[Politics] Nazis Attack LGBT Pride Parade

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Abomination:

CaitSeith:
Out of joke, I'd like first to see you acknowledge the greater amount of Nazi-like policies that the GOP has implemented that are harming people. Then we can talk about how much free speech is a stake.

The solution to autocracy is not more autocratic policy.

Armadox:
Would they have shot people at that parade? Absolutely if given the chance, and they think they could get away with it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/09/detroit-man-arrested-lgbtq-triple-homicide/1401406001/

I'm tired of seeing these kinds of news stories.

The first amendment states the Government can't abridge your freedom of speech, but being an actual Nazi has consequences, and nothing says the citizenry has to give them a soapbox in the middle of the commons. I am not The Government, and I have no problem using the common sense to say," They could have been asked to leave because they present an actual threat to the events preceding and can come back later." If you want a middle ground. But I'd prefer if we never had another "Unite the Right" rally or equivalent as long as I live.

I am 100% behind the government using force to enforce law when a group or an individual present a genuine threat to the safety of others.

The citizenry is under no obligation to give a political group anything, but at the same time they have no right to take anything from them either.

Saelune:
Nazis are a political ideology built on ethnic cleansing. Japanese people are Japanese people. You can stop or start being a Nazi just by changing your opinions, being Japanese is more complicated than that.

STOP COMPARING ETHNICITIES TO POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES!

Its usually people saying hating blacks is the same as hating Republicans, but this is the same faulty logic here now too.

Also stop defending Nazis.

The Nazis were not built on ethnic cleansing, it was a tactic adopted as a means of enforcing their authority by generating an "other" to hate. A convenient scapegoat that was taken way too far, and the preacher started drinking his own coolaid.

The comparison is on how dangerous it is to make it socially acceptable to inflict violence on a group of people, especially when designating one as a particular group is nebulous.

Again, I am not defending Nazis, I am in opposition to groups being free targets of hate and suppression. That protection extends in all directions.

Uh huh, and the Civil War wasn't actually about slavery too, right?

Ya know, personally Id rather we just treat Nazis like terrorists and just not let them say Nazi shit. Id rather we cultivate a society where we actively raise people to stand opposed to Nazi ideals and reject them, so that no one ever be deserving of face punching.

You're defending Nazis, and in a topic where literally Nazis did a bad thing. I shouldn't have to keep stressing that point, LITERAL NAZIS LITERALLY ATTACKED PEOPLE and you're still up our asses about Nazi punching.

Saelune:
Uh huh, and the Civil War wasn't actually about slavery too, right?

The abolition of slavery was the spark that ignited the tinder about State autonomy and Federal influence. Seldom are wars fought over just one point of contention, just like how seldom it is for an organization to be formed in the pursuit of a single goal.

Ya know, personally Id rather we just treat Nazis like terrorists and just not let them say Nazi shit. Id rather we cultivate a society where we actively raise people to stand opposed to Nazi ideals and reject them, so that no one ever be deserving of face punching.

The irony there is that by embracing the former you discourage the latter.

You're defending Nazis, and in a topic where literally Nazis did a bad thing. I shouldn't have to keep stressing that point, LITERAL NAZIS LITERALLY ATTACKED PEOPLE and you're still up our asses about Nazi punching.

The topic subject has bounced between "Neo-Nazis got rowdy at a pride parade" and exploring ways to prevent Neo-Nazis from being able to get rowdy at any parade. I agree that what happened was unacceptable and that the police should have taken action without fear of a group's influence. I disagree with the solutions suggested to prevent such things happening in future.

The group could be Mormons, Gypsies, Black Panther, Occupy Wall Street, a Feminist Rally, PETA, Hells Angels, Humans for the Legality of Marrying Ducks, for all I care. The protection and restrictions should be the same and enforced equally.

Shadowstar38:

trunkage:

Shadowstar38:
Hitler comparisons are a cheap tactic tbh. When people employ that, they're really just trying to use the genocide and concentration camps as an easy way to trigger moral outrage without actually having to give solid justifications for their reasoning.

