|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 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.
That question is a product of endless bad faith arguments eroding all faith in discussion until someone needed to confirm Nazis are still the worst.
|
On August 28 2017 12:34 Plansix 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. That question is a product of endless bad faith arguments eroding all faith in discussion until someone needed to confirm Nazis are still the worst.
That's rich coming from someone who got pushed for multiple pages to give a half arsed and half hearted condemning (condemnation?) towards left wing extremists, and made it clear he would never do that again. Hypocrite much i guess.
|
On August 28 2017 12:28 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +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?
I picked up a rifle because I was bored with my day to day life. It was a dead end. I didn't understand until after that I was serving something larger than myself and I started to enjoy being in the USMC. I wouldn't do it again, because it's 90% hurry up and wait and endless bureaucratic bullshit.
And while I swore to defend the right to free speech, I won't hesitate to bust someone's ass who deserves it.
I genuinely want to know what people think and why they think that. My best friend used to think Hitler was right in what he did until I sat him down and educated him. I'm black. He's white (German-American heritage). I'm also his son's Godfather. Questioning me on where my loyalties lie won't get you anywhere.
|
On August 28 2017 12:36 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 12:34 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. That question is a product of endless bad faith arguments eroding all faith in discussion until someone needed to confirm Nazis are still the worst. That's rich coming from someone who got pushed for multiple pages to give a half arsed and half hearted condemning (condemnation?) towards left wing extremists, and made it clear he would never do that again. Hypocrite much i guess.
I have very conflicted feelings about the prevalence of Nazis and white supremacists in politics right now. Including a very long talk with my brother where he was convinced that the rally wasn't all that bad. And he only half halfheartedly admitted they were Nazis after being forced to watch the Vice. And to be abundantly clear for those who are not aware, my brother is in the army and has about 30 people under his command.
So yeah, I have mixed feelings about the freedom to spread their ideas freely. I'm not convinced our nation is smart enough to elect people that will reject the support of these people. Talk to me 5 years ago, I would have said they can speak and violence is wrong. I don't have that conviction any more.
Edit: And I don't think that we are going to become Nazi Germany. There are 1000 terrible steps between here and there.
|
On August 28 2017 12:08 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 12:00 Kyadytim wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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.
Part of the issue here is that Danglars and xDaunt both, to some extent, use the right wing rhetoric about the Black Lives Matter movement, black on black violence, root causes of disproportionately high black incarceration rates, etc. A short time ago, one of them (I think it was Danglars) was arguing with GH about whether more black people per capita were in prison because they committed more crimes or because of racist policing.
I guess what I'm saying is that to the extent I follow this thread, one or both of them have used basically every sanitized for the general public white supremacist talking point about black people. It's pretty much always the fault of black people, not the system or lingering effects of basically a century of racist white people trying to keep black people from getting any sort of political power. If it quacks like a white supremacist....
So yeah, I also think that there is a chance that there might be some people with racist beliefs in this thread. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they're not, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Danglars has, on some level, realized that white supremacist policies are unlikely to negatively impact him and reasonably likely to benefit him and therefore has trouble choosing the upheaval of Back Lives Matter over white supremacists.
It's also somewhat frustrating on a personal level that somehow he isn't willing to say that a reform of the police system is clearly a superior concept to white supremacism. GH isn't even asking him to say that the BLM movement is good, just that Nazis are worse, and Danglars is tying himself in knots to avoid it. I don't know if he's trolling GH, trying to avoid admitting that anything said by people who disagree with him might be correct, or what, but he's very dedicated to never taking a clear position on anything. The only solid plank in his rhetorical platform is that the other side is wrong. It makes me want to push him into declaring some clear positions that he has to actually justify, and "nazis are worse than BLM" is the softest possible softball.
