But you must agree it is an interesting time to live in, everything political is upside down! Rights in, USA, UK, THEME IN EUROPEAN STATES, Out is all the Left wingers, who across the board are struggling to fight back. And now its no longer the Right Wingers on the Aggression, the Liberal Lefties are the ones out of control, if anything actions such as Berkeley will sway more people against them and towards Conservatism. So at the moment as I see it, the Left is struggling to find a footing for resistance, whilst individual groups go over the top and shoot Liberalism in the foot
Your country hasn't had a "left" leader since Blair usurped the Labour movement. America has never been left. What's happening, is the "right" has increasingly been going down the path to authoritarianism. Isolated incidents like Berkely do not paint the whole of the "left", any more than the Westboro Baptists paint the whole of the "right".
feeder wrote: Looks like Christian values and respect for thedead is an item of history with Christians, courtesy of the followers there.
Nothing like a little hate speech, intolerance and disrepect to promote Christ, in a bigoted kind of way.
The sweeping generalizations are about to get this thread locked, folks... if you want it open, make your arguments politely and without insulting vast people groups of any stripe, please...
Sentinel1 wrote: Certainly from Trumps point of view I don't see why he should honour the agreement
Because part of being able to make deals with other nations is having a reputation for being trustworthy. If every other country knows that any deals they make with the US are subject to change as soon as a new president comes in then why should they bother making a deal in the first place? Are those ~1000 refugees really such an unacceptable burden on the US that it's worth trashing our reputation and sacrificing our future bargaining power to avoid them?
And let's not overlook the fact that this is Australia we're talking about. You know, a close ally that we actually care about, not some irrelevant minor country that can be discarded at will if it's convenient to do business elsewhere. Breaking a deal, in a spectacularly public and insulting manner, is just unbelievable incompetence. It's absolutely inexcusable that the president of the US would be such an arrogant clown.
As he said, he is putting America first, so hopefully that should mean no foreign appeasement for a change.
No you completely missed my point, I am not disagreeing that the USA shouldn't honour agreements, I was questioning the morality of the deal in the first place. Here are 1,250 who landed in Australia seeking refuge there, the Ausies don't want them so make a deal with Obama to get rid of them. Is it not wrong for Australia to treat them in this way? Surely said deal makes them as bad as Trump on such matters. Regarding honouring the agreement, many politicians when coming to power scrap or U-turn policies they have never agreed with. Whether Trump can force this one through, I don't know.
That is a fair point, however Trump isn't challenging the deal on the grounds of morals, he is just being a massive dick as usual.
RiTides wrote: The sweeping generalizations are about to get this thread locked, folks... if you want it open, make your arguments politely and without insulting vast people groups of any stripe, please...
Its ok to make fun of cat people though, right? After all, they're all hollow inside.
And of course the terrorzone that is Leichtenstein, real life inspiration for Tolkein's Mordor.
East Berlin.
Korean DMZ.
These walls worked quite well.
However, as noted, an in depth security screen would be better at both interdicting human trafficking and drug trafficking.
The Berlin wall didn't work that well though; loads of folk crossed it either one-way or for day trips, despite it being heavily manned.
There's no way Trumps wall will work.
Of course it won't work. It isn't intended to work. There's no way the "working" can be measured.
The point of the wall is to pander to Trump's core bigot constituency by a huge policy announcement that (A) promises to stop immigration, and (B) sticks it to those yucky Mexicans.
jasper76 wrote: If this behavior is typical, and if I should expect adult college students to act like 3 year olds, maybe I need to move even deeper into the woods.
That's the bad solution. The good solution is to move to Switzerland. You will get nice people, nice scenery, very good chocolate, and H.R. Giger's museum.
Also you'll get:
- Debates on gun control that are appeased, with very little acrimony
- Direct democracy
- A country that isn't extremely polarized between two sides that hate the gut out of each other
- Real cheese. This is Europe, goddamit.
Herzlos wrote: but a wall is just a total waste of time unless you cease all interaction with Mexico and shoot anyone that goes anywhere near it.
I guess that would be the plan then. Why do you believe that Trump wouldn't do that? That totally seems like something completely irrational and stupid, it fits the description perfectly.
RiTides wrote: The sweeping generalizations are about to get this thread locked, folks... if you want it open, make your arguments politely and without insulting vast people groups of any stripe, please...
So that means anyone defending Trump's ban is breaking the rules? Because that is what this ban is all about.
jasper76 wrote: If this behavior is typical, and if I should expect adult college students to act like 3 year olds, maybe I need to move even deeper into the woods.
That's the bad solution. The good solution is to move to Switzerland. You will get nice people, nice scenery, very good chocolate, and H.R. Giger's museum.
Also you'll get:
- Debates on gun control that are appeased, with very little acrimony
- Direct democracy
- A country that isn't extremely polarized between two sides that hate the gut out of each other
- Real cheese. This is Europe, goddamit.
East Berlin.
Korean DMZ.
These walls worked quite well.
However, as noted, an in depth security screen would be better at both interdicting human trafficking and drug trafficking.
The Berlin wall didn't work that well though; loads of folk crossed it either one-way or for day trips, despite it being heavily manned.
There's no way Trumps wall will work.
Of course it won't work. It isn't intended to work. There's no way the "working" can be measured.
The point of the wall is to pander to Trump's core bigot constituency by a huge policy announcement that (A) promises to stop immigration, and (B) sticks it to those yucky Mexicans.
Can we get off this train of people who don't like illegal immigration being bigots? I mean hell, another one of you mods just said cut out with the generalizations.
East Berlin.
Korean DMZ.
These walls worked quite well.
However, as noted, an in depth security screen would be better at both interdicting human trafficking and drug trafficking.
The Berlin wall didn't work that well though; loads of folk crossed it either one-way or for day trips, despite it being heavily manned.
There's no way Trumps wall will work.
Of course it won't work. It isn't intended to work. There's no way the "working" can be measured.
The point of the wall is to pander to Trump's core bigot constituency by a huge policy announcement that (A) promises to stop immigration, and (B) sticks it to those yucky Mexicans.
Its interesting how your post is an attack on millions of Americans. It would be more effective if GB had allowed 5mm or so illegal immigrants into its country. If not, please tell us more about racism and xenophobia? Canada can call us on it. Britain, Europe, Asia, Japan, Central America, mmmm no.
whembly wrote: Just don't wear your MAGA hats on these protests/riots/crybaby-fest:
A woman wearing a #Trump-style hat was pepper sprayed at #UCBerkeley protests. She & @WayneFreedman are alright: https://t.co/g7WofodFyD pic.twitter.com/JD3Bt1y7rE
— ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) February 2, 2017
...you just might eat some pepper spray in the face.
Isn't it strange to call these people "crybabies" and paint them as weaklings when what they do is organise to attack their enemies? Like, when Spencer got punched people started being all "the attacker was a cuck!!" and dug up someone completely different who was heavily into sexual humiliation and it turned out had even died two years ago to paint the puncher as supposedly a simpering wuss (I am of the opinion that it would only have made him cooler, really). But... he beat your dude. He beat your dude so bad, he has publicly said he fears for his movement if they aren't able to defend themselves. The goal was to get him to go away and he went away. A small victory but a victory none the less.
These crybabies, as you say, organised and braved the police in order to drive away Yiannopolous and Trump supporters. They have so far succeeded in this and had the support of the masses of other protesters. Hundreds of young leftists have now been given a taste of successful direct organising to protect their community. If this is weakness, them coming into strength would probably make you faint.
whembly wrote: Just don't wear your MAGA hats on these protests/riots/crybaby-fest:
A woman wearing a #Trump-style hat was pepper sprayed at #UCBerkeley protests. She & @WayneFreedman are alright: https://t.co/g7WofodFyD pic.twitter.com/JD3Bt1y7rE
— ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) February 2, 2017
...you just might eat some pepper spray in the face.
Isn't it strange to call these people "crybabies" and paint them as weaklings when what they do is organise to attack their enemies? Like, when Spencer got punched people started being all "the attacker was a cuck!!" and dug up someone completely different who was heavily into sexual humiliation and it turned out had even died two years ago to paint the puncher as supposedly a simpering wuss (I am of the opinion that it would only have made him cooler, really). But... he beat your dude. He beat your dude so bad, he has publicly said he fears for his movement if they aren't able to defend themselves. The goal was to get him to go away and he went away. A small victory but a victory none the less.
These crybabies, as you say, organised and braved the police in order to drive away Yiannopolous and Trump supporters. They have so far succeeded in this and had the support of the masses of other protesters. Hundreds of young leftists have now been given a taste of successful direct organising to protect their community. If this is weakness, them coming into strength would probably make you faint.
In other cities of course it would end with a couple of loads of buckshot and all the survivors arrested. Throw a rock...meh. Throw a firebomb-time to engage targets as lethal threats to the police and others.
whembly wrote: Just don't wear your MAGA hats on these protests/riots/crybaby-fest:
A woman wearing a #Trump-style hat was pepper sprayed at #UCBerkeley protests. She & @WayneFreedman are alright: https://t.co/g7WofodFyD pic.twitter.com/JD3Bt1y7rE
— ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) February 2, 2017
...you just might eat some pepper spray in the face.
Isn't it strange to call these people "crybabies" and paint them as weaklings when what they do is organise to attack their enemies? Like, when Spencer got punched people started being all "the attacker was a cuck!!" and dug up someone completely different who was heavily into sexual humiliation and it turned out had even died two years ago to paint the puncher as supposedly a simpering wuss (I am of the opinion that it would only have made him cooler, really). But... he beat your dude. He beat your dude so bad, he has publicly said he fears for his movement if they aren't able to defend themselves. The goal was to get him to go away and he went away. A small victory but a victory none the less.
These crybabies, as you say, organised and braved the police in order to drive away Yiannopolous and Trump supporters. They have so far succeeded in this and had the support of the masses of other protesters. Hundreds of young leftists have now been given a taste of successful direct organising to protect their community. If this is weakness, them coming into strength would probably make you faint.
Yep, no evidence whatsoever in a rise in violent attitudes and actions from the left. Free speech and the right to peacefully assemble safe and sound!
I am going to ask you to develop here, because I really can't see any kind of connection.
For reference, Switzerland isn't part of NATO, is surrounded by friendly European countries, and is one of the rare country where “defense” isn't an euphemize. It went through WWI and WWII completely unscathed, for two reasons: it was never considered a threat due to their very strict principle of neutrality, and it was just extremely well defended.
There is really no reason to imagine Switzerland having any problem with NATO disappearing.
