Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Time to give Trump Presidency it's own Thread.Follow

#427 Sep 06 2017 at 3:38 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
angrymnk wrote:
And yet, it is the group that, however silly their beliefs are, had an orderly and legal gathering that is blamed; not the guys who had no legal ground to protest and just happened to come there specifically for a physical confrontation with a group they very much dislike. Go figure.


If I'm not mistaken, they started protesting PRIOR to the schedule time to protest, which would mean they had no legal ground.
#428 Sep 06 2017 at 5:22 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,253 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Does said amendment specify tools of coercion used to induce people to shut up? Just curious.
You're free to bring a sign, a bat, or even a rifle (obviously if the state in question allows open carry firearms) to a demonstration or a protest. It's when you use it that the government can step in to stop you. Which sucks if, you know, you're on the other side of a riot shield.

And that's less First Amendment and more Assault With A Deadly Weapon.


What are you saying? That it is the use of violence that differentiates protesters from regular run of the mill ********? I honestly cannot believe that. CNN itself brought antifa rep saying it is cool if the opponents are fascists. So when is violence kosher? Inquiring minds would like to know.

That said, I wanna ask you something, because it is something I genuinely do not know. I am not leading you anywhere with it. In the old country, there is a silly law ( I mean that - it is pretty silly ) saying that two groups that dislike one another and are bound to cause nothing but trouble can't get a permit on the same day/same place. I am not exactly sure how it works in here ( I assumed there may be some local variety ), but why would natzis/kk/sknheads try to get a permit if the other side can just show up without one?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#429 Sep 06 2017 at 5:28 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,253 posts
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
And yet, it is the group that, however silly their beliefs are, had an orderly and legal gathering that is blamed; not the guys who had no legal ground to protest and just happened to come there specifically for a physical confrontation with a group they very much dislike. Go figure.


If I'm not mistaken, they started protesting PRIOR to the schedule time to protest, which would mean they had no legal ground.


It is not impossible that I am wrong ( it did happen before ), but before I admit that and commit harakiri or seppuku depending on my current state of mind, would you mind providing some sort of source to substantiate your claim? Not everyone is such a well read alla denizen as you are.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#430 Sep 06 2017 at 10:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The issue is whether that reaction is legal or not.
It is. The 1st amendment is about the government suppressing your speech, not your fellow citizens.


The government is also responsible for protecting that right against actions by private citizens as well though. Specifically, if I've scheduled an event, obtained the permits, paid for the venue, etc, you can't just show up with a bunch of people and stomp around to prevent my event. And if you do, I have a reasonable expectation that the government, in the form of law enforcement, should arrest those who attempt to do just that.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
The counter protest was illegal.
After they blocked streets, sure. Not on it's face, though, which you are implying pretty hard. Shocking.


I was always specific that the act of counter protest was not illegal, but the act of blocking streets and blocking access to the permitted protest was illegal. I'm not sure how you possibly got the idea that I was arguing it was illegal to merely disagree with the protesters, express that disagreement, etc. It's only when the expression of that disagreement violates the law that it becomes (kinda obviously) illegal. You're free to speak. You're not free to violate the law to do so. I get that this is confusing for some people, but it really should not be.

Your right to free speech doesn't mean you get to take other other guy's microphone.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
It also doesn't mean that the violence they engaged in was legal either. And yes, that includes the guy who ran into the crowd with his car. But at the same time, the actions of the counter protesters were *also* illegal.
Killing people is on par with blocking roads; gotcha.


I never said that.

The fact that someone ran over some people with his car does not make the unlawful actions of other people magically become lawful. That's the bit that you seem to be having a problem with. You seem to think that "guy ran folks over with his car" means that all bets are off for everyone else, and every other action. So if someone robbed a bank at the same time that he ran people over with his car, does that mean that bank robbery wasn't illegal? No, right? Same concept. One wrong doesn't make other wrongs become right, no matter how severe one is relative to the other.

