|
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 November 29 2017 01:53 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 01:27 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 01:17 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 00:28 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2017 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2017 10:34 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2017 08:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Wow, that Danglars diatribe about how sad it is people wont be his friend was intense.
ProTip: Don't want people to treat you like a racist douche, don't act like a racist douche, support a racist douche, then complain when people don't want to hang out with a racist douche.
It actually kind of blows my mind people think there's nothing friendship ruining about supporting Trump. He's a terrible human being, beyond his policy, Trump is actually a trash person all around.
If you're friends with Cernovich, you aren't my friend. If you support Trump you aren't my friend. Let me be clear, this isn't a personal thing, this is a "regardless of how much I try to make you my friend, you can't be my friend and be friends with Cernovich, they are mutually exclusive" thing.
You are bad at choosing friends if your friend can also support the destruction of you and/or your family's life. And sure you can call them "friend" but you obviously wouldn't understand the intent of the term.
That doesn't mean I couldn't have a beer with Danglars, just means it would probably end with me punching him in the throat if he tried to talk politics. I would never be foolish enough to consider him a friend either. Ouch. I thought you were more civilized than to presume a political discussion would turn to blows. But yes, we've heard your defense of screaming racist at everything because everything is racist before. Well we have mutual combat laws here so I figured it would go something like you say something repugnant, I say you can't say that, you say you can, I challenge you to combat to settle whether you can say it in my presence or not, you don't like those choices and object. I assure you your choices are 1. not say it 2.fight 3. get ostrasized and not be a part of the conversation. You pick fight and get punched in the throat. I suppose you could just walk away or stop, but you seem far too stubborn to do something like that. Seems perfectly civilized to me, but you also can't tell the difference between everything being racist and racism being a part of pretty much everything in this country so we clearly have trouble agreeing on the meaning of words. Your evaluation of what’s repugnant lol. You’re way too willing to settle things with violence for me. Go find a police officer or something to get your rocks off. You’ve always seen racism in everything and I don’t expect it to change soon. It's pretty simple really. We both see a Nazi advocating for my genocide I go to punch him, you defend his right to advocate genocide, and get punched too. You act like your positions aren't antithetical to polite discourse on their face. You seem to think you're entitled to the floor to say whatever you want, well, you can't say fire in a crowded theater and you can't advocate for my genocide in my presence. You want to think that makes me the uncivilized one, you go right ahead. I do have to give you points for the clever "Kill yourself" line you slipped in there though. First amendment free speech rights, who needs them? I should frame those first two sentences. But don’t worry, bro, if they shout to start lynching blacks in such and such neighborhood, that’s inciting imminent unlawful activity. I won’t let your base stupidity on the free speech rights of citizens interfere with the historical crossing of the line. You wish everybody thought like you, but they don’t. If you’re perpetually aggrieved, and say that gives you the right to punch someone talking politics, you construct your own law. Just excuse your own mischief. Here’s a thought: If you’re sharing beers and a political topic comes up, and you’re willing to punch him or her over it, just tell them to not discuss politics. It’ll work out better for both, and you get the bonus of not appearing to be a man itching for a fight. Given your tendency to call conservatives here advocates of white supremacy, and topics not unique to the black community expose white fragility, you’re just telling everyone to expect violence for their politics. And anyone not in full agreement with your political theory will have the good sense to stay away from those threats. You're sitting here defending advocating genocide on the principle that it will take too long to get from where we are today to actually committing genocide without a shred of irony. As for the rest, I already said that in the first place... But in reality I have friends with wildly different politics. I'm the leftiest though. They run all the way to "voted for Trump" you seem not to appreciate how absurd the ground you're standing on is as displayed by the first part. You're sitting here unaware that intruding on the free speech rights of some imperils the free speech rights of all. And then you make the absurd leap that neonazis protected when they do their stupid marches is one short step to "actually committing genocide." We have laws. You can say what you like politically with great freedom. You can't start killing people based on skin color. These laws have held up thus far. I'm glad you haven't put your stated rules for socking people into practice with your friend group. You seem confused. No one but genocidal tool's speech is in danger if by some miracle punching Nazi's caught on, even then, I'm under no disillusion that white America is going to let that be legal. Your and everyone else's first amendment right to advocate my genocide is safe, fret not. What isn't safe, is presuming the law is going to protect you from getting punched if you advocate for my genocide in my presence. If my friends said some of the ignorant stuff you said they'd get punched too. Lucky for me, my friends aren't that foolish. Plus they can all fight and I like them, so we tend to keep it light on the rare occasion we do have to settle something. Since you didn't answer my previous PM, is it safe to gather that you perceive the shrouding of statues as a greater and more imminent threat than white supremacy and racism in this country? Yeah I'm quite curious what exactly Danglars expects to be different? There's a societal and legal cost to punching someone (Nazi or not). If people are willing to incur that cost than people are going to get punched. I guess I'm curious which cost (societal or legal) Danglars think should be increased since he seems bent on having genocide advocators not punched.
I'll make it easy for you, Logo.
It's pretty simple really. We both see a Nazi advocating for my genocide I go to punch him, you defend his right to advocate genocide, and get punched too.
Is this a pretty good rule to live by?
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 29 2017 02:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I had this conversation with Danglars before. He agreed that white supremacy marching is an absolute right and shrouding of statues is a slippery slope that must not be crossed and should not be a political right. Then he got confused when he reread my post that I view this as hypocritical and accused me for editting my posts (again), even though it was the exact same post which he quoted. And everybody forgets that they drew the line at statues of confederate war generals, only to slip on down to any founding father who owned slaves. Trump was damn right. Admitting when he's right gives you more credibility to tell apart when he's wrong. I'm interpreting this as a yes. I hope this helps anyone who thought Danglars was operating from a reasonable position on this stuff.
I'm still not entirely sure why condemning founding fathers for owning other people is crossing a line, or why that's a betrayal of a line that was apparently drawn.
It's not like they didn't know that one day people might get all judgey about the whole owning people thing. A lot of people at the time were pretty judgey about owning people. Hell, I'm pretty sure their slaves would have been happy to explain the immorality of slavery, had they taken the time to ask.
|
On November 29 2017 02:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 01:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:
By all historical accounts, if you're trying to stop genocide when people are already being killed, you're already far too late.
The mass murdering starts when groups and ideologies have the spread and influence, not before. And all you have to do is march in the streets with your pathetic band and everybody sees the appeal of genocide! (Maybe that happens in fiction books you read? I really don't know where you get this.)
In your eyes, how did Nazi ideology go from some racist dudes being angry to being Germany's government?
|
On November 29 2017 02:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 01:53 Logo wrote:On November 29 2017 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 01:27 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 01:17 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 00:28 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2017 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2017 10:34 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Ouch. I thought you were more civilized than to presume a political discussion would turn to blows.
But yes, we've heard your defense of screaming racist at everything because everything is racist before. Well we have mutual combat laws here so I figured it would go something like you say something repugnant, I say you can't say that, you say you can, I challenge you to combat to settle whether you can say it in my presence or not, you don't like those choices and object. I assure you your choices are 1. not say it 2.fight 3. get ostrasized and not be a part of the conversation. You pick fight and get punched in the throat. I suppose you could just walk away or stop, but you seem far too stubborn to do something like that. Seems perfectly civilized to me, but you also can't tell the difference between everything being racist and racism being a part of pretty much everything in this country so we clearly have trouble agreeing on the meaning of words. Your evaluation of what’s repugnant lol. You’re way too willing to settle things with violence for me. Go find a police officer or something to get your rocks off. You’ve always seen racism in everything and I don’t expect it to change soon. It's pretty simple really. We both see a Nazi advocating for my genocide I go to punch him, you defend his right to advocate genocide, and get punched too. You act like your positions aren't antithetical to polite discourse on their face. You seem to think you're entitled to the floor to say whatever you want, well, you can't say fire in a crowded theater and you can't advocate for my genocide in my presence. You want to think that makes me the uncivilized one, you go right ahead. I do have to give you points for the clever "Kill yourself" line you slipped in there though. First amendment free speech rights, who needs them? I should frame those first two sentences. But don’t worry, bro, if they shout to start lynching blacks in such and such neighborhood, that’s inciting imminent unlawful activity. I won’t let your base stupidity on the free speech rights of citizens interfere with the historical crossing of the line. You wish everybody thought like you, but they don’t. If you’re perpetually aggrieved, and say that gives you the right to punch someone talking politics, you construct your own law. Just excuse your own mischief. Here’s a thought: If you’re sharing beers and a political topic comes up, and you’re willing to punch him or her over it, just tell them to not discuss politics. It’ll work out better for both, and you get the bonus of not appearing to be a man itching for a fight. Given your tendency to call conservatives here advocates of white supremacy, and topics not unique to the black community expose white fragility, you’re just telling everyone to expect violence for their politics. And anyone not in full agreement with your political theory will have the good sense to stay away from those threats. You're sitting here defending advocating genocide on the principle that it will take too long to get from where we are today to actually committing genocide without a shred of irony. As for the rest, I already said that in the first place... But in reality I have friends with wildly different politics. I'm the leftiest though. They run all the way to "voted for Trump" you seem not to appreciate how absurd the ground you're standing on is as displayed by the first part. You're sitting here unaware that intruding on the free speech rights of some imperils the free speech rights of all. And then you make the absurd leap that neonazis protected when they do their stupid marches is one short step to "actually committing genocide." We have laws. You can say what you like politically with great freedom. You can't start killing people based on skin color. These laws have held up thus far. I'm glad you haven't put your stated rules for socking people into practice with your friend group. You seem confused. No one but genocidal tool's speech is in danger if by some miracle punching Nazi's caught on, even then, I'm under no disillusion that white America is going to let that be legal. Your and everyone else's first amendment right to advocate my genocide is safe, fret not. What isn't safe, is presuming the law is going to protect you from getting punched if you advocate for my genocide in my presence. If my friends said some of the ignorant stuff you said they'd get punched too. Lucky for me, my friends aren't that foolish. Plus they can all fight and I like them, so we tend to keep it light on the rare occasion we do have to settle something. Since you didn't answer my previous PM, is it safe to gather that you perceive the shrouding of statues as a greater and more imminent threat than white supremacy and racism in this country? Yeah I'm quite curious what exactly Danglars expects to be different? There's a societal and legal cost to punching someone (Nazi or not). If people are willing to incur that cost than people are going to get punched. I guess I'm curious which cost (societal or legal) Danglars think should be increased since he seems bent on having genocide advocators not punched. I'll make it easy for you, Logo. Show nested quote +It's pretty simple really. We both see a Nazi advocating for my genocide I go to punch him, you defend his right to advocate genocide, and get punched too. Is this a pretty good rule to live by?