Far as I can remember, like 80% of the country has been accused of being bigots and white supremacists since trump got elected. This is one of the few threads in 3 years where the label actually fits. Congrats i guess. Some people might use this incident to say their doomsaying was right all along. Except these groups have already been around and it's not actually a sign of escalation.

Using this response is more about not wanting to discuss a point, more about trying to silence an opponent, than anything else.

I.e. saying that "using the word Nazi is a cheap tactic" is more about you being Politically Correct than anything else.

Feel like that should be made more clear then. Also, not sure what's going on with that second sentence? This doesn't have much to do with political correctness.

What your definition of Politcally Correct?

Abomination:

Saelune:
Uh huh, and the Civil War wasn't actually about slavery too, right?

The abolition of slavery was the spark that ignited the tinder about State autonomy and Federal influence. Seldom are wars fought over just one point of contention, just like how seldom it is for an organization to be formed in the pursuit of a single goal.

Ya know, personally Id rather we just treat Nazis like terrorists and just not let them say Nazi shit. Id rather we cultivate a society where we actively raise people to stand opposed to Nazi ideals and reject them, so that no one ever be deserving of face punching.

The irony there is that by embracing the former you discourage the latter.

You're defending Nazis, and in a topic where literally Nazis did a bad thing. I shouldn't have to keep stressing that point, LITERAL NAZIS LITERALLY ATTACKED PEOPLE and you're still up our asses about Nazi punching.

The topic subject has bounced between "Neo-Nazis got rowdy at a pride parade" and exploring ways to prevent Neo-Nazis from being able to get rowdy at any parade. I agree that what happened was unacceptable and that the police should have taken action without fear of a group's influence. I disagree with the solutions suggested to prevent such things happening in future.

The group could be Mormons, Gypsies, Black Panther, Occupy Wall Street, a Feminist Rally, PETA, Hells Angels, Humans for the Legality of Marrying Ducks, for all I care. The protection and restrictions should be the same and enforced equally.

Wow, like, I was being snarky, but you're actually going to try to make the claim that it wasn't 100% about slavery, wow.

It was a war 100% about slavery. The South didn't like the Federal Government opposing their slavery. They didn't want to lose their economy that was built on slavery. It was 100% about slavery.

Remember when Mormons, Gypsies, Blacn Panthers, Occupy Wall Street, Feminists, PETA, Hells Angels etc attempted to ethnically cleans humanity of non-white, non Aryan people who didn't fit their exact mold and thus murdering over 16 million people? Oh wait, none of them did. But Nazis did.

This isnt just any group of people, this is literally the most evil organization in modern history who literally tried to take over and ethnically cleans the world, and got WAY TOO FAR!

Nazis lost their seat at the table of discussion after their first Jewish Train-ride.

Saelune:
Wow, like, I was being snarky, but you're actually going to try to make the claim that it wasn't 100% about slavery, wow.

Of course it wasn't... how could a war possibly be 100% about slavery? All it would require is there to be another cause for conflict for it not to be...

This isnt just any group of people, this is literally the most evil organization in modern history who literally tried to take over and ethnically cleans the world, and got WAY TOO FAR!

Nazis lost their seat at the table of discussion after their first Jewish Train-ride.

I am afraid you are not allowed to say that. Your statement is to be suppressed in the interest of freedom.

trunkage:
What your definition of Politcally Correct?

Going to overzealous and comical lengths to avoid the possibility of offending people.

Abomination:
I am 100% behind the government using force to enforce law when a group or an individual present a genuine threat to the safety of others.

Define "genuine threat".

Abomination:
The Nazis were not built on ethnic cleansing, it was a tactic adopted as a means of enforcing their authority by generating an "other" to hate. A convenient scapegoat that was taken way too far, and the preacher started drinking his own coolaid.

Yeah, lots of historians would argue against that.

Abomination:

The group could be Mormons, Gypsies, Black Panther, Occupy Wall Street, a Feminist Rally, PETA, Hells Angels, Humans for the Legality of Marrying Ducks, for all I care. The protection and restrictions should be the same and enforced equally.