It's probably just Danglars being Danglars, but his commitment to refusing to say that nazis are worse than BLM makes it look like he disagrees about nazis being worse than BLM but doesn't want to admit to it. That keeps the possibility open that he's a racist. He could easily settle this by making the declaration that nazis are worse than BLM. He doesn't. As I said above, it may just be that he refuses to give any sort of victory to people arguing with him. It may be that he doesn't want to state any beliefs that he might then be called on if he contradicts at a later date. Regardless, his steadfast refusal to answer resembles a politician trying to change the subject off of something that they know isn't popular with their constituents.
|
On August 28 2017 12:46 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 12:08 Sermokala wrote:On August 28 2017 12:00 Kyadytim wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. Part of the issue here is that Danglars and xDaunt both, to some extent, use the right wing rhetoric about the Black Lives Matter movement, black on black violence, root causes of disproportionately high black incarceration rates, etc. A short time ago, one of them (I think it was Danglars) was arguing with GH about whether more black people per capita were in prison because they committed more crimes or because of racist policing. I guess what I'm saying is that to the extent I follow this thread, one or both of them have used basically every sanitized for the general public white supremacist talking point about black people. It's pretty much always the fault of black people, not the system or lingering effects of basically a century of racist white people trying to keep black people from getting any sort of political power. If it quacks like a white supremacist.... So yeah, I also think that there is a chance that there might be some people with racist beliefs in this thread. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they're not, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Danglars has, on some level, realized that white supremacist policies are unlikely to negatively impact him and reasonably likely to benefit him and therefore has trouble choosing the upheaval of Back Lives Matter over white supremacists. It's also somewhat frustrating on a personal level that somehow he isn't willing to say that a reform of the police system is clearly a superior concept to white supremacism. GH isn't even asking him to say that the BLM movement is good, just that Nazis are worse, and Danglars is tying himself in knots to avoid it. I don't know if he's trolling GH, trying to avoid admitting that anything said by people who disagree with him might be correct, or what, but he's very dedicated to never taking a clear position on anything. The only solid plank in his rhetorical platform is that the other side is wrong. It makes me want to push him into declaring some clear positions that he has to actually justify, and "nazis are worse than BLM" is the softest possible softball. It's probably just Danglars being Danglars, but his commitment to refusing to say that nazis are worse than BLM makes it look like he disagrees about nazis being worse than BLM but doesn't want to admit to it. That keeps the possibility open that he's a racist. He could easily settle this by making the declaration that nazis are worse than BLM. He doesn't. As I said above, it may just be that he refuses to give any sort of victory to people arguing with him. It may be that he doesn't want to state any beliefs that he might then be called on if he contradicts at a later date. Regardless, his steadfast refusal to answer resembles a politician trying to change the subject off of something that they know isn't popular with their constituents.
I'm with him and supporting his right to not have to make the deceleration that nazies are worse then BLM. I'm not asking GH to disavow ANTIFA or the people who loot and rob in BLM events. I'm not assuming that BLM would rather police die then black people. I'm not seriously asking leftists in the thread if they'd support either conservatives in america or Maoists from china or any other collectivists communists. No one asks pro choice people if they would support abortions based on people finding out the gender of the child. These things don't happen because it would be a shitty thing to do and would be going well over the line of decency.
You should assume at the least that the person you're arguing with is not a shitty person or you shouldn't be shitting up the thread arguing with them.
|
I picked up a rifle because I was bored with my day to day life. It was a dead end. I didn't understand until after that I was serving something larger than myself and I started to enjoy being in the USMC. I wouldn't do it again, because it's 90% hurry up and wait and endless bureaucratic bullshit.
And while I swore to defend the right to free speech, I won't hesitate to bust someone's ass who deserves it.
I genuinely want to know what people think and why they think that. My best friend used to think Hitler was right in what he did until I sat him down and educated him. I'm black. He's white (German-American heritage). I'm also his son's Godfather. Questioning me on where my loyalties lie won't get you anywhere.
