EPTDHS: Recession fueling right-wing extremism - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
| ||
|
benjammin
United States2728 Posts
![[image loading]](http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/1829/wtfnjt.jpg) | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
| ||
|
s_side
United States700 Posts
Fox News has its unstable lunatics and so does the rest of the media. [youtube]Zr4VZ8xCzOg[/youtube] | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On June 11 2009 11:27 Yurebis wrote: Incrementalism. Today, you got Glenn Beck and a few reports here and there from governmental agencies. Tomorrow, there will be talks of banning their speech. That's why you got to be mad at stuff like these. The MIAC report is old news but heres a little something about it: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin500.htm Also militia movements aren't illegal. Guns aren't illegal. Believing in anything isn't illegal. Why portrait these people as dangerous? Simple, the government is scared of (peaceful) people who are against their increasing power. Yeah, that's totally why. It's not at all because these crazies are dangerous and have killed people. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On June 11 2009 12:20 Mindcrime wrote: Yeah, that's totally why. It's not at all because these crazies are dangerous and have killed people. so have religious people, environmentalists, the military, the police, etc. etc. etc. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On June 11 2009 12:20 Mindcrime wrote: Yeah, that's totally why. It's not at all because these crazies are dangerous and have killed people. All I'm asking is for you to see the agenda behind these reports. Of course there are people who shoot people, always have been, always will be. They're called criminals. They should be tried in a court of law and arrested for their crimes. Not that deep of a concept. As for the rest of us, innocence until proven guilty, never the opposite. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On June 11 2009 12:25 Caller wrote: so have religious people, environmentalists, the military, the police, etc. etc. etc. So a report stating that there's likely to be a massive increase in police brutality, ecoterrorism, abortion doctor murders should be ignored because? | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
| ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
Incrementalism. Today, you got Glenn Beck and a few reports here and there from governmental agencies. Tomorrow, there will be talks of banning their speech. That's why you got to be mad at stuff like these. Any connection between 'right wing' and anything negative could bring up the same argument. This is the most ridiculous slippery slope argument I've ever seen. Why portray them as dangerous? Well, the shootings might clue you in: they are. If the left was as radicalized, calling them out on it would be perfectly legitimate. I don't see anyone here saying that shooting a pro-abortion doctor is wrong, while performing ecoterrorism by blowing up an oilrig is right. I'm pretty sure the radical, extremist nature of the sentiments held is the issue, not the political affiliation. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On June 11 2009 13:18 L wrote: Any connection between 'right wing' and anything negative could bring up the same argument. This is the most ridiculous slippery slope argument I've ever seen. Why portray them as dangerous? Well, the shootings might clue you in: they are. If the left was as radicalized, calling them out on it would be perfectly legitimate. I don't see anyone here saying that shooting a pro-abortion doctor is wrong, while performing ecoterrorism by blowing up an oilrig is right. I'm pretty sure the radical, extremist nature of the sentiments held is the issue, not the political affiliation. It doesn't matter how radical you are, you should never be seen as a criminal in the eyes of the law. Tell me, who is to define what is extremist and what not? And who is to gain from labeling militias, conservatives, libertarians, gun owners, etc. etc., dangerous? Answer: big government. They're not looking out for you, they're looking out for themselves. Because these groups really are "dangerous" to them, in the sense of wanting law, justice, and a government under the Constitution. Look who's always calling wolf and pointing fingers, it's the government scared of independent thinking people. They are not dangerous. I'm not dangerous. Look who's calling wolf, and who benefits from it. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On June 11 2009 13:05 L wrote: So a report stating that there's likely to be a massive increase in police brutality, ecoterrorism, abortion doctor murders should be ignored because? notice which report made the news, the right wing or left wing extremists | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
Do you even know what that means? This report warned of the rising amount of extremism in right wing groups; no one has criminalized anything. Even in terms of scope, the government hasn't acted on this at all except for tangentially when Obama made a point to visit a concentration camp during his visit to Germany. Who defines extremism? Well, lets come to a consensus, you and I, right now. Is murdering an abortion doctor an extremist action? Is shooting up a holocaust museum an extremist action? Is praying for the death of obama because he's a baby killer an extremist action? I say Yes to all three above. In legal terms, since you seem to throw them around and not know what they mean, this would be appealing to societal norms. Our society doesn't think shooting people is an acceptable form of political discourse, do you? Regale me with your tales of trees which need watering with blood, can you? Now look at the rest of your post; Big government, Government scared of independent thinking, you pretending the government was pointing the finger at you and not the people who JUST FUCKING COMMITTED MURDER. Again, is it that people are free thinking? Or is it that there's a rise in violent rhetoric attached to political agendas? Is it the rhetoric or the fact that it is inciting violence? Tell me, would it be acceptable if someone got on TV, sat down and had a show on a cable network that said "kill all of the niggers" every night? Do you think there's a reasonable limit on free speech when it comes to inciting hatred? What about when you flat out ask people to die, as is the case with an american pastor who prays publicly for Obama to die and praises the murder of an abortion doctor as a success? You tell me. I want to know. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On June 11 2009 14:10 L wrote: Criminal in the eyes of the law? Do you even know what that means? This report warned of the rising amount of extremism in right wing groups; no one has criminalized anything. Even in terms of scope, the government hasn't acted on this at all except for tangentially when Obama made a point to visit a concentration camp during his visit to Germany. Who defines extremism? Well, lets come to a consensus, you and I, right now. Is murdering an abortion doctor an extremist action? Is shooting up a holocaust museum an extremist action? Is praying for the death of obama because he's a baby killer an extremist action? I say Yes to all three above. In legal terms, since you seem to throw them around and not know what they mean, this would be appealing to societal norms. Our society doesn't think shooting people is an acceptable form of political discourse, do you? Regale me with your tales of trees which need watering with blood, can you? Now look at the rest of your post; Big government, Government scared of independent thinking, you pretending the government was pointing the finger at you and not the people who JUST FUCKING COMMITTED MURDER. Again, is it that people are free thinking? Or is it that there's a rise in violent rhetoric attached to political agendas? Is it the rhetoric or the fact that it is inciting violence? Tell me, would it be acceptable if someone got on TV, sat down and had a show on a cable network that said "kill all of the niggers" every night? Do you think there's a reasonable limit on free speech when it comes to inciting hatred? What about when you flat out ask people to die, as is the case with an american pastor who prays publicly for Obama to die and praises the murder of an abortion doctor as a success? You tell me. I want to know. since you're going to take the battle to extremes, as Mill would advocate, what about where we only can have free speech about topics where nobody will be able to get offended? say good bye to satire and political criticism. Say goodbye to humor in general. Where is the "reasonable limit" for free speech? Who decides this? The way I see it, either everybody's right to free speech should be tolerated, or nobody's at all. Even if the guy across the room screams "f*cking g*ok and ch*nk and j*p and n*****s stealing our jobs" he has the right to do so. What is so great about free speech is that I can scream back "shut the f*ck up!" and a lot of people would echo my motion. If you take away "hateful speech" what's to stop them from taking away any other kind of speech? It's a slippery slope. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On June 11 2009 14:09 Caller wrote: notice which report made the news, the right wing or left wing extremists Have you noticed the vast proliferation of actual censuring LAWS against ecoterrorism and the FBI's upscaling of its investigation of cells in the last 5 years? Lordy loo, incrementalism on the green front? Looks like nature lovers are viewed as criminal by the... Wait, you mean only people who spike trees and destroy logging plants are targetted? But that would mean that there's no incrementalism and that despite there being an extremist group, the moderate faction isn't being oppressed. Egads good sir, your attempt to link the revival of this thread, media trends as a whole and a gigantic government conspiracy to turn people into mindless drones has imploded upon itself. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On June 11 2009 14:17 Caller wrote: since you're going to take the battle to extremes, as Mill would advocate, what about where we only can have free speech about topics where nobody will be able to get offended? say good bye to satire and political criticism. Say goodbye to humor in general. Where is the "reasonable limit" for free speech? Who decides this? The way I see it, either everybody's right to free speech should be tolerated, or nobody's at all. Even if the guy across the room screams "f*cking g*ok and ch*nk and j*p and n*****s stealing our jobs" he has the right to do so. What is so great about free speech is that I can scream back "shut the f*ck up!" and a lot of people would echo my motion. If you take away "hateful speech" what's to stop them from taking away any other kind of speech? It's a slippery slope. Offence is one thing. Inciting people to violence is another. There are legal discriminations between the two types of speech. Maybe you should actually review the jurisprudence on the subject in the western world. Its rather consistent throughout in spirit. Next, you should look up the reasonable person standard and its application. Reasonable, for instance, determines fault in most court cases. The law is 'reasonable' in most instances. Reasonable is a legal term which has a precise position in analysis. Take your large room example: if you shouted back "i'm going to kill you" in a serious tone you'd be committing a criminal offence in most western juristictions. Wow, societies have found a reasonable limitation upon the right of free speech. Fantastic! Trying to confuse two different things together doesn't work when someone knows the difference between them. To go further, uttering death threats against the president of the united states has been a crime for quite some time, and someone has actually been incarcerated for doing so. http://michiganmessenger.com/3023/white-nationalist-websites-fired-up-with-conversation-about-alleged-obama-assassination-plot For instance. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On June 11 2009 14:17 L wrote: Have you noticed the vast proliferation of actual censuring LAWS against ecoterrorism and the FBI's upscaling of its investigation of cells in the last 5 years? Lordy loo, incrementalism on the green front? Looks like nature lovers are viewed as criminal by the... Wait, you mean only people who spike trees and destroy logging plants are targetted? But that would mean that there's no incrementalism and that despite there being an extremist group, the moderate faction isn't being oppressed. Egads good sir, your attempt to link the revival of this thread, media trends as a whole and a gigantic government conspiracy to turn people into mindless drones has imploded upon itself. again, guilt by association. You attempt to connect my political views on freedom of speech and political bias to being a tin-foil hat who thinks the twin towers were an inside job and that bush rigged the election and that jfk was killed by kim jong-il!!!! oneoneoneoen I didn't say, "oh, look who's being persecuted by the FBI" I said "oh, look which report made the news." I'm less worried about what the government does than what an ill-informed public does. Tyranny of the majority is always a bad thing. Always is. If you have an ill-informed majority making stupid decisions in a democracy, not only is there no legal recourse, but no social recourse to their dumb decisions either. By presenting all extremists as right-wing fascists (which are actually closer to socailists than conservatives) in news articles, the public gains a more biased view of who is an extremist. This is always, always a bad thing. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On June 11 2009 14:22 L wrote: Offence is one thing. Inciting people to violence is another. There are legal discriminations between the two types of speech. Maybe you should actually review the jurisprudence on the subject in the western world. Its rather consistent throughout in spirit. Next, you should look up the reasonable person standard and its application. Reasonable, for instance, determines fault in most court cases. The law is 'reasonable' in most instances. Reasonable is a legal term which has a precise position in analysis. Take your large room example: if you shouted back "i'm going to kill you" in a serious tone you'd be committing a criminal offence in most western juristictions. Wow, societies have found a reasonable limitation upon the right of free speech. Fantastic! Trying to confuse two different things together doesn't work when someone knows the difference between them. Ah, there's the thing: the reasonable person standard. It was implemented for the "fire in a crowded theater" rules, however. The reason for this was not to prevent someone saying something, it was created to prevent someone from causing damage and mass chaos by saying something to intentionally do so. For instance, if I shouted fire in a crowded theater, somebody would inevitably get hurt for my personal sadism. That is clearly illegal. I'm not saying that all speech is legal. I'm saying that the current system of shutting down "hateful" speech is stupid. How many people have listened to a guy that has been branded as a "Nazi," regardless of whether or not he actually is a Nazi? And how do you tell what "tone" somebody is using? It could be a subtle tone, suggesting a joke, it could be an inside joke that was overheard, it could be genuinely serious, it could be anything. Voila, the "reasonable person" standard is not ideal-it may work 905 of the time, but it won't work 100% of the time. Again, you have 90% of a majority agreeing something works at the expense of the 10% minority that it doesn't work for. Just like slavery worked for 70% of the population of the South means we should have kept it over the 30% minority, right? | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
The line has been drawn quite a while ago. There exists a judiciary system for a reason. You think someone is plotting to overthrow the government or shoot mass people, you charge them, and bring in the evidence, not try to associate them with stupid links like "oh this one just shot people, and he's a white supremacists, and some white supremacists are militia members and like Ron Paul! Therefore, Ron Paul people are potential mass killers!" There is 0 need for reports or talks like these. It's you people that are moving the goalposts, with the agenda of painting the upkeepers of the Constitution as extremists. The problem here is that you trust these agencies to define who is being too extremist (whoever has thoughts that go against their agenda) and who's fine. It's because you trust them so much that they can do whatever the fuck they want. It's very clear for me what the agenda is. It's no conspiracy, it's out in the open. It's a sick, corrupt government that's gone mad and now are demonizing constitutionalists, very simple... Now, if you trust the government, obviously you're gonna say it's all ok, nothing's been done yet, but you accept these things so readily, they'll have no problem pushing bills restraining free speech in the near future. Do you trust the government to shut up and/or arrest those who *MAY* become criminals just for their group affiliations? Well, never mind, they already do that with the Patriot Act... | ||
| ||