I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise, but your argument appears to be based on that. Which I find strange.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
It's a dangerous thing to say it's ok to break the law, as long as you're doing it to hurt people we all don't like murderers.
Gotcha.


The counter protests were in violation of the law well before the guy ran anyone over with his car. You're really reaching here. They weren't counter protesting "murderers". They were literally counter protesting people who's opinion they disagree with. I happen to disagree with their opinion as well, but I managed to not violate the law with my expression of disagreement.

See how that works?

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
No one's allowed to question or condemn the actions of the counter protesters without being labeled as racists, or defenders of racists, etc.
While at the same time failing to condemn the message of the hate dink-bags. Gotcha.


I've condemned their message repeatedly. Trump condemned it repeatedly. Every single member of the GOP who was asked condemned it. Repeatedly. Many who were not asked, volunteered their condemnation. Repeatedly.

No one (except the white nationalists themselves) "failed to condemn the message of the <dink-hates? really?>". What you really mean is that we failed to only do that. We dared to also point out, quite reasonably, that the counter protesters were also engaged in unlawful behavior. Why is that so threatening to you?

Again. Some of us can condemn the actions of multiple groups at the same time. Even groups who are in open opposition to each other. I'm not sure why you can't seem to do this though. For you, and many people, any condemnation of the actions of the counter protesters is equivalent to support for the protesters. It's not about picking one side or other other. I can disagree with *both* at the same time, for different reasons.

You can't live in a black and white world like that, or you'll eternally be forgiving/ignoring horrible actions by groups of people because they happen to also be opposed to people you don't like. Which is a really dangerous slippery slope.

[quote](referring to your FOX buddies here, since you keep insisting you don't support the dink-bag. {HINT}I don't believe you. Something something posting history.[/quote]

That's your own bias though. I've repeatedly condemned their message. I've labeled it with the strongest negative language possible. All I've done is *also* condemn the actions of the counter protesters which violated the law. I believe strongly in opposing racism, hate, bigotry, etc. I don't believe in violating the law while doing so though. Because when we do that, we find ourselves becoming the thing we're opposing.

[quote]
gbaji wrote:
You don't get to use violence and other unlawful acts to prevent them from expressing those opinions in the first place though.
Like killing and maiming people with a motor vehicle? Gotcha.[/quote]

Are you arguing that the only criminal act is killing and maiming people with a motor vehicle? Nothing else qualifies as "violence and other unlawful acts"? The presence of one is not an excuse for the other. Doubly so since the violent and unlawful acts of the counter protesters occurred *before* the guy ran his car into the crowd. Heck. There wouldn't have been a crowd for him to run into, if they weren't, you know... blocking the streets with their illegal protest. That's no excuse for what he did, but it highlights the order of events here.

Look. You and I know the truth here. If no one had driven a car into that crowd, you'd still be defending them and attacking me for condemning their actions. So let's stop pretending that this has anything at all to do with a car. You're so invested in an "us vs them" narrative, that you can't allow yourself to condemn or even criticize the actions of anyone against "them", because that is viewed in your mind as "helping them". Which you can't do.

Stop being so polarized in your thinking. It's dumb.

[quote]
gbaji wrote:
There's always some people who will gravitate to what they see as the "downtrodden" side.
You view KKK and their ilk "downtrodden" in the American South?[/quote]

What part of "they" did you think meant "I"? Seriously?

[quote]That'd be cute if i weren't so stupid.[/quote]

What's stupid is failing to grasp that by upping the ante in the white nationalists own "white vs black" narrative, you force many people to do just what you are doing and "pick a side". And guess what? Some of them are going to pick the "white" side.

"Do what I say, or else!" is rarely a great way to win people over. Just saying.

[quote]
gbaji wrote:
Maybe I'm an eternal optimist, but I think that most people can see that their ideas are bad and will reject them. Have a little faith in your fellow man.
You think that hateful, racist messages are targeted toward smart, thoughtful people? That's...interesting.[/quote]

No. Again, I'm not sure how you manage to so completely misinterpret what I write, but that's for another day.

