[Politics] Nazis Attack LGBT Pride Parade

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

Abomination:
Those barriers are not presently being created by Neo-Nazis though.

Not solely, no, but racist authoritarianism isn't an issue totally separate from Neo-Nazis, oddly enough.

Abomination:
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.

So, if a law was passed specifically banning Nazis and allowing people to punch them, you'd be fine with that?

Abomination:

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...

Which means it shouldn't be hard for you to prove me wrong then.

If you cant prove me wrong, then you're just proving me right.

The consistent inability to prove me wrong only fuels and justifies me by the way.

Thaluikhain:

Abomination:
Those barriers are not presently being created by Neo-Nazis though.

Not solely, no, but racist authoritarianism isn't an issue totally separate from Neo-Nazis, oddly enough.

Abomination:
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.

So, if a law was passed specifically banning Nazis and allowing people to punch them, you'd be fine with that?

Lots of people were fine abusing others because it was legal to do so. Slavery for example, or the criminalization of homosexuality.

But then that is why arguing that something is fine because of its legality is just an immoral stance to take. I can only assume that anyone who argues justice based purely on legality would have supported slavery back then.

Thaluikhain:

Abomination:
Those barriers are not presently being created by Neo-Nazis though.

Not solely, no, but racist authoritarianism isn't an issue totally separate from Neo-Nazis, oddly enough.

Abomination:
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.

So, if a law was passed specifically banning Nazis and allowing people to punch them, you'd be fine with that?

No. But I would be fine with the way it was passed, provided it was passed in the confines of the law.

Abomination:

Thaluikhain:

Abomination:
Those barriers are not presently being created by Neo-Nazis though.

Not solely, no, but racist authoritarianism isn't an issue totally separate from Neo-Nazis, oddly enough.

Abomination:
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.

So, if a law was passed specifically banning Nazis and allowing people to punch them, you'd be fine with that?

No. But I would be fine with the way it was passed, provided it was passed in the confines of the law.

What about slavery?

Saelune:

Abomination:

Thaluikhain:

Not solely, no, but racist authoritarianism isn't an issue totally separate from Neo-Nazis, oddly enough.

So, if a law was passed specifically banning Nazis and allowing people to punch them, you'd be fine with that?

No. But I would be fine with the way it was passed, provided it was passed in the confines of the law.

What about slavery?

No. But I would be fine with the way it was passed, provided it was passed in the confines of the law.

Abomination:

Saelune:

Abomination:
No. But I would be fine with the way it was passed, provided it was passed in the confines of the law.

What about slavery?

No. But I would be fine with the way it was passed, provided it was passed in the confines of the law.

And this is why I oppose you and why I oppose 'moderates' and why something being legal doesn't mean it is ok. You just justified slavery, you just justified slavery just because some people decided to make it legal to oppress and dehumanize entire peoples.

Abomination, seriously, I want you to go re-evaluate your entire point of view on this one, I really really really want to believe you can realize why what you just said is a terrible thing and why I refuse to back down when you and others who agree with you say the things you say.

Thaluikhain:
So, if a law was passed specifically banning Nazis and allowing people to punch them, you'd be fine with that?

Do you really want to bring up state-sanctioned vigilantism against political parties and organizations in the same breath as Nazism? Really?

Oh, and since what I'm about to say is directly relevant to this exact minute in history, I know what the talking point by default response to my own post will be.

Does any given act of hazardous and "hateful" speech violate the imminent lawless action standard? No? Then it's fucking free speech, period. Let's just give a quick overview of SCOTUS jurisprudence on "dangerous" speech real fast.

Schenck v. US (1919). Anti-draft protest against US involvement in WWI. Clear and present danger status, Schenck's arrest upheld.

Whitney v. California (1927). Right to form and join a Communist party in the US. Clear and present danger upheld, state action upheld.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Anti-draft protest against US involvement in Vietnam. Imminent lawless action standard, state action overturned.

Hess v. Indiana (1973). Anti-war protest against Vietnam. Imminent lawless action standard, Hess' conviction overturned.

If you'll excuse me, I now have to go find out if we're about to get in a shooting war with Iran.

