[Politics] Dumb People Protest and Look Dumb

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Saelune:
Citation needed on that first part.

The first first part or the second first part? People still wanting to lynch him for his race or that more people want to lynch him for being a Republican?

They will have to prove it by opposing the Republicans in 2020. Only then will I think otherwise of them. If you vote for people who are anti-LGBT, YOU are anti-LGBT.

So you're anti-Free Speech, right?

Eacaraxe:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/07/06/white-nationalist-linked-proud-boys-outnumbered-counter-protesters/1661585001/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/proud-boys-dc-free-speech-rally-goes-off-with-a-whimper

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/proud-boys-all-out-dc-protests_n_5d215ec8e4b04c4814154714

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/right-wing-groups-plan-freedom-plaza-rally-amid-heavy-dc-police-presence-to-prevent-violence/2019/07/06/40309e4e-9f68-11e9-9ed4-c9089972ad5a_story.html

https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/free-speech-rally-conservatives/

Amazing how much more peaceful protests and counter-protests get when police are actually doing their jobs to keep protest groups separate and intervene to prevent rioting, isn't it?

Amazing how stupid alt-right protesters look when they're simply allowed to speak, and the news of the day isn't about rioting, isn't it?

Amazing how this has been a consistent and reliable pattern for 40 years, and only in the last two to three has it been disrupted by black bloc violence leading to an escalating and expanding cycle of violence which permits alt-right apologia in the mass media, isn't it?

Why, it's almost as if violently and preemptively disrupting protest is counter-productive and ultimately self-defeating in any conceivable way, unless your vested interest is in that cycle of violence as opposed to the defeat of far-right ideology in the marketplace of ideas.

While I generally agree that a fool removes all doubt of their status when they open their mouth, there's a great deal of social implication involved with political rallies. When you see enough people in a group with a single message, it's quite common to engage in groupthink. If you see enough people like you (visually or even morally), then it's quite common to either consciously or subconsciously integrate into that group, even if you're not physically with them. People who teeter on certain moral issues (either because they have not been engaged by it previously or haven't made a final decision) often come to final terms with it if they are not faced with an opposition.

Not everyone thinks critically about the social mores they engage with, hence the necessity for counter-protests.

Proud Boys are racists, white supremacists, misogynists, and beyond. They deserve to be protested against at every turn, even if they scream loudly.

We can't just hope these buffoons will tire themselves out.

Leg End:

Saelune:
Citation needed on that first part.

The first first part or the second first part? People still wanting to lynch him for his race or that more people want to lynch him for being a Republican?

They will have to prove it by opposing the Republicans in 2020. Only then will I think otherwise of them. If you vote for people who are anti-LGBT, YOU are anti-LGBT.

So you're anti-Free Speech, right?

Please understand what free speech actually is. (thanks to XKCD)

image

Leg End:

Saelune:
Citation needed on that first part.

The first first part or the second first part? People still wanting to lynch him for his race or that more people want to lynch him for being a Republican?

They will have to prove it by opposing the Republicans in 2020. Only then will I think otherwise of them. If you vote for people who are anti-LGBT, YOU are anti-LGBT.

So you're anti-Free Speech, right?

I agree that the KKK and Nazis want to lynch Ben Carson, but need citation on others.

I am for the right and freedom to openly criticize those in power without fear of reprisal. I am against Nazis spreading their ideology. That is my views on speech and its freedoms.

Few people who claim to support free-speech actually do. That goes for both sides. I think the left mostly agrees with me, but is afraid to be clear about that. I think the right just wants to call black people the N word without being condemned for it.

Kyle Gaddo:

Please understand what free speech actually is. (thanks to XKCD)

Well, never expected this surprise. Thanks for popping in. But I'd like to explain where I'm coming from on this, and why that comic is ill-applied. Completely independent of my opinions regarding private domains hosting as they please, I am strictly referring her Saelune's very vocal support of the Democratic Party and, under her reasoning, support for dismantling First Amendment protections. Though it's somewhat moot because she outright expresses support for that directly.

