Freedom of speech?

[TurkeysGhost]

There we go. Actual threatening groups posing a real threat. Not the proudies talking about how often they should handle their cocks while they engage in mutual street brawls.

Wrong thread for this one tho? Maybe Riots, Looting more on the theme?

It's simply absurd if you think Proud Boys will "stay in their lane" during a general tide of right wing street violence and paramilitary activity. While bashing lefties is Proud Boy's raison d'etre, they absolutely would join in a larger coalition of violent right wing extremists should the opportunity arise, say during a violent confrontation over a highly contested election in November.

You can practically guarantee that many members of the PB are also members of other right wing groups that engage in a wider range of political violence and intimidation.

 

[Thermal]

It's simply absurd if you think Proud Boys will "stay in their lane" during a general tide of right wing street violence and paramilitary activity. While bashing lefties is Proud Boy's raison d'etre, they absolutely would join in a larger coalition of violent right wing extremists should the opportunity arise, say during a violent confrontation over a highly contested election in November.

Honestly, I doubt it. If the odds aren't 4 against one, the pbs slink away like the cowards they are. They are not exactly, as a group, a fraction of the bad-asses they are made out to be.

The article you posted upthread showed 11 states where the pbs were active. In Pennsylvania, I have had the pleasure of seeing these guys up close at one of the very few of their own rallies they had the balls to show up to. Perhaps my view on them is a bit colored by this. They. Were. Sniveling. Posers.

You can practically guarantee that many members of the PB are also members of other right wing groups that engage in a wider range of political violence and intimidation.

some, certainly. Most? I doubt it. Their own founder (genuinely bad news Gavis McFascist) abandoned them, literally because he said that group was attracting too many pussies.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Honestly, I doubt it. If the odds aren't 4 against one, the pbs slink away like the cowards they are. They are not exactly, as a group, a fraction of the bad-asses they are made out to be.

The article you posted upthread showed 11 states where the pbs were active. In Pennsylvania, I have had the pleasure of seeing these guys up close at one of the very few of their own rallies they had the balls to show up to. Perhaps my view on them is a bit colored by this. They. Were. Sniveling. Posers.



some, certainly. Most? I doubt it. Their own founder (genuinely bad news Gavis McFascist) abandoned them, literally because he said that group was attracting too many pussies.

Gavin McInniss didn't abandon ****. He remains the leader and only disavowed them on paper as a legal liability tactic.

At times, McInnes appeared to contradict his promise to quit. He repeatedly described the group as “we”, throughout a lengthy defence of its actions, said “this is 100% a legal gesture, and it is 100% about alleviating sentencing”, and also called his actions a “stepping down gesture, in quotation marks”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/22/proud-boys-founder-gavin-mcinnes-quits-far-right-group

Enrique Tarrio is a cutout.

 

[johnny karate]

...? Right wing violence is the biggest threat we face in the US. I don't know what you are talking about, but am unwilling to argue with voices in your head.

Actual quotes exist in this thread and quotes have also been provided from other threads.

You have repeatedly dismissed the Proud Boys as “incompetent twats”, despite the numerous violent felonies their members commit. Meanwhile, you’ve apparently signed on to the notion that someone getting punched in the face is a threat to free speech. At the very least, you certainly haven’t called for “perspective” from the person putting forth that notion like you do for anyone who dares to point out the threat the Proud Boys pose.

Meadmaker - who apparently has a Google News Alert for stories about random people getting punched in the face - seems inexplicably unaware of who the Proud Boys are and the numerous crimes far more serious than face-punching that they’ve committed. Weird position to take from someone who is so concerned about politically motivated violence.

Emily’s Cat enjoys criticizing violent rhetoric from the left while she willfully ignores it from the right. That of course doesn’t stop her from conveniently proclaiming that violent rhetoric is the all coming from the left.

Again, this is what normalizing violence looks like.

On some level, you all just accept that it exists on the right and apparently don’t think it’s a big deal.

Left wing violence, however, leads us to concerns that free speech is imperiled and worrying if our daughters are safe walking down the street.

 

[Thermal]

Gavin McInniss didn't abandon ****. He remains the leader and only disavowed them on paper as a legal liability tactic.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/22/proud-boys-founder-gavin-mcinnes-quits-far-right-group

Enrique Tarrio is a cutout.

Funny that the FBI doesn't know about this. They think Tarrio is the leader.