Eacaraxe:

If you'll excuse me, I now have to go find out if we're about to get in a shooting war with Iran.

Firstly, you're more likely to be attacked by locals than foreigners (unless you invade). Worrying about Iran is a priority but not the main one. Secondly, this is the war America voted for in 2016. Why are you worried about it when this is what at least half the voters wanted. And absurdly, Trump hate speech has lead us here. It's what you get when you let hate speech run rampant.

Abomination:

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

You're just the status quo that authoritarians use as stepping stone.

Abomination:
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.

This doesn't mean very much, considering we're discussing where you believe the limitations of the law should lie.

In short, "no shit".

trunkage:
Why are you worried about it when this is what at least half the voters wanted. And absurdly, Trump hate speech has lead us here. It's what you get when you let hate speech run rampant.

Less than half of half of voters voted for Trump, but that's also why Trump being President is such a problem. For a party that hates bending for minorities, they forget that THEY are a minority.

But yes, Trump is a vile hate speecher who has no right to hide behind calls for civility. It is hypocritical to call for civility as a Trump supporter.

trunkage:
Firstly, you're more likely to be attacked by locals than foreigners (unless you invade). Worrying about Iran is a priority but not the main one. Secondly, this is the war America voted for in 2016. Why are you worried about it when this is what at least half the voters wanted. And absurdly, Trump hate speech has lead us here. It's what you get when you let hate speech run rampant.

Clearly you either fail to understand, or vastly more likely, would prefer to not discuss my point. No sale. Here, let me bold face it so neither you nor anyone else who might view this thread make any mistake about what it is or may be.

Laws that curtail free speech for any reason are vastly more likely to by employed to silence political dissent against the government, preserve the political status quo, and/or perpetuate oppression than otherwise. This includes war protest as I have just described, the right to join and support political parties that oppose or simply criticize those in power, and indeed, even civil liberties and rights movements.

Like for example in Hague v. CIO (1939), when Jersey City mayor Frank Hague attempted to use city ordinances to curtail the rights of workers to assemble in public spaces to organize and protest, claiming the CIO was a Communist and seditious organization.

Or how about Yates v. US (1957), when members of the Communist Party were jailed simply for membership, on the grounds they were advocating the overthrow of the federal government.

Don't even get me started on fucking Jehovah's Witnesses. Those guys really love their free speech.

Or, since certain folks in here love to talk about civil rights and how oppressive the government is, how about...

...Edwards v. South Carolina (1963), where peaceful civil rights demonstrators were arrested for...protesting.

...Cox v. Louisiana (1965), where peaceful civil rights demonstrators were tear gassed and arrested for...protesting peaceful civil rights demonstrators' arrests.

...Adderly v. Florida (1966), where peaceful civil rights demonstrators were arrested for...protesting peaceful civil rights demonstrators' arrests.

...Brown v. Louisiana (1966), where peaceful civil rights demonstrators were arrested for...staging a peaceful sit-in at a public library.

The idea of using the power of the state to silence dissent is hardly new in the US, as it precedes the civil rights movement and rise of fascism by nearly 200 years. The Alien and Sedition Acts having been passed in 1798 and signed into law by John Adams, our second President.

You see, here's the problem (uh-oh, here come those nasty-blasty bold texties!). Free speech laws that allows civil rights protest are the same ones that allow Nazi protest. Allowances for content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech come at the speaker's peril, especially if speakers are members of an historically-oppressed group.

Nazis caused the Holocaust. Any groups that causes a Holocaust deserve no rights.

Silvanus:

Abomination:
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.

This doesn't mean very much, considering we're discussing where you believe the limitations of the law should lie.

In short, "no shit".

Except others are promoting the idea that Neo Nazis have their political affiliation be open to suppression by either the public or the government. Because they are Nazis. Again "Punch a Nazi" being acceptable.

Eacaraxe:

trunkage:
Firstly, you're more likely to be attacked by locals than foreigners (unless you invade). Worrying about Iran is a priority but not the main one. Secondly, this is the war America voted for in 2016. Why are you worried about it when this is what at least half the voters wanted. And absurdly, Trump hate speech has lead us here. It's what you get when you let hate speech run rampant.

