and interjection (Civil rights discussion is a "Reddit meme" har har) BLM and Antifa aren't going away, so I'm positive we'll have plenty of opportunities to honestly talk about policing and African American citizens as part of current. On August 28 2017 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 28 2017 00:50 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Twice now you've deflected to some binary choice between BLM and Nazis. If you have no argument besides outright rejection, we're also not getting anywhere and should leave the back and forth as-is. You could answer GH last question. BLM or Nazis? 1 or 2? The fact that he feels thats a serious questions shows how much in bad faith GH argues.
I don't know that it's in bad faith. What this has shown is that even given a hypothetical binary between BLM meeting their stated goals and Nazis meeting their stated goals, Danglars hasn't been able to definitively say "well, not the Nazis." Seriously. It's shouldn't be that much of a dilemma. If GH has been trying to demonstrate that Danglars will equivocate instead of placing himself against the goals of Nazis, GH has succeeded.
Seriously Danglars. This shouldn't be hard. If you ended up in a situation where you were in a position to cause exactly one of BLM or Nazis to achieve their stated goals, which would you pick?
A) BLM
B) Nazis
I have a suspicion that you're going to pick
C) Argue why you think the question doesn't deserve an answer because it's a bad scenario.
No. It's a hypothetical. Obviously it's not something that could really happen. But what I want to know is that if you were stuck in a position where you had to choose between supporting BLM or supporting Nazis, could you manage to say "Nazis are terrible, I guess I'm supporting BLM?"
|
On August 28 2017 11:57 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 11:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Mexico stands with the United States, even when the United States doesn't stand with Mexico. It's certainly a good opportunity to act as a foil to Trump, who's done everything possible to posture against Mexico. Whether they genuinely seek to improve ties with us or not, it's a good move.
You don't need to seek to improve ties to be a decent being.
|
On August 28 2017 12:00 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 11:22 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2017 11:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 28 2017 10:44 Danglars wrote:On August 28 2017 03:28 ChristianS wrote:On August 28 2017 00:50 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I also remember him saying that he doesn't think people who punch Nazis should be free from legal punishment. He just also isn't gonna start clutching his pearls when a Nazi gets punched, when meanwhile black people across the country are roughed up by cops on a daily basis. But I don't need to speak for GH, so let's focus on the latter bit of what you said here because I'm honestly a little confused about what you're saying. I read the bolded as you saying you don't think it's true that many (black) people's civil liberties are being systematically violated across the country. Is that what you're saying? GH is probably better informed than me on all the examples of this. Obviously many of the most flagrant examples are anecdotal, and it takes some work to extrapolate to a systemic issue. I'll try to put it in terms I think we can agree on. The relationship between policeman and citizen is a critical one in a civil society, and as it exists now, it is very much characterized by rule of man more than rule of law. A cop makes judgments about who to pull over, how to treat the person when they get pulled over, and whether to chsrge them with something if he finds any lawbreaking. In theory he can't charge them for something if they haven't broken the law, but in most places there are laws on the books specifically to give cops the power to arrest someone without having to find something illegal to arrest them for; "disturbing the peace" and "drunk and disorderly" laws are usually intentionally vague to give cops a lot of leeway. I don't think I have to explain to you why favoring rule of man over rule of law is problematic and leads to a lot of potential for abuse of power. When cops get to make judgment calls about when to enforce the law, racial bias inevitably creeps in. I have a lot of friends and acquaintances that have stories about getting caught by the cops with weed. All these have two things in common: 1) the cop always let them off, sometimes with a call to their parents or something, and 2) all these friends were white. Hell, one of them said the cop didn't even confiscate the weed. Given all this, it shouldn't surprise you that blacks are far more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession. And you shouldn't assume that's because blacks are more likely to be guilty; from what I've seen the evidence suggests it's used at similar rates across races. It's what conservatives are always warning us about: without rule of law, the system gets unevenly applied, creating unfair outcomes and lots of opportunities for abuse of power. Regarding Arpaio, were you agreeing with my characterization but arguing he's an isolated case that doesn't represent the country as a whole? And does Trump being in the extreme mean you agree that he was wrong to pardon, and showed blatant disrespect to the rights of the people Arpaio hurt? And if this is your only comment when I twice stated why it isn't the case, then I'm afraid we're at an impasse and there's no sense in continuing. You can follow up the quote chain for his interjection when Zerocool and I discussed the civil rights of law-abiding US citizen neonazis. I disagree strongly with your framing and dismissal of my arguments. I don't think it's worth continuing to falsely generalize to other topics. PM if you still don't understand the quote chain and interjection (Civil rights discussion is a "Reddit meme" har har) BLM and Antifa aren't going away, so I'm positive we'll have plenty of opportunities to honestly talk about policing and African American citizens as part of current. On August 28 2017 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 28 2017 00:50 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Twice now you've deflected to some binary choice between BLM and Nazis. If you have no argument besides outright rejection, we're also not getting anywhere and should leave the back and forth as-is. You could answer GH last question. BLM or Nazis? 1 or 2? The fact that he feels thats a serious questions shows how much in bad faith GH argues. I don't know that it's in bad faith. What this has shown is that even given a hypothetical binary between BLM meeting their stated goals and Nazis meeting their stated goals, Danglars hasn't been able to definitively say "well, not the Nazis." Seriously. It's shouldn't be that much of a dilemma. If GH has been trying to demonstrate that Danglars will equivocate instead of placing himself against the goals of Nazis, GH has succeeded. Seriously Danglars. This shouldn't be hard. If you ended up in a situation where you were in a position to cause exactly one of BLM or Nazis to achieve their stated goals, which would you pick? A) BLM B) Nazis I have a suspicion that you're going to pick C) Argue why you think the question doesn't deserve an answer because it's a bad scenario. No. It's a hypothetical. Obviously it's not something that could really happen. But what I want to know is that if you were stuck in a position where you had to choose between supporting BLM or supporting Nazis, could you manage to say "Nazis are terrible, I guess I'm supporting BLM?"