That's a 2018 article you put up. Any news on Gavvy Gav still running things?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Funny that the FBI doesn't know about this. They think Tarrio is the leader.

That's a 2018 article you put up. Any news on Gavvy Gav still running things?

Gavin seems to keep them at arm's length and allows Enrique to run day to day operations.

If you think Gavin is actually not involved anymore, I have a bridge to sell you.

The Proud Boys regularly engage in pragmatic disavowals, including disavowing most of their members that get into any real legal trouble. Taking Gavin's disavowal at face value is a leap of faith only a moron would take.

During his live podcast during the 1st debate, Gavin exclaimed, in response to Trump's "Stand down" comment:

"I control the Proud Boys, Donald!. Do not stand down, do not stand back". This is some 2 years after he "left" the group.

Gavin might not be appearing with the group or leading their actions personally, but he remains their true leader. The content of his podcast remains the same pro-fascism, pro-street violence themes as when he was leading the group, with the thinnest veneer of deniability to keep him from being arrested, sued, or even expelled from the country (he is not a US citizen).

Seems that after the multiple arrests in 2018 and the leak that the FBI was treating them (correctly) as an extremist group, Gavin realized he needed to be a lot more careful or he could be personally facing a lot of unpleasant consequences. He found some willing goon to front the organization and take some of the heat off himself.

 

[Thermal]

Gavin seems to keep them at arm's length and allows Enrique to run day to day operations.

If you think Gavin is actually not involved anymore, I have a bridge to sell you.

The Proud Boys regularly engage in pragmatic disavowals, including disavowing most of their members that get into any real legal trouble. Taking Gavin's disavowal at face value is a leap of faith only a moron would take.

During his live podcast during the 1st debate, Gavin exclaimed, in response to Trump's "Stand down" comment:

"I control the Proud Boys, Donald!. Do not stand down, do not stand back". This is some 2 years after he "left" the group.

Gavin might not be appearing with the group or leading their actions personally, but he remains their true leader. The content of his podcast remains the same pro-fascism, pro-street violence themes as when he was leading the group, with the thinnest veneer of deniability to keep him from being arrested, sued, or even expelled from the country (he is not a US citizen).

Seems that after the multiple arrests in 2018 and the leak that the FBI was treating them (correctly) as an extremist group, Gavin realized he needed to be a lot more careful or he could be personally facing a lot of unpleasant consequences. He found some willing goon to front the organization and take some of the heat off himself.

It's possible, I guess. I'd like to see a little more of that thar evidence before assuming it.

That "I control the proud boys, Donald" thing? I had to google it. He was pretty obviously joking, reacting to Trump appearing to give an order as if he was the leader. Not sure how seriously to take that.

They did actually stand down, didn't they? If he is actively the leader, they either don't listen or he was kidding around.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12811623/proud-boys-founder-gavin-mcinnes-trump-debate/

 

[Emily's Cat]

Emily’s Cat enjoys criticizing violent rhetoric from the left while she willfully ignores it from the right. That of course doesn’t stop her from conveniently proclaiming that violent rhetoric is the all coming from the left.

Please stop mischaracterizing my positions. It's dishonest and insulting.

 

[johnny karate]

Please stop mischaracterizing my positions. It's dishonest and insulting.

I have receipts and they’ve already been provided.

 

[phiwum]

What reason do I have to give him benefit of doubt? There is no functional difference between idiot and someone that does it knowingly.

Surely, then, there's no reason to deny the benefit of the doubt either. If they're functionally the same, then just state that he's underestimating the threat.

Unless, of course, the whole point is to go beyond what the evidence is and cast aspersions on the character of your opponent. In which case, good job, but not really an intellectually honest strategy.

 

[smartcooky]

Surely, then, there's no reason to deny the benefit of the doubt either. If they're functionally the same, then just state that he's underestimating the threat.

To be fair though, some of us have been trying to do that, but there's no getting through to him.

When someone has predetermined that they are right, and that everyone else is wrong; despite all the evidence that has been presented, they just spin or hand-wave it all away, it feels like this...

 

[Thermal]

To be fair though, some of us have been trying to do that, but there's no getting through to him.

When someone has predetermined that they are right, and that everyone else is wrong; despite all the evidence that has been presented, they just spin or hand-wave it all away, it feels like this...

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/cm26qtq1fiberrg/headbang.gif?raw=1[/qimg]

You know, alternatively you could post an intelligent and/or persuasive argument. More than *checks notes* 'some of them were alleged to have looked at some other guy'.

