DHS: Recession fueling right-wing extremism - Page 11

On June 11 2009 14:22 Caller wrote:

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.

On June 11 2009 14:29 Caller wrote:

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?

Nothing should be done about it, and it's disgusting that the government makes reports like these with taxpayer money.
I'm done, if you see nothing wrong with this government these days, I just can't help it but give up.

The limits are well defined within the current law. If you threaten someone of physical harm, it's a crime. If you cause bodily harm to someone, it's a crime. It's not extremism. You're using the same semantics as them...

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...

On June 11 2009 14:39 L wrote:

I haven't accused you of anything you haven't done. The word conspiracy doesn't immediately mean you're a hermit trying to deflect zeta waves destined for your head.

Did you really say "look which report made the news"? I'm pretty sure that wasn't how you entered this thread revival.

You started off by calling the guy a nutjob to say that the report's results didn't mean anything. Clearly this man wasn't an extremist. You then tried to differentiate between nutjobs and extremists and I conclusively shut you down. After that you said this was guilt by association, and using the argument presented under the term incrementalism, the definition of 'guilt by association' was so large that ANY negative comments towards ANY right wing group was guilt by association.

Is there a guilt by association issue when two people with white supremacy paraphernalia are picked up with a sniper rifle and admitting they were trying to kill the president? Yeah, a bit, but no one's shutdown stormfront, and no one's outlawed the swastika. The position that LEGAL rights would be abridged is similarly bogus.

So what are you guilty of, exactly, and why is this different from any sort of remotely partisan reporting? Why does the partisanship make the report WRONG? Is it wrong? Do you agree there's a rise in right wing extremism? What do you think should be done about it? What if it was left wing extremism? I've already shown that laws have been passed against it, but I didn't see you up in arms about the freedom of speech of people who were spiking trees, did I?

On June 11 2009 15:14 L wrote:


Uh, no, the reasonable limit to freedom of speech was examined as theoretical: would calling fire in a crowded theater be acceptible? The judge reasoned that it would not be, hence it would be reasonable to find a limit on the right.

And you're wrong:

It was to prevent someone from saying something. The chaos and damage weren't the sanctioned offence: it was the right to attempt to incite that chaos.

You admit there's a limit to the allowable speech, yet you're firmly opposed to 'hateful' speech being sanctioned. Fair enough. I agree in most instances. If someone wants to disagree with the way holocaust history is taught, for instance, that's 100% cool with me. I wouldn't mind someone actually giving me a german soldier's point of view during WW2, because I'm pretty sure the nation didn't just turn into a black war machine, yet I never hear that story.

Does that mean that I accept extremism? Well, it depends on what you mean by extremist. I think someone holding a contraversial point of view is not necessarily an extremist, but I do think that someone advocating violence, or committing violence in the attempt to further a political goal can be seen as one outside the context of war.

Additionally, the reasonable standard has nothing to do with what the majority thinks. The reasonable standard REGULARLY evaluates norms and rejects them. A poignant example was a case in liability where a home owner refused to shovel his walkway or put salt, and a guest slipped, fell and sued him in tort. The norm of not laying down salt/gravel was found to be no excuse for the action which was found to be at fault. When courts do such things, as they've regularly done, they're criticized as activist courts; Typically its the right that wants the courts to shut up and accept majority norms as binding. Industry standards are regularly found to be insufficient. Government inaction or discrimination is regularly found to be illegal despite norms to the contrary.

(U) anti-immigration (U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who are
extremism vehemently opposed to illegal immigration, particularly along
the U.S. southwest border with Mexico, and who have been
known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts
of violence and terrorism to advance their extremist goals.
They are highly critical of the U.S. Government’s response to
illegal immigration and oppose government programs that are
designed to extend “rights” to illegal aliens, such as issuing
driver’s licenses or national identification cards and providing
in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public education.