What I think is that when you deliberately create an active conflict and a sense of urgency, people are less likely to react in a thoughtful and intelligent manner, but rather via knee-jerk reactions. And when they do that, the messages of hate have a much higher probability of being adopted. And people are much likely to act out of anger rather than any sort of thought at all.

What I'm seeing is what appears to be a deliberate polarization. Movements like white nationalism have been steadily losing steam for decades. To the point where their numbers and actions had become pretty much laughable. By attacking them so overtly and directly, the antifa people are giving them a national stage. They're making them relevant again.

And I think that's what's really stupid.


Edited, Sep 6th 2017 9:19pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#431 Sep 06 2017 at 10:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
La la la. Nothing to see here.

Edited, Sep 6th 2017 9:20pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#432 Sep 07 2017 at 7:35 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,740 posts
angrymnk wrote:
That it is the use of violence that differentiates protesters from regular run of the mill ********?
Pretty much? I'm not really sure where we're disconnected. Something you're allowed to do outside of a protest doesn't suddenly become illegal when you're in a protest.
angrymnk wrote:
So when is violence kosher?
Self defense? If your skin exceeds a certain level of melanin? Antifa is wrong for promoting violence but let's be honest: I'm not exactly going to lose any sleep if a neo-Nazi goes home with a broken nose.
angrymnk wrote:
why would natzis/kk/sknheads try to get a permit if the other side can just show up without one?
Mostly for the pageantry. Their demonstrations usually involve a march of some sort (Like down a street carrying tiki torches), which means traffic needs to be diverted. Some cities also might require some additional fees to take care of cleaning, utilities, and additional support staff and such. But none of it can be used to prevent other people from showing up and speaking out.

gbaji wrote:
Specifically, if I've scheduled an event, obtained the permits, paid for the venue, etc, you can't just show up with a bunch of people and stomp around to prevent my event.
A permit can't prevent people from gathering and speaking out against your event. That would pretty much be the literal definition of the government telling people they can't speak, and that would be against the First Amendment.
gbaji wrote:
Your right to free speech doesn't mean you get to take other other guy's microphone.
Your right to free speech means the government can't take your microphone. It isn't illegal for other people to show up with a louder sound system.

Westboro doesn't need a permit to show up with a sign that says "God Hates Fags," and you don't need a permit to show up next to them with a bigger sign that says "No, God Hates Figs. (Matthew 21:18-22 *)"
gbaji wrote:
See how that works?
I see you either don't know or don't care enough to learn what the First Amendment is meant to do just to further "your" narrative.
gbaji wrote:
La la la. Nothing to see here.
Well, you showed how far you'll take someone else's guess and how little you really understand your own country. So there was something there.

* Also Mark 11:12-14, before someone wants to argue it's one or the other. Jesus really hated figs.

Edited, Sep 7th 2017 12:11pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#433 Sep 07 2017 at 8:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
angrymnk wrote:
I am not exactly sure how it works in here ( I assumed there may be some local variety ), but why would natzis/kk/sknheads try to get a permit if the other side can just show up without one?

Why not? I mean, anti-abortion protesters show up to pro-choice rallies, anti-gay protesters show up to Pride events and people with "Support our Troops" signs show up to war protests, etc. It's not as though counter-protests are specific to white nationalist groups.

I like how this has gotten to the point of saying that the counter-protest started earlier so it was illegal and this is meaningful. "Due to this administrative fault, your stance is now invalid!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#434 Sep 07 2017 at 8:34 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
gbaji wrote:
The fact that someone ran over some people with his car does not make the unlawful actions of other people magically become lawful.
You essentially said "Sure, some racists dude killed and maimed people but the other side broke the law, too". No qualifiers at all. That's called equating the two. If that's not what you intended try to be a better writer.

gbaji wrote:
They weren't counter protesting "murderers".
Being as the KKK and the n.a.z.i.s historically murdered a ton of people, they kinda were. Which is kinda the point. Dumbass.