Clearly you either fail to understand, or vastly more likely, would prefer to not discuss my point. No sale. Here, let me bold face it so neither you nor anyone else who might view this thread make any mistake about what it is or may be.

Laws that curtail free speech for any reason are vastly more likely to by employed to silence political dissent against the government, preserve the political status quo, and/or perpetuate oppression than otherwise. This includes war protest as I have just described, the right to join and support political parties that oppose or simply criticize those in power, and indeed, even civil liberties and rights movements.

Like for example in Hague v. CIO (1939), when Jersey City mayor Frank Hague attempted to use city ordinances to curtail the rights of workers to assemble in public spaces to organize and protest, claiming the CIO was a Communist and seditious organization.

Or how about Yates v. US (1957), when members of the Communist Party were jailed simply for membership, on the grounds they were advocating the overthrow of the federal government.

Don't even get me started on fucking Jehovah's Witnesses. Those guys really love their free speech.

Or, since certain folks in here love to talk about civil rights and how oppressive the government is, how about...

...Edwards v. South Carolina (1963), where peaceful civil rights demonstrators were arrested for...protesting.

...Cox v. Louisiana (1965), where peaceful civil rights demonstrators were tear gassed and arrested for...protesting peaceful civil rights demonstrators' arrests.

...Adderly v. Florida (1966), where peaceful civil rights demonstrators were arrested for...protesting peaceful civil rights demonstrators' arrests.

...Brown v. Louisiana (1966), where peaceful civil rights demonstrators were arrested for...staging a peaceful sit-in at a public library.

The idea of using the power of the state to silence dissent is hardly new in the US, as it precedes the civil rights movement and rise of fascism by nearly 200 years. The Alien and Sedition Acts having been passed in 1798 and signed into law by John Adams, our second President.

You see, here's the problem (uh-oh, here come those nasty-blasty bold texties!). Free speech laws that allows civil rights protest are the same ones that allow Nazi protest. Allowances for content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech come at the speaker's peril, especially if speakers are members of an historically-oppressed group.

Trump warned you that he was going to war three years ago. He has built the case through hate since then.

For the love of gods, don't be suprised that America goes to war. You have been warned by literally everyone, including Trump. If you are worried about it, do something.

Also, did I call here to get rid of hate speech? NO. Your point is that Ameica is allowed to have Free Speech. I said nothing against this.. So.... Are you just misunderstanding or not willing to discuss my point.

I DID pointed out the result of hate speech. If your so offended that this somehow is misconstrued into anti-Free Speech, that's on you. If you live in an imaginary world where speech has no impact on the world, that's on you. Trump won ONLY on speech, just like every other president. Speech changes the world.

So why are you bringing cases to me? Sure Trump can say what he wants. But speech doesn't come without consequences. It just comes without consequences from the government. The public should hold him accountable and not just through voting. Little has been done to stop Trump from going to war, so

If this war is coming, its becuase we did nothing. That is my point. It's not like Trump has been hiding his intentions for at least 3 years.

Nazis caused the Holocaust. Any groups that causes a Holocaust deserve no rights.

And the whole of this argument comes down to, no matter how much I agree, this is a subjective viewpoint and laws should ideally be objective.

Edit:

Abomination:
Except others are promoting the idea that Neo Nazis have their political affiliation be open to suppression by either the public or the government. Because they are Nazis. Again "Punch a Nazi" being acceptable.

Isn't suppression only something the government can realistically achieve? The only method the public has to combat ideas is counter protest, which you seem to agree with. What does the suppression you speak of actually look like?

Shadowstar38:

Abomination:
Except others are promoting the idea that Neo Nazis have their political affiliation be open to suppression by either the public or the government. Because they are Nazis. Again "Punch a Nazi" being acceptable.

Isn't suppression only something the government can realistically achieve? The only method the public has to combat ideas is counter protest, which you seem to agree with. What does the suppression you speak of actually look like?

Depends if you are only concerned about mass suppression or smaller group or individual suppression. Criminal gangs are pretty good at it for smaller groups, as well as corporations. Military contractors are well know for suppression in other countries. Neo-Nazis and Antifa are also good at it.

trunkage:
Trump-a-Lump-a-Doodle-Dump

Your TDS doesn't negate the fact war with Iran has been something Republicans have advocated since the Bush administration.