I don't give a shit about your loyalties. I find it funny that you had to edit the right to free speech part in, because that literally was the first thing that sprung to my mind when i saw that loaded question. I got shot at to defend the rights of all people in the US. I've seen people die for them. So the person who should get his ass busted, is you. Because i really don't think that any of the grunts i worked with would agree if you go over and tell them that, you know, the entire dying for country and values, really is just speech and white noise.
There's no "well maybe them a little bit less" free speech. That's one of the very few good things about the US (although you handle it mostly stupid). Every soldier i've met (until now) picked up a rifle actually believing in the american values.
You're not even asking "who should win". You're literally asking as to "whos rights should we strip", buster.
I have very conflicted feelings about the prevalence of Nazis and white supremacists in politics right now. Including a very long talk with my brother where he was convinced that the rally wasn't all that bad. And he only half halfheartedly admitted they were Nazis after being forced to watch the Vice. And to be abundantly clear for those who are not aware, my brother is in the army and has about 30 people under his command.
So yeah, I have mixed feelings about the freedom to spread their ideas freely. I'm not convinced our nation is smart enough to elect people that will reject the support of these people. Talk to me 5 years ago, I would have said they can speak and violence is wrong. I don't have that conviction any more.
Again. That you voted a racist into office is on you. Not on the american values. How was that "feeling" when Obama was in office? Why wasn't it as big a problem as it is now, why were they mostly hiding, even though they legally could've had a rally every week?
The freedom to spread their ideas is not the problem. It's the fact that you couldn't have voted a worse person into office, that's the problem.
Sidenote, i'm surprised about your brother, thought he would've caught that on quicker. Seems like i've met the creme de la creme of US soldiers in the field, not representative. Might be me then.
|
Where on earth do you get the idea that p6 would vote for trump? White supremacists are always mostly hideing. They have rallys a lot every now and then and they useualy get counter protested and life goes on. charlottesville is a thing beacuse someone died and the president didn't blame them for the violence like any decent person would.
|
On August 28 2017 13:02 Sermokala wrote:
Where on earth do you get the idea that p6 would vote for trump? White supremacists are always mostly hideing. They have rallys a lot every now and then and they useualy get counter protested and life goes on. charlottesville is a thing beacuse someone died and the president didn't blame them for the violence like any decent person would.
Not he personally. You as in "america". Obviously.
edit: and it's not like we didn't see what happened in charlottesville coming from a mile away, after the campaign Trump ran. Lets not act like this is purely because he didn't "condemn properly".
The fucking white supremacists even made clear why they voted for him, it doesn't really get much clearer.
|
On August 28 2017 12:58 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +I picked up a rifle because I was bored with my day to day life. It was a dead end. I didn't understand until after that I was serving something larger than myself and I started to enjoy being in the USMC. I wouldn't do it again, because it's 90% hurry up and wait and endless bureaucratic bullshit.
And while I swore to defend the right to free speech, I won't hesitate to bust someone's ass who deserves it.
I genuinely want to know what people think and why they think that. My best friend used to think Hitler was right in what he did until I sat him down and educated him. I'm black. He's white (German-American heritage). I'm also his son's Godfather. Questioning me on where my loyalties lie won't get you anywhere. I don't give a shit about your loyalties. I find it funny that you had to edit the right to free speech part in, because that literally was the first thing that sprung to my mind when i saw that loaded question. I got shot at to defend the rights of all people in the US. I've seen people die for them. So the person who should get his ass busted, is you. Because i really don't think that any of the grunts i worked with would agree if you go over and tell them that, you know, the entire dying for country and values, really is just speech and white noise. There's no "well maybe them a little bit less" free speech. That's one of the very few good things about the US (although you handle it mostly stupid). Every soldier i've met (until now) picked up a rifle actually believing in the american values. You're not even asking "who should win". You're literally asking as to "whos rights should we strip", buster. Show nested quote +I have very conflicted feelings about the prevalence of Nazis and white supremacists in politics right now. Including a very long talk with my brother where he was convinced that the rally wasn't all that bad. And he only half halfheartedly admitted they were Nazis after being forced to watch the Vice. And to be abundantly clear for those who are not aware, my brother is in the army and has about 30 people under his command.