That's not an answer to my question. If GH is willing to face the repercussions for that action he's willing to face the repercussions. What are you proposing should be different? If all you have to offer is, "GH shouldn't think like that" you're not really offering anything at all.
|
On November 29 2017 02:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 01:27 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 01:17 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 00:28 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2017 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2017 10:34 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2017 08:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Wow, that Danglars diatribe about how sad it is people wont be his friend was intense.
ProTip: Don't want people to treat you like a racist douche, don't act like a racist douche, support a racist douche, then complain when people don't want to hang out with a racist douche.
It actually kind of blows my mind people think there's nothing friendship ruining about supporting Trump. He's a terrible human being, beyond his policy, Trump is actually a trash person all around.
If you're friends with Cernovich, you aren't my friend. If you support Trump you aren't my friend. Let me be clear, this isn't a personal thing, this is a "regardless of how much I try to make you my friend, you can't be my friend and be friends with Cernovich, they are mutually exclusive" thing.
You are bad at choosing friends if your friend can also support the destruction of you and/or your family's life. And sure you can call them "friend" but you obviously wouldn't understand the intent of the term.
That doesn't mean I couldn't have a beer with Danglars, just means it would probably end with me punching him in the throat if he tried to talk politics. I would never be foolish enough to consider him a friend either. Ouch. I thought you were more civilized than to presume a political discussion would turn to blows. But yes, we've heard your defense of screaming racist at everything because everything is racist before. Well we have mutual combat laws here so I figured it would go something like you say something repugnant, I say you can't say that, you say you can, I challenge you to combat to settle whether you can say it in my presence or not, you don't like those choices and object. I assure you your choices are 1. not say it 2.fight 3. get ostrasized and not be a part of the conversation. You pick fight and get punched in the throat. I suppose you could just walk away or stop, but you seem far too stubborn to do something like that. Seems perfectly civilized to me, but you also can't tell the difference between everything being racist and racism being a part of pretty much everything in this country so we clearly have trouble agreeing on the meaning of words. Your evaluation of what’s repugnant lol. You’re way too willing to settle things with violence for me. Go find a police officer or something to get your rocks off. You’ve always seen racism in everything and I don’t expect it to change soon. It's pretty simple really. We both see a Nazi advocating for my genocide I go to punch him, you defend his right to advocate genocide, and get punched too. You act like your positions aren't antithetical to polite discourse on their face. You seem to think you're entitled to the floor to say whatever you want, well, you can't say fire in a crowded theater and you can't advocate for my genocide in my presence. You want to think that makes me the uncivilized one, you go right ahead. I do have to give you points for the clever "Kill yourself" line you slipped in there though. First amendment free speech rights, who needs them? I should frame those first two sentences. But don’t worry, bro, if they shout to start lynching blacks in such and such neighborhood, that’s inciting imminent unlawful activity. I won’t let your base stupidity on the free speech rights of citizens interfere with the historical crossing of the line. You wish everybody thought like you, but they don’t. If you’re perpetually aggrieved, and say that gives you the right to punch someone talking politics, you construct your own law. Just excuse your own mischief. Here’s a thought: If you’re sharing beers and a political topic comes up, and you’re willing to punch him or her over it, just tell them to not discuss politics. It’ll work out better for both, and you get the bonus of not appearing to be a man itching for a fight. Given your tendency to call conservatives here advocates of white supremacy, and topics not unique to the black community expose white fragility, you’re just telling everyone to expect violence for their politics. And anyone not in full agreement with your political theory will have the good sense to stay away from those threats. You're sitting here defending advocating genocide on the principle that it will take too long to get from where we are today to actually committing genocide without a shred of irony. As for the rest, I already said that in the first place... But in reality I have friends with wildly different politics. I'm the leftiest though. They run all the way to "voted for Trump" you seem not to appreciate how absurd the ground you're standing on is as displayed by the first part. You're sitting here unaware that intruding on the free speech rights of some imperils the free speech rights of all. And then you make the absurd leap that neonazis protected when they do their stupid marches is one short step to "actually committing genocide." We have laws. You can say what you like politically with great freedom. You can't start killing people based on skin color. These laws have held up thus far. I'm glad you haven't put your stated rules for socking people into practice with your friend group. You seem confused. No one but genocidal tool's speech is in danger if by some miracle punching Nazi's caught on, even then, I'm under no disillusion that white America is going to let that be legal. Your and everyone else's first amendment right to advocate my genocide is safe, fret not. What isn't safe, is presuming the law is going to protect you from getting punched if you advocate for my genocide in my presence. EDIT: (Like I don't presume the laws against killing people based on skin color will protect me if advocating genocide gets popular) If my friends said some of the ignorant stuff you said they'd get punched too. Lucky for me, my friends aren't that foolish. Plus they can all fight and I like them, so we tend to keep it light on the rare occasion we do have to settle something. Since you didn't answer my previous PM, is it safe to gather that you perceive the shrouding of statues as a greater and more imminent threat than white supremacy and racism in this country? Uhh who gets to draw the line at what is protected under free speech imparts that person power.
