• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

Checkmite said:
I am opposed to the growing habit of re-labeling any negative repercussion from any direction to someone's public speech as wrong because of a "chilling effect".

Government repercussions are wrong. SLAPP lawsuits are wrong. Beyond that? Firing an employee who has openly engaged in infamous activity is itself a form of expression on the part of the employer; it's not substantially different from pulling ads from a show whose host has crossed a line.
Click to expand...
My objection was to the tactic, not the firing.
Anyone can take a picture of someone they don't like, taken pretty much anywhere, that can APPEAR to put them in a compromising position or bad light, and claim anything they want to about it.
That's the heritage of the internet, Photoshop, and anger...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
To play devil's advocate here, does that mean you would have agreed with the blacklisting of the McCarthy era?

And does it matter if the jobs one is being fired from involve access to the public speech sphere like being a famous actor does?
Click to expand...

Actors is more contract-driven (with union fun on top of that). I would say that Hollywood firms absolutely have clauses to make claims for damages if a principle actor damages their brand, at least during publicity/promo when they are appearing on shows and during critical distribution periods.

This is absolutely true when it comes to endorsement deals. Your brand status is exactly what they are buying. When you tank it, they have clauses to terminate you and make claims.
 
dudalb said:
The worst thing about our resident Anarchist Revolutionaries is that their rants have become so predictable and boring.
Click to expand...

It really has just become a reflexive noise with no context.

This board is reaching the point where if one were to start a thread entitled "Water is wet" the same handful of "I'm cool because I disagree with the majority regardless of any sense that makes" regulars would all rush to assume opposing positions because of... reasons.

I just imagine all of them in their mothers' basements wearing Guy Fawkes mask and Che Guevara shirts they bought with daddy's credit card.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I'm not so sure the police felt out-gunned. Someone said it and people just went with it.

The police chief had a much more reasonable explanation that I found credible. He said two things, they had planned on keeping the groups separate. The nazis/racists ignored the plan to enter the park from a single direction and began arriving from all directions.

And two, the police did initially underdress for the occasion and retreated to add body armor and related equipment/arms. That does not mean they didn't act because they were out-gunned or intimidated. It means they misjudged and had to reassess.

Police in riot armor does intimidate the crowd. The chief's actions were reasonable.
Click to expand...

The NATO Summit in Chicago was lead by veterans and civil rights figures. We saw increasing layers of protective gear and equipment all along the route. When we reached final intersection to hear testimony from veterans and Afghan refugees, we were quite hemmed in by 3-deep turtle suits, stretch passenger vans, and police busses.

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and Veterans for Peace: full court press

White supremacists and counter-protesters who want each other's blood: Let's sit back and see if this resolves peacefully.

ETA: I actually consider Chicago's proper. After the veterans left and asked all participants to respect their call for peace and leave without incident, a black bloc formed up front and center and ripped up the barricades. I should pause to mention that a fence about 50 yards past that was the "no further" perimeter of a zone of protection around a place where world heads of state were meeting.

Stay classy, ****ers :9
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
My objection was to the tactic, not the firing.
Anyone can take a picture of someone they don't like, taken pretty much anywhere, that can APPEAR to put them in a compromising position or bad light, and claim anything they want to about it.
Click to expand...

That's true; but it also doesn't apply to this case. The white nationalists made absolutely no bones about who they were, what they believed, and why they were there. No words have been put into mouths in this instance; the strongest defense any attendee to this rally can evoke is that they were only marching with neo-Nazis.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
To play devil's advocate here, does that mean you would have agreed with the blacklisting of the McCarthy era?

And does it matter if the jobs one is being fired from involve access to the public speech sphere like being a famous actor does?
Click to expand...

Perhaps boycotts based on political comments made by the owners of companies should be illegal. After all, those companies are being economically punished for speech...real chilling effect there.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Actors is more contract-driven (with union fun on top of that). I would say that Hollywood firms absolutely have clauses to make claims for damages if a principle actor damages their brand, at least during publicity/promo when they are appearing on shows and during critical distribution periods.

This is absolutely true when it comes to endorsement deals. Your brand status is exactly what they are buying. When you tank it, they have clauses to terminate you and make claims.
Click to expand...
Your answer is a non sequitur to my post.
 
Checkmite said:
That's true; but it also doesn't apply to this case. The white nationalists made absolutely no bones about who they were, what they believed, and why they were there. No words have been put into mouths in this instance; the strongest defense any attendee to this rally can evoke is that they were only marching with neo-Nazis.
Click to expand...

