|
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 02:53 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. they've decided to call themselves alt right now and most of them are pretty open about advocating for " ethnostates" , the idea that each ethnicity should live in their own state. How will those states come to be only inhabited by one ethnicity? When that's asked they mumble and deflect, but it is pretty clear the only way for it to happen is genocide.
We even have one on this forum, active in this thread. They exist in considerable numbers.
|
Lol, this discussion about free speech (again?) reminds me of a question in a social studies textbook I've read in 6th grade. There was a picture of what seems to be a homeless guy standing on a wooden soapbox holding a loudspeaker, and shouting into it. Below it reads "Does the First Amendment allow one to shout whatever he wants in the middle of the night?"
Teacher never really told us the answer to the question, but I think we all agreed there was really nothing to stop the homeless man from expressing his views outside of violating quiet hours. Sure, it's completely within your right to spew whatever diarrhea comes out of that hole you call a mouth and there's no law to stop you, except maybe a couple of pissed off people with any sense of decency itching to cave your face in.
Which is why I think the First Amendment is a right that should be treated like a privilege, not unlike universal healthcare. Just because it's your right doesn't mean you should abuse it for your shitty purposes. But that's entirely within your right. Just don't complain when you get punched in the face for doing it.
And I said a right that should be treated like a privilege, not something that should be made into a privilege. Which is why during the medical school interview if you get asked "Do you think universal healthcare is a right or privilege?," you always answer "It should be a right" or risk being viewed as a horrible human being.
But asking people to treat a right as a privilege is probably overestimating each individual's scruples a bit since these days everybody and their dog is exploiting everything and everyone the first chance they get at every step. This isn't the days like the founding fathers when things were still based on principles (or at least they claimed to be, at least back then they pretended to be decent instead of coming out like a piece of shit like it's the cool thing to do now every now and then).
|
On November 29 2017 02:44 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:38 Danglars wrote: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.
Your only interaction thus far is to say you don't feel sorry for people that shout the n word in a black neighborhood and get punched. It sounds like you excuse violence in limited circumstances. And no, you didn't start your interaction here saying you didn't condone violence. When GH has made threats of violence under this and that circumstance, maybe I ask for clarity in what you would excuse or yourself do. So far, you're one-for-zero in condoning violence versus condemning violence in today's conversation.
|
On November 29 2017 02:55 kollin wrote:
This is perhaps one of the dumber discussions in a long line of dumb discussions.
Surely, you have an opinion on punching neonazi marchers, or punching those that say neonazi marchers have the right to peaceably assemble and speak.
|
The first amendment says you're allowed to say whatever you want, and that the government can't stop you. It doesn't say that the government has to protect you from the consequences of your actions.
Also, it isn't limitless. Threats and inciting harm are still illegal.
|
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?
GH thinks anyone who disagrees with him about pretty much anything is a white supremacist and is determined enough to trace through their arguments for anything he can find that might link to racism somewhere along the way in some direct or indirect way.
I'm not advocating for punching anyone who disagrees with you.
I'm saying that if some extreme and violent ideology is being espoused in public then the public should shut whoever it is up by whatever means they feel are necessary. If someone steps out of line and starts punching people for not belonging to BLM then the law will catch up with them if someone else doesn't first.
Realistically, we all actually know what the line is with this stuff. Debating it seems more like an ideological proxy argument than a useful discussion, because GH isn't going to go out and start punching centrists even though I'm sure he could find a way to justify it here.
|
On November 29 2017 02:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 01:44 Artisreal 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. Casually assuming you're part of all and he's part of some. :Thinking: How much worth is a law that is not abided by? Nothing. By that standard it suffices to have the law. We have the law of not punching you so punching you is fine. But go on please. What are you on about? Law against genocide? Keep on thinking about free speech rights.
You even have a sheriff that's been pardoned by your president as a prime example how fucking meaningless laws can be when the people enforcing them are confronted with a non white person.
Your failure to see that is on you.
|
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.
Fair point, though support seemed to fall off moving past confederates.
