Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

[Skeptic Tank]

There has been some talk in the past few years about Texas and California possibly declaring independence. Is that treason?

Is declaring independence from Great Britain as their lawful colony treason?

 

[The Don]

There has been some talk in the past few years about Texas and California possibly declaring independence. Is that treason?

If their first step is to start firing on U.S. military installations and their second is to declare war on the United States, then from a U.S. perspective then yes, especially if their attempt was unsuccessful.

As with so many things, success is key to determine whether those who break away are brave freedom fighters struggling for liberty (the U.S. in 1776, Ireland in 1916) or treasonous rebels who must be quashed at all costs (Jacobites in 1745, Ireland in 1789, India 1857).

 

[phiwum]

I'm having a fun time replacing the word "Nazis" with "ISIS" in the discussions about free speech. I'm fairly sure there would be different opinions if ISIS had done this.

Supporting Trump now is supporting Nazis. Good on you, Trumpers.

I've defended the free speech rights of Nazis, but I don't support Trump or Nazis.

 

[Tony Stark]

Is declaring independence from Great Britain as their lawful colony treason?

Yeah and if they lost, it would be really weird to have statues glorifying them.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Saw this posted by a guy named Jared Wyand I've seen stuff from before. I think it's worth seeing and really considering whether he's got a point, for those of you who dismiss this stuff as just baseless and evil.

Identity politics was all fine and good until Whites finally joined the party.
Now everyone is crying foul.
>When they teach courses on "stopping Whiteness" in schools, it’s ok
>When they hunt us in the streets during their riots, it’s ok
>When they demonize our history and tear it down, it's ok
>When they make US cities sanctuaries for people breaking in, it's ok
>When they suppress crimes committed against Whites, it's ok
>When they celebrate America becoming less White because of mass illegal/legal immigration, it's ok
>When they tell us less of us in any organization makes it stronger, it's ok
>When they promote black power and brown pride, it’s ok
>When the overwhelming amount of White women on TV are intentionally shown with non-White men to push an agenda, it's ok
>When the UN publishes a paper titled "replacement migration" advocating replacing Whites in western countries with non-Whites from third world countries, it's ok

White identity is here now and it's not going anywhere. It's time to protect our future from the people trying to destroy it. You have no reason to feel guilty about preserving the accomplishments of your ancestors and the future for your children.

 

[Upchurch]

Honest Abe is turning over in his grave at the actions of Dishonest Don.

Just so you know, Imma steal the living crap out of that line.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

When they celebrate America becoming less White because of mass illegal/legal immigration, it's ok

When they celebrate America becoming less White because of legal immigration, it's ok.

When they promote black power and brown pride, it’s ok

When they promote human pride regardless of color, it's ok.

When the overwhelming amount of White women on TV are intentionally
shown with non-White men to push an agenda, it's ok

When people interact as humans regardless of color, it's ok.

When they teach courses on "stopping Whiteness" in schools, it’s ok

When they teach courses about that we are humans regardless of color in schools, it's ok.

When they demonize our history and tear it down, it's ok

When they speak out against any form of racism and slavery, it's ok.

When they tell us less of us in any organization makes it stronger, it's ok

When they try to remove racism, it's ok.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Honest Abe is turning over in his grave at the actions of Dishonest Don.

"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ..." -Abraham Lincoln

"In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and in their places be, pari passu [on an equal basis], filled up by free white laborers" -Abraham Lincoln

"I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." -Abraham Lincoln

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." -Abraham Lincoln

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man." -Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln: Proto-Nazi, White Supremacist, White Nationalist, denier of equality.

Not disgusted by Trump's failure to denounce the people who Lincoln and his contemporaries would likely view as the last vestige of sanity and only hope for the nation's future (modern day white nationalists.)

Oh, and in case you think he'd give up these views upon seeing our current modern multicultural utopia... I think he would instead feel that the current condition of Baltimore, Detroit, Haiti, South Africa, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., etc. were a huge vindication of these views.

 

[uke2se]

I've defended the free speech rights of Nazis, but I don't support Trump or Nazis.

Would you stand up and defend the right of ISIS to march down the streets of a small American town and hold a rally, shouting things like "Death to the infidels!"?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Would you stand up and defend the right of ISIS to march down the streets of a small American town and hold a rally, shouting things like "Death to the infidels!"?

Yes.

The idea that non-direct and non-concrete context violent speech should be limited can be misused.
I defend your right to disagree with me, because if I don't defend that, it can be take away from us both and I don't want that to happen for either of us.

 

[uke2se]

Yes.

The idea that non-direct and non-concrete context violent speech should be limited can be misused.
I defend your right to disagree with me, because if I don't defend that, it can be take away from us both and I don't want that to happen for either of us.

Good to know. I would not support it. ISIS, like the KKK and several neo-Nazi organisation, are terrorist organisations. I don't support their rights, because they will not accept mine.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Good to know. I would not support it. ISIS, like the KKK and several neo-Nazis organisation, are terrorist organisations. I don't support their rights, because they will not accept mine.

