Recently I was idly browsing Google Images and I found a (work-safe) picture of a very pretty Japanese girl. It was a lovely picture, so I clicked on it. To my horror, I was taken to the Stormfront forum (the picture was part of a thread about how much the thread pozter detested interracial dating). I had only heard of Stormfront, and didn't know much about it. Safe to say I was not impressed.

What I want to know is how come Stormfront is allowed to exist, when it is clearly a hate speech site, and surely violating anti-racism laws? To give you an idea on the level of stupidity we're talking about, someone said that the Jews are to blame for pornography (the fact anyone is to "blame" for pornography itself is laughable) along with other things.

So why is it allowed to exist?

Well freedom of speech and all that. As long as they aren't advocating violence. It rubs me all kinds of wrong way, but there you go.

For the record, I'm fairly sure God is to blame for pornography.

Ill agree with that. Why else were women made so friggin attractive and make sex feel so good? If not to let our minds wander into doing such acts on camera. Makes sense to me

wikipedia wrote:In the United States, hate speech is legal (except for obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words).[52] Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States; the United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.

Simple. Don't go on the website. If they shut this down why not shut down Anarchist website, Communist Websites, Monarchists websites and feminists websites just to be fair? See where I'm coming from, if you don't agree with it doesn't mean it has to be closed down, also wouldn't it be smarter for the website to remain open for the Governments to properly keep watch on the Neo-nazi movement to keep stupid things from happening.

Voltaire wrote:I may not like what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it

White supremacists are idiots, but if you ban them from speaking about their views they will feel persecuted and their views will not be aired so you can't see/show how idiotic they actually are.

I thought this thread might be about new space marine flyer, but no, just facists.

I think the Yanks have the right of this one. I mean, I can see both sides of the argument, and I can see why the British way is preferable to many of the delicate types out there, but at the end of the day there should be no such thing as hate speech in my eyes. How many times have I been banned from this site for stating a fact? I had to suck on a week one for merely pointing out that Islam is inherently prejudiced towards women (It is) and that type of thing would get me locked up in the UK as a whole. I think its a crock of gak.

Basically I supported ISLAM4UKs right to march through Royal Wooton Basset. I fully agree freedom of speech, particularly for those that I disagree with.

I welcome them calling our soldiers baby rapers, as long as I can then retort with how utterly fething repugnant I find the tenets of their beliefs.

I believe its because the government doesnt want more people thinking like me. If extremist groups are allowed to behave in the way that I think they should, then more and more people are going to start agreeing with me.

Its swings and roundabouts, and I can see both governments apporaches to the matter. But I do prefer the American way of doing things.

I even heard of an Australian guy getting arrested after he went through the Hadith collections and Qur'an, picked out the most hateful and misogynistic stuff, and then read them aloud on a street corner. I mean, sure its a bit tactless and essentially amounts to shameless quote mining, but if a guy is simply quoting verbatim from their scriptures, and not giving his own opinions on them, how on earth can you be silenced for it?

How many times have I been banned from this site for stating a fact?

Dunno, but the so-called "facts" spouted by the idiots at stormfront are, at best, questionable, and at worst, outright lies.

mattyrm wrote:I think the Yanks have the right of this one. I mean, I can see both sides of the argument, and I can see why the British way is preferable to many of the delicate types out there, but at the end of the day there should be no such thing as hate speech in my eyes. How many times have I been banned from this site for stating a fact? I had to suck on a week one for merely pointing out that Islam is inherently prejudiced towards women (It is) and that type of thing would get me locked up in the UK as a whole. I think its a crock of gak.

Basically I supported ISLAM4UKs right to march through Royal Wooton Basset. I fully agree freedom of speech, particularly for those that I disagree with.

I welcome them calling our soldiers baby rapers, as long as I can then retort with how utterly fething repugnant I find the tenets of their beliefs.

I believe its because the government doesnt want more people thinking like me. If extremist groups are allowed to behave in the way that I think they should, then more and more people are going to start agreeing with me.

Its swings and roundabouts, and I can see both governments apporaches to the matter. But I do prefer the American way of doing things.

I even heard of an Australian guy getting arrested after he went through the Hadith collections and Qur'an, picked out the most hateful and misogynistic stuff, and then read them aloud on a street corner. I mean, sure its a bit tactless and essentially amounts to shameless quote mining, but if a guy is simply quoting verbatim from their scriptures, and not giving his own opinions on them, how on earth can you be silenced for it?

I love that entire post.

But its allowed to exist because people can and should be allowed to say whatever pleases them so long as it does not go against the right of another. IMO, just let it roll off your back, or deal with it however you as an individual see fit, but no group or government should have any say in the rights of an individual.

mattyrm wrote:I think the Yanks have the right of this one. I mean, I can see both sides of the argument, and I can see why the British way is preferable to many of the delicate types out there, but at the end of the day there should be no such thing as hate speech in my eyes. How many times have I been banned from this site for stating a fact? I had to suck on a week one for merely pointing out that Islam is inherently prejudiced towards women (It is) and that type of thing would get me locked up in the UK as a whole. I think its a crock of gak.

Basically I supported ISLAM4UKs right to march through Royal Wooton Basset. I fully agree freedom of speech, particularly for those that I disagree with.

I welcome them calling our soldiers baby rapers, as long as I can then retort with how utterly fething repugnant I find the tenets of their beliefs.

I believe its because the government doesnt want more people thinking like me. If extremist groups are allowed to behave in the way that I think they should, then more and more people are going to start agreeing with me.

Its swings and roundabouts, and I can see both governments apporaches to the matter. But I do prefer the American way of doing things.

I even heard of an Australian guy getting arrested after he went through the Hadith collections and Qur'an, picked out the most hateful and misogynistic stuff, and then read them aloud on a street corner. I mean, sure its a bit tactless and essentially amounts to shameless quote mining, but if a guy is simply quoting verbatim from their scriptures, and not giving his own opinions on them, how on earth can you be silenced for it?

Totally agree, there was the case as well of the girl arrested for naming the dead.

The new law was initially intended to remove Brian Haw, an anti-war protester who has camped in Parliament Square for four years.

But Mr Haw successfully fought off the latest attempt to evict him in the High Court, by arguing his protest pre-dated the legislation.

Epic legislative fail!

Melissia wrote:

The new law was initially intended to remove Brian Haw, an anti-war protester who has camped in Parliament Square for four years.

But Mr Haw successfully fought off the latest attempt to evict him in the High Court, by arguing his protest pre-dated the legislation.

Epic legislative fail!

Stayed there for ten years in the end, died last year of cancer. Probably not helped from living outside for ten years.

dæl wrote:I thought this thread might be about new space marine flyer, but no, just facists.

This made me giggle. Incidentally, I like the Stormtalon.

mattyrm wrote:I even heard of an Australian guy getting arrested after he went through the Hadith collections and Qur'an, picked out the most hateful and misogynistic stuff, and then read them aloud on a street corner. I mean, sure its a bit tactless and essentially amounts to shameless quote mining, but if a guy is simply quoting verbatim from their scriptures, and not giving his own opinions on them, how on earth can you be silenced for it?

It's only slightly better here when you try to do the same thing with the various misogynistic crap in the Bible.

It's just a social push to silence you, instead of a legal one.

If Stormfront is a white power site, why is its founder named Don Black?

Zing!

It was referringto his liver, not his skin.

Here in Montréal, we have our own punk brigade and Anarcho's that goes and bust up every fascist happening they can. I think that's an appropriate solution to this kind of level of stupidity... (plus it gives a use to anarchists!)

Is that also happening in the States?

Kovnik Obama wrote:Here in Montréal, we have our own punk brigade and Anarcho's that goes and bust up every fascist happening they can. I think that's an appropriate solution to this kind of level of stupidity... (plus it gives a use to anarchists!)

Is that also happening in the States?

Sadly, no, I don't think so. They are allowed to exist, I think, until they commit an actual felony that goes beyond talking out of their asses.

There is no law against inciting racial hatred in the US.

Closing down Stormfront will be a bad idea.

1. Freedom of speech still exists, dont go down the route of the UK where freedom of speech exists for some but not others, especially when some forms of hate speech are not challenged while others are challenged very rapidly and very heavy handedly. If Stormfront must go so must other extremist sites includes those promoting extremist Islam, extremist Zionism and Communism. This will be problematical as some hate groups dont like to think themselves as hate groups.

2. Stormfront and siters like it act as a honeypot, those who spend too much time there may be recognised as potential far right extremists. I makes security agenices jobs a lot easier.

3. Shutting down extremist sites gives them more publicity than they deserve, most people don't know about Stormfront, and dont care.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Here in Montréal, we have our own punk brigade and Anarcho's that goes and bust up every fascist happening they can. I think that's an appropriate solution to this kind of level of stupidity... (plus it gives a use to anarchists!)

Is that also happening in the States?

In Britain we have a massive anti-fascist movement and have had for decades, I think the Rock Against Racism concerts first happened in the 70s.

Ah, stormfront.

One of 3 forums where I have an IP ban.

Other 2 are the Raiders Message Board and the Chiefs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Here in Montréal, we have our own punk brigade and Anarcho's that goes and bust up every fascist happening they can. I think that's an appropriate solution to this kind of level of stupidity... (plus it gives a use to anarchists!)

Is that also happening in the States?

In Britain we have a massive anti-fascist movement and have had for decades, I think the Rock Against Racism concerts first happened in the 70s.

I take satisfaction in knowing that guy from the EDL got sucker punched by a Muslim.



And because I just think this needs to be viewed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIPD8qHhtVU



original interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYd9qbRz2fc&feature=related

mattyrm wrote: How many times have I been banned from this site for stating a fact?

Zero.

You've been suspended from the site (not banned yet, but persistant failure to learn could change that) multiple times for violating the site's rules, chief among them Be Polite. As an example, one of those Stormfront scumbags could register on Dakka, and it would be a violation of Rule #1 to call him a scumbag, despite it being a fact.

Melissia wrote:

How many times have I been banned from this site for stating a fact?

Dunno, but the so-called "facts" spouted by the idiots at stormfront are, at best, questionable, and at worst, outright lies.

you do know most of their facts come from medical text books and journals printed in the 1920s or in Nazi Germany, right?

Jews changed all that, apparently.

Piston Honda wrote:

Melissia wrote:

How many times have I been banned from this site for stating a fact?

Dunno, but the so-called "facts" spouted by the idiots at stormfront are, at best, questionable, and at worst, outright lies.

you do know most of their facts come from medical text books and journals printed in the 1920s or in Nazi Germany, right?

Jews changed all that, apparently.

So...they are lies/questionable then?

Piston Honda wrote:

Melissia wrote:

How many times have I been banned from this site for stating a fact?

Dunno, but the so-called "facts" spouted by the idiots at stormfront are, at best, questionable, and at worst, outright lies.

you do know most of their facts come from medical text books and journals printed in the 1920s or in Nazi Germany, right?

Jews changed all that, apparently.

Don't see your point, are you saying they are facts and proven in books that have since been altered, or that these people are using deliberately misleading information gleaned from prejudiced material?

Thats quite a brilliant use for auto-tune btw.

Squigsquasher wrote:So why is it allowed to exist?

For the same reason websites like Dakkadakka and google are "allowed" to exist.

Kilkrazy wrote:There is no law against inciting racial hatred in the US.

That's pretty dumb, or sad, or both... I don't care much about what happens on the Internet, because it's the Internet and you would be a fool to care too much about it... but if you go around and publicly assemble to shout that kind of dangerous propaganda, then you deserve to get repeatedly punched in the face for it. At least I hope that the U.S. judges are lenient when condemning acts of violence directed toward neo-nazi scum...

Kovnik Obama wrote:Here in Montréal, we have our own punk brigade and Anarcho's that goes and bust up every fascist happening they can. I think that's an appropriate solution to this kind of level of stupidity... (plus it gives a use to anarchists!)

Is that also happening in the States?

Yes, we have those in the States. We have the crusty kids who dress in black who are antifacist. The hippies who tend to go to the CSU and UC college systems here in California are also active against it. But really, back in the 80s and 90s the punks and sharps kicked the nazis off the streets. Maybe I don't go to as many shows as I used to, but I never see a nazi presence. Where back in the early and mid-nineties they were still hanging out at shows and on the street messing with the local youth until they were chased out of the scene. Most of the nazis I met, were not tolerated at shows or parties. In some places they couldn't get away with walking down the street. In the town I grew up in they used to hang out in the park and fight with the punks and skateboarders until a group of rival highschool gangs joined together with the punks and skaters and cleared them out. Keep in mind this is California I am talking about, and also I am an old man now and while I still go to shows, the younger people may be dealing with events that I no longer see. Ah, the memories of youth.

They're allowed to exist for the same reason that we're allowed to point out that they're racist morons.

Freedom O' Speech.

FYI, Stormfront is situated in 'Merica, so it doesn't have all those British hate speech laws applying to it.

Kovnik Obama wrote:you deserve to get repeatedly punched in the face for it. At least I hope that the U.S. judges are lenient when condemning acts of violence directed toward neo-nazi scum...

Sounds like dangerous propaganda. Careful or someone will report you for inciting violence against political groups.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There is no law against inciting racial hatred in the US.

That's pretty dumb, or sad, or both... I don't care much about what happens on the Internet, because it's the Internet and you would be a fool to care too much about it... but if you go around and publicly assemble to shout that kind of dangerous propaganda, then you deserve to get repeatedly punched in the face for it. At least I hope that the U.S. judges are lenient when condemning acts of violence directed toward neo-nazi scum...

It's there to allow people like you to write things like "you deserve to get repeatedly punched in the face for it." and not get arrested.
Essentially, it's present to fight the possibility of fascism (whether right wing or liberal) from coming to exist without a fight in the system.

dæl wrote:

Piston Honda wrote:

Melissia wrote:

How many times have I been banned from this site for stating a fact?

Dunno, but the so-called "facts" spouted by the idiots at stormfront are, at best, questionable, and at worst, outright lies.

you do know most of their facts come from medical text books and journals printed in the 1920s or in Nazi Germany, right?

Jews changed all that, apparently.

Don't see your point, are you saying they are facts and proven in books that have since been altered, or that these people are using deliberately misleading information gleaned from prejudiced material?

Thats quite a brilliant use for auto-tune btw.

They are using out dated medical text books that are inherently racist. Like Rosenau's medical text books which had African Americans having smaller brains as medical fact, African Americans were naturally uncivilized. Interracial activities are medically condemned.

This is not some White supremacist piece of propaganda. It was a text book used at Harvard, UNC, Yale etc.

The amount of discrimination against African Americans, women, Asians, poor people is rather quite interesting because they present it as facts with no information how or why. Rather it is just opinions or wishful thinking.

It is these kind of "facts" people at Storm Front bring up in arguments, saying they are true. But they believe in the Jewish conspiracy. Jews manipulated all of medicine.