White people...
You seem confused because you've just contradicted yourself here. You think free speech is one step away from actual genocide, then you reveal that you're not worried about genocide, then you sidestep to insulting you to your face, when the original point was how fragile you are in labeling others racist douches.
Your argument here is trash and so ridiculous I hardly know what you're trying to say. I know it's a garbage argument though. Trump is a racist douche, that should be obvious to you by now. *I'd add the caveat that it's born of "self-supremacy" thing so it'd probably be easier to call him raycist.
|
On November 29 2017 02:22 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I had this conversation with Danglars before. He agreed that white supremacy marching is an absolute right and shrouding of statues is a slippery slope that must not be crossed and should not be a political right. Then he got confused when he reread my post that I view this as hypocritical and accused me for editting my posts (again), even though it was the exact same post which he quoted. And everybody forgets that they drew the line at statues of confederate war generals, only to slip on down to any founding father who owned slaves. Trump was damn right. Admitting when he's right gives you more credibility to tell apart when he's wrong. So, you're confirming now that shrouding a statue is totally unacceptable, but that we should just be cool with open hate speech in the streets. Ok. Good to know we needn't waste the time.
Trump: Next they'll come for statues of Washington and Jefferson, it won't stop here.
Libs: Nonsense. Confederate war heroes shouldn't get statues, everybody knows founding fathers are memorialized for other stuff
<Statues of Francis Scott Key is defaced, Jefferson shrouded, Abraham Lincoln vandalized, many others>
...
NewSunshine: What slippery slope? It was just one statue shrouded [Selective memory intensifies]
Yeah, it's good to know you have no conception of what happened and just want to move on and remember history as you would prefer it remembered.
|
On November 29 2017 02:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:20 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 29 2017 02:17 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 02:16 ticklishmusic wrote:
believe it or not, the first amendment isn't carte blanche immunity to say whatever offensive thing you want. like if someone for some reason decided to visit a african-american majority neighborhood and repeatedly scream the n word with a hard r repeatedly if he got punched "muh free speech" isn't going to really make people feel for him. Clearly you have issues separating what we're supposed to feel bad for and what is against the law. you can argue what's legally right all you want, but it doesn't change that a purely legal viewpoint is absolutely ridiculous here. When the topic is the free speech rights of American citizens, regardless of repugnant ideology, we need that purely legal viewpoint to be settled. If you missed that discussion, or want to repeat that you will respect the marchers in contradiction to what GH has been saying, feel free to post up.
you always belabor some tiny, usually obvious piece of the situation which no one really disagrees with but then deliberately muddy the waters and conflate disagreement on other aspects of the situation with not understanding the really obvious bit. no one is arguing that legally assault/ battery is wrong and free speech is protected.
i don't agree that punching people is a good solution - i'm not sure anyone here does outside of GH really. i'm far less radical or militant than GH on issues of race and, well, pretty much everything else. doesn't mean that his viewpoint is incomprehensible.
|
On November 29 2017 02:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:20 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 01:27 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 01:17 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 00:28 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2017 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2017 10:34 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Ouch. I thought you were more civilized than to presume a political discussion would turn to blows.
