There Will be Blood: Boston's Straight Pride Parade.

[ponderingturtle]

Oh, so you're totally fine with me saying I'm going to kill someone, as long as I can't actually do it?

No this is incitement. You can call on people to kill the jews or gays or whatever as long as it is unlikely that they actually will. If then then do it you committed incitement.

"The incitement test first urged by Learned Hand did not become part of the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence until 1969, in the per curium decision of Brandenburg v Ohio. In reversing the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who gave a speech warning "that there might have to be some revengeance taken" for "continued suppression of the white, Caucasian race," the Court held that the First Amendment allows punishment only of subversive advocacy calculated to produce "imminent lawless action" and which is likely to produce such action. "

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incitement.htm

 

[Thermal]

These are people claiming to be Nazis, I would say it is not up to me to show that they are not Nazis but up to you to show why we shouldn't consider them Nazis even though they claim to be Nazis.

Yet they openly do not claim to endorse genocide. The burden falls back on you to demonstrate that they do. That others used to, or you really think so, does not suffice.

 

[plague311]

Yes, observation of their words and actions which do not indicate strict adherence to the Reich. There would be no change spelled out because there was no continuity in the first place.

Different time, different critters. Some similar swag and beliefs.

Please show 21st century direct endorsement of genocide. Not by association with previous generations,if you please

Are you basically arguing by saying we currently have a kinder, gentler Nazi? Seriously, what the hell?

Unless you can specifically point, as Darat has requested you to do a thousand times, to a change in the current Nazi's then Darat is right. There is no change in ideology, the only change you've been able to prove, at best, is that they can't get to that point, not that they don't want to. Which again, means your previous claim is wrong.

I admit I'm wrong all of the time, it baffles me that other people can't do the same. You claimed they don't hold that ideal, just admit you're wrong or prove you aren't. Not being able to do something doesn't mean they don't want to. Christ.

 

[ArchSas]

Yes, observation of their words and actions which do not indicate strict adherence to the Reich. There would be no change spelled out because there was no continuity in the first place.

Different time, different critters. Some similar swag and beliefs.

Please show 21st century direct endorsement of genocide. Not by association with previous generations,if you please

Check out the podcast "I Don't Speak German." It's run by a guy who spends most of his free time reading and listening to neo-Nazi/alt-right/white supremacist/etc. content and documenting it. I think even within an episode or two, you'll find ample evidence day neo-Nazis very much still do call for genocide.

Like others are pointing out, of course they do - it's why they identify as Nazis in the first place. It's a major feature of the ideology. Your counterarguments are, frankly, insane, and your certainty that neo-Nazis aren't pro-genocide because they haven't done it yet, and things must have changed in 80s years is kind of disturbing. Talking about a need to genocide is a fundamental part of what they people are about, and it has been since the days of George Lincoln Rockwell. Even a basic familiarity with modern neo-Nazism would make that obvious. It's true that some of the prominent leaders of the movement (Richard Spencer being the really obvious one) publicly say they want "peaceful ethnic cleansing" and stuff like that, but it's also something they started doing purely for the sake of good PR. Most of the prominent Nazis still talk about gassing the Jews all the time, especially in settings they think are more private like discord. But I guess Spencer's PR worked on you.

 

[plague311]

No this is incitement. You can call on people to kill the jews or gays or whatever as long as it is unlikely that they actually will. If then then do it you committed incitement.

"The incitement test first urged by Learned Hand did not become part of the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence until 1969, in the per curium decision of Brandenburg v Ohio. In reversing the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who gave a speech warning "that there might have to be some revengeance taken" for "continued suppression of the white, Caucasian race," the Court held that the First Amendment allows punishment only of subversive advocacy calculated to produce "imminent lawless action" and which is likely to produce such action. "

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incitement.htm

I'm not engaging in anymore of your nonsense. Thanks.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I sincerely don't know so that's why I am asking. Prior to the patriot act USA folk would have been allowed to be members of IsIS, raise money for them, promote their doctrines and so on?

To some extent, yes, so long as their support did not cross into explicitly criminal behavior. Individual actions would be considered criminal, such as participating or being accessories to acts of terrorism, laundering money, etc, would be a crime. Sending a pack of tube socks to an ISIS fighter would not be a crime without the Patriot act.

PATRIOT act gives the state department unilateral authority to declare a foreign group terrorists and gives them sweeping power to prohibit citizens from providing otherwise non criminal support of such groups, including explicitly humanitarian aid or other explicitly non-violent behavior.

The state department (read: Trump) has unilateral authority to declare any foreign organization a FTO and criminalize citizens sending humanitarian aid. I'm surprised Trump hasn't thought to abuse this power yet. Maybe Stephen Miller will declare migrant caravans FTO's.

 

[Thermal]

To all: I think you are giving these phallically challenged losers far too much credit. Looking at them as a whole, I don't think most have the balls to argue with a traffic cop, much less kill anyone. All talk.

Yes, there are exceptions, who will be around forever. Sociopaths will always kill, with or without a group to surround themselves with. But just like I don't think the racist uncle at Thanksgiving is going to lynch anyone, these Nazi fetishists are by and large not genocidal.

