US Politics Mega-thread - Page 561

On July 31 2018 12:15 m4ini wrote:


They also are protected. I'm assuming you're hinting at things like Charlottesville, for example.

The law states that, to be actionable, it must lead to "imminent lawless action". That means literal incitement. As in, for example, "i'm encouraging you to kill somebody" - not just saying (or "being") something that angers someone.

edit:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-virginia-protests-speech-factbox/factbox-when-can-free-speech-be-restricted-in-the-united-states-idUSKCN1AU2E0

That puts it in terms that laymen can understand (including me).

On July 31 2018 12:57 m4ini wrote:
I'm not gonna get into that, i had that discussion with him (and others here, sadly) before, it's still as idiotic as it was back when Charlottesville happened.

To be clear: i would never defend nazi ideology. I'm german, i studied it for almost a decade as part of my general education, including visiting concentration camps and talking to holocaust/KZ survivors. I've got a good grasp on what Nazism actually stands for (contrary to most nazis, funny enough) and how terrifying it is.

That doesn't justify retarded behaviour on "my side". And yes, arguing that punching a nazi is justified is a slippery slope that easily can be sled down to justifying murder for the greater good. Not to mention, it doesn't do jack shit to actually fix the situation in the US. All it does is giving someone the ammo to go on more crusades, or, depending on the state you're doing it in, a surefire way to get dead.

In regards to "the n-word", as someone who's watching the US from the outside, i feel like a brilliant place to start getting rid of "the n word" is by asking black people to stop using it. Not just rappers, but more "palatable" (to me as the average white nerd) people like Kevin Hart too.

On July 31 2018 13:04 GreenHorizons wrote:


I mean pretty much everything except your description of your familiarity with nazi ideology (I can't speak to that) is dead wrong.

but I think you're right that it's best we leave it there.

For example, how is it then justifiable to introduce the "Unmasking Antifa Act"? I assume this wouldn't be able to pass?

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/396404-unmasking-antifa-act-includes-15-year-prison-term-proposal

On July 31 2018 13:13 m4ini wrote:


Except it isn't. It is an almost literal quote of one of the left leaning papers in the UK, in response to the "punching a nazi meme".

And yeah, sure. I'm dead wrong arguing that in states with "stand your ground laws" i'm legally able to shoot you in your face because you punched me for saying something moronic.

Go ahead and try. Or better: don't, because contrary to your "opinion", everything i said is correct. To be clear: these are not opinions, these are facts. The only opinion i gave you was in regards to the use of "the n-word". Cute though.

On July 31 2018 13:13 m4ini wrote:

I'll be honest, that's above my horizon too. Though, i mean it's in the name, it's supposed to target antifa specifically (though they don't mention antifa in the text itself). But even if it does, the premise is "disguised". Take the mask off, and this law doesn't touch you. That's at least how i understand it.

On July 31 2018 13:59 screamingpalm wrote:


Targeting a specific group is part of the issue I have. I would think that passing a law about wearing masks seems to go against free speech. I'm not completely sure, but I think the purpose of wearing masks and bandanas isn't for disguise, but to lessen effects of stuff like pepper spray.


Thanks for the replies, like I say, definitely not something I am well versed in.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is siding with Russia in a potential landmark case over an issue that threatens to tear the World Trade Organization apart: What actions can countries take in the name of national security, even if it violates their WTO commitments?

The panel’s decision, expected later this year, could be consequential for a number of cases brought against the U.S. over President Donald Trump’s use of steel and aluminum tariffs.

However, the case involving Russia stems from a different type of action — namely, transit restrictions that Moscow imposed on Ukraine in January 2016 that cut off key markets in Central Asia and the Caucuses, which Ukrainian exporters can only reach by Russian roads. The move came amid continuing conflict between the two nations over Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March 2014 and a war in eastern Ukraine that’s now in its fifth year.

Although the U.S. backs Ukraine in the larger territorial conflict, both the U.S. and Russia argue the WTO has no right to weigh in on the case Ukraine brought against the transit restrictions.

That’s because Moscow says it imposed its restrictions as a national security measure under Article 21 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which allows members to take actions that violate their WTO commitments for purposes of national security.

Europe is worried that U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum are just the beginning.

The EU’s bigger fear is that Trump’s ultimate goal is to kill off the World Trade Organization and rip up the current rule book that underpins global trade networks.

European trade officials argue that their American counterparts are sick of WTO judgments they think are too lenient toward China, and are now ready to take a sledgehammer to the whole system.