gbaji wrote:
Trump condemned it repeatedly.
Trump listed a bunch of really bad groups and said they were bad and followed that up by saying the people who don't like that list of people were just as bad. If you think I'm pulling that comment out of my ***, you might want to check into a large chunk of the GOP folk in Congress who essentially said the same thing.

gbaji wrote:
You can't live in a black and white world like that, or you'll eternally be forgiving/ignoring horrible actions by groups of people because they happen to also be opposed to people you don't like.
"Horrible" is a pretty strong word. If some person or group who hates the KKK and n.a.z.i.s starts indiscriminately murdering them I assure you I'm not OK with that. Having said that...some things are black and white. N.a.z.i.s and the KKK are evil, pure and simple. I pray you don't think otherwise.

gbaji wrote:
I believe strongly in opposing racism, hate, bigotry, etc. I don't believe in violating the law while doing so though.
So if you were the presiding judge in Loving vs Virginia you would have sided with the state? Kinda proves all my previous comments about your stance in this (and other threads) doesn't it?

gbaji wrote:
Movements like white nationalism have been steadily losing steam for decades.
Until Obama got elected and they blossomed anew. Maybe you should get your news from somewhere.

gbaji wrote:
By attacking them so overtly and directly, the antifa people are giving them a national stage. They're making them relevant again.
So when racists and their ilk parade around and hold demonstrations to spread their message of hate just be silent and let them? Sounds like a swell plan there, man.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#435 Sep 07 2017 at 8:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sure, the white supremacists committed terrorism and murder but why aren't we talking about the municipal ordinance violations of the counter-protesters???
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#436 Sep 07 2017 at 9:14 AM Rating: Good
******
49,740 posts
I still don't understand how you can be unlawfully early to an event that doesn't need to be legally scheduled. That's like having a cop fine you for going to lunch at 1145 instead of 1200.

Edited, Sep 7th 2017 11:20am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#437 Sep 07 2017 at 10:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Sure, the white supremacists committed terrorism and murder but why aren't we talking about the municipal ordinance violations of the counter-protesters???
Maybe we could write them a stern letter about being overly prompt and have it arrive postage due?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#438 Sep 07 2017 at 12:26 PM Rating: Good
******
49,740 posts
"To whom it may concern: Showing up early is totally a criminal offense, punishable by death. Please don't do it again. Also, please keep down the noise. It hurts our feelings. Yours truly, The Terrorists"

Edited, Sep 7th 2017 2:27pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#439 Sep 07 2017 at 12:43 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,253 posts
Hey now, legalities help; just ask Hillary ( reckless, but totally not negligent ).
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#440 Sep 07 2017 at 8:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,237 posts
Quote:
The government is also responsible for protecting that right against actions by private citizens as well though. Specifically, if I've scheduled an event, obtained the permits, paid for the venue, etc, you can't just show up with a bunch of people and stomp around to prevent my event. And if you do, I have a reasonable expectation that the government, in the form of law enforcement, should arrest those who attempt to do just that.


Not the same level of government, though. The Federal government has no such obligation (and in fact, enforcement by local municipality, state government, etc would be largely discretionary). The Army doesn't come in and make people shut up so you can have your say.

Disrupting your event might be a tort, might rise to the level of disturbing the peace; but it would not be prosecuted on Constitutional grounds.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#441 Sep 08 2017 at 7:10 AM Rating: Good
******
49,740 posts
It's always the people with the least to say that believe their right to say it means everyone else has to sit there quietly and listen.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#442 Sep 11 2017 at 6:18 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
angrymnk wrote:
would you mind providing some sort of source to substantiate your claim?



The protest turned violent well ahead of the rally's official noon start time.

#443 Sep 15 2017 at 7:46 AM Rating: Good
******
49,740 posts
Hope Hicks is the new White House Communications Director.

