Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

[sunmaster14]

Reality? Reality is Nazis killed people on a US street, and the US president basically supported them.

Your use of the plural there tells me all I need to know about your command of the facts. I remember earlier in the thread (before I started posting again) you and another member basically accused the Charlottesville Neo-Nazis of having the deaths of three people on their hands. Facts don't matter to people who get emotionally wound up I guess.

 

[jimbob]

I suspect that you really aren't. Not if you are thinking it through. Sure, your statement sounds so big and pure: "I'm for freedom of expression, freedom of speech no matter what!" It is what a Red Blooded, True American would say. But do think about it if you haven't yet:

There is of course the classical question: Do you support freedom to shout fire in a crowded theater? Really? Or, in common with the Supreme Court, I bet you are okay with there being some limitation of freedom of speech in cases where it would represent an imminent danger.

Do you support freedom for a company to lie about its products to their consumers? Freedom of a company to lie about their finances to their stock holders? Freedom of a pharmaceutical firm to lie about the safety or efficacy of its drugs? Is that what you support? Or are you now going to claim this is "commercial" speech and you only meant political speech?

How about freedom of speech by a soldier in the army to harangue other soldiers into becoming anarchists? Or Nazis? Or (see below) to go AWOL?

Or (and I agree this is trickier) freedom of speech for a band of USA citizens to praise Hitler during World War 2?

How abut freedom of speech to urge others into committing a crime? Perhaps an assault or arson on your own family by a mob surrounding your house. Are you willing to go that far with your ideals?

Wouldn't a true freedom loving person approve of free speech in the examples I gave? Yet it turns out there are serious problems with each. Serious problems proven by history. And recognized by the courts ("The Constitution is not a suicide pact."). And a recognition that one person's freedom of speech may impact another person's freedoms. Which is why even the most free society imposes some government limits on "freedom of speech." And as repeatedly pointed out by others, "freedom of speech" relates to government restrictions, not to individuals. No one is forced to rent out their hall for a Nazi rally if they don't like Nazis.

Ironically, even though I am Jewish I fully agree with you that Nazis and the KKK have a right to freedom of speech as far as government regulations go. I've donated money to the ACLU when they lost other support because they too feel that freedom of speech applies to Nazis and the KKK. I continue to believe this and support it. Yet it is crucial to also remember that the Nazis are cynically using the freedoms of this country to undermine those very freedoms. It is the price we pay, but it means that their freedom of speech makes it even more important to organize against the Nazis and their evil soul mates, to educate others, to embarrass them at every opportunity, to mock them, and to denounce them at every opportunity, and to stand up against them with counter demonstrations whenever they rally their low life supporters. Nazis can say what they want- but it doesn't mean I have to agree or listen quietly, or not make as difficult as I legally can for them to convince others with their dogma. One can recognize that a pack of wild dogs has a right to the freedom of the African veldt, but that doesn't mean that one is obligated to help them (or even allow them) to dine on a bus load of children on safari.

Finally one must remember that there are legitimate limits to freedom of speech even in terms of government laws, as per the examples I cited above and which have been found to be constitutional by USA courts. The Nazis do not have a right of freedom of speech to directly threaten others. The Nazis do not have a right of freedom of speech under circumstances that present a clear and imminent danger to the people around them. Etc. They are wild dogs. Rabid dogs. Watch them closely! And don't minimize their risk to all of us!

This seems pretty relevant to the attitude this side of the Atlantic (in much of Western Europe)

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

― Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

 

[sunmaster14]

I have never called any member of this Forum a Nazi. There are a few members who appear to be publicly proud to be white supremacists, but I haven't even placed this label on them in any of my posts. But I will state that there are certainly Forum members whose views of Nazis and white supremacists appear to be surprisingly mild, or secondary to their more intense hatred of Anti-Fa and other anti-Nazi demonstrators.

I can only state that one should carefully check the function of one's moral compass when one starts to feel that Nazis aren't that bad, or when one invoke Tu quoque to counter someone who criticizes Nazis. It is not that hard to check out one's moral compass- you can just compare it to what virtually everyone else (minus Trump) in the world is saying about the Nazi rally in Charlottesville. If your compass doesn't point in the same direction perhaps it has become demagnetized over the years and you need to buy a new one...

Pfft. The usual innuendo ... How about debating with logic and reason and emotional detachment instead?

ETA: And for the record, I don't use a moral compass. I have a moral GPS.

 

[Giordano]

Yes, I support it in all those cases. Though I did skim the list.