But yes, we've heard your defense of screaming racist at everything because everything is racist before. Well we have mutual combat laws here so I figured it would go something like you say something repugnant, I say you can't say that, you say you can, I challenge you to combat to settle whether you can say it in my presence or not, you don't like those choices and object. I assure you your choices are 1. not say it 2.fight 3. get ostrasized and not be a part of the conversation. You pick fight and get punched in the throat. I suppose you could just walk away or stop, but you seem far too stubborn to do something like that. Seems perfectly civilized to me, but you also can't tell the difference between everything being racist and racism being a part of pretty much everything in this country so we clearly have trouble agreeing on the meaning of words. Your evaluation of what’s repugnant lol. You’re way too willing to settle things with violence for me. Go find a police officer or something to get your rocks off. You’ve always seen racism in everything and I don’t expect it to change soon. It's pretty simple really. We both see a Nazi advocating for my genocide I go to punch him, you defend his right to advocate genocide, and get punched too. You act like your positions aren't antithetical to polite discourse on their face. You seem to think you're entitled to the floor to say whatever you want, well, you can't say fire in a crowded theater and you can't advocate for my genocide in my presence. You want to think that makes me the uncivilized one, you go right ahead. I do have to give you points for the clever "Kill yourself" line you slipped in there though. First amendment free speech rights, who needs them? I should frame those first two sentences. But don’t worry, bro, if they shout to start lynching blacks in such and such neighborhood, that’s inciting imminent unlawful activity. I won’t let your base stupidity on the free speech rights of citizens interfere with the historical crossing of the line. You wish everybody thought like you, but they don’t. If you’re perpetually aggrieved, and say that gives you the right to punch someone talking politics, you construct your own law. Just excuse your own mischief. Here’s a thought: If you’re sharing beers and a political topic comes up, and you’re willing to punch him or her over it, just tell them to not discuss politics. It’ll work out better for both, and you get the bonus of not appearing to be a man itching for a fight. Given your tendency to call conservatives here advocates of white supremacy, and topics not unique to the black community expose white fragility, you’re just telling everyone to expect violence for their politics. And anyone not in full agreement with your political theory will have the good sense to stay away from those threats. You're sitting here defending advocating genocide on the principle that it will take too long to get from where we are today to actually committing genocide without a shred of irony. As for the rest, I already said that in the first place... But in reality I have friends with wildly different politics. I'm the leftiest though. They run all the way to "voted for Trump" you seem not to appreciate how absurd the ground you're standing on is as displayed by the first part. You're sitting here unaware that intruding on the free speech rights of some imperils the free speech rights of all. And then you make the absurd leap that neonazis protected when they do their stupid marches is one short step to "actually committing genocide." We have laws. You can say what you like politically with great freedom. You can't start killing people based on skin color. These laws have held up thus far. I'm glad you haven't put your stated rules for socking people into practice with your friend group. You seem confused. No one but genocidal tool's speech is in danger if by some miracle punching Nazi's caught on, even then, I'm under no disillusion that white America is going to let that be legal. Your and everyone else's first amendment right to advocate my genocide is safe, fret not. What isn't safe, is presuming the law is going to protect you from getting punched if you advocate for my genocide in my presence. EDIT: (Like I don't presume the laws against killing people based on skin color will protect me if advocating genocide gets popular) If my friends said some of the ignorant stuff you said they'd get punched too. Lucky for me, my friends aren't that foolish. Plus they can all fight and I like them, so we tend to keep it light on the rare occasion we do have to settle something. Since you didn't answer my previous PM, is it safe to gather that you perceive the shrouding of statues as a greater and more imminent threat than white supremacy and racism in this country? Uhh who gets to draw the line at what is protected under free speech imparts that person power. White people...
You just implied neonazi marches were outside of their free speech rights (punch them). You're black, as far as you've claimed on this forum. Come off it.
Show nested quote +You seem confused because you've just contradicted yourself here. You think free speech is one step away from actual genocide, then you reveal that you're not worried about genocide, then you sidestep to insulting you to your face, when the original point was how fragile you are in labeling others racist douches. Your argument here is trash and so ridiculous I hardly know what you're trying to say. I know it's a garbage argument though. Trump is a racist douche, that should be obvious to you by now.
I know it's a very important argument in today's society. You want more government controls on free speech, and that will lead to breakdowns as we've already seen on college campuses. You want us to care about your arguments, and disregard other arguments you don't care about. Your bases for these have always been slim and shifting.
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 29 2017 02:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:22 NewSunshine wrote:On November 29 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I had this conversation with Danglars before. He agreed that white supremacy marching is an absolute right and shrouding of statues is a slippery slope that must not be crossed and should not be a political right. Then he got confused when he reread my post that I view this as hypocritical and accused me for editting my posts (again), even though it was the exact same post which he quoted. And everybody forgets that they drew the line at statues of confederate war generals, only to slip on down to any founding father who owned slaves. Trump was damn right. Admitting when he's right gives you more credibility to tell apart when he's wrong. So, you're confirming now that shrouding a statue is totally unacceptable, but that we should just be cool with open hate speech in the streets. Ok. Good to know we needn't waste the time. Trump: Next they'll come for statues of Washington and Jefferson, it won't stop here. Libs: Nonsense. Confederate war heroes shouldn't get statues, everybody knows founding fathers are memorialized for other stuff <Statues of Francis Scott Key is defaced, Jefferson shrouded, Abraham Lincoln vandalized, many others> ... NewSunshine: What slippery slope? It was just one statue shrouded [Selective memory intensifies] Yeah, it's good to know you have no conception of what happened and just want to move on and remember history as you would prefer it remembered.
