Kalbear

US Politics: Locked, Loaded, Fired Up and Capitalized

416 posts in this topic

Just now, Sword of Doom said:

Tell me how we rewrite the system when the people that empower neo nazis are in the white house, the DOJ, senate seats and congress and are actively working to suppress even more votes than they currently do to ensure they stay in power and have the ability to plant who they want in supreme court justice positions? 

What leaps and bounds lol? Unarmed black people can get killed while being unarmed on video and white society still sides with the fucking cops. Civil rights are being attacked right now by Sessoins and he is trying to roll quite a bit back. 

 

I get your frustration and anger. I really do. I'd like to say I have the answers to your questions, but I do not. Civil Rights will always be a hard fought battle, but that battle is doomed if at the end of the day we ourselves become the oppressors. Taking away a group's rights, no matter how abhorrent and hateful their ideology, will not serve to advance the rights of the oppressed. If that were true hate itself would have been made illegal a long time ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

28 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

That can't have been Richard Spencer, by the way.

If it was, someone would have picked up the story by now. Could have been awesome though.

It's not him. ETA Haircut in that photo has a red coat on. Spencer is in some chambray thing (because of course he was was) and apparently was arrested. This is his I assume GoPro footage or something. I gave up after about 7 minutes. I'm guessing that he was briefly tie-wrapped. I couldn't watch anymore to be sure. His whining was grating.

https://youtu.be/MAVmiPyG3BY

 

Edited by kairparavel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Since I have some trouble falling asleep today, I decided to watch CNN (in the vague hopes it would bore me into a slumber), now I am hearing that GOP congressman from Virgina whining that people are mean to him on his facebook page and he gets insulted. And the CNN host either unwilling or unable to ask him, whether he feels that the President of his party played part in driving those guys out in strength by embracing them during his campaign (like not denouncing Duke), and really displaying overt racism (Mexican rapists at the wall). And whether he himself feels some sort of moral responsibility for the normalization of that.

All of that would have been good questions. And I hope someone will actually ask those when they have GOP leadership on air.

Edited by Notone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a group  shouting "Heil Trump"...

But of course there are "many sides". :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Ghjhero said:

transgressions such as slavery and Jim Crow.

Far too mild a word and a derailing word for what these hideous crimes and sins that went on for hundreds of years, and are in other forms continuing now.

D&D think their Confederate is gloriously trangressive, i.e. hip, cool and o so clever.  Asshats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

51 minutes ago, Ghjhero said:

I get your frustration and anger. I really do. I'd like to say I have the answers to your questions, but I do not. Civil Rights will always be a hard fought battle, but that battle is doomed if at the end of the day we ourselves become the oppressors. Taking away a group's rights, no matter how abhorrent and hateful their ideology, will not serve to advance the rights of the oppressed. If that were true hate itself would have been made illegal a long time ago. 

Spare me that bit about us being the oppressors. We aren't oppressing anyone based upon their skin color, their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender and whether or not they have disabilities.  We would be stopping bigots from gaining power and spreading an ideology that wants to kill those demographics I just mentioned. You saying we shouldn't take away their rights is saying nazism and white supremacy  deserves to breath and are legitimate positions that deserve respect. You are arguing in favor of nazis and white supremacists no matter how you try to argue differently. I'm gonna guess you're a straight white guy with that load of garbage being shoved my way.

What you essentially did is say we would be intolerant of intolerance. 

These people want to kill a sibling of mine because they are trans. They want to kill two other siblings of mine that are not white. They want to kill family of mine that are gay. They want to kill friends of mine that are not white, trans, disabled, gay, bi and worship different religions than Christianity. And even if I didn't have friends and family apart of the demographics that such ideologies would target, the ones you are arguing in favor of having the right to be spewed and preached, I would still be against them because of empathy.





Duke admitted the KKK and neo nazis specifically voted for Trump because of the racism he spewed and the racist dog whistle of make america great again. 

The apologists can piss off, the fence sitters waiting to see what side wins can piss off, those that still support Trump can piss off. Those that want to push false equivalences between the left and right, specifically the far left and far right can piss off.

The free speech fetishism is sickening. The naive faith in government being ran by bigots is laughable. 

Edited by Sword of Doom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

57 minutes ago, Ghjhero said:

I get your frustration and anger. I really do. I'd like to say I have the answers to your questions, but I do not. Civil Rights will always be a hard fought battle, but that battle is doomed if at the end of the day we ourselves become the oppressors. Taking away a group's rights, no matter how abhorrent and hateful their ideology, will not serve to advance the rights of the oppressed. If that were true hate itself would have been made illegal a long time ago. 