Bob- take it as a complement or as a criticism, but I knew you would! I've come to rely on your stated point of view as one constant marker in these discussions and I give you credit for your unwillingness to bend your perspective to the whims of popularity.

 

[Tony]

Ah, so now you're not satisfied with bringing in SJW's, but are going to have a go at Muslims as well. It's almost as if Nazis killing people doesn't really bother you, mr leftist.

Haha you mad? Make sure to wipe the spittle off your screen. I would apologize for not getting my panties in a twist, but I really don't care.

Yeah, it's the SJW's who are hypocrites.

Well yeah. The nazis know they are intolerant *****. They admit that they have violent tendencies and would execute their political rivals or throw them in prison. The SJWs pretend to be tolerant and empathetic, but it's obvious they would do the exact same if they had the power.

 

[uke2se]

Haha you mad? Make sure to wipe the spittle off your screen. I would apologize for not getting my panties in a twist, but I really don't care.

Ah, Gamergater I take it? The internet-jargon combined with odious opinions is a tell-tale sign.

And you don't care that Nazis killed people on a US street last Saturday. How edgy.

Well yeah. The nazis know they are intolerant *****. They admit that they have violent tendencies and would execute their political rivals or throw them in prison. The SJWs pretend to be tolerant and empathetic, but it's obvious they would do the exact same if they had the power.

Ok, so the Nazis aren't as bad as the SJWs because while the Nazis kill people, and have historically been responsible for the deaths of many millions of people, you feel that the SJWs would do the same if they were able to.

Yeah. Let me borrow a phrase that you internet edge-lords love:

**** your feelings.

 

[sunmaster14]

This seems pretty relevant to the attitude this side of the Atlantic (in much of Western Europe)


― Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

... as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.

I think, rather, Popper's attitude is more aligned with the attitude on this side of the Atlantic (i.e. the US). At least until recently.

 

[Tony]

Then you know ****-all about who they hate.

You need to take a break from the internet.

Go on pretending to be a leftist though. It's really progressive to spew **** about SJWs and Muslims in a thread about actual Nazis killing someone on a US street.

Hahaha. I don't toe your line therefor I must be "pretending". That's a classic sign of a paranoid extremist right there. Good job bro. Thanks for proving my point.

And yes it is progressive to bring up other cases where other groups have committed violence in the past. It's called context and progressives do it all the time. Again, you're grin on reality is fading. Time to take that break.

 

[uke2se]

You need to take a break from the internet.

No U. Did I do that right?

Hahaha. I don't toe your line therefor I must be "pretending". That's a classic sign of a paranoid extremist right there. Good job bro. Thanks for proving my point.

What was your point again? Something something SJWs?

And yes it is progressive to bring up other cases where other groups have committed violence in the past. It's called context and progressives do it all the time. Again, you're grin on reality is fading. Time to take that break.

Which case of SJW violence would you like to cite to compare a Nazi running a car into a group of protesters?

 

[Elagabalus]

Pfft. The usual innuendo ... How about debating with logic and reason and emotional detachment instead?

Have a look over on the Holocaust Denial CT Thread.

 

[jimbob]

Pfft. The usual innuendo ... How about debating with logic and reason and emotional detachment instead?

Er, there was no innuendo. However, if you find yourself equally blaming Nazis and people protesting against them, you *should* examine your moral compass.

Some Anti-fascists are bad, most are good.

All white supremacists are bad, many are Nazis, all of whom are bad.

If you are attending a white supremacist march as a supporter, you are supporting something for which there are no redeeming features. You are supporting something bad.

I can't see how one can support Nazis without being a Nazi.

 

[Tony]

Ah, Gamergater I take it? The internet-jargon combined with odious opinions is a tell-tale sign.

What? Youre still on about some video game freak out from 5 years ago? I completely forgot about that crap. Time to move on.

And you don't care that Nazis killed people on a US street last Saturday. How edgy.

I don't care about your whining.

Ok, so the Nazis aren't as bad as the SJWs because while the Nazis kill people, and have historically been responsible for the deaths of many millions of people, you feel that the SJWs would do the same if they were able to.

I don't feel it, I think it. I leave the emoting to small minds.

Yeah. Let me borrow a phrase that you internet edge-lords love:

Edgelord?

**** your feelings.

I haven't expressed my feelings.

 

[Giordano]

Pfft. The usual innuendo ... How about debating with logic and reason and emotional detachment instead?