So inciting violence against enemies of the State is now a hate crime? I think you know nothing about the legal definition of hate crimes, Biccat. Anyway, doesn't surprise me that someone with as little common sense as you would then automatically go back to the 'free speech goes both ways' defense, as if there wasn't obvious and reasonnable indications that such political orientations are highly dangerous to a prosper society.

Fascism is not a political party to these kids, it's a way of obtaining political meaning. That distinction alone brings it closer to something like terrorism than a political position in the left-right spectrum. In a democracy, you have to repress groups that use non-democratic means, like hatred.

TL, DR version : Hatred of hate isn't hate speech, it's a healthy attitude!

Kovnik Obama wrote:So inciting violence against enemies of the State is now a hate crime? I think you know nothing about the legal definition of hate crimes, Biccat. Anyway, doesn't surprise me that someone with as little common sense as you would then automatically go back to the 'free speech goes both ways' defense, as if there wasn't obvious and reasonnable indications that such political orientations are highly dangerous to a prosper society.

Fascism is not a political party to these kids, it's a way of obtaining political meaning. That distinction alone brings it closer to something like terrorism than a political position in the left-right spectrum. In a democracy, you have to repress groups that use non-democratic means, like hatred.

TL, DR version : Hatred of hate isn't hate speech, it's a healthy attitude!

Inciting violence is, regardless of its intended recipient, inciting violence. Hatred of hate is still hate.

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster

In any case, I think he was being sarcastic.

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster

Sorry, I don't intend on letting monsters live free, least of all express freely their opinion so that they can perpetuate them.

Inciting violence is, regardless of its intended recipient, inciting violence.

That's tautological. I think you mean to imply that it's wrong. In the sense that violence is always the mark of a less than optimal situation, yes, it's wrong. Unfortunately, it can become the only recourse left in order to avoid even worse situations (like fully grown national fascism)

Hatred of hate is still hate.

Yes, but it's directed at itself, so it should at least be self-aware. And that's way healthier (in my book at least) than blind hatred.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster

Sorry, I don't intend on letting monsters live free, least of all express freely their opinion so that they can perpetuate them.

If your going to continue the analogy perhaps you should take into account that by becoming monstrous you are perpetuating them, whilst simultaneously doubling their number. Giving them carte blanche to act as they wish is wrong but acting like them in a bid to get rid of them reduces your worth to the level of theirs.

But I don't act like them, see? Their violence is to be institutionnalized at the State level, mine remains an entirely popular phenomenon, and desires nothing else but a return to the normal situation of democracy. I'm advocating violence as a temporary means to avoid further violence, while they advocate violence in order to institute a state of terror and racial repression... And you don't see the difference?

Kovnik Obama wrote:But I don't act like them, see? Their violence is to be institutionnalized at the State level, mine remains an entirely popular phenomenon, and desires nothing else but a return to the normal situation of democracy. I'm advocating violence as a temporary means to avoid further violence, while they advocate violence in order to institute a state of terror and racial repression... And you don't see the difference?

I see advocating violence toward a group of people based on what they think. And you don't see how that's wrong?

If these people are engaged in violence, there are laws in place to deal with them, at which point they should be deal with for the violence alone. Criminalising thought and speech is a slippery slope.

No, I said to be violent toward them based on the way they act on their beleif. I even went as far as say that it doesn't matter if they want to assemble virtually on the Internet. But public assembly is a political action, and when it advocates the overthrowing of the rightfull government, followed by pogroms, then I react accordingly.

Criminalising thought and speech is a slippery slope.

And slippety slope arguments are the weakest of arguments.

Kovnik Obama wrote:No, I said to be violent toward them based on the way they act on their beleif. I even went as far as say that it doesn't matter if they want to assemble virtually on the Internet. But public assembly is a political action, and when it advocates the overthrowing of the rightfull government, followed by pogroms, then I react accordingly.

Criminalising thought and speech is a slippery slope.

And slippety slope arguments are the weakest of arguments.

If people are engaged in treason or enacting a coup, then i'm pretty sure there will be laws covering that. The right to peacefully protest is a basic right of democracy. Or are people only allowed to engage in political actions when you agree with their politics?

Care to explain why slippery slope arguments are any weaker than claiming your opinion is "popular" with no evidence.

Kovnik, your attitude scares me. You want to revoke these people's Freedom of Speech on the grounds that you disagree with them. I disagree with them too, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed basic human rights.

Kovnik, your attitude scares me. You want to revoke these people's Freedom of Speech on the grounds that you disagree with them. I disagree with them too, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed basic human rights.

Correction : on the ground that political and social science and history has proven that these people will use Freedom of Speech in order to implant a government that will then deny everyone else's Freedom of Speech. They will also use and abuse every other democratical rights to deny those same rights after.

And I deny them one basic right on the ground of their inability to responsably use it. We deny such rights (up to legal representation before a tribunal in the case of abusive quemanders) on a pretty regular basis, when reasonnable tests are passed.

If people are engaged in treason or enacting a coup, then i'm pretty sure there will be laws covering that. The right to peacefully protest is a basic right of democracy. Or are people only allowed to engage in political actions when you agree with their politics?

Laws didn't cover it back in the 30s, why would they now? Sometimes, the populace's vigilance is necessary.

Care to explain why slippery slope arguments are any weaker than claiming your opinion is "popular" with no evidence.

The essence of a slippery slope argument is to denote a risk that isn't apparent initially in a given situation. The simple fact that you tell me that this is a slippery slope argument is, in theory, sufficient to annul the opposition brought by you telling me it : you just made me aware of the risk. Thus I can safely say that the argument is still worthy, because you've allowed me to avoid the slippery side of it.

And 'popular' was used in the context of 'originating from the populace', not in the sense that my opinion is widely present. Which I think it is, but haven't any proof of...

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Correction : on the ground that political and social science and history has proven that these people will use Freedom of Speech in order to implant a government that will then deny everyone else's Freedom of Speech. They will also use and abuse every other democratical rights to deny those same rights after.

And I deny them one basic right on the ground of their inability to responsably use it. We deny such rights (up to legal representation before a tribunal in the case of abusive quemanders) on a pretty regular basis, when reasonnable tests are passed.

Because these people might deny human rights, we will deny human rights. This is the crux of your argument. I refer you to the Nietzsche quote earlier.
Show me a incident where people are relieved of their human rights when there is not an immediate threat to the nation, something white supremacists are not.

Laws didn't cover it back in the 30s, why would they now? Sometimes, the populace's vigilance is necessary..

The essence of a slippery slope argument is to denote a risk that isn't apparent initially in a given situation. The simple fact that you tell me that this is a slippery slope argument is, in theory, sufficient to annul the opposition brought by you telling me it : you just made me aware of the risk. Thus I can safely say that the argument is still safe, because you've allowed me to avoid the slippery side of it.

Treason is as old as the hills, I'm pretty sure it existed in the 30s. Hitler if that's who you are referring to, took power legally, via elections.

The inherent risk in claiming that these people are a potential threat to society so therefore they are absolved of their rights, is who decides what constitutes a threat. All your plan would do is make it easier for a future fascist regime to deny rights, as there would be a precident.

You do not win against white supremacy by denying them free speech, you give them a platform for their ridiculousness, just as Christopher Hitchens did.

And 'popular' was used in the context of 'originating from the populace', not in the sense that my opinion is widely present. Which I think it is, but haven't any proof of..

I didn't mean that thing that people normally mean, I meant another derivation. Hmmm...

Because these people might deny human rights, we will deny human rights. This is the crux of your argument. I refer you to the Nietzsche quote earlier.

Public assembly is already a political action. It's no longer a 'might', it's a 'will if allowed'. A criminal intent, when followed by steps taken toward the enactment of the intent, is sometimes enough to constitute a crime.

Show me a incident where people are relieved of their human rights when there is not an immediate threat to the nation, something white supremacists are not.

As mentionned previously, the case of abusive quemanders. We will deny someone the basic right to appeal to a court based on the fact that he has shown himself irresponsible in it's use. Then I could mention just about every criminal behind bars, to which we deny the basic human right of freedom because they have shown themselves incapable of using that right in a social context.

Treason is as old as the hills, I'm pretty sure it existed in the 30s. Hitler if that's who you are referring to, took power legally, via elections.

True, but there wasn't a crime of subverting democratic processes in order to abscond them in the future. And like you said, Hitler took power through legal means, which is why, at some point, the populace should have risen against his mouvement (since the government couldn't).

The inherent risk in claiming that these people are a potential threat to society so therefore they are absolved of their rights, is who decides what constitutes a threat. All your plan would do is make it easier for a future fascist regime to deny rights, as there would be a precident.

This is what the criminal code already does. It doesn't mean the government is closer to being fascist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I didn't mean that thing that people normally mean, I meant another derivation. Hmmm...

It's an accepted use of the term, and it's pretty obvious from the context, I think. Anyway, got a problem with the ambiguity of certain terms, just ask, instead of assuming.

I'm pretty sure John Metzger spoke at a Nation of Islam rally in the 80's. Proving that white and black supremacists can find common ground...in antisemitism.

AustonT wrote:I'm pretty sure John Metzger spoke at a Nation of Islam rally in the 80's. Proving that white and black supremacists can find common ground...in antisemitism.

Since when did Black Supremacist = Islam?
I'm confused.

I know next to nothing about Black Supremacists, but I always had the impression they had a certain link to Islam... is that not true?

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Public assembly is already a political action. It's no longer a 'might', it's a 'will if allowed'. A criminal intent is sometimes enough to constitute a crime.

Yes, criminal intent is relevant in trials, but you show me one incident where someone has been convicted of intending to commit a crime. There is no such thing, because it would be unprovable.

Kovnik Obama wrote:As mentionned previously, the case of abusive quemanders. We will deny someone the basic right to appeal to a court based on the fact that he has shown himself irresponsible in it's use. Then I could mention just about every criminal behind bars, to which we deny the basic human right of freedom because they have shown themselves incapable of using that right in a social context.

What exactly is an abusive quemander?
As for criminals...

Article 5 provides the right to liberty, subject only to lawful arrest or detention under certain other circumstances, such as arrest on reasonable suspicion of a crime or imprisonment in fulfilment of a sentence.
European Convetion of Human Rights

Kovnik Obama wrote:
This is what the criminal code already does. It doesn't mean the government is closer to being fascist.

I apologise, I didn't realise that someone who had committed a crime was no different from someone who hasn't and just thinks things you find unpalatable.

Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's an accepted use of the term, and it's pretty obvious from the context, I think. Anyway, got a problem with the ambiguity of certain terms, just ask, instead of assuming.

Obvious from the context? If someone says the words "popular opinion." They do not generally mean 'originating from the populous' they mean an opinion widely held.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

AustonT wrote:I'm pretty sure John Metzger spoke at a Nation of Islam rally in the 80's. Proving that white and black supremacists can find common ground...in antisemitism.

Since when did Black Supremacist = Islam?
I'm confused.

This should help ease your confusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_supremacy

AustonT wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

AustonT wrote:I'm pretty sure John Metzger spoke at a Nation of Islam rally in the 80's. Proving that white and black supremacists can find common ground...in antisemitism.

Since when did Black Supremacist = Islam?
I'm confused.

This should help ease your confusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_supremacy

Oh I see, the Nation of Islam is a Black Supremacist organization.
A nutty one too, by the looks of it, judging by the whole Yakub thing.

It was the first well-known one in the US, AFAIK.

LoneLictor wrote:They're allowed to exist for the same reason that we're allowed to point out that they're racist morons.

Freedom O' Speech.

FYI, Stormfront is situated in 'Merica, so it doesn't have all those British hate speech laws applying to it.

Ngghhaaahhhh

dæl wrote:
Yes, criminal intent is relevant in trials, but you show me one incident where someone has been convicted of intending to commit a crime. There is no such thing, because it would be unprovable.

Plotting is a crime

Kovnik Obama wrote:What exactly is an abusive quemander?

The term might be different in the States, or course, but it's someone who has been deemed to have request the judgement of the court for no valid reasons, and is thus denied the right to do such request in their own name in the future.

As for criminals...
Article 5 provides the right to liberty, subject only to lawful arrest or detention under certain other circumstances, such as arrest on reasonable suspicion of a crime or imprisonment in fulfilment of a sentence.
European Convetion of Human Rights

Yes. That's right, under the correct circumstances, we will deny the basic right of freedom to someone, based on their actions.

Kovnik Obama wrote:
This is what the criminal code already does. It doesn't mean the government is closer to being fascist.

I apologise, I didn't realise that someone who had committed a crime was no different from someone who hasn't and just thinks things you find unpalatable.

You again go back to the subjective argument. How can this be better explained to you? I believe that Fascism is objectively abject, it's a moral and social desease that cost us millions of life in the last century. If you want to attack this as 'my opinion', fine, refer yourself to the political science school of Economy & Law, their model shows very well how democracy shouldn't imply allowing the tools for it's subversion. You'll have a theoritical model to back up what I thought was available to common sense.

Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's an accepted use of the term, and it's pretty obvious from the context, I think. Anyway, got a problem with the ambiguity of certain terms, just ask, instead of assuming.

Obvious from the context? If someone says the words "popular opinion." They do not generally mean 'originating from the populous' they mean an opinion widely held.

I said a popular phenomenon, and opposed it to an action coming from the State. Thats the dichotomy you missed, I guess : government based action vs. citizenry based actions. In that context, yes, I thought it was obvious. Sorry if it wasn't.

Hate speech is illegal around here. Last I checked, France was not a fascist dictatorship. In fact, we're pretty itchy about our freedom of speech too. But hey, that places us on the proverbial slippery slope and we're firmly on our way to it, right ? Well, in fact, it's been the case since 1881, and still no would-be totalitarian government in sight...

I would be sincerely interested in discussing this matter, but as always, I see there is way too much emotion about it to allow for a constructive exchange, so I'll leave it at that. I guess there is no amendment that preaches open-mindedness.

Plotting is a crime

Plotting is an action, not an intent.

someone who has been deemed to have requestthe judgement of the court for no valid reasons, and is thus denied the right to do such request in their own name in the future.

Someone who has acted in a certain manner. again action, not thought or opinion.

You again go back to the subjective argument. How can this be better explained to you? I believe that Fascism is objectively abject, it's a moral and social desease that cost us millions of life in the last century. If you want to attack this as 'my opinion', fine, refer yourself to the political science school of Economy & Law, their model shows very well how democracy shouldn't imply allowing the tools for it's subversion. You'll have a theoritical model to back up what I thought was available to common sense

There is nothing subjective regarding one person being a criminal and the other not. One has broken the law, the other hasn't. Thats pretty absolute. I am not attacking your opinion on fascism, but your opinion on how to deal with fascism. If these people were an immediate threat to our way of life, and there were NO other options available to stop them then yes, violence and the suspension of their human rights would be the correct course of action. Neither of those prerequisites are there though.