 

[ponderingturtle]

To all: I think you are giving these phallically challenged losers far too much credit. Looking at them as a whole, I don't think most have the balls to argue with a traffic cop, much less kill anyone. All talk.

Yes, there are exceptions, who will be around forever. Sociopaths will always kill, with or without a group to surround themselves with. But just like I don't think the racist uncle at Thanksgiving is going to lynch anyone, these Nazi fetishists are by and large not genocidal.

Yep just like members of the national socialist german workers party. None of them had the guts to do much on their own either. As such they were not real nazis.

 

[Steve]

Yet they openly do not claim to endorse genocide. The burden falls back on you to demonstrate that they do. That others used to, or you really think so, does not suffice.

How can a person openly not claim something? That makes no sense at all.

 

[plague311]

To all: I think you are giving these phallically challenged losers far too much credit. Looking at them as a whole, I don't think most have the balls to argue with a traffic cop, much less kill anyone. All talk.

Yes, there are exceptions, who will be around forever. Sociopaths will always kill, with or without a group to surround themselves with. But just like I don't think the racist uncle at Thanksgiving is going to lynch anyone, these Nazi fetishists are by and large not genocidal.

Cool story bro, that still wasn't your claim. Your claim was that they no longer support genocide, and even used an example via supporting the democratic party. Again, just rescind that statement, and say you were wrong.

Believing in something and being able to do something isn't the same, and you handwaving away the lives of people taken by white supremacists is troubling to me. You seem to be fine with it. That's, frankly, nuts to me, but hey...to each their own. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that Nazism encourages them to kill. This is just another "lone wolf" or "mental health" excuse for white supremacy taking lives.

Seriously though, why can't people admit when they're wrong? It's just mind boggling.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm not engaging in anymore of your nonsense. Thanks.

His nonsense is literally true. It is perfectly legal to advocate for the wholesale genocide of other peoples in the US, and it wouldn't be considered criminal incitement unless it was phrased in such a way to direct immediate action to do so.

It would be perfectly legal, for example, for people to organize a political party that explicitly advocated the physical removal or murder of all non-white people in the United States. The Bradenburg opinion is quite clear that advocating for use of force, in a general sense not likely to cause imminent lawless action, is protected speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

 

[Thermal]

How can a person openly not claim something? That makes no sense at all.

Not openly claim, then. Demystify that for ya?

 

[jimbob]

You seem to have missed my question

Let me give your theory a go.

Let us say every person on a straight gender pride parade is

Giant leap

Also racist? (doubtful, but for your benefit, let us say yes)

Giantest leap known to man leap

Also wanting genocide?

We go from a bunch of homophobes, to racist, to wanting to kill all black people in three steps.

Personally I find your view dumber than theirs and that is saying something given how dumb theirs is.

Again

I can explain what genocide means if needed

Now start with it being a couple of hundred people for a march organised months previously by neo-Nazis.

You are not going to march unless you are sympathetic to neo-nazis.

 

[Thermal]

Cool story bro, that still wasn't your claim. Your claim was that they no longer support genocide, and even used an example via supporting the democratic party. Again, just rescind that statement, and say you were wrong.

Believing in something and being able to do something isn't the same, and you handwaving away the lives of people taken by white supremacists is troubling to me. You seem to be fine with it. That's, frankly, nuts to me, but hey...to each their own. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that Nazism encourages them to kill. This is just another "lone wolf" or "mental health" excuse for white supremacy taking lives.

Seriously though, why can't people admit when they're wrong? It's just mind boggling.

I think you can believe in parts of something without endorsing all of it. Seems I'm alone in that. Its not a question of being wrong. It's a question of pedantry. Posters claim that if some dweeb sports a swastika or Pepe, he endorses genocide. Not from what I see. In the 21st century, anyway

 

[plague311]

His nonsense is literally true. It is perfectly legal to advocate for the wholesale genocide of other peoples in the US, and it wouldn't be considered criminal incitement unless it was phrased in such a way to direct immediate action to do so.

It would be perfectly legal, for example, for people to organize a political party that explicitly advocated the physical removal or murder of all non-white people in the United States. The Bradenburg opinion is quite clear that advocating for use of force, in a general sense not likely to cause imminent lawless action, is protected speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

And the mother ******* point, which I feel people are purposefully missing is that THEY ARE KILLING PEOPLE. Jesus Christ. This handwaving nonsense is getting really old, really fast.

There is no factual basis in saying that white supremacy propaganda has NOT incited violence in the US. It's a lie, if you're repeating it, you're lying.

******* A. How is this not getting through? If you want to make excuses for white supremacists murdering people by saying they're just crazy, or whatever, then go right ahead. It's your reputation, knock yourself out.

I didn't say I didn't understand what he said, I said it was nonsense.

 

[plague311]

I think you can believe in parts of something without endorsing all of it. Seems I'm alone in that.

Dood, what are you not understanding here? No one, literally, no one has made that claim. It's your strawman, kill it already. There has been ample evidence to show current day Nazi's DO support genocide. In fact, one of them even slaughtered a bunch of people in El Paso. Right?