Those laws and amendments did not happen via non-violence.  It was firing cities and shooting back that got people so scared SOMETHING had to be done. It was pushing back.  As in Detroit -- African Americans, who didn't have anyone fight for them, call it the uprising, the rebellion.

Every reformation and revolution has to have a militant arm.  Ask Henry VIII.

Once again you all who think the cops and the government and the system is the answer: These people BROUGHT IT to Charlotteville, strutting in full military body army, displaying their open carry weapons.  They didn't come to Charlottesville for a statue, they came to kick ass on every one who is isn't a white militant male asshole who agrees with every ass thing they howl, and every strut, every word, every action is about them believing they are empowered to do so.

Christ turned the other cheek.  He was crucified.  But he was the son of God and he got over it.  I am not the son of God and me and mine will just be crucified.

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Far too mild a word and a derailing word for what these hideous crimes and sins that went on for hundreds of years, and are in other forms continuing now.

D&D think their Confederate is gloriously trangressive, i.e. hip, cool and o so clever.  Asshats.

Well said. I don't disagree. 

2 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Spare me that bit about us being the oppressors. We aren't oppressing anyone based upon their skin color, their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender and whether or not they have disabilities.  You saying we shouldn't take away their rights is saying nazism and white supremacy  deserves to breath and are legitimate positions that deserve respect. You are arguing in favor of nazis and white supremacists no matter how you try to argue differently. I'm gonna guess you're a straight white guy with that load of garbage being shoved my way.

What you essentially did is say we would be intolerant of intolerance. 





Duke admitted the KKK and neo nazis specifically voted for Trump because of the racism he spewed and the racist dog whistle of make america great again. 

The apologists can piss off, the fence sitters waiting to see what side wins can piss off, those that still support Trump can piss off. Those that want to push false equivalences between the left and right, specifically the far left and far right can piss off.

The free speech fetishism is sickening. The naive faith in government being ran by bigots is laughable. 

What you are arguing for is using government (benevolently of course, how could it be anything other?) to impose your will forcefully on those who do not share the same world view as you do. That's what it boils down to. You may try to dress it up and sell it differently, but as dmc515 and Manhole have already said that is incredibly reminiscent of fascism. 

Once again I'll say that freedom of speech is not the same as allowing acts of violence to go unpunished. Their ideology should be combatted every step of the way, I'm not apologizing for their behavior in any way. All I maintain is we uphold the rule of law in support of a liberal democracy in a non-violent manner. It's not about having faith in government, of that I have very little, it's about upholding a system that protects the inherent rights of the people from violation by an oppressive government. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Ghjhero said:

I'll third this.

One thing that i'd like to throw in here. There's a big difference between promoting the right to free speech of all individuals and allowing those individuals to commit acts of violence based on their speech. I think the narrow divide between the two has a tendency to get lost at times and that looks to be happening here. 

I'd also like to respond to @Sword of Doom's apparent belief that Rule of Law is arbitrary at times and does not mean shit. The answer to why the Rule of Law is important lies in your very criticism of it. We should continually be ensuring our legal system reflects that of a free and equal liberal democracy. We should be incredibly proud at the leaps and bounds we have made since this nation's creation, but to throw away the Rule of Law is to slip towards transgressions such as slavery and Jim Crow. The system is not perfect, but to pretend we can inoculate ourselves from all threats to our security is to abandon the very liberties we supposedly hold dear.

I agree. I support free speech up to incitement. If you see speech as incitement but officials do not, that's what protests and civil lawsuits are for, I don't even support abiding by the law 100% either. I think civil disobedience is a necessary tactic to fight against oppressive laws. 

I detest and stand against everything the neonazis and fascists stand for.  I believe in their right to say what they think though, as long as that speech is not inciting violence or panic. See I can believe in their right for free speech while at the same time rooting for us who oppose them to drown them out with our free speech.

I draw the line at condoning violence as organized response though - as long as our government by the people, however majorly flawed or corrupt, however much in need of changes, as long as it at least exists, I do. Whoever thinks that puts me on the side of the nazis needs to take a step back from the abyss. 

Edited by drawkcabi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ghjhero said:

Well said. I don't disagree. 

What you are arguing for is using government (benevolently of course, how could it be anything other?) to impose your will forcefully on those who do not share the same world view as you do. That's what it boils down to. You may try to dress it up and sell it differently, but as dmc515 and Manhole have already said that is incredibly reminiscent of fascism. 