I will say this one last time,
Dealing with fascism in a fascist manner makes you a fascist.

You missed the part where I stated about 4 times already that I oppose their right to assemble publicly, not to think what they think.

If you are going to get all strung up about a thread, please read it properly, at least.

Dealing with fascism in a fascist manner makes you a fascist.

Then you clearly know nothing about fascism. Being violent isn't being fascist.

There is nothing subjective regarding one person being a criminal and the other not.

That's funny, because half of the elements required to constitute a crime (the Mens Rea) is the subjective part of it.

Kovnik Obama wrote:You missed the part where I stated about 4 times already that I oppose their right to assemble publicly, not to think what they think.

If you are going to get all strung up about a thread, please read it properly, at least.

''Dealing with fascism in a fascist manner makes you a fascist. ''

Then you clearly know nothing about fascism. Being violent isn't being fascist.

I have read the thread, what with participating in it and all.

You wish that they receive violence for engaging in their basic, human right of freedom of assembly, based on what? Not that they are committing a crime, or have committed a crime, but that they might. And you base the fact they might on what exactly? That their ideology is a threat to the status quo? That's kind of the point of political protest, to challenge the status quo, or does democracy have such a tenuous grip on society that a tiny minority could usurp it?

Fascism in its most basic form is the belief we should all be the same, it achieves this aim through authoritarian means.

That's funny, because half of the elements required to constitute a crime (the Mens Rea) is the subjective part of it.

Thats quite funny, thinking criminal liability is the same as a crime.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Sorry, I don't intend on letting monsters live free, least of all express freely their opinion so that they can perpetuate them.

A good attitude to have. So long as you're safely in the majority.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Correction : on the ground that political and social science and history has proven that these people will use Freedom of Speech in order to implant a government that will then deny everyone else's Freedom of Speech. They will also use and abuse every other democratical rights to deny those same rights after.

...and you're using your Freedom of Speech to implant a government that will deny them their Freedom of Speech.

Put another way: "Freedom is Slavery"

...and you're using your Freedom of Speech to implant a government that will deny them their Freedom of Speech.

Put another way: "Freedom is Slavery"

Admittedly, yes, up to a point. But I see it as slavery to reason. Still, like denying freedom of actions to violent criminals, I think it's a lesser evil than allowing them to use Freedom of Speech in order to subvert just about every other basic right, some of which are much more important than Freedom of Speech (like Right to Life, for exemple)

A good attitude to have. So long as you're safely in the majority

Yeah, well of course if the majority became fascist I would have to switch to more dire means of denial of rights, like denying their right to live with high explosives. See, if you allow them the right to assemble publicly and enter the democratical arena, how can you then conscentiously (sp?) deny them the right to enact their policies once they get elected? Now is anyone going to argue that a democratically elected fascist government is a just government? Because THAT will make me go ballistic...

Kovnik Obama wrote:Now is anyone going to argue that a democratically elected fascist government is a just government? Because THAT will make me go ballistic...

In this day and age, it would be incredibly unlikely, although not impossible if somewhere had the troubles that say Greece does currently. I'm not that up on German history, but I think the fall of the Weimar Republic and economical troubles of Germany in the 30s led to the election of Hitler. Here in Britain we have the BNP, they have 4,200 members, out of 65 million people. And they are quite moderate on the far right scale. These people are no threat to anyone and will never see power.

If it ever happened, then no, they would not be a just government (quite the opposite), but they would, unfortunately, be a legitimate one.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Yeah, well of course if the majority became fascist I would have to switch to more dire means of denial of rights, like denying their right to live with high explosives. See, if you allow them the right to assemble publicly and enter the democratical arena, how can you then conscentiously (sp?) deny them the right to enact their policies once they get elected?

You can't.

Which is why you campaign against people who want to enact policies you find abhorrent. And you vote.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Now is anyone going to argue that a democratically elected fascist government is a just government? Because THAT will make me go ballistic...

"Just" government? No, I wouldn't say such a government is "just" because that's a value judgment. But I would say it's legitimate. If not the people, who decides whether a government is legitimate?

I guess there are subtleties on the term 'legitimate', in my opinion a legitimate goverment isn't just one elected by proper means. Democracy doesn't, or shouldn't imply the means of becoming a dictatorship, it should have every possible stop-gap measures in place to avoid it, including the populace rising against it's elected officials.

And by fascist government I don't just refer to a gov that has the swatiska on it's flag, I mean full-on paramilitary pogroms, institution promoting racial violence, hatred and an ultra-violent culture (''war is to man what giving birth is to women'' and all that horrible crap), expansionnism, propaganda, full scale paranoia and denunciation...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

If not the people, who decides whether a government is legitimate?

Reasonnable people, Directors of Elections, Supreme Court...

Hyd wrote:Hate speech is illegal around here. Last I checked, France was not a fascist dictatorship. In fact, we're pretty itchy about our freedom of speech too. But hey, that places us on the proverbial slippery slope and we're firmly on our way to it, right ? Well, in fact, it's been the case since 1881, and still no would-be totalitarian government in sight...

Splitting hairs on this one, but the Vichy Government from 1940 to 1945 was just a bit, very slightly fascist in France, almost to the point of being NSDAP fascist. Currently that is indeed not the case, but still it has not been since 1881, though that may be where it started

You can't.

Which is why you campaign against people who want to enact policies you find abhorrent. And you vote.

I guess it's obvious I'm a dirty elitist. but I don't trust people any further than I can throw them. And I'm a short skinny dude, so I can't throw the average fat bastard very far.

So I'd rather not take the risk of letting elections (which, designed as they are right now, allow the legal overthrowing of democracy) decides which races can and can't live.

Splitting hairs on this one, but the Vichy Government from 1940 to 1945 was just a bit, very slightly fascist in France, almost to the point of being NSDAP fascist. Currently that is indeed not the case, but still it has not been since 1881, though that may be where it started

You are talking about one fascist government put in place by another fascist government after a conquest. Not exactly something that can be linked back to free speech.

@Kovnik, Who decides who the monsters are? So you denounce hate speech, great, I do too. Unless of course its a Polack joke, or a Newfie joke, those are hysterical. Oh wait, maybe not to some people. So if I call someone a monster because the told a particularly offensive Polish joke, and you don't agree, are you a monster too? If you and I agree along 99% of EVERYTHING, but that 1% disagreement is contentious and heated, is one of us a monster? Who then? That is the slippery slope of that argument IMHO


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

You can't.

Which is why you campaign against people who want to enact policies you find abhorrent. And you vote.

I guess it's obvious I'm a dirty elitist. but I don't trust people any further than I can throw them. And I'm a short skinny dude, so I can't throw the average fat bastard very far.

So I'd rather not take the risk of letting elections (which, designed as they are right now, allow the legal overthrowing of democracy) decides which races can and can't live.

Splitting hairs on this one, but the Vichy Government from 1940 to 1945 was just a bit, very slightly fascist in France, almost to the point of being NSDAP fascist. Currently that is indeed not the case, but still it has not been since 1881, though that may be where it started

You are talking about one fascist government put in place by another fascist government after a conquest. Not exactly something that can be linked back to free speech.

Not linking it to free speech, linking it to a statement that forgot 5 years worth of the 20th century

@Kovnik, Who decides who the monsters are?

Again, the reasonnable people.

So if I call someone a monster because the told a particularly offensive Polish joke, and you don't agree, are you a monster too?

If its a joke, then no. Hate speech isn't 'Speech that hurts x or y 's feelings', it's speech which advocate violence toward a legally protected group, and strong advocacy at that, too.

That is the slippery slope of that argument

All legal arguments have a slippery slope side to them. They can all be abused in the right context. It's why you see 'reasonnable' added on next to just about every article. It's a test, either a subjective one (reasonnability in the eyes of the judge), or an objective one (reasonnability by tests). That doesn't mean that one should revert to simply accepting hate speech and hateful public demonstrations (like the hanging and burning of black baby dolls at KKK fairs) because it's sometimes hard(er) to draw the line.

Not linking it to free speech, linking it to a statement that forgot 5 years worth of the 20th century

Well, no one can deny that. But while there's definitly a cross-section of French higher class with heavy fascist elements, at least I think it's safe to say that it's not a inherent characteristic of French politics, just a (really stupid) reactionnary mouvement to the loss of influence by the military and the church (unfortunately, the Catholic Church in France was very much behind Vichy)

The extreme Right deserves to have it's views aired, just like anyone else. I mean, the extreme Left, irrelevant and cranky as it is, is still allowed to go about its business, and one only needs to examine Kovnik's views (someone quoted them, so I saw them, unfortunately) to see see how tolerant, peaceful and respectful of individual freedom they are.

He advocates terrorism against a majority that disagrees with his views, in this very thread. That is no better than the behaviour of the BNP or EDL. In fact, it's a lot worse.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

@Kovnik, Who decides who the monsters are?

Again, the reasonnable people.

As defined by who? "Reasonable" is a fairly subjective definition and gives plenty of wiggle room. a group of "reasonable" people may decide they don't like something that you do. Does that make you unreasonable?

If its a joke, then no. Hate speech isn't 'Speech that hurts x or y 's feelings', it's speech which advocate violence toward a legally protected group, and strong advocacy at that, too.

Polish jokes, Italian jokes, Chinese jokes, etc. are all indicative of intolerance and ignorance. Intolerance and intolerance are the foundation that racial supremacy are built upon. Not everyone who smokes weed will become a thieving crackhead, but some will (and a small percentage at that, but one out of 100 is still too many).

All legal arguments have a slippery slope side to them. They can all be abused in the right context.

And here is where you agree with me. Your "monster" argument against white power movement is not by itself bad in all parts (using violence to stop violence has a tendency to backfire 100% of the time). Now suppose a group of these reasonable people who opposed the racists, we will say they are from Ontario, decide that they are sick and tired of having everything printed in English and in French. Furthermore, they are sick and tired of black flies. So this group of reasonable people decides to violently oppose and destroy Quebec, just as all reasonable people just destroyed racism.

Some have called me a monster because I eat meat, and enjoy leather shoes. Some have called me a monster because I joined the military and went to war. Some have called me a monster because I worked for the Department of Corrections. Some have called me a monster for my religious beliefs.

Are these people reasonable? Probably. Am I a monster? Don't think so, but who knows. If enough reasonable people tell me I am they may convince me.

Piston Honda wrote:Ah, stormfront.

One of 3 forums where I have an IP ban.

Other 2 are the Raiders Message Board and the Chiefs.

Not the chargers as well Piston?

Could also aim at the Seahawks just for old times.




As to Stormfront, its sadly one of those things I'd just avoid on the net. Way too much stuff about to raise my blood temprature, and the sad truth is there is not much in the way of hell I can do about it, so I just tend to ignore them.

Albatross wrote:
He advocates terrorism against a majority that disagrees with his views, in this very thread. That is no better than the behaviour of the BNP or EDL. In fact, it's a lot worse.

Indeed.

Albatross wrote:The extreme Right deserves to have it's views aired, just like anyone else. I mean, the extreme Left, irrelevant and cranky as it is, is still allowed to go about its business, and one only needs to examine Kovnik's views (someone quoted them, so I saw them, unfortunately) to see see how tolerant, peaceful and respectful of individual freedom they are.

How are his views "extreme left"?

We're not talking about extreme right or left, we're talking about extreme racism. There are racists all over the political spectrum.

Kilkrazy wrote:We're not talking about extreme right or left, we're talking about extreme racism. There are racists all over the political spectrum.

Surely if you take the viewpoint of communism that everyone is equal, you're not really allowed to be racist.

Mel, KO advocated violent suppression of racist, facist scumbags, and that it happen via popular action (grassroots as opposed to governmental). I would guess that a person could describe this as leftist because it's in opposition to a facist (right) group, and it's supposed to be action coming from the people rather than the state. It's radical because it's advocacy of violence, obviously enough.

This is actually not all that different from how a lot of people on here have talked about the Westboro Baptists, for one example, but most of us have come to the conclusion that violence is not the proper answer to hateful speech.

Mannahnin wrote:I would guess that a person could describe this as leftist because it's in opposition to a facist (right) group

What does support for the economic system of free markets have to do with fascism?

Facism is authoritarian. Authoritarianism is classically on the Right side of the political spectrum, isn't it?

wiki wrote:In politics, the Right, right-wing and rightist have been defined as support or acceptance of social hierarchy.[1][2][3] Inequality is viewed by the Right as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1] whether it arises through traditional social differences[4] or from competition in market economies.[5][6]

The political terms Right and Left were coined during the French Revolution, and were a reference to where people sat in the French parliament. Those who sat to the right of the president's chair were broadly supportive of the institutions of Ancien Régime[7][8][9][10] The original right in France was composed of those supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism.[11] The Right invoked natural law and divine law to explain the normality of social inequalities.[1] Use of the expression le droit (the right) became more prominent in France after the restoration of its monarchy in 1815, when it was applied to the Ultra-royalists.[12]

I think I've been silent long enough on this one:
Forums like Stormfront allow people who already hold a certain set of beliefs to share them semi publicly with other people like them. That's not so much a bad thing.
I have no problem with standing up for your race, and I think it's very sad that if you do so and you are white immediately you must be evil. The same is not true of blacks, latinos, and natives. There's also a fine line between standing up for your race and being a supremacist. Throughout the course of my life I have become aware that I am in fact highly prejudiced. That doesn't make me walk down the street yelling racial slurs at every person I meet. It makes me aware of my preconceived notions of the people I meet based on their ethnicity given by their name, appearance, and accent or language. I have always held to the belief that racist people (talking white in this instance) will always be racist, in the absence of color they are perfectly willing and able to be prejudiced against other people of the same skin tone. American history has provided us with perfect examples when the influx of the Irish in the early 19th century, Germans in the late 19th century, and Italians in the early 20th century had wide spread racism against other Caucasian groups from the primarily Anglo (and let's be honest Anglo-Irish) majority.
We have created a cultural stigma in the US probably starting in the 70's where supporting your own culture became unpopular if you happened to be white, but supporting other cultures made you sophisticated. I'm sure nearly every American knows that February is Black History Month, I am equally sure that nearly every American does not know that March is Irish History Month (or Irish-American but I despise the concept of hyphenated Americans).
I'm not advocating hate, there's really no place for hate in society. But I would rather have separatists and supremacists of every color out in the open. I also want them to be treated with equal disdain. I want white advocacy groups to find the same acceptance as those for latinos and blacks. I want every culture to receive the same respect and the same scrutiny. I also want to see where my and my children's enemies are in society, and where their advocates are. We certainly won't be attending any Klan meetings, but I want to know who will be there to advocate for my kids white, latino, AND native heritage as whites become the minority. Stormfront.org ain't it and is in fact an enemy to everything I believe in, but they are an example of the freedoms American's enjoy. Even the freedom to be a bigot.
Before you decide to label me some sort of white supremacist, allow me to disabuse you of that notion.