In this instance, she herself supports suppression and criminalization of 'Hate Speech', which as ruled by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions, would violate the First Amendment. None of that calls upon a person, company, sentient etch-a-sketch, what have you, to host your opinions. None of that requires other people to listen to it. What is specifically being referenced goes against the very comic you posted because it does in fact call for the government to interfere with speech. I believe that whatever you, I, Saelune, whoever, thinks about what these specific people or whatever other idiot comes by with a stupid opinion has to say, they have the right to say it as much as you or I have our right to say whatever stupid opinions we may have, because we probably all believe someone else has an opinion we find stupid somewhere. The key is that everyone is free to engage in discourse regarding those opinions. Nobody has to play host to it, but the government should not be stepping in and imposing penalties. The very comic you post agrees with this concept, does it not?

Do you disagree? EDIT: Do see Saelune's above post for confirmation regarding her opinion on this matter.

Saelune:
Few people who claim to support free-speech actually do. That goes for both sides. I think the left mostly agrees with me, but is afraid to be clear about that. I think the right just wants to call black people the N word without being condemned for it.

Yeah, it's one of those things where if you need to say it, it's clearly not true. Like a country calling itself the Democratic Republic of wherever. If you actually were the thing you were saying you were, you wouldn't have people doubting it so much you need to state it

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
...And this proves me wrong...how?

You're pushing the stonewall myth, which is actually an historically-revisionist thermonuclear take that underestimates the level of victimization suffered by the LGBT community at the time and the institutional forces arrayed against them, giving the Stonewall protesters less credit than they deserve, and calling the actual background of it anti-LGBT fake news? If you're only looking at the actions of the NYPD you're not even telling half the story, and you're not even telling the important part of the story.

Stonewall wasn't just a protest against anti-gay laws or police raids. They were protesting mob exploitation of the gay community, and police corruption as well. That's why the gathered crowd threw fistfuls of coins at the cops, and why the words that actually kicked off the riot were "they didn't pay off the cops". Because the cops were fucking dirty, and the raid was thought to be a shakedown.

Stonewall was a mob property, and the mob was blackmailing patrons, forcing them into prostitution, running child sex trafficking out of it, and paying off the cops to look the other way and stage fake raids to maintain appearances. Meanwhile, the Wagner mayoral admin was eager to look tough on organized crime during an election year, and was targeting gay bars because they made for easy, politically-acceptable, mob targets.

And indeed, the level of violence at Stonewall by the members of the gay community has been greatly exaggerated. The NYT article I linked earlier was a retrospective by the Village Voice writer who originally covered the story. Here's his original article -- mind the language, it was written in '69 after all.

It began as a small raid ? only two patrolmen, two detectives, and two policewomen were involved. But as the patrons trapped inside were released one by one, a crowd started to gather on the street. It was initially a festive gathering, composed mostly of Stonewall boys who were waiting around for friends still inside or to see what was going to happen. Cheers would go up as favorites would emerge from the door, strike a pose and swish by the detective with a ?Hello there, fella.? The stars were in their element. Wrists were limp, hair was primped, and reactions to the applause were classic. ?I gave them the gay power bit, and they loved it, girls.? ?Have you seen Maxine? Where is my wife ? I told her not to go far.?

Suddenly the paddywagon arrived and the mood of the crowd changed. Three of the more blatant queens ? in full drag ? were loaded inside, along with the bartender and doorman, to a chorus of catcalls and boos from the crowd. A cry went up to push the paddywagon over, but it drove away before anything could happen. With its exit, the action waned momentarily. The next person to come out was a dyke, and she put up a struggle ? from car to door to car again. It was at that moment that the scene became explosive. Limp wrists were forgotten. Beer cans and bottles were heaved at the windows, and a rain of coins descended on the cops. At the height of the action, a bearded figure was plucked from the crowd and dragged inside. It was Dave Van Ronk, who had come from the Lion?s Head to see what was going on. He was charged with throwing an object at the police.

Three cops were necessary to get Van Ronk away from the crowd and into the Stonewall. The exit left no cops on the street, and almost by signal the crowd erupted into cobblestone and bottle heaving. The reaction was solid: they were pissed. The trashcan I was standing on was nearly yanked out from under me as a kid tried to grab it for use in the window smashing melee. From nowhere came an uprooted parking meter ? used as a battering ram on the Stonewall door. I heard several cries of ?Let?s get some gas,? but the blaze of flame which soon appeared in the window of the Stonewall was still a shock. As the wood barrier behind the glass was beaten open, the cops inside turned a firehose on the crowd. Several kids took the opportunity to cavort in the spray, and their momentary glee served to stave off what was rapidly becoming a full-scale attack.