Its not a question of being wrong.

You're right, it's you just being completely incapable of admitting it and doing everything in your power to avoid it.

It's a question of pedantry. Posters claim that if some dweeb sports a swastika or Pepe, he endorses genocide. Not from what I see. In the 21st century, anyway

How about the podcast referenced earlier where the guy literally points out current US neo-nazi and nazi groups that endorse genocide? Wow, just wow. I've never seen someone so against admitting they were wrong.

But yeah, keep up the handwaves.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And the mother ******* point, which I feel people are purposefully missing is that THEY ARE KILLING PEOPLE. Jesus Christ. This handwaving nonsense is getting really old, really fast.

There is no factual basis in saying that white supremacy propaganda has NOT incited violence in the US. It's a lie, if you're repeating it, you're lying.

******* A. How is this not getting through? If you want to make excuses for white supremacists murdering people by saying they're just crazy, or whatever, the go right ahead. It's your reputation, knock yourself out.

I didn't say I didn't understand what he said, I said it was nonsense.

I think your conflating my point with Thermal's. I don't hand wave away the dangers of right wing extremism. These various right wing groups are radicalizing angry white young men with disastrous consequences while other groups pretend to be respectable in order to influence mainstream politics. It's an absolute crisis in our culture and politics.


I don't think criminalizing wrong think will be effective in eliminating right wing radicalism and will have disastrous downsides for everyone's civil rights. My position is that arming the government with these tools assumes that this right wing groups will never find themselves in control of said government. The best defense against abuse is a vigorous defense of civil rights, including 1A.

We can't wish right wing extremism away, nor lock up bad thoughts. This is a battle of ideas and culture, no one is going to ride in on a white horse and save us.

 

[plague311]

I think your conflating my point with Thermal's. I don't hand wave away the dangers of right wing extremism. These various right wing groups are radicalizing angry white young men with disastrous consequences while other groups pretend to be respectable in order to influence mainstream politics. It's an absolute crisis in our culture and politics.


I don't think criminalizing wrong think will be effective in eliminating right wing radicalism and will have disastrous downsides for everyone's civil rights. My position is that arming the government with these tools assumes that this right wing groups will never find themselves in control of said government. The best defense against abuse is a vigorous defense of civil rights, including 1A.

We can't wish right wing extremism away, nor lock up bad thoughts. This is a battle of ideas and culture, no one is going to ride in on a white horse and save us.

Reasonable. What you've said makes sense.

Let me frame this a different way. We've already, as a country, agreed that racism is not welcome here, right? We did away with slavery, Jim Crow, made race protected by the Constitution, etc. We are actively taking steps as a society against racism.

So why do we let people espouse that type of hate speech? In that sense, doesn't it seem contrary to the goal? What would we be losing if we were to not allow that speech? Now I don't believe I or Darat, he can correct me if I'm wrong, feel that any speak we don't like should be outlawed. I truly don't think that's the case.

However I, maybe not Darat, do not have any issue with this type of speech being added to a hate speech list. White Supremacists are already added to the Domestic Terrorism list, as we all know. So why can't their propaganda be outlawed the same as other terrorist speech?

 

[Thermal]

Dood, what are you not understanding here? No one, literally, no one has made that claim. It's your strawman, kill it already. There has been ample evidence to show current day Nazi's DO support genocide. In fact, one of them even slaughtered a bunch of people in El Paso. Right?



You're right, it's you just being completely incapable of admitting it and doing everything in your power to avoid it.



How about the podcast referenced earlier where the guy literally points out current US neo-nazi and nazi groups that endorse genocide? Wow, just wow. I've never seen someone so against admitting they were wrong.

But yeah, keep up the handwaves.

Dude, my point is to not paint everyone with the same brush. They are not nearly so homogeneous as you and others think.

Some are genuinely bad news. Some are posers. Posers are a real thing. People like Darat equate the posers with the synagogue shooter. That's doing a disservice to the whole discussion. And it will shut down all possible communication to marginalize a dumb kid as a genocidal murderer. Keep it in perspective or no one wins.

 

[plague311]

Dude, my point is to not paint everyone with the same brush. They are not nearly so homogeneous as you and others think.

Some are genuinely bad news. Some are posers. Posers are a real thing. People like Darat equate the posers with the synagogue shooter. That's doing a disservice to the whole discussion. And it will shut down all possible communication to marginalize a dumb kid as a genocidal murderer. Keep it in perspective or no one wins.

Woah, where'd those goalposts go?!

So now you don't want us to paint all Nazi's and White Supremacists with the same brush? We have to differentiate them in our conversation?

Your initial claim is still that current day Nazi's don't support genocide. When faced with insurmountable proof that they do support genocide you've now changed to "I just meant different factions of Nazis and White Supremacists."

You're still making excuses, and it's so transparent it would be funny if it weren't so sad. That person became a genocidal murderer because he was radicalized and filled with hate by Nazism and White Supremacy ideals. Those ideals led him to want to wipe out Jews. There is none, zero, nada evidence that he would have killed anyone if not introduced to those ideals, which, again, encourage genocide of people.