U.S. Politics: Having a Good Time

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Are you shitting me with this?

So what's the answer, brain him before he breeds? Seriously. Throw him in a camp? Reprogram him?

[karaddin]

I wasn't referring to your denunciations of violence, I'd actually forgotten your hot take on that Nazi, I was referring to your very vocal defence of their free speech. I don't recall you expressing too much concern over Jemele Hill though. You've been so concerned about the students at university interfering with free speech of Milo but the CIA trying to interfere with Chelsea Manning speaking at Harvard?

I sure as fuck don't see how getting knocked out is going to make that Nazi more dangerous than already walking down the streets in a Nazi uniform, harassing black people and threatening them with violence. You want to know how it helps? It tells Nazis that if they think they can openly walk around harassing people, they are wrong. They will be shut down because society does not accept their views.

Why do you think he didn't press charges? I doubt he's changed his underlying views, but he certainly feels less safe destroying the safety of the general public.

As for where you said "until they're rounding us up into camps" - well you consistently talk about self defence only being OK in terms of imminent personal violence. You also tend to justify your morality on the basis of the law. Tell me at what point violent resistance becomes OK to you? Obviously we currently aren't there. What about if they ban the wearing of Islamic symbols in public? Ban transgender people from public buildings completely, rather than just using the bathroom? Legalise denying any and all services and employment? Legalise hospitals and doctors denying medical care? Obviously since you're such a fan of free speech you'd object to them having a Russian style 'homosexual propaganda' law, but what would you do about that if it went to the SCOTUS and was declared A-okay? What about when the nightly hate session on Fox News turns to openly advocating murdering us?

I'm not trying to misrepresent you here, you have given the impression that unless someone is directly about to assault you, then violence isn't OK. None of the things I've just listed off seem to meet the criteria for violent resistance as I've seen you discuss it. If I'm wrong, please correct me and make it clear. Because the next step from the above is death camps, and its too fucking late at that point.

 

[Darth Richard II]

20 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

So what's the answer, brain him before he breeds? Seriously. Throw him in a camp? Reprogram him?

Prison?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

9 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

*Deep breath*

Okay first off, as I though we put to bed on the other page, it's not just a "lone" nutjob on a milk crate anymore.

Second, your absurd sensationalism aside, the long term answer is to update our free speech laws to come down harder on hate speech, and people who use hate symbols to intimidate others. The short term solution is for us, as a people, make it goddamn clear that this shit is not going to fly.

It's not just a lone nutjob on a crate, granted, but when that example has been presented (mentally challenged swastika guy on the bus) the ass-kicking was cheered here by some, and defended by a lot more. It's not absurd. It happened.

I'm down with that second bit, just so long as it's carefully measured and well thought out. I believe that you can easily apply a feasible slippery slope argument to giving up to much when it comes to Free Speech.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Prison?

For just speech? Not down with that. For inciting, sure, but not less than that.

[karaddin]

Wearing a Nazi uniform, harassing people and advocating genocide is violence. It is incitement. What the fuck do you think incitement means if "trying to convince the public passing by that actually, we need to mass murder entire groups of people" doesn't qualify? It's incitement to genocide.

[Darth Richard II]

1 minute ago, karaddin said:

Wearing a Nazi uniform, harassing people and advocating genocide is violence. It is incitement. What the fuck do you think incitement means if "trying to convince the public passing by that actually, we need to mass murder entire groups of people" doesn't qualify? It's incitement to genocide.

Yup. I feel like there was a recent ruling on that too but I'm not sure, have to look that up.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

17 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I wasn't referring to your denunciations of violence, I'd actually forgotten your hot take on that Nazi, I was referring to your very vocal defence of their free speech. I don't recall you expressing too much concern over Jemele Hill though. You've been so concerned about the students at university interfering with free speech of Milo but the CIA trying to interfere with Chelsea Manning speaking at Harvard?

I applauded Jemele Hill here. The reason I wasn't up in arms about it is that she flipped the script on that whole situation. It's not okay for the President to call for the public firing of anyone because he is offended by their Tweets or their speech. That she managed to increase her Twitter following a hundred fold on the back of that controversy and fired back at him twice as hard (her feed was basically a treasure trove of Trump bashing for weeks after the incident) makes the whole thing less problematic. Trump Streisand effected himself hard. Kind of like the NFL/BLM protest, which I was a huge fan of.  