[...]

The real action Saturday was that night in the street. Friday night?s crowd had returned and was being led in ?gay power? cheers by a group of gay cheerleaders. ?We are the Stonewall girls/ We wear our hair in curls/ We have no underwear/ We show our pubic hairs!? The crowd was gathered across the street from the Stonewall and was growing with additions of onlookers, Eastsiders, and rough street people who saw a chance for a little action. Though dress had changed from Friday night?s gayery to Saturday night street clothes, the scene was a command performance for queers. If Friday night had been pick-up night, Saturday was date night. Hand-holding, kissing, and posing accented each of the cheers with a homosexual liberation that had appeared only fleetingly on the street before. One-liners were as practiced as if they had ben used for years. ?I just want you all to know,? quipped a platinum blond with obvious glee, ?that sometimes being homosexual is a big pain in the ass.? Another allowed as how he had become a ?left-deviationist.? And on and on.

[...]

The people on the street were not to be coerced. ?Let?s go down the street and see what?s happening, girls,??someone yelled. And down the street went the crowd, smack into the Tactical Patrol Force, who had been called earlier to disperse the crowd and were walking west on Christopher from Sixth Avenue. Formed in a line, the TPF swept the crowd back to the corner of Waverly Place where they stopped. A stagnant situation there brought on some gay tomfoolery in the form of a chorus line facing the helmeted and club-carrying cops. Just as the line got into a full kick routine, the TPF advanced again and cleared the crowd of screaming gay powerites down Christopher to Seventh Avenue. The street and park were then held from both ends, and no one was allowed to enter ? naturally causing a fall-off in normal Saturday night business, even at the straight Lion?s Head and 55. The TPF positions in and around the square were held with only minor incident ? one busted head and a number of scattered arrest ? while the cops amused themselves by arbitrarily breaking up small groups of people up and down the avenue.

To that you can add this firsthand account.

Stonewall has become a symbol of the LGBTQ rights movement, but its storied history has also been mythologized in some ways. Jay said the violence at the Stonewall riots was not as intense as has been portrayed.

She said the accounts of what happened at the Stonewall have been greatly exaggerated. ?The window was intact. The door was intact. There were no parking meters lying around in the street. I didn?t see any overturned cars or burnt cars. But there was a lot of anger. And people were just talking and shouting and saying, ?What do we do? What do we do??? ?But people were not agreeing with the Mattachine sentiment anymore that we should just go home and be good and eventually straight people would accept us,? said Jay.

However real the violence by police, the two-day all-out Jets vs. Sharks street brawl it's made out to be today it was not. We're discussing a protest that can be summarized by the showdown of riot cop phalanxes versus...impromptu chorus lines.

...Still haven't proven me wrong. LGBT people literally fought back against abusive cops and it helped spark the LGBT rights movement.

The mob took advantage of LGBT people...doesn't prove me wrong.

The cops took advantage of LGBT people...only verifies me as right.

By today's so called standard, the Stonewall Riot would have been condemned as 'a bunch of violent leftist thugs'. That's bullshit and you know it.

What is your goal here? Cause from where I am, it looks like you just want to dismiss the movement.

Leg End:

Kyle Gaddo:

Please understand what free speech actually is. (thanks to XKCD)

Well, never expected this surprise. Thanks for popping in. But I'd like to explain where I'm coming from on this, and why that comic is ill-applied. Completely independent of my opinions regarding private domains hosting as they please, I am strictly referring her Saelune's very vocal support of the Democratic Party and, under her reasoning, support for dismantling First Amendment protections. Though it's somewhat moot because she outright expresses support for that directly.

In this instance, she herself supports suppression and criminalization of 'Hate Speech', which as ruled by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions, would violate the First Amendment. None of that calls upon a person, company, sentient etch-a-sketch, what have you, to host your opinions. None of that requires other people to listen to it. What is specifically being referenced goes against the very comic you posted because it does in fact call for the government to interfere with speech. I believe that whatever you, I, Saelune, whoever, thinks about what these specific people or whatever other idiot comes by with a stupid opinion has to say, they have the right to say it as much as you or I have our right to say whatever stupid opinions we may have, because we probably all believe someone else has an opinion we find stupid somewhere. The key is that everyone is free to engage in discourse regarding those opinions. Nobody has to play host to it, but the government should not be stepping in and imposing penalties. The very comic you post agrees with this concept, does it not?