Is this just a display of the usual US arrogance, believing themselves essential to the rest of the world, or is there something I am missing?
whembly wrote: Just don't wear your MAGA hats on these protests/riots/crybaby-fest:
A woman wearing a #Trump-style hat was pepper sprayed at #UCBerkeley protests. She & @WayneFreedman are alright: https://t.co/g7WofodFyD pic.twitter.com/JD3Bt1y7rE
— ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) February 2, 2017
...you just might eat some pepper spray in the face.
Isn't it strange to call these people "crybabies" and paint them as weaklings when what they do is organise to attack their enemies? Like, when Spencer got punched people started being all "the attacker was a cuck!!" and dug up someone completely different who was heavily into sexual humiliation and it turned out had even died two years ago to paint the puncher as supposedly a simpering wuss (I am of the opinion that it would only have made him cooler, really). But... he beat your dude. He beat your dude so bad, he has publicly said he fears for his movement if they aren't able to defend themselves. The goal was to get him to go away and he went away. A small victory but a victory none the less.
These crybabies, as you say, organised and braved the police in order to drive away Yiannopolous and Trump supporters. They have so far succeeded in this and had the support of the masses of other protesters. Hundreds of young leftists have now been given a taste of successful direct organising to protect their community. If this is weakness, them coming into strength would probably make you faint.
It *is* weakness when you won't tolerate dissenting views.
Just an OT piece of advice. Don't delete a post if you double post. It's just the forum having a hiccup. It will correct itself in a few minutes and delete the extra post. If you delete one posts texts, the text is gone FOREVER!
whembly wrote: Just don't wear your MAGA hats on these protests/riots/crybaby-fest:
A woman wearing a #Trump-style hat was pepper sprayed at #UCBerkeley protests. She & @WayneFreedman are alright: https://t.co/g7WofodFyD pic.twitter.com/JD3Bt1y7rE
— ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) February 2, 2017
...you just might eat some pepper spray in the face.
Isn't it strange to call these people "crybabies" and paint them as weaklings when what they do is organise to attack their enemies? Like, when Spencer got punched people started being all "the attacker was a cuck!!" and dug up someone completely different who was heavily into sexual humiliation and it turned out had even died two years ago to paint the puncher as supposedly a simpering wuss (I am of the opinion that it would only have made him cooler, really). But... he beat your dude. He beat your dude so bad, he has publicly said he fears for his movement if they aren't able to defend themselves. The goal was to get him to go away and he went away. A small victory but a victory none the less.
These crybabies, as you say, organised and braved the police in order to drive away Yiannopolous and Trump supporters. They have so far succeeded in this and had the support of the masses of other protesters. Hundreds of young leftists have now been given a taste of successful direct organising to protect their community. If this is weakness, them coming into strength would probably make you faint.
It *is* weakness when you won't tolerate dissenting views.
I am going to ask you to develop here, because I really can't see any kind of connection.
For reference, Switzerland isn't part of NATO, is surrounded by friendly European countries, and is one of the rare country where “defense” isn't an euphemize. It went through WWI and WWII completely unscathed, for two reasons: it was never considered a threat due to their very strict principle of neutrality, and it was just extremely well defended.
There is really no reason to imagine Switzerland having any problem with NATO disappearing.
Is this just a display of the usual US arrogance, believing themselves essential to the rest of the world, or is there something I am missing?
I am suggesting that your defense and security is in no small part provided for by the United States' contribution to the NATO alliance. If stating facts is US arrogance, than color me arrogant.
Just an OT piece of advice. Don't delete a post if you double post. It's just the forum having a hiccup. It will correct itself in a few minutes and delete the extra post. If you delete one posts texts, the text is gone FOREVER!
*ominous music*
Thanks! This has happened to me several times. Next time I'll just be patient
Just an OT piece of advice. Don't delete a post if you double post. It's just the forum having a hiccup. It will correct itself in a few minutes and delete the extra post. If you delete one posts texts, the text is gone FOREVER!
*ominous music*
It's the secret "PreBane" function that Lego has been building into the software leaking out. It removes your post before it ever actually gets posted.
feeder wrote: Looks like Christian values and respect for thedead is an item of history with Christians, courtesy of the followers there.
Nothing like a little hate speech, intolerance and disrepect to promote Christ, in a bigoted kind of way.
The aren't' Christians. They are an extended family that makes its living from suits against people who interfere with their protests.
So is it okay to refer to ISIS as 'not really Muslim'?
Just because someone uses religion as a justification doesn't make them representative of a religion, but it doesn't necessarily mean they aren't a member of it. There's really not much of an entrance exam.
Yep, no evidence whatsoever in a rise in violent attitudes and actions from the left
There is indeed more violent leftist action the past few weeks.. But that is a mere observation. It's also obviously one that my post is based on. I don't contradict any claims of leftists starting to beat Trump supporters. I simply point out that doing so is not a sign of weakness.
I am going to ask you to develop here, because I really can't see any kind of connection.
For reference, Switzerland isn't part of NATO, is surrounded by friendly European countries, and is one of the rare country where “defense” isn't an euphemize. It went through WWI and WWII completely unscathed, for two reasons: it was never considered a threat due to their very strict principle of neutrality, and it was just extremely well defended.
There is really no reason to imagine Switzerland having any problem with NATO disappearing.
Is this just a display of the usual US arrogance, believing themselves essential to the rest of the world, or is there something I am missing?
He's snarking...
Trump won't pull out over the objections of many people he holds in high regards (ie, SoD Mattis, SoS Tillerman). He's just blowhard'ing...
Yep, no evidence whatsoever in a rise in violent attitudes and actions from the left
There is indeed more violent leftist action the past few weeks.. But that is a mere observation. It's also obviously one that my post is based on. I don't contradict any claims of leftists starting to beat Trump supporters. I simply point out that doing so is not a sign of weakness.
To me, it is indeed a sign of an underlying weakness. When people can't win the battle of ideas, they sometimes resort to other methods; in this case, violence, destruction, and mayhem.
whembly wrote: Just don't wear your MAGA hats on these protests/riots/crybaby-fest:
A woman wearing a #Trump-style hat was pepper sprayed at #UCBerkeley protests. She & @WayneFreedman are alright: https://t.co/g7WofodFyD pic.twitter.com/JD3Bt1y7rE
— ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) February 2, 2017
...you just might eat some pepper spray in the face.
Isn't it strange to call these people "crybabies" and paint them as weaklings when what they do is organise to attack their enemies? Like, when Spencer got punched people started being all "the attacker was a cuck!!" and dug up someone completely different who was heavily into sexual humiliation and it turned out had even died two years ago to paint the puncher as supposedly a simpering wuss (I am of the opinion that it would only have made him cooler, really). But... he beat your dude. He beat your dude so bad, he has publicly said he fears for his movement if they aren't able to defend themselves. The goal was to get him to go away and he went away. A small victory but a victory none the less.
These crybabies, as you say, organised and braved the police in order to drive away Yiannopolous and Trump supporters. They have so far succeeded in this and had the support of the masses of other protesters. Hundreds of young leftists have now been given a taste of successful direct organising to protect their community. If this is weakness, them coming into strength would probably make you faint.
It *is* weakness when you won't tolerate dissenting views.
whembly wrote: Just don't wear your MAGA hats on these protests/riots/crybaby-fest:
A woman wearing a #Trump-style hat was pepper sprayed at #UCBerkeley protests. She & @WayneFreedman are alright: https://t.co/g7WofodFyD pic.twitter.com/JD3Bt1y7rE
— ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) February 2, 2017
...you just might eat some pepper spray in the face.
Isn't it strange to call these people "crybabies" and paint them as weaklings when what they do is organise to attack their enemies? Like, when Spencer got punched people started being all "the attacker was a cuck!!" and dug up someone completely different who was heavily into sexual humiliation and it turned out had even died two years ago to paint the puncher as supposedly a simpering wuss (I am of the opinion that it would only have made him cooler, really). But... he beat your dude. He beat your dude so bad, he has publicly said he fears for his movement if they aren't able to defend themselves. The goal was to get him to go away and he went away. A small victory but a victory none the less.
These crybabies, as you say, organised and braved the police in order to drive away Yiannopolous and Trump supporters. They have so far succeeded in this and had the support of the masses of other protesters. Hundreds of young leftists have now been given a taste of successful direct organising to protect their community. If this is weakness, them coming into strength would probably make you faint.
It *is* weakness when you won't tolerate dissenting views.
Why should we tolerate nazis?
Oh come on, that's from the sublime to the extreme! Where did you pull that one out of? Is this debate spiralling down a black hole now?
If a guy wears an arm badge and makes a Nazi-esque salute, he's a fething Nazi and should be called one.
General:
If someone has a differing opinion from you, it's possible he's a Nazi, but unless he's making the salute, wearing the uniform, or quoting Mein Kamph, maybe don't call him one.
feeder wrote: Looks like Christian values and respect for thedead is an item of history with Christians, courtesy of the followers there.
Nothing like a little hate speech, intolerance and disrepect to promote Christ, in a bigoted kind of way.
The aren't' Christians. They are an extended family that makes its living from suits against people who interfere with their protests.
So is it okay to refer to ISIS as 'not really Muslim'?
Just because someone uses religion as a justification doesn't make them representative of a religion, but it doesn't necessarily mean they aren't a member of it. There's really not much of an entrance exam.
When ISIL does activities that aren't motivated by their religion its not religious. Westboro (remember we are talking ONE extended family that could all live in a trailer park) is not suing etc because of freedom or church, they are suing to get money in settlements. Its how they earn their living.
Also LOTS of people argue ISIL is not Moslem, but effectively an apostasy, as real Muslims don't go cutting of heads and " and that if you do you have violated His word and Insulting His teachings. There is great merit in it.
whembly wrote: Just don't wear your MAGA hats on these protests/riots/crybaby-fest:
A woman wearing a #Trump-style hat was pepper sprayed at #UCBerkeley protests. She & @WayneFreedman are alright: https://t.co/g7WofodFyD pic.twitter.com/JD3Bt1y7rE
— ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) February 2, 2017
...you just might eat some pepper spray in the face.
Isn't it strange to call these people "crybabies" and paint them as weaklings when what they do is organise to attack their enemies? Like, when Spencer got punched people started being all "the attacker was a cuck!!" and dug up someone completely different who was heavily into sexual humiliation and it turned out had even died two years ago to paint the puncher as supposedly a simpering wuss (I am of the opinion that it would only have made him cooler, really). But... he beat your dude. He beat your dude so bad, he has publicly said he fears for his movement if they aren't able to defend themselves. The goal was to get him to go away and he went away. A small victory but a victory none the less.