I've seen these guys up close and personal in Philly. You ever get within a thousand miles of one?

Their criminal charges in total amount to less than the workers on my jobsites are facing or have served. Quite ******* literally.

So what do you have by way of substantial argumentation? You left off claiming that one has to treat impotent clowns as fascist threats, because they will morph into Future Nazis. You can just pick up there.

eta: to make it easier on you, I'll modify my position. Been reading up, and I concede they are trouble, mostly because they are presenting a misleadingly palatable face for hate. Polo shirts and MAGA hats water down their generally hateful message, and that's not good for anyone. It makes them look vaguely patriotic, which gives the wrong message to the impressionable.

 

[smartcooky]

You know, alternatively you could post an intelligent and/or persuasive argument. More than *checks notes* 'some of them were alleged to have looked at some other guy'.

I've seen these guys up close and personal in Philly. You ever get within a thousand miles of one?

Their criminal charges in total amount to less than the workers on my jobsites are facing or have served. Quite ******* literally.

So what do you have by way of substantial argumentation? You left off claiming that one has to treat impotent clowns as fascist threats, because they will morph into Future Nazis. You can just pick up there.

eta: to make it easier on you, I'll modify my position. Been reading up, and I concede they are trouble, mostly because they are presenting a misleadingly palatable face for hate. Polo shirts and MAGA hats water down their generally hateful message, and that's not good for anyone. It makes them look vaguely patriotic, which gives the wrong message to the impressionable.

Whatever Thermal. You don't recognize the potential danger, your problem. Your country, you have to live in it....

Good Luck!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the sound of axes being ground

Here is an excellent article about how the right is creating a "free speech crisis" where none actually exists

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...c-censorship-how-the-right-concocted-a-crisis

If you find the article a bit TL;DR, there is a podcast covering the same ground here.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/au...anic-how-the-right-concocted-a-crisis-podcast

The article meanders a bit into political economy and is focused on Britain, not the US; however, I don't think that the latter difference is significant. Mr. Davies is also writing about campuses. Inasmuch as some of my comments also draw upon my knowledge of campus free-speech conflicts, I cannot claim his discussion is irrelevant. To some degree discussions about free speech can rely upon the same principles for both campuses and public gathering places, with the possibility that there will be situational differences.

This article also mentions Greg Lukianoff, head of FIRE in the United States. I heard him speak some time ago, and one of the take-aways was that on campuses (FIRE is limited to protecting free speech within the realm of education), it was more common for conservative administrations to stifle free speech than liberal ones. Although that last point might seem to support The Guardian's Mr. Davies' thesis, I don't think that it actually does, not as long as some challenges to free speech also occur from the left. My bottom line is that Mr. Davies' thesis has some merit, but he has axes of his own to grind.

 

[Mader Levap]

Protip for ya: another nations history does not change the facts here.

I am talking about attitude of certain people here. It is not about Proud Boys in particular, though I've seen dismissive attitude like yours applied to general neo-nazi movement, or in fact far-right extremism in general.

When I read denial and minimization of various muricans here, I simply think that USA would be very different today if their cities were bombed into stone age, if millions of their population were sent to death camps or into forced labour. That would significantly reduce amount of people ignoring and in denial of threat coming from far-rightwing extremism.

Please stop mischaracterizing my positions. It's dishonest and insulting.

Anyone can read history of your posts here and judge for themself if there is bias. I find his characterization correct.

 

[wareyin]

12 pages in and so far some people are absolutely not cool with a single guy throwing 2 punches at a man who set up the event promoting that there would be violence and then crossed the barricades set up to prevent violence. The same people are, however, not at all bothered by the organization the promoter is part of who promote and engage in political violence and are described by United States intelligence organizations as "a dangerous white supremacist group." Yeah, there's no false equivalency going on here.

 

[Meadmaker]

12 pages in and so far some people are absolutely not cool with a single guy throwing 2 punches at a man who set up the event promoting that there would be violence and then crossed the barricades set up to prevent violence. The same people are, however, not at all bothered by the organization the promoter is part of who promote and engage in political violence and are described by United States intelligence organizations as "a dangerous white supremacist group." Yeah, there's no false equivalency going on here.

I think you would find some of the same people here condemning Proud Boy violence in Salem or Portland. In other words, where actual violence occurred, we condemn it from the left or from the right.