Ahm, no. Danglars distanced himself more than once from Nazis. What you're trying to do is a "ha, gotcha" bullshit. My position for example is very well known, yet i wouldn't honour bullshit like that with an answer.
It's not even hypothetical. It's straight up a loaded question to either get a "ha gotcha" or, if he picks BLM, to further the discussion from a leftist viewpoint questioning every standpoint he makes from here on out.
Like it's literally that dumb, i don't actually understand why people would expect an answer to that.
edit: it's one of the very few things i'd agree on with Danglars.
|
On August 28 2017 12:00 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 11:22 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2017 11:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 28 2017 10:44 Danglars wrote:On August 28 2017 03:28 ChristianS wrote:On August 28 2017 00:50 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I also remember him saying that he doesn't think people who punch Nazis should be free from legal punishment. He just also isn't gonna start clutching his pearls when a Nazi gets punched, when meanwhile black people across the country are roughed up by cops on a daily basis. But I don't need to speak for GH, so let's focus on the latter bit of what you said here because I'm honestly a little confused about what you're saying. I read the bolded as you saying you don't think it's true that many (black) people's civil liberties are being systematically violated across the country. Is that what you're saying? GH is probably better informed than me on all the examples of this. Obviously many of the most flagrant examples are anecdotal, and it takes some work to extrapolate to a systemic issue. I'll try to put it in terms I think we can agree on. The relationship between policeman and citizen is a critical one in a civil society, and as it exists now, it is very much characterized by rule of man more than rule of law. A cop makes judgments about who to pull over, how to treat the person when they get pulled over, and whether to chsrge them with something if he finds any lawbreaking. In theory he can't charge them for something if they haven't broken the law, but in most places there are laws on the books specifically to give cops the power to arrest someone without having to find something illegal to arrest them for; "disturbing the peace" and "drunk and disorderly" laws are usually intentionally vague to give cops a lot of leeway. I don't think I have to explain to you why favoring rule of man over rule of law is problematic and leads to a lot of potential for abuse of power. When cops get to make judgment calls about when to enforce the law, racial bias inevitably creeps in. I have a lot of friends and acquaintances that have stories about getting caught by the cops with weed. All these have two things in common: 1) the cop always let them off, sometimes with a call to their parents or something, and 2) all these friends were white. Hell, one of them said the cop didn't even confiscate the weed. Given all this, it shouldn't surprise you that blacks are far more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession. And you shouldn't assume that's because blacks are more likely to be guilty; from what I've seen the evidence suggests it's used at similar rates across races. It's what conservatives are always warning us about: without rule of law, the system gets unevenly applied, creating unfair outcomes and lots of opportunities for abuse of power. Regarding Arpaio, were you agreeing with my characterization but arguing he's an isolated case that doesn't represent the country as a whole? And does Trump being in the extreme mean you agree that he was wrong to pardon, and showed blatant disrespect to the rights of the people Arpaio hurt? And if this is your only comment when I twice stated why it isn't the case, then I'm afraid we're at an impasse and there's no sense in continuing. You can follow up the quote chain for his interjection when Zerocool and I discussed the civil rights of law-abiding US citizen neonazis. I disagree strongly with your framing and dismissal of my arguments. I don't think it's worth continuing to falsely generalize to other topics. PM if you still don't understand the quote chain and interjection (Civil rights discussion is a "Reddit meme" har har) BLM and Antifa aren't going away, so I'm positive we'll have plenty of opportunities to honestly talk about policing and African American citizens as part of current. On August 28 2017 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 28 2017 00:50 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Twice now you've deflected to some binary choice between BLM and Nazis. If you have no argument besides outright rejection, we're also not getting anywhere and should leave the back and forth as-is. You could answer GH last question. BLM or Nazis? 1 or 2? The fact that he feels thats a serious questions shows how much in bad faith GH argues. I don't know that it's in bad faith. What this has shown is that even given a hypothetical binary between BLM meeting their stated goals and Nazis meeting their stated goals, Danglars hasn't been able to definitively say "well, not the Nazis." Seriously. It's shouldn't be that much of a dilemma. If GH has been trying to demonstrate that Danglars will equivocate instead of placing himself against the goals of Nazis, GH has succeeded. Seriously Danglars. This shouldn't be hard. If you ended up in a situation where you were in a position to cause exactly one of BLM or Nazis to achieve their stated goals, which would you pick? A) BLM B) Nazis I have a suspicion that you're going to pick C) Argue why you think the question doesn't deserve an answer because it's a bad scenario. No. It's a hypothetical. Obviously it's not something that could really happen. But what I want to know is that if you were stuck in a position where you had to choose between supporting BLM or supporting Nazis, could you manage to say "Nazis are terrible, I guess I'm supporting BLM?"