Do you disagree? EDIT: Do see Saelune's above post for confirmation regarding her opinion on this matter.

Slavery was legal once.

Palindromemordnilap:

Saelune:
Few people who claim to support free-speech actually do. That goes for both sides. I think the left mostly agrees with me, but is afraid to be clear about that. I think the right just wants to call black people the N word without being condemned for it.

Yeah, it's one of those things where if you need to say it, it's clearly not true. Like a country calling itself the Democratic Republic of wherever. If you actually were the thing you were saying you were, you wouldn't have people doubting it so much you need to state it

'Free speech' is a buzzword at this point, because the second you say 'I am against free speech', people will make their decision about you without really considering what they mean.

If opposing Nazi ideology makes me 'anti-free speech', fine. But that doesn't mean I think we should not be allowed to condemn the government. I think the left 'supports free speech' cause of the latter part, not the former, but to outright say 'We oppose free speech' would be a PR nightmare.

But then, the right also opposes actual free speech. They insult and then get mad when insulted, they say lies and slander, then condemn those who call them out on it. They absolutely oppose any condemnation of Trump's government. They want the ability to say whatever racist shit they want, but don't want to be called out for it.

I am sure there are plenty who do genuinely and unhypocritically support free speech, but they aren't condemning people for shitting on Nazis, and they aren't condemning only one side for violent reactions. But they have to decide what is more important to them, cause to vote for either side is to compromise.

People with dumb ideas voiced their opinions. People responded with criticism. No laws were broken, no rights were violated, and counter intuitive ideologies gained zero traction. This is a pretty good example of the system at play actually functioning correctly. Now if only antifa would take notice and stop fucking around we'd make some progress.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/3/20677645/antifa-portland-andy-ngo-proud-boys

Saelune:
Slavery was legal once.

...And? Can you go in-depth here?

Saelune:

Palindromemordnilap:

Saelune:
Few people who claim to support free-speech actually do. That goes for both sides. I think the left mostly agrees with me, but is afraid to be clear about that. I think the right just wants to call black people the N word without being condemned for it.

Yeah, it's one of those things where if you need to say it, it's clearly not true. Like a country calling itself the Democratic Republic of wherever. If you actually were the thing you were saying you were, you wouldn't have people doubting it so much you need to state it

'Free speech' is a buzzword at this point, because the second you say 'I am against free speech', people will make their decision about you without really considering what they mean.

If opposing Nazi ideology makes me 'anti-free speech', fine. But that doesn't mean I think we should not be allowed to condemn the government. I think the left 'supports free speech' cause of the latter part, not the former, but to outright say 'We oppose free speech' would be a PR nightmare.

But then, the right also opposes actual free speech. They insult and then get mad when insulted, they say lies and slander, then condemn those who call them out on it. They absolutely oppose any condemnation of Trump's government. They want the ability to say whatever racist shit they want, but don't want to be called out for it.

I am sure there are plenty who do genuinely and unhypocritically support free speech, but they aren't condemning people for shitting on Nazis, and they aren't condemning only one side for violent reactions. But they have to decide what is more important to them, cause to vote for either side is to compromise.

Its become a weapon people try to use against each other on forums like this, saying the other is "anti-free speech" just because the other guy said something they didn't like. And its usually from people who say nothing about Trump trying to cut down on how much the press can talk about him

Leg End:
In this instance, she herself supports suppression and criminalization of 'Hate Speech', which as ruled by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions, would violate the First Amendment. None of that calls upon a person, company, sentient etch-a-sketch, what have you, to host your opinions. None of that requires other people to listen to it. What is specifically being referenced goes against the very comic you posted because it does in fact call for the government to interfere with speech. I believe that whatever you, I, Saelune, whoever, thinks about what these specific people or whatever other idiot comes by with a stupid opinion has to say, they have the right to say it as much as you or I have our right to say whatever stupid opinions we may have, because we probably all believe someone else has an opinion we find stupid somewhere. The key is that everyone is free to engage in discourse regarding those opinions. Nobody has to play host to it, but the government should not be stepping in and imposing penalties. The very comic you post agrees with this concept, does it not?

Do you disagree? EDIT: Do see Saelune's above post for confirmation regarding her opinion on this matter.