So yeah, I have mixed feelings about the freedom to spread their ideas freely. I'm not convinced our nation is smart enough to elect people that will reject the support of these people. Talk to me 5 years ago, I would have said they can speak and violence is wrong. I don't have that conviction any more. Again. That you voted a racist into office is on you. Not on the american values. How was that "feeling" when Obama was in office? Why wasn't it as big a problem as it is now, why were they mostly hiding, even though they legally could've had a rally every week? The freedom to spread their ideas is not the problem. It's the fact that you couldn't have voted a worse person into office, that's the problem. Sidenote, i'm surprised about your brother, thought he would've caught that on quicker.
I shouldn't have had to edit that part in, but obviously, it was needed. Listen. People get caught up in their flag and country. People are blinded by it. People will do terrible shit for flag and country (home and hearth).
You didn't get shot at to defend the US. You got shot at because your country sent you to get shot at. You have to separate that. If this was a typical war, fighting typical enemies, then yes, your claim would be valid. But we all were fighting an asymmetrical war. There was no clearly defined enemy. You did what you did because you were ordered to. Please understand that.
I will gladly give my home address to anyone who thinks they are froggy enough to come and bust my ass. I doubt there would be many takers. The point of that is that if you are in the wrong, you're in the wrong. You fucked up, you fucked up. You deal with the consequences. I pledged my allegiance and I upheld it faithfully. I would have traded anything to be where you went when I had the mobility to do so (as we've discussed in PM before).
I'll put it this way: There are those who sympathize with Nazis and those that don't. There are those that want to protect the civil liberties for all, and those that don't. I want to protect the civil liberties for all, but if Nazis don't get that right, then too fucking bad.
EDIT: America is not the greatest country on earth. We're the most "free" because of the constitution we drafted. You met some gung-ho white boys wanting to kill brown skinned people over in the shit. It's that fucking simple. So don't come fucking preaching to me about what America is or isn't because you shared a bunker or tank together. I live with the motherfuckers day in and day out. Let me guess that most of the fucks you met were from Texas?
|
Hmm. Something that's probably worth bringing up here is branding. Both right and left do it. It's why the abortion argument is between pro life and pro choice. No one is stupid enough to try to encourage people to be anti-life or anti-choice. At the same time, pro-lifers try to cast pro-choice people as anti-life, and pro-choice people try to cast pro-life people as anti-choice. I'm personally of the opinion that the right is a bit better at this than the left. Why the fuck aren't abortion rights activists pro-freedom?
Anyway, where this is relevant to the conversation at hand is that the alt-right is having all of these rallies. Charlottesville was nominally about the statue. Since then, they've tried to have a number of "free speech" rallies, because that forces people protesting against the white supremacists to deflect accusations that they're opposed to free speech. That's branding in action. White supremacists brand their rallies as free speech rallies, and exercise that free speech by pushing hate, racist ideas about white superiority, a white ethnostate, and genocide or whatever peaceful alternative they have to get rid of all the non-white people.
Unfortunately, branding can work both ways. White supremacists have used "free speech" as a brand for white supremacist rallies, but it's had a side effect. People on the left are now justified in looking at anyone on the right talking about protecting free speech as trying to engage in the same sort of branding. White supremacists have sort of poisoned the well of defending free speech for everyone else on the right, because people opposed to Nazis are now justified in saying "You're just using that phrase to try to make people who oppose Nazis look bad. You aren't really talking about free speech, you're talking about white supremacy."
|
On August 28 2017 13:05 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 13:02 Sermokala wrote:
Where on earth do you get the idea that p6 would vote for trump? White supremacists are always mostly hideing. They have rallys a lot every now and then and they useualy get counter protested and life goes on. charlottesville is a thing beacuse someone died and the president didn't blame them for the violence like any decent person would. Not he personally. You as in "america". Obviously. edit: and it's not like we didn't see what happened in charlottesville coming from a mile away, after the campaign Trump ran. Lets not act like this is purely because he didn't "condemn properly". The fucking white supremacists even made clear why they voted for him, it doesn't really get much clearer.