That's not how a slippery slope works.
You can't say X will lead to Y and then if anyone anywhere does Y promptly insist that X definitely led to Y and that anyone who disagrees is wrong.
There is something fundamentally wrong with the way you do logic if you think that someone choosing to put a sheet over a statue vindicates your support of memorializing the Confederate generals.
|
You just implied neonazi marches were outside of their free speech rights (punch them).
No he didn't. GH never implied that there should be different laws around free speech (at least not in this context) nor did he imply that his punching actions should be free from consequence.
(Edit: sorry in advance if I'm misrepresenting what you were saying GH, but that's how I interpreted it)
|
I'll let you clean that up but bruh... I'd stop now if I was you, but you won't so...
How do you not understand how punching jerks works?
|
‘good to know you have no conception of what happened... and remember history as you would prefer it remembered’ was remarkably funny in context.
|
On November 29 2017 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:17 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:
By all historical accounts, if you're trying to stop genocide when people are already being killed, you're already far too late.
The mass murdering starts when groups and ideologies have the spread and influence, not before. And all you have to do is march in the streets with your pathetic band and everybody sees the appeal of genocide! (Maybe that happens in fiction books you read? I really don't know where you get this.) In your eyes, how did Nazi ideology go from some racist dudes being angry to being Germany's government?
Crackdowns on the nazi party in germany would not have stopped its rise. Go post a thread about the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party in Germany if you need to discuss the history from Weimar to WW2. It isn't a memeworthy "We let them speak, and oh my god what happened is because we didn't fine and jail them in the first place."
|
On November 29 2017 01:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 00:28 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2017 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2017 10:34 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2017 08:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Wow, that Danglars diatribe about how sad it is people wont be his friend was intense.
ProTip: Don't want people to treat you like a racist douche, don't act like a racist douche, support a racist douche, then complain when people don't want to hang out with a racist douche.
It actually kind of blows my mind people think there's nothing friendship ruining about supporting Trump. He's a terrible human being, beyond his policy, Trump is actually a trash person all around.
If you're friends with Cernovich, you aren't my friend. If you support Trump you aren't my friend. Let me be clear, this isn't a personal thing, this is a "regardless of how much I try to make you my friend, you can't be my friend and be friends with Cernovich, they are mutually exclusive" thing.
You are bad at choosing friends if your friend can also support the destruction of you and/or your family's life. And sure you can call them "friend" but you obviously wouldn't understand the intent of the term.
That doesn't mean I couldn't have a beer with Danglars, just means it would probably end with me punching him in the throat if he tried to talk politics. I would never be foolish enough to consider him a friend either. Ouch. I thought you were more civilized than to presume a political discussion would turn to blows. But yes, we've heard your defense of screaming racist at everything because everything is racist before. Well we have mutual combat laws here so I figured it would go something like you say something repugnant, I say you can't say that, you say you can, I challenge you to combat to settle whether you can say it in my presence or not, you don't like those choices and object. I assure you your choices are 1. not say it 2.fight 3. get ostrasized and not be a part of the conversation. You pick fight and get punched in the throat. I suppose you could just walk away or stop, but you seem far too stubborn to do something like that. Seems perfectly civilized to me, but you also can't tell the difference between everything being racist and racism being a part of pretty much everything in this country so we clearly have trouble agreeing on the meaning of words. Your evaluation of what’s repugnant lol. You’re way too willing to settle things with violence for me. Go find a police officer or something to get your rocks off. You’ve always seen racism in everything and I don’t expect it to change soon. It's pretty simple really. We both see a Nazi advocating for my genocide I go to punch him, you defend his right to advocate genocide, and get punched too. You act like your positions aren't antithetical to polite discourse on their face. You seem to think you're entitled to the floor to say whatever you want, well, you can't say fire in a crowded theater and you can't advocate for my genocide in my presence. You want to think that makes me the uncivilized one, you go right ahead. I do have to give you points for the clever "Kill yourself" line you slipped in there though. First amendment free speech rights, who needs them? I should frame those first two sentences. But don’t worry, bro, if they shout to start lynching blacks in such and such neighborhood, that’s inciting imminent unlawful activity. I won’t let your base stupidity on the free speech rights of citizens interfere with the historical crossing of the line. You wish everybody thought like you, but they don’t. If you’re perpetually aggrieved, and say that gives you the right to punch someone talking politics, you construct your own law. Just excuse your own mischief. Here’s a thought: If you’re sharing beers and a political topic comes up, and you’re willing to punch him or her over it, just tell them to not discuss politics. It’ll work out better for both, and you get the bonus of not appearing to be a man itching for a fight. Given your tendency to call conservatives here advocates of white supremacy, and topics not unique to the black community expose white fragility, you’re just telling everyone to expect violence for their politics. And anyone not in full agreement with your political theory will have the good sense to stay away from those threats.