Theoretical question:

What if it was an isis rally (Or, more realistically I guess, an isis supporter rally)? Like, there were a few hundred goons in orange jumpsuits and face scarves banging machetes over their heads going "Death to vesterners!" over and over? And many of them had visible guns on them, because Second Amendment?

Do you think the cops would protect them? Do you think the cops SHOULD protect them? Do you think that people would be defending these guys and saying "Hey, we should hear them out"?

I would say prooooobably not. The cops would and probably should treat that like a threat of violence and at the very least prevent the march from happening, if not investigating everyone who was planning on going.

See, nazism and isis are both basically death cults. The nazis may have begun as a nationalistic movement that the germans rallied behind in order to re-assert their strength in the world, but by the end it was completely about world domination and the wholesale slaughter of anyone who didn't fit into their narrow-ass definition of humanity. Likewise, isis might be about "restoring sallafi muslim power in the middle east" but it's basically completely about the destruction of anyone who doesn't fit into their narrow-ass definition of humanity (they recently executed one of their own guys for having a smoke FFS).

So yeah, what I'm saying is that isis and nazis are basically the same thing, a cult of thugs who are explicitly and inherently violent, and we should be equally concerned if either one were to hold a march where they walked around armed chanting their violence-fueled slogans. The only real difference is that isis is currently murdering thousands of people, and the nazis murdered millions back in the past.

Look, I have a high bar for blocking speech. I don't want to start the ball rolling down a slippery slope. But threats of violence are not covered by most definitions of freedom of speech (because that just makes sense). And like isis, nazis are an inherent walking threat of violence. If either of them thought they could get away with it, they'd happily kill people.

Shadowstar38:

trunkage:
What your definition of Politcally Correct?

Going to overzealous and comical lengths to avoid the possibility of offending people.

So you certainly fall under "avoid possibility of offending people." The words Hitler, concentration camps and bigot being example of offense to certain people.

So the only possible contention is whether you were overzealous and comical.
Here some evidence:

"trying to use the genocide and concentration camps as an easy way to trigger moral outrage" I would agree, some fall into this category. But you started the sentence "when people", implying that this is the main reason people talk about gencide and concentration camp. Continuing on from that sentence...
"trigger moral outrage without actually having to give solid justifications for their reasoning." This is 8 pages long thread, but somehow, all these people you disagree with HAVE NOT JUSTIFICATION. Perhaps, might I suggest, that you just disagree with their reasoning. And it doesnt magically disappear because you disagree with it.
"80% of the country has been accused of being bigots and white supremacists since trump got elected" Well, I've got to say, at least you did say 90%. That would have been an unrealistic and made up number.
"This is one of the few threads in 3 years where the label actually fits". So, by your logic, only people who actually wear swastikas are Nazis? Anyone with the same views are definitely not white supremist or Nazis. That would be ridiculous.

Yeah, so I'd say check for overzealous and check for comical. Well done. Politically Correct Achievement Unlocked. Have a cookie

Abomination:

Saelune:
Wow, like, I was being snarky, but you're actually going to try to make the claim that it wasn't 100% about slavery, wow.

Of course it wasn't... how could a war possibly be 100% about slavery? All it would require is there to be another cause for conflict for it not to be...

This isnt just any group of people, this is literally the most evil organization in modern history who literally tried to take over and ethnically cleans the world, and got WAY TOO FAR!

Nazis lost their seat at the table of discussion after their first Jewish Train-ride.

I am afraid you are not allowed to say that. Your statement is to be suppressed in the interest of freedom.

Because the South's entire (evil) way of life was built on the oppression and dehumanization of black people. What other conflict was there? The 'economic' conflict was slavery. The 'Federal vs State government' conflict was slavery. It was slavery all the way down.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and say that your problem is you just cant comprehend that people can really be that evil, but they can be. This was a place where the dehumanization of people was their way of life. You don't get this shit in a 'good' society. It sucks to realize people can be that horrible, but they can, and if people are unable to realize that, then we wont be able to fix it. Its like when someone refuses to realize their abusers are well, their abusers.