These crybabies, as you say, organised and braved the police in order to drive away Yiannopolous and Trump supporters. They have so far succeeded in this and had the support of the masses of other protesters. Hundreds of young leftists have now been given a taste of successful direct organising to protect their community. If this is weakness, them coming into strength would probably make you faint.
It *is* weakness when you won't tolerate dissenting views.
Why should we tolerate nazis?
So dissenting views are nazisms...
...and you see the problem here?
To be fair...Spencer literally is a Nazi.
He doesn't like to be called it, but of course Nazis would stoop to the nefarious depths of...rebranding.
If a guy wears an arm badge and makes a Nazi-esque salute, he's a fething Nazi and should be called one.
General:
If someone has a differing opinion from you, it's possible he's a Nazi, but unless he's making the salute, wearing the uniform, or quoting Mein Kamph, maybe don't call him one.
UNless its the SoupNazi, or alternatively those really annoying grammar Nazis you run across. I always found pushing them into a puddle to be an appropriate response.
jasper76 wrote: I am suggesting that your defense and security is in no small part provided for by the United States' contribution to the NATO alliance. If stating facts is US arrogance, than color me arrogant.
I was expecting you to more develop your point of view by listing, you know, actual threat to Switzerland that would have been deterred from attacking by the US support to NATO, and less chest-thumping. Then we could have discussed on the validity of those views, the credibility of those threats, exchanged sources on the subject, and then maybe at the end we would have reached a common, better informed opinion.
I should have learned by the previous poster I tried to engage with here. That doesn't happen. Repeating [“Death to America” is reason enough] or [Switzerland's safety is dependent upon the US] is all the argument I'll get :(. Enjoy your alternate facts, who needs reality after all?
To me, it is indeed a sign of an underlying weakness. When people can't win the battle of ideas, they sometimes resort to other methods; in this case, violence, destruction, and mayhem.
If debate could defeat fascism, the Second World War would not have happened.
To me, it is indeed a sign of an underlying weakness. When people can't win the battle of ideas, they sometimes resort to other methods; in this case, violence, destruction, and mayhem.
If debate could defeat fascism, the Second World War would not have happened.
True enough. Do you really think the left wants a civil war over the fair and free election of Donald Trump? Or do leftists outside of the United States want to go to war with us now?
Trump won't pull out over the objections of many people he holds in high regards (ie, SoD Mattis, SoS Tillerman). He's just blowhard'ing...
That not the point. The point is that even if he did, it wouldn't change a thing for Switzerland. Damn I can't wait to see the USA ruined by this terrible leader to they finally lose that arrogance.
Trump won't pull out over the objections of many people he holds in high regards (ie, SoD Mattis, SoS Tillerman). He's just blowhard'ing...
That not the point. The point is that even if he did, it wouldn't change a thing for Switzerland. Damn I can't wait to see the USA ruined by this terrible leader to they finally lose that arrogance.
whembly wrote: Just don't wear your MAGA hats on these protests/riots/crybaby-fest:
A woman wearing a #Trump-style hat was pepper sprayed at #UCBerkeley protests. She & @WayneFreedman are alright: https://t.co/g7WofodFyD pic.twitter.com/JD3Bt1y7rE
— ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) February 2, 2017
...you just might eat some pepper spray in the face.
Isn't it strange to call these people "crybabies" and paint them as weaklings when what they do is organise to attack their enemies? Like, when Spencer got punched people started being all "the attacker was a cuck!!" and dug up someone completely different who was heavily into sexual humiliation and it turned out had even died two years ago to paint the puncher as supposedly a simpering wuss (I am of the opinion that it would only have made him cooler, really). But... he beat your dude. He beat your dude so bad, he has publicly said he fears for his movement if they aren't able to defend themselves. The goal was to get him to go away and he went away. A small victory but a victory none the less.
These crybabies, as you say, organised and braved the police in order to drive away Yiannopolous and Trump supporters. They have so far succeeded in this and had the support of the masses of other protesters. Hundreds of young leftists have now been given a taste of successful direct organising to protect their community. If this is weakness, them coming into strength would probably make you faint.
Yep, no evidence whatsoever in a rise in violent attitudes and actions from the left. Free speech and the right to peacefully assemble safe and sound!
That comment touches on what I find most troubling about these instances of violent rioting. It's indeed a small minority of the left participating in any physical altercation, and a majority that (at least when pressed) will condemn it.
But there's a sizable portion that, if not encouraging the acts, are at least kinda ok with them happening. Cause it's just nazis and bigots anyway, right? "Sure there are principles of free speech etc. that I use to espouse, but surely they don't apply when someone says things that's this inflammatory, do they?"
Even many who do not support violent actions are happy if protests succeed in preventing someone from even holding a speech or speaking at a gathering, are happy with the creation of a chilling effect. Yiannopolous in particular isn't likely to be discouraged by these situations, since he feeds off havoc and outrage. It's his game. Others might not be prepared to deal with the unpleasantness, causing a thinner and more anemic climate of discourse.
There are of course similar examples from the right, but at this point in time I feel the popular support for this behavior is far greater on the left. (at the moment, the right does their damage through parliamentary rather than non-parliamentary means ) I have few problem with people protesting against what someone have done or have said. It's a very different kettle of fish attempting to prevent someone from saying stuff in the first place.
Since the subject of giving "alternative hugs" to Spencer has come up a again, yes, he is in fact a Nazi. Here is a quote from his own website (since deleted because it got too much attention):
This post was snarky? I completely misread it though, I really thought it was 100% serious.
The comment about Trump pulling out of NATO was snark. That's what I was apologizing for.
The statement that the security of European countries relies in no small part on the US contribution to the NATO alliance is just a fact. Perhaps it was insensitive of me to say so, but it is what it is. I don't really feel a need to elaborate on Russian aggression, the threat of nuclear war, etc. Really, a secure Europe is in the interest of the United States, so I don't mind that some of my taxes go towards NATO, and I'm guessing a majority of Americans agree, or else we would be seriously considering pulling out of NATO.
To me, it is indeed a sign of an underlying weakness. When people can't win the battle of ideas, they sometimes resort to other methods; in this case, violence, destruction, and mayhem.
If debate could defeat fascism, the Second World War would not have happened.
If people debated after Archduke Franz Ferdinand was shot, then may be there wouldn't be a ww1 and subsequently ww2. Same with tightening tensions in the USA one side ready to jump on the other without a round table debate is having spectacular results at the moment.
To me, it is indeed a sign of an underlying weakness. When people can't win the battle of ideas, they sometimes resort to other methods; in this case, violence, destruction, and mayhem.
If debate could defeat fascism, the Second World War would not have happened.
If people debated after Archduke Franz Ferdinand was shot, then may be there wouldn't be a ww1 and subsequently ww2. Same with tightening tensions in the USA one side ready to jump on the other without a round table debate is having spectacular results at the moment.
The first world war was a conflict of empires, not ideas. And check out the letters between Nicky and Willy to see how well discussions went.
The round table debate doesn't work when one side refuses to come to the table for 4+ years, and then is rewarded for not doing so.
Peregrine wrote: Since the subject of giving "alternative hugs" to Spencer has come up a again, yes, he is in fact a Nazi. Here is a quote from his own website (since deleted because it got too much attention):
I would argue he is more of the Klu Klux Klan type than a Nazi, but as I don't know the man I could be wrong.
Peregrine wrote: Since the subject of giving "alternative hugs" to Spencer has come up a again, yes, he is in fact a Nazi. Here is a quote from his own website (since deleted because it got too much attention):
I'm troubled by how widespread the notion seems to be that the very act of being a nazi makes it ok for people to just decide on their own they're justified in inflicting physical violence on them. (I'm not necessarily pointing fingers to you here Peregrine)
Advocating for it being illegal to utter statements such the one quoted is one thing (although that wouldn't be unproblematic either). That funnels the violence through the legal system with it's checks and balances, due process etc. Something normally consider a very good thing. But taking such gleeful pleasure in someone administrating physical violence just on his own accord?
But hey, as long as it's a nazi, any principles don't apply. That's how principles work, right?
Spencer was the guy who stood up at a conference in DC, at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center, right after Trumps victory, and made the statement
"Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!”
In front of a crowd with many giving the Nazi salute.
This thread is proof that if you disagree with someone strong enough, just label them as a Nazi or a Racist, then you automatically win the argument.
I might not agree with the New Black Panthers (who actually ARE racists) but I wouldn't mind them speaking publically. I support their right to do it. Just like I support the right of Klansman to have marches. Just like I initially supported the Occupy Wall Street movement until they went full-slow and started doing illegal stuff and their camps got rapey. I supported the BLM movement when they were peaceful (and I still support the people in it that stayed true to the cause) before the vocal minority of their group took over and turned it into a farce.
You don't like Milo speaking at your campus? That's fine. Grab a sign and protest him. Denying him his right to speak his mind is wrong. Being violent about it is even more wrong. I wouldn't blame someone if they brought a giant canister of bear repellant to spray protesters with. Heck, after some of the violent I wouldn't blame someone for a self-defense shooting.
Vaktathi wrote: Spencer was the guy who stood up at a conference in DC, at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center, right after Trumps victory, and made the statement
"Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!”
In front of a crowd with many giving the Nazi salute.
Calling Spencer a Nazi is not inaccurate.
The point is that freedom of speech and of peaceful assembly do not go out the window for merely having the wrong set of ideas. These are Rights afforded to each US citizen by the Constitution, and they are fundamental liberal principles.
jasper76 wrote: The comment about Trump pulling out of NATO was snark. That's what I was apologizing for.
That was not what I was angry about.
jasper76 wrote: The statement that the security of European countries relies in no small part on the US contribution to the NATO alliance is just a fact.
This shows a lack of nuance. Europe is not an homogeneous entity. For countries in Eastern Europe that are members of NATO with few military power, this is definitely very true. For a country like, say, France, which is surrounded by countries that are friendly, which owns nukes and nuclear submarines, etc, Russia is about as threatening as, say, China is to the US. There is literally no realistic scenario where Russia attack France, even if the US decide to stay entirely neutral on the whole thing. As for Switzerland, I will just that it is not by chance that they are not part of NATO. It would be against their constitution to do so. And this has served them well during the whole 20th century.
This idea that every European country (that's if the difference between European countries is even acknowledged) is dependent upon the US for it's defense even in the current day situation, and that this is such a self-evident truth that there is no need to expand on it, is US arrogance.
To me, it is indeed a sign of an underlying weakness. When people can't win the battle of ideas, they sometimes resort to other methods; in this case, violence, destruction, and mayhem.