(U) militia movement (U//FOUO) A rightwing extremist movement composed of
groups or individuals who adhere to an antigovernment
ideology often incorporating various conspiracy theories.
Members oppose most federal and state laws, regulations, and
authority (particularly firearms laws and regulations) and
often conduct paramilitary training designed to resist
perceived government interference in their activities or to
overthrow the U.S. Government through the use of violence.
(also: citizens militia, unorganized militia)

(U) patriot movement (U//FOUO) A term used by rightwing extremists to link their
beliefs to those commonly associated with the American
Revolution. The patriot movement primarily comprises
violent antigovernment groups such as militias and sovereign
citizens.
(also: Christian patriots, patriot group, Constitutionalists,
Constitutionist)

(U) rightwing (U//FOUO) A movement of rightwing groups or individuals
extremism who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily
hate-oriented, and those who are mainly antigovernment and
reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.
This term also may refer to rightwing extremist movements
that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to
abortion or immigration.
(also known as far right, extreme right)

Hey don't go saying I'm making shit up, read the MIAC report, can't you read it say Ron Paul supporters, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, people who mention the constitution, people who oppose the patriot act, etc. etc. You think people like these deserve to put up with this?

On June 11 2009 15:26 Caller wrote:

A) First of all, I didn't say the report's results didn't mean anything, I said that the correlation between this guy killing a guard at the Holocaust museum and the report of increased right-wing extremism is not there. Just because he happened to be right-wing doesn't mean that the report is true, and we have to go on a domestic witchhunt to find these "right-wing extremists."
B) Second of all, you didn't shut me down. I already differentiated the two: extremism can also be interpreted as radical: for instance, the pure democratic socialists of the French Revolution (before they went mad and started decapitating people) were "extremists." I wanted to say nutjob is someone who is literally insane and deprived of mental faculties, but apparently you misinterpreted me. My apologies for being vague.
C) Third of all, I didn't suggest the incrementalism idea. You're using somebody else's ideas talking about something else to prove me wrong. I did say the slippery slope, which is different.
D) Again, I'm not worried of the government doing anything. I already said there isn't any legal background for it. What I am overwhelmingly concerned for is that people will assume that all antigovernment people are right-wing extremists and white supremacists and murderers, because, as Winston Churchill once noted, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
E) If it was left-wing extremism that was alleged to be considered racist, I would also be up in arms about it. In no way do I condone murder or the use of force or the damaging of property or anything that requires coercion, by anyone, including government. But spiking trees is destroying property, and they're as bad as this lunatic who shot and killed somebody. However, the news report didn't show anything about left-wing extremists other than a mere short passage saying there was a similar report done. That's it. And that's also why I'm concerned, here.

First of all, I thought I did mention that the inciting of chaos were the sanctioned offense. If it didn't come out that way, my apologies.
We also agree in terms of extremism to an extent. My only difference is that I would cut the line a little bit further to just committing violence or ordering people to commit violence. If Rush Limbaugh says "Those members of Congress that voted for this bill should be shot!" I don't think that's justified to have him arrested. On the other hand, if it were some guy telling his buddies that they should all go kill the nearest minorities, that would clearly not be constitutionally protected in any interpretation.
The reasonable standard relies on a very vague interpretation, is what I was trying to get at. It relies on judges to pretend to be somebody else to see the case. My argument is that even if it is an ideal standard, it is not being executed properly.

On June 11 2009 16:43 L wrote:
Nor does your link say the people you mentioned are highlighted by the MIAC report. It says that people prone to being in militias would most likely support these candidates. Does that make sense? Hells yes. Those who typically have the most support for militia movements are those who support the most libertarian leaning candidates.

On June 11 2009 17:07 Yurebis wrote:

Emphasis mine. You disgust me. You think that's good? You think it's ok to just randomly start making these stupid links and send out these reports to police all over the place? What the fuck.

I already said what the link was. You're playing dumb. The link is, they start saying how militias are bad and how this guy and that guy shot a cop or whatever, then start going into people who may be in the militia and it goes downhill from there

RON PAUL BUMPER STICKER -> Militia member

And

Militia Member -> Cop Killer

There is no other reason to put those two stupid "links" together in the same report other than inferring that

RON PAUL SUPPORTER -> COP KILLERS

You get it yet or are you going to play dumb again? " Oh there's no link you're just a conspiracy theorist duh duh duh". Give me a fucking break, it's like talking to a wall.

You think these people are worried about you, or what? What you think the agenda behind this shit is? You keep asking me what I think, well I didn't see you come up with anything Mr. Know-it-all. You can't possibly think they're worried about the safety of the population because someone with a Ron Paul bumper sticker is going to start mass shootings. There is NO OTHER reasonable explanation other than they wanting to paint constitutionalists, militia members, gun owners, all sorts of "right-wingers" (it's not left and right anymore, get real), as VIOLENT and DANGEROUS EXTREMISTS.

