U.S. Politics: I Did Nazi That Coming

[Dr. Pepper]

38 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But you can talk about these things. You can rail against these shit policies. No one is shutting you up. No one is preventing you from making as big a deal about these issues as you choose to. That's Freedom of Speech. That's what you are putting at risk when you start to consider limiting that right in any significant way.

Um, no.  No to any of this.  You might as well make the same argument for the nazis, that nothing prevents them from railing against being prevented from recruiting to their terrorist organizations.  Do you feel the same way about brown Muslim terrorists being stopped from actively recruitment?  Do you think a group identified as ISIS would or should be allowed to rally in our streets?  

[DMC]

Politico has an in-depth article up discussing the differences between foreign and domestic terrorism, and the subsequent legal difficulties in prosecuting the latter.

[Kalbear]

29 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Just an aside about the ACLU, I modestly support them every month, and I think I will continue to do so. During the time when the travel ban was about to take place, they did outstanding work, and I believe even sent lawyers down to airports helping stranded folk re-enter the country. Not to mention all the lawsuits filed against the administration. Being a supporter of the ACLU give me some comfort if I were to leave the country about my chances of getting back in.

As for the free speech/Nazi debate, its hard to fault them for being true to their guiding principle, which has to do with the First Amendment. So in theory they are being consistent. Its a slightly different debate if they should dedicate some of their finite resources towards the more unpopular cases (such as this one, and others in the past). Dont quite know their thinking as to how they prioritize these cases, but I'd be interested to find out.

I'm mostly okay with the ACLU, but at Charlottesville they supported two things that were completely bullshit.

1. They sided with the white supremacists to have the protest downtown. There were requests to have it at a park a couple miles away, but that was shot down by the courts due to the ACLU. 
2. They sided with the white supremacists to allow them to have arms. 

Both of these things proved to cause major violence. No one else died, but hundreds went to the hospital, and the police were too intimidated to actually start doing things like riot control for fear of escalation. Compare this to Seattle, where the protest and counterprotest were allowed to go on - but were both far away from each other and not particularly near major areas, and where weapons were confiscated - and you can see how supporting free speech was a failure for public safety in the way the ACLU did it. 

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

Look at college campuses, for example, where we see all kinds of offensive speech being branded as violence.  Look at the consequences being leveled on faculty and students for simply engaging in dialogue.

 

Take, for example this:

How is this kind of stuff not subject to the very problem you have outlined so well earlier in this thread?  Namely, that there is no way to meaningfully quantify what is reasonably considered offensive, demeaning or intimidating.

We already have a situation in this country where groups are actively trying to blur the line between speech and action.

 

 

How would this look though?  Without defining specific phrases and words, I just don't see how you can narrow it down, and who gets to arbitrate what is and is not acceptable.

So, a university code of conduct has resulted in situations where that line was crossed. As is often the case, such situations are the exception as the vast majority of those attending abide by the terms of their code of conduct. White nationalist folks with an agenda--an agenda of being free to advocate for violence, murder, cruelty, harassment etc--have found these examples and worked non stop to popularize them, sensationaliize them, get them into the national media so they can turn them into "evidence", in other words, examples like this existing as "turrible! Injustice!" are a result of the successful propaganda campaigns by these same white nationalists, not unlike sensationalized propaganda campaigns about "news" a black man raping white girls. "People should be informed amiright? :/ nothing wrong with people knowing all about black men who raped little white girls. We should have a conversation about all the times it has ever happened. It's very concerning, liberals never like to talk about unpleasant truths like these facts. Look at these examples!"

So just selecting for a worst case scenario all the time is playing right into their hands, they're using you, because they know it's a story you want to believe and propagate it because it violates your sense of justice and fairness. even if it is a totally unrepresentative outlier.

[OldGimletEye]

56 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

How?  What would it look like?

Just thinking quickly. Something like:

"Promoting" means to explicitly and directly encourage or advocate for. "Promoting" in the context of this statue does not mean to criticize or to cast aspersions upon or to put in a bad light.