If debate could defeat fascism, the Second World War would not have happened.
True enough. Do you really think the left wants a civil war over the fair and free election of Donald Trump? Or do leftists outside of the United States want to go to war with us now?
Considering the sheer amount of murders being committed by white supremacists and Islamic fascists, maybe it is the whole of the right that has a problem with violence?
Your liberal application of "leftists" blame for these riots means that it's OK to say that the whole of the right has a problem with murdering people with guns because some arseholes decide to gun down people in the street, church or mosque?
Zywus wrote: I'm troubled by how widespread the notion seems to be that the very act of being a nazi makes it ok for people to just decide on their own they're justified in inflicting physical violence on them. (I'm not necessarily pointing fingers to you here Peregrine)
Advocating for it being illegal to utter statements such the one quoted is one thing (although that wouldn't be unproblematic either). That funnels the violence through the legal system with it's checks and balances, due process etc. Something normally consider a very good thing. But taking such gleeful pleasure in someone administrating physical violence just on his own accord?
But hey, as long as it's a nazi, any principles don't apply. That's how principles work, right?
Remember what happened the last time we had Nazis in power? Talking to the Nazis didn't stop them. Making Nazism illegal didn't stop them. The only thing that stopped the Nazis was killing them and taking their country away.
Sentinel1 wrote: What America needs at the minute is more Melania Trump for speeches and occasions to calm down this Lefty vs Right aggression. Donald is his own worst enemy, I give him credit for his decisive actions. He is pumping out more orders than any recent president, problem being its inflating tensions of controversy. I imagine it is also because he wants to make a big impression within 100 days of office. Still he is not as bad and unpopular as President Hoover, where towns hung mannequins of him with slogans of 'hang hoover', there isn't yet a Hooverville on the White House lawn, and ex soldiers haven't tried to seize control. As I have said many times before give him time.
100 bad decicions isn't good just cause it's lot. Better 1 good than 100 bad. Trump is incapable of giving good ones
cuda1179 wrote: This thread is proof that if you disagree with someone strong enough, just label them as a Nazi or a Racist, then you automatically win the argument.
Given that, in some cases, we are talking about actual Nazi's and racists (as in the case of Spencer), and that society holds that such ideas are inherently and fundamentally flawed, then in some cases that is absolutely correct.
Granted, this has been abused many times, but we also havent had people giving nazi salutes in government administrative and conference buildings much either the way we're seeing now either. The extremes are becoming increasingly radical while both sides use those extremes, or other isolated examples of people going overboard or taking advantage of an event do just do gakky stuff because they can, to wholesale paint the other side with the same brush and advance the agenda of the extremists in doing so.
Vaktathi wrote: Spencer was the guy who stood up at a conference in DC, at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center, right after Trumps victory, and made the statement
"Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!”
In front of a crowd with many giving the Nazi salute.
Calling Spencer a Nazi is not inaccurate.
The point is that freedom of speech and of peaceful assembly do not go out the window for merely having the wrong set of ideas. These are Rights afforded to each US citizen by the Constitution, and they are fundamental liberal principles.
Yup.
Have a counter-protest all you want... no problems there.
But, to making the case that he/they deserves it (which, honestly no one would feel bad) is lunacy.
jasper76 wrote: The comment about Trump pulling out of NATO was snark. That's what I was apologizing for.
That was not what I was angry about.
jasper76 wrote: The statement that the security of European countries relies in no small part on the US contribution to the NATO alliance is just a fact.
This shows a lack of nuance. Europe is not an homogeneous entity. For countries in Eastern Europe that are members of NATO with few military power, this is definitely very true. For a country like, say, France, which is surrounded by countries that are friendly, which owns nukes and nuclear submarines, etc, Russia is about as threatening as, say, China is to the US. There is literally no realistic scenario where Russia attack France, even if the US decide to stay entirely neutral on the whole thing. As for Switzerland, I will just that it is not by chance that they are not part of NATO. It would be against their constitution to do so. And this has served them well during the whole 20th century.
This idea that every European country (that's if the difference between European countries is even acknowledged) is dependent upon the US for it's defense even in the current day situation, and that this is such a self-evident truth that there is no need to expand on it, is US arrogance.
Fair enough. I really don't wish to further engage in an argument over the necessity of NATO (or lack thereof) towards European security. I'll just say again that I don't mind that some of my tax money goes towards the NATO alliance. IME, it is a worthwhile expenditure of our nation's wealth.
To me, it is indeed a sign of an underlying weakness. When people can't win the battle of ideas, they sometimes resort to other methods; in this case, violence, destruction, and mayhem.
If debate could defeat fascism, the Second World War would not have happened.
True enough. Do you really think the left wants a civil war over the fair and free election of Donald Trump? Or do leftists outside of the United States want to go to war with us now?
I don't think many leftists want a civil war or a third world war. Of course, that doesn't really matter because leftists aren't the ones making this decision A civil war in the US would likely cascade unpredictably and isn't nice to think about but if it happens it would be because of the ruling class starting it to remain in control. How fair or free the election was doesn't really matter because of the fundamental problems that led to Donald Trump being a candidate at all, Hillary Clinton being his opponent and the Democrats refusing to see that the future is anti-capitalist. It also doesn't matter how legitimate or "qualified" Trump is or is not because he now has power and is using that power to do what he said he would. People who've spent decades being slavish adherents to rules and decorum above all, who believe that the means justify the ends, are incapable of standing up to his administration and in many ways unwilling. So people who are fed up with racism, with the end of safe employment, with increased militarisation of the police and with the destruction of public services now see that there truly isn't anyone but themselves that will do anything.
This situation has been brewing for a long time, both the fascists and the leftists. We're just done with the previous normal now. Trump doesn't represent a fundamentally different sort of politics to Obama, Bush, Clinton or whichever other president since Reagan or whatever. He's just putting the pedal to the metal on the machinery that already existed. He's doing with vinegar what others did with honey. The long, slow boiling of the frog jumped twenty degrees in one swoop and that can't be undone.
whembly wrote: But, to making the case that he/they deserves it (which, honestly no one would feel bad) is lunacy.
Ever hear the saying "never again"? If the price of making "never again" mean "never again" not "never again, unless the Nazis are acting within the law or stopping them would mean doing something illegal" is that Nazis occasionally get punched in the face when it isn't strictly necessary, well, I'm not going to lose any sleep over some alternative hugs.
Vaktathi wrote: Spencer was the guy who stood up at a conference in DC, at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center, right after Trumps victory, and made the statement
"Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!”
In front of a crowd with many giving the Nazi salute.
Calling Spencer a Nazi is not inaccurate.
The point is that freedom of speech and of peaceful assembly do not go out the window for merely having the wrong set of ideas. These are Rights afforded to each US citizen by the Constitution, and they are fundamental liberal principles.
I wasnt disagreeing with that, just clarifying where the guy stood vis-a-vis the KKK vs Nazi definition comment earlier.
To me, it is indeed a sign of an underlying weakness. When people can't win the battle of ideas, they sometimes resort to other methods; in this case, violence, destruction, and mayhem.
If debate could defeat fascism, the Second World War would not have happened.
True enough. Do you really think the left wants a civil war over the fair and free election of Donald Trump? Or do leftists outside of the United States want to go to war with us now?
Considering the sheer amount of murders being committed by white supremacists and Islamic fascists, maybe it is the whole of the right that has a problem with violence?
Your liberal application of "leftists" blame for these riots means that it's OK to say that the whole of the right has a problem with murdering people with guns because some arseholes decide to gun down people in the street, church or mosque?
As I've said before,I think these kinds of activities should be denounced regardless of whether they come from the left, the right, or the center.
It's interesting how people seems to be much more worried about one nazi being punched in the face once, and whether or not this is a good thing, than millions of people facing life-changing change because of the ban. I guess one US nazi hurting for a week is more important than dirty middle-eastern being separated from their family/losing their life from denied medical operation/…
cuda1179 wrote: This thread is proof that if you disagree with someone strong enough, just label them as a Nazi or a Racist, then you automatically win the argument.
Given that, in some cases, we are talking about actual Nazi's and racists (as in the case of Spencer), and that society holds that such ideas are inherently and fundamentally flawed, then in some cases that is absolutely correct.
Granted, this has been abused many times, but we also havent had people giving nazi salutes in government administrative and conference buildings much either the way we're seeing now either. The extremes are becoming increasingly radical while both sides use those extremes, or other isolated examples of people going overboard or taking advantage of an event do just do gakky stuff because they can, to wholesale paint the other side with the same brush and advance the agenda of the extremists in doing so.
But once you remove freedom and free speecg from somebody for their views you enter path where those are at danger for everybody
whembly wrote: But, to making the case that he/they deserves it (which, honestly no one would feel bad) is lunacy.
Ever hear the saying "never again"? If the price of making "never again" mean "never again" not "never again, unless the Nazis are acting within the law or stopping them would mean doing something illegal" is that Nazis occasionally get punched in the face when it isn't strictly necessary, well, I'm not going to lose any sleep over some alternative hugs.
We have laws against assault and battery.
No where in there has any exemptions that allows assault and battery over something said that you may strenuously object.
He's free to be an donkey-cave. The most effective way to counter his ideals, is more liberal ideals to convince him that he's on the wrong path (and more importantly, to teach others that his views are wrong).
But, if you can't make that counter-argument and encourage violent response to a heretical viewpoint... then... you're abandoning the principles of a liberal society.
cuda1179 wrote: This thread is proof that if you disagree with someone strong enough, just label them as a Nazi or a Racist, then you automatically win the argument.
Given that, in some cases, we are talking about actual Nazi's and racists (as in the case of Spencer), and that society holds that such ideas are inherently and fundamentally flawed, then in some cases that is absolutely correct.
Granted, this has been abused many times, but we also havent had people giving nazi salutes in government administrative and conference buildings much either the way we're seeing now either. The extremes are becoming increasingly radical while both sides use those extremes, or other isolated examples of people going overboard or taking advantage of an event do just do gakky stuff because they can, to wholesale paint the other side with the same brush and advance the agenda of the extremists in doing so.
But once you remove freedom and free speecg from somebody for their views you enter path where those are at danger for everybody
I didnt advocate that people shouldn't be allowed to say whatever they want, only that, in the case of actual Nazi's, "winning the argument" when calling them such isnt unreasonable.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: It's interesting how people seems to be much more worried about one nazi being punched in the face once, and whether or not this is a good thing, than millions of people facing life-changing change because of the ban. I guess one US nazi hurting for a week is more important than dirty middle-eastern being separated from their family/losing their life from denied medical operation/…
Really?