Yes, there are alt-right, alt-religious, alt-left, alt-animal rights and so on. All of these labels become alt-versions if taken to their extreme, but that is even true of alt-democracy as democracy is only for those I agree with.

 

[uke2se]

Yes, there are alt-right, alt-religious, alt-left, alt-animal rights and so on.

No, there aren't. There are alt-right organisations. The other ones are made up.

Democracy is for everyone except those who want to bring it down. That includes the KKK, neo-Nazis and ISIS.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No, there aren't. There are alt-right organisations. The other ones are made up.

Democracy is for everyone except those who want to bring it down. That includes the KKK, neo-Nazis and ISIS.

So there has never been committed political crimes other than alt-right crimes?
And there are nobody on any flank other than the alt-right who want to bring democracy down?

 

[phiwum]

Would you stand up and defend the right of ISIS to march down the streets of a small American town and hold a rally, shouting things like "Death to the infidels!"?

I don't know whether "death to the infidels" is an incitement to violence or, more likely, "fighting words". If so, then of course there would be no free speech right to do what you describe.

I also think that ISIS or ISIS sympathizers likely fall afoul of a law regarding aiding terrorists. Again, I don't think that the First Amendment protects that kind of speech.

I don't know of any specific reason that a Nazi group would not have free speech rights, again supposing that their speech neither incites violence nor constitutes fighting words.

Pointing out that despicable people have (and, in my opinion, ought to have) rights to express their horrible views is not the same as tolerance of the views themselves.

 

[uke2se]

So there has never been committed political crimes other than alt-right crimes?

Massive straw man.

And there are nobody on any flank other than the alt-right who want to bring democracy down?

Also massive straw man.

Do better or don't do it at all.

 

[uke2se]

I don't know whether "death to the infidels" is an incitement to violence or, more likely, "fighting words". If so, then of course there would be no free speech right to do what you describe.

Like "****[pejorative term for intercourse] you ****** [pejorative term for African-Americans]" or "Jews will not replace us" or ""Go the **** [pejorative term for intercourse] back to Africa, ****** [pejorative term for African-Americans]"?

I also think that ISIS or ISIS sympathizers likely fall afoul of a law regarding aiding terrorists. Again, I don't think that the First Amendment protects that kind of speech.

The KKK and neo-Nazis have perpetrated more terrorist attacks in the US than ISIS.

I don't know of any specific reason that a Nazi group would not have free speech rights, again supposing that their speech neither incites violence nor constitutes fighting words.

Nazi speech always incites violence. That's their goal.

Pointing out that despicable people have (and, in my opinion, ought to have) rights to express their horrible views is not the same as tolerance of the views themselves.

I disagree. There's a line to be drawn. The line already exists - free speech isn't absolute - so it's just a matter of drawing it before we get to Nazis. Shouldn't be difficult.

 

[pgwenthold]

Well, the Third Reich had some amazing infrastructure projects

Yeah, look how quickly and efficiently they built camps all over Europe....

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Massive straw man.



Also massive straw man.

Do better or don't do it at all.

Let me explain how it works. I claim that something is possible in a nomological sense. You deny that it is even nomologically possible and then it ends before it starts.
If I am to make arguments and give evidence, then you must be willing to consider them as relevant, if this is to proceed.
So here is the first argument or evidence if you like.
Is it logically and physically impossible for someone to hold a position against a liberal democracy, which these USA are, other than an alt-right position?

The answer is yes, because it is possible to claim that a democracy should not allow private property rights and that these USA are not a true democracy, because it allows private property rights and capitalism. The same is the case with certain versions of libertarianism in the sense of how much government we need.
So to sum up, the idea that there is only your idea of democracy, government and rights versus the alt-right is not how reality works in practice.
There is within non-racism/religion not just one claim to democracy and how a society ought to be. Look up libertarianism, anarchism and communism.

So I will defend the right to claim that private property right is murder and/or that the government is a tyranny.

 

[uke2se]

Let me explain how it works. I claim that something is possible in a nomological sense. You deny that it is even nomologically possible and then it ends before it starts.
If I am to make arguments and give evidence, then you must be willing to consider them as relevant, if this is to proceed.
So here is the first argument or evidence if you like.
Is it logically and physically impossible for someone to hold a position against a liberal democracy, which the USA are, other than an alt-right position?

The answer is yes, because it is possible to claim that a democracy should not allow private property rights and that the USA are not a true democracy, because it allows private property rights and capitalism. The same is the case with certain versions of libertarianism in the sense of how much government we need.
So to sum up, the idea that there is only your idea of democracy, government and rights versus the alt-right is not how reality works in practice.
There is within non-racism/religion not just one claim to democracy and how a society ought to be. Look up libertarianism, anarchism and communism.

So I will defend the right to claim that private property right is murder and/or that the government is a tyranny.

I said that there are no such things as alt-left or alt-whatever. Alt-right exists. You aren't replying to anything I wrote.