US Politics: On Many Sides

[GAROVORKIN]

26 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

You were asking about a middle ground.  You asked what the middle ground would be for for those on the left.  Now you're trying to make some dumb argument about how people can be or do whatever they want.  You're no longer having a discussion about the middle ground but trying to argue that people can be nazis if they want to.

My real middle ground is a bit more than not being a nazi.  I believe that black lives matter, that love is love, that women's rights are human rights, that all people should have a quality education and health care.  All of these are my middle ground and it's a nonstarter if someone doesn't meet me there.  

As what you think of my commentary not  being not up to your standards excellence   by all means you are  entitled to that  opinion . 

I do happen to agree with your on your  points in the second paragraph,. But I don't have them categorized quite as neatly as you seem to. 

 

[Bonnot OG]

53 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Do you think they have the right demonstrate and express their despicable  and racist opinions in public ? Should they not be allowed to express them at all ? 

Nope, I do not think Nazis, the klan or other white supremacists should be able to use their bigotry as a form of terrorism like they currently do while hiding it behind freedom of speech. 

 

47 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

In this country, you can think be and say anything you want as long it doesn't break the law or impinge on anyone else'srights to do the same.  Would you agree with that? 

And nazism and white supremacy aren't calling to break the law and infringe upon the rights of others? you do realize to get an all white nation they would have to kidnap and commit genocide right? 

So please, tell me why there should be compromise with people like nazis, the klan, and other white supremacists? 

[Bonnot OG]

22 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Okay, I shouldn't have spoken for you, apologies, but Sword of Doom is all for straight up murdering neo-nazis, he or she has posted as much. I have to imagine most of that would occur "looking down the barrel of a gun" so to speak. 

What makes you regressive is your willingness to label anyone who disagrees with you as a nazi, a racist, a homophobe , or whatever the most negative label you can apply to that argument in order to shutdown that particular argument. That is a regressive, illiberal tactic. It is simple name calling which only damages conversation or debate.

I hate nazis, but I'm not going to become one in order to defeat them. Adopting the tactics and beliefs of a group you hate in order to destroy them perverts you. 

Learn what false equivalences are. Oh, and while you're at it, grow a spine and show that anger and disgust for nazis who want to wipe out half the worlds demographics. 

BTW, you do realize that nazi's beliefs and tactics converge into genocide right based upon a persons skin color, ethnicity, if they have a disability and their religion right? So no, being for the use of violence against an ideology like that is not adopting their tactics or their beliefs. 

What is really regressive is sitting in the middle like a coward and not taking a stand. 

"just different opinion." that is what you called nazism and white supremacy, and you have the audacity to call others regressive when you white wash those to horrible ideologies?

You don't have to become a nazi to beat them, you just have to be an enabling centrist that sits on the fence, something you are really good at doing.

No one here expects you to ever stand up against them in person since you can't even take a stand against them online on a forum.

[GAROVORKIN]

14 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Nope, I do not think Nazis, the klan or other white supremacists should be able to use their bigotry as a form of terrorism like they currently do while hiding it behind freedom of speech. 

 

And nazism and white supremacy aren't calling to break the law and infringe upon the rights of others? you do realize to get an all white nation they would have to kidnap and commit genocide right? 

So please, tell me why there should be compromise with people like nazis, the klan, and other white supremacists? 

We live in a democracy  in which the right of free expressions no matter how revolting  is protected under free speech and the first amendment. If you start denying  people their right because you like what they 've got say then this country ceases to be a Democracy .  Also,  driving  them underground won't make them go away . In the shadows they would potentially. be more of a problem. It's better to have them in public  out in the open where everyone  can see them for the creeps that  they really are.  

 

[Bonnot OG]

Just now, GAROVORKIN said:

We live in a democracy  in which the right of free expressions no matter how revolting  is protected under free speech and the first amendment. If you start deny people their right because you like what they 've got sam then this country ceases to be a Democracy .  Also driving  them underground won't make them go away . In the shadows they would potentially. be more of problem. It's better to have in public  out in the open where everyone  can see them for what they really are.  

 

Spare me. I am so over this worship of free speech and being enablers and apologists for white supremacists and nazism. Read up on the paradox of tolerance and then get back to me. 