Supporting everyone's freedom free speech and assembly has zero to do with the current refugee PAUSE.
Zywus wrote: I'm troubled by how widespread the notion seems to be that the very act of being a nazi makes it ok for people to just decide on their own they're justified in inflicting physical violence on them. (I'm not necessarily pointing fingers to you here Peregrine)
Advocating for it being illegal to utter statements such the one quoted is one thing (although that wouldn't be unproblematic either). That funnels the violence through the legal system with it's checks and balances, due process etc. Something normally consider a very good thing. But taking such gleeful pleasure in someone administrating physical violence just on his own accord?
But hey, as long as it's a nazi, any principles don't apply. That's how principles work, right?
Remember what happened the last time we had Nazis in power? Talking to the Nazis didn't stop them. Making Nazism illegal didn't stop them. The only thing that stopped the Nazis was killing them and taking their country away.
Fighting with Nazis in the streets didn't stop them either for that matter. What do you think the SA and the Communists were doing in the 20's?
Anyway, if your solution to combat nazism is to point to someone, declare that due to what they've said you've decided to put a label on them and thus they no longer enjoy fundamental rights and it's now justified for any individual to subject them to violence. Then I may as well go with the nazis. At least their founders had cool looking uniforms.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: It's interesting how people seems to be much more worried about one nazi being punched in the face once, and whether or not this is a good thing, than millions of people facing life-changing change because of the ban. I guess one US nazi hurting for a week is more important than dirty middle-eastern being separated from their family/losing their life from denied medical operation/…
It's quite possible to both a) hold the view that freedom of speech and peaceful assembly should be fundamental rights, and (b) think that Trumps 90 day ban is a bad (or good) idea.
These issues are not really connected.
For my part, I think the travel ban was ill-conceived and ill-executed, and I also think that US citizens should be free to exercise their first Amendment rights.
Remember what happened the last time we had Nazis in power?
You mean like Franco or do you mean modern China?
Commmunists killed far more people then Nazis ever dreamed of. Can we attack them? How about their embassy personnel? How about marxist college professors?
Lets try it again. In the US the simple response to the argument attacking a person just because they are the member of a political party "NO NO BAD DOG."
You can't. You go to jail.
If this is a difficulty for you, Mexico with its usual one party state, is just south. Watch out for the Zetas though, Gringo.
You don't like Milo speaking at your campus? That's fine. Grab a sign and protest him. Denying him his right to speak his mind is wrong. Being violent about it is even more wrong. I wouldn't blame someone if they brought a giant canister of bear repellant to spray protesters with. Heck, after some of the violent I wouldn't blame someone for a self-defense shooting.
Yiannopoulos uses his speech to target people for harassment. That's why he became known in the first place and is something he even managed to get banned from Twitter for doing. Imagine that! He was deemed so nasty he was actually thrown off Twitter. That's a feat and a half. Last time he spoke at a college he outed a trans student, showed pre-transition pictures and mocked and misgendered her. Given the sort of crowd he draws and the vulnerable context of trans people this is a clear threat. So if you want to protect vulnerable groups you have to prevent him from showing up. You have to drive away those who share his goals.
Fascists speak their mind to terrify minorities into submission and draw more people to their cause so they can further terrorise minorities. This requires the liberal understanding of tolerance and is why liberals can't defeat fascism.
Zywus wrote: I'm troubled by how widespread the notion seems to be that the very act of being a nazi makes it ok for people to just decide on their own they're justified in inflicting physical violence on them. (I'm not necessarily pointing fingers to you here Peregrine)
Advocating for it being illegal to utter statements such the one quoted is one thing (although that wouldn't be unproblematic either). That funnels the violence through the legal system with it's checks and balances, due process etc. Something normally consider a very good thing. But taking such gleeful pleasure in someone administrating physical violence just on his own accord?
But hey, as long as it's a nazi, any principles don't apply. That's how principles work, right?
Remember what happened the last time we had Nazis in power? Talking to the Nazis didn't stop them. Making Nazism illegal didn't stop them. The only thing that stopped the Nazis was killing them and taking their country away.
Fighting with Nazis in the streets didn't stop them either for that matter. What do you think the SA and the Communists were doing in the 20's?
Anyway, if your solution to combat nazism is to point to someone, declare that due to what they've said you've decided to put a label on them and thus they no longer enjoy fundamental rights and it's now justified for any individual to subject them to violence. Then I may as well go with the nazis. At least their founders had cool looking uniforms.
in the case of the individual in question that sparked this conversation, its not a matter of people just labelling him a Nazi. He draws directly from their terms, language, phrasings, policies, etc and replicates them for the modern US. Again, this was the guy standing in front of a crowd of people giving the Nazi salute and stating "Hail Trump, Hail Victory", a direct adaptation of the nazi "Sieg Heil!" stuff.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: It's interesting how people seems to be much more worried about one nazi being punched in the face once, and whether or not this is a good thing, than millions of people facing life-changing change because of the ban. I guess one US nazi hurting for a week is more important than dirty middle-eastern being separated from their family/losing their life from denied medical operation/…
It's been pointed out several times how Trumps immigration EO is bs (and it absolutely is).
I doubt many is particularly heartbroken over Spencer the person being punched. It's really no big deal in the particular case (I suspect even he himself sees it as a net-gain due to the exposure he's gotten).
It's the fact that many people find such violence justified that's rather unsettling on a principal level.
Fighting with Nazis in the streets didn't stop them either for that matter. What do you think the SA and the Communists were doing in the 20's?.
That was an insufficient scale of armed resistance. The Third Reich was eventually defeated through the combined might of the Allies. Now we know exactly what nazis want and know that if they come into power it will take the sacrifice of millions of people to stop them. So stopping them before they get the chance is the best bet.
Anyway, if your solution to combat nazism is to point to someone, declare that due to what they've said you've decided to put a label on them and thus they no longer enjoy fundamental rights and it's now justified for any individual to subject them to violence. Then I may as well go with the nazis. At least their founders had cool looking uniforms.
So you say.
EDIT:
Zywus wrote: (I suspect even he himself sees it as a net-gain due to the exposure he's gotten).
He's actually been quite rattled and considers it crucial to be able to fight back against such assaults or else his movement is doomed. His exposure has been overwhelmingly people cheering over him getting punched. It's an actual meme to edit hilarious music or sound effects into the video.
Here's some food for thought. If you can't win the battle of ideas against a true-to-form Nazi, than maybe you should incorporate ideas that can win that particular battle.
The best counter to offensive free speech is better free speech.
Or something like that.
At least there seems to be some consensus on this board that the term Nazi should be reserved for actual Nazis. The degradation of language is real when Nazi just means "someone I disagree with".
Commmunists killed far more people then Nazis ever dreamed of.
A bold statement, with no true numbers and sources to back it. Why would we trust you more than any other making a statement out of the blue, as usual? Refering to history? History doesn't say that thing. What numbers? From what date to what date? Can you verify the source?
I can say something similar : "right wingers have bullied and provoked death and suffering in the whole world more than any other political stream". And what would be the good of it, if just saying something that suits my own beliefs? It just adds nothing to the debate.
Remember what happened the last time we had Nazis in power?
You mean like Franco or do you mean modern China?
Commmunists killed far more people then Nazis ever dreamed of. Can we attack them? How about their embassy personnel? How about marxist college professors?
You're mixing and matching a large number of political theories here. Franco was not a Nazi, the Falangists were fascist but not Nazi's. 19th century Marxism bears little resemblance to Stalinism or China under Mao beyond superficialities.
When we're talking about Spencer, we're talking very specifically about someone advocating for pondering the question of genocide and direct Nazi idiosyncrasies.
Zywus wrote: I'm troubled by how widespread the notion seems to be that the very act of being a nazi makes it ok for people to just decide on their own they're justified in inflicting physical violence on them. (I'm not necessarily pointing fingers to you here Peregrine)
Advocating for it being illegal to utter statements such the one quoted is one thing (although that wouldn't be unproblematic either). That funnels the violence through the legal system with it's checks and balances, due process etc. Something normally consider a very good thing. But taking such gleeful pleasure in someone administrating physical violence just on his own accord?
But hey, as long as it's a nazi, any principles don't apply. That's how principles work, right?
Remember what happened the last time we had Nazis in power? Talking to the Nazis didn't stop them. Making Nazism illegal didn't stop them. The only thing that stopped the Nazis was killing them and taking their country away.
Fighting with Nazis in the streets didn't stop them either for that matter. What do you think the SA and the Communists were doing in the 20's?
Anyway, if your solution to combat nazism is to point to someone, declare that due to what they've said you've decided to put a label on them and thus they no longer enjoy fundamental rights and it's now justified for any individual to subject them to violence. Then I may as well go with the nazis. At least their founders had cool looking uniforms.
in the case of the individual in question that sparked this conversation, its not a matter of people just labelling him a Nazi. He draws directly from their terms, language, phrasings, policies, etc and replicates them for the modern US. Again, this was the guy standing in front of a crowd of people giving the Nazi salute and stating "Hail Trump, Hail Victory", a direct adaptation of the nazi "Sieg Heil!" stuff.
I guess he can indeed be called a nazi according to many reasonable definitions. It's beyond the point though.
It seems as you're position is that as long as you can brand someone as being a nazi, certain principles of free-speech and due process of law suddenly don't apply. I feel that is unsettling.
It's perhaps extra unsettling that you seem to think the discussion turns upon whether or not we can call him a nazi. As if, once he's shown to be a nazi, you think it's a done deal that we're justified in individually subjecting him to violence when we feel like it.
At least there seems to be some consensus on this board that the term Nazi should be reserved for actual Nazis. The degradation of language is real when Nazi just means "someone I disagree with".
aye, there are people out there who deserve the label because its what they are, and it is cheapened when used inappropriately
He is indeed a nazi according to most reasonable definitions.
It seems however as you're position is that as long as you can brand someone as being a nazi, certain principles of free-speech and due process of law suddenly don't apply. I feel that is unsettling.
It's perhaps extra unsettling that you seem to think the discussion turns upon whether or not we can call him a nazi. As if, once he's shown to be a nazi, you think it's a done deal that we're justified in individually subjecting him to violence when we feel like it.
not arguing there, was only addressing a definitional issue. I'm not defending the use of violence against anyone, only pointing out that the use of Nazi in the case of this dude is fully justified.