My post was an overall observation, not a debating point. I have other posts in this thread that engage (with logic and reason if you permit me a self-evaluation) the specifics of the debate and respond to specific posts by specific other members.

Innuendo- no, this post of mine was a general observation not meant to apply to any specific individual. It was not my goal to denounce any specific member but rather to target the shared views I've seen presented here that display a surprising tolerance for Nazis. Attack the argument not the arguer, right? Would you prefer me to call out specific Forum members? I don't see the point, and I don't believe that is permitted.

Finally there is considerable logic to the suggestion that if one's point of view goes against virtually everyone else's, one should think carefully about why that might be. It doesn't mean one is wrong- but it does call for a thoughtful double check to be certain that one has good reasons to go against the conclusions of so many other people.

 

[uke2se]

I haven't expressed my feelings.

Yes, you have. You have expressed clearly that you are not bothered by Nazis killing people in US streets. At least not as much as you are bothered by people calling you a misogynist online.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I can only state that one should carefully check the function of one's moral compass when one starts to feel that Nazis aren't that bad...

Gee, thanks for the moral guidance. What we've really got here is a virtue signaling competition where a bunch of posters are trying to outdo each other on how quickly and on how little evidence they can determine that everyone else is a Nazi. And then, of course, call them a nazi, call them a racist, repeat once again how they themselves are decidedly not racist and how much they hate racists and so on.

So, yeah, thanks for letting us all know that thinking Nazis aren't that bad is a no-no. Much appreciated.

By they way, I think you might be a racist.

 

[Giordano]

Er, there was no innuendo. However, if you find yourself equally blaming Nazis and people protesting against them, you *should* examine your moral compass.

Some Anti-fascists are bad, most are good.

All white supremacists are bad, many are Nazis, all of whom are bad.

If you are attending a white supremacist march as a supporter, you are supporting something for which there are no redeeming features. You are supporting something bad.

I can't see how one can support Nazis without being a Nazi.

Well, to be fair they could just be wannabes. Not everyone passes the ethnic purity test required to be a full Nazi.

 

[sunmaster14]

My post was an overall observation, not a debating point. I have other posts in this thread that engage (with logic and reason if you permit me a self-evaluation) the specifics of the debate and respond to specific posts by specific other members.

Innuendo- no, this post of mine was a general observation not meant to apply to any specific individual. It was not my goal to denounce any specific member but rather to target the shared views I've seen presented here that display a surprising tolerance for Nazis. Attack the argument not the arguer, right? Would you prefer me to call out specific Forum members? I don't see the point, and I don't believe that is permitted.

Finally there is considerable logic to the suggestion that if one's point of view goes against virtually everyone else's, one should think carefully about why that might be. It doesn't mean one is wrong- but it does call for a thoughtful double check to be certain that one has good reasons to go against the conclusions of so many other people.

I have put my good (IMHO) reasons out there for peer review. Why not address them instead of using apophasis to try to smear your interlocutors?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Three years ago, Christopher Cantwell, (seen here sniveling about being a mistreated Nazi), ...


... came to the attention of Stephen Colbert.
Free Keene Squad Robin Hooders interview with Stephen Colbert

Published on Nov 20, 2014
The Colbert Report broadcast this on the Free Keene Squad, a group of Libertarian contrarians who plug parking meters in protest of government fines.

Losers.

 

[Tony]

Yes, you have. You have expressed clearly that you are not bothered by Nazis killing people in US streets. At least not as much as you are bothered by people calling you a misogynist online.

Sure thing. Whatever you say Nazi.

 

[Giordano]

Gee, thanks for the moral guidance. What we've really got here is a virtue signaling competition where a bunch of posters are trying to outdo each other on how quickly and on how little evidence they can determine that everyone else is a Nazi. And then, of course, call them a nazi, call them a racist, repeat once again how they themselves are decidedly not racist and how much they hate racists and so on.

So, yeah, thanks for letting us all know that thinking Nazis aren't that bad is a no-no. Much appreciated.

By they way, I think you might be a racist.

Gee, you appear to not have read the part of my post where I made it clear that I am not accusing anyone here of being a Nazi. And I don't believe anyone here is a Nazi. And that I have never accused anyone here of being a Nazi, or a racist for that matter. You may be unhappy with the posts of others, but here you are clearly replying to MY post! Calling me a racist is completely uncalled for.

I am glad you appreciate my reminder that thinking Nazis aren't all that bad is a no-no! No problem! I would never have thought it necessary, but somehow in following this thread I came to believe that is was relevant and important.