The intent here would be just to ban any explicit and clear language and to make clear that "promote" does not include any act or speech where a chain of inferences would have to be made.
 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

yeah, I saw that....

That seems like a pretty good endorsement for the thread title.

U.S. Politics: “The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict.”

[Swordfish]

16 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

So, a university code of conduct has resulted in situations where that line was crossed. As is often the case, such situations are the exception as the vast majority of those attending abide by the terms of their code of conduct. White nationalist folks with an agenda--an agenda of being free to advocate for violence, murder, cruelty, harassment etc--have found these examples and worked non stop to popularize them, sensationaliize them, get them into the national media so they can turn them into "evidence", in other words, examples like this existing as "turrible! Injustice!" are a result of the successful propaganda campaigns by these same white nationalists, not unlike sensationalized propaganda campaigns about "news" a black man raping white girls. "People should be informed amiright? :/ nothing wrong with people knowing all about black men who raped little white girls. We should have a conversation about all the times it has ever happened. It's very concerning, liberals never like to talk about unpleasant truths like these facts. Look at these examples!"

So just selecting for a worst case scenario all the time is playing right into their hands, they're using you, because they know it's a story you want to believe and propagate it because it violates your sense of justice and fairness. even if it is a totally unrepresentative outlier.

 

Please cite your causal evidence that the reason these cases get exposure is solely (or even primarily for that matter) due to white nationalists.  I find that highly dubious.

And when you're talking about granting the government the ability to restrict free specch, it is completely appropriate to discuss worst case scenarios.

 

14 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Just thinking quickly. Something like:

"Promoting" means to explicitly and directly encourage or advocate for. "Promoting" in the context of this statue does not mean to criticize or to cast aspersions upon or to put in a bad light.

The intent here would be just to ban any explicit and clear language and to make clear that "promote" does not include any act or speech where a chain of inferences would have to be made.
 

That's still highly subjective.  'This persons mere presence on campus is an explicit form of violence because things they have said in the past are objectionable'.  

And isn't incitement already a crime in most places?  

 

 

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

U.S. Politics: “The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict.”

Too global warmingy.

[OldGimletEye]

4 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

That's still highly subjective.  'This persons mere presence on campus is an explicit form of violence because things they have said in the past are objectionable'.  

I don't think so. Because the language makes clear that only direct and explicit calls for ethnic cleansing and so forth are banned.

And just to be clear, I'm generally not a fan of the "language as violence" concept.

[Swordfish]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I don't think so. Because the language makes clear that only direct and explicit calls for ethnic cleansing and so forth are banned.

And just to be clear, I'm generally not a fan of the "language as violence" concept.

Yeah, I think we are mostly in agreement.

 

[Morpheus]

Hooboy, watching Trumps press confernce about infrastructure, all of the questions are about Virginia and white supremacists. 

"Everybody says 'what he said was great if only he said it sooner'" about his comments Monday.

When asked about the Alt-right, hedging then "what about the alt-left who attacked them?" !!!!!!

Also claims not everyone there was a nazi, or WS, or alt-right some people were just protesting the removal of a statue "what's next removing a statue of George Washington?"

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Just thinking quickly. Something like:

"Promoting" means to explicitly and directly encourage or advocate for. "Promoting" in the context of this statue does not mean to criticize or to cast aspersions upon or to put in a bad light.

The intent here would be just to ban any explicit and clear language and to make clear that "promote" does not include any act or speech where a chain of inferences would have to be made.
 

You're going to hit seriously heavy weather with religion. 

[aceluby]

7 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Hooboy, watching Trumps press confernce about infrastructure, all of the questions are about Virginia and white supremacists. 

"Everybody says 'what he said was great if only he said it sooner'" about his comments Monday.

When asked about the Alt-right, hedging then "what about the alt-left who attacked them?" !!!!!!