Thats shit and you know it. The whole country didn't vote him into office he lost the popular vote so at the least more people didn't vote him into office than did. Hes our president but we don't all share responsibility for him being our president.
|
Now, back on topic with Danglars and GreenHorizons. Danglars is talking really passionately about free speech. GH is reasonably suspicious that free speech is being used here as a code for white supremacy. He wants Danglars to make a clear statement that he's actually talking about free speech as a right by expressing a similar passion for the civil rights of black people. Danglars is doing everything he can to avoid making that statement. At this point, it is getting to be reasonable to think that Danglars might actually mean systemic white supremacy instead of free speech when he says he stands in support of free speech, because he's using free speech the same way the white supremacists do. If he doesn't mean it in the same way, well, it sucks for him that white supremacists poisoned the well for him, but it's on him to separate himself from them, not on the rest of us to give him the benefit of the doubt that he just happens to be talking like a white supremacist by accident.
To be clear, I really don't think Danglars is a white supremacist at the moment. But if he can't be bothered to use language that isn't white supremacist language, why should those of us who disagree with most of Danglars politics and also disagree with white supremacists keep making an effort to try to separate Danglar's meanings from what white supremacists would mean with the same phrasing?
|
On August 28 2017 12:58 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +I have very conflicted feelings about the prevalence of Nazis and white supremacists in politics right now. Including a very long talk with my brother where he was convinced that the rally wasn't all that bad. And he only half halfheartedly admitted they were Nazis after being forced to watch the Vice. And to be abundantly clear for those who are not aware, my brother is in the army and has about 30 people under his command.
So yeah, I have mixed feelings about the freedom to spread their ideas freely. I'm not convinced our nation is smart enough to elect people that will reject the support of these people. Talk to me 5 years ago, I would have said they can speak and violence is wrong. I don't have that conviction any more. Again. That you voted a racist into office is on you. Not on the american values. How was that "feeling" when Obama was in office? Why wasn't it as big a problem as it is now, why were they mostly hiding, even though they legally could've had a rally every week? The freedom to spread their ideas is not the problem. It's the fact that you couldn't have voted a worse person into office, that's the problem. Sidenote, i'm surprised about your brother, thought he would've caught that on quicker. Seems like i've met the creme de la creme of US soldiers in the field, not representative. Might be me then.
Your surprises pales in comparison to mine. Andwho is in office is on me and the country. And that is the part a lot of people are missing. This is what people voted for. This strife is what people were sold and they were cool with it. I hear it from my brother, how the country should come together, but only on the terms he is comfortable with.
Divided countries fight and we didn't know how divided we were until recently. So now we know and all that is left is the conflict. And that conflict isn't always going to be peaceful.
Edit: The reason people are taking you to task in the thread is that you came off as an arrogant kid from the UK wagging his finger at us. Which might have been your goal, I don't know.
|
On August 28 2017 12:55 Sermokala wrote:You should assume at the least that the person you're arguing with is not a shitty person or you shouldn't be shitting up the thread arguing with them.
There's a serious problem with this line of thinking. If we had an actual Nazi in here who was just good enough at writing to never say anything banworthy, by your logic no one should argue with him because he's a shitty person.
The effect of that is that Nazi ideas fill up the public space and have the appearance of general acceptance. I'm pretty sure there's quotes in the last 20 to 30 pages from people who were literally in Nazi Germany while the Nazis took over who said that people should have opposed the Nazi's ideas earlier and more vocally.