Not that this has been an ongoing issue since Operation Ajax 66 years ago, when the corporation now known as BP decided profits mattered less than state sovereignty, and had to cry to two different NATO powers to get their way. But hey, you wanna mouth-fart about Trump, be my guest.

If you are worried about it, do something.

I was already corralled into cages and surrounded by militarized police at one point in my life for daring to suggest perhaps the US shouldn't be waging wars of aggression in the middle east, on behalf of no one but the fossil fuel and defense industry.

Once again, since the point seems to not be sticking, the same Constitutional provisions that nominally protect anti-war protest -- Comity, Equal Protection, Due Process, Assembly and Speech -- are the same ones that protect political protest of all kinds. Restrict one, you restrict them all. And indeed, while the Bush administration was a black mark against the right to protest, one must absolutely acknowledge this is no. partisan. issue.

And indeed, while there is a vested interest in ensuring chaos such as that which erupted during the 1968 DNC never happens again, restraining speech is not the way to do it. For Democrats or Republicans. Perhaps try not being corrupt as fuck?

And once again, since the point seems to not stick, people who want 'hate speech' criminalized aren't the people who get to decide what 'hate speech' is. The Weimar Republic had plenty of 'protection' from hate speech, dangerous and violent rhetoric, public protest, and hate crimes. Then the Nazis got to decide what that meant and what should be done about it.

Hate speech legislation is like leaving a crate of live hand grenades in a room full of howler monkeys.

Are you just misunderstanding or not willing to discuss my point...If your so offended that this somehow is misconstrued into anti-Free Speech, that's on you.

I'm saying you have no point. Your point is a complete non-starter. It's not even worth discussing, because it's unadulterated garbage.

You're either for speech, or you're against speech. There is no middle ground. Being only in favor of speech you like, is not being in favor of speech at all. As Noam Chomsky famously pointed out, Hitler, Stalin, and their inner circles were all for free speech, as long as it was speech they liked. If you truly support speech, then you support all speech, but especially speech you hate.

trunkage:

Shadowstar38:

Abomination:
Except others are promoting the idea that Neo Nazis have their political affiliation be open to suppression by either the public or the government. Because they are Nazis. Again "Punch a Nazi" being acceptable.

Isn't suppression only something the government can realistically achieve? The only method the public has to combat ideas is counter protest, which you seem to agree with. What does the suppression you speak of actually look like?

Depends if you are only concerned about mass suppression or smaller group or individual suppression. Criminal gangs are pretty good at it for smaller groups, as well as corporations. Military contractors are well know for suppression in other countries. Neo-Nazis and Antifa are also good at it.

At that point I'd imagine these groups would be breaking the law to achieve this and I'm pretty sure we're all on the side of finding and prosecuting such groups, so I didn't really bother mentioning them. Except for I guess the military contractors, but that whole thing is a muddy scenario.

Eacaraxe:

Thaluikhain:
So, if a law was passed specifically banning Nazis and allowing people to punch them, you'd be fine with that?

Do you really want to bring up state-sanctioned vigilantism against political parties and organizations in the same breath as Nazism? Really?

I was using an extreme example to clarify Abomination's "legal is fine" stance.

Shadowstar38:

Nazis caused the Holocaust. Any groups that causes a Holocaust deserve no rights.

And the whole of this argument comes down to, no matter how much I agree, this is a subjective viewpoint and laws should ideally be objective.

Nazis objectively caused a Holocaust.

Laws should be moral. An immoral law is a bad one. Laws should exist to support and promote justice and fairness.

Humans are not objective beings. Laws are created by and for humans, and so we can never have truly 'objective' law, and even then, objective is robotic, and a robotic view of law leads to a lack of moral decency.

Nazis aren't born. You become one, and can just as easily unbecome one. I do not believe people cannot reform from being a Nazi, but that doesn't mean we need to sacrifice people who were decent enough to never be a Nazi for the off-chance some of those Nazis who chose their evil might turn to good.

Shadowstar38:

trunkage:

Shadowstar38:

Isn't suppression only something the government can realistically achieve? The only method the public has to combat ideas is counter protest, which you seem to agree with. What does the suppression you speak of actually look like?