That last line is because you don't have a rebuttal to my point.

aegix drakan:

Abomination:

The group could be Mormons, Gypsies, Black Panther, Occupy Wall Street, a Feminist Rally, PETA, Hells Angels, Humans for the Legality of Marrying Ducks, for all I care. The protection and restrictions should be the same and enforced equally.

Theoretical question:

What if it was an isis rally (Or, more realistically I guess, an isis supporter rally)? Like, there were a few hundred goons in orange jumpsuits and face scarves banging machetes over their heads going "Death to vesterners!" over and over? And many of them had visible guns on them, because Second Amendment?

Do you think the cops would protect them? Do you think the cops SHOULD protect them? Do you think that people would be defending these guys and saying "Hey, we should hear them out"?

I would say prooooobably not. The cops would and probably should treat that like a threat of violence and at the very least prevent the march from happening, if not investigating everyone who was planning on going.

That is a call to action, namely a violent action. Should any group behave in such a manner then yes, the law should stomp on them immediately for said actions.

That said, if ISIS wished to spread their ideology through legal and democratic means - while I would not agree with their ideology, I would defend their right to public assembly and rallies.

Promote whatever ideology you wish, just do it within the legal framework provided by the nation you are in.

Saelune:
Because the South's entire (evil) way of life was built on the oppression and dehumanization of black people.

No it wasn't.

Abomination:

That said, if ISIS wished to spread their ideology through legal and democratic means -

They have.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326451117_The_Use_of_Facebook_in_ISIS_Recruitment-An_Exploratory_Study

Their terrorist acts aren't for spreading their ideology; it's putting their ideology into practice.

trunkage:

Shadowstar38:

trunkage:
What your definition of Politcally Correct?

Going to overzealous and comical lengths to avoid the possibility of offending people.

So you certainly fall under "avoid possibility of offending people." The words Hitler, concentration camps and bigot being example of offense to certain people.

So the only possible contention is whether you were overzealous and comical.
Here some evidence:

"trying to use the genocide and concentration camps as an easy way to trigger moral outrage" I would agree, some fall into this category. But you started the sentence "when people", implying that this is the main reason people talk about gencide and concentration camp. Continuing on from that sentence...
"trigger moral outrage without actually having to give solid justifications for their reasoning." This is 8 pages long thread, but somehow, all these people you disagree with HAVE NOT JUSTIFICATION. Perhaps, might I suggest, that you just disagree with their reasoning. And it doesnt magically disappear because you disagree with it.
"80% of the country has been accused of being bigots and white supremacists since trump got elected" Well, I've got to say, at least you did say 90%. That would have been an unrealistic and made up number.
"This is one of the few threads in 3 years where the label actually fits". So, by your logic, only people who actually wear swastikas are Nazis? Anyone with the same views are definitely not white supremist or Nazis. That would be ridiculous.

Yeah, so I'd say check for overzealous and check for comical. Well done. Politically Correct Achievement Unlocked. Have a cookie

Meh. I would disagree completely. My point had less to do with offense. People are free to make terrible comparisons, it's just that being alarmist doesn't help whatever their point actually is.

Abomination:

Saelune:
Because the South's entire (evil) way of life was built on the oppression and dehumanization of black people.

No it wasn't.

Citation needed.

Abomination:

That said, if ISIS wished to spread their ideology through legal and democratic means - while I would not agree with their ideology, I would defend their right to public assembly and rallies.

Promote whatever ideology you wish, just do it within the legal framework provided by the nation you are in.

And so when they win 50.1 percent of the vote, you can die happy that democracy has achieved its purpose and things are as they should be. Then they will outlaw democratic expression. But at least they did it democratically.

Abomination:

CaitSeith:
Out of joke, I'd like first to see you acknowledge the greater amount of Nazi-like policies that the GOP has implemented that are harming people. Then we can talk about how much free speech is a stake.

The solution to autocracy is not more autocratic policy.

Don't jump the gun yet. I want to hear your thoughts first on why the GOP is an autocracy.

Abomination:
That is a call to action, namely a violent action. Should any group behave in such a manner then yes, the law should stomp on them immediately for said actions.

[...]

Promote whatever ideology you wish, just do it within the legal framework provided by the nation you are in.