Hate speech is not free speech. Despite the fact that it's protected under the First Amendment, hate speech is inherently violent, because it infringes on people's rights to live their life under the very same Constitution that should protect them.

A government should protect its people. Germany, for example, is pretty liberal with the types of speech it allows. Except one, and I'm sure you already know which.

Leg End:

Saelune:
Slavery was legal once.

...And? Can you go in-depth here?

It means that things can and should change for the safety and protection for all of a nation's people.

Shadowstar38:
People with dumb ideas voiced their opinions. People responded with criticism. No laws were broken, no rights were violated, and counter intuitive ideologies gained zero traction. This is a pretty good example of the system at play actually functioning correctly. Now if only antifa would take notice and stop fucking around we'd make some progress.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/3/20677645/antifa-portland-andy-ngo-proud-boys

Man, it really is almost like we can fight people with words and win hearts and minds instead of acting like a bunch of violent savages!

Leg End:

Saelune:
Slavery was legal once.

...And? Can you go in-depth here?

That 'Its legal' is a terrible defense of anything.

Kyle Gaddo:

Hate speech is not free speech.

An opinion I vehemently disagree with, as do numerous SCOTUS rulings. But again, your right to say such, as is mine to disagree. Particulars to that include what is specifically 'Hate Speech', which tends to carry a lot of personal opinion from person to person. A key factor here is that neither of us likely support the Speech you would personally define as 'Hate Speech'. Nonetheless, I fight for the right to people to state it in the public sphere, and for my right to call them out on it once they finish their sentence. This is again something that the comic you posted supports, and is now apparent that you disagree with on some level.

Despite the fact that it's protected under the First Amendment, hate speech is inherently violent, because it infringes on people's rights to live their life under the very same Constitution that should protect them.

Question then. what is your opinion of "Punching Nazis"? Or specific promotion of ideologies that have had less than a stellar human rights track record? We both know what your first idea of Ideology will come to mind, as it is mine as well in most cases, but what about various others? The same way those ideologies and subscribers of them can discuss them, so can the one we both think of first in particular. As has been shown, our Minds are powerful weapons, as are our Words. Man is a stronger creature than to just give in to the first rousing speech he hears.

For the record and in more direct words, I'm specifically thinking of Communism as my number 2, yet nobody tends to have an issue with that floating around. See: Antifa throwing around Hammers and Sickles like they have a quota.

A government should protect its people. Germany, for example, is pretty liberal with the types of speech it allows. Except one, and I'm sure you already know which.

I do, and I do not care at all for Germany's approach to speech, highlighted among those who partake in our hobby during the 2000s, due to various government censorship there and repurposing anti-Nazi imagery for anti-violent game imagery. I am an American, and I value my ability to express myself here in my country. As for your statement regarding a Government's role to it's people, I direct to C. S. Lewis:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Such is my longstanding take on such matters.

Kyle Gaddo:

It means that things can and should change for the safety and protection for all of a nation's people.

Sure. But this isn't anywhere near Slavery.

Saelune:
That 'Its legal' is a terrible defense of anything.

Of course. But in this case, it's legal because it's mere words. My words do nothing to infringe upon your well-being or rights. You can use words and fire back, calling me every nasty thing in the book. It runs down like rain down a window. There is not a single thing I can say that can actually harm you or infringe upon your rights as a Human Being. Not one.

Leg End:

Kyle Gaddo:

It means that things can and should change for the safety and protection for all of a nation's people.

Sure. But this isn't anywhere near Slavery.

Saelune:
That 'Its legal' is a terrible defense of anything.

Of course. But in this case, it's legal because it's mere words. My words do nothing to infringe upon your well-being or rights. You can use words and fire back, calling me every nasty thing in the book. It runs down like rain down a window. There is not a single thing I can say that can actually harm you or infringe upon your rights as a Human Being. Not one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F

Shadowstar38:
People with dumb ideas voiced their opinions. People responded with criticism. No laws were broken, no rights were violated, and counter intuitive ideologies gained zero traction. This is a pretty good example of the system at play actually functioning correctly. Now if only antifa would take notice and stop fucking around we'd make some progress.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/3/20677645/antifa-portland-andy-ngo-proud-boys

Nazis still exist, bigotry still exists, nothing was solved or fixed.

