Democrats = Antifa = BS

[ponderingturtle]

I suspect that the people committing these extra-judicial killings in Myanmar feel they are doing so for the good of their society and their victims deserve what is happening to them. In fact, the victims have brought it upon themselves. It's the ugly extreme of mob justice.

What extrajudicial killings? It is the military doing most of the killing. That makes if fine like bombing terrorists in other countries and the like. Perfectly acceptable.

 

[baron]

Read our exchange again.

You said that it is unbalanced to call someone racist for exercising free speech.
But since calling someone racist is Free speech, how can it be unbalanced?

So your contention is that free speech cannot be unbalanced? What the..?

What is this, some kind of gas lighting convention?

 

[ponderingturtle]

A political opinion is not enticement to genocide.

Of course it can be. How else are you supposed to attain the proper ethnostate?

What kind of speech? Free speech requires no dealing. If there is incitement to violence then it does not fall under the banner of free speech and should be addressed using the legal framework of the country concerned.

But as long as you are vague it is legal. See Trumps statements about attacking protesters and such. Those are legal and protected political speech. It only becomes illegal when you direct specific targeted killings.

So "Kill all the Jews" is protected by the first amendment. "Kill that specific jew" is of course criminal.

You are actually advocating for far stricter laws against speech than the US presently has.

 

[The Shrike]

Why is this so difficult? Despite some gray area in which my speech could be responsible for inciting violence and mayhem (e.g., "Fire!" where there is none), my freedom to say whatever provocative thing I like is protected as a fundamental right by the US Constitution. This is a good thing.

This does not mean that I am guaranteed the "right" to be paid a tidy sum by a private venue for me to give a lecture to an auditorium full of people to hear my message. I'm allowed to say what I like, but no one is required to hand me a bullhorn.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why is this so difficult? Despite some gray area in which my speech could be responsible for inciting violence and mayhem (e.g., "Fire!" where there is none), my freedom to say whatever provocative thing I like is protected as a fundamental right by the US Constitution. This is a good thing.

And if you are inspiring people to commit genocide you are still covered.

 

[baron]

Of course it can be. How else are you supposed to attain the proper ethnostate?

It is not enticement to genocide to wish for an ethnostate. It is incitement to genocide to wish for, well, genocide.

But as long as you are vague it is legal. See Trumps statements about attacking protesters and such. Those are legal and protected political speech. It only becomes illegal when you direct specific targeted killings.

So "Kill all the Jews" is protected by the first amendment. "Kill that specific jew" is of course criminal.

You are actually advocating for far stricter laws against speech than the US presently has.

I'm from the UK but I still know that isn't true. Free speech involving incitement in the US is deemed criminal on the basis of imminence and likelihood, not individual targeting.

Regardless, I don't have to agree with the free speech laws of every country to make my argument.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

So your contention is that free speech cannot be unbalanced? What the..?

What is this, some kind of gas lighting convention?

The point is that, logically, Free Speech can't be unrestricted, since Free speech itself is often a tool to suppress free speech of others.
Especially if you define speech as campaign contributions.

 

[phiwum]

I just try to see every person, organization, entity on its own terms.

Until every high school graduate can do that like they do basic algebra the future looks bleak.

The future looks bleak, then, because it's really difficult to evaluate folks dispassionately. I doubt you're quite so successful as you think.

But I do agree that this is a worthy goal.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It is not enticement to genocide to wish for an ethnostate. It is incitement to genocide to wish for, well, genocide.

Yep so no issues with Nazi policies until about 1940. I mean the US said strongly that no we would not take their jews and stop trying to send them to us, find your own damn solution for this jewish problem.

And of course saying that all homosexuals should be killed is basic freedom of religion too.

But got it ethnic cleansing legal to advocate, genocide not legal to advocate. This is getting into some very different free speech laws than anyone actually has.

 

[phiwum]

I just read up briefly on the Proud Boys.



Whilst they sound just as violent and fascist as Anifa, they're a good deal funnier.

Not sure about "Anifa" or Antifa, goodness, those are literally some stupid *****. I mean, really stupid.

But I'll grant you funny. They're kinda funny. But goodness, they're stupid.

I kinda doubt whether the hazing rituals you report are commonly accepted. 'Cause I mean that would be a notable amount of stupid.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not sure about "Anifa" or Antifa, goodness, those are literally some stupid *****. I mean, really stupid.

But I'll grant you funny. They're kinda funny. But goodness, they're stupid.

I kinda doubt whether the hazing rituals you report are commonly accepted. 'Cause I mean that would be a notable amount of stupid.

On the plus side anyone who would counter protest them is antifa and so deserves the violence directed against them. So we can safely ignore all the violence or something.

 

[phiwum]

What did you expect? It's not like any significant republicans support neo Nazis.

Actually, decent point.

Aside from the decent folks on both sides comment from Trump. Still, for the most part, I agree with your point.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, decent point.

Aside from the decent folks on both sides comment from Trump. Still, for the most part, I agree with your point.

Hard to say, they certainly seem to broadly support individuals. In the california senate race if they had primaries then a neo nazi would have been a challenger for the senate seat.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/05/03/neo-nazi-california-senate/579612002/

It doesn't seem to be ok to be that explicit but it doesn't seem to harm Steve King being a white supremacist.

So there isn't broad embracing of neo nazis yet but they don't exactly poll to badly.