I've got 10 weeks before she's out. She's pretty quiet and doesn't seem to have her own Twitter account.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#444 Sep 15 2017 at 11:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Think it's pretty much just a resume stamp at this point. Show up, put in a few weeks, and then you can say "I was White House Communication Director" at your next interview. It's like 'volunteering to clean up after a hurricane' or 'helping to feed in hungry in Africa,' just something to pad your credentials a bit.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#445 Sep 19 2017 at 11:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
You essentially said "Sure, some racists dude killed and maimed people but the other side broke the law, too". No qualifiers at all. That's called equating the two. If that's not what you intended try to be a better writer.


"And" not "But". That's a qualifier. Saying "Joe fell down the stairs *and* Frank robbed a bank" in no way equates the two events. You're the one trying to create an equivalence that was not present in my statement (nor in Trump's for that matter). And no. It's not about me being a 'better writer". I can say 100 times "my statement about the wrongness of the antifa protesters methods has nothing at all do to with my condemnation of the beliefs of the white nationalists" and you'll still insist that I'm using one to balance out the other somehow.

I'm not. I've repeatedly stated that I'm not. Yet you still insist that I said something I didn't, or mean something I didn't. How many times do I have to say 'that's not what I said' before you'll stop insisting that it was. Doubly so when you say stuff like "you essentially said". Kinda invalidates your whole argument right there.

Quote:
Being as the KKK and the n.a.z.i.s historically murdered a ton of people, they kinda were. Which is kinda the point. Dumbass.


There's no evidence that the people physically at the protest were murderers (except the guy in the car, but that happened *after* the protest was broken up because of the violent counter protest, so you can't justify one action by saying it's in response to an action that hasn't yet happened). That's the point. If we're going to be pedantic about what people actually said (as opposed to what they "essentially said"), you didn't say they were "breaking the law in order to hurt people who were promoting an ideology which other people in the past, who have committed murder and other violence, also promoted". You said they were "breaking the law in order to hurt murderers" (ok. technically, you struck out my words "people they don't like" and replaced it with "murderers", but the intent is clear).

You were calling the people at the protest murderers. That is not correct. Full stop.

Quote:
Trump listed a bunch of really bad groups and said they were bad and followed that up by saying the people who don't like that list of people were just as bad.


False. He did not say this. Stop making stuff up. It's not helping your point at all.

Quote:
If you think I'm pulling that comment out of my ***, you might want to check into a large chunk of the GOP folk in Congress who essentially said the same thing.


"essentially". That's you saying "they didn't actually say this, but I'm choosing to pretend they did anyway". If you want to judge someone for what they say, then you really need to be correct about what they actually said. Once you say "essentially", you're putting your own spin on their words. And you'll have to forgive me, but I don't think you're the most reliable source for what a member of the GOP meant when they said something.

If you can't even bother to find an actual quote, then what's the point?

Quote:
"Horrible" is a pretty strong word. If some person or group who hates the KKK and n.a.z.i.s starts indiscriminately murdering them I assure you I'm not OK with that.


Where's the point of "I'm not OK with that" though? So, somewhere between "show up at their events with tactical gear, bats, and pepper spray" and "indiscriminately murdering them", right? Care to be a tiny bit more specific? Because from my point of view, the former is illegal already. Maybe you don't consider going somewhere with the specific purpose of inflicting physical harm on them "horrible", but I actually do.

Another point is that you are judging the actions of one group based on the ideology of the group they oppose. I'm judging the actions alone. Ask yourself this question: If the protest had been about saving the whales, or raising awareness of global warming, or supporting SSM, and another group had showed up with tactical gear, pepper spray, and bats and proceeded to engage in the exact same actions that the antifa folks did, would you have questioned me if I'd labeled their actions as "horrible"?

I'm reasonably certain you would not have batted an eye at the label. You'd likely have joined in with the condemnation, and possibly used even stronger language. I'm speculating here. I can't know for sure. But feel free to examine your own conscience on the subject at your own leisure.

Our laws have to be blind to the individuals involved. We should judge actions. Not people. I get that this can be hard to do. It's really really easy to just say that those white nationalists deserved it and move on. But that's not a good idea in the long run. Because what you're really doing isn't opposing that group. You're supporting and establishing the legitimacy of the concept of unequal application of the law. And that's freaking dangerous. I would hope you agree with this.