Zywus wrote: I'm troubled by how widespread the notion seems to be that the very act of being a nazi makes it ok for people to just decide on their own they're justified in inflicting physical violence on them. (I'm not necessarily pointing fingers to you here Peregrine)
Advocating for it being illegal to utter statements such the one quoted is one thing (although that wouldn't be unproblematic either). That funnels the violence through the legal system with it's checks and balances, due process etc. Something normally consider a very good thing. But taking such gleeful pleasure in someone administrating physical violence just on his own accord?
But hey, as long as it's a nazi, any principles don't apply. That's how principles work, right?
Remember what happened the last time we had Nazis in power? Talking to the Nazis didn't stop them. Making Nazism illegal didn't stop them. The only thing that stopped the Nazis was killing them and taking their country away.
Fighting with Nazis in the streets didn't stop them either for that matter. What do you think the SA and the Communists were doing in the 20's?
Anyway, if your solution to combat nazism is to point to someone, declare that due to what they've said you've decided to put a label on them and thus they no longer enjoy fundamental rights and it's now justified for any individual to subject them to violence. Then I may as well go with the nazis. At least their founders had cool looking uniforms.
Commmunists killed far more people then Nazis ever dreamed of.
A bold statement, with no true numbers and sources to back it. Why would we trust you more than any other making a statement out of the blue, as usual? Refering to history? History doesn't say that thing. What numbers? From what date to what date? Can you verify the source?
I can say something similar : "right wingers have bullied and provoked death and suffering in the whole world more than any other political stream". And what would be the good of it, if just saying something that suits my own beliefs? It just adds nothing to the debate.
100mm dead in China alone during the Great Cultural Revolution alone.
1/4 of Cambodia's population
etc. etc.
jasper76 wrote: Here's some food for thought. If you can't win the battle of ideas against a true-to-form Nazi, than maybe you should incorporate ideas that can win that particular battle.
The best counter to offensive free speech is better free speech.
Or something like that.
There isn't much in the way of free speech you can do against a group that uses theirs to organise and kill you. That's what nazism is about: the extermination of all those who weaken the pure white bloodline through racial mixing and degeneracy in the form of homosexuality, judeobolshevism, or feminism. You can say that they want us dead or enslaved but saying that doesn't help unless you have people who actually physically stop nazis from gathering the strength to terrorise minorities and workers.
Peregrine wrote: Since the subject of giving "alternative hugs" to Spencer has come up a again, yes, he is in fact a Nazi. Here is a quote from his own website (since deleted because it got too much attention):
I'm troubled by how widespread the notion seems to be that the very act of being a nazi makes it ok for people to just decide on their own they're justified in inflicting physical violence on them. (I'm not necessarily pointing fingers to you here Peregrine)
You should. Thats exactly what he thinks and has vehemently said as much.
Peregrine wrote: Since the subject of giving "alternative hugs" to Spencer has come up a again, yes, he is in fact a Nazi. Here is a quote from his own website (since deleted because it got too much attention):
I'm troubled by how widespread the notion seems to be that the very act of being a nazi makes it ok for people to just decide on their own they're justified in inflicting physical violence on them. (I'm not necessarily pointing fingers to you here Peregrine)
You should. Thats exactly what he thinks and has vehemently said as much.
Real Nazis would welcome Peregrine's attempts. No one outstreet hooligans the Nazis.
Fighting with Nazis in the streets didn't stop them either for that matter. What do you think the SA and the Communists were doing in the 20's?.
That was an insufficient scale of armed resistance. The Third Reich was eventually defeated through the combined might of the Allies. Now we know exactly what nazis want and know that if they come into power it will take the sacrifice of millions of people to stop them. So stopping them before they get the chance is the best bet.
So I guess if I'm sufficiently abhorred by the acts of communist regimes, I'm justified in seeking out communists today to administer violence upon them? We have seen what happened in Sovjet, Kambodja etc.
Or if I'm sufficiently abhorred by the acts of the great Satan herself and her support for repressive regimes in the middle east, I'd be justified in gathering some mates, get flying lessions and aim a few planes towards the skyscrapers?
Commmunists killed far more people then Nazis ever dreamed of.
A bold statement, with no true numbers and sources to back it. Why would we trust you more than any other making a statement out of the blue, as usual? Refering to history? History doesn't say that thing. What numbers? From what date to what date? Can you verify the source?
I can say something similar : "right wingers have bullied and provoked death and suffering in the whole world more than any other political stream". And what would be the good of it, if just saying something that suits my own beliefs? It just adds nothing to the debate.
100mm dead in China alone during the Great Cultural Revolution alone.
1/4 of Cambodia's population
etc. etc.
History professors gloss over what has been done.
ascribing these directly to an ideology in the same way as say, the Nazi's and the Holocaust is somewhat mistaken. The cultural revolution was mostly an internal power struggle amongst the communists, and the deaths mostly indirect from negligence. Cambodia was...extremely weird and techno-regressive in a way directly counter to many established Marxist principles, the concept of an industrial worker, the core of original communism, was anathema to the agricultural village focus of the Khmer Rouge that they became obssessed with, like militant Amish dialed up to 13
jasper76 wrote: Here's some food for thought. If you can't win the battle of ideas against a true-to-form Nazi, than maybe you should incorporate ideas that can win that particular battle.
The best counter to offensive free speech is better free speech.
Or something like that.
There isn't much in the way of free speech you can do against a group that uses theirs to organise and kill you. That's what nazism is about: the extermination of all those who weaken the pure white bloodline through racial mixing and degeneracy in the form of homosexuality, judeobolshevism, or feminism. You can say that they want us dead or enslaved but saying that doesn't help unless you have people who actually physically stop nazis from gathering the strength to terrorise minorities and workers.
Free speech can do a hell of a lot against a group using their free speech to organise and kill you.
If a group starts to actually organise to kill you, then you can start to use violence. Before they do, you are the one doing the terrorizing.
Recognizing why someone would hit someone is not the sames as advocating for someone to be hit. The donkey-cave shouldn't have been punched but I'm not going to pretend I don't understand why someone would hit him. It wasn't right when the white guy sucker punched a young black protester at a Trump rally and it wasn't right when a young black guy sucker punched a young white guy calling for genocide.
100mm dead in China alone during the Great Cultural Revolution alone.
1/4 of Cambodia's population
etc. etc.
History professors gloss over what has been done.
Not even remotely.
High school history text books maybe, but college professors no and you don't generally find professors in K-12 education. You'd be surprised how effectively some of these tidbits actually manage to slip into material not even remotely about them. They're practically go to references (china probably more so than Cambodia but the US isn't really loaded to the brim with Cambodian history experts).
Commmunists killed far more people then Nazis ever dreamed of.
A bold statement, with no true numbers and sources to back it. Why would we trust you more than any other making a statement out of the blue, as usual? Refering to history? History doesn't say that thing. What numbers? From what date to what date? Can you verify the source?
I can say something similar : "right wingers have bullied and provoked death and suffering in the whole world more than any other political stream". And what would be the good of it, if just saying something that suits my own beliefs? It just adds nothing to the debate.
100mm dead in China alone during the Great Cultural Revolution alone.
1/4 of Cambodia's population
etc. etc.
History professors gloss over what has been done.
ascribing these directly to an ideology in the same way as say, the Nazi's and the Holocaust is somewhat mistaken. The cultural revolution was mostly an internal power struggle amongst the communists, and the deaths mostly indirect from negligence. Cambodia was...extremely weird and techno-regressive in a way directly counter to many established Marxist principles, the concept of an industrial worker, the core of original communism, was anathema to the agricultural village focus of the Khmer Rouge that they became obssessed with, like militant Amish dialed up to 13
So we let the communists define what is communism, who is a communist and who of the hundred of millions dead under formally communist rule due to engineered starvation, executions, torture, war etc, can be attributed to communism.
But in the case of nazis, we just let any concerned citizen beat up anyone they think are sufficiantly nazi.
It must be real easy to live in a world where any kind of morality and principle can just be thrown away as soon as we can get hold of that sweet, sweet nazi label and stick it to someone.
Free speech can do a hell of a lot against a group using their free speech to organise and kill you.
If a group starts to actually organise to kill you, then you can start to use violence. Before they do, you are the one doing the terrorizing.
It seems stupid to know that a group is actively plotting to murder you but not do anything until they've acquired enough power and weaponry to start. So much for saying "never again" if you wait until they start again before you even try to stop them.
American Nazis have 1st amendment rights like anybody else, and however distasteful, they should be defended in the name of liberty.
None the less, part of me hopes that somebody turns up in a replica Sherman tank just to remind these Nazis what happens if you mess with the free world.
Free speech can do a hell of a lot against a group using their free speech to organise and kill you.
If a group starts to actually organise to kill you, then you can start to use violence. Before they do, you are the one doing the terrorizing.
It seems stupid to know that a group is actively plotting to murder you but not do anything until they've acquired enough power and weaponry to start. So much for saying "never again" if you wait until they start again before you even try to stop them.
There's a pretty wide gulf between sitting on your hands and doing nothing until there's a fully armed nazi-militia roaming the street, to a anti-nazi vigilante walking the street attacking individual persons who have written unpleasant words on blog.
If you take upon yourself to attack someone with violence, the burden is on you to justify it. It's quite a leap to say anyone who writes such and such must be subjected to unlawful violence or the forth Reich will rise.
The same way it's quite a leap to justify attacking communist blogger X for writing stuff on his blog, in order to stop the US from turning into the next Kmere-rouge-esque Kambodja. (even if said person actually does advocate driving the whole population out of the cities to work the fields, predictably causing mass starvation in the process)
.
Free speech can do a hell of a lot against a group using their free speech to organise and kill you.
If a group starts to actually organise to kill you, then you can start to use violence. Before they do, you are the one doing the terrorizing.
It seems stupid to know that a group is actively plotting to murder you but not do anything until they've acquired enough power and weaponry to start. So much for saying "never again" if you wait until they start again before you even try to stop them.
Again under that view we have a really long list don't we. Can you imagine if Israel used that definition? All the ME would be radioactive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: American Nazis have 1st amendment rights like anybody else, and however distasteful, they should be defended in the name of liberty.
None the less, part of me hopes that somebody turns up in a replica Sherman tank just to remind these Nazis what happens if you mess with the free world.
I'm driving an M4 Easy Eight in April. Look out Nazis!
Are we really going through this fething farce again? Didn't this thread almost get perma-locked last time?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: American Nazis have 1st amendment rights like anybody else, and however distasteful, they should be defended in the name of liberty.
None the less, part of me hopes that somebody turns up in a replica Sherman tank just to remind these Nazis what happens if you mess with the free world.