Remember when Antifa shot up that synagogue? And that mosque? Oh wait, those were Republicans. Well, what about that time Antifa sent bombs out of a van decked out in pro-Hillary pictures? Oh wait, that was a Republican in a pro-Trump van.

If you actually want to condemn violent actions, condemn the actual terrorists. Your focus on Antifa shows your hand.

Saelune:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F

I'm familiar with it. Please explain. Because if you can just start linking a single thing or say half a sentence, I can start doing it as well and the discussion just doesn't exist.

Saelune:
Your focus on Antifa shows your hand.

I think the problem is that nobody else actually seems to be focusing on them, which I compare to how you state people are ignoring Nazis step onto the stage. Antifa gets a free pass because... reasons.

Okay, I know this is so long ago but I'm going to reply to the original post.

You're assumption is that counter protests were ineffective. Based on what evidence? Counter protesting has been going on for a while and these Alt-right rallies are attended to a lesser degree. Seems like the counter protests are working to me.

I don't know how the Alt-right words made them any less or more stupid now. They were saying these things beforehand and to me it looked like they were stupid but many disagreed with me. It was only when they killed someone that people baulked.

Free Speech doesn't lead to conversation. It doesn't point out stupidity. Because no one is listening. They're just saying what they want and not considering othets

I would say that my personal opinion is that Charlottesville had a huge effect. No longer could white Supremacist claim that they were nice.

Leg End:

Saelune:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F

I'm familiar with it. Please explain. Because if you can just start linking a single thing or say half a sentence, I can start doing it as well and the discussion just doesn't exist.

People in positions of authority who say things in off-hand remarks often have people follow through at their behest, even if "accidental."

Kyle Gaddo:

People in positions of authority who say things in off-hand remarks often have people follow through at their behest, even if "accidental."

This however does not change the nature of Speech. Even to go as far as Speech being used and a different scenario where the remark would have been a direct Order, Words themselves have no power to perform the actions described. I cannot cut with a word, I cannot burn with a sentence. The only power words have is the power we give them. In the case provided, it was the initiative of Man to go into action.

Kyle Gaddo:
Proud Boys are racists, white supremacists, misogynists, and beyond. They deserve to be protested against at every turn, even if they scream loudly.

They do and they should be -- non-violently, which is my point. That means turning away from and condemning black bloc tactics. Compare this week's news cycle with regards to Proud Boys protest to last. Last week Andy Ngo was lionized on corporate media for wandering into a crowd of Antifa expecting to get his ass whooped on camera, and getting what he wanted. This week we get to point and laugh at Tinder incels and Gavin McInnes losing a fight against a pair of plastic handcuffs.

I know which one I'd rather deal with. I'm also sick of people drawing false equivalencies and excluding middles against me for condemning the black bloc and violent counter-protest. This is a battle that can and should be won in the marketplace of ideas, that can only be lost in the streets, and I'm sick of people on my side picking the losing option; ergo, when a scenario happens demonstrative of what should be done and how, damned right I'm going to shout it from the mountaintops.

Hate speech is not free speech. Despite the fact that it's protected under the First Amendment, hate speech is inherently violent, because it infringes on people's rights to live their life under the very same Constitution that should protect them.

Honestly, as an American, having an American perspective and understanding America's track record of censorship, I find the continental conceptions of speech and expression repugnant and morally bankrupt. Over here, laws, rules, or policies permitting the regulation of "dangerous" or "offensive" speech have a far, far greater track record for leading to the suppression of voices dissenting or critical to those in power, and persecuting historically-disadvantaged persons, than they do of protecting them. Viewpoint- or content-based suppression of speech should never be a power afforded to governing entities. Ever.

Public or private sphere, lest anyone forget the oppression of LGBTQ's in Hays Code and Red Scare-era Hollywood.

It means that things can and should change for the safety and protection for all of a nation's people.

I can think of at least one famous quote by Benjamin Franklin that would serve as adequate clapback to this...

...and in the spirit of that, how about hijab bans? What's the compelling government interest in banning hijab? Niqab and burka bans, you could relatively easily make the argument...that is, in service to a surveillance state, so fuck that right there.

Saelune:
LGBT people literally fought back against abusive cops and it helped spark the LGBT rights movement.