Quote:
Having said that...some things are black and white. N.a.z.i.s and the KKK are evil, pure and simple. I pray you don't think otherwise.


Of course they are. But their evilness does not cancel out illegal, violent, and yes... horrible actions by others. Let's also not lose sight of the fact that my point was about the slippery slope aspect of this. As you get more accustomed to allowing such violence against folks like the KKK, the range of "people I don't like" that you will accept it against will grow. My point wasn't about how horrible the violence is (or whether that's the appropriate word at all), but the danger of acceptance of that sort of behavior in the first place (regardless of what we label it).

The same antifa folks show up to conservative events to shut them down. Using the same tactics. If they were reserving their violence just against KKK, neo-*****, and white nationalists, it would still be illegal, but I could at least understand the "instant karma" aspect to the whole thing. But they aren't. This isn't about the folks they were protesting against this time. It's about the group itself.

Quote:
So if you were the presiding judge in Loving vs Virginia you would have sided with the state?


A judge is not "violating the law" when he rules a law to be unconstitutional. He's upholding a higher law. That's not remotely similar to someone illegally protesting, blocking traffic, committing acts of vandalism and violence, etc. The judge isn't showing up in court with a baseball bat and bludgeoning the guy he rules against either, so there's that too.

But for the record, if I had been the judge in the Loving case, I would have ruled against the state, just as the judge did in that case. But not because I'm "for" or "against" a "side" of some current social issue, which sadly, is how so many people today make decisions. But because the law in question served no lawful purpose except to arbitrarily discriminate. And before you go there. No. I don't equate Loving to SSM. Ironically, the Loving case used as part of its basis for the decision the fact that procreation is a natural purpose of marriage, and being of different races did not affect the ability to procreate. So by denying a mixed race couple marriage, they would prevent the children from being born to a married couple, thus providing more harm to them. That is, quite obviously, not the same with a same *** couple.

But I don't feel like re-hashing that one again.


gbaji wrote:
Movements like white nationalism have been steadily losing steam for decades.
Until Obama got elected and they blossomed anew. Maybe you should get your news from somewhere.[/quote]

Like here?

First off, no correlation to Obama being elected. Also, there's this bit:

There has been a rise in the number of hate groups operating in the United States for a second year in a row, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) monitoring group.

In a recent report , the SPLC found that the total number of hate groups in the US in 2016 grew to 917 from 892 a year earlier.

Since 1999, the total number of hate groups in the US has more than doubled.

There are now more anti-Muslim , anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT, white nationalist, neo-****, neo-Confederate and black separatist organisations.

But the number of Ku Klux Klan (KKK) chapters, racist skinhead groups and anti-government militias and political groupings has declined, according to the report.


Let's make another thing clear. The SPLC's definition of "hate groups" can be quite broad. And in this case, their definition of "white nationalists" included any group associated with the "alt-right", despite the fact that most people and groups who identify themselves as such don't identify themselves as white nationalists, nor engage in the behavior of white nationalists. Apparently, these days, all it takes to be labeled a white nationalist is to support crazy things like enforcing our existing immigration policies, and wanting better vetting of refugees from areas of the world where terrorist groups have strongholds.

The actual white nationalists, neo-*****, etc can hardly get more than a hundred people to show up to most of their events. I believe the count in Virginia was what? 500? That's the largest number I've been able to find. And that consisted of like a dozen different (known) groups that came from all over the country to attend. That's not a lot of people. And it's unclear how many were actual members of white nationalist groups, and how many were there because they opposed the removal of the statue, but had no affiliation with the other groups (and apparently a decent number of people who just showed up to express support for the 1st amendment, but didn't have a "side" at all).

If anything, the actions of antifa have *increased* the numbers of white nationalists showing up at these events. They're getting media attention that they didn't get before, and are able to play up the victim card. A previous event, planned by the same guy who planned the one on august 12th, managed to garner a whopping 50 protesters (and over a thousand counter protesters).