Mannahnin wrote:
This is actually not all that different from how a lot of people on here have talked about the Westboro Baptists, for one example, but most of us have come to the conclusion that violence is not the proper answer to hateful speech.

You may have come to that conclusion, I have not. The last person who espoused his belief in the "one drop" theory to me was politely allowed to finish his discussion and outline his beliefs. I quoted Heinlein right before I rearranged his face for him. Blah blah internet tough guy, blah. I still believe in a society of personal responsibility where I don't have to call the cops to right every wrong, sometimes a right proper beating gets the message across.

Mannahnin wrote:

wiki wrote:The original right in France was composed of those supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism.

Sounds familiar. Sounds like American conservatism.

Melissia wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

wiki wrote:The original right in France was composed of those supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism.

Sounds familiar. Sounds like American conservatism.

SHOCK say it ain't so! The American right is similar to the Original right! I am horrified.
/Sarcasm off.
Except for the part where American conservatives have more in common with the Revolutionary Left, being that they are conservatives in a country founded on basic classical liberal principles.

AustonT wrote:I have no problem with standing up for your race, and I think it's very sad that if you do so and you are white immediately you must be evil. The same is not true of blacks, latinos, and natives. There's also a fine line between standing up for your race and being a supremacist.

I think you made a lot of good and reasonable points, but this is the one I would be wary of. There are two reasons why people standing up as proud of their White or Anglo/Nordic or Northern European heritage are viewed differently than people standing up as being proud of their Black, Hispanic, or Native American heritage.

1. Power. Historically in the US the white folks have had the wealth and the power- cultural, legislative, and physical (military and police). The folks standing up as something else are reacting to their own lesser power and embracing their culture despite how it has been viewed or treated as being of lesser value.
2. Hate groups. The KKK and other hate groups have used the language of pride in their own heritage as disingenous cover for their hatred and abuse of others. The KKK claimed to be defending "traditional" morality, religion, and American values as they terrorized and murdered innocent people. They still do it today, though thankfully their actual violence is at least mostly abated.

The latter reason is, I think, why most folks' gut reaction to a white person standing up for his race is looked at as disturbing and suspicious. Because point 1 means there's little or no practical need or call to stand up in defense of white people/culture, and point 2 means even a non-hateful person using the same language that the hatemongers and terrorists do is making himself look like one of them.

AustonT wrote:Throughout the course of my life I have become aware that I am in fact highly prejudiced.

Cherry picking a quote, but doing it to support his statement. EVERYONE is born and raised with prejudice. We get them from our parents, our neighbors, and from personal experience. Regardless of race, and having these prejudices does not make you a racist. By no litmus test. Recognizing that you have prejudice(s?) is an important step to understanding yourself. Knowing where they came from will help you to overcome them.

I personally celebrate both my Polish and Italian heritage. Mostly through food. That's why I'm fat. Back OT tho. Being proud of where I came from, to me anyway, makes it more exciting to see where we are going. Celebrate where you came from, share your culture with those around you, and teach your children to respect other cultures, while maintaining pride in their own. My nieces may have some trouble with that, being Polish, Italian, Puerto Rican, Kentucky Hill Folk.

Having pride is different than advocating separation from, or hate of other races.

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

wiki wrote:The original right in France was composed of those supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism.

Sounds familiar. Sounds like American conservatism.

SHOCK say it ain't so! The American right is similar to the Original right! I am horrified.
/Sarcasm off.
Except for the part where American conservatives have more in common with the Revolutionary Left, being that they are conservatives in a country founded on basic classical liberal principles.

Well, there's multiple different parts of American conservatism, of course. Shock! A two-sided axis results in broad groupings!

Generally speaking, American Conservatives do support hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism. I don't think Libertarians really fit into the mainstream of American Conservatism, though they or some of their ideas have gotten co-opted a bit in recent years and gotten more airtime.

dæl wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:We're not talking about extreme right or left, we're talking about extreme racism. There are racists all over the political spectrum.

Surely if you take the viewpoint of communism that everyone is equal, you're not really allowed to be racist.

No doubt that is true in theory. In practice, racism is found among left wing voters too.

I have always been of the opinion that it isn't about black and white, but in fact haves and have nots.

dæl wrote:I have always been of the opinion that it isn't about black and white, but in fact haves and have nots.

In the broad sense that is true, but in the American South, the KKK were oftentimes just as poor as the blacks they were attacking.

On the Macro level though, One side wanting to keep what it has against the other side wanting a better piece/fairer shot sums up most conflict through the ages

Mannahnin wrote:Generally speaking, American Conservatives do support hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism. I don't think Libertarians really fit into the mainstream of American Conservatism, though they or some of their ideas have gotten co-opted a bit in recent years and gotten more airtime.

Then they get promptly ignored when the powerful social conservative lobbyists get their say.

These days, apparently it's controversial to say that social conservatism is in direct conflict with libertarianism

Shock and dismay. Or something.

treadhead1944 wrote:

dæl wrote:I have always been of the opinion that it isn't about black and white, but in fact haves and have nots.

In the broad sense that is true, but in the American South, the KKK were oftentimes just as poor as the blacks they were attacking.

On the Macro level though, One side wanting to keep what it has against the other side wanting a better piece/fairer shot sums up most conflict through the ages

Hate to get too Marxist, but the bourgeoisie have always engaged in a divide and rule policy, by cultivating hatred between different parts of the poor it keeps them from unifying and actually realising the unfairness of the system.

dæl wrote:

treadhead1944 wrote:

dæl wrote:I have always been of the opinion that it isn't about black and white, but in fact haves and have nots.

In the broad sense that is true, but in the American South, the KKK were oftentimes just as poor as the blacks they were attacking.

On the Macro level though, One side wanting to keep what it has against the other side wanting a better piece/fairer shot sums up most conflict through the ages

Hate to get too Marxist, but the bourgeoisie have always engaged in a divide and rule policy, by cultivating hatred between different parts of the poor it keeps them from unifying and actually realising the unfairness of the system.

Polarization of the classes? Been a while since Modern European History at the college level.

Albatross wrote:The extreme Right deserves to have it's views aired, just like anyone else. I mean, the extreme Left, irrelevant and cranky as it is, is still allowed to go about its business, and one only needs to examine Kovnik's views (someone quoted them, so I saw them, unfortunately) to see see how tolerant, peaceful and respectful of individual freedom they are.

He advocates terrorism against a majority that disagrees with his views, in this very thread. That is no better than the behaviour of the BNP or EDL. In fact, it's a lot worse.

So the Résistance will now be redefined as a terrorist group? What about the Jewish ghettos rebellions?

... Oh who am I kidding, the dude won't even enter the proverbial arena of debate.

treadhead1944 wrote:

dæl wrote:

treadhead1944 wrote:

dæl wrote:I have always been of the opinion that it isn't about black and white, but in fact haves and have nots.

In the broad sense that is true, but in the American South, the KKK were oftentimes just as poor as the blacks they were attacking.

On the Macro level though, One side wanting to keep what it has against the other side wanting a better piece/fairer shot sums up most conflict through the ages

Hate to get too Marxist, but the bourgeoisie have always engaged in a divide and rule policy, by cultivating hatred between different parts of the poor it keeps them from unifying and actually realising the unfairness of the system.

Polarization of the classes? Been a while since Modern European History at the college level.

In a sense, not quite yet though, there still remains an small chance of social mobility, although this seems to be becoming less and less likely. Which doesn't bode well if you follow the Marxist trail of thought as that path leads to revolution, and reform is generally less bloody than revolt, so would be preferable for everyone.

EPL = Columbian guerrillas fighting for communist rule by murdering anyone who disagrees with them, despite the fact that their government is democratic and has elections regularly.

It's an insult to "La Résistance" to compare the two..

dæl wrote:

treadhead1944 wrote:

dæl wrote:

treadhead1944 wrote:

dæl wrote:I have always been of the opinion that it isn't about black and white, but in fact haves and have nots.

In the broad sense that is true, but in the American South, the KKK were oftentimes just as poor as the blacks they were attacking.

On the Macro level though, One side wanting to keep what it has against the other side wanting a better piece/fairer shot sums up most conflict through the ages

Hate to get too Marxist, but the bourgeoisie have always engaged in a divide and rule policy, by cultivating hatred between different parts of the poor it keeps them from unifying and actually realising the unfairness of the system.

Polarization of the classes? Been a while since Modern European History at the college level.

In a sense, not quite yet though, there still remains an small chance of social mobility, although this seems to be becoming less and less likely. Which doesn't bode well if you follow the Marxist trail of thought as that path leads to revolution, and reform is generally less bloody than revolt, so would be preferable for everyone.

One can hope. I heard that a pig with wings was seen in Cardiff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:EPL = Columbian guerrillas fighting for communist rule by murdering anyone who disagrees with them.

Don't forget their fellow Sud Americano Maoist/Marxist groups: FARC and Shining Path.

treadhead1944 wrote:One can hope. I heard that a pig with wings was seen in Cardiff.

Did it escape from that advert about cheap free range meat?

We are getting to the point of Victorian levels of social inequality, without some serious wealth distribution this society will tear itself apart, especially as unemployment rises with the cybernisation of manufacturing. Its a problem that needs to be addressed before it becomes too late.

Melissia wrote:EPL = Columbian guerrillas fighting for communist rule by murdering anyone who disagrees with them, despite the fact that their government is democratic and has elections regularly.

It's an insult to "La Résistance" to compare the two..

I didn't. But according to his post la Résistance would still have to be redefined as a terrorist group, which is ridiculous. (actually, more accurately, the jewish ghetto rebellions would have, technically the Résistance didn't oppose a duly elected government... but it was pretty popular amongst the middle and higher class)


also

I mean, the extreme Left, irrelevant and cranky as it is, is still allowed to go about its business, and one only needs to examine Kovnik's views (someone quoted them, so I saw them, unfortunately) to see see how tolerant, peaceful and respectful of individual freedom they are.

The extreme left? Me? What the hell? Anyhow, again, this is the problem with trying to make a fascist government fit on the left-right political spectrum : it doesn't fit. The deep values of fascism might be more in line with the traditionnal right than the left, but that's all there is to it, a parrallel of origins. Fascism is closer to terrorism than any political affiliation normally associated with a position on the left-right spectrum.

dæl wrote:

treadhead1944 wrote:One can hope. I heard that a pig with wings was seen in Cardiff.

Did it escape from that advert about cheap free range meat?

We are getting to the point of Victorian levels of social inequality, without some serious wealth distribution this society will tear itself apart, especially as unemployment rises with the cybernisation of manufacturing. Its a problem that needs to be addressed before it becomes too late.

I think it was actually a woman on her way to a fancy dress party.

Unfortunately I think the too late was 1945. All those veterans coming home and having kids. As one of the unemployed I can attest to that fact. The tensions are not far different than the tensions that caused the race riots here in the states in the middle to late 60's. The difference now is that the racial component seems to be absent now. Crushing poverty has crossed all boundaries.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Melissia wrote:EPL = Columbian guerrillas fighting for communist rule by murdering anyone who disagrees with them, despite the fact that their government is democratic and has elections regularly.

It's an insult to "La Résistance" to compare the two..

I didn't. But according to his post la Résistance would still have to be redefined as a terrorist group, which is ridiculous.

The French Resistance were a terrorist group, they were a group that engaged in terrorist actions. Whether they were freedom fighters or terrorists is entirely subjective. Not all terrorism is bad, but it is all terrorism.

Mannahnin wrote:

AustonT wrote:I have no problem with standing up for your race, and I think it's very sad that if you do so and you are white immediately you must be evil. The same is not true of blacks, latinos, and natives. There's also a fine line between standing up for your race and being a supremacist.

I think you made a lot of good and reasonable points, but this is the one I would be wary of. There are two reasons why people standing up as proud of their White or Anglo/Nordic or Northern European heritage are viewed differently than people standing up as being proud of their Black, Hispanic, or Native American heritage.

The latter reason is, I think, why most folks' gut reaction to a white person standing up for his race is looked at as disturbing and suspicious. Because point 1 means there's little or no practical need or call to stand up in defense of white people/culture, and point 2 means even a non-hateful person using the same language that the hatemongers and terrorists do is making himself look like one of them.

Perfectly reasonable points. The only answer I have is inside what I wrote:

AustonT wrote: I want to know who will be there to advocate for my kids white, latino, AND native heritage as whites become the minority.

Eventually 1 will no longer be true, and 2 will be no more true than it is of any other racial group. It's an unavoidable eventuality. knowing the nature of people no group of any color or stripe will stop at equality. I live in the real world. White advocacy will always bear the weight of white hate on it's neck.

White supremacist jew-haters like some people on Stormfront tend to blame the jews for everything they dislike and this would include the end of Stormfront. A shutdown of Stormfront would be blamed on ZoG (supremacist lingo for "zionist occupied government") as part of some massive jewish conspiracy to destroy the white race. Extremists would feel threatened and some might act out. So shutting down Stormfront would only make extremists more bitter, more aggravated and more convinced that there is some great enemy that is out to get them.

dæl wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Melissia wrote:EPL = Columbian guerrillas fighting for communist rule by murdering anyone who disagrees with them, despite the fact that their government is democratic and has elections regularly.

It's an insult to "La Résistance" to compare the two..

I didn't. But according to his post la Résistance would still have to be redefined as a terrorist group, which is ridiculous.

The French Resistance were a terrorist group, they were a group that engaged in terrorist actions. Whether they were freedom fighters or terrorists is entirely subjective. Not all terrorism is bad, but it is all terrorism.

Then I'll proudly be a terrorist the day the fascists enter the Parlement. Funny, tho, how terrorism can thus become the only moral position to be held...

Amusing, then, that you advocate facism of a sort.

again, back to ''violence isn't fascism''.

Although my last post wasn't completly sincere. Terrorism is the use of terror for political means. La Résistance didn't specifically use terror. If somebody tells me that they beleive that it was terrorism, then I'll claim to be part of the same type of terrorism. But that's more an admission done to get the conversation moving then an admission of truth.

Kovnik Obama wrote:again, back to ''violence isn't fascism''.

I wasn't talking about violence, but oppression of those you think are inferior.

War causes terror, ergo is terrorism?

Inferior how? Intellectually? Hell yes they are. We are talking about people that assemble to plan and enact raids, murder, rape, and all that inside the safe confines of a paramilitary organisation. Not only do we know that that's what they do, their even willing to tell us, when we ask them, 'do you wish to see all jew dies?', most of the time 'Yes!'. And I should respect these peoples right to voice publicly their opinion, and seek others and form organizations?