Depends if you are only concerned about mass suppression or smaller group or individual suppression. Criminal gangs are pretty good at it for smaller groups, as well as corporations. Military contractors are well know for suppression in other countries. Neo-Nazis and Antifa are also good at it.

At that point I'd imagine these groups would be breaking the law to achieve this and I'm pretty sure we're all on the side of finding and prosecuting such groups, so I didn't really bother mentioning them. Except for I guess the military contractors, but that whole thing is a muddy scenario.

You assume that they'd get caught. Like, for example, there is a trope in movies/shows about shakedowns happening against shop owners etc. There is a deliberate fog placed onto law enforcement that try and break such suppression, like distance between the boss and the enforcers. Just keeping your mouth shut, destroying evidence, bribing/killing witness and having the best lawyers kept most people out of jail.

Now whether this still happens today is a separate issue as is how many people they were really able to effect.

Edit: Also the recent controversy about Facebook etc, and Alex Jones etc, could be called suppression

Let's start with this:

Eacaraxe:

trunkage:
Are you just misunderstanding or not willing to discuss my point...If your so offended that this somehow is misconstrued into anti-Free Speech, that's on you.

I'm saying you have no point. Your point is a complete non-starter. It's not even worth discussing, because it's unadulterated garbage.

You're either for speech, or you're against speech. There is no middle ground. Being only in favor of speech you like, is not being in favor of speech at all. As Noam Chomsky famously pointed out, Hitler, Stalin, and their inner circles were all for free speech, as long as it was speech they liked. If you truly support speech, then you support all speech, but especially speech you hate.

So, to paraphrase, the only way to be FOR something is to never criticise it. That's a no from me. One of my favourite games is the Witcher 3. If you ever seen me talk about it here on the forums, I still highly criticise it. I can see Capitalism is the best economic system at this time. I'm still going to criticise its flaws. (And probably get called a Communist, because there are plenty of people like you who think that criticism means "not in favour" or "hate" and thus are clearly "for the other side".) I can be for national healthcare but also criticise its failings.

I can be in favour of something and still criticise it. Because things aren't black and white, on or off. Being in approval of something doesn't mean I like it. (see abortion rites for an example of the latter for me.)

Ah, yes. Let's not forget: the best way to protect Free Speech is to suppress. LET'S NEVER TALK OF IT AGAIN. Me thinks you don't know what Free Speech is if you don't support my criticism of Free Speech. I'm not asking you to like it. You may find it abhorrent. But it is Free Speech and I'm not putting up with your suppression of my Speech.

In fact, you should do that for people who advocate for hate speech as well. It's their constitutional right.

If you are worried about it, do something.

I was already corralled into cages and surrounded by militarized police at one point in my life for daring to suggest perhaps the US shouldn't be waging wars of aggression in the middle east, on behalf of no one but the fossil fuel and defense industry.

Once again, since the point seems to not be sticking, the same Constitutional provisions that nominally protect anti-war protest -- Comity, Equal Protection, Due Process, Assembly and Speech -- are the same ones that protect political protest of all kinds. Restrict one, you restrict them all. And indeed, while the Bush administration was a black mark against the right to protest, one must absolutely acknowledge this is no. partisan. issue.

And indeed, while there is a vested interest in ensuring chaos such as that which erupted during the 1968 DNC never happens again, restraining speech is not the way to do it. For Democrats or Republicans. Perhaps try not being corrupt as fuck?

And once again, since the point seems to not stick, people who want 'hate speech' criminalized aren't the people who get to decide what 'hate speech' is. The Weimar Republic had plenty of 'protection' from hate speech, dangerous and violent rhetoric, public protest, and hate crimes. Then the Nazis got to decide what that meant and what should be done about it.

Hate speech legislation is like leaving a crate of live hand grenades in a room full of howler monkeys.

So the only thing to do about Trump is... make Hate Speech laws? Have I advocated for this? Is there literally no other option?

Most people who advocate for Hate Speech Laws don't like me. I think if we ever have hate speech laws it should be fair and based on attacks from all sides. Thus words like RacisT, Sexist, Politically Correct and Evil should be banned too. This tends to ruffle feathers.

