|
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. |
My backdoor neighbour is a neo-nazi who enjoys standing outside shouting sieg heil at the top of his lungs. While illegal and wrong I can sympathize with anyone who wants to punch a nazi in the face. Gods knows i've wanted to do it a few times.
|
On November 29 2017 03:11 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 03:09 hunts wrote: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.
P6 is a paralegal (I think that's the term).
There's a few others like myself that, at the very least, have some low-level legal education (American or otherwise) and some willingness to read laws and legal documents.
|
On November 29 2017 03:00 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:53 Danglars wrote: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.
Yes, and I hope some day he realizes this, or at least his bigger defenders ala "The solution to calling everybody racist is for everybody else to stop being racist."
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.
I'm not with you. I draw the line just past noisy counterprotests. If you're in the public square, you can gather around the march and shout to show the community these views are sick and unacceptable. Bring your friends. Make signs. Have a ball.
If you start a melee at a peaceful demonstration of some extremely sick ideology (again, it doesn't include calling to lynch blacks tomorrow, or other immediate threats of unlawful conduct), then you're saying that ideology is so contagious and powerful that you have to break your society to oppose it. I think the civil society is strong enough to survive without endangering the physical safety of fellow citizens espousing some stupid ethnostate or whatever ideology. If not, then let's chuck the republic out, because you can't trust your fellow citizens to not follow the latest demagogue that's free to speak and others are free to speak back.
I also want to point out that you're right about "we all actually know what the line is with this stuff." I know what will get me punched in a bar (to depart from the group march in public for a second). We're all anonymous on the internet, so people like GH can pretend that all his stated abuses justify a punch ... aka something I'd be liable to say based on my interactions on this forum would probably make our political discussion end with him punching me. I doubt he would actually follow through on what he considers detestable on the internet with what he's willing to fight in real life. My point was that things regularly said by conservatives in this forum, and regularly called racist by the more left-wing aligned posters, should never be heightened to be hate speech and banned or morally justify physical violence. The mods do a useful job of banning the more sick posts that I would expect others to get in a barfight for.
GH is an extreme example, which is part of why I took issue in the first place when he said "treat you like a racist douche" (you mentioned the low bar) and "defend his right to advocate genocide, and get punched too." These are easily past the line of inventing grievances to justify violence in society, despite whatever legal consequences he might say he's willing to accept.
|
edit:
Post above pretty much answered my question.
|
|
|
Which cabinet member/campaign donor knows the company or owns stakes in it?
|
I love how no matter how many times I admit to saying/doing things that support white supremacy or are racist there is still an insistence that it's just an insult I use against "everyone I disagree with"
I don't know how many more times or other ways I can explain that part for people to understand
EDIT: "Make sure to schedule an appropriate resting period between your rally gathering support for lynching black people and your actual lynching party (maybe enough to gain in size and influence) and I'll your support your right to do that, until the lynchings start" - Danglars
I'm laughing too hard to type at this point. Have fun man.
|
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.
I really didn't expect much opposition on that point. Trump is wrong between 80% and 99% of the time, so I see no reason not to give him credit where credit is due. I really think it should be a unifying principle to honor the founders of the nation, teach them as conflicted men, write plaques that show what of their actions should be remembered and celebrated, and the like. In today's divided country, we can use visible examples of fallible people that did both good and bad in their life.
|
United States42578 Posts
Jockmcplop, nobody things Danglars is a racist because he's a conservative. It's just the beliefs he claims to espouse can only be rationally explained if they start with the filter "does this benefit white supremacy?". There is no way to get from Danglars' stated beliefs to the arguments he makes without adding in that filter. He claims to support the constitutional rights of Americans, and yet is absent when large numbers of black Americans are denied the fundamental right of the franchise. He claims to support free speech and yet is absent when the head of the executive openly attacks Americans for using it. He claims to support justice and yet when his nominee for President pardons the undeniably racist Arpaio he's absent.
Compare that with the ACLU, for example. The ACLU claim to be non partisan and that all civil rights matter to them. They supported the victims of Trump's illegal residency denials, but they also supported alt-right protesters. That's what it looks like when you're a zealot for the cause, rather than using it as cover.
Danglars invokes a set of racially neutral axioms to support his beliefs. But he invokes them on clearly racially motivated lines.