If a group of admitted pedophile were to organise marches in kids playgrounds, would we be justified in taking away their fondamental right to assemble? Of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:War causes terror, ergo is terrorism?

Well, it's supposed to be the specific use of terror for political gains. Soldiers don't go around with trophy racks full of human skulls in RL... (at least not anymore)


If War is saying : ''If you don't do x or y, you and your government wont be safe''
then Terrorism is saying : ''If you don't give me x or y, not a single soul in your country will be safe''

of course, in RL, things can get blurry, like in the use of certain horrible methods by Russian troops in Chechenya...

AustonT wrote:knowing the nature of people no group of any color or stripe will stop at equality. I live in the real world.

Possibly so. I think I'm a bit more optimistic than you on this. And I live in the real world too.

AustonT wrote:White advocacy will always bear the weight of white hate on it's neck.

True. Especially at long as white hate groups continue to wave their hateful flags. We have continual reminders (like Stormfront) that these scumbags are still around and would like to go back to the good old days when they could lynch a black guy for looking funny at a white woman. Or just because they felt like it, and they could pretend he did.

AustonT wrote: I want to know who will be there to advocate for my kids white, latino, AND native heritage as whites become the minority. Eventually 1 will no longer be true, and 2 will be no more true than it is of any other racial group. It's an unavoidable eventuality.

I can't forsee a day any time soon when 1 is no longer true. Even a numeric minority can hold onto political and police/military power easily as long as they have money. Money and political power being rather self-perpetuating. Now America certainly isn't South Africa, but their old government provides a very dramatic example of how powerful a numerical minority can be.

2 no longer being true I'll believe when I see it. I think we've made progress in the last fifty years, and I can't see any Other Ethnicity Supremacist organizations ever having the power to do the kinds of things the KKK did in this country.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Inferior how? Intellectually? Hell yes they are. We are talking about people that assemble to plan and enact raids, murder, rape, and all that inside the safe confines of a paramilitary organisation. Not only do we know that that's what they do, their even willing to tell us, when we ask them, 'do you wish to see all jew dies?', most of the time 'Yes!'. And I should respect these peoples right to voice publicly their opinion, and seek others and form organizations?

If a group of admitted pedophile were to organise marches in kids playgrounds, would we be justified in taking away their fondamental right to assemble? Of course.

Paedophilia is illegal as is murder, political viewpoints are not, sophism doesn't mean people will agree with you blindly. And when exactly did these people become a paramilitary organisation? When did they last engage in a military action? And to claim these people are inferior intellectually is wrong too, just because someone is less cultured it does not make them less intelligent, this may drastically affect your world view but there are people in the world as intelligent as yourself.

One of the French Resistance's goals was terror, they wanted their occupiers to not go out alone at night, and thus to have to attribute more resources to patrols.

If you had any clue about what fascism really is, you would know that enabling racial paramilitary organisation is the first step they take after assembling and reaching critical mass.

Racial pogroms started in Germany way before the Nazi party actually got elected. That's how they form a militia that's willing to go ahead and kill people after.

One of the French Resistance's goals was terror, they wanted their occupiers to not go out alone at night, and thus to have to attribute more resources to patrols.

That's a perfectly acceptable action in wartimes. They didn't blow up schools to acheive this effect. They blew up military convoy. Again, not terrorism because it's actually aimed at the occupier.

Mannahnin wrote:

AustonT wrote:knowing the nature of people no group of any color or stripe will stop at equality. I live in the real world.

Possibly so. I think I'm a bit more optimistic than you on this. And I live in the real world too.

AustonT wrote:White advocacy will always bear the weight of white hate on it's neck.

True. Especially at long as white hate groups continue to wave their hateful flags. We have continual reminders (like Stormfront) that these scumbags are still around and would like to go back to the good old days when they could lynch a black guy for looking funny at a white woman. Or just because they felt like it, and they could pretend he did.

It goes more like:
I live in the real world;White advocacy will always bear the weight of white hate on it's neck. but you know w/e.

Mannahnin wrote:
I can't forsee a day any time soon when 1 is no longer true. Even a numeric minority can hold onto political and police/military power easily as long as they have money. Money and political power being rather self-perpetuating. Now America certainly isn't South Africa, but their old government provides a very dramatic example of how powerful a numerical minority can be.

2 no longer being true I'll believe when I see it. I think we've made progress in the last fifty years, and I can't see any Other Ethnicity Supremacist organizations ever having the power to do the kinds of things the KKK did in this country.

I'm glad you said that. This guy disagrees. He thinks another ethnicity supremacist can rise to power and become just as racist and hateful as the white minority that previously held power.

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote:The extreme Right deserves to have it's views aired, just like anyone else. I mean, the extreme Left, irrelevant and cranky as it is, is still allowed to go about its business, and one only needs to examine Kovnik's views (someone quoted them, so I saw them, unfortunately) to see see how tolerant, peaceful and respectful of individual freedom they are.

How are his views "extreme left"?

Yeah Mel, the bloke basically said "freedom of speech as long as everyone agrees with me, and if they don't I will silence them"

Sounds pretty fething "extreme" to me!

If you had any clue about what fascism really is, you would know that enabling racial paramilitary organisation is the first step they take after assembling and reaching critical mass.

Oh so they aren't a paramilitary organisation, but according to a historical chain of events, they might become one, so should be treated like one.

That's a perfectly acceptable action in wartimes. They didn't blow up schools to acheive this effect. They blew up military convoy. Again, not terrorism because it's actually aimed at the occupier

Terrorism isn't dependent on whether a target is civilian or military, the Sept.11th attack on the Pentagon was an act of terrorism as much as the attack on the WTC.

Edit, just read page 4.. I guess you get it now eh?

mattyrm wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote:The extreme Right deserves to have it's views aired, just like anyone else. I mean, the extreme Left, irrelevant and cranky as it is, is still allowed to go about its business, and one only needs to examine Kovnik's views (someone quoted them, so I saw them, unfortunately) to see see how tolerant, peaceful and respectful of individual freedom they are.

How are his views "extreme left"?

Yeah Mel, the bloke basically said "freedom of speech as long as everyone agrees with me, and if they don't I will silence them"

Sounds pretty fething "extreme" to me!

Did I threaten you for disagreeing? No? Well... There's your boat, it's taking water.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:Oh so they aren't a paramilitary organisation, but according to a historical chain of events, they might become one, so should be treated like one.

Terrorism isn't dependent on whether a target is civilian or military, the Sept.11th attack on the Pentagon was an act of terrorism as much as the attack on the WTC.

Yes it is. '' Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).''

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Yes it is. '' Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).''

No mate,

UN Security Council wrote:criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature

Ergo, doesn't matter whether the target is civilian or military.

Generally speaking, though, we treat people who target military personnel differently than those who target civilians. If you do both you're clearly a terrorist, but if you limit your targets to military ones, that's historically been considered more morally defensible.

Isn't specified. ''a group of person'' isn't a military institution. You can't read a contrario every single article of law. And my point isn't rendered moot by one definition, since my quote specified that there is no such thing as a single definition of terrorism, but that most of them don't include targetting military targets.

Mannahnin wrote:Generally speaking, though, we treat people who target military personnel differently than those who target civilians. If you do both you're clearly a terrorist, but if you limit your targets to military ones, that's historically been considered more morally defensible.

Absolutely, there is morally good terrorism. France in the early 40s, South Africa under apartheid, even Syria today.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Isn't specified. ''a group of person'' isn't a military institution. You can't read a contrario every single article of law. And my point isn't rendered moot by one definition, since my quote specified that there is no such thing as a single definition of terrorism, but that most of them don't include targetting military targets

It doesn't specify farmers as a group of people either, or miners, or civil servents, or...

No you can't read every law, but if your going to copy paste a wikipedia page you might do well to read it all the way through. Which point? The point that attacking a military target can never be constituted as terrorism?

It doesn't specify farmers as a group of people either, or miners, or civil servents, or...

Yet it specifies civilian groups. If 'group of persons' already cover that, why is it mentionned? Because the text itself doesn't mean much, you must go and see the jurisprudence which enact the law to see what is defined as a 'group of persons'.

The point that attacking a military target can never be constituted as terrorism?

No, the point that there can be civilian attacks on military targets without it constituting terrorism. Which is what your disputing. Again, you miss the point of 'use of terror'. The point of putting up bombs on military convoy isn't to cause terror in the soldier's hearth, it's to make it stop beating. The point of blowing up a market while there's military in it? Well, that's terror AND elimination of targets. The point of blowing up a market when there's no military personnel in it? Terror.

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Yet it specifies civilian groups. If 'group of persons' already cover that, why is it mentionned?

Perhaps you are reading something else, it does not specify civilian groups. It says "the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization."

So lets say a fascist organisation sends a letter bomb to a military base, this is not terrorism then because it is done for "elimination" rather than to make them a bit warier of opening the mail, and informing them of their presence.

So lets say a fascist organisation sends a letter bomb to a military base, this is not terrorism then because it is done for "elimination" rather than to make them a bit warier of opening the mail, and informing them of their presence.

Correct. Unless, as per your legal definition, sending bombs through the mail is defined as a criminal act (which I assume it is). You'll note that fascism isn't usually linked with bombing of military targets, but with pogroms targeting the populace.

Perhaps you are reading something else, it does not specify civilian groups.

''Including against civilians'' is a specification. Anyhow ; legal definitions aren't to be taken at face value, they don't necessarily render the totality of a meaning, and sometimes deviate it entirely. See ''legal prescription'' for exemple. As you said, the following part of the quote (I do have to cut somewhere) specified this :

' The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[3] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.[4][5] The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents,[6] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).''

Kovnik Obama wrote:
''Including civilians'' is a specification.

Is this you deliberately misunderstanding or can you not see the distinction between the description of who is the victim of the criminal act, and who the intended terror is directed at?
Seriously, read it again.

BTW your advocation of violence toward people asserting their basic human right of assembling in public could be construed as terrorism,

a criminal act, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause serious bodily injury, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in a group of persons or particular persons, to abstain from doing any act.

a criminal act, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause serious bodily injury, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in a group of persons or particular persons, to abstain from doing any act.

It's then lucky that International Law isn't really Law. I'll say it again, if that's your definition of terrorism, then fine, I'll terrorize the frak out of those fascists (or, more in line with what I said, I'll hope that judges are lenient when condemning acts of violence done toward fascists.)

If they get to be elected, then I'll sow terror like no tomorrow. Frak what judges say, or naive people on the internet : Sometimes you need to get dirty so that others can claim their nice moral pedestal.

@Kovnik

So here's what you've been saying throughout this thread:

1. These people are bad because they want to take away the rights of others.
2. Therefore they don't deserve rights.
3. Therefore we should take away their rights.
4. Anyone who disagrees with me is naive.

Your own argument could easily be applied to you.

the UNSC has quite a remit, but if you like heres UK law-

"terrorism" means the use or threat of action where the
*use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and the
*use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

Frak what judges say, or naive people on the internet

because everyone who doesn't share your view is naive, or intellectually inferior. I've been posting here a week and I've already lost count of the number of times you've claimed another poster is less knowledgeable than yourself.

dæl wrote:the UNSC has quite a remit, but if you like heres UK law-

"terrorism" means the use or threat of action where the
*use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and the
*use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

Frak what judges say, or naive people on the internet

because everyone who doesn't share your view is naive, or intellectually inferior. I've been posting here a week and I've already lost count of the number of times you've claimed another poster is less knowledgeable than yourself.

So that's another definition that doesn't take in account the military (or is so large because all wars are designed to use the threat of action to influence a government).

As far as the numbers of time I see people making dumb claims about stuff they clearly don't know anything about, well, I'd put the guess at 4-5 in the last week? You, Biccat, 'cultural theory' dude, and some other dude in the psychology thread? So you haven't tried very hard to keep count ...

Now on to serious stuff :

1. These people are bad because they want to take away the rights of others.
2. Therefore they don't deserve rights.
3. Therefore we should take away their rights.
4. Anyone who disagrees with me is naive.

Your own argument could easily be applied to you

A perfectly legitimate concern, but I would submit that no.

1. These people are bad because they will pretend to be part of the normal political process, in order to claim rights that enable them to take away the right of others, once they get sufficiently organised.
2. Therefore they don't deserve the rights associated with the normal political process, like political assembly (you can disagree with me that public assembly is a political action, that's another debate, and a perfectly valid one too)... you could include other political rights too, like voting, but that would be unfeasable...
3. Therefore we should take away those rights before they use them to subvert ours (and note, they want to subvert way more than just our right of assembly).
4. Anyone who doesn't realize that democracy isn't it's own defense, or beleive that it doesn't allow abuses, is naive.

So since I'm not running for office on this platform, than 1) doesn't apply to me. Since, up until now, I have shown responsible use of my right to assemble publicly, 2) doesn't apply to me. By implication, 3) or 4) are irrelevant.

Kovnik Obama wrote:
As far as the numbers of time I see people making dumb claims about stuff they clearly don't know anything about, well, I'd put the guess at 4-5 in the last week? You, Biccat, 'cultural theory' dude, and some other dude in the psychology thread? So you haven't tried very hard to keep count ...

Well I've done a quick count of just this thread and its 5

I think you know nothing about the legal definition of hate crimes

refer yourself to the political science school of Economy & Law, their model shows very well how democracy shouldn't imply allowing the tools for it's subversion. You'll have a theoritical model to back up what I thought was available to common sense.

Then you clearly know nothing about fascism.

If you had any clue about what fascism really is

(and the thinly veiled) naive people on the internet

In none of these instances did you attempt to educate or explain, simply to infer their lack of knowledge relative to yourself. I'm secure enough in my intellectual worth for this not to bother me, but the fact you trot this sentiment out so much is quite telling.


Back to the point.
You are basing all of your inferences on these people on how you think they will act, they did not have anything to do with the taking away of rights.

Also their views are a minuscule minority of the populous and present no threat, how under any circumstance could they? Are Muslims calling for Sharia Law to have their rights removed as well? Or militant Feminists? Or Communists?

Ideology is irrelevent. Closing it down would cause more harm than good, ergo it stays.

You are basing all of your inferences on these people on how you think they will act, they did not have anything to do with the taking away of rights.

Are Muslims calling for Sharia Law to have their rights removed as well? Or militant Feminists? Or Communists?

Yes. And I think it's perfectly advisable to take steps, even radical ones, to stop people who 1) claim allegiance to the political practice of paramilitary violence, racial discrimination, pogroms, raids, denunciation, expansion, propaganda, exaltation of the leader's figure, when they say that, if they would have power, they would 2) practice paramilitary violence, racial discrimination, pogroms, raids, denunciation, expansion, propaganda, exaltation of the leader's figure, and 3) when they take steps to assemble like-minded people on the public area.