My point is that it's the violence of the counter protesters that is drawing media attention, both to the violence, and to the protesters themselves. It's counterproductive IMO. And yeah, what they're doing is also illegal. Showing up and voicing your opinion? Perfectly fine. Showing up and engaging in physical violence against the protesters? Illegal. I didn't think that had to be clarified.

You don't have a 1st amendment right to engage in violence. It stops at "speech". Again. I didn't think that this was something that had to be explained. And certainly didn't think I'd have to explain this so many times.

Quote:
So when racists and their ilk parade around and hold demonstrations to spread their message of hate just be silent and let them? Sounds like a swell plan there, man.


Sigh. There's a difference between countering the message, and engaging in violence. That's the point I've been making, repeatedly. It doesn't seem to be sinking in though.

Hateful ideologies like white nationalism are best fought by marginalizing them. In a large population, with the prevailing social message being in opposition to racism, the solitary guy who might have white nationalist leanings, perhaps passed down by previous generations in his family, will assume he's alone in his thoughts. He's the outlier in a sea of people who disagree with him. He'll tend to stay quiet, keep his hateful opinions to himself, and be less likely to pass them on to his children. Over time, the ideology dies out via this process. Is it fast? No. But it's the only way to accomplish this. Violence doesn't work.

What violence does do is raise national awareness of the ideology. Doesn't matter what that messaging is. It gives folks like that a "group" to associate with, and increases the likelihood that they'll begin speaking up themselves, and even taking action. Violence against that sort of ideology does not work. It has never worked. You're just giving them what they want.

Edited, Sep 19th 2017 10:20pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#446 Sep 20 2017 at 5:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
gbaji wrote:
"essentially". That's you saying "they didn't actually say this, but I'm choosing to pretend they did anyway"
Oh the irony, when thinking back about you and Obama. Smiley: lol
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#448 Sep 20 2017 at 8:06 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,740 posts
gbaji wrote:
If the protest had been about saving the whales, or raising awareness of global warming, or supporting SSM, and another group had showed up with tactical gear, pepper spray, and bats and proceeded to engage in the exact same actions that the antifa folks did, would you have questioned me if I'd labeled their actions as "horrible"?
Yes, because you'd also be insisting antifa didn't go far enough and the people supporting SSM and saving the whales were in the wrong and deserved to be beaten or killed. That's kind of how hypotheticals work: Every answer is right because you control the variables, which is why they're completely irrelevant and worthless when trying to prove a point.

I guess your hypothetical could maybe sort of approach believable if you weren't so insistent that armed militants taking over federal buildings was okay.

Edited, Sep 20th 2017 10:42am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#450 Sep 20 2017 at 8:11 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,355 posts
gbaji wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
You essentially said "Sure, some racists dude killed and maimed people but the other side broke the law, too". No qualifiers at all. That's called equating the two. If that's not what you intended try to be a better writer.


"And" not "But". That's a qualifier. Saying "Joe fell down the stairs *and* Frank robbed a bank" in no way equates the two events. You're the one trying to create an equivalence that was not present in my statement (nor in Trump's for that matter). And no. It's not about me being a 'better writer". I can say 100 times "my statement about the wrongness of the antifa protesters methods has nothing at all do to with my condemnation of the beliefs of the white nationalists" and you'll still insist that I'm using one to balance out the other somehow.

I'm not. I've repeatedly stated that I'm not. Yet you still insist that I said something I didn't, or mean something I didn't. How many times do I have to say 'that's not what I said' before you'll stop insisting that it was. Doubly so when you say stuff like "you essentially said". Kinda invalidates your whole argument right there.

Quote:
Being as the KKK and the n.a.z.i.s historically murdered a ton of people, they kinda were. Which is kinda the point. Dumbass.


There's no evidence that the people physically at the protest were murderers (except the guy in the car, but that happened *after* the protest was broken up because of the violent counter protest, so you can't justify one action by saying it's in response to an action that hasn't yet happened). That's the point. If we're going to be pedantic about what people actually said (as opposed to what they "essentially said"), you didn't say they were "breaking the law in order to hurt people who were promoting an ideology which other people in the past, who have committed murder and other violence, also promoted". You said they were "breaking the law in order to hurt murderers" (ok. technically, you struck out my words "people they don't like" and replaced it with "murderers", but the intent is clear).