I hope, HOPE, you can maybe one day admit to yourself how fucked up this is and not hand-wave it like you're about to.

edit: typo because I'm MAD. Maybe I'll start shooting people OH WATCH OUT

On June 12 2009 01:04 L wrote:


Rofl.

Did you even read the link you're talking about? The report said there's a worry that armed militia members might get violent, largely on the same premises that the report this thread is about stated that right wing extremism might be on the rise. Militia members are largely libertarian, for obvious political reasons. Believe it or not, I understand that the political spectrum isn't a line, but when using a partisan left/right dichotomy to explain political leanings in the states libertarians and constitutionalists typically fall to the far right.

But you know that, because you're the one that's worried that your rights are going to be curtailed.

The entire point to the report was as follows:

Militia members are armed and somewhat more likely to become violent as extremism rises.
Militia members have predictable political leanings.
Those political leanings are typically for Libertarian and similar candidates.
Who are candidates under that umbrella? The aforementioned ones.

Then the report gets pulled because someone is enraged that the report has 'slandered' his voting base. Did that actually happen? Was he playing for political points instead of attacking the content in the report? Well you tell me. Actually, don't bother, I'll map this out for you.

Libertarianesque candidates include XYZ
People in militias generally vote for XYZ
Militias are likely a source of violence from increasing right wing extremism if it foments into violence.
ERGO: All people who voted for Libertarian candidates are cop killers.

Wait a minute. That makes no sense. That chain of reasoning is exactly why the report was removed, but its quite obvious that you also believe it was the purpose of the report. How couldn't it be? Everything is partisan in your world, it seems, nothing which is damaging to causes under the right wing umbrella could be acceptable because they have a slippery slope effect which ends in Stalinism, right? I mean take your own statement: "You think these people are worried about you, or what? What you think the agenda behind this shit is?" and apply it to someone trying to get reports rescinded for political reasons. I mean, I can see plenty of unwarranted partisanship all over the US, but these reports are far and away less than the demonification we've seen in the past from both the GOP and the Dems. Its like you're crying wolf and running around screaming when a puppy popped out of your christmas morning present.

Lets zoom out for a second: there's a bunch of people who just got politically disenfranchised and who are armed to the teeth. There have already been assassination attempts on your president coming from these groups. The rate of death threats to the president is alarmingly high despite 'Obamamania'. And under all this, its not even fucking possible to publish a report on the situation because people who are right wing are going to be butthurt? Wow. So let me say this:

If this was a thread about limiting the civil liberties of people who wish to uphold the constitution by providing a counterpoint to strong governance by forming militias, I'd be arguing against whatever bill was attempting to limit those civil liberties. This. Isn't. That. Thread.

Maybe when you calm down and stop using caps as the cornerstone of your argumentation we can continue this chat :3

Also, feel free to read through this: http://www.lairdwilcox.com/news/hoaxerproject.html

On June 12 2009 03:31 TanGeng wrote:
Recession fuels left-wing radicalism like nationalizing the Auto Industry and fascist radicalism like bailing out big Wall Street Banks.

But you don't see DC complaining about their own extremism.

I just like how the power structure in DC loves to call their opposition "extremists." Maybe it'll work like a Jedi mind trick.

The report was pulled because its inaccurate. Slander is called slander not because it damages a group or party but because its a LIE. This report wouldn't even be up on the internet if one of the cops that got it didn't disclose it. There has to be other similar reports out there because this agency in Missouri is only one of seventy other agencies around the country initiated by the DHS.

Just because you don't think it's "that bad" doesn't mean it's any less wrong to do this. I'm mad because you stick out your pompous face defending this garbage and make it to be something that it isn't. It isn't the DHS and sub agencies looking out for the people, it's yet again more misuse of taxpayer money to meet their own political ends.

therefore all militia members are potential murderers

Also no one " just got" politically disenfranchised. Every God damn libertarian knows the left/right is a scam, and there's nothing new with it. Militia members always existed and for a good reason. The government has been moving out and killing people in purposeless wars overseas, more people than would be killed if whole militia groups around the country would have started mass killings (which they never would, it's not the purpose of the militia. Militias are there to protect, never to engage, unlike the U.S. Army.)

Stop trying to justify the corrupt government's actions.