Also their views are a minuscule minority of the populous and present no threat, how under any circumstance could they?

And that's a lovely thing, it means I won't have to go kill fascists anytime soon. But you can't predict the entirety of the future based on what we know of the present, and shouldn't expect the majority of the population to always remain in their right minds. On top of things, with the average turn out at elections, you need far from 51% of the total electorate to elect officials.

Are Muslims calling for Sharia Law to have their rights removed as well? Or militant Feminists? Or Communists?

I know little of the Sharia Law. If it implies denying the right to life to those who disagree with the government, then yes. I doubt that's what militant feminists want (although, unrelated funny thing, I came across a military fascist lesbian while on Facebook a few days ago... yeah...) Communists, not as per the manifesto. You can have a debate as to whether or not possession is a basic human right, I think that if it's not one of the basic ones, it's still a pretty important one, and believe in its validity, but the debate is legitimate. What isn't is whether or not, once elected, communists should kill the bourgeoisie.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

I know little of the Sharia Law. If it implies denying the right to life to those who disagree with the government, then yes.

Essentially, yes it does. But Muslims should still be able to petition for it, or speak for it, and so forth. With regard to freedom of speech issues, advocating anything else seems hypocritical. Now if they cross the line from advocating to implementation, they should have to face the law wherever the situation necessitates such action.

Essentially, yes it does. But Muslims should still be able to petition for it, or speak for it, and so forth. With regard to freedom of speech issues, advocating anything else seems hypocritical. Now if they cross the line from advocating to implementation, they should have to face the law wherever the situation necessitates such action.

Thanks. I guess I see some sort of inner contradiction in allowing people to run a political campaign on a project which is only going to get declared illegal once they have been given every tool necessary to enact it.

mattyrm wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote:The extreme Right deserves to have it's views aired, just like anyone else. I mean, the extreme Left, irrelevant and cranky as it is, is still allowed to go about its business, and one only needs to examine Kovnik's views (someone quoted them, so I saw them, unfortunately) to see see how tolerant, peaceful and respectful of individual freedom they are.

How are his views "extreme left"?

Yeah Mel, the bloke basically said "freedom of speech as long as everyone agrees with me, and if they don't I will silence them"

Sounds pretty fething "extreme" to me!

Extreme yes, but left? No. More like extreme right.

I think you know nothing about the legal definition of hate crimes

And you know nothing of what hate crimes are like in the real world.

Oh for feth sake's could you at least ask me where I think I put myself on the Left-Right scale? I'm right here!!!

And it's not as if the Right got the exclusive claim on political violence, Mel...

If any such thing exist I'm a radical centrist. My values are all over the place on the political spectrum.

My objection was the use of left as a stand-in for authoritarian.

Not how it was applied to you.

Melissia wrote:My objection was the use of left as a stand-in for authoritarian.

Not how it was applied to you.

Oh cool then, I apologize. You know that horrible feeling when your parents are talking about you as if you aren't there? Had one of those...

And you know nothing of what hate crimes are like in the real world.

Never been the target of one, or implicated in one. I would assume them to be as abject as rape, or any other of the gravest of offenses against the person. If there was a political party of would-be rapist, you would see me going ballistic over it in the same degree... But I would think that to be such a silly idea that it could never see the day... or at least I hope... Oh god now I have to make a google search just to make sure...

Well, considering you're advocating hate crime...

@Kovnik Extreme centre, thats new.

@Melissa Unfortunately because of Stalin and Mao people believe that extreme left is authoritarian, they fail to take into account that these regimes were communist in name alone.

Well this is going in loop, so it's starting to lose its fun... I guess I'll reiterate another time : In the event that a fascist government ( Fascism promotes political violence and war, as forms of direct action that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[3][9] Fascists commonly utilize paramilitary organizations for violence against opponents or to overthrow a political system.[10] Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and the two major forms of socialism—communism and social democracy.[11] Fascism claims to represent a synthesis of cohesive ideas previously divided between traditional political ideologies.[12] To achieve its goals, the fascist state purges forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration.[13]-Wiki) gets elected, I will commit all sorts of things that are considered horrible in a normal situation. How do I draw the line? I don't know, I'll see how bad it gets. I'm sure that a lot of people under those circumstances would have wished for more severe actions to be taken before it gets there.

If this is my position toward an eventual fascist government, then I believe it is my responsibility to make sure things doesn't get there. Is it going to be judge as a crime, whether as violence against marching fascists, or against a fascist government? I dunno. Again, in the (very unlikely) event that this becomes an issue, I'll act, and then submit myself to the Law, once democracy as returned. If the populace would condemn me, I'll do my time. Some people are ready to act on their belief regardless of the opinion of the majority, and sometimes they are in the right.

@Kovnik Extreme centre, thats new.

Yeah, I know. Honestly I have no clue how to put myself on the scale. I don't have any real, constant tendencies in my political values. You see me under a radical view now because of the issue we discuss.. Fascism is pretty much to me all that is horrible about humankind, all wrapped up in a tightly uniformed package. It's a stain on our scorecard, and there is no excuse whatsoever (IMO) not to attempt to wipe it clean.

Well this is going in loop, so it's starting to lose its fun... I guess I'll reiterate another time : In the event that a fascist government gets elected, I will commit all sorts of things that are considered horrible in a normal situation. How do I draw the line? I don't know, I'll see how bad it gets. I'm sure that a lot of people under those circumstances would have wished for more severe actions to be taken before it gets there.

If this is my position toward an eventual fascist government, then I believe it is my responsibility to make sure things doesn't get there. Is it going to be judge as a crime, whether as violence against marching fascists, or against a fascist government? I dunno. Again, in the (very unlikely) event that this becomes an issue, I'll act, and then submit myself to the Law, once democracy as returned. If the populace would condemn me, I'll do my time. Some people are ready to act on their belief regardless of the opinion of the majority, and sometimes they are in the right.

Cannot fault a word of that post, hell I'd join you in direct action against a despotic regime, but the point was the suspension of human rights for white supremacists based on the fact they might follow a historically pre prescribed notion of fascism. That's what I and I assume others have a problem with.

Fascism is pretty much to me all that is horrible about humankind, all wrapped up in a tightly uniformed package. It's a stain on our scorecard, and there is no excuse whatsoever (IMO) not to attempt to wipe it clean.

Absolutely, but you do this by education and integration, not by the removal of human rights.

Cannot fault a word of that post, hell I'd join you in direct action against a despotic regime, but the point was the suspension of human rights for white supremacists based on the fact they might follow a historically pre prescribed notion of fascism. That's what I and I assume others have a problem with.

White Supremacists are one thing. I wish it would be easier to enact laws making it impossible for those bastards to voice their opinions, but that can get pretty specific. Incitation to violence could be a crime (it is up here), but then White Supremacists would just find ways to skirt the Law, or would simply stop to make those claims in public, and would then use defamatory pamphlets instead.

Fascists is something else. Maybe this is why we didn't understand each other before. I guess its true, I have no clue that White Supremacists will use raids, pogroms, ultra-nationalism, etc... But in the case of a self-proclaimed fascist party, then yes, I have pretty good indications, because that's what being fascist is.

I oppose racism, and I find it very hard not to become violent when exposed to it, but until now I have always contained myself. Fascism is, like I said in the previous post, more than racism, and I can only say that I'm lucky that I've never met a Neo-Nazi

dæl wrote:

@Melissa Unfortunately because of Stalin and Mao people believe that extreme left is authoritarian, they fail to take into account that these regimes were communist in name alone.

Sorry, but just to jump in...

Most left-wing political doctrines advocate (occasionally severe) limitations on personal liberty, even in advanced nations. How can such policies be enacted without oppression?

Albatross wrote:

dæl wrote:

@Melissa Unfortunately because of Stalin and Mao people believe that extreme left is authoritarian, they fail to take into account that these regimes were communist in name alone.

Sorry, but just to jump in...

Most left-wing political doctrines advocate (occasionally severe) limitations on personal liberty, even in advanced nations. How can such policies be enacted without oppression?

I don't know of any limitations on personal freedom in socialism or communism in their ideological form, quite the opposite in fact, there seems much more freedom than in capitalism, which puts a price on information thus restricting it.

Albatross wrote:Most left-wing political doctrines advocate (occasionally severe) limitations on personal liberty, even in advanced nations. How can such policies be enacted without oppression?

So do most if not all extremist right wing political doctrines.

dæl wrote:@Kovnik Extreme centre, thats new.

@Melissa Unfortunately because of Stalin and Mao people believe that extreme left is authoritarian, they fail to take into account that these regimes were communist in name alone.

They weren't true Communist Scotsmen, then?

Monster Rain wrote:

dæl wrote:@Kovnik Extreme centre, thats new.

@Melissa Unfortunately because of Stalin and Mao people believe that extreme left is authoritarian, they fail to take into account that these regimes were communist in name alone.

They weren't true Communist Scotsmen, then?

Alas, I miss our wealth redistributing, hagis dealing friend.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Since when did Black Supremacist = Islam?
I'm confused.

The group called the Nation of Islam are black supremacists. Despite the name, they actually have very little to do with any form of Islam, instead they basically wrote their own crazy little version of history that happened to crib a few terms and names from Islam, much the same way as Hitler stole some stuff from Christianity when coming up with his own Aryan inspired nonsense Positive Christianity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:Before you decide to label me some sort of white supremacist, allow me to disabuse you of that notion.

No, I think your comments make you quite unaware of privilege, which is something quite different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

treadhead1944 wrote:In the broad sense that is true, but in the American South, the KKK were oftentimes just as poor as the blacks they were attacking.

Which comes back to status, which is a more complete look at haves & have nots, as it looks at money in the context of what really matters, how you are percieved by society and how this causes you to perceive yourself. So for the poor whites attacking black people, the point was to convince themselves that while they may be poor & looked down upon by the rest of the white folk, at least they're better than those black folk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:Hate to get too Marxist, but the bourgeoisie have always engaged in a divide and rule policy, by cultivating hatred between different parts of the poor it keeps them from unifying and actually realising the unfairness of the system.

I think its a mistake to read Marxism as assuming what happens is a direct result of cynical manipulation by powerful elites. It's more that social and economic conditions tend to cause certain things. ie because the capitalist economy has made John poorer than most other people, he attempts to assert some kind of status for himself by putting a false racial divide between himself and black people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Yes. And I think it's perfectly advisable to take steps, even radical ones, to stop people who 1) claim allegiance to the political practice of paramilitary violence, racial discrimination, pogroms, raids, denunciation, expansion, propaganda, exaltation of the leader's figure, when they say that, if they would have power, they would 2) practice paramilitary violence, racial discrimination, pogroms, raids, denunciation, expansion, propaganda, exaltation of the leader's figure, and 3) when they take steps to assemble like-minded people on the public area.

So name the names. List all the people in your immediate area who are doing any of the following "1) claim allegiance to the political practice of paramilitary violence, racial discrimination, pogroms, raids, denunciation, expansion, propaganda, exaltation of the leader's figure, when they say that, if they would have power, they would 2) practice paramilitary violence, racial discrimination, pogroms, raids, denunciation, expansion, propaganda, exaltation of the leader's figure, and 3) when they take steps to assemble like-minded people on the public area". Then tell me exactly what steps, even radical ones, you are planning to take against this person.

Unless you can actually name a nazi/bigot/white supremacist that you are personally going to punch/send angry anonymous emails to/whatever, then otherwise it's going to be obvious that you're just another kid in love with political drama. I mean, unless you name names I think I might end up picturing you in a beret.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:@Melissa Unfortunately because of Stalin and Mao people believe that extreme left is authoritarian, they fail to take into account that these regimes were communist in name alone.

They really, really were communist. You simply cannot read a history of either regime and come away thinking they weren't a genuine attempt to put communist principals into practice.

One of the biggest issues with communist thought today is how lazily they just wrote off those two regimes as 'not really communism'. If there had been a genuine effort to address what happened, and reform communism with some kind of explanation for why it wouldn't happen again ('because now we're utterly committed to democracy and individual rights above all else' would maybe even suffice) then there might be some kind of legitimacy to modern communist thought. But a movement that just tries to ignore the utter failure of it's ideas in practice is basically doomed into irrelevance.

sebster wrote:

dæl wrote:@Melissa Unfortunately because of Stalin and Mao people believe that extreme left is authoritarian, they fail to take into account that these regimes were communist in name alone.

They really, really were communist. You simply cannot read a history of either regime and come away thinking they weren't a genuine attempt to put communist principals into practice.

One of the biggest issues with communist thought today is how lazily they just wrote off those two regimes as 'not really communism'. If there had been a genuine effort to address what happened, and reform communism with some kind of explanation for why it wouldn't happen again ('because now we're utterly committed to democracy and individual rights above all else' would maybe even suffice) then there might be some kind of legitimacy to modern communist thought. But a movement that just tries to ignore the utter failure of it's ideas in practice is basically doomed into irrelevance.

They made no attempt to reach communism, communism is a stateless being, neither Stalin or Mao would have ever advocated no state, neither gave public ownership of resources but instead state ownership, there was a distinctive political class. They weren't 'not really communist' they were nothing even similar or even an attempt to achieve such, they were a way of installing themselves as a new bourgeoisie.

One of my mates in Corps had a degree in Political science, and he told me that you basically chart the gak on a circle, and that's why extreme right and extreme left are more or less identical, but they still are left/right, they just meet in the middle.

Regards more moderate stuff, I think that the Labour party (centre left) use far sneakier propaganda techniques and sew discord with half truths and organised brainwashing than the Tories do (centre right), which Is why despite living in the labour heartland I am a staunch Tory and absolutely loathe "socialists"

The way that they basically spent 13 years brainwashing a generation speaks volumes. Pretty much all of my friends from the Boro seem to think that Cameron is "posh" and Miliband is a fething miner that lives on a council estate.

They are all rich, but the Labour party has managed to pull the wool over the general public's eyes. And you don't manage gak like that unless you did in on fething purpose!

Id rather vote for a posh bastard than someone equally posh who pretends he is "with it" frankly. I find it offensive that they think I am stupid enough to swallow it.

And more importantly.. I think the bloke in charge should have went to the best school in the country, not some brain dead fether who went to a gak school and spent his entire time there smoking.

mattyrm wrote:

Regards more moderate stuff, I think that the Labour party (centre left) use far sneakier propaganda techniques and sew discord with half truths and organised brainwashing than the Tories do (centre right), which Is why despite living in the labour heartland I am a staunch Tory and absolutely loathe "socialists"

The way that they basically spent 13 years brainwashing a generation speaks volumes. Pretty much all of my friends from the Boro seem to think that Cameron is "posh" and Miliband is a fething miner that lives on a council estate.

They are all rich, but the Labour party has managed to pull the wool over the general public's eyes. And you don't manage gak like that unless you did in on fething purpose!