These two statements would seem to be at odds with one another. There are certain ideologies which are fundamentally violent-- violence is a core, central tenet, and so to espouse that ideology is to espouse violence.

Saelune:

Abomination:

Saelune:
Because the South's entire (evil) way of life was built on the oppression and dehumanization of black people.

No it wasn't.

Citation needed.

Citation needed that the entire South's way of life was built on slavery. That is an absurd claim.

Kwak:
And so when they win 50.1 percent of the vote, you can die happy that democracy has achieved its purpose and things are as they should be. Then they will outlaw democratic expression. But at least they did it democratically.

Yes, if they somehow managed to convince 50.1% of the population that the very framework they are using to vote this government into power is something that should be removed, then by all means do so.

You do, of course, realise that the probability of this happening is so close to 0 that for all intents and purposes it might as well be.

CaitSeith:
Don't jump the gun yet. I want to hear your thoughts first on why the GOP is an autocracy.

The fact they have not done anything to remove Trump from office is proof enough. It is the "Toe the Line" party. Trump's appointment is a complete insult to any in the Republican party that they would consider such a figure their leader.

Silvanus:
These two statements would seem to be at odds with one another. There are certain ideologies which are fundamentally violent-- violence is a core, central tenet, and so to espouse that ideology is to espouse violence.

As long as threats and violence are not being used to influence the democratic process, then they are free to promote what they think should be the way of things.

Take note, I propose that any official that takes a bribe while in office or adheres to campaign doners demands or backdealing should be executed for treason. I desire violence to be used in upholding the affairs of state. I am not using threats or violence to promote this ideology - but it is certainly a "violent" stance to take.

Abomination:

Saelune:

Abomination:
No it wasn't.

Citation needed.

Citation needed that the entire South's way of life was built on slavery. That is an absurd claim.

Perhaps, but it's also a negative claim as Saelune is claiming a lack of additional factors. As an analogy, asking that she cite that is like asking that someone prove that birds don't have blue feet. Proving the lack of such a bird is virtually impossible as proving that something does not exist requires first cataloging every instance of the phenomena you say it doesn't exist in. Proving a claim that a blue footed bird does exist, however, is relatively simple to demonstrate, as you only need cite your reasons for believing in such a bird's existence.

As you are the one claiming the existence of additional causes - a positive claim - it behooves you to cite the factors you believe to exist and provide the resources with which we can educate ourselves. Don't fall back to "no, you" out of aggravation.

Abomination:

Kwak:
And so when they win 50.1 percent of the vote, you can die happy that democracy has achieved its purpose and things are as they should be. Then they will outlaw democratic expression. But at least they did it democratically.

Yes, if they somehow managed to convince 50.1% of the population that the very framework they are using to vote this government into power is something that should be removed, then by all means do so.

You do, of course, realise that the probability of this happening is so close to 0 that for all intents and purposes it might as well be.

IT'S LITERALLY HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

Of course it's not just as simple as taking a poll asking "should we abolish democracy?" and doing what the results say. It's an entire process of undermining the rights and ability of political opponents to vote against you.

Gerrymandering has crippled the power of American votes. Voter suppression is a real thing, such as targeting low-income areas with mandatory ID laws. You don't have to convince half the population to dump democracy in one fell swoop. You have to rig the system to get yourself and your like-minded friends in power, and then rewrite that system behind you to hold on to that power. That is what the GOP is doing right god damn now, and in another generation at this rate anyone voting Democrat might as well throw their vote in the gutter for all the effect it will have.

TheVampwizimp:

Abomination:

Kwak:
And so when they win 50.1 percent of the vote, you can die happy that democracy has achieved its purpose and things are as they should be. Then they will outlaw democratic expression. But at least they did it democratically.

Yes, if they somehow managed to convince 50.1% of the population that the very framework they are using to vote this government into power is something that should be removed, then by all means do so.

You do, of course, realise that the probability of this happening is so close to 0 that for all intents and purposes it might as well be.

IT'S LITERALLY HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

Of course it's not just as simple as taking a poll asking "should we abolish democracy?" and doing what the results say. It's an entire process of undermining the rights and ability of political opponents to vote against you.