The arguments against confederates statues are pretty good, founding fathers not so much.
|
On November 29 2017 02:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:44 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 29 2017 02:38 Danglars wrote: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. Your only interaction thus far is to say you don't feel sorry for people that shout the n word in a black neighborhood and get punched. It sounds like you excuse violence in limited circumstances. And no, you didn't start your interaction here saying you didn't condone violence. When GH has made threats of violence under this and that circumstance, maybe I ask for clarity in what you would excuse or yourself do. So far, you're one-for-zero in condoning violence versus condemning violence in today's conversation.
lol. I wish there was some way for you to step out of yourself for a moment and realize what you've been doing or are you being ridiculous to try to prove some point?
|
On November 29 2017 02:57 riotjune wrote:
Lol, this discussion about free speech (again?) reminds me of a question in a social studies textbook I've read in 6th grade. There was a picture of what seems to be a homeless guy standing on a wooden soapbox holding a loudspeaker, and shouting into it. Below it reads "Does the First Amendment allow one to shout whatever he wants in the middle of the night?"
Teacher never really told us the answer to the question, but I think we all agreed there was really nothing to stop the homeless man from expressing his views outside of violating quiet hours. Sure, it's completely within your right to spew whatever diarrhea comes out of that hole you call a mouth and there's no law to stop you, except maybe a couple of pissed off people with any sense of decency itching to cave your face in.
Which is why I think the First Amendment is a right that should be treated like a privilege, not unlike universal healthcare. Just because it's your right doesn't mean you should abuse it for your shitty purposes. But that's entirely within your right. Just don't complain when you get punched in the face for doing it.
And I said a right that should be treated like a privilege, not something that should be made into a privilege. Which is why during the medical school interview if you get asked "Do you think universal healthcare is a right or privilege?," you always answer "It should be a right" or risk being viewed as a horrible human being.
But asking people to treat a right as a privilege is probably overestimating each individual's scruples a bit since these days everybody and their dog is exploiting everything and everyone the first chance they get at every step. This isn't the days like the founding fathers when things were still based on principles (or at least they claimed to be, at least back then they pretended to be decent instead of coming out like a piece of shit like it's the cool thing to do now every now and then).
I follow up until you say "everybody and their dog is exploiting everything and everyone the first chance they get at every step." I take it you understand the difference between city noise ordinances for all speech, and saying the content of what he said makes it illegal (and today, the related "I'll punch him and consider myself justified in doing it, or I'll cheer/be indifferent if someone else does so).
|
|
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 29 2017 03:01 JonnyBNoHo 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. Fair point, though support seemed to fall off moving past confederates. The arguments against confederates statues are pretty good, founding fathers not so much.
It's not a fair point at all lol.
If I were to say that gay marriage was a slippery slope that would inevitably lead to people trying to marry their pets then I would be wrong, even if subsequently some crazy lady tried to marry her twelve cats. Post hoc ergo propter hoc
|
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.
xdaunt is the lawyer, not danglars; the difference is quite apparent once you know what to look for (not really sure how to describe the difference in quality of argumentation/rhetoric)
also, yawn, another day where 90% of the posts are danglars nonsense, and people countering danglars' nonsense.
|
On November 29 2017 02:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:55 kollin wrote:
This is perhaps one of the dumber discussions in a long line of dumb discussions. Surely, you have an opinion on punching neonazi marchers, or punching those that say neonazi marchers have the right to peaceably assemble and speak.
I personally would not punch a neonazi because I'm a pussy and the neonazi could probably beat the shit out of me. Those that do punch neonazis I sympathise with - I do not think the law should be extended to protect their decision, but I still understand why they would be so incensed as to punch a neonazi. In general, punching those you disagree with is wrong. In general, punching those who are actually advocating for the cleansing of your (or indeed any) race is understandable, even if it's not effective. Overall, I think this is another debate that is of very, very little consequence - the worrying rise in people with fascistic or supremacist beliefs probably won't be reversed by punching them, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve to be punched. Nor does that mean the law should protect the punchers, necessarily. Everyone has a right to free speech, and a responsibility to use it well.
|
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.
I actually recently liked this article. It's reasonable to think it's overstating, oversimplifying, or overstepping things, but at the same time I appreciated putting the concepts into a more rooted and economical terms and in a way I think makes a compelling argument.
https://eand.co/fascisms-rising-in-america-because-america-doesn-t-understand-fascism-62cbb9ce7f4f
So I want you to really understand it. How did German fascism arise? Well, after World War I, Germany was saddled with debts to those that won the war — Britain, mostly — which drove it into penury, causing its economy to flatline, and the average German, indebted, his life savings blown up, to feel a burning sense of injustice. The result was rage, Nazism, and Hitler. Now, if we substitute America into that story, the only real difference is that the debts the average American owes aren’t to another country, but to an invisible, shady class of ultra-wealthy of their own. Yet the dynamics are all precisely the same: a burning sense of injustice, the debts can never be repaid, and the American’s savings, future, and possibility have all been blown to hell. It’s not a coincidence. Fascism is always and everywhere a product of stagnation. Why?