Come on dangles, of all people, I would assume one of the 2 claiming to be a lawyer would at least know that free speech does not apply to civilian on civilian interaction.
|
|
|
On November 29 2017 02:24 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:22 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:53 Logo wrote:On November 29 2017 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 01:27 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 01:17 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 00:28 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2017 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Well we have mutual combat laws here so I figured it would go something like you say something repugnant, I say you can't say that, you say you can, I challenge you to combat to settle whether you can say it in my presence or not, you don't like those choices and object. I assure you your choices are 1. not say it 2.fight 3. get ostrasized and not be a part of the conversation. You pick fight and get punched in the throat.
I suppose you could just walk away or stop, but you seem far too stubborn to do something like that.
Seems perfectly civilized to me, but you also can't tell the difference between everything being racist and racism being a part of pretty much everything in this country so we clearly have trouble agreeing on the meaning of words. Your evaluation of what’s repugnant lol. You’re way too willing to settle things with violence for me. Go find a police officer or something to get your rocks off. You’ve always seen racism in everything and I don’t expect it to change soon. It's pretty simple really. We both see a Nazi advocating for my genocide I go to punch him, you defend his right to advocate genocide, and get punched too. You act like your positions aren't antithetical to polite discourse on their face. You seem to think you're entitled to the floor to say whatever you want, well, you can't say fire in a crowded theater and you can't advocate for my genocide in my presence. You want to think that makes me the uncivilized one, you go right ahead. I do have to give you points for the clever "Kill yourself" line you slipped in there though. First amendment free speech rights, who needs them? I should frame those first two sentences. But don’t worry, bro, if they shout to start lynching blacks in such and such neighborhood, that’s inciting imminent unlawful activity. I won’t let your base stupidity on the free speech rights of citizens interfere with the historical crossing of the line. You wish everybody thought like you, but they don’t. If you’re perpetually aggrieved, and say that gives you the right to punch someone talking politics, you construct your own law. Just excuse your own mischief. Here’s a thought: If you’re sharing beers and a political topic comes up, and you’re willing to punch him or her over it, just tell them to not discuss politics. It’ll work out better for both, and you get the bonus of not appearing to be a man itching for a fight. Given your tendency to call conservatives here advocates of white supremacy, and topics not unique to the black community expose white fragility, you’re just telling everyone to expect violence for their politics. And anyone not in full agreement with your political theory will have the good sense to stay away from those threats. You're sitting here defending advocating genocide on the principle that it will take too long to get from where we are today to actually committing genocide without a shred of irony. As for the rest, I already said that in the first place... But in reality I have friends with wildly different politics. I'm the leftiest though. They run all the way to "voted for Trump" you seem not to appreciate how absurd the ground you're standing on is as displayed by the first part. You're sitting here unaware that intruding on the free speech rights of some imperils the free speech rights of all. And then you make the absurd leap that neonazis protected when they do their stupid marches is one short step to "actually committing genocide." We have laws. You can say what you like politically with great freedom. You can't start killing people based on skin color. These laws have held up thus far. I'm glad you haven't put your stated rules for socking people into practice with your friend group. You seem confused. No one but genocidal tool's speech is in danger if by some miracle punching Nazi's caught on, even then, I'm under no disillusion that white America is going to let that be legal. Your and everyone else's first amendment right to advocate my genocide is safe, fret not. What isn't safe, is presuming the law is going to protect you from getting punched if you advocate for my genocide in my presence. If my friends said some of the ignorant stuff you said they'd get punched too. Lucky for me, my friends aren't that foolish. Plus they can all fight and I like them, so we tend to keep it light on the rare occasion we do have to settle something. Since you didn't answer my previous PM, is it safe to gather that you perceive the shrouding of statues as a greater and more imminent threat than white supremacy and racism in this country? Yeah I'm quite curious what exactly Danglars expects to be different? There's a societal and legal cost to punching someone (Nazi or not). If people are willing to incur that cost than people are going to get punched. I guess I'm curious which cost (societal or legal) Danglars think should be increased since he seems bent on having genocide advocators not punched. I'll make it easy for you, Logo. It's pretty simple really. We both see a Nazi advocating for my genocide I go to punch him, you defend his right to advocate genocide, and get punched too. Is this a pretty good rule to live by? That's not an answer to my question. If GH is willing to face the repercussions for that action he's willing to face the repercussions. What are you proposing should be different? If all you have to offer is, "GH shouldn't think like that" you're not really offering anything at all.
You have no firm basis for your question, and I've been dialogueing with GH for a little bit. Give your take before coming in with halfassed questions.
|
We’re on a statue slippery slope but not a supremacy slippery slope. The supremacy slope doesn’t necessarily lead to genocide btw. It can stop well before that and still be a detrimental slippery slope. It is an odd argument indeed to say we’re on a statue slippery slope but not a supremacy one.
|
On November 29 2017 02:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:24 Logo wrote:On November 29 2017 02:22 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:53 Logo wrote:On November 29 2017 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 01:27 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 01:17 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 00:28 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Your evaluation of what’s repugnant lol. You’re way too willing to settle things with violence for me. Go find a police officer or something to get your rocks off.
