Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

CNN: looks like several thousand marching in Seattle now.

I'd better make this point before the thread gets locked.

But on a serious note, we're not looking at the bigger picture here, and that picture is this:

Does the USA still believe in the bill of rights?

This event was not about neo-nazis Vs. anti-fascist protestors. It was an event that started in 1776:

what kind of country does the USA want to be? Does it want to be a nation where everybody gets their say, no matter how repulsive their views?

Or does it want freedom of thought, of speech, to be 'approved' before it can be said or thought?

It's a battle for the heart and soul of America that has been ongoing since day 1, and hopefully, it's a battle that will always be fought.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and all that...

 Frazzled wrote:
CNN: looks like several thousand marching in Seattle now.

As long as it stays on the otherside of the Sound and not make its way over to JB Lewis-McChord, Bremerton and Bangor it'll die out

 Jihadin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
CNN: looks like several thousand marching in Seattle now.

As long as it stays on the otherside of the Sound and not make its way over to JB Lewis-McChord, Bremerton and Bangor it'll die out

can you clarify?

Its Sunday. There's a lot of Army, Air Force and Navy personnel living off post here are on this side of Puget Sound. So if it spills over to hear it might ramp up

 Jihadin wrote:
Its Sunday. There's a lot of Army, Air Force and Navy personnel living off post here are on this side of Puget Sound. So if it spills over to hear it might ramp up

Not the type of march you're thinking of Jihad. Even if it were, I wouldn't expect many, if any to be involved.

We had Westboro out here recently while we were putting some Rakassans to rest, and nothing happened. If we can restrain ourselves in that situation, we're damn sure going to in others.

To continue my rambling, I hate Nazism and everything it stands for, but I'm not sure I'd want to live in a democracy where people weren't allowed to say what they thought, no matter how repulsive.

As I've said before, the USA of old, confident in itself, and its values, would laugh of this fringe movement. Let them march would probably be the response.

And why not? American values of liberty, democracy, rule of law etc etc

has seen off Nazism, seen off Communism (China stopped being Communist a long time ago IMO)

it has nothing to fear from these fringe groups. American and Western values have won. Democracy 1 -0 Totalitarianism

But IMO, we seem to be losing these cherished values, we do seem to be heading for 'decline' because we don't seem to defend these great values anymore:

freedom of speech, of assembly, liberty and democracy etc etc

 Jihadin wrote:
Its Sunday. There's a lot of Army, Air Force and Navy personnel living off post here are on this side of Puget Sound. So if it spills over to hear it might ramp up

no no not bad riot type. Just a peaceful March.

Need to update. Flash bangs and spray being used to disperse the "grps"

Edit

http://www.king5.com/news/local/seattle/seperate-protests-scheduled-in-seattle-sunday/464096829

Wait what?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


No, advocating national socialism is not inherently inciting violence. Advocating national socialism isn't illegal anywhere in the US. It isn't illegal to advocate any paerticular political ideology anywhere in the US.

Yes it is. See the Hitler quotes earlier in the thread. Violence is inherent to the Nazis, you cannot advocate National Socialism without advocating violence.

No, advocating for national socialism, a political system/ideology that includes violence is very different from actually being guilty of the crime of inciting violence. To be charged with inciting violence/inciting a riot you have to encourage/instigate people who are capable of receiving such communication from you and then proceed to actually commit acts of violence. You could stand in front of a crowd and tell them how awesome you think national socialism is and how we should put it into practice but if the crowd simply listens to you and even if they agree with you but nobody commits an act of violence then you haven't done anything wrong.

Oh, such as driving a car into protesters? Would that be violent enough?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


No, advocating national socialism is not inherently inciting violence. Advocating national socialism isn't illegal anywhere in the US. It isn't illegal to advocate any paerticular political ideology anywhere in the US.

Yes it is. See the Hitler quotes earlier in the thread. Violence is inherent to the Nazis, you cannot advocate National Socialism without advocating violence.