He lacks the basic respect to not assume the people he disagres with wants the nazies to win. You can't have a respectful discussion with people like that. This isn't xdaunt trying to defend most of a white supremists definition of the alt right this is someone argueing if a group of people deserves their civil rights if we disagree with their ideas.
GH isn't presenting it as a hypothetical he seriously doubted if the people he disagrees with on this forum would rather have the nazies win then BLM. Hes entirely serious that he thinks that there is a chance Xdaunt Danglers and I would rather have the nazies win then BLM.
|
Regarding the Berkeley rally, antifa should not have been there. There were no militant white supremacists. Anyone in antifa who wanted to protest that rally should have been there as just another peaceful protester. Any of them who get arrested deserve whatever they get convicted of.
That being said, I can understand the police not wanting to potentially start a riot by getting phyiscal or deploying tear gas. Also, given that police were apparently okay watching a white supremacist shoot at a black man, it shouldn't be surprising that police were willing to let antifa walk into a protest and harass the rally. I don't think either thing should have happened. In my opinion, police are making a mistake by moving towards a hands-off approach.
...Well, it's pretty easy to call that a bad idea when I've got no ideas for how they should manage personnel, funding, and equipment to solidly keep the sides separate.
|
You're putting up a very bad argument that you don't want it to be Nazis. It's as simple as that. I doubt GH would be that petty and bring it up as a "Ha, Gotcha" moment.
If you had to take away the civil liberties of one group, which would it be? BLM or Nazis? It's that simple. Just pick one. Don't skate. Don't deflect. Don't not answer. Pick one.
|
On August 28 2017 12:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
You're putting up a very bad argument that you don't want it to be Nazis. It's as simple as that. I doubt GH would be that petty and bring it up as a "Ha, Gotcha" moment.
If you had to take away the civil liberties of one group, which would it be? BLM or Nazis? It's that simple. Just pick one. Don't skate. Don't deflect. Don't not answer. Pick one.
It would be the nazies if I had no choice but the point is that we have a choice and we should have to take the liberties away from anyone. Its a "Ha, Gotcha" moment beacuse the answer hes looking for is neither which he would respond with "ha gotcha so you do support nazies".
Have at least the self respect to not assume the other person doesn't support nazies in the thread or there isn't a point for the thread to exist. I've long past decided not to respond to GH beacuse he admits he doesn't care about US politics and doesn't care about being relevant. But I respect you enough to discuss with you because I believe you are relevant to this thread.
|
I find a lot of arguments calling into question the character of the people in this thread who just want answers to questions. This is really black and white and yet a lot of people here get very defensive. I wonder why.
You have a choice. Why would it be nazis over BLM or why would it be BLM over nazis? You can validate your answer with a coherent response but you refuse to do so. You constantly avoid the questions by attacking the person asking sincerely. I think you argue in good faith a lot of the time Sermokala. But I begin to wonder when this or other issues related begin to pop up.
|
On August 28 2017 12:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I find a lot of arguments calling into question the character of the people in this thread who just want answers to questions. This is really black and white and yet a lot of people here get very defensive. I wonder why.
You have a choice. Why would it be nazis over BLM or why would it be BLM over nazis? You can validate your answer with a coherent response but you refuse to do so. You constantly avoid the questions by attacking the person asking sincerely. I think you argue in good faith a lot of the time Sermokala. But I begin to wonder when this or other issues related begin to pop up.
That's the point. There's no sincere answering, because if you assume that someone would say "Nazi", you're an idiot. Only a sincere question would deserve a sincere answer.
So don't act like you're genuinely asking out of honest interest, bullshit.
Let me ask you this though. Why did you pick up a rifle?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