You’ve always seen racism in everything and I don’t expect it to change soon. It's pretty simple really. We both see a Nazi advocating for my genocide I go to punch him, you defend his right to advocate genocide, and get punched too. You act like your positions aren't antithetical to polite discourse on their face. You seem to think you're entitled to the floor to say whatever you want, well, you can't say fire in a crowded theater and you can't advocate for my genocide in my presence. You want to think that makes me the uncivilized one, you go right ahead. I do have to give you points for the clever "Kill yourself" line you slipped in there though. First amendment free speech rights, who needs them? I should frame those first two sentences. But don’t worry, bro, if they shout to start lynching blacks in such and such neighborhood, that’s inciting imminent unlawful activity. I won’t let your base stupidity on the free speech rights of citizens interfere with the historical crossing of the line. You wish everybody thought like you, but they don’t. If you’re perpetually aggrieved, and say that gives you the right to punch someone talking politics, you construct your own law. Just excuse your own mischief. Here’s a thought: If you’re sharing beers and a political topic comes up, and you’re willing to punch him or her over it, just tell them to not discuss politics. It’ll work out better for both, and you get the bonus of not appearing to be a man itching for a fight. Given your tendency to call conservatives here advocates of white supremacy, and topics not unique to the black community expose white fragility, you’re just telling everyone to expect violence for their politics. And anyone not in full agreement with your political theory will have the good sense to stay away from those threats. You're sitting here defending advocating genocide on the principle that it will take too long to get from where we are today to actually committing genocide without a shred of irony. As for the rest, I already said that in the first place... But in reality I have friends with wildly different politics. I'm the leftiest though. They run all the way to "voted for Trump" you seem not to appreciate how absurd the ground you're standing on is as displayed by the first part. You're sitting here unaware that intruding on the free speech rights of some imperils the free speech rights of all. And then you make the absurd leap that neonazis protected when they do their stupid marches is one short step to "actually committing genocide." We have laws. You can say what you like politically with great freedom. You can't start killing people based on skin color. These laws have held up thus far. I'm glad you haven't put your stated rules for socking people into practice with your friend group. You seem confused. No one but genocidal tool's speech is in danger if by some miracle punching Nazi's caught on, even then, I'm under no disillusion that white America is going to let that be legal. Your and everyone else's first amendment right to advocate my genocide is safe, fret not. What isn't safe, is presuming the law is going to protect you from getting punched if you advocate for my genocide in my presence. If my friends said some of the ignorant stuff you said they'd get punched too. Lucky for me, my friends aren't that foolish. Plus they can all fight and I like them, so we tend to keep it light on the rare occasion we do have to settle something. Since you didn't answer my previous PM, is it safe to gather that you perceive the shrouding of statues as a greater and more imminent threat than white supremacy and racism in this country? Yeah I'm quite curious what exactly Danglars expects to be different? There's a societal and legal cost to punching someone (Nazi or not). If people are willing to incur that cost than people are going to get punched. I guess I'm curious which cost (societal or legal) Danglars think should be increased since he seems bent on having genocide advocators not punched. I'll make it easy for you, Logo. It's pretty simple really. We both see a Nazi advocating for my genocide I go to punch him, you defend his right to advocate genocide, and get punched too. Is this a pretty good rule to live by? That's not an answer to my question. If GH is willing to face the repercussions for that action he's willing to face the repercussions. What are you proposing should be different? If all you have to offer is, "GH shouldn't think like that" you're not really offering anything at all. You have no firm basis for your question, and I've been dialogueing with GH for a little bit. Give your take before coming in with halfassed questions.
So, What do you think are the appropriate repercussions for punching someone to silence their speech is not relevant to this discussion or a full baked question?
Isn't that almost the exact question you are asking GH?
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 29 2017 02:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:On November 29 2017 02:17 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:
By all historical accounts, if you're trying to stop genocide when people are already being killed, you're already far too late.
The mass murdering starts when groups and ideologies have the spread and influence, not before. And all you have to do is march in the streets with your pathetic band and everybody sees the appeal of genocide! (Maybe that happens in fiction books you read? I really don't know where you get this.) In your eyes, how did Nazi ideology go from some racist dudes being angry to being Germany's government? Crackdowns on the nazi party in germany would not have stopped its rise. Go post a thread about the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party in Germany if you need to discuss the history from Weimar to WW2. It isn't a memeworthy "We let them speak, and oh my god what happened is because we didn't fine and jail them in the first place."
Actually they totally would have. We know that because it did. Hitler tried to take over and got imprisoned and that was that. Then later he got released.
Releasing Hitler from prison and letting him resume his political activism is generally considered to be a mistake (although Aquanim's (I think) point about how this is probably one of the few futures where all out nuclear war didn't happen is interesting). Apparently you disagree with that though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