I'm amused that you regard the Labour Party as centre-left.
They support government cuts, support privatisation of public services, their electoral strategy revolves around opposing everything the government does while supporting it ideologically.
Having said that, it is true that the tory cabinet are toffs, and should be despised as such. Blue bloods bleed red, and all that.

One of my mates in Corps had a degree in Political science, and he told me that you basically chart the gak on a circle, and that's why extreme right and extreme left are more or less identical, but they still are left/right, they just meet in the middle.

A circular graph could work, but not the way you describe it. Rather, imagine a circle where the center is centrism, the top is authoritarianism, the bottom is libertarianism, the left is socialism, and the right is laissez faire capitalism. The edges are extremist (extremist libertarian would be anarchism, for example), while those closer to the center are moderates.

That works much better.

dæl wrote:They made no attempt to reach communism, communism is a stateless being, neither Stalin or Mao would have ever advocated no state, neither gave public ownership of resources but instead state ownership, there was a distinctive political class. They weren't 'not really communist' they were nothing even similar or even an attempt to achieve such, they were a way of installing themselves as a new bourgeoisie.

Ideas, especially political ideas, exist in the real world, not just in political pamphlets. You can't just say 'it was different to what Marx said' and pretend the ideas of communism played no part in what happened in the USSR. You have to study why it was different, and then explain how future revolutions might more closely match Marx and Engel's predictions.

It's just basic laziness to say 'neither Stalin nor Mao would have ever advocated no state', without then going on to examine exactly what kind of political circumstances would be needed to produce a political body that would dissolve the state. Each point above needs to be examined in the same way, especially the one about preventing the rise of a new bourgeoisie.

If you can do all that, if you can really produce a new vision of communism that can plausibly do all of the above*, and then build serious political support for that vision, then you'll have a communist idea that exists in the real world, with greater fealty to Marx, and then maybe you have some claim to dismiss the regimes of the USSR and China as not really communist. But in the mean time that term is going to be used to describe the regimes that existed in the real world that took the teachings of Marx and Engels and tried to apply them as they could.




*And guess what? That vision will inevitably have very, very little to do with the way Marx and Engels saw the revolution going down, because the history of the 20th century has shown us armed revolution has an absolutely terrible record of producing leaders who happily cede power back to the people. I have a great deal of time for Marx and enormous respect for his contributions to Economic History, but you have to know when to seperate the good from the bad. And the idea that a violent overthrow of the existing power structure will then see the revolution's leaders simply returning to be equals with no greater status among the people is one of the bad ideas. Not as bad as the Labour Theory of Value, but pretty bad.

@Matty "New" labour isn't really socialist compared to it's roots, but then Camerons conservatives aren't really true to theirs either, in fact i'd say the three main parties these days are arguing over a pin head in the centre, all their policies they steal off each other and if they do it it's great but if the opposition do it it's awful. I'd still say our most left party, the greens, would be a nicer proposition than our most right, the national front, I mean BNP .

Blair went to a good school, Fettes, and was quite open about it, in fact the only real working class bloke they had was Prescott and he's like some sort of caricature. People should show pride in their past, but I'd rather have someone that earned their place at a decent uni than someone who got there on daddy's money and spent his entire time there snorting.

As for brainwashing, do you think we'd be able to cut disability benefit from amputees without public outcry without the media witch hunt on benefit scroungers?

@sebster For what it's worth I advocated reform ahead of revolt earlier in the thread. And you do indeed raise valid points, but I attempted to qualify it as ideological communism, rather than practical, mainly because practical hasn't come to fruition anywhere. Didn't Marx say something about the path to statelessness taking generations after which society will be its own law or something?

Melissia wrote:A circular graph could work, but not the way you describe it. Rather, imagine a circle where the center is centrism, the top is authoritarianism, the bottom is libertarianism, the left is socialism, and the right is laissez faire capitalism. The edges are extremist (extremist libertarian would be anarchism, for example), while those closer to the center are moderates.

That works much better.

That exact thing is commonly represented, except the 'circle' bit is dropped as its kind of pointless, and replaced with a simple two axis graph. You would have seen it in that political quiz that gets posted here from time to time.


Anyhow, the point of the circle is to show that the extremes of your beliefs are directly tied to your authoritarianism. The two axis graph makes the assumption that these thing can be independant, while the circle idea mattyrm pointed out is making the point that as your economic beliefs become stronger, whether right or left wing, you will inevitably become more authoritarian, and taken to the extreme that's basically all you end up as, an authoritarian. That is, where leftist revolutionaries came to power, such as Cuba, the result was authoritarian government. And in countries where reactionaries came to power, such as Pinochet in Chile, the result was authoritarian government.

It's a fairly loose concept, with a handful of exceptions, but it's a good way of keeping in mind that there is a strong relationship between economic convictions and a tendency to authoritarianism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:@sebster For what it's worth I advocated reform ahead of revolt earlier in the thread. And you do indeed raise valid points, but I attempted to qualify it as ideological communism, rather than practical, mainly because practical hasn't come to fruition anywhere. Didn't Marx say something about the path to statelessness taking generations after which society will be its own law or something?

The issue with reform, presumably democratic reform, is that nobody wants it. Any party that moves anywhere left of centre left quickly moves to minority status at best, and outright obscurity in many countries.

And yeah, Marx did say that, or something pretty close to it. He felt that such a society would develop because we would move to post scarcity, and with wealth no longer an indicator of status and our basic needs met then there'd be no need to claim higher position in society. He didn't predict the next hundred years of gadgets increasing our expectations for living, which is hardly his fault given the world at the time, but it would be remiss of us today to not apply our greater understanding to his concepts.

Freedom of Speech for all is better than selective freedom of speech. It should only be restricted when there's a risk of harm - hence exceptions for defamation and incitement.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

That's pretty dumb, or sad, or both... I don't care much about what happens on the Internet, because it's the Internet and you would be a fool to care too much about it... but if you go around and publicly assemble to shout that kind of dangerous propaganda, then you deserve to get repeatedly punched in the face for it. At least I hope that the U.S. judges are lenient when condemning acts of violence directed toward neo-nazi scum...

How is racially-demeaning propaganda more dangerous than say, protests advocating against NAFTA?

You simply don't like it, but that alone doesn't give you the right to prohibit it.

@sebster post scarcity would be achievable within a half century if we wished it, the problem with capitalist democracies is rather than each person equalling a single vote, you have lobbyists and such buying influence to maintain the status quo. Also, I think a party could retain support while taking a left turn if it could provide a better standard of living, but theres a lot of what ifs there.

Still, bring on the singularity, then we can hand over to our infinitely wise robot masters.

Joey wrote:
Having said that, it is true that the tory cabinet are toffs, and should be despised as such. Blue bloods bleed red, and all that.

Mate, I know you like to come across as a contrarian, but some of the gak you type is just flat out mental.

mattyrm wrote: One of my mates in Corps had a degree in Political science, and he told me that you basically chart the gak on a circle, and that's why extreme right and extreme left are more or less identical, but they still are left/right, they just meet in the middle.

Regards more moderate stuff, I think that the Labour party (centre left) use far sneakier propaganda techniques and sew discord with half truths and organised brainwashing than the Tories do (centre right), which Is why despite living in the labour heartland I am a staunch Tory and absolutely loathe "socialists"

The way that they basically spent 13 years brainwashing a generation speaks volumes. Pretty much all of my friends from the Boro seem to think that Cameron is "posh" and Miliband is a fething miner that lives on a council estate.

They are all rich, but the Labour party has managed to pull the wool over the general public's eyes. And you don't manage gak like that unless you did in on fething purpose!

Id rather vote for a posh bastard than someone equally posh who pretends he is "with it" frankly. I find it offensive that they think I am stupid enough to swallow it.

And more importantly.. I think the bloke in charge should have went to the best school in the country, not some brain dead fether who went to a gak school and spent his entire time there smoking.

Unfortunately Cameron didn't go to the best school in the country.

So name the names. List all the people in your immediate area who are doing any of the following "1) claim allegiance to the political practice of paramilitary violence, racial discrimination, pogroms, raids, denunciation, expansion, propaganda, exaltation of the leader's figure, when they say that, if they would have power, they would 2) practice paramilitary violence, racial discrimination, pogroms, raids, denunciation, expansion, propaganda, exaltation of the leader's figure, and 3) when they take steps to assemble like-minded people on the public area". Then tell me exactly what steps, even radical ones, you are planning to take against this person.

Unless you can actually name a nazi/bigot/white supremacist that you are personally going to punch/send angry anonymous emails to/whatever, then otherwise it's going to be obvious that you're just another kid in love with political drama. I mean, unless you name names I think I might end up picturing you in a beret.

Of course, you can assume that since I don't already have targets I'm just talking big. That's your interpretation, and one which will always be available when talking to someone on the Internet. Some people mean what they say, even if that meaning isn't going to be realized in real life immediately. The fact that I do not have a target isn't a proof that I wouldn't have targets, especially since there are no fascist political party, popular or unpopular, in my vicinity. Something I did say I was thankful for ; I love my peaceful existence.

How is racially-demeaning propaganda more dangerous than say, protests advocating against NAFTA?

You simply don't like it, but that alone doesn't give you the right to prohibit it.

That's another criticism that will always be available to you : ''You don't like it''. I admit that's true, and that it's possible that my (heavy) dislike of fascists could be the origin of my position. That doesn't mean that the rationalization behind radical protest and radical engagement is necessarily invalid : you dislike things intuitively that you later learn to dislike for actual reasons all the time. I hate racism, misogyny, and the crass form of pseudo-intellectualism that the fascist try to hide behind. Still, I think there are plenty of perfectly valid reasons why racism, sexism, propaganda, etc, should be objectively discarded as political options. Fascism is all that put togheter, inside a political structure that makes it ridiculously hard to change things from inside. So my dislike is, to me, but one of the reasons why oppose it radically

In the same vein of thinking, there are plenty of reasons why a public assembly advocating racial violence should be seen as more dangerous than a protest against NAFTA. For starters one oppose a clearly defined plan, and not a group. And if they were to oppose the group of people behind the plan, well that group is pretty damn well protected, what with all the security forces and the army. And the opposition toward NAFTA isn't made in order to deny the capitalists or the government official's right to live, but their right to enact a certain economical program. In the case of fascism and racial violence, we're in front of an historical prejudice, which I think gives us the right to go a few extra steps in it's prevention then what we would normally do.

I don't think you get it. Putting aside violence (inciting others to violence is generally unprotected speech), why should people not be allowed to voice their prejudice and advocate for others to join it? Stop thinking about fascism for a moment.

If you are talking about crappy behavior like the Westboro's or provocation from White Supremacist, like I said, if they do not claim publicly that they would use violence against the group they hate, then no, I don't think we should be violent toward them. But I still think that a judge would be wise to understand how one could lose control when facing such a hurtful rhetoric, and be lenient in those cases. It might already be the case.

I think the public display of the Swastika should be outlawed. Like I said, my opposition is much more radical toward fascist than toward racists, because the first compound their sins with every other possible. 'Fascism' could be made a crime, and if it were applied to its intended aim, I would have little problems with the fact that it's a thought-crime. I admit that it probably shouldn't be the case, because then government would have an additional tool to abuse. Which is why I advocate for such a movement to rise from the populace.

Kovnik Obama wrote:If you are talking about crappy behavior like the Westboro's or provocation from White Supremacist, like I said, if they do not claim publicly that they would use violence against the group they hate, then no, I don't think we should be violent toward them. But I still think that a judge would be wise to understand how one could lose control when facing such a hurtful rhetoric, and be lenient in those cases. It might already be the case.

I think the public display of the Swastika should be outlawed. Like I said, my opposition is much more radical toward fascist than toward racists, because the first compound their sins with every other possible. 'Fascism' could be made a crime, and if it were applied to its intended aim, I would have little problems with the fact that it's a thought-crime. I admit that it probably shouldn't be the case, because then government would have an additional tool to abuse. Which is why I advocate for such a movement to rise from the populace.

I see you have now moved from the violent repression of the right to speak and assemble to the repression of the religious symbol of billions. That kind of oppression sounds awful fascist.

"Hate speech could lead others to violence, we'd better punch their lights out."

lol sound logic there.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:"Hate speech could lead others to violence, we'd better punch their lights out."

lol sound logic there.

Beating people up who spread hate, is not the same as beating people up because of the colour of their skin.

The German and Austrian postwar criminal code makes the public showing of the Hakenkreuz (the swastika) and other Nazi symbols illegal and punishable, except for scholarly reasons. It is even censored from the illustrations on boxes of model kits, and the decals that come in the box. Modellers seeking an accurate rendition often have to either stencil on the marking, or purchase separate decals. It is also censored from the reprints of 1930s railway timetables published by the Reichsbahn. The eagle remains, but appears to be holding a solid black circle between its talons. The swastikas on Hindu and Jain temples are exempt, as religious symbols cannot be banned in Germany.

Apparently, the Law can be applied conscientiously and reasonably. Shock and Awe!

In Hungary, it is a criminal misdemeanour to publicly display "totalitarian symbols", including the swastika, the SS insignia and the Arrow Cross, punishable by fine.[83] Display for academic, educational, artistic or journalistic reasons is allowed. Note that the communist symbols of hammer and sickle and the red star are also regarded as a totalitarian symbols and have the same restriction by Hungarian criminal law.

In Poland, public display of Nazi symbols, including the Nazi swastika, is a criminal offence punishable by up to eight years of imprisonment

The use of the swastika or any Nazi symbol, their manufacture, distribution or broadcasting, with the intent to propagate Nazism is a crime in Brazil as dictated by article 20, paragraph 1, of federal statute 7.716, passed in 1989. The penalty is a two to five years prison term and a fine

And the Hindu will stop having no right to an opinion the day they stop teaching Mein Kampf at University level

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/5182107/Indian-business-students-snap-up-copies-of-Mein-Kampf.html

So it's bad for the Hindu to buy copies of Mein Kampf but it's okay for Christians to buy them?

We need a sarcastica font. But no, I'm just a bit offended at seeing Mein Kampf taught as 'an example of brilliant entrepreneurship'. Like the link quoted from wikipedia on the German post-war Law, you can ban the swastika under 'totalitarian symbols' and not under 'religious symbols'.

Mein Kampf is boss-eyed lunacy. I couldn't get past the first chapter.

It's still more fun than The Crucible.

Isn't Crucible a play? Plays are NEVER fun to read...

I like reading plays...

IMO they're not really formatted for enjoyable reading... they're formatted for acting.

Fair enough.

dæl wrote:
Blair went to a good school, Fettes, and was quite open about it, in fact the only real working class bloke they had was Prescott and he's like some sort of caricature. People should show pride in their past, but I'd rather have someone that earned their place at a decent uni than someone who got there on daddy's money and spent his entire time there snorting.