Does that make sense?
|
On November 29 2017 03:17 Danglars wrote:
I'm not with you. I draw the line just past noisy counterprotests. If you're in the public square, you can gather around the march and shout to show the community these views are sick and unacceptable. Bring your friends. Make signs. Have a ball.
If you start a melee at a peaceful demonstration of some extremely sick ideology (again, it doesn't include calling to lynch blacks tomorrow, or other immediate threats of unlawful conduct), then you're saying that ideology is so contagious and powerful that you have to break your society to oppose it. I think the civil society is strong enough to survive without endangering the physical safety of fellow citizens espousing some stupid ethnostate or whatever ideology. If not, then let's chuck the republic out, because you can't trust your fellow citizens to not follow the latest demagogue that's free to speak and others are free to speak back.
This depends on the context to me. If its a situation where intimidation is involved, then there is a right to fight back. If its a situation where three dudes are shouting racist abuse at a woman in the street, then they deserve to be punched.
If there's a march then a counter march is waaaaaaaay better than starting a fight because:
a) starting a fight will get you arrested for sure
b) starting a fight is counter productive (you get all the negative press and none of the positive)
c) starting a fight is exactly what extremists want.
|
On November 29 2017 03:00 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:15 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
Ouch. I thought you were more civilized than to presume a political discussion would turn to blows.
But yes, we've heard your defense of screaming racist at everything because everything is racist before. Well we have mutual combat laws here so I figured it would go something like you say something repugnant, I say you can't say that, you say you can, I challenge you to combat to settle whether you can say it in my presence or not, you don't like those choices and object. I assure you your choices are 1. not say it 2.fight 3. get ostrasized and not be a part of the conversation. You pick fight and get punched in the throat. I suppose you could just walk away or stop, but you seem far too stubborn to do something like that. Seems perfectly civilized to me, but you also can't tell the difference between everything being racist and racism being a part of pretty much everything in this country so we clearly have trouble agreeing on the meaning of words. Your evaluation of what’s repugnant lol. You’re way too willing to settle things with violence for me. Go find a police officer or something to get your rocks off. You’ve always seen racism in everything and I don’t expect it to change soon. It's pretty simple really. We both see a Nazi advocating for my genocide I go to punch him, you defend his right to advocate genocide, and get punched too. You act like your positions aren't antithetical to polite discourse on their face. You seem to think you're entitled to the floor to say whatever you want, well, you can't say fire in a crowded theater and you can't advocate for my genocide in my presence. You want to think that makes me the uncivilized one, you go right ahead. I do have to give you points for the clever "Kill yourself" line you slipped in there though. First amendment free speech rights, who needs them? I should frame those first two sentences. But don’t worry, bro, if they shout to start lynching blacks in such and such neighborhood, that’s inciting imminent unlawful activity. I won’t let your base stupidity on the free speech rights of citizens interfere with the historical crossing of the line. You wish everybody thought like you, but they don’t. If you’re perpetually aggrieved, and say that gives you the right to punch someone talking politics, you construct your own law. Just excuse your own mischief. Here’s a thought: If you’re sharing beers and a political topic comes up, and you’re willing to punch him or her over it, just tell them to not discuss politics. It’ll work out better for both, and you get the bonus of not appearing to be a man itching for a fight. Given your tendency to call conservatives here advocates of white supremacy, and topics not unique to the black community expose white fragility, you’re just telling everyone to expect violence for their politics. And anyone not in full agreement with your political theory will have the good sense to stay away from those threats. You're sitting here defending advocating genocide on the principle that it will take too long to get from where we are today to actually committing genocide without a shred of irony. As for the rest, I already said that in the first place... But in reality I have friends with wildly different politics. I'm the leftiest though. They run all the way to "voted for Trump" you seem not to appreciate how absurd the ground you're standing on is as displayed by the first part. You're sitting here unaware that intruding on the free speech rights of some imperils the free speech rights of all. And then you make the absurd leap that neonazis protected when they do their stupid marches is one short step to "actually committing genocide." We have laws. You can say what you like politically with great freedom. You can't start killing people based on skin color. These laws have held up thus far. I'm glad you haven't put your stated rules for socking people into practice with your friend group. 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.