No, advocating for national socialism, a political system/ideology that includes violence is very different from actually being guilty of the crime of inciting violence. To be charged with inciting violence/inciting a riot you have to encourage/instigate people who are capable of receiving such communication from you and then proceed to actually commit acts of violence. You could stand in front of a crowd and tell them how awesome you think national socialism is and how we should put it into practice but if the crowd simply listens to you and even if they agree with you but nobody commits an act of violence then you haven't done anything wrong.

Oh, such as driving a car into protesters? Would that be violent enough?

Or cracking people's skulls open with bike locks?

Police are using riot control methods on counter protestors trying to break police lines.

Wow, ok. Stay safe!

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


No, advocating national socialism is not inherently inciting violence. Advocating national socialism isn't illegal anywhere in the US. It isn't illegal to advocate any paerticular political ideology anywhere in the US.

Yes it is. See the Hitler quotes earlier in the thread. Violence is inherent to the Nazis, you cannot advocate National Socialism without advocating violence.

No, advocating for national socialism, a political system/ideology that includes violence is very different from actually being guilty of the crime of inciting violence. To be charged with inciting violence/inciting a riot you have to encourage/instigate people who are capable of receiving such communication from you and then proceed to actually commit acts of violence. You could stand in front of a crowd and tell them how awesome you think national socialism is and how we should put it into practice but if the crowd simply listens to you and even if they agree with you but nobody commits an act of violence then you haven't done anything wrong.

Oh, such as driving a car into protesters? Would that be violent enough?

Or cracking people's skulls open with bike locks?

Sure, someone advocating that obviously isn't covered by free speech either. With that out of the way, can you stop deflecting now?

So when do the black clad. "protestors" turn up after some new Jordans, a TV and some booze free.

These events sadly seem to attract the less desirable elements of the political spectrum.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Or cracking people's skulls open with bike locks?

Remind us again how many people were killed with bike locks?

Per Fox:
* Terrorist obsessed with Hitler.
* DOJ pursuing civil rights and terrorism related charges. Investigating to see if others involved.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Or cracking people's skulls open with bike locks?

Remind us again how many people were killed with bike locks?

Still an attack capable of causing death.

Seriously though, we can go back and forth all day long with "that side causes violence, no that side does."

All political spectrums contain violent fringe groups. Sooner everyone accepts that, the sooner we can continue on with things that matter.

 Alpharius wrote:
Real close now...

Since this Seattle thing is developing, if we want to discuss that we're going to need to make a real effort to keep this thread polite. If this thread gets locked - and it's obviously just about out of runway - there is no way Seattle is gonna get it's own thread.

 Frazzled wrote:
Per Fox:
* Terrorist obsessed with Hitler.
* DOJ pursuing civil rights and terrorism related charges.

Seems like a pretty safe bet.

 Frazzled wrote:
Per Fox:
* Terrorist obsessed with Hitler.
* DOJ pursuing civil rights and terrorism related charges. Investigating to see if others involved.

I would be pleased to hear fox correctly calling this murderous bastard a terrorist. Are they doing that and (hopefully) not playing up the 'troubled young man' bs?

Grey Templar wrote:Indeed. I think this really originates in the massive name calling that happens on both sides(but originated with the left). The left has a super bad habit of calling anybody who disagrees with them anything from "bigot" to "nazi" and everything in between. Naturally right wingers are sick of this, and eventually resort to name calling themselves. It's just a vicious cycle. Then real Nazis and bigots start showing up and you have a real mess on your hands.

Not indeed at all. How many "feminazis" do you see marching with white supremacists and swastika flags. People spew this stuff about leftists calling them names and how it pushed them further to the right but I got bad news for you. If that name calling led to someone becoming an Neo-Nazi then they were already a Neo-Nazi before that happened. Somehow leftists who got called fascists (by people who apparently have no idea what fascism is) didn't end up shouting about the need to eradicate ethnicities or LGBT people.

