|
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 02:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:26 Danglars wrote: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.
It's also not really a great slippery slope, because the obvious solution to this slippery slope would have just been to not memorialize Confederate generals in the first place since the implication is that shrouding other statues is the result of removing the confederate statues which would have never happened if they didn't exist.
It's like how "someday we'll be letting people marry cows" is a pretty good argument against the general institution of marriage as much as it is homosexuality.
|
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.
Simply put, people need to be protected from legal consequences of unacceptable speech because no-one wants the government to be able to shut down speech they don't like.
It doesn't mean they should be protected from other people if they say something awful though.
If you see a nazi being a nazi, you should probably make damn sure that they know that people don't accept that shit. They should be shown in no uncertain terms that everyone thinks they are awful for believing it.
|
|
|
On November 29 2017 02:28 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:21 Danglars wrote: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 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.
You always don't post about the bit that nobody disagrees with (silence is deafening), then run from the implications that nobody will admit (silence is deafening once again).
Someone here is arguing that nazis shouldn't be able to march, and genocide will be a short step away (GH).
Ticklishmusic: <Silence on both>
Somebody here claims he's justified for calling people racist douches (Trump supporters), the solution is for them to stop being racist douches (change their political opinion) and political discussions with him will devolve into violence (it would probably end with me punching him in the throat if he tried to talk politics.)
Ticklishmusic: <Maybe he agrees that a political discussion with me ought to end in violence>
If it was clear where you stood, then we move on to whatever you think is muddied about the waters. Otherwise I don't know if you want to punch me, punch people exercising free speech, or cheer people on punching people practicing free speech.
|
United States41989 Posts
What is Ivanka's actual white house job? Beyond serving as forbidden fruit for the POTUS that is.
|
On November 29 2017 02:30 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +
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)
+ Show Spoiler +On November 29 2017 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Not only the actual marchers, but those that stand up for their rights get punched. He said nothing about how he deserves to go to jail over it. In fact, he just got done talking about having a beer and the law defending his act of violence on me. I want to see the moral case against his own moral law before we start putting words in his mouth. Otherwise, you're chilling free speech by openly promising violence against them.
Logo, I'm not saying don't post in this forum, but I'm going to punch you if you do. Now, don't take this to mean I'm threatening your free speech rights or anything. Haha.
|
|
|
On November 29 2017 02:32 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
Come on hunt, don't you know fighting words versus what goes for classifying someone as a "racist douche" is. Highlight what I've said that would lead an ordinary person to say "it would probably end with me punching him in the throat if he tried to talk politics."
|
On November 29 2017 02:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:28 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 29 2017 02:21 Danglars wrote: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 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. You always don't post about the bit that nobody disagrees with (silence is deafening), then run from the implications that nobody will admit (silence is deafening once again). Someone here is arguing that nazis shouldn't be able to march, and genocide will be a short step away (GH). Ticklishmusic: <Silence on both> Somebody here claims he's justified for calling people racist douches (Trump supporters), the solution is for them to stop being racist douches (change their political opinion) and political discussions with him will devolve into violence (it would probably end with me punching him in the throat if he tried to talk politics.) Ticklishmusic: <Maybe he agrees that a political discussion with me ought to end in violence> If it was clear where you stood, then we move on to whatever you think is muddied about the waters. Otherwise I don't know if you want to punch me, punch people exercising free speech, or cheer people on punching people practicing free speech.
maybe there's no reason to talk about the obvious. i don't find the need to discuss 1+1 = 2 on most days. my silence on the matter of basic arithmetic is certainly deafening.
i did say i don't condone violence, right? or did you miss that bit. doesn't seem like i'm getting much bang for my buck when i'm not deafeningly silent because you're not reading.
consider being even a tiny bit introspective about why people consider trump supporters 'racist douches' instead of hiding behind the first amendment and other laws. if your first instinct is to do that, maybe there's something is wrong.
|
On November 29 2017 02:42 Danglars wrote:
Logo, I'm not saying don't post in this forum, but I'm going to punch you if you do. Now, don't take this to mean I'm threatening your free speech rights or anything. Haha.