You're emphasizing and idealizing the violence at the cost of all else. That's what's wrong with your argument. If you can't or won't understand how that's contrary to the reality and the spirit of the topic, that's on you. Least of all if you can't tell a difference between defending oneself against a physical assault by a dirty cop, and assaulting others on the street.

Leg End:

Saelune:
Your focus on Antifa shows your hand.

I think the problem is that nobody else actually seems to be focusing on them, which I compare to how you state people are ignoring Nazis step onto the stage. Antifa gets a free pass because... reasons.

If I may?

Antifa, at the very very VERY worst in my opinion... Is like a Gang. I personally don't believe them to be this bad, but if I had to say that they were trouble, it would be of the Blood and Crips variety.

You know, minus the gun running and drug selling. So ok, not like the Blood and the Crips. Like a low level gang that wants to rumble with the establishment. To me, yeah, that's barely a blip in what I'm concerned with politically.

However, Antifa isn't running for Congress, Senate, and Gubernatorial races on the Democratic ticket. But people who are supported by White Nationalists and Neo-Nazis are running. A good deal are losing... But some won.

If the worst Antifa has done are skrimishes, fine. They fought with a group like a gang. But they aren't trying to run for office like the White Nationalist movement constantly does.

I look at it like this; If I have a headache, a fresh bullet wound takes priority. I'm not going to stop at the drug store for some Ibuprofen on the way to the ER because the bullet wound is definitely a more pressing matter than the other.

And yes, the segment that can affect laws for citizens while also taking to the street and flexing muscle are more dangerous than the group that can only flex muscle.

ObsidianJones:
You know, minus the gun running...

I have my fair share of buddies in the RR/JBGC sphere, and there are definitely some dumbass practices. Mostly out of ignorance of transportation laws and best safety practices. One of them wanted me to come out on a handful of occasions, shoot and help teach, but...hell naw. Some people, just going around them with a gun in their hands is begging to get accidentally shot.

EDIT: Changed some wording because I realized after the fact more could be interpreted from my post than I intended.

Saelune:

Shadowstar38:
People with dumb ideas voiced their opinions. People responded with criticism. No laws were broken, no rights were violated, and counter intuitive ideologies gained zero traction. This is a pretty good example of the system at play actually functioning correctly. Now if only antifa would take notice and stop fucking around we'd make some progress.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/3/20677645/antifa-portland-andy-ngo-proud-boys

Nazis still exist, bigotry still exists, nothing was solved or fixed.

Remember when Antifa shot up that synagogue? And that mosque? Oh wait, those were Republicans. Well, what about that time Antifa sent bombs out of a van decked out in pro-Hillary pictures? Oh wait, that was a Republican in a pro-Trump van.

If you actually want to condemn violent actions, condemn the actual terrorists. Your focus on Antifa shows your hand.

Awesome. We're right back to the BS first day back. I love it.

This event by itself is only meant to illustrate that you can combat ideologies you disagree with in a productive way. I didn't claim it solved the specific issues you choose to point out in your response.

My only reason for bringing up Antifa is because they serve as a counter-point for how you combat right-wing ideologies incorrectly. It served a purpose to the context of the conversation. So no. I did not "show my hand".

EDIT: It's also worth noting the weird whataboutry here. I pointed out X group of people are dicks and you managed to jump to "But group Y is a bigger issue". I didn't say anything about which group is worse, or which needs to be prioritized. Why are we making it a competition?

ObsidianJones:

If I may?

Of course! Love your opinions even if I didn't reply to one before R&P was kill.

Antifa, at the very very VERY worst in my opinion... Is like a Gang. I personally don't believe them to be this bad, but if I had to say that they were trouble, it would be of the Blood and Crips variety.

You know, minus the gun running and drug selling.

Issue is, they may actually be elevating their shit so they are actually arming themselves to do really fucked up shit.

So ok, not like the Blood and the Crips. Like a low level gang that wants to rumble with the establishment. To me, yeah, that's barely a blip in what I'm concerned with politically.

However, Antifa isn't running for Congress, Senate, and Gubernatorial races on the Democratic ticket. But people who are supported by White Nationalists and Neo-Nazis are running. A good deal are losing... But some won.

My issue is that while Antifa isn't directly running for anything that I am aware of, you have politicians praising them and supporting their actions. Though it seems that at least Biden has wised up and fired some shots at them. My problem is the free pass and that the problem is only getting worse. The shit they do isn't fucking cool, and even comparing them to small-time gangs means you're still comparing them to shitheads that murder people.