Are you really ducking to Arpaio? Was Obama black and did he have pardon power over everyone black and white?
|
United States42578 Posts
On November 29 2017 03:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 03:00 Artisreal wrote:On November 29 2017 02:15 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
Well we have mutual combat laws here so I figured it would go something like you say something repugnant, I say you can't say that, you say you can, I challenge you to combat to settle whether you can say it in my presence or not, you don't like those choices and object. I assure you your choices are 1. not say it 2.fight 3. get ostrasized and not be a part of the conversation. You pick fight and get punched in the throat.
I suppose you could just walk away or stop, but you seem far too stubborn to do something like that.
Seems perfectly civilized to me, but you also can't tell the difference between everything being racist and racism being a part of pretty much everything in this country so we clearly have trouble agreeing on the meaning of words. Your evaluation of what’s repugnant lol. You’re way too willing to settle things with violence for me. Go find a police officer or something to get your rocks off. You’ve always seen racism in everything and I don’t expect it to change soon. It's pretty simple really. We both see a Nazi advocating for my genocide I go to punch him, you defend his right to advocate genocide, and get punched too. You act like your positions aren't antithetical to polite discourse on their face. You seem to think you're entitled to the floor to say whatever you want, well, you can't say fire in a crowded theater and you can't advocate for my genocide in my presence. You want to think that makes me the uncivilized one, you go right ahead. I do have to give you points for the clever "Kill yourself" line you slipped in there though. First amendment free speech rights, who needs them? I should frame those first two sentences. But don’t worry, bro, if they shout to start lynching blacks in such and such neighborhood, that’s inciting imminent unlawful activity. I won’t let your base stupidity on the free speech rights of citizens interfere with the historical crossing of the line. You wish everybody thought like you, but they don’t. If you’re perpetually aggrieved, and say that gives you the right to punch someone talking politics, you construct your own law. Just excuse your own mischief. Here’s a thought: If you’re sharing beers and a political topic comes up, and you’re willing to punch him or her over it, just tell them to not discuss politics. It’ll work out better for both, and you get the bonus of not appearing to be a man itching for a fight. Given your tendency to call conservatives here advocates of white supremacy, and topics not unique to the black community expose white fragility, you’re just telling everyone to expect violence for their politics. And anyone not in full agreement with your political theory will have the good sense to stay away from those threats. You're sitting here defending advocating genocide on the principle that it will take too long to get from where we are today to actually committing genocide without a shred of irony. As for the rest, I already said that in the first place... But in reality I have friends with wildly different politics. I'm the leftiest though. They run all the way to "voted for Trump" you seem not to appreciate how absurd the ground you're standing on is as displayed by the first part. You're sitting here unaware that intruding on the free speech rights of some imperils the free speech rights of all. And then you make the absurd leap that neonazis protected when they do their stupid marches is one short step to "actually committing genocide." We have laws. You can say what you like politically with great freedom. You can't start killing people based on skin color. These laws have held up thus far. I'm glad you haven't put your stated rules for socking people into practice with your friend group. 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. Are you really ducking to Arpaio? Was Obama black and did he have pardon power over everyone black and white?
Pretty sure Obama was mixed race.
|
On November 29 2017 03:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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).
No, I don't understand the difference. Would you be kind enough to elaborate?
|
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.
and zlefin posting nonsense about the presumed nonsense ...
|
re: a bit above on statues
because credit isn't due here; THEY didn't all come for the founding father statues; only some extremists did.
and there's ALWAYS some extremist who goes further. so he didn't get anything right. he lied, and was wrong; being half-right doesn't mean much when anyone can be half-right.
so you're just promulgating lies as usual danglars, and improperly conflating situations that are quite different.
and my post wasn't nonsense, it was correctly pointing out a real problem in the thread that degrades it a lot. so it's in the responses to nonsense trolling category, not nonsense itself; still all part of that 90% though.
|
On November 29 2017 03:24 KwarK wrote:
Jockmcplop, nobody things Danglars is a racist because he's a conservative. It's just the beliefs he claims to espouse can only be rationally explained if they start with the filter "does this benefit white supremacy?". There is no way to get from Danglars' stated beliefs to the arguments he makes without adding in that filter. He claims to support the constitutional rights of Americans, and yet is absent when large numbers of black Americans are denied the fundamental right of the franchise. He claims to support free speech and yet is absent when the head of the executive openly attacks Americans for using it. He claims to support justice and yet when his nominee for President pardons the undeniably racist Arpaio he's absent.
