drawkcabi Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Please continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Well, the last thread ended with a bunch of folks defending nazis. And it's only day six of the nazification of America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squab Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 6 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: Well, the last thread ended with a bunch of folks defending nazis. And it's only day six of the nazification of America. Wasn't it fascists claiming the law is on their side if they sucker punch someone cause they didn't like what they said or who they were? The ministry of truth rewriting history again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/26/trump-bashed-the-unemployment-rate-what-happens-now-that-hes-in-charge-of-it/ Data denial. It's very Republican. Trump is just doing what he learned from the Republican Party. Quote During the campaign, Donald Trump called the official unemployment rate published by the Labor Department “such a phony number,” “one of the biggest hoaxes in American modern politics” and “the biggest joke there is.” He variously described the real rate as 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30 and 35 percent. In August, he told Time magazine that the “real unemployment rate is 42 percent.” Quote The traditional unemployment rate — known by government statisticians as the U-3 rate, now at 4.7 percent, counts only those who are unemployed and actively looking for work. But it doesn't include people who have given up looking for work, so-called discouraged workers, or those who are working part-time but would like to be full-time. The U-6 rate, which does incorporate those workers, was 9.2 percent in December. Michael Strain, the director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, said focusing on the broader U-6 rate rather than the more traditional U-3 rate is “completely defensible.” However, that's different than some of Trump's other claims about economic data, he said You know, if I recall correctly Jack Welch accused the Obama administration of cooking the books back in 2012. There were plenty of reasonable arguments to make against taking the U3 numbers at complete face value, like looking at the U6 numbers and so forth. But, nope, Welch went straight for the conspiracy theory. Trump is an idiot. But, it seems he's just parroting nonsense he learned from other Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 1 minute ago, Squab said: Wasn't it fascists claiming the law is on their side if they sucker punch someone cause they didn't like what they said or who they were? The ministry of truth rewriting history again? Again, defending nazis. If you're defending nazis, you're a terrible person. This is an actual fact, not an alt-fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sifth Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Just now, Dr. Pepper said: Again, defending nazis. If you're defending nazis, you're a terrible person. This is an actual fact, not an alt-fact. Best not to try and reason with Nazi sympathizers. People like that are beyond the reach of logic and reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrl6199 Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Just now, sifth said: Best not to try and reason with Nazi sympathizers. People like that are beyond the reach of logic and reasoning. Wait who defended Nazis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Just now, sifth said: Best not to try and reason with Nazi sympathizers. People like that are beyond the reach of logic and reasoning. This is true. It's just difficult to see people talking around it and trying to pretend they are something they aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sifth Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Just now, Wrl6199 said: Wait who defended Nazis? There's clearly a ground of people here trying to say this particular Nazi is some type of "victim". A notion that seems pretty sick in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, Wrl6199 said: Wait who defended Nazis? Nobody defended Nazis. I defended the First Amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Quote Since social contracts have existed. I don't think so, people have been getting hit for the shit they say since humans have existed. Quote The notion that this kind of assault is justified is absurd. I hope they arrested the guy who did it. What was he even talking about when it happened? i haven't heard the audio. In point of fact I've not said whether I think the hit was justified. Just asking a question about your claim. Didn't get a very good answer either since you seem to think consequences have a moral judgement attached or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 I for myself wholeheartly support the nazis' right to publicly express their despicable views. I also can't help smiling when they get punched in the face for it. The right to free speech was never meant to make you immune to the consequences of your speech. Quite the contrary in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einheri Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 I agree with Manhole. Defending free speech =/= defending Nazis. As a matter of fact, free speech is also the solution to combating them as even though it allow the Nazis to display their despicable views, it also allows us to confront them and their views with our superior arguments, and maybe we’ll even manage to turn some of them over to the light side, like this Black man who managed to convince 200 KKK members to leave the organization. Violence won’t accomplish that; it’ll only make the situation worse, and well meaning people will be sent to jail for it (and possibly have their life ruined as a consequence). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savannah Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 12 minutes ago, Einheri said: I agree with Manhole. Defending free speech =/= defending Nazis. As a matter of fact, free speech is also the solution to combating them as even though it allow the Nazis to display their despicable views, it also allows us to confront them and their views with our superior arguments, and maybe we’ll even manage to turn some of them over to the light side, like this Black man who managed to convince 200 KKK members to leave the organization. Violence won’t accomplish that; it’ll only make the situation worse, and well meaning people will be sent to jail for it (and possibly have their life ruined as a consequence). They might also get punched back with severe consequences, one punch can end a life. Violence is ugly and horrible. Stop idealizing it, you fools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drawkcabi Posted January 27, 2017 Author Share Posted January 27, 2017 When I was growing up the mantra of "I may not like what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" was a given and strongly supported by the left. It perplexes and saddens me to see that's not so anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 16 minutes ago, Kalbear said: It's pretty rude, and it's certainly against the law. It is, however, proper to punch a nazi. QFT The Nazis freedom of speech wasn't curtailed. He wasn't being arrested for being a nazi or for being someone who openly supports white supremacy and black genocide. His free speech is perfectly intact. I haven't seen a single person saying he should be thrown in jail for talking nazi stuff. His face is just bruised. And now it's revealed a legion of nazi sympathizers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drawkcabi Posted January 27, 2017 Author Share Posted January 27, 2017 I'm in the position of being glad the Nazi was punched in the face, but also believe the person who did it should be charged with the proper criminal complaints. I think if I was in that place, seeing a Nazi spewing hate speech, I'd consider it a fair trade being criminally charged for decking the asshole. ETA: Looking at this post the one of mine just a bit above and I have to wonder if I contradict myself, but I don't think I have. I still would defend to the death a person's right to speak freely without being arrested or muffled by government or law enforcement, but again, I'd consider it a bargain to accept criminal charges for myself for the chance to give a good coldcock to someone spewing real filth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squab Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, drawkcabi said: When I was growing up the mantra of "I may not like what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" was a given and strongly supported by the left. It perplexes and saddens me to see that's not so anymore. That kind of talk will get you labeled Nazi. And people will then suggest you should be violently admonished for being such a Nazi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 I hope they never find out who it was. I'd contribute to his defense if they do find out and also to his security fund since he'll obviously need protection from nazis and the new league of nazi sympathizers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 4 minutes ago, drawkcabi said: When I was growing up the mantra of "I may not like what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" was a given and strongly supported by the left. It perplexes and saddens me to see that's not so anymore. And it still applies, just as much. Freedom of speech is not about allowing random people to not react to your speech. It is ensuring that the government does not curtail your speech. That's all. I will absolutely defend that right. The government does not have the right to suspend your speech. But that doesn't mean your speech is going to be fully protected without consequence of other action. We have entirely additional laws about violence, the specific use of it and when it is acceptable and when it is not. Again, it is considered to be 'aggravated' when violence is provoked by things...like speech. But the two are different things. There is no law saying that 'if you're in the middle of saying something, getting punched is extra bad'. Assault and battery are crimes. So is inciting violence and riot. One can simultaneously accept that Spencer et al have a right to not be censored by the government AND ALSO applaud people who want to - and do - risk imprisonment to punch his ass. 2 minutes ago, Squab said: That kind of talk will get you labeled Nazi. And people will then suggest you should be violently admonished for being such a Nazi. Not around here. Maybe where you're from? I'm not familiar with Australian rules on free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.