If the worst Antifa has done are skrimishes, fine. They fought with a group like a gang. But they aren't trying to run for office like the White Nationalist movement constantly does.

What if that changes? People are fighting Neo-Nazis, I'm fighting these shitheads that are getting a lot of free passes and hoping to stop them before we actually have them running for positions of power. Not too different from Saelune's own approach, actually.

I look at it like this; If I have a headache, a fresh bullet wound takes priority. I'm not going to stop at the drug store for some Ibuprofen on the way to the ER because the bullet wound is definitely a more pressing matter than the other.

From my view, it's less a small headache and more of a symptom of a serious concussion we're not aware of, and all too dangerous if we simply sleep on it. You have priority on skinheads? Cool. But please don't discount the very real dangers that these rioting shitheads pose and them getting away with it.

And yes, the segment that can affect laws for citizens while also taking to the street and flexing muscle are more dangerous than the group that can only flex muscle.

Same point as above. Getting big people in power to support their actions. They don't need to get people elected. They already have the support inside. These shitheads are already getting off with random acts of violence. We need to cut the head off early, and preferably we do it with every violent rioting fuck at the same time. Everybody wins because the people that want to be left alone don't have to deal with everyone wanting to put a boot on their throat, just in different colors and by different designers.

Shadowstar38:
People with dumb ideas voiced their opinions. People responded with criticism. No laws were broken, no rights were violated, and counter intuitive ideologies gained zero traction. This is a pretty good example of the system at play actually functioning correctly. Now if only antifa would take notice and stop fucking around we'd make some progress.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/3/20677645/antifa-portland-andy-ngo-proud-boys

I'd like to point out the number of instances where the Proud Boys crossed lines, came up to the counter protestors, and had to be escorted away by the cops.

I'd also like to point out that that's what the Proud Boys do in Portland.

Proud Boys instigate violence. Antifa's typically on the defensive, and everybody in the "liberal" media trips over their dick to both sides the issue.

altnameJag:
I'd like to point out the number of instances where the Proud Boys crossed lines, came up to the counter protestors, and had to be escorted away by the cops.

And, in the links I posted in the OP, USA Today has a report of black bloc protesters trying to charge, then outflank, a police barricade, then were busted up trying to erect barricades of their own.

WashPo has a fairly detailed account of the entire day, including a group of antifa harassing PB's at a bar and another spat in front of the DC Trump hotel. Then you had Joey Salads wandering off to get himself Andy Ngo'd, and getting extracted by the cops before Antifa could indulge him. I'll be the first to admit, Joey Salads deserves a solid ass whoopin' just on merit of being a dumpster-tier "pranktuber", forget the political shit for a second. Where I take exception, is that it's not a particularly savvy idea to give him one on camera in the middle of a political protest.

Daily Dot has an account of Antifa invading a Starbucks for some reason. But that's just funny.

Bottom line is, the cops were there and they actually did their job. That is, keeping two opposing sides of a protest who, left alone would start a riot, separate, and therefore preventing a riot. When it became clear to either side they weren't getting what they wanted, they went off to their own little corners and did their own thing.

Which is really the heart of the matter. PB's love to instigate, and all they have to do to accomplish that is show up. But if they can't fight, they have to talk, and when they have to talk they end up looking like completely inept jackasses.

The solution to this is so simple a grade schooler can figure it out: stop giving PB's what they want (riots), and start forcing them to do what they don't (talk). And yeah, that means telling the black bloc to take a hike. That shouldn't be any skin off any reasonable person's ass.

Or we can sit here and point fingers as to whose loop in the codependent cycle of violence matters more.

As Salvor Hardin once said "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

Kyle Gaddo:

A government should protect its people. Germany, for example, is pretty liberal with the types of speech it allows. Except one, and I'm sure you already know which.

This is only partly true. The above paragraph is about unconstitutional organisations forbidding Nazi (and ISIL and evsn some Communist) symbols and propaganda.

Hate speech is an entirely different law, section 130.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung

And those two are, while the most important, not the only limitations of free speech in Germany. E.G. there is also stuff about non hate-speech personal insults.

Drathnoxis:
As Salvor Hardin once said "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

Those founding fathers were sure incompetent destroying property just because a king reduced a tax

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 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