 

[Inigima]

I notice that whereas many people here are very down on libertarians for their rigid adherence to their ideology over an outcomes-based analysis, they don't seem to feel the same way about opposing Nazis.

[Dr. Pepper]

26 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Okay, I shouldn't have spoken for you, apologies, but Sword of Doom is all for straight up murdering neo-nazis, he or she has posted as much. I have to imagine most of that would occur "looking down the barrel of a gun" so to speak. 

What makes you regressive is your willingness to label anyone who disagrees with you as a nazi, a racist, a homophobe , or whatever the most negative label you can apply to that argument in order to shutdown that particular argument. That is a regressive, illiberal tactic. It is simple name calling which only damages conversation or debate.

I hate nazis, but I'm not going to become one in order to defeat them. Adopting the tactics and beliefs of a group you hate in order to destroy them perverts you. 

Nope.  Just because you are subject to labels you dislike doesn't mean that all people with whom I disagree are all subject to them.  It only damages the debate when those, such as yourself, get bent out of shape because others do not see you how you'd like other to see yourself.   I've todl you a gazillion times, even privately, that if you have a problem with a label that more than a handful of people have given you, then maybe you ought to check into the reasons why we all see you this way and, ya know, change it.   

As for this last paragraph, dumbest shit I've read all day.  Being opposed to nazis having free reign to recruit members to incite genocide isn't 'becoming one'.  It's basic decency.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

We live in a democracy  in which the right of free expressions no matter how revolting  is protected under free speech and the first amendment. If you start denying  people their right because you like what they 've got say then this country ceases to be a Democracy .  Also,  driving  them underground won't make them go away . In the shadows they would potentially. be more of a problem. It's better to have them in public  out in the open where everyone  can see them for the creeps that  they really are.  

 

BINGO! QFT. 

[GAROVORKIN]

9 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Spare me. I am so over this worship of free speech and being enablers and apologists for white supremacists and nazism. Read up on the paradox of tolerance and then get back to me. 



 

Again your missing the point and the  slippery  slope.

[Dr. Pepper]

9 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

We live in a democracy  in which the right of free expressions no matter how revolting  is protected under free speech and the first amendment. If you start denying  people their right because you like what they 've got say then this country ceases to be a Democracy .  Also,  driving  them underground won't make them go away . In the shadows they would potentially. be more of a problem. It's better to have them in public  out in the open where everyone  can see them for the creeps that  they really are.  

 

Second dumbest shit I've read all day.  

Again, nazism.  Stop trying to compare this to having a firm disagreement about nearly everything else.  Freedom of speech should always end at incitement to commit violence.  Always.  We are not talking about a valid ideology.  We restrict speech in lots of ways.  It really says something about a person that wants to protect nazis so that they are allowed to do their nazi-ing.  I'd label this behavior as sympathizing. 

[Bonnot OG]

5 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Again you missing the point and the slippery slope.  

As are you. You ignore what happens when you treat fascists ideologie like nazism and white supremacy like they are just a different opinion that deserves to be able to breath and be preached. You also ignore how those ideologies are violent and will use genocide to get their all white, straight, cis, neurotypical, ablebodied and christian only land.

But hey, fascists and nazis never got elected into power right? Treating them like any other opinion is dangerous. Allowing them to come to schools allows them to recruit. Allowing them to rally allows them to terrorize. 

But when you aren't the target of such genocidal and hateful ideologies that look to oppress and kill, freeze peach!

[Dr. Pepper]

14 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Spare me. I am so over this worship of free speech and being enablers and apologists for white supremacists and nazism. Read up on the paradox of tolerance and then get back to me. 



 

This worship over free speech is also highly selective and it tends to reveal the unconscious beliefs of people.  I have a feeling that even those who support nazis being able to recruit for genocide would probably be outraged if a group of pedophiles held a rally to incite sex abuse against children.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Dr. Pepper said:

As for this last paragraph, dumbest shit I've read all day.  Being opposed to nazis having free reign to recruit members to incite genocide isn't 'becoming one'.  It's basic decency.  

To oppose it in the manner that Sword of Doom advocates makes you a murderer. To equate the current situation that we face in this country to WWII is a false eqivalency. Oppose them by legal means? Absolutely. To propose murdering them is to adopt a fundamental tenet of fascism.