I didn't and you aren't because I understand free speech.
|
On November 29 2017 02:34 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:33 Danglars wrote: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:
[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.
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?
So, what would you say are just grounds in a politics talks for punching someone in the throat?
If I say I'm going to punch you if you say <x> in my presence, does that make you feel less able or more able to exercise your free speech rights?
What do you say of people that call a broad range of political position grounds for calling them a racist douche? If it incumbent upon the labeled parties to prove they are not stop doing whatever got labeled in the first place?
Do you actually like or advocate free speech rights, or do you think only some speech you don't think is hate speech should fall under it?
|
On November 29 2017 02:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:34 Logo wrote:On November 29 2017 02:33 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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? So, what would you say are just grounds in a politics talks for punching someone in the throat? If I say I'm going to punch you if you say <x> in my presence, does that make you feel less able or more able to exercise your free speech rights? What do you say of people that call a broad range of political position grounds for calling them a racist douche? If it incumbent upon the labeled parties to prove they are not stop doing whatever got labeled in the first place? Do you actually like or advocate free speech rights, or do you think only some speech you don't think is hate speech should fall under it?
Whether or not you feel able to speak freely is frankly irrelevant when it comes to your free speech rights. What matters is whether you can speak without legal consequences.
|
On November 29 2017 02:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:34 Logo wrote:On November 29 2017 02:33 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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? So, what would you say are just grounds in a politics talks for punching someone in the throat? If I say I'm going to punch you if you say <x> in my presence, does that make you feel less able or more able to exercise your free speech rights? What do you say of people that call a broad range of political position grounds for calling them a racist douche? If it incumbent upon the labeled parties to prove they are not stop doing whatever got labeled in the first place? Do you actually like or advocate free speech rights, or do you think only some speech you don't think is hate speech should fall under it?
Why do you dodge the question so much by asking questions back rather than providing an answer?
|
|
|
On November 29 2017 02:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:32 hunts 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. 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. Come on hunt, don't you know fighting words versus what goes for classifying someone as a "racist douche" is. Highlight what I've said that would lead an ordinary person to say "it would probably end with me punching him in the throat if he tried to talk politics."
Obviously punching someone over talking politics is not legal. However, that isn't because of free speech, it's because it's illegal to attack someone without being the defender. So really unless GH is saying that the government should show up and punch you, arguing free speech is incorrect. Also as I'm sure you're aware even under free speech, not everything is covered. So if you want to go the free speech route rather than the "punching someone for having shitty beliefs is still illegal" route, then depending on what you say free speech might still not protect you. For instance I'm pretty sure if you said "white people are superior" while unpopular, would still be covered. Whereas if you had said "All non whites should be killed" I believe would not be protected speech. But of course free speech doesn't give you the right to say what you want and get away with it. The law protects you from getting punched for what you say, but not from being ostracized.
As for my personal opinion, I don't believe in punching people over their political beliefs, no matter how shitty. But ostracizing, shaming, and in certain cases firing from jobs etc... I think those are great ways to show people that shitty beliefs won't be tolerated.
|
On November 29 2017 02:36 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:21 Danglars wrote: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. Simply put, people need to be protected from legal consequences of unacceptable speech because no-one wants the government to be able to shut down speech they don't like. It doesn't mean they should be protected from other people if they say something awful though. If you see a nazi being a nazi, you should probably make damn sure that they know that people don't accept that shit. They should be shown in no uncertain terms that everyone thinks they are awful for believing it.
So you're not calling this out verbally? Are you in team Punch A Nazi(Neo-Nazi) or smile on those that do?
I've seem an awful amount of creep in what constitutes "something awful." GH regularly works himself up into a frenzy at what constitutes advocating white supremacy or racism. I understand the side-point about what government should be stopped from doing. I'm saying to use words and not violence if you have a habitual problem of labeling things you don't like racism/white supremacy, because you're coming close to calling yourself morally justified in hurting people who say anything you don't like.