I have not investigated, but I have seen claims of such...err...claims being made.
 
trustbutverify said:
Perhaps boycotts based on political comments made by the owners of companies should be illegal. After all, those companies are being economically punished for speech...real chilling effect there.
Click to expand...
Consumers are not in the same position of power over employees as bosses and owners are.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Actors is more contract-driven (with union fun on top of that). I would say that Hollywood firms absolutely have clauses to make claims for damages if a principle actor damages their brand, at least during publicity/promo when they are appearing on shows and during critical distribution periods.

This is absolutely true when it comes to endorsement deals. Your brand status is exactly what they are buying. When you tank it, they have clauses to terminate you and make claims.
Click to expand...


There was an episode of "Next Food Network Star", a show in which chefs compete to get their own show on Food Network, where one of the contestants got flustered during a presentation, then became frustrated and swore. It was censored on the episode, but the host flat-out told him "If you curse on live TV, you'll embarrass the network, and you'll be done in this industry." A winner on a previous season had his contract terminated without ever making a show after it was discovered that he had made sexist remarks on his blog, including extensive derogatory comments about an established chef on the network. Then there's Paula Dean.
If a company feels that your behavior is a big enough threat to their image and reputation, and thus to their bottom line, you're history.
 
Hey, if a business owner's false belief that a contraceptive is an abortofacient (or "just as bad") because a burning bush said so holds up in court, I'm okay with Nazis getting fired.
 
dudalb said:
As for the "Violence is the only way to deal with Facists" argument, that depends on the level of threat. As nasty and as violent as they are, the Neo Nazis and Kluckers in the US do not pose the kind of threat that the Nazis did in Europe in the 1930s. It is nothing that law enforcement cannot handle. And, frankly, Extreme Left wing groups tend to see anybody not as militant as they are as being "fascist" and therefore an enemy .
In other words they are just like the fascists they hate in one respect:they want to surpress anybody who disagress with them.
This is why I am not getting on the Antifa Bandwagon. Too many Authoritarian type Extremists in it who in the end hate REAL Democracy (they dismiss it as "Bourgeosis Democracy) as much as the Fascists do.
Click to expand...

Yes, the horseshoe theory has a lot going for it.

I think it people with absolutist personalities who are drawn to certainty, which could be either. One self-proclaimed racist on ISF mentions that they were a marxist before deciding to become a racist.

The highlighted part is particularly true. In general I have a bit more sympathy for the far left, because the idea of "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs" is more attractive than "white power", the trouble is that they want to take it upon themselves to determine who needs what and who has the means to give what, which is going to be abused. There is also the fact that it doesn't work, and whenever it has been tried, there has been poverty and even starvation. As well as violence against those who disagree. Many on the far left also can't bring themselves to criticise brutal dictators who cloaked themselves in the mantle of communism - even Stalin.

The far right and the far left also feed off each other.
 
caveman1917 said:
Yet if the only way "free speech" for nazis could be upheld is to accept political violence, then that was to be considered a necessary price to pay. Why is my shooting not considered a necessary price to pay for me reciting my political beliefs?
Click to expand...

You are equivocating on the meaning of "accepting" political violence, I think. There is no acceptance in the usual sense. There is an expectation that such violence may occur and a judgment that such violence, while terrible, is not worse than the effect of restricting political speech.

And yes, let's even assume that I get prosecuted after the shooting and all.
Click to expand...

Very well. Where's the problem? That you were allowed to verbally give an argument for the reasonableness of the massacre, or the massacre itself?

This is a no-brainer far as I'm concerned.

We're talking about beatings mostly. The shooting was an extreme example (though definitely not unheard of, see Breivik and many others) but then I was asking you about the level of violence you would consider acceptable so of course I'd make the example extreme.
Click to expand...

The distinction isn't the degree here, but the fact that you intended to commit a violent act and tacked on some political speech. This is indefensible. However, political speech which tends to be associated with (but does not incite) violence is a different matter.


It's mostly associated with violence by proponents and self-defense by opponents.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know whether that is true. Insofar as it's true, then it informs where the blame lies, obviously.


As are most nazi rallies, and if not in the rally itself then in small groups throughout the city afterwards.
Click to expand...

I make no judgment whether you are correct about most Nazi rallies, but I don't defend any event in which violence is intended prior to the event. Duh.
 
JoeBentley said:
I can't believe people are even entertaining the idea of letting actual Nazis bait us into falling for the "Lookit what you made me do" defense.
Click to expand...

Who do you have in mind?

I'm not trying to tempt you into a violation of the rules, so let me be clear. I won't regard your reply as an attack if you say that you include me among that group. I'm just not sure whether you do.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Consumers are not in the same position of power over employees as bosses and owners are.
Click to expand...

Theoretically, they could be more powerful, if the boycott is phenomenally successful and the organizers decide to blacklist the owners no matter what other businesses they engage in.

Maybe important clients should be prohibited from changing vendors based on finding out the owner makes speeches supporting rape as a political expression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom