Hah! Thanks for bringing up a free speech violation! That ruling would NEVER fly today.
Two incidents of domestic terrorism in two weeks...
- Thread starter lbodel
- Start date
Hah! Thanks for bringing up a free speech violation! That ruling would NEVER fly today.
He said there were fine people that were attending the protests.
If you were a "very fine" person and showed up to protest a statue removal on Friday or Saturday - and you found yourself standing next to people with Nazi flags, torches, had white supremacists speakers, heard chants of "Heil Trump", "f*** you fag***s", "blood and soil", "Jews will not replace us".....and you don't immediately turn around and leave?
You're not a very fine person.
Tangent, but I very much miss his mind, and I would love to hear how he would tackle the Trump phenomenon.
On your point, though I empathize with Kescwi's position
Hate speech is only defeated with more speech, not less.
Exactly
yup, listened to many hitchens talks
although some like libertarians will make further distinctions as to location of the speech as well (e.g. another's property, private property), hence various repercussions
Like Trump said both sides were wrong. I know you don't see it that way, but that's what happened. And I didn't like it one bit.
I'm sure you may believe Trump is a racist. So riddle me this on Obama, when BLM was yelling "pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon". What did Mr. "non racist" Obama do about that issue?
the similarities a day later are uncanny.
I hope you are getting paid well as a white house speech writer!
Last edited:
Your first point is just untrue...I ask you to show one legal decision or scholarly article that supports this viewpoint.
As per your second point, if I understand it correctly, you are right. Sharing my opinion (peacefully) that genocide and racism are abhorrent, wrong, and have no place in this great country of ours is a duty and such views cannot be said enough. I'll even go so far as to say the white supremacists that marched in Charlottesville this weekend (and all white supremacists) are racists, bigots, and have disgusting points of view that have no place in modern society.
To continue on that note, however, I also feel it is a duty to engage in civil conversation with people who, in my opinion, advocate for laws/concepts that strike at the heart of what our democracy stands for.
I have to admit I only read a bit of the article, but if I understand the general premise correctly, this too is wrong. People have a right to disagree with the President and to investigate people for that reason alone is wrong.
Show me where the Supreme Court had ever said I must hear what someone utilizing free speech say? There is absolutely nothing untrue about my first point. A Nazi can say whatever he wants, rightfully, under the constitution. Show me where the court has said I must listen. You can't. Show me where they have said I can't over talk them, shout them down.
I misunderstood your point (whoops). You are correct, you do not need to listen, which I suppose goes without saying.
In fact, I think that is what should have happened this weekend. Nobody should have given a crap about the damn rally.....a couple hundred idiots get together....nobody cares.....and everybody goes about their own business come Monday.
So a couple of knuckleheads who were summarily denounced by BLM leaders (something that has happened precisely once) are equivalent to all of the white terrorist attacks we've been seeing in the past few years?
Revealing that so many on this board are rushing to denounce the counter protestors but paying lip service to domestic terrorists. Very revealing. As many Republican leaders have stated in recent days - there is no moral equivalence. Period.
I disagree. Hate speech should be placed in a context of shame and shouted down agressively. Otherwise, it can be perceived as normal and attractive to certain folks.
I keep hearing this idea that we just "ignore" them but there's no such thing as ignoring people when they march en masse in a public setting. Especially in an age where these goons would be able to then post videos on the deplorable net and show that their ideology is now becoming more acceptable (if they had met no resistance).
I can answer you that. He invited them to the White House for dinner and cocktails.
You think I jest. Nope. The haters of the left will be coming after Washington and Jefferson next.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/08/...ton-jefferson-slave-holders-memorials-go-next
Any group that marches and chants, in chorus, death to any group, is a hate group. BLM is a hate group, no matter the spin of a journalist.
This isn't a journalist? SPLC is the best authority we have for civil rights and monitoring of hate groups.
You just desperately want BLM to be a hate group.
So an organized group of people that march on numerous occasions, and chant in chorus, death to cops isn't a hate group. Got it.
yeah, what great people at that rally drumpf, you f'n clown embarrassment.
If you can't see BLM is a racist hate group then it's game set match. Have a good day!
Clearly they are race traitors. Do you not get your White Nationalist newsletters?
Although I acknowledge your right to "shout down" others, I will tell you it is an idiotic strategy to denounce such a message. I will also tell you that no matter what it is that you're trying to shout down "aggressively", there are still laws and if you break them you should be held accountable for your actions.
The idea of "just ignore them and they'll go away" doesn't seem to be grounded in any real historical evidence.
Expose them and establish that their ideologies are unacceptable and untenable.
Also very bizarre to me that so many are so desperate (and, thankfully, failing) to deflect attention toward the counter protesters. Just really bizarre. Without the nazis, they wouldn't be there. Period.
Ignore them and their message, which they have the right to express anyway, goes unheard. Act like a thug and confront them in ways that violate the law and you give them a real platform to be heard. It's not complicated and the fact that so many refuse to recognize those simple truths reflects just how this is being politicized.
Skydog, miksta is in doublethink: the acceptance of or mental capacity to accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
Again, I don't think there's any evidence to support that view (and quite a bit to the contrary if you look at the first half of the last century). I also don't think there's a way to have everyone "ignore" them in such a digitally connected world. If folks have an initial interest in these ideas, they're going to seek them out sooner or later. Better to have them see how unacceptable the views are than to see that there doesn't appear to be much resistance.
I don't think that's fair (although, I do have TheBoris on ignore, so I have no idea what crazy shit he's saying).
You don't think there's any evidence to support the view that an unheard message can't be heard?
We don't. And no matter how many times you try to use identity politics to excuse the actions of some it doesn't make it any more valid. Their message is unacceptable but that doesn't given someone free reign to do whatever they want in response. There are lawful and unlawful ways to respond. More importantly, there are intelligent ways to respond or not respond. Not a complicated stance unless you're trying to politicize the situation.
How do you make a message "unheard" in today's hyper connected world and when people are rallying in public spaces? It's a false premise.
Any situation involving white supremacists is fairly well politicized on its own. Also, some on this board are making the same arguments as the white supremacists (fault on both sides, Antifa is at fault here, BLM is a hate group, etc.) at the rally in Charlottesville, which is pretty much meets the definition of sympathizer.
Maybe you can't completely mute it, but a violent response certainly gives it a bigger stage. If there had been absolutely no violent response to the protests I doubt it would've been more than a blip on social media to most of us. Instead, here we are closing in on a week later and it's still huge news.
I guess it's like a marketing funnel analysis. In one case, you could blast advertisements for your product but end up with a ton of bad press (lots of impressions but an increased public stigma against what you're selling) and in the other you can rely on organic traffic but have a better ability to tailor your audience's perception of what you're selling.
I'm not entirely certain what would result in the most throughput but I err on the side of explicit exchanging of ideas, I suppose.
Also, the supposed "violence" from the counter protesters is being incredibly way overblown. The Nazis murdered someone, injured many others, and beat a black man to a pulp in a parking garage. Not too worried about a few punches thrown at them and some mace sprayed their way.
Some serious perspective among folks on the right seems warranted.
https://news.vice.com/story/vice-news-tonight-full-episode-charlottesville-race-and-terror
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-charlottesville-beating-20170813-story.html
I haven't heard anyone justifying the message of white supremacists. They are accountable for their message and their own violent actions and I've seen nearly everyone condemn those. Just because that is so, that doesn't make all actions in response to them justified.
My position is that everyone should be held accountable for their actions no matter what they think and if you think someone should be immune from consequences of unlawful activity because you agree with them politically then we clearly see what is driving this whole thing.
Latest posts
-
Purdue Baseball 2024 Big Ten Baseball Tournament: Nebraska 6, Purdue 2- Latest: Travis Miller
-
-
The cost of interest on U.S. debt is soaring- Latest: Boilermaker03
-
-