Gerrymandering has crippled the power of American votes. Voter suppression is a real thing, such as targeting low-income areas with mandatory ID laws. You don't have to convince half the population to dump democracy in one fell swoop. You have to rig the system to get yourself and your like-minded friends in power, and then rewrite that system behind you to hold on to that power. That is what the GOP is doing right god damn now, and in another generation at this rate anyone voting Democrat might as well throw their vote in the gutter for all the effect it will have.

You forgot packing courts as quickly as they can in order to undermine any precedent that opposes their ideology. When Mitch McConnell can hold a supreme court seat hostage during his opponent's term, then say that everything he said before was bullshit and he's going to fill in those seats come hell or high water. There is no moral code, no ethical constant. They're losing ground when it comes to policy, so the goal is to fill in as many lifetime positions as they can in hopes that when they're gone their influence can continue far into the foreseeable future.

Shadowstar38:

trunkage:

Shadowstar38:

Going to overzealous and comical lengths to avoid the possibility of offending people.

So you certainly fall under "avoid possibility of offending people." The words Hitler, concentration camps and bigot being example of offense to certain people.

So the only possible contention is whether you were overzealous and comical.
Here some evidence:

"trying to use the genocide and concentration camps as an easy way to trigger moral outrage" I would agree, some fall into this category. But you started the sentence "when people", implying that this is the main reason people talk about gencide and concentration camp. Continuing on from that sentence...
"trigger moral outrage without actually having to give solid justifications for their reasoning." This is 8 pages long thread, but somehow, all these people you disagree with HAVE NOT JUSTIFICATION. Perhaps, might I suggest, that you just disagree with their reasoning. And it doesnt magically disappear because you disagree with it.
"80% of the country has been accused of being bigots and white supremacists since trump got elected" Well, I've got to say, at least you did say 90%. That would have been an unrealistic and made up number.
"This is one of the few threads in 3 years where the label actually fits". So, by your logic, only people who actually wear swastikas are Nazis? Anyone with the same views are definitely not white supremist or Nazis. That would be ridiculous.

Yeah, so I'd say check for overzealous and check for comical. Well done. Politically Correct Achievement Unlocked. Have a cookie

Meh. I would disagree completely. My point had less to do with offense. People are free to make terrible comparisons, it's just that being alarmist doesn't help whatever their point actually is.

Hence me pointing out that you were being alarmist

trunkage:
Hence me pointing out that you were being alarmist

Except I wasn't being alarmist, so the point kind of falls flat.

Edit: And yes, I understand that your earlier response was supposed to point out some type of hypocrisy on my part. But even after picking through the hyperbolic assessment, I'm still not seeing it.

Asita:
As you are the one claiming the existence of additional causes - a positive claim - it behooves you to cite the factors you believe to exist and provide the resources with which we can educate ourselves. Don't fall back to "no, you" out of aggravation.

I am going to in this case because let's be quite honest, there is no way the South relied 100% on slave labour to operate. I am not going to waste the time digging up examples of pre-war Southern businesses that did not employ slave labour, not to mention the fact that it was the aristocracy that owned slaves, not the everyday man.

TheVampwizimp:

Abomination:

Kwak:
And so when they win 50.1 percent of the vote, you can die happy that democracy has achieved its purpose and things are as they should be. Then they will outlaw democratic expression. But at least they did it democratically.

Yes, if they somehow managed to convince 50.1% of the population that the very framework they are using to vote this government into power is something that should be removed, then by all means do so.

You do, of course, realise that the probability of this happening is so close to 0 that for all intents and purposes it might as well be.

IT'S LITERALLY HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

Of course it's not just as simple as taking a poll asking "should we abolish democracy?" and doing what the results say. It's an entire process of undermining the rights and ability of political opponents to vote against you.

Gerrymandering has crippled the power of American votes. Voter suppression is a real thing, such as targeting low-income areas with mandatory ID laws. You don't have to convince half the population to dump democracy in one fell swoop. You have to rig the system to get yourself and your like-minded friends in power, and then rewrite that system behind you to hold on to that power. That is what the GOP is doing right god damn now, and in another generation at this rate anyone voting Democrat might as well throw their vote in the gutter for all the effect it will have.