Compare that with the ACLU, for example. The ACLU claim to be non partisan and that all civil rights matter to them. They supported the victims of Trump's illegal residency denials, but they also supported alt-right protesters. That's what it looks like when you're a zealot for the cause, rather than using it as cover.
Danglars invokes a set of racially neutral axioms to support his beliefs. But he invokes them on clearly racially motivated lines.
Does that make sense?
Yes. I wasn't saying that people unfairly treat Danglars as a racist. I'm saying that when posts that don't really have anything to do with racism are treated as evidence of white supremacism, something that I have often seen here, it lowers the bar and all of a sudden the discussion of whether or not its ok to punch someone for having extreme political views is difficult.
Do I support punching nazis? Sometimes yes
Do I support punching white supremacists? Fuck no! I probably am one depending on who you ask.
|
I just want to remind folks that the Nazi party were generally considered to be buffoons, losers and otherwise a silly fringe party right up until they took power. I could go on for days about why that totally takeover of power would never happen in the US, but that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t be concerned with the prevalence of Nazi ideology in main stream political discourse.
We don’t need to end up in full 1937 Germany for the modern white Nationalist to do a lot of damage. And these folks are shameless. They will lie through their teeth that they don’t believe in violence, are not racist and are totally not Nazis. While at the same time saying that Hitler loved his country and historians over look that. The biggest mistake the US could ever make would be not taking these people seriously.
|
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.
your reading comprehension is like, really bad dude. i merely made the point that there is plenty of stuff that while technically legal and protected may still result in shitty consequences which the law does not protect people from. for example, it's perfectly legal for me to stick my hand on the stove, and if i get burned it's my own fault.
any sort of misunderstanding about my position on the use of violence from my initial post should have been cleared up in the subsequent ones. we can ask any random poster to see if i'm still being unclear or if you're having trouble reading.
|
oh yeah, and I found this danglars remark funny:
"If not, then let's chuck the republic out, because you can't trust your fellow citizens to not follow the latest demagogue that's free to speak and others are free to speak back."
given how many citizens DID follow the latest demagogue to the detriment of the country and the world, and despite abundant evidence objectively establishing the truth.
|
On November 29 2017 03:25 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 03:17 Danglars wrote:
I'm not with you. I draw the line just past noisy counterprotests. If you're in the public square, you can gather around the march and shout to show the community these views are sick and unacceptable. Bring your friends. Make signs. Have a ball.
If you start a melee at a peaceful demonstration of some extremely sick ideology (again, it doesn't include calling to lynch blacks tomorrow, or other immediate threats of unlawful conduct), then you're saying that ideology is so contagious and powerful that you have to break your society to oppose it. I think the civil society is strong enough to survive without endangering the physical safety of fellow citizens espousing some stupid ethnostate or whatever ideology. If not, then let's chuck the republic out, because you can't trust your fellow citizens to not follow the latest demagogue that's free to speak and others are free to speak back. This depends on the context to me. If its a situation where intimidation is involved, then there is a right to fight back. If its a situation where three dudes are shouting racist abuse at a woman in the street, then they deserve to be punched. If there's a march then a counter march is waaaaaaaay better than starting a fight because: a) starting a fight will get you arrested for sure b) starting a fight is counter productive (you get all the negative press and none of the positive) c) starting a fight is exactly what extremists want.
Then we're in agreement. I take issue and continue to take issue with GH because of his broad construction of what makes someone a racist douche, and his broad proclamation that stuff I have said are liable to get me punched (aka he'd feel morally justified to punch me for it). I haven't wished death on his family, restriction of voting rights, restriction of free speech rights. I don't see a happy conclusion to the gradual heightening of offenses that are racist or in white supremacist lines. That's why I want abundant free speech rights backed by police protection for all people, knowing that what is and isn't hate speech or x-phobia increases year over year. That's why I write in opposition to people punching others that support the free speech rights of nonviolent citizens with detestable ideologies. Letting people make their case peaceably is a wonderful aspect of western civilization, and in my mind, one of the reasons this nation has endured for this long. It actually works against the likelihood that a violent group will enact a coup over local government (the "if you let them speak, genocide is the next step" argument).
Counter-marches are good for the reasons you state as well as showing you're tolerant in a free society. Rights you enjoy you will extend to others. That builds trust and strengthens communities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