Take away the rights of people you dislike and deem to be "dangerous", and you're taking away your own rights too. Either these Rights are universal, or they're meaningless. Using the tactics of Nazis to prevent the rise of Nazis is counter-productive and ultimately self-fulfilling.
whembly wrote: Supporting everyone's freedom free speech and assembly has zero to do with the current refugee PAUSE.
I'm not saying these issues are related. I am saying that which one of those issues Dakkanauts involve themselves, and decide to care about, it pretty telling.
jasper76 wrote: For my part, I think the travel ban was ill-conceived and ill-executed, and I also think that US citizens should be free to exercise their first Amendment rights.
But while you just can't let someone say that punching a nazi is a good thing without reacting, you wouldn't argue with Frazzled claim that “Death to America” somehow magically means “It's reasonable to ban all Iranians from entering the US”. You pick your debates.
Zywus wrote: It's the fact that many people find such violence justified that's rather unsettling on a principal level.
It's the fact that people don't even care enough to argue if the very real and very damaging violence from the ban is justified or not than unsettles me.
Maybe it's just because I'm the only one in the thread that personally knows people that would be directly affected by the ban…
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Are we really going through this fething farce again? Didn't this thread almost get perma-locked last time?
For once I 100% agree with you, I do not want this thread locked. Having looked at all those previous posts on Nazis I had to think 'what am I reading?' So I will not contribute to the dark alley this discussion is now leading into...
So we let the communists define what is communism, who is a communist and who of the hundred of millions dead under formally communist rule due to engineered starvation, executions, torture, war etc, can be attributed to communism.
But in the case of nazis, we just let any concerned citizen beat up anyone they think are sufficiantly nazi.
where did I say that? I have explicitly stated I was not concurring with this statement multiple times. However, again, in the case of Spencer specifically, I argued he fit the definition of Nazi, including their direct idiosyncrasies, to a T. Not just an authoritarian or Falangist or a generic Fascist. I didn't argue anything beyond that.
It must be real easy to live in a world where any kind of morality and principle can just be thrown away as soon as we can get hold of that sweet, sweet nazi label and stick it to someone.
For the upteenth time...nowhere did I state this...
Zywus wrote: It's the fact that many people find such violence justified that's rather unsettling on a principal level.
It's the fact that people don't even care enough to argue if the very real and very damaging violence from the ban is justified or not than unsettles me.
Maybe it's just because I'm the only one in the thread that personally knows people that would be directly affected by the ban…
It has been argued in this thread.
It was pretty conclusively shown that the ban wasn't justified, and outside of some weak attempts to claim that it's basically just a continuation of the Obama administration's polity (it isn't) there weren't much debate to be had it seems.
Freedom of expression and violence is generally considered a more fundamental right than freedom of movement across state borders so it tend to spark a more heated debate. (which I guess is Off-topic in the thread? I apologize if so and will attempt to refrain from the nazi-business from here on)
It's indeed distasteful how hastily and badly that EO seems to have been cobbled together and how it's seemingly concocted with no thought to the troubles it will cause to both refugees and asylum seekers, as well as ordinary travelers (including those with double citizenship's)
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: But while you just can't let someone say that punching a nazi is a good thing without reacting, you wouldn't argue with Frazzled claim that “Death to America” somehow magically means “It's reasonable to ban all Iranians from entering the US”.
That was a really stupid line of thought, and I appreciated that you called it out. (so I didn't have need to)
Frazzled don't seem to know himself when he's serious and just writing stuff to put himself over, or play some weird persona. So I can't take him seriously most of the time.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Take away the rights of people you dislike and deem to be "dangerous", and you're taking away your own rights too. Either these Rights are universal, or they're meaningless.
That's right.
Somehow though I didn't see anyone making the point that taking away the right from people from Iran to enter the US took away Trump's right to enter the US. Maybe that's not how it works and have never been. At least I think so. I am pretty sure when I look at history that group denying others people their rights generally often those rights fully. Men denying women the right to vote still had the right to vote. White people denying black people the right to vote still had the right to vote. I guess here it's mostly an issue of feeling too similar to this US nazi. And I'm not saying similar in the sense that you share his idea, I mean similar in the sense that you feel his punishment could just as well apply to you (as you both are “white male citizen of a developed Western country”), while you would never think this way in tons of other cases. Like, for instance, the ban. You would never examine the fact that it might apply to you personally. Am I wrong?
jasper76 wrote: For my part, I think the travel ban was ill-conceived and ill-executed, and I also think that US citizens should be free to exercise their first Amendment rights.
But while you just can't let someone say that punching a nazi is a good thing without reacting, you wouldn't argue with Frazzled claim that “Death to America” somehow magically means “It's reasonable to ban all Iranians from entering the US”. You pick your debates.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was under some obligation to start an argument with Frazzled. I have stated what my views are on the 90 day travel ban. I didn't even have to do that much. No one even asked me, I volunteered the information.
Seems like your argument is with Frazzled, and not with me.
Vaktathi wrote: However, again, in the case of Spencer specifically, I argued he fit the definition of Nazi, including their direct idiosyncrasies, to a T. Not just an authoritarian or Falangist or a generic Fascist. I didn't argue anything beyond that.
Ok. Sorry if I've gotten peoples statements confused. I agree that it makes sense to classify Spencer as a nazi.
Seems like we need to put a 24-hour rule on any Trump reportings... just about every one of them needing 'updates' to fix the original report.
24-hour rule peeps!
Its too late. The Aussies, never known for keeping their cool have already unleashed their wonder waffen. We have killer drop bears riding flying great white sharks from Australia INBOUND. Warm up the railguns in the Northwest boys this is no drill!
jasper76 wrote: I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was under some obligation to start an argument with Frazzled.
You had no obligations to do that. You had no obligation to react to the nazi punching discussion either. Yet basically every dakanaut in this thread made the same decision to react to the nazi punching rather than whether it was okay to ban Iranians. I am just noting this, and reflecting on why.
jasper76 wrote: For my part, I think the travel ban was ill-conceived and ill-executed, and I also think that US citizens should be free to exercise their first Amendment rights.
But while you just can't let someone say that punching a nazi is a good thing without reacting, you wouldn't argue with Frazzled claim that “Death to America” somehow magically means “It's reasonable to ban all Iranians from entering the US”. You pick your debates.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was under some obligation to start an argument with Frazzled. I have stated what my views are on the 90 day travel ban. I didn't even have to do that much. No one even asked me, I volunteered the information.
Seems like your argument is with Frazzled, and not with me.
I have as well, to restate I have issues with the ban except for Syria, Yemen, Somalia, or any locations where failed states make vetting difficult at that point in time.
jasper76 wrote: I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was under some obligation to start an argument with Frazzled.
You had no obligations to do that. You had no obligation to react to the nazi punching discussion either. Yet basically every dakanaut in this thread made the same decision to react to the nazi punching rather than whether it was okay to ban Iranians. I am just noting this, and reflecting on why.
Again... you're conflating the two. Don't do that.
jasper76 wrote: I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was under some obligation to start an argument with Frazzled.
You had no obligations to do that. You had no obligation to react to the nazi punching discussion either. Yet basically every dakanaut in this thread made the same decision to react to the nazi punching rather than whether it was okay to ban Iranians. I am just noting this, and reflecting on why.
Sure its ok to ban iranians, but I would restrict it to specific groups: the Republican Guard, the government, anyone not reviewed via background check. The background check is for everyone. Once they pass the background check give them auto app for asylum like we would nations during the Cold War.
Seems like we need to put a 24-hour rule on any Trump reportings... just about every one of them needing 'updates' to fix the original report.
24-hour rule peeps!
well thats good at least. If it was a preplanned deal, fine. Thats what kept me from posting anything on the Yemen raid as it looked to have been in the works for some time and not some off the hand last second operation.
The timing with fresh violence in Ukraine was odd.
Vaktathi wrote: However, again, in the case of Spencer specifically, I argued he fit the definition of Nazi, including their direct idiosyncrasies, to a T. Not just an authoritarian or Falangist or a generic Fascist. I didn't argue anything beyond that.
Ok. Sorry if I've gotten peoples statements confused. I agree that it makes sense to classify Spencer as a nazi.
Frazzled wrote: I have as well, to restate I have issues with the ban except for Syria, Yemen, Somalia, or any locations where failed states make vetting difficult at that point in time.
That's not what I understood from what you wrote. If that's what you think, then that's great.
Unless you somehow include Iran on that list, even though it is in not way comparable to any of those countries?
Don't get me wrong... I'm imminently concerned about what's going on in the Ukraine and I'm not convinced that Trumpesto or SoS T-Rex will be prepared to handle that...
Frazzled wrote: Sure its ok to ban iranians, but I would restrict it to specific groups: the Republican Guard, the government, anyone not reviewed via background check.
jasper76 wrote: I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was under some obligation to start an argument with Frazzled.
You had no obligations to do that. You had no obligation to react to the nazi punching discussion either. Yet basically every dakanaut in this thread made the same decision to react to the nazi punching rather than whether it was okay to ban Iranians. I am just noting this, and reflecting on why.
Zywus had something useful to say about this
Freedom of expression and violence is generally considered a more fundamental right than freedom of movement across state borders so it tend to spark a more heated debate.
For what its worth, I have visited three countries outside of the US: the Republic of Ireland, Mexico, and Bermuda. It was awesome that these countries allowed me to pass their borders for a visit, especially for something so trivial as tourism. I am grateful that these countries allowed me to visit them. I never once thought that I had a fundamental right to do so.
I am disappointed that Trump decided to ban travel to the US for citizens of the various countries he identified. I feel great sympathy for the people affected by this ban that have a legitimate reason to be here. I also believe this plays right into the hands of radicals. I am powerless to do anything about it other than speak my mind, which I have done. I hope that at least our federal government can make some real improvements to our vetting procedures, so all of this won't have been for naught.
Frazzled wrote: I have as well, to restate I have issues with the ban except for Syria, Yemen, Somalia, or any locations where failed states make vetting difficult at that point in time.
That's not what I understood from what you wrote. If that's what you think, then that's great. Unless you somehow include Iran on that list, even though it is in not way comparable to any of those countries?
I did not include Iran. I did not include Iraq. I would have included Iraq a year ago when everything was in chaos.
I would also include Belgium, because any country named after one of the worst profanities in the universe...I mean come on. Also hipsters.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I am missing a clever play on word? Or just being ignorant about the origins of the name, or some similar-sounding English word?
Frazzled wrote: Commmunists killed far more people then Nazis ever dreamed of. Can we attack them? How about their embassy personnel? How about marxist college professors?