Yes, it makes the whole thread full of people arguing. The alternative is that the thread is full of shitty people spouting shitty ideas and posts by people who agree with those shitty ideas. Either way the thread is shit, but at least if we argue with the shitty people with shitty ideas they don't get to make their shit look desirable.
|
On August 28 2017 13:14 Kyadytim wrote:
Now, back on topic with Danglars and GreenHorizons. Danglars is talking really passionately about free speech. GH is reasonably suspicious that free speech is being used here as a code for white supremacy. He wants Danglars to make a clear statement that he's actually talking about free speech as a right by expressing a similar passion for the civil rights of black people. Danglars is doing everything he can to avoid making that statement. At this point, it is getting to be reasonable to think that Danglars might actually mean systemic white supremacy instead of free speech when he says he stands in support of free speech, because he's using free speech the same way the white supremacists do. If he doesn't mean it in the same way, well, it sucks for him that white supremacists poisoned the well for him, but it's on him to separate himself from them, not on the rest of us to give him the benefit of the doubt that he just happens to be talking like a white supremacist by accident.
To be clear, I really don't think Danglars is a white supremacist at the moment. But if he can't be bothered to use language that isn't white supremacist language, why should those of us who disagree with most of Danglars politics and also disagree with white supremacists keep making an effort to try to separate Danglar's meanings from what white supremacists would mean with the same phrasing?
Don't be obtuse. There are a hundred ways GH could have asked danglers to separate himself from White supremacists or he could just be a decent person and assume that hes not. He purposely proposed that he wasn't sure if Danglers wanted the nazies to win or not. Its on everyone to not assume the people you don't agree with are not literally Hitler in order to have a decent conversation. Thats the basis of what people call "arguing in good faith". And this wasn't just Danglers he was throwing me and xdaunt into the "basket of deplorables" that he wasn't sure weren't nazies.
GH literaly expressed doubt that the people arguing in support of free speech didn't want the nazies to win. If thats not over the line then there is no line.
On August 28 2017 13:20 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 12:55 Sermokala wrote:You should assume at the least that the person you're arguing with is not a shitty person or you shouldn't be shitting up the thread arguing with them. There's a serious problem with this line of thinking. If we had an actual Nazi in here who was just good enough at writing to never say anything banworthy, by your logic no one should argue with him because he's a shitty person. The effect of that is that Nazi ideas fill up the public space and have the appearance of general acceptance. I'm pretty sure there's quotes in the last 20 to 30 pages from people who were literally in Nazi Germany while the Nazis took over who said that people should have opposed the Nazi's ideas earlier and more vocally. Yes, it makes the whole thread full of people arguing. The alternative is that the thread is full of shitty people spouting shitty ideas and posts by people who agree with those shitty ideas. Either way the thread is shit, but at least if we argue with the shitty people with shitty ideas they don't get to make their shit look desirable.
If we had an actual nazi in the thread he would get banned and we'd move on. Happened before will happen again. They never last long and they're never smart enough to be able to hide themselves like that.
|
On August 28 2017 12:07 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 12:00 Kyadytim wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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 12:28 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +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?
It's heartening to find this common ground about bullshit questions and the reason why.
On August 28 2017 13:14 Kyadytim wrote:
Now, back on topic with Danglars and GreenHorizons. Danglars is talking really passionately about free speech. GH is reasonably suspicious that free speech is being used here as a code for white supremacy. He wants Danglars to make a clear statement that he's actually talking about free speech as a right by expressing a similar passion for the civil rights of black people. Danglars is doing everything he can to avoid making that statement. At this point, it is getting to be reasonable to think that Danglars might actually mean systemic white supremacy instead of free speech when he says he stands in support of free speech, because he's using free speech the same way the white supremacists do. If he doesn't mean it in the same way, well, it sucks for him that white supremacists poisoned the well for him, but it's on him to separate himself from them, not on the rest of us to give him the benefit of the doubt that he just happens to be talking like a white supremacist by accident.