Frazzled wrote:Indeed. However the US values the right of free speech perhaps as the greatest right of all. It's a difference between nations, based on why the US came into being.

Again one of these "indeeds" as if it makes statements true. Everybody values free speech to a certain degree. The only difference is how and where you put down the line. It's easy to protect speech from people (no matter how repulsive) if it's effects are not affecting you. Also this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States
"For instance, restraints increased during periods of widespread anti-communist sentiment, as exemplified by the hearings of the House Committee on Un-American Activities"
https://www.glsen.org/learn/policy/issues/nopromohomo
https://twitter.com/discomfiting/status/827354681504587777

You can sit down with that first amendment cheerleading because that's not it works in the real USA.

Frazzled wrote:You would have to permit it. That's what some say about Islam, and under that theory it would be acceptable to oppress them.

You do know that people are actually fighting ISIS (and similar groups) but that doesn't mean you get a license to hunt all muslims? Like how all Neo-Nazis/fascists/white supremacists are politically right wing but the rest of the people who are on the right wing of the political spectrum are not Neo-Nazis/fascists/white supremacists and those wouldn't fall under the "punch a Nazi" doctrine. It's quite easy to keep them apart. One advocates for the murder of people who don't look like them (and even that's debatable, they would put me in a concentration camp because I'm the wrong type of white) and the rest don't.

They were repeating McMaster calling it a terrorist attack.

Field reporter on the water street site of the attack says "what people are calling an act of terrorism." House members (R) who have been on have said at least basic things about bigotry, same with the democrat Governor, of whom you can find plenty of dated pictures that include confederate flags and sympathizers.

On the other hand, today, 24hrs after the Maria Baritrimo literally asked a guest if he thought the driver was intentional when he ran over and killed members of the alt-right. As in she was under the impression the victims were not unaligned counter protesters who had turned out to be reasonable human beings and so liberal gak like cheer and hold hands, but were instead "alt-right."

It was just one word out of place. Obviously she has to do a two hour news show where part of her job is to not blink and say the same set of buzzwords every three minutes.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'd better make this point before the thread gets locked.

But on a serious note, we're not looking at the bigger picture here, and that picture is this:

Does the USA still believe in the bill of rights?

This event was not about neo-nazis Vs. anti-fascist protestors. It was an event that started in 1776:

what kind of country does the USA want to be? Does it want to be a nation where everybody gets their say, no matter how repulsive their views?

Or does it want freedom of thought, of speech, to be 'approved' before it can be said or thought?

It's a battle for the heart and soul of America that has been ongoing since day 1, and hopefully, it's a battle that will always be fought.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and all that...

What I don't want to see is the States go the route of Britain and the Continent. I would prefer to not have the Thought Police come knocking at my door because I said something mean on Farcebook.


I don't think that your late countryman, Mr. George Orwell, intended for 1984 to be an instruction manual. We've gone far enough here with the surveillance, both public and private, and the (sadly necessary evil known as the) NSA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mario wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Indeed. I think this really originates in the massive name calling that happens on both sides(but originated with the left). The left has a super bad habit of calling anybody who disagrees with them anything from "bigot" to "nazi" and everything in between. Naturally right wingers are sick of this, and eventually resort to name calling themselves. It's just a vicious cycle. Then real Nazis and bigots start showing up and you have a real mess on your hands.

Not indeed at all. How many "feminazis" do you see marching with white supremacists and swastika flags. People spew this stuff about leftists calling them names and how it pushed them further to the right but I got bad news for you. If that name calling led to someone becoming an Neo-Nazi then they were already a Neo-Nazi before that happened. Somehow leftists who got called fascists (by people who apparently have no idea what fascism is) didn't end up shouting about the need to eradicate ethnicities or LGBT people.

Frazzled wrote:Indeed. However the US values the right of free speech perhaps as the greatest right of all. It's a difference between nations, based on why the US came into being.