America is well advanced in its plans to throttle the WTO’s appellate court, where countries resolve disputes over everything from subsidies to anti-dumping tariffs. Washington’s strategy is to block the appointment of judges, which should bring the system to a halt next year.

To the Europeans, Trump is making a cynical calculation that the U.S. is the world’s No.1 economy and can outmuscle any opponent in a trade dispute, without the need for international arbitration. In a world that returns to the law of the jungle, Trump reckons he wins.

Both Brussels and the WTO are moving into crisis mode over this attack on the appellate court. The EU reckons that America’s might-is-right approach will sap confidence in global trade and undermine economic growth.

On July 31 2018 14:12 m4ini wrote:

If they were for protection, they'd be wearing ski masks too to protect their eyes.

On July 31 2018 14:50 hunts wrote:
Jesus, it's like trump is trying to cause as much damage to every US and EU institution that he can as fast as he can. I know durign the election I joked about him literally being putins puppet, but it's starting to look more and more like that wasn't a joke. He's literally trying his hardest to fuck over every US and non Us thing that he can that russia would benefit from being fucked over.

On July 31 2018 15:56 Mohdoo wrote:

Devil's advocate: in a world without instititons that level the playing field, extreme military dominance, as found in both the US and Russia, ends up being a huge deal. One could argue both the US and Russia would mutually benefit from a world where China and Europe are both a lot weaker and reliant on Russia/US.

On July 31 2018 16:10 Yurie wrote:

Let's speculate on that then, EU is currently close to parity with Russia (slightly behind due to UK leaving). So the ramp up that would spark would make the EU easily eclipse the Russian military within a decade due to economy and population.

On July 31 2018 12:57 m4ini wrote:
I'm not gonna get into that, i had that discussion with him (and others here, sadly) before, it's still as idiotic as it was back when Charlottesville happened.

To be clear: i would never defend nazi ideology. I'm german, i studied it for almost a decade as part of my general education, including visiting concentration camps and talking to holocaust/KZ survivors. I've got a good grasp on what Nazism actually stands for (contrary to most nazis, funny enough) and how terrifying it is.

That doesn't justify retarded behaviour on "my side". And yes, arguing that punching a nazi is justified is a slippery slope that easily can be sled down to justifying murder for the greater good. Not to mention, it doesn't do jack shit to actually fix the situation in the US. All it does is giving someone the ammo to go on more crusades, or, depending on the state you're doing it in, a surefire way to get dead.

In regards to "the n-word", as someone who's watching the US from the outside, i feel like a brilliant place to start getting rid of "the n word" is by asking black people to stop using it. Not just rappers, but more "palatable" (to me as the average white nerd) people like Kevin Hart too.

edit: sidenote, i do understand that "the n-word" (which btw in itself is an absolutely moronic term) is used differently in these examples, which has no impact on my argument.

On July 31 2018 20:34 Plansix wrote:

The problem(one of many) with Charlottesville is the Nazi/proud boy protestors showed up armed and with body armor. It sort of undercuts the whole peaceful protest when they are marching into the city with bats and shields.

On July 31 2018 16:14 Mohdoo wrote:

Bingo. That's why it is so important Russia pump support into brexit and "fuck nato" US administrations. They want to prevent the currently inevitable rise of Europe. At current pace, Europe will eventually checkmate Russia. They can stop or delay it by causing disunity.

On July 31 2018 20:48 m4ini wrote:


I tend to agree with that assessment, but it's leaving out a few key problems. My stance on nazism should be clear by now, but also the fact that i respect the laws surrounding it (even though i don't agree with them actually). Showing up armed is legal. Is it threatening? Of course. But that doesn't change anything - in fact, it's not like they were the only ones bringing bats.

We can go into an argument if they brought bats/shields to protect themselves, to look like white nerd badasses or whatever, fact of the matter is that there are constant calls for violence. Do i think it's retarded to protest armed? Yeah. On both sides, in fact. And i think the laws absolutely should be changed - but as long as they aren't, they can drive up with a tank. As long as they don't use it, it's still to be considered peaceful even though the very reason for protesting is already "flammable".

That's proving my point though, by calling for violence against Nazis, you give them the excuse to actually come in body armor/shields/things that could be argued "self defense" (even if they aren't necessarily). It really isn't that hard a concept to understand (not pointed at you).

edit: to be even clearer, i grew up in a country where hatespeech (more specifically, nazism) is a crime, and i absolutely agree with those laws.