Once again I'll say that freedom of speech is not the same as allowing acts of violence to go unpunished. Their ideology should be combatted every step of the way, I'm not apologizing for their behavior in any way. All I maintain is we uphold the rule of law in support of a liberal democracy in a non-violent manner. It's not about having faith in government, of that I have very little, it's about upholding a system that protects the inherent rights of the people from violation by an oppressive government. 

I think it's a lot more, and different, than that.  The point as I've understood it is that government can't be trusted because the government is not complicit or actively engaged in nazi/white supremacist/kkk acts.  The government is not to be trusted due to the type of people who occupy office.  

And enough with this rule of law bullshit.  The rule of law is not always right.  You and others continue to argue as though the law is 100% always just and that there are always 100% successful methods to challenge the rules of law so as to make it just.  That's not how the world fucking works.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you do when the law backs the white supremacists?  When you literally have no legal recourse and people are dying, is it ever ok to respond with violence.  

Because the rule of law is failing and has been failing and has failed to protect a lot of people.  So do they keep hoping things turn around?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, larrytheimp said:

What do you do when the law backs the white supremacists?  When you literally have no legal recourse and people are dying, is it ever ok to respond with violence.  

Because the rule of law is failing and has been failing and has failed to protect a lot of people.  So do they keep hoping things turn around?  

This is the fundamental question that the 'keep to the rule of law' group repeatedly fails to answer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The briefest look at American history should disabuse people of the idea that rule of law is incompatible with white supremacy and bloodshed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

43 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Those laws and amendments did not happen via non-violence.  It was firing cities and shooting back that got people so scared SOMETHING had to be done. It was pushing back.  As in Detroit -- African Americans, who didn't have anyone fight for them, call it the uprising, the rebellion.

Every reformation and revolution has to have a militant arm.  Ask Henry VIII.

Once again you all who think the cops and the government and the system is the answer: These people BROUGHT IT to Charlotteville, strutting in full military body army, displaying their open carry weapons.  They didn't come to Charlottesville for a statue, they came to kick ass on every one who is isn't a white militant male asshole who agrees with every ass thing they howl, and every strut, every word, every action is about them believing they are empowered to do so.

Christ turned the other cheek.  He was crucified.  But he was the son of God and he got over it.  I am not the son of God and me and mine will just be crucified.


Yup!
 

33 minutes ago, Ghjhero said:

Well said. I don't disagree. 

What you are arguing for is using government (benevolently of course, how could it be anything other?) to impose your will forcefully on those who do not share the same world view as you do. That's what it boils down to. You may try to dress it up and sell it differently, but as dmc515 and Manhole have already said that is incredibly reminiscent of fascism. 

Once again I'll say that freedom of speech is not the same as allowing acts of violence to go unpunished. Their ideology should be combatted every step of the way, I'm not apologizing for their behavior in any way. All I maintain is we uphold the rule of law in support of a liberal democracy in a non-violent manner. It's not about having faith in government, of that I have very little, it's about upholding a system that protects the inherent rights of the people from violation by an oppressive government. 

And at what point do people start to realize that using speech to preach an ideology that's sole purpose genocide and oppression is an act of violence in itself? If you are preaching ethnic cleansing you are preaching violence, are you not?

I maintain holding faith in the rule of law when the current administration is loved by white supremacists and neo nazis and is filled with bigots attack civil rights is foolish. 
 

28 minutes ago, drawkcabi said:

I agree. I support free speech up to incitement. If you see speech as incitement but officials do not, that's what protests and civil lawsuits are for, I don't even support abiding by the law 100% either. I think civil disobedience is a necessary tactic to fight against oppressive laws. 

I detest and stand against everything the neonazis and fascists stand for.  I believe in their right to say what they think though, as long as that speech is not inciting violence or panic. See I can believe in their right for free speech while at the same time rooting for us who oppose them to drown them out with our free speech.

I draw the line at condoning violence as organized response though - as long as our government by the people, however majorly flawed or corrupt, however much in need of changes, as long as it at least exists, I do. Whoever thinks that puts me on the side of the nazis needs to take a step back from the abyss. 


Their entire ideology is about violence. Every time they preach nazism they are preaching genocide.
 

25 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I think it's a lot more, and different, than that.  The point as I've understood it is that government can't be trusted because the government is not complicit or actively engaged in nazi/white supremacist/kkk acts.  The government is not to be trusted due to the type of people who occupy office.  