Yes, and the best way to combat this is with... more suppression?

"Get them first" is not an ethical democratic strategy.

Abomination:

TheVampwizimp:

Abomination:

Yes, if they somehow managed to convince 50.1% of the population that the very framework they are using to vote this government into power is something that should be removed, then by all means do so.

You do, of course, realise that the probability of this happening is so close to 0 that for all intents and purposes it might as well be.

IT'S LITERALLY HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

Of course it's not just as simple as taking a poll asking "should we abolish democracy?" and doing what the results say. It's an entire process of undermining the rights and ability of political opponents to vote against you.

Gerrymandering has crippled the power of American votes. Voter suppression is a real thing, such as targeting low-income areas with mandatory ID laws. You don't have to convince half the population to dump democracy in one fell swoop. You have to rig the system to get yourself and your like-minded friends in power, and then rewrite that system behind you to hold on to that power. That is what the GOP is doing right god damn now, and in another generation at this rate anyone voting Democrat might as well throw their vote in the gutter for all the effect it will have.

Yes, and the best way to combat this is with... more suppression?

"Get them first" is not an ethical democratic strategy.

The paradox of tolerance

A tolerant society must be intolerant of intolerance

If someone is preaching and working towards supressing people because of their race or other characteristics, suppressing that person doesn't make us as bad as them

Abomination:
"Get them first" is not an ethical democratic strategy.

Ha ha ha ha ha, no. No, see... You can't hand wave all that by saying "They're allowed to do it, but you can't because if YOU do it, it's MORE suppression." More indicates the assholes are already suppressing. You can't get them first, if they've already dug up the goal posts and are running away with them. That's not how this works. Disingenuous argument aside. The them this started with are still god damn NAZIS. Yes, I have no problem suppressing Nazis. I have no problem suppressing them when they say "Kill All Gay People". I have no problem suppressing their ideology, hate and call to violence. You SHOULD stand up against that. You SHOULD not let them get a foothold that makes them worse, more dangerous, and harder to deal with.

You can give a blind eye to all this, you can ignore it cause it doesn't effect you, but when things hit the bottom. I don't think it's going to be possible to ignore the consequences of letting the worse people use people like you to defend their horrible behavior while they force the brakes on everything that has been accomplished in the rights of those who had none. Even if at it's most base concept you're trying to do the right thing for the right reasons, common sense says if you don't do something now while you can change what is happening. You might not get the chance to fix it later.

Abomination:

Saelune:

Abomination:
No it wasn't.

Citation needed.

Citation needed that the entire South's way of life was built on slavery. That is an absurd claim.

How is it an absurd claim? They had slavery, you know this, right? This is no secret that the US South was huge into slavery more than anywhere, AND that they fought a war OVER SLAVERY.

Citation needed that it is not over just slavery AND citation needed that it is an absurd claim. But then, you think it is absurd to criticize Nazis for ACTIVELY ENDORSING GENOCIDE!, Or is it absurd to think people who want to kill all Jews and Blacks and Gays and Disabled want to do those things?

https://archive.org/stream/causescivilwar02chadgoog#page/n30/mode/1up

Abomination:

Asita:
As you are the one claiming the existence of additional causes - a positive claim - it behooves you to cite the factors you believe to exist and provide the resources with which we can educate ourselves. Don't fall back to "no, you" out of aggravation.

I am going to in this case because let's be quite honest, there is no way the South relied 100% on slave labour to operate. I am not going to waste the time digging up examples of pre-war Southern businesses that did not employ slave labour, not to mention the fact that it was the aristocracy that owned slaves, not the everyday man.

If you wont back your claims, then don't make them. You are literally saying you refuse to put up a reasonable debate.

undeadsuitor:
The paradox of tolerance

A tolerant society must be intolerant of intolerance

If someone is preaching and working towards supressing people because of their race or other characteristics, suppressing that person doesn't make us as bad as them

I understand the Paradox and in most other nations I would be fine with a certain type of group or organization being suppressed. But this is the US we're talking about, I do not believe giving any government organization the legal authority to suppress someone would not be used as an excuse to suppress others.