Again one of these "indeeds" as if it makes statements true. Everybody values free speech to a certain degree. The only difference is how and where you put down the line. It's easy to protect speech from people (no matter how repulsive) if it's effects are not affecting you. Also this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States
"For instance, restraints increased during periods of widespread anti-communist sentiment, as exemplified by the hearings of the House Committee on Un-American Activities"
https://www.glsen.org/learn/policy/issues/nopromohomo
https://twitter.com/discomfiting/status/827354681504587777

You can sit down with that first amendment cheerleading because that's not it works in the real USA.

Frazzled wrote:You would have to permit it. That's what some say about Islam, and under that theory it would be acceptable to oppress them.

You do know that people are actually fighting ISIS (and similar groups) but that doesn't mean you get a license to hunt all muslims? Like how all Neo-Nazis/fascists/white supremacists are politically right wing but the rest of the people who are on the right wing of the political spectrum are not Neo-Nazis/fascists/white supremacists and those wouldn't fall under the "punch a Nazi" doctrine. It's quite easy to keep them apart. One advocates for the murder of people who don't look like them (and even that's debatable, they would put me in a concentration camp because I'm the wrong type of white) and the rest don't.

And what you seem to ignore by digging up a phenomena that has been dead for nearly a half-century, is that the "anti-communist" measures and proceedings enacted/proposed by that body is generally decried nowadays and is considered Unconstitutional by most modern ConLaw scholars. And there is the little matter of the communist movement in the United States being in cahoots, off and on, with Moscow during the period between the 1930's through the 1950's. The same thing happened to fascist and NatSoc movements in the United States during the war, being closely watched by Hoover's FBI and the House Committee of Un-American Activities.


There is a difference between wartime censorship (including Cold War censorship in the interests of national security)/keeping state secrets, and suppression of unpopular political and social views during peacetime. Which is the issue here.


So, skip the chest thumping. The United States enjoys a measure of free speech and expression not enjoyed elsewhere, including the supposedly "more enlightened" liberal social democracies of Western Europe. And I would prefer to keep it that way.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


No, advocating national socialism is not inherently inciting violence. Advocating national socialism isn't illegal anywhere in the US. It isn't illegal to advocate any paerticular political ideology anywhere in the US.

Yes it is. See the Hitler quotes earlier in the thread. Violence is inherent to the Nazis, you cannot advocate National Socialism without advocating violence.

No, advocating for national socialism, a political system/ideology that includes violence is very different from actually being guilty of the crime of inciting violence. To be charged with inciting violence/inciting a riot you have to encourage/instigate people who are capable of receiving such communication from you and then proceed to actually commit acts of violence. You could stand in front of a crowd and tell them how awesome you think national socialism is and how we should put it into practice but if the crowd simply listens to you and even if they agree with you but nobody commits an act of violence then you haven't done anything wrong.

Oh, such as driving a car into protesters? Would that be violent enough?

If there is evidence of direct communication from the protest/rally to the person who drove the car in which that person tried to instigate acts of violences against the counter protestors by others including the driver then that first person who was communicating encouragement to commit acts of violence could and should be charged with inciting violence. However, simply promoting Nazism and white supremacy at a rally during which an attendee commits an act of violence doesn't meet the legal standard of inciting violence, that's why I including the text of the law and a link to it in my previous post in this tangent.

I agree, but it seems unlikely. It's being noted now that the vast majority of the original protestors were armed. The local police stating that they were outgunned, to put it simply.

Yet, barring the one man (who came from out of state), not one of them exhibited any intent to use deadly force.

Oh yeah the bad boogeyman that is European censorship. Nevermind the fact that such censorship is limited to extreme cases like Nazis, as Europe still has far-right parties. Some of you may even remember the FN party that managed to pass to the second round of the French elections earlier this year.

And the US bashing continues.

And do we really need crap like the daily stormer?

Not posted on Dakka Dakka, no. - Manchu