 

[baron]

Yep so no issues with Nazi policies until about 1940. I mean the US said strongly that no we would not take their jews and stop trying to send them to us, find your own damn solution for this jewish problem.

You're not going to find a hole in my argument with jibes about Nazis and Jews.

And of course saying that all homosexuals should be killed is basic freedom of religion too.

Yes, and I doubt many on these boards have protested more about how this kind of call to violence is given special dispensation on account of being 'religious' than me. And you know what? When I do all I get is condemnation. Let's forget you brought that one up, yes?

But got it ethnic cleansing legal to advocate, genocide not legal to advocate. This is getting into some very different free speech laws than anyone actually has.

Let me get my binoculars so I can keep track of those goalposts. Ethnic cleansing is, by definition, an incitement to violence. We weren't talking about ethnic cleansing, we were talking about wishing for an ethnostate. The latter may include the former, in which case it is no longer free speech, but there is no requirement for it to do so.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You're not going to find a hole in my argument with jibes about Nazis and Jews.

They were just trying for the ethnostate. If someone had wanted the jews they never would have had to kill them. But no one wanted the jews so what else were they supposed to do to get their ethnostate?

Yes, and I doubt many on these boards have protested more about how this kind of call to violence is given special dispensation on account of being 'religious' than me. And you know what? When I do all I get is condemnation. Let's forget you brought that one up, yes?

So were are the priests and ministers who are locked up for calling for the death penalty for gays? Hell in the US they are given radio shows for that.

Let me get my binoculars so I can keep track of those goalposts. Ethnic cleansing is, by definition, an incitement to violence. We weren't talking about ethnic cleansing, we were talking about wishing for an ethnostate. The latter may include the former, in which case it is no longer free speech, but there is no requirement for it to do so.

But to get your ethnostate you need to cleanse all the undesirable ethnicities. Ethnic cleansing is intrinsic to forming ethnostates.

 

[BStrong]

Hard to say, they certainly seem to broadly support individuals. In the california senate race if they had primaries then a neo nazi would have been a challenger for the senate seat.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/05/03/neo-nazi-california-senate/579612002/

It doesn't seem to be ok to be that explicit but it doesn't seem to harm Steve King being a white supremacist.

So there isn't broad embracing of neo nazis yet but they don't exactly poll to badly.

Considering that the California GOP can't even field a candidate with any chance of unseating Democrat incumbents at the state and federal level, such a candidate wouldn't be anything more than comedic relief.

In S.F., our former mayor, Willie Brown (Democrat, black), is too far "right" to be welcome in current S.F. politics. Even out in the valley where Republicans are elected to the legislature they are accused by right-wing GOPers of being RHINO - Republicans In Name Only - because their constituencies expect moderate Republicanism, not the right-wing variety.

 

[baron]

So were are the priests and ministers who are locked up for calling for the death penalty for gays? Hell in the US they are given radio shows for that.

Anybody who advocates for murder in this way needs to be locked up. Few if any are, from any religion. That's unfortunate but it doesn't detract from my point.

But to get your ethnostate you need to cleanse all the undesirable ethnicities. Ethnic cleansing is intrinsic to forming ethnostates.

That's not true. We're talking about speech, you're talking about action. I see no incitement to violence if someone, like Jared Taylor, opines that the races should live apart. That in itself is not incitement to ethnic cleansing. Now clearly this is not only undesirable, it is practically speaking unworkable, and what would almost certainly happen if it were tried is an outbreak of violence. This is where the 'directness' aspect of free speech comes in. In order for speech fall foul of free speech that direct incitement needs to be present and obvious. This is something I strongly agree with (the concept, not the ethnostate).

 

[Damien Evans]

100% agree

We recently had some far-right wing speakers coming to this country (Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux) for a public speaking engagement. They were basically stopped in their tracks because in one case, the Mayor of Auckland, Phill Goff, refused to grant them use of a Council owned Hall, and then the second privately owned venues cancelled the events after they received threats of violence, vandalism and retribution.

I find the racist and bigoted views of these two speakers, Southern and Molyneux, disgusting. But I am just as disgusted they they were not allowed to express their opinions. However outrageous we might find their rhetoric, a properly civilised society would not have prevented them from exercising their free speech rights.

Stifling of free speech is not the second wrong that makes the first wrong right.

Congratulations, you have fallen victim to the paradox of tolerance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

 

[ponderingturtle]

Considering that the California GOP can't even field a candidate with any chance of unseating Democrat incumbents at the state and federal level, such a candidate wouldn't be anything more than comedic relief.

In S.F., our former mayor, Willie Brown (Democrat, black), is too far "right" to be welcome in current S.F. politics. Even out in the valley where Republicans are elected to the legislature they are accused by right-wing GOPers of being RHINO - Republicans In Name Only - because their constituencies expect moderate Republicanism, not the right-wing variety.

What does that have to do with the point that he was popular with republicans in your state?

 

[dann]

It is not enticement to genocide to wish for an ethnostate.

Oh, but we do wish for an ethnostate, don't we?! So let's have an organization, say, a party for all wishers for an ethnostate. We won't do anything. We'll just sit quietly in a corner wishing. That is within our right to free speech, isn't it? And now and then we may have a rally where we, quietly and peacefully, of course, let our wish be heard. I mean, there could be others like us out there who might share our wish for an ethnostate, couldn't there?! Not that we'll actually do anything. Wishing is free, too, isn't it?!