Reply With Quote
Fascists hate free speech.
You're thinking about him right now.
Rent free.
Fascists hate free speech.
So, 33 arrests is a victory for you?
1. We don't know who was the instigator in the Charlottesville debacle.
2. Nazism isn't a point-of-view that you can sanitize down to a "difference of opinion." One problem is that we've become so desensitized to Nazism over the years through the countless movies, books, video games, and History channel retrospectives that it seems to have lost its ability to unnerve us. So instead of viewing it as the murderous ideology that it is, we kind of shrug our shoulders at it, hand-waving it away as "someone else's beliefs" that are as equally valid (under 1st amendment protection) as anything else.
Voltaire once said, "I may not agree with you what you say, but I'll defend to the death for your right to say it."
We have to ask ourselves, does Nazism deserve that defense? I would consider someone spouting Nazi ideology at me something of a pseudo-death threat, since his plan for me is extermination. Death threats are not protected by the 1st amendment.
That said, I would not be in favor of banning Nazi "speech." Not because I really care about a genuine Nazi's freedom of speech, but because I would want to protect those who use Nazism in a creative way (i.e. for artistic, satirical, or creative purposes). I don't buy into slippery slope fallacies, but a full ban on everything Nazi most likely wouldn't allow something like Monty Python's Mr. Hitler sketch.
My primary point here is you can't really be surprised when someone responds to Nazism with violence. It's very much a "psychological" punch to the face (indeed, anything can be a psychological punch to the face, especially to an overly sensitive person) so I can't necessarily blame someone when they do punch a Nazi. Do I condone it? No. Just like I don't condone binge drinking, but I wouldn't blame you for binge drinking on the weekend after a stressful week at school or work. Nor do I think the Nazi puncher is the villain in that scenario. Nazism is an idea that triggers violence everywhere it goes, thus I consider the Nazi the primary instigator(s) in situations like Charlottesville.
"So, we're just gonna start punching people whose ideas we disagree with?"
Slippery Slope fallacy. And again, Nazism isn't an innocuous point-of-view that can EVER be maturely discussed in the marketplace of ideas. It's devoid of all intellectual merit.
It's invariable when that many people get together, especially during a politically charged event, you'll have a few knuckleheads. Yes, 33 arrests for only disorderly conduct is a "victory." No injuries, deaths, fires set, property damage, etc.
-BOTH SIDES- remains.
That's a pretty low bar you have. Arrests typically mean that people were f'ing with persons or property in ways that can often lead to death.
We do know who the enablers were. The police didn't follow the law and created a violence corridor. Has anyone been fired yet? Has anyone even been suspended?
...No. & that will not happen here. & Trump failed to cite police (motive) & incompetence here.
But, he ain't gonna touch it. Cops goodPERIOD He can only praise them.
There were 40,000 people there you impossible moron
It's a statistic. Is 33 arrests a victory for you? I guess you were hoping for antifa to murder an innocent woman to take some heat off your side. Given the cir stances and the total crowd size, I'm glad you sad pepes can only try to gin up fear about a few piss grenadiers.
This came up in the context of the Google Diversity Memo, but its applicable here too:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/07/opinio...zza/index.htmlSome are tempted to call this a "First Amendment" issue. Let me be clear, it is not. The government is not involved, and thus this is not a violation of anyone's cons utional rights. But, one of the pillars that holds up our First Amendment is the "marketplace of ideas" theory -- that ideas should compete in the free market, and that through wide-open and robust debate, we will advance.
In ideology-driven authoritarian regimes, locking someone out of the labor market because you don't like their ideas is a common approach. Behind the Iron Curtain, for instance, if you weren't sufficiently Marxist, it didn't necessarily mean a trip to the gulag. You would just find that you were out of a job. Of course, the blowback against this Google employee is not top-down authoritarianism or orthodoxy enforced by the state. No, in America when you violate the PC code of conduct, a small cadre of people will dust off the outrage machine -- and millions of people will fuel it.
There is no question that being boycotted, or having your show canceled, or being banned from the internet is not a First Amendment violation because the government ostensibly isn't involved. But the idea that doing those things to someone who you disagree with squares with the values enshrined in the First Amendment is beyond stupid. Those values are open/free debate where stupid ideas like Nazism are discredited -- not censored.
If someone keeps yelling a stupid opinion and drowns out healthy discussion, you tell him to shut the up.
So, 40,000 people can't peaceably assemble?
It's a statement of how little you expect in the way of civility from people whom you have sympathy for and apparently side with.
39,967 of them did you inbred mongoloid.
No. There were plenty who engaged in violence who weren't arrested.
This is a nuanced treatment of the complexities around "free" speech, so all y'all simple-minded KKK/Nazis should skip it
https://medium.com/@juliaserano/free...e-e0547aefe538
I'll just bet it is.
Lol nuanced. This tranny is critiquing what's being done to the nazis. Politics and bedfellows and whatnotI grew up during the 1970s and ’80s, during a time when transgender people were extremely stigmatized and not tolerated by society at large. As a child, I saw how gender-variant people were openly and relentlessly mocked, so I decided not to tell anyone about what I was experiencing. As a young adult, I continued to remain quiet about my iden y. Colloquially, we call this being “in the closet,” but that’s just a fancy way of saying “hiding from hate speech and harassment.” Of course, I technically had free speech, but that doesn’t count for much if speaking your mind is likely to result in you being bombarded with epithets, losing your job, being ostracized by your community, and possibly other forms of retribution. When I attended my first transgender support group in the early ’90s, we held our meetings in a secret location because, despite our First Amendment right to peaceably assemble, it was simply not safe for us to meet in public or be discovered by others.
How about that time -BOTH SIDES- took down the World Trade Center?
Like less than 1% dumbass
If you actually believe there were actually 40,000 counter protesters crowding that small area. At any rate, it's still pathetic that you think the numbers are something to be proud of.
You should study 9/11. If you think it was just a score of muslim terrorists then you're in the dark.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