(Now: that’s not to say stagnation hasn’t reopened and worsened old racial wounds in America — it’s to say American intellectuals don’t appear to understand anything beyond monocausality, to grasp the idea of sparks and fires, that ultimate causes (racism) and proximate causes (stagnation) can indeed amplify one another.)
Myth: Fascism is “populism”/”ethno-nationalism”/insert buzzword.
Reality: Fascism is a way to ration a stagnant economy to in-groups.
If you understand just one sentence about fascism, let it be that one — because it’s the key. Like everything in life, our love, our fear, our desire, so too, our hate serves a purpose. Fascism exists for a reason: to ration the dwindling fruits of a stagnant economy. Think about it this way: if the harvest suddenly fails, then the crop must be rationed somehow — a way must be found to take from some, and give to others, because markets and prices and so on will begin to leave people hungry. What is that way? Who will get it, and how much?
|
On November 29 2017 03:04 zlefin 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. xdaunt is the lawyer, not danglars; the difference is quite apparent once you know what to look for (not really sure how to describe the difference in quality of argumentation/rhetoric) also, yawn, another day where 90% of the posts are danglars nonsense, and people countering danglars' nonsense.
For some reason I thought it was both xdaunt and danglars, guess I was wrong.
|
On November 29 2017 02:56 kollin wrote:
Just to be clear are you pinning the rise of Nazism on Stalinist Russia, or am I misunderstanding?
No that's just how actual genocide against your own population looks like. It's also a good case example of the underlying doctrine and mechanisms, which largely involve coming up with reasons to control people's behavior and speech for some utopian reason or another. Then, some other people show up and start doing the silly human, and then we get mass murder.
On topic, though, I would claim the fear of communism spreading within Germany, and the ensuing radical polarization destroying the center, was one of the fundamental facilitators of Hitler's mid-stage rise to power.
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 29 2017 03:04 zlefin 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. xdaunt is the lawyer, not danglars; the difference is quite apparent once you know what to look for (not really sure how to describe the difference in quality of argumentation/rhetoric)
xDaunt has a very distinctive style. He'll imply something fucked up and nonsensical by saying "I don't mind if DC residents don't have the franchise because they get a lot of government money" and then when you straight up ask him what he's saying he'll refuse to answer. If you then ask him if he believes that receiving government money and the right to the franchise are linked he will refuse to answer for fucking hours, insisting that the question is in bad faith and that it's a trap because he couldn't possibly just say "no" and move on with his life. To xDaunt answering any question, no matter how incredibly simple and objectively easy to answer, is a sign of weakness. He refuses to be led, even if it is to explaining what the hell he's talking about.
Danglars just complains about liberal colleges, elites, and how people are calling him a racist just because he constantly espouses policies and beliefs that support white supremacism. Completely different. Danglars is willing to explain what in the hell he believes. I disagree with his beliefs, but at least I know what they are.
xDaunt would happily post an article defending the KKK and then insist that the question "do you agree with the article you just posted?" is a trap.
|
On November 29 2017 03:09 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 03:04 zlefin wrote: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. xdaunt is the lawyer, not danglars; the difference is quite apparent once you know what to look for (not really sure how to describe the difference in quality of argumentation/rhetoric) also, yawn, another day where 90% of the posts are danglars nonsense, and people countering danglars' nonsense. For some reason I thought it was both xdaunt and danglars, guess I was wrong.
np, it happens. there are some other lawyers and/or paralegals around, don't remember who. I don't think there were any other on the "right" of the higher frequency posters.
|
On November 29 2017 03:04 zlefin 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. xdaunt is the lawyer, not danglars; the difference is quite apparent once you know what to look for (not really sure how to describe the difference in quality of argumentation/rhetoric) also, yawn, another day where 90% of the posts are danglars nonsense, and people countering danglars' nonsense.
Xdaunt dodges less obvious and isn't using the "but xyz amendment" as lightly, he also is smart enough to not bring up "black friends/coworkers".
Hes just better at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