As soon as there is a movement to turn the US into a Stalinist dictatorship and start committing similar mass murder I will support punching them in the face. However, since this movement remains hypothetical, I don't think it's really worth talking about.
If this is a difficulty for you, Mexico with its usual one party state, is just south. Watch out for the Zetas though, Gringo.
Ah yes, the classic conservative slippery slope from "Nazism should not be tolerated and should be crushed by any means necessary" to "no objection to my opinions is permitted". Why is it so hard to understand that one can permit disagreement about policy without permitting Nazism?
Peregrine wrote: Why is it so hard to understand that one can permit disagreement about policy without permitting Nazism?
How do you even propose that we "not permit Nazism"? Would this just be for people who openly espouse Nazism? Or even for people who think Nazi thoughts? What should the punishment be? How would this get past the courts given that we have freedom of speech?
I suggest ridicule is the better answer. Nazi ideology is ridiculous in modern times, so ridicule it. Make sure it stays ridiculous wherever you come into contact with it. Use your free speech as an antidote.
Your own rights are not worth sacrificing over the thoughts and speech of a derided fringe in our society.
jasper76 wrote: How do you even propose that we "not permit Nazism"?
Deliver alternative hugs until there are no more Nazis.
Would this just be for people who openly espouse Nazism? Or even for people who think Nazi thoughts?
Only for people who advocate Nazism. Thought-crime issues aside, a Nazi who is terrified of being alternatively hugged if they dare to speak in support of their beliefs is not going to be organizing and attempting to implement Nazi policies.
How would this get past the courts given that we have freedom of speech?
As has already been demonstrated you don't need the courts to deal with Nazis. If the state wishes to take an active role in Nazi prevention by throwing the Nazis into prison then that's great, but it's not absolutely necessary.
I suggest ridicule is the better answer. Nazi ideology is ridiculous in modern times, so ridicule it. Make sure it stays ridiculous wherever you come into contact with it. Use your free speech as an antidote.
Ridicule did not end Nazi Germany. Free speech did not end Nazi Germany. The only thing that ended Nazi Germany and their genocide was killing Nazis. And, as they say, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
So you're basically advocating vigilantism, thug-rule, perhaps even murder?
No thanks...down this path I will not travel. I will stick with the liberal values of free speech and the rule of law.
A quote from Nietzche comes to mind:
He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.
jasper76 wrote: So you're basically advocating vigilantism, thug-rule, perhaps even murder?
If the state won't deal with Nazism and that's what it takes to prevent Nazis from getting into power. I would be perfectly happy if the state outlawed Nazi organizations and considered advocating genocide to be criminal incitement to violence and/or hate speech. Imprisoning Nazis for their crimes is preferable to individuals having to take matters into their own hands, but the US is currently not willing to do that job.
No thanks...down this path I will not travel. I will stick with the liberal values of free speech and the rule of law.
Also known as "the path that didn't stop the Nazis from slaughtering millions, and is currently allowing Nazis to try to organize for another attempt".
jasper76 wrote: So you're basically advocating vigilantism, thug-rule, perhaps even murder?
If the state won't deal with Nazism and that's what it takes to prevent Nazis from getting into power. I would be perfectly happy if the state outlawed Nazi organizations and considered advocating genocide to be criminal incitement to violence and/or hate speech. Imprisoning Nazis for their crimes is preferable to individuals having to take matters into their own hands, but the US is currently not willing to do that job.
No thanks...down this path I will not travel. I will stick with the liberal values of free speech and the rule of law.
Also known as "the path that didn't stop the Nazis from slaughtering millions, and is currently allowing Nazis to try to organize for another attempt".
I wish you luck in your war that was won some 70 years ago.
jasper76 wrote: I wish you luck in your war that was won some 70 years ago.
Given the existence of Nazism in 2017 and a government that is moving in a direction that is alarmingly close to fascism I think it's rather naive to say that the war was won 70 years ago. We got Hitler because people thought "it can't really be that bad", do we really want to stand complacently and pretend that it could never happen again? Whatever your feelings on the delivery of alternative hugs to Nazis might be, it is incredibly dangerous to bury your head in the sand and pretend that Nazis only exist in the history books.
jasper76 wrote: I wish you luck in your war that was won some 70 years ago.
Given the existence of Nazism in 2017 and a government that is moving in a direction that is alarmingly close to fascism I think it's rather naive to say that the war was won 70 years ago. We got Hitler because people thought "it can't really be that bad", do we really want to stand complacently and pretend that it could never happen again? Whatever your feelings on the delivery of alternative hugs to Nazis might be, it is incredibly dangerous to bury your head in the sand and pretend that Nazis only exist in the history books.
There is a vast gulf of distance between the actual nazis and the dip$h1+$ today. The conditions that allowed the rise of hitler do not exist today and no amount of careless rhetoric makes donald trump into hitler. The weimer republic and the US are nothing alike. The worst part here is "who is a nazi?" sure the redneck with the swastika tattoo is easy to figure out, but that title is being tossed around alot. what happens when you get alternative hugged back? cry and whine hate crime? for an attack you provoked by attacking people? attack ideas not people.
thekingofkings wrote: There is a vast gulf of distance between the actual nazis and the dip$h1+$ today.
Not really. The only meaningful difference is that the Nazis in Germany managed to get into power and carry out their plans, while current Nazis haven't yet.
The conditions that allowed the rise of hitler do not exist today
This is complacency and a lack of imagination. The fact that the exact same historical situation doesn't exist does NOT mean that a modern Nazi movement can't get into power.
and no amount of careless rhetoric makes donald trump into hitler.
Nobody is (seriously) arguing that Trump is Hitler. He's an incompetent clown, a terrible person, and an embarrassment to the US, but he isn't Hitler. The subject of this discussion is Richard Spencer, a Nazi and Trump supporter, not Trump himself.
The worst part here is "who is a nazi?" sure the redneck with the swastika tattoo is easy to figure out, but that title is being tossed around alot.
I think a pretty good starting point is "advocating the extermination of lesser races", which Richard Spencer has done.
what happens when you get alternative hugged back? cry and whine hate crime? for an attack you provoked by attacking people? attack ideas not people.
This is an absurd argument. If someone breaks into my house and is threatening me with a gun it's justifiable self defense if I shoot them. If they shoot me back it would be sheer insanity to argue that I somehow provoked the attack.
jasper76 wrote: So you're basically advocating vigilantism, thug-rule, perhaps even murder?
No thanks...down this path I will not travel. I will stick with the liberal values of free speech and the rule of law.
A quote from Nietzche comes to mind:
He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.
How about we just kick the Nazis down into the abyss and be done with it? Would that work out for everyone?
Meanwhile, laws protecting drinking water are apparently considered an "unnecessary regulation" by the coal industry. *Mental note...if passing through West Virginia, bring bottled water.
thekingofkings wrote: There is a vast gulf of distance between the actual nazis and the dip$h1+$ today.
Not really. The only meaningful difference is that the Nazis in Germany managed to get into power and carry out their plans, while current Nazis haven't yet.
The conditions that allowed the rise of hitler do not exist today
This is complacency and a lack of imagination. The fact that the exact same historical situation doesn't exist does NOT mean that a modern Nazi movement can't get into power.
certainly, they are such a small minority and noone takes them seriously.
and no amount of careless rhetoric makes donald trump into hitler.
Nobody is (seriously) arguing that Trump is Hitler. He's an incompetent clown, a terrible person, and an embarrassment to the US, but he isn't Hitler. The subject of this discussion is Richard Spencer, a Nazi and Trump supporter, not Trump himself.
The worst part here is "who is a nazi?" sure the redneck with the swastika tattoo is easy to figure out, but that title is being tossed around alot.
I think a pretty good starting point is "advocating the extermination of lesser races", which Richard Spencer has done.
dont really know who he is other than the "punch the nazi guy" will have to check that
what happens when you get alternative hugged back? cry and whine hate crime? for an attack you provoked by attacking people? attack ideas not people.
This is an absurd argument. If someone breaks into my house and is threatening me with a gun it's justifiable self defense if I shoot them. If they shoot me back it would be sheer insanity to argue that I somehow provoked the attack.
but noone is doing that, this guy was assaulted in the street for talking...
thekingofkings wrote: but noone is doing that, this guy was assaulted in the street for talking...
No, he was alternatively hugged in the street because he is a Nazi who advocates the extermination of the lesser races and the creation of a white nation to protect the purity of the superior white race. This is not a case of "lol, you disagree with me on tax policy UR A NAZI", Richard Spencer is actually a Nazi.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thekingofkings wrote: certainly, they are such a small minority and noone takes them seriously.
The Nazis were a small minority at one point too, and nobody took them seriously. And then they stopped being a small minority. While actual Nazis may currently be rare it would be incredibly naive to overlook the very real problems the US has with racism, and the potential for that racism to get worse.
BigWaaagh wrote: [Meanwhile, laws protecting drinking water are apparently considered an "unnecessary regulation" by the coal industry. *Mental note...if passing through West Virginia, bring bottled water.
Of course. They Republican party has proven, time and time again, that they care nothing for citizens or the environment, especially when they are in the way of profits.
Seriously, the left has left me behind. I sincerely hope after a period of time these people realize that they have become the very monsters that they rail against.
That depends, were the people being attacked actual Nazis like Richard Spencer, or were they merely people that the crowd disagreed with?
This is part of the problem. Milo by association with skitebart news is often called a nazi. and watching the (albeit 44 seconds) video on spencer, there was no justification whatsoever to run up and punch him, he even stated on camera he is not a neo nazi.
jasper76 wrote: Wining hearts and minds one beating at a time.
Seriously, the left has left me behind. I sincerely hope after a period of time these people realize that they have become the very monsters that they rail against.
They are the embodiment of the political horseshoe theory.
If people can't discuss this in a grown up fashion, you won't be discussing it. Temp lock for a while for people to cool off, and when we come back we're not discussing the Nazi punch. At all. You had a chance to discuss it and you have blown it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Feel free to start a new thread, this one is going to remain locked. There is too much rude behaviour to think that it can remotely pick up on the right side of dakka dakka's rules.
When creating a new thread, keep in mind my above post. In this new thread we're not discussing the Nazi punch. At all. You had a chance to discuss it and you have blown it. Make sure the new thread has a sensible title so we don't have to edit it first thing again, and try and keep the thread sensible for at least a while or else we'll have to reconsider having US Politics discussions in the OT.
" and that if you do you have violated His word and Insulting His teachings. There is great merit in it.
) I have few problem with people protesting against what someone have done or have said. It's a very different kettle of fish attempting to prevent someone from saying stuff in the first place.