To be clear, I really don't think Danglars is a white supremacist at the moment. But if he can't be bothered to use language that isn't white supremacist language, why should those of us who disagree with most of Danglars politics and also disagree with white supremacists keep making an effort to try to separate Danglar's meanings from what white supremacists would mean with the same phrasing?
You don't really think I'm a white supremacist at the moment.
But you say somebody's reasonably suspicious that I'm using free speech as coded language and I can't be bothered to use language that isn't white supremacist language.
If you keep spouting bullshit like the way I talk is in code, you guarantee that nobody of any self respect will answer you.
|
That is the very definition of Bannon and Trump - "Not all that bothered by white supremacists"
|
On August 28 2017 13:22 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 13:14 Kyadytim wrote:
Now, back on topic with Danglars and GreenHorizons. Danglars is talking really passionately about free speech. GH is reasonably suspicious that free speech is being used here as a code for white supremacy. He wants Danglars to make a clear statement that he's actually talking about free speech as a right by expressing a similar passion for the civil rights of black people. Danglars is doing everything he can to avoid making that statement. At this point, it is getting to be reasonable to think that Danglars might actually mean systemic white supremacy instead of free speech when he says he stands in support of free speech, because he's using free speech the same way the white supremacists do. If he doesn't mean it in the same way, well, it sucks for him that white supremacists poisoned the well for him, but it's on him to separate himself from them, not on the rest of us to give him the benefit of the doubt that he just happens to be talking like a white supremacist by accident.
To be clear, I really don't think Danglars is a white supremacist at the moment. But if he can't be bothered to use language that isn't white supremacist language, why should those of us who disagree with most of Danglars politics and also disagree with white supremacists keep making an effort to try to separate Danglar's meanings from what white supremacists would mean with the same phrasing? Don't be obtuse. There are a hundred ways GH could have asked danglers to separate himself from White supremacists or he could just be a decent person and assume that hes not. He purposely proposed that he wasn't sure if Danglers wanted the nazies to win or not. Its on everyone to not assume the people you don't agree with are not literally Hitler in order to have a decent conversation. Thats the basis of what people call "arguing in good faith". And this wasn't just Danglers he was throwing me and xdaunt into the "basket of deplorables" that he wasn't sure weren't nazies. GH literaly expressed doubt that the people arguing in support of free speech didn't want the nazies to win. If thats not over the line then there is no line. Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 13:20 Kyadytim wrote:On August 28 2017 12:55 Sermokala wrote:You should assume at the least that the person you're arguing with is not a shitty person or you shouldn't be shitting up the thread arguing with them. There's a serious problem with this line of thinking. If we had an actual Nazi in here who was just good enough at writing to never say anything banworthy, by your logic no one should argue with him because he's a shitty person. The effect of that is that Nazi ideas fill up the public space and have the appearance of general acceptance. I'm pretty sure there's quotes in the last 20 to 30 pages from people who were literally in Nazi Germany while the Nazis took over who said that people should have opposed the Nazi's ideas earlier and more vocally. Yes, it makes the whole thread full of people arguing. The alternative is that the thread is full of shitty people spouting shitty ideas and posts by people who agree with those shitty ideas. Either way the thread is shit, but at least if we argue with the shitty people with shitty ideas they don't get to make their shit look desirable. If we had an actual nazi in the thread he would get banned and we'd move on. Happened before will happen again. They never last long and they're never smart enough to be able to hide themselves like that.
That's the thing though. Your last sentence. We won't see any actual nazi. But a white supremacist? KKK sympathizer? Sure we could see those. And we still could.
|
On August 28 2017 13:22 Sermokala wrote:
If we had an actual nazi in the thread he would get banned and we'd move on. Happened before will happen again. They never last long and they're never smart enough to be able to hide themselves like that.
McCarthy didn't get into power by being McCarthy as we know him from history. The Nazis that were members of TL existed on these forums for a long time before they finally jumped the shark. And they dont' always jump the shark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