It's pretty easily seen in GH's comment about punching both neonazis and those that argue for their free speech rights. Comment on the legal and moral case for punching people that think the first amendment guarantees their assembly rights, as well as those exercising it?
|
On November 29 2017 02:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:30 Logo wrote:
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) + Show Spoiler +On November 29 2017 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +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. Not only the actual marchers, but those that stand up for their rights get punched. He said nothing about how he deserves to go to jail over it. In fact, he just got done talking about having a beer and the law defending his act of violence on me. I want to see the moral case against his own moral law before we start putting words in his mouth. Otherwise, you're chilling free speech by openly promising violence against them. Logo, I'm not saying don't post in this forum, but I'm going to punch you if you do. Now, don't take this to mean I'm threatening your free speech rights or anything. Haha.
My goodness...
It's called "mutual combat" but I grew up with the civil version you probably heard of as "taking it outside". Though the way your talking about it, makes me think it's a foreign concept?
You're taking yourself and your argument a lot more seriously than I am at this point.
On November 29 2017 02:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:36 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 29 2017 02:21 Danglars wrote: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. Simply put, people need to be protected from legal consequences of unacceptable speech because no-one wants the government to be able to shut down speech they don't like. It doesn't mean they should be protected from other people if they say something awful though. If you see a nazi being a nazi, you should probably make damn sure that they know that people don't accept that shit. They should be shown in no uncertain terms that everyone thinks they are awful for believing it. So you're not calling this out verbally? Are you in team Punch A Nazi(Neo-Nazi) or smile on those that do? I've seem an awful amount of creep in what constitutes "something awful." GH regularly works himself up into a frenzy at what constitutes advocating white supremacy or racism. I understand the side-point about what government should be stopped from doing. I'm saying to use words and not violence if you have a habitual problem of labeling things you don't like racism/white supremacy, because you're coming close to calling yourself morally justified in hurting people who say anything you don't like. It's pretty easily seen in GH's comment about punching both neonazis and those that argue for their free speech rights. Comment on the legal and moral case for punching people that think the first amendment guarantees their assembly rights, as well as those exercising it?
YOu keep repeating this thing about "GH thinks everything is racist and he's soooooo unreasonable".
Could you just give everyone an example of something I think is racist that you think is ridiculous, or just any example of where I say there's racism where there obviously isn't? I just want everyone to know where this is coming from.
|
People living in the USA in 2017, comparing their existential and political position to 1932 Germany, throwing around terms like genocide and literal nazi ... is not a sane or measured approach. It just isn't. It's hysteria. It's "literally silly".
I know nobody learns about Stalin's Russia in school anymore but at least the reasons behind the rise of national-socialism in post WW1 Germany should be understood when engaging in a morality & politics discussion.
Apart from - ironically - the extreme political polarization, can you name some parallels between fucking Nazi Germany and Orange County, CA? A grand total of 100 or so people insane enough to dress up into the costumes of people who were shot and killed by their own ancestors proves nothing. I'm willing to bet USA has more furries than active, literal Nazis.
|
This is perhaps one of the dumber discussions in a long line of dumb discussions.
|
On November 29 2017 02:53 Kickboxer wrote:
People living in the USA in 2017, comparing their existential and political position to 1932 Germany, throwing around terms like genocide and literal nazi ... is not a sane or measured approach. It just isn't. It's hysteria. It's "literally silly".
I know nobody learns about Stalin's Russia in school anymore but at least the reasons behind the rise of national-socialism in post WW1 Germany should be understood when engaging in a morality & politics discussion.
Apart from - ironically - the extreme political polarization, can you name some parallels between fucking Nazi Germany and Orange County, CA? A grand total of 100 or so people insane enough to dress up into the costumes of people who were shot and killed by their own ancestors proves nothing. I'm willing to bet USA has more furries than active, literal Nazis.
Just to be clear are you pinning the rise of Nazism on Stalinist Russia, or am I misunderstanding?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