 The Manning thing was mostly unfortunate on Harvard's side of things, methinks. The fact that they folded to outside pressure says a lot about their integrity. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

So you just literally contradicted yourself in a single sentence. Like, separated by only one word.

You said, yes, it's not just a lone nutjob anymore. And then you went on to continue with the example that you agreed did not exist anymore. Do you think that for every incident to be indicative of an institutional or national problem that there literally has to be another person with a swastika on the seat next to him?

Come on, surely you can see the point I was trying to make. Yes, the problem is deeper than just a whackjob on a milkcrate. That said, when presented with exactly that, it is deemed acceptable here to tune him up. It was cheered! It received many views and positive reviews in the comments section. Huge hit with the so called liberal/progressive crowd.

[Darth Richard II]

I dunno, I was raised to believe the most American thing you can do is punch a Nazi. I guess Indiana Jones and Captain America lied to me.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

13 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Not to "go there" btw, but actual Hitler's biggest contribution to the Holocaust was probably giving the speeches that riled everybody up.

Oh yeah, I've heard tell he was an amazing orator.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

I dunno, I was raised to believe the most American thing you can do is punch a Nazi. I guess Indiana Jones and Captain America lied to me.

Real life isn't a movie or a comic book. We are not at war with Nazi Germany last I checked.

[Darth Richard II]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Real life isn't a movie or a comic book. We are not at War with Nazi Germany last I checked.

Check again.

[Darth Richard II]

Just now, Let's Get Kraken said:

-- The guy who just shared a comedy bit which used Adolf Hitler as an example hate speech not being effective.

That does make me wonder, I mean,  he knows about the holocost right?

[Mother Cocanuts]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

In some cases yes, in other cases no. I’m not sure what relevance this has though.

So in the case where a minority proposed that you had a "rich daddy," were you dominant?

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Interesting you say that. A recent study just came out of the Federal Reserve. The authors state:

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2017/september/disappointing-facts-about-black-white-wage-gap/

Did you forget to read this part:

This implies that factors that are harder to measure—such as

discrimination, differences in school quality, or differences in career opportunities—are likely to be playing a role in the persistence and widening of these gaps over time.

Where does it conclude that it's "white dominance"?

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

 

Now this kind of begs the question, now doesn't it?

Which question does it beg?

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Come on. Given the definition of racism we are using here, the answer would be no. It's like you're not even trying.

Oh believe me, I'm "trying."

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yes, given, the sociological definition of racism that would be correct.

And that's stupid. If we are to operate on "prejudice + power" whites couldn't be racist toward Asians, and Hispanics couldn't be racist toward blacks. I'd rather use the original definition.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

-- The guy who just shared a comedy bit which used Adolf Hitler as an example hate speech not being effective.

It's a fucking joke. Sweet Limping Christ on a Crutch. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Check again.

OH SHIT, YOU'RE RIGHT! WE ARE AT WAR WITH NAZI GERMANY! I'd better clean my Springfield rifle and dig up my rationing coupons.

Seriously? Check again? Do you own a Wayback Machine?

[Darth Richard II]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

OH SHIT, YOU'RE RIGHT! WE ARE AT WAR WITH NAZI GERMANY! I'd better clean my Springfield rifle and dig up my rationing coupons.

Seriously? Check again? Do you own a Wayback Machine?

This from the guy who just bitched about someone not getting a joke...

[karaddin]

I mean, I obviously don't think that in the current climate the guy on the milk crate isn't also a problem but...You do get that there is a difference between active harassing people on public transport, threatening them with violence while wearing a nazi uniform and preaching from a milk crate right? Like, that guy wasn't simplying inciting genocide in the future, he was engaging in harassment and threats of imminent violence immediately.

The people on the bus were genuinely scared and trapped in an environment with him.

[Kalbear]

30 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

It's not just a lone nutjob on a crate, granted, but when that example has been presented (mentally challenged swastika guy on the bus) the ass-kicking was cheered here by some, and defended by a lot more. It's not absurd. It happened.

Okay, let's step back a bit.

That 'mentally challenged' guy on the bus wasn't mentally challenged, at all. He wore the armband because he wanted to see if he could go out in Seattle and walk around using his free speech and expression in peace. That was his goal. 

I know this because they interviewed him on NPR. Which was another one of his goals.

Now, you could use this as an argument against punching him, because it made him newsworthy and got him more press. That's an issue, and a reasonable one. But calling him mentally challenged is complete and utter bullshit and shows your innate bias that blinds you to this major threat.