It's also this feeling that... if you need this type of legislation to ensure this type of mindset does not catch on, it's a bandaid on a festering wound. It's covering up a far greater problem.

Armadox:
Ha ha ha ha ha, no. No, see... You can't hand wave all that by saying "They're allowed to do it, but you can't because if YOU do it, it's MORE suppression."

They aren't allowed to do it. I am not saying they are allowed to suppress others either. Not sure where you are getting the idea that I think they should be allowed to break the law...

Saelune:
If you wont back your claims, then don't make them. You are literally saying you refuse to put up a reasonable debate.

"Entire" was your choice of words, not mine. Not wasting my time...

Abomination:

Armadox:
Ha ha ha ha ha, no. No, see... You can't hand wave all that by saying "They're allowed to do it, but you can't because if YOU do it, it's MORE suppression."

They aren't allowed to do it. I am not saying they are allowed to suppress others either. Not sure where you are getting the idea that I think they should be allowed to break the law...

It's not breaking the law in examples given, it's reshaping the law to bake suppression in. It's creating barriers that make it harder to change things back, and easier to take it further by inches rather then by force. Your dismissal of a "get them first" strategy is sort of undermined by the fact that the examples TheVampwizimp (I hate your name by the way) gave are already happening. Already real institutionalized suppression.

The Southern Strategy didn't go away, it just was refined over the years.

Abomination:
As long as threats and violence are not being used to influence the democratic process, then they are free to promote what they think should be the way of things.

Wait, so you do not recognise restrictions on speech even for advocating violence, just so long as that violence doesn't get in the way of the democratic process? Am I understanding that right?

If so, that's incredibly far beyond even what most libertarians would argue.

Abomination:

TheVampwizimp:

Abomination:

Yes, if they somehow managed to convince 50.1% of the population that the very framework they are using to vote this government into power is something that should be removed, then by all means do so.

You do, of course, realise that the probability of this happening is so close to 0 that for all intents and purposes it might as well be.

IT'S LITERALLY HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

Of course it's not just as simple as taking a poll asking "should we abolish democracy?" and doing what the results say. It's an entire process of undermining the rights and ability of political opponents to vote against you.

Gerrymandering has crippled the power of American votes. Voter suppression is a real thing, such as targeting low-income areas with mandatory ID laws. You don't have to convince half the population to dump democracy in one fell swoop. You have to rig the system to get yourself and your like-minded friends in power, and then rewrite that system behind you to hold on to that power. That is what the GOP is doing right god damn now, and in another generation at this rate anyone voting Democrat might as well throw their vote in the gutter for all the effect it will have.

Yes, and the best way to combat this is with... more suppression?

"Get them first" is not an ethical democratic strategy.

And this is why it's been allowed to happen.

Armadox:
It's not breaking the law in examples given, it's reshaping the law to bake suppression in. It's creating barriers that make it harder to change things back, and easier to take it further by inches rather then by force. Your dismissal of a "get them first" strategy is sort of undermined by the fact that the examples TheVampwizimp (I hate your name by the way) gave are already happening. Already real institutionalized suppression.

The Southern Strategy didn't go away, it just was refined over the years.

Those barriers are not presently being created by Neo-Nazis though. It has nothing to do with Neo-Nazi policy. The solution to the problem is to finally elect a representative with genuine popular appeal. The fact that the DNC was able to shoot itself in the foot last election is what caused this horrible regression in political mobility.

Taking shots at Neo-Nazis is not the solution to the problem, it will do nothing but create a new one. It's wasting resources fighting the wrong opponent.

Silvanus:
Wait, so you do not recognise restrictions on speech even for advocating violence, just so long as that violence doesn't get in the way of the democratic process? Am I understanding that right?

If so, that's incredibly far beyond even what most libertarians would argue.

I believe a group should be allowed to preach or promote a political leaning, no matter how abhorrent or even contrary to the very system that allows them the freedom to express such contrary policy, so long as they do so within the bounds of the law.

I am not a libertarian, I am not a conservative, I am not a democrat, I am not a republican.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here