Sometimes, including in this case, and sometimes a lot more in other cases, when we hear reports of violence we ask a lot of questions to determine if it was unprovoked violence, self defense, or something in the middle. "Something in the middle" is actually the most common that I observe. A lot of political violence in America these days is the "escalation" variety. One group is holding some sort of march. Another group tries to block their path. The marchers continue. Pushing and shoving happens. Then, someone throws a punch or, in some very bad cases, pulls a gun and shots are fired, possibly causing death or injury.

I have a hard time with those cases. Who do you blame for that violence? The marchers? Just the shovers? Just the punchers? Just the shooters? In some cases it's obvious, but in other cases you have to examine whatever evidence there is, and sometimes dig a little deeper to find the origins.

In this particular case, I had heard there was violence, but I knew that these things tend to get out of hand and I didn't know who did what to whom, so I wasn't sure who to blame. Then I saw the video. It was an unprovoked sucker punch against someone who was acting peacefully. Later, it was bottles being thrown at a stage where there were no interactions between speaker and crowd. This one is very easy to pin blame.

Most aren't as easy.

 

[wareyin]

I think you would find some of the same people here condemning Proud Boy violence in Salem or Portland. In other words, where actual violence occurred, we condemn it from the left or from the right.

I'm talking about this thread. One of the main participants has compared the 2 punches thrown to the torture scene from Pulp Fiction, but is also working very very hard to minimize the Proud Boys because the poster's co-workers are facing more felonies or some such nonsense.

Sometimes, including in this case, and sometimes a lot more in other cases, when we hear reports of violence we ask a lot of questions to determine if it was unprovoked violence, self defense, or something in the middle. "Something in the middle" is actually the most common that I observe. A lot of political violence in America these days is the "escalation" variety. One group is holding some sort of march. Another group tries to block their path. The marchers continue. Pushing and shoving happens. Then, someone throws a punch or, in some very bad cases, pulls a gun and shots are fired, possibly causing death or injury.

I have a hard time with those cases. Who do you blame for that violence? The marchers? Just the shovers? Just the punchers? Just the shooters? In some cases it's obvious, but in other cases you have to examine whatever evidence there is, and sometimes dig a little deeper to find the origins.

In this particular case, I had heard there was violence, but I knew that these things tend to get out of hand and I didn't know who did what to whom, so I wasn't sure who to blame. Then I saw the video. It was an unprovoked sucker punch against someone who was acting peacefully. Later, it was bottles being thrown at a stage where there were no interactions between speaker and crowd. This one is very easy to pin blame.

Most aren't as easy.

When you say "unprovoked" are you excluding Anderson's promise that there would be violence as he was promoting this event? I mean, when he explicitly promotes the event as violent, I don't think I would call violence then occuring "unprovoked."

 

[smartcooky]

When I read denial and minimization of various muricans here, I simply think that USA would be very different today if their cities were bombed into stone age, if millions of their population were sent to death camps or into forced labour. That would significantly reduce amount of people ignoring and in denial of threat coming from far-rightwing extremism.

This

Americans have not had to suffer an occupying force and war crimes committed on their people since the late 1700s. While the rest of the world suffered miserably during WW1 & WW2 (both of which the yanks were late to anyway) life remained cruisy in the continental US... no blackouts, no living a good part of your life in air-raid shelters, no having to ship your children off to faraway lands because of the bombing, and minimal rationing. In short, Americans in general have no . ******* . idea what it means to fight a war at home. 9/11 might have given them an inkling, but it wasn't enough and the message was soon lost. Americans of all stripes tend to dismiss the idea of neo-Nazi and extreme right-wing politics as being a threat.

Well, those extreme right wingers are already in parliaments across Europe... Estonia, Finland and Sweden 18%, Belgium & Denmark 20%, Austria and Switzerland 26%, Hungary 68%. Marine Le Pen and Matteo Salvini’s MEP comprise 10% of the European Parliament (up from 5% from 2014-2019). Their numbers and proportion of the vote are increasing in every subsequent election. In America you likely have a QAnon extremist heading for congress.

Wake up America, in the words of Richard Hawley "...there's a storm a comin' !"

 

[Meadmaker]

Wake up America, there's a storm a comin' !

I'm just not seeing how punching someone in the face changes the way the wind is blowing.

It might change the wind speed, but I'm not sure in a manner that's beneficial.