Trump-a-Lump-a-Doodle-Dump

Your TDS doesn't negate the fact war with Iran has been something Republicans have advocated since the Bush administration.

So... because other Republicans have done the same before negates pointing out Trump's rhetoric now? Or are you just getting offended that I quoting Trump?

Not that this has been an ongoing issue since Operation Ajax 66 years ago, when the corporation now known as BP decided profits mattered less than state sovereignty, and had to cry to two different NATO powers to get their way. But hey, you wanna mouth-fart about Trump, be my guest.

Previous actions, again, doesnt negate Trump's current action.

Also, why dont you bring up Obama's lacklusture plan with Iran. That sure negates Trump's actions of today. (The only benefit of Obama's plan was that we could get people on the ground trying to actually find weapons. Now we can't. So I do find it lacklusture. Just as I find it hypocrical of Dems complaining about a wall at the top of Mexico when, duirng their term, they created a wall at the bottom of Mexico to keep those central Americans out.)

Abomination:
Except others are promoting the idea that Neo Nazis have their political affiliation be open to suppression by either the public or the government. Because they are Nazis. Again "Punch a Nazi" being acceptable.

Almost every country recognises restrictions to political affiliation for certain organisations: usually terrorist or otherwise violent organisations.

To clarify, do you disagree with this? I may be misunderstanding, but you seem to be arguing that the freedoms of speech and association should not be limited even in cases of advocating violence, or associating with violent organisations such as Neo-Nazi groups.

That would be a damn extreme position, well beyond even what the most fanatical US libertarians call for.

Saelune:

Shadowstar38:

Nazis caused the Holocaust. Any groups that causes a Holocaust deserve no rights.

And the whole of this argument comes down to, no matter how much I agree, this is a subjective viewpoint and laws should ideally be objective.

Nazis objectively caused a Holocaust.

Laws should be moral. An immoral law is a bad one. Laws should exist to support and promote justice and fairness.

Humans are not objective beings. Laws are created by and for humans, and so we can never have truly 'objective' law, and even then, objective is robotic, and a robotic view of law leads to a lack of moral decency.

Nazis aren't born. You become one, and can just as easily unbecome one. I do not believe people cannot reform from being a Nazi, but that doesn't mean we need to sacrifice people who were decent enough to never be a Nazi for the off-chance some of those Nazis who chose their evil might turn to good.

This had...nothing to do with what I said. So besides the fact that the people that caused the holocaust are mostly if not all dead.

Declaring who should and should not have rights is subjective. Everyone has equal rights to express their views under the law, and people decide on their own if they're valid or not. How much we're personally disgusted by those views doesn't come into play. This principle is applicable to everything in politics, not just to the dichotomy of extremists vs rational people. No one is being "sacrifed" for this to work so I don't know what the heck you're on about.

Shadowstar38:

Saelune:

Shadowstar38:

And the whole of this argument comes down to, no matter how much I agree, this is a subjective viewpoint and laws should ideally be objective.

Nazis objectively caused a Holocaust.

Laws should be moral. An immoral law is a bad one. Laws should exist to support and promote justice and fairness.

Humans are not objective beings. Laws are created by and for humans, and so we can never have truly 'objective' law, and even then, objective is robotic, and a robotic view of law leads to a lack of moral decency.

Nazis aren't born. You become one, and can just as easily unbecome one. I do not believe people cannot reform from being a Nazi, but that doesn't mean we need to sacrifice people who were decent enough to never be a Nazi for the off-chance some of those Nazis who chose their evil might turn to good.

This had...nothing to do with what I said. So besides the fact that the people that caused the holocaust are mostly if not all dead.

Declaring who should and should not have rights is subjective. Everyone has equal rights to express their views under the law, and people decide on their own if they're valid or not. How much we're personally disgusted by those views doesn't come into play. This principle is applicable to everything in politics, not just to the dichotomy of extremists vs rational people. No one is being "sacrifed" for this to work so I don't know what the heck you're on about.

The Nazis should have died with Hitler. But people look at Hitler, look at WW2, look at The Holocaust and say 'I like that, I agree with that, I want that to come back'. They are just as guilty. Arguably more so than those forced into it, since they did not have to fear SS troopers bursting into their home to conscript them.