Also claims not everyone there was a nazi, or WS, or alt-right some people were just protesting the removal of a statue "what's next removing a statue of George Washington?"

And what about the alt-center?  The alt-up?  The alt-down?  Good lord people!  Don't you even CARE?!?!?

[Bonnot OG]

6 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

This video is exactly the reason Nazi's shouldn't be given any sort of platform.  Every opportunity they are given to address the public is more opportunity to recruit.  This is not ok.  No one should be ok with this.  

Yup. Look at how their eyes widen when they talk about the marginalized and how they smile with the thought of violence happening against the ones they hate. Fuck peace with these people. Fuck reaching out and trying to use discourse. They do not need platforms in public. And the ACLU can fuck itself for helping them out and helping them out when there is no need to and when private citizens shut them down.

5 hours ago, Zorral said:

Actually quite a few millions of Germans, Italians and Spaniards did see the obvious wrongness of nazis and fascism from the git go, but they got killed, imprisoned and / or otherwise silenced.  The lucky ones packed up and got out before the worst happened.  But there is no USA to run to these days to escape the madness that we're growing here. So we have to stop it.  Somehow.

Public resistance and making fun of the asshats obviously matters, at least to a degree -- it forced the orange to finally, grudgingly, condemn by label the nazis and kkk and their related white surpremacists who created hell in Charlottesville this last weekend.  But in the meantime his boy Sessions on his behalf is trying get the names and numbers and ISP addresses of everybody who opposes him and his.

It is being said that he's afraid to come to NYC after all, as many protests and demonstrations are being planned to show antagonism against his utterly impossible reign.  He was supposed to get to NYC Sunday, but he went back to DC, where he issued that condemnation that he didn't mean.  Now he's to show up, maybe tomorrow?

Another note:  Woo, you all were busy here the last two days.  The whole site was down for me, at least, until this AM.

 

The ones that saw what was wrong actually tried to kick these type of assholes off their streets. The non violence crowd that used false equivalences and sat on the fence very much helped the rise of fascism by not taking a stand.. 

 

[Morpheus]

I feel like I just watched a man commit seppuku, in sane world this would do major damage to him. He basically admitted that his comments yesterday were theater and utter bs.

The most galling claim was that he is a man who waits for all of the facts before speaking in defense of his comments Saturday.

[James Arryn]

So I'm hearing that Trump is blaming the counter-protesters? Is that...I mean, even for him...is that actually happening?

[Darryk]

That was one of the most disastrous press conferences I've seen in a long time, and that's saying something for this president.

Trump's "I don't like making statements until I have the facts" is going to join Kelly Anne Conway's "alternative facts" on the list of memorable moments of madness.

In fact, combine the two and you have a meme in the making: "I don't like making statements until I have all the alternative facts"
 

[Dr. Pepper]

And yet there is nothing surprising about the press conference.  We've known his feelings on race for decades, we knew it during his campaign, we knew it when he made appointments to his staff.  Nothing surprising.  

[Bonnot OG]

And Trump just called neo nazis and white supremacists good people. Just proving what many of us already knew, that he is one, or at the very least a sympathizer. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Sword of Doom said:

And Trump just called neo nazis and white supremacists good people. Just proving what many of us already knew, that he is one, or at the very least a sympathizer. 

If you say nice things about him, you're a good person. See Putin.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Well, I am kinda surprised that the people in the American media are now wondering whether Trump is himself a racist.

I mean really? What gave it away? Calling Mexican rapists? No, nothing to see here. His behavior as a landlord towards black tennants? No, nothing wrong here. Questioning the hispanic judges qualification based on his ethnicity? No, that's just textbook racism (to coin a phrase), that doesn't mean Twitler is a racist. Embracing Duke and Bannon? Nah. The travel ban for muslims? No, apparently not. Failing to denounce protesters with swastikas chanting Heil Trump! And killing a young (white) woman during a protest against them? Now, I start to wonder...