See, where do people get this idea that one can simply waltz into an Oxbridge university if one has sufficiently wealthy parents? It's difficult to get into Oxford and Cambridge because the entry requirements are stringent, not because it's expensive. It isn't really that expensive, compared to other UK universities, and lower-income students can get financial assistance in order to study there. I know a girl who did just that. She writes children's books now. Kinda seems a waste.

As for brainwashing, do you think we'd be able to cut disability benefit from amputees without public outcry without the media witch hunt on benefit scroungers?

If someone can work, they should work, not sit on benefits. That shouldn't be a controversial thing to say, but then we've had over a decade of Labour bolstering its constituency by means of financial inducement, so now forcing people to take responsibility for their own lives is a 'witch-hunt'.

Oh, and to answer the earlier point about left-wing politics and authoritarianism: Redistribution of wealth is oppressive. It just is. It's a sliding scale, mind you - all government is oppression, after all. The greater the redistribution, the greater the oppression, and this is more typical of the Left than Right.

Joey wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:"Hate speech could lead others to violence, we'd better punch their lights out."

lol sound logic there.

Beating people up who spread hate, is not the same as beating people up because of the colour of their skin.

But that's not what we're talking about, is it?

dæl wrote:@sebster post scarcity would be achievable within a half century if we wished it, the problem with capitalist democracies is rather than each person equalling a single vote, you have lobbyists and such buying influence to maintain the status quo. Also, I think a party could retain support while taking a left turn if it could provide a better standard of living, but theres a lot of what ifs there.

Still, bring on the singularity, then we can hand over to our infinitely wise robot masters.

I agree that it looks like in 50 years we'll so much material wealth that it seems like no-one could want for anything, but 50 years ago people looking at the wealth we've got today would have thought the same thing. We could be post scarcity right now, if only we didn't all want so much stuff.

I can't really see that changing until you start theorising near infinite energy supply coupled with fully automated manufacturing available at the household level. Even then you'd still have to speculate that man wouldn't find some way to use material possessions to mark status (a shift to whatever objects couldn't be replicated, perhaps).

Spoiler:

Oh err, did that axis test, seems I'm kind of an extreme left liberatarian (as if I didn't know)

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.08

Most people end up being told they're left libertarian according to that site. As in the fringe right of dakka gets put kind of in the centre on the economic axis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Of course, you can assume that since I don't already have targets I'm just talking big. That's your interpretation, and one which will always be available when talking to someone on the Internet. Some people mean what they say, even if that meaning isn't going to be realized in real life immediately. The fact that I do not have a target isn't a proof that I wouldn't have targets, especially since there are no fascist political party, popular or unpopular, in my vicinity. Something I did say I was thankful for ; I love my peaceful existence.

Well, yes, the fact that you don't have any targets means that all you are doing is talking big. I mean 'I would use violence against group that needed it but fortunately none do' can't be seen as anything but talking big.

Scrabb wrote:I like reading plays...

As do I.

The Glass Menagerie is particularly fun.

Melissia wrote:So it's bad for the Hindu to buy copies of Mein Kampf but it's okay for Christians to buy them?

It's remarkable how many copies of Mein Kampf you'll see in India. It's in the front window of most bookstores, and every streetside bookseller will have at least one copy.

That said, this doesn't come from any kind of rampant anti-semitism. Hitler is understood only vaguely, sort of as a man of action. The main appeal of the book is to appear edgy, much like people in the West will buy a Che Guevara shirt. I doubt many people who read the book get past about the fifth page.



*In comparison, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is about as popular in Brunei, and that really does represent a serious anti-semitic streak in the country.

Albatross wrote:

As for brainwashing, do you think we'd be able to cut disability benefit from amputees without public outcry without the media witch hunt on benefit scroungers?

If someone can work, they should work, not sit on benefits. That shouldn't be a controversial thing to say, but then we've had over a decade of Labour bolstering its constituency by means of financial inducement, so now forcing people to take responsibility for their own lives is a 'witch-hunt'.

These benefits (DLA) are given to those in work as well as out, its to pay for mobility issues and now most of them are having to give up work. And BTW Work Capability Assessments that find someone in a coma fit for work are not fit for purpose. I agree that if capable you should work, thats a entirely reasonable mind set, but the current system doesn't work like that, it finds people it shouldn't as fit for work, appeals against this have a 40% success rate but take over a year. It has also caused a number of suicides. All of this is wrong.

Abolition of DLA will cause-

56% of the people in work said they would have to stop or reduce work if they lost DLA;

16% suggested cuts to DLA will result in higher NHS use; and

14% suggested a likely need for more use of council services.
Source

sebster wrote:
I agree that it looks like in 50 years we'll so much material wealth that it seems like no-one could want for anything, but 50 years ago people looking at the wealth we've got today would have thought the same thing. We could be post scarcity right now, if only we didn't all want so much stuff.

I can't really see that changing until you start theorising near infinite energy supply coupled with fully automated manufacturing available at the household level. Even then you'd still have to speculate that man wouldn't find some way to use material possessions to mark status (a shift to whatever objects couldn't be replicated, perhaps).

Not quite infinite, but certainly sufficient energy could be easily achieved if we stopped trying to profit from it, legislate that every new house must have a ground source heat pump, offer grants to retrofit houses with them too, stick a lot more funding into the fusion reactor in oxford, then soon enough everyone pays bill of a few pence a year to pay for upkeep of the national grid.

dæl wrote:Not quite infinite, but certainly sufficient energy could be easily achieved if we stopped trying to profit from it, legislate that every new house must have a ground source heat pump, offer grants to retrofit houses with them too, stick a lot more funding into the fusion reactor in oxford, then soon enough everyone pays bill of a few pence a year to pay for upkeep of the national grid.

I wish it was that simple. There's definitely plenty of options available, but the idea that within 50 years we'll minimal cost energy production is very optimistic.

sebster wrote:

dæl wrote:Not quite infinite, but certainly sufficient energy could be easily achieved if we stopped trying to profit from it, legislate that every new house must have a ground source heat pump, offer grants to retrofit houses with them too, stick a lot more funding into the fusion reactor in oxford, then soon enough everyone pays bill of a few pence a year to pay for upkeep of the national grid.

I wish it was that simple. There's definitely plenty of options available, but the idea that within 50 years we'll minimal cost energy production is very optimistic.

It's not that simple, but initiatives such as that would go a long way toward it. Instead we are now looking at more coal fired power stations which we will absolve from carbon regulations, more fracking, and the government subsidising fossil fuels. It hardly surprising that all of these allow someone to profit, I just think that energy, like so many other things, should be decentralised and not have the first priority be profit, but instead energy.

Melissia wrote:Isn't Crucible a play? Plays are NEVER fun to read...

Yeah, and what a horrible play it is too...

Macbeth, on the other hand, I enjoyed.

dæl wrote:It's not that simple, but initiatives such as that would go a long way toward it. Instead we are now looking at more coal fired power stations which we will absolve from carbon regulations, more fracking, and the government subsidising fossil fuels. It hardly surprising that all of these allow someone to profit, I just think that energy, like so many other things, should be decentralised and not have the first priority be profit, but instead energy.

I certainly agree that we need to be planning our long term energy infrastructure towards no coal plants, not building more of the things. However, I think a few hundred years of human history have shown that the profit incentive is pretty powerful. The challenge is in building a system where the profit motive encourages the right kind of behaviour.

sebster wrote:

dæl wrote:It's not that simple, but initiatives such as that would go a long way toward it. Instead we are now looking at more coal fired power stations which we will absolve from carbon regulations, more fracking, and the government subsidising fossil fuels. It hardly surprising that all of these allow someone to profit, I just think that energy, like so many other things, should be decentralised and not have the first priority be profit, but instead energy.

I certainly agree that we need to be planning our long term energy infrastructure towards no coal plants, not building more of the things. However, I think a few hundred years of human history have shown that the profit incentive is pretty powerful. The challenge is in building a system where the profit motive encourages the right kind of behaviour.

But the profit system rewards not social responsibility, but in fact its opposite. And the short termism you mentioned is a byproduct of it too. I don't doubt its role as a motivator, however the imminent prospect of no energy and/or the collapse of he world's ecosystem should be motivation in itself.

dæl wrote:But the profit system rewards not social responsibility, but in fact its opposite. And the short termism you mentioned is a byproduct of it too. I don't doubt its role as a motivator, however the imminent prospect of no energy and/or the collapse of he world's ecosystem should be motivation in itself.

I don't know anyone in the energy industry (from the coal miners to the venture capitalists) who would work to avoid "the collapse of the world's ecosystem." I know a lot of them who would work for profit.

In fact, I've done a lot of work on clean coal. Not only is it clean, but it's cheap. Meaning the client can easily compete with larger coal operations and make himself a buttload of money.

Without the money, he wouldn't be developing the technology.

Well depending on what the EPA does, clean coal is a dead industry walking. The USA is the Saudi Arabia of coal, and the EPA is shutting it down. Brilliant thats just brilliant.

Coal is the most dangerous fuel source on the planet, even counting Chernobyl and Fukashima it has taken many times more lives than nuclear. Biccat, your point that noone would work to prevent the collapse of the world's ecosystem proves unequivocally that private companies should not be allowed to continue their operations whilst they still place their own selfish interests ahead of those of the planet and the people. I don't care about people making profits, good on them as long as they are harming noone else, but they are, in countless ways.

So what should we replace fossil fuels with? Solar doesn't seem viable whilst a panel takes 10 years to pay for itself, but must be replaced after 10 years. Wind and wave seem as though they could work and should be used. Geothermal for me is a no brainer, and should be implemented on a large scale. Fusion could do with more than the marginal funding currently given. Also the thing in the desert that works on the principal of Archimedes' Death Ray, that seems to work brilliantly.

dæl wrote:Coal is the most dangerous fuel source on the planet

I would have gone with wood/timber.

Logging has been around for far longer than mining, and has probably taken more lives.

Comparing the Coal and Nuclear industries in terms of safety is somewhat disingenuous. The differences in Labour Laws and Technological development in the time frame between the two processes becoming widespread or at least established are the major differing elements.

Coal if done properly, cleaner burning power stations and carbon capture, is many times safer than Nuclear. The plus side is the captured carbon dioxide can be used to extend the life of of oil and natural gas wells.

Fracking is simply the worst 'new' technology to emerge.

dæl wrote:Coal is the most dangerous fuel source on the planet, even counting Chernobyl and Fukashima it has taken many times more lives than nuclear.

It's not dangerous as a fuel source, it's dangerous because it is difficult to acquire.

dæl wrote:Biccat, your point that noone would work to prevent the collapse of the world's ecosystem proves unequivocally that private companies should not be allowed to continue their operations whilst they still place their own selfish interests ahead of those of the planet and the people.

No, it proves unequivocally that nationalizing industries doesn't work. You missed the part where I said even coal miners wouldn't work to "prevent the collapse of the world's ecosystem." Engineers who design wind turbines? They wouldn't either. Construction crews that build hydraulic dams? Nope. Promise the engineer global salvation and he'll decide to start designing buildings for $50k/year instead of wind turbines. Promise the construction worker an end to global warming and he'll pour concrete on sidewalks for $30k/year instead of building a dam.

In short: capitalism works.

dæl wrote:Wind and wave seem as though they could work and should be used.

If you like massive swings and abrupt climate change, this is an awesome idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Well depending on what the EPA does, clean coal is a dead industry walking. The USA is the Saudi Arabia of coal, and the EPA is shutting it down. Brilliant thats just brilliant.

China has coal plants. China loves coal. They're building about 1 plant a week. We'll sell our technology to China if we can't sell it here.

I'd rather the racists be able to speak their complete minds so that we can figure out who they are and what they stand for.

Easier to ignore the jerks after you figure out that they are jerks.


Edit: Wow. This went from Stormfront to Coal vs. Nulear power in 7 pages somehow...

Coal claims a million lives a year, from mine collapses, and lung disease. Coal even releases more radioactive material than nuclear energy — 100 times more per the same amount of energy produced.

Source


Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

Source

kronk wrote:I'd rather the racists be able to speak their complete minds so that we can figure out who they are and what they stand for.

Easier to ignore the jerks after you figure out that they are jerks.


Edit: Wow. This went from Stormfront to Coal vs. Nulear power in 7 pages somehow...

No, that's just in this page. Where this argument could easily be held in the thread on Fukishima instead it's here for some inextricable reason.

biccat wrote:

dæl wrote:Coal is the most dangerous fuel source on the planet, even counting Chernobyl and Fukashima it has taken many times more lives than nuclear.

It's not dangerous as a fuel source, it's dangerous because it is difficult to acquire.

See above, you don't know what your talking about, radioactivity and mercury poisoning.

biccat wrote:
No, it proves unequivocally that nationalizing industries doesn't work. You missed the part where I said even coal miners wouldn't work to "prevent the collapse of the world's ecosystem." Engineers who design wind turbines? They wouldn't either. Construction crews that build hydraulic dams? Nope. Promise the engineer global salvation and he'll decide to start designing buildings for $50k/year instead of wind turbines. Promise the construction worker an end to global warming and he'll pour concrete on sidewalks for $30k/year instead of building a dam.

In short: capitalism works.

I didn't realise that every public servent in the world worked for free, silly people. Now actually be serious, noone for a second claimed these people should work for free, but that the overall project should be overseen by people who put social responsibility above profit.

EDIT:

No, that's just in this page. Where this argument could easily be held in the thread on Fukishima instead it's here for some inextricable reason.

Sorry. Will move across with this now.

2nd EDIT:
Racisms bad mmkay.

dæl wrote:Coal claims a million lives a year, from mine collapses, and lung disease. Coal even releases more radioactive material than nuclear energy — 100 times more per the same amount of energy produced.

Your link says 1 million deaths a year from coal. That's per the WHO, who apparently blames this on "Around 3 billion people cook and heat their homes using open fires and leaky stoves burning biomass (wood, animal dung and crop waste) and coal." Not the industry, but individual use. I'm not even sure that's correct, because your link didn't actually source their information.

If you drive coal mining out of the US and other developed nations it will go elsewhere. Do you think it's safer to mine coal in China or in the United States?

I wasn't able to access your other link because it was full of spamming ads that made the page virtually unusable. Comparably, yes, I think nuclear energy is probably the safest, cleanest and most efficient type of energy we can use right now. So lets build some nuclear plants!

dæl wrote:I didn't realise that every public servent in the world worked for free, silly people. Now actually be serious, noone for a second claimed these people should work for free, but that the overall project should be overseen by people who put social responsibility above profit.

Why should they be allowed to work for profit instead of working out of a sense of personal responsibility?

Whilst the coal discussion is perfectly acceptable I think it'd be best served in its own thread, going to lock this one, feel free to start over in a new thread.