In practice, people do not have equal rights to express themselves under the law though. Black people, women, LGBT people, non-Christians do not have the same rights in actual practice. Heather Heyer was certainly sacrificed for the sake of Nazi's being allowed to speak their views.

Saelune:

In practice, people do not have equal rights to express themselves under the law though. Black people, women, LGBT people, non-Christians do not have the same rights in actual practice.

Well they should have equal rights? So there's no actual issue with the merit of what I said I gather.

Heather Heyer was certainly sacrificed for the sake of Nazi's being allowed to speak their views.

Vehicular homicide isn't included under free speech laws. So that's irrelevant.

Shadowstar38:

Saelune:

In practice, people do not have equal rights to express themselves under the law though. Black people, women, LGBT people, non-Christians do not have the same rights in actual practice.

Well they should have equal rights? So there's no actual issue with the merit of what I said I gather.

Heather Heyer was certainly sacrificed for the sake of Nazi's being allowed to speak their views.

Vehicular homicide isn't included under free speech laws. So that's irrelevant.

Nazis literally want to murder tons of innocent people. That they then murdered an innocent person is not a surprise. Maybe we shouldn't let people who want to murder innocent people do what they want.

Saelune:
Nazis literally want to murder tons of innocent people. That they then murdered an innocent person is not a surprise. Maybe we shouldn't let people who want to murder innocent people do what they want.

Well shit, if only we had a class of state worker whose entire job was to enforce laws and prevent that exact sort of violent and reckless behavior, entrusted by the people to employ coercive force in the name of the public good and preserving the peace, who otherwise can and should have stepped forward to suppress rioting and other forms of violent confrontation in Charlottesville. They might have been able to -- GASP -- divert traffic from scenes of protest and violent conflict, thus preventing some dumbfuck skinhead from plowing a Challenger into a group of protesters in the first place!

If only they hadn't come under attack by protesters and given orders to retreat, contain, and not intervene...

Saelune:

Shadowstar38:

Saelune:

In practice, people do not have equal rights to express themselves under the law though. Black people, women, LGBT people, non-Christians do not have the same rights in actual practice.

Well they should have equal rights? So there's no actual issue with the merit of what I said I gather.

Heather Heyer was certainly sacrificed for the sake of Nazi's being allowed to speak their views.

Vehicular homicide isn't included under free speech laws. So that's irrelevant.

Nazis literally want to murder tons of innocent people. That they then murdered an innocent person is not a surprise. Maybe we shouldn't let people who want to murder innocent people do what they want.

I don't understand what you're actually implying needs to be changed here. We already have laws against murder. So Nazi's aren't allowed to just "do what they want".

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
Nazis literally want to murder tons of innocent people. That they then murdered an innocent person is not a surprise. Maybe we shouldn't let people who want to murder innocent people do what they want.

Well shit, if only we had a class of state worker whose entire job was to enforce laws and prevent that exact sort of violent and reckless behavior, entrusted by the people to employ coercive force in the name of the public good and preserving the peace, who otherwise can and should have stepped forward to suppress rioting and other forms of violent confrontation in Charlottesville. They might have been able to -- GASP -- divert traffic from scenes of protest and violent conflict, thus preventing some dumbfuck skinhead from plowing a Challenger into a group of protesters in the first place!

If only they hadn't come under attack by protesters and given orders to retreat, contain, and not intervene...

Cops are good at 2 things, protecting Nazis from violence and not protecting black people from violence.

Shadowstar38:

Saelune:

Shadowstar38:

Well they should have equal rights? So there's no actual issue with the merit of what I said I gather.

Vehicular homicide isn't included under free speech laws. So that's irrelevant.

Nazis literally want to murder tons of innocent people. That they then murdered an innocent person is not a surprise. Maybe we shouldn't let people who want to murder innocent people do what they want.

I don't understand what you're actually implying needs to be changed here. We already have laws against murder. So Nazi's aren't allowed to just "do what they want".

Good thing rules are always followed fully and fairly and no one ever breaks them or selectively enforce them unfairly.

 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