And enough with this rule of law bullshit.  The rule of law is not always right.  You and others continue to argue as though the law is 100% always just and that there are always 100% successful methods to challenge the rules of law so as to make it just.  That's not how the world fucking works.  


The government right now can not be trusted to protect it's citizens that aren't cis, white, straight and able-bodied and neurotypical

.
 

22 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

What do you do when the law backs the white supremacists?  When you literally have no legal recourse and people are dying, is it ever ok to respond with violence.  

Because the rule of law is failing and has been failing and has failed to protect a lot of people.  So do they keep hoping things turn around?  


I guess when they are burning their first batch of corpses in ovens is when it will become acceptable to some to use violence. 
 

21 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

This is the fundamental question that the 'keep to the rule of law' group repeatedly fails to answer.  

That is the truth.

Edited by Sword of Doom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nazism is a rather special case. We had a rather large war on it, and most of the world would really rather prefer not to have that argument again. And there is only one way you have that argument, because Nazism *is* violence, it is genocide. You don't fucking give it interviews on TV and politely debate it. That gives people the idea that while maybe there are problems with the message as a whole, there is still merit.

You treat it with zero tolerance. These are the people who have been our short hand for evil for 70 years, the ones we put as the bad guys in movies because everyone is OK with punching and killing Nazis because they're evil scum. The fuck America, wake the fuck up before you drag the rest of the world down with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a number of countries that have various anti-nazi laws - laws that prohibit nazi speech or actions.  There isn't a single person here who would call most of these countries anti-democratic regimes.  Most of them are considered ideals in which to strive or the new leader of the free world.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

This is the fundamental question that the 'keep to the rule of law' group repeatedly fails to answer.  

I'm pretty sure many of us have stated that self-defense is a reasonable, legal common sense response to being threatened with violence.

I'm not sure that framing this as a circumstance where law enforcement stood by and did nothing is warranted here. The idea that they could have stopped the driver of that car is pretty ridiculous. As is the case in numerous instances of violent crime, the police are usually there to pick up the pieces and to arrest the responsible party, which is what happened here. 

The Governor of the State and the Mayor of this city declared the protest an unlawful assembly and the police shut the whole thing down. Numerous arrests were made of individuals who were identified by various members of the crowd for committing assault. I'm not sure what you wanted to see from the police in this instance that they did not implement.

 If Rule of Law was ignored today, what do you think the bodycount might have been? Would it make you feel better to know a handful or more neo-nazis were beaten to death or shot or whatever?

Not sure where you think what some of you are proposing is going to lead to. I stand by my Mad Max comparison earlier. If this is what you truly want, I suggest investing in an armored vehicle and some firearms, because that is the future you are advocating. 

Edited by Manhole Eunuchsbane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Nazism is a rather special case. We had a rather large war on it, and most of the world would really rather prefer not to have that argument again. And there is only one way you have that argument, because Nazism *is* violence, it is genocide. You don't fucking give it interviews on TV and politely debate it. That gives people the idea that while maybe there are problems with the message as a whole, there is still merit.

You treat it with zero tolerance. These are the people who have been our short hand for evil for 70 years, the ones we put as the bad guys in movies because everyone is OK with punching and killing Nazis because they're evil scum. The fuck America, wake the fuck up before you drag the rest of the world down with you.

You would think people would be on board with zero tolerance for genocidal ideologies that brought the worst war this world has had to endure and the worst systematic extermination it has had to endure as well.  

 

34 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

There are a number of countries that have various anti-nazi laws - laws that prohibit nazi speech or actions.  There isn't a single person here who would call most of these countries anti-democratic regimes.  Most of them are considered ideals in which to strive or the new leader of the free world.  

But freeze peach!!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'm pretty sure many of us have stated that self-defense is a reasonable, legal common sense response to being threatened with violence.

 

What world is this where someone is even suggesting that nazism isn't a threat of violence.  

Yeah, gonna say it...AGAIN.  Nazi. Apologist. Go ahead, spend a dozen posts trying to explain that you aren't.  Just expect my response to constantly be quoting about four or five of your posts in this thread, including (and especially) this one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dr. Pepper said:

What world is this where someone is even suggesting that nazism isn't a threat of violence.  

Yeah, gonna say it...AGAIN.  Nazi. Apologist. Go ahead, spend a dozen posts trying to explain that you aren't.  Just expect my response to constantly be quoting about four or five of your posts in this thread, including (and especially) this one.  

You're already numero uno on my mental/emotional no fly list, so you may as well save your keystrokes..

Does anyone else hear that buzzing? I think there's a fly in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.