 

12 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Spare me. I am so over this worship of free speech and being enablers and apologists for white supremacists and nazism. Read up on the paradox of tolerance and then get back to me.

"Painful though hate speech may be for individual members of minorities or other targeted groups, its toleration is to their great collective benefit, because in a climate of free intellectual exchange hateful and bigoted ideas are refuted and discredited, not merely suppressed .... That is how we gay folks achieved the stunning gains we've made in America: by arguing toward truth."-Jonathan Rauch

[GrimTuesday]

58 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

In this country, you can think be and say anything you want as long it doesn't break the law or impinge on anyone else'srights to do the same.  Would you agree with that? 

Here is the problem with that argument. The First Amendment protects you from the Government, it does not protect you from your employer, it does not protect you from getting your teeth smashed in when you start calling people names (though that is assault). It is not actually a shield that protects you from the consequences of your shitty beliefs, as some folks like to pretend it is. I can sit there and scream you down all I want, I can refuse to print something you wrote, I can refuse give you a platform on a tv or radio show, I can do anything short of harassing and assaulting you to drown out what ever you are saying, and it isn't a violation of your first amendment.

To sit there and winge over a bunch of Nazis and white supremacists who are decidedly being hateful and attempting to intimidate (which can be a crime) others being told to shut the fuck up is ridiculous. I think that you could make an argument that they were trying to incite violence though these definitions can be nebulous.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Second dumbest shit I've read all day.  

Again, nazism.  Stop trying to compare this to having a firm disagreement about nearly everything else.  Freedom of speech should always end at incitement to commit violence.  Always.  We are not talking about a valid ideology.  We restrict speech in lots of ways.  It really says something about a person that wants to protect nazis so that they are allowed to do their nazi-ing.  I'd label this behavior as sympathizing. 

Again with the insults and the negative labels. They really are all you have in your bag. It's kind of sad. 

[Dr. Pepper]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Again with the insults and the negative labels. They really are all you have in your bag. It's kind of sad. 

Again with ignoring everything else that's written and focusing on a label that hurts your wittle feelings.  

What's sad is people equating nazism with valid ideologies.  If you don't want the label, stop doing the thing.  Being silent in the face of behavior and statements like your is why we are where we are.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Here is the problem with that argument. The First Amendment protects you from the Government, it does not protect you from your employer, it does not protect you from getting your teeth smashed in when you start calling people names (though that is assault). It is not actually a shield that protects you from the consequences of your shitty beliefs, as some folks like to pretend it is. I can sit there and scream you down all I want, I can refuse to print something you wrote, I can refuse give you a platform on a tv or radio show, I can do anything short of harassing and assaulting you to drown out what ever you are saying, and it isn't a violation of your first amendment.

Absolutely. Freedom of Speech does not protect you from legal consequence. A bunch of these neo-nazi dicks were fired from their jobs when images of them at this protest were circulated on the web. Totally reasonable consequence. Freedom of Speech doesn't protect you from getting your teeth smashed in, laws against physical violence serve that purpose. 

[Bonnot OG]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

This worship over free speech is also highly selective and it tends to reveal the unconscious beliefs of people.  I have a feeling that even those who support nazis being able to recruit for genocide would probably be outraged if a group of pedophiles held a rally to incite sex abuse against children.  

I have a feeling the stick up for nazis and white supremacists speech crowd would side with those two ideologies to save their own skin if they were to ever come into power here and took over every single level of government. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Again with ignoring everything else that's written and focusing on a label that hurts your wittle feelings.  

What's sad is people equating nazism with valid ideologies.  If you don't want the label, stop doing the thing.  Being silent in the face of behavior and statements like your is why we are where we are.  

Murdering your ideological enemy is not a valid ideology. Full stop. It's in part why we hate nazis. Being silent in the face of vile, regressive ideology forwarded by people who claim to be liberals is why I am here, at least insofar as this particular argument is concerned. 

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Murdering your ideological enemy is not a valid ideology. Full stop. It's in part why we hate nazis. Being silent in the face of vile, regressive ideology forwarded by people who claim to be liberals is why I am here, at least insofar as this particular argument is concerned. 

"If you call me on my shit (the shit where I defend and sympathize with nazis and gaslight minorites), you're regressive and vile, but definitely the nasty things I say aren't vile."

Got it.