You were calling the people at the protest murderers. That is not correct. Full stop.

Quote:
Trump listed a bunch of really bad groups and said they were bad and followed that up by saying the people who don't like that list of people were just as bad.


False. He did not say this. Stop making stuff up. It's not helping your point at all.

Quote:
If you think I'm pulling that comment out of my ***, you might want to check into a large chunk of the GOP folk in Congress who essentially said the same thing.


"essentially". That's you saying "they didn't actually say this, but I'm choosing to pretend they did anyway". If you want to judge someone for what they say, then you really need to be correct about what they actually said. Once you say "essentially", you're putting your own spin on their words. And you'll have to forgive me, but I don't think you're the most reliable source for what a member of the GOP meant when they said something.

If you can't even bother to find an actual quote, then what's the point?

Quote:
"Horrible" is a pretty strong word. If some person or group who hates the KKK and n.a.z.i.s starts indiscriminately murdering them I assure you I'm not OK with that.


Where's the point of "I'm not OK with that" though? So, somewhere between "show up at their events with tactical gear, bats, and pepper spray" and "indiscriminately murdering them", right? Care to be a tiny bit more specific? Because from my point of view, the former is illegal already. Maybe you don't consider going somewhere with the specific purpose of inflicting physical harm on them "horrible", but I actually do.

Another point is that you are judging the actions of one group based on the ideology of the group they oppose. I'm judging the actions alone. Ask yourself this question: If the protest had been about saving the whales, or raising awareness of global warming, or supporting SSM, and another group had showed up with tactical gear, pepper spray, and bats and proceeded to engage in the exact same actions that the antifa folks did, would you have questioned me if I'd labeled their actions as "horrible"?

I'm reasonably certain you would not have batted an eye at the label. You'd likely have joined in with the condemnation, and possibly used even stronger language. I'm speculating here. I can't know for sure. But feel free to examine your own conscience on the subject at your own leisure.

Our laws have to be blind to the individuals involved. We should judge actions. Not people. I get that this can be hard to do. It's really really easy to just say that those white nationalists deserved it and move on. But that's not a good idea in the long run. Because what you're really doing isn't opposing that group. You're supporting and establishing the legitimacy of the concept of unequal application of the law. And that's freaking dangerous. I would hope you agree with this.

Quote:
Having said that...some things are black and white. N.a.z.i.s and the KKK are evil, pure and simple. I pray you don't think otherwise.


Of course they are. But their evilness does not cancel out illegal, violent, and yes... horrible actions by others. Let's also not lose sight of the fact that my point was about the slippery slope aspect of this. As you get more accustomed to allowing such violence against folks like the KKK, the range of "people I don't like" that you will accept it against will grow. My point wasn't about how horrible the violence is (or whether that's the appropriate word at all), but the danger of acceptance of that sort of behavior in the first place (regardless of what we label it).

The same antifa folks show up to conservative events to shut them down. Using the same tactics. If they were reserving their violence just against KKK, neo-*****, and white nationalists, it would still be illegal, but I could at least understand the "instant karma" aspect to the whole thing. But they aren't. This isn't about the folks they were protesting against this time. It's about the group itself.

Quote:
So if you were the presiding judge in Loving vs Virginia you would have sided with the state?


A judge is not "violating the law" when he rules a law to be unconstitutional. He's upholding a higher law. That's not remotely similar to someone illegally protesting, blocking traffic, committing acts of vandalism and violence, etc. The judge isn't showing up in court with a baseball bat and bludgeoning the guy he rules against either, so there's that too.

But for the record, if I had been the judge in the Loving case, I would have ruled against the state, just as the judge did in that case. But not because I'm "for" or "against" a "side" of some current social issue, which sadly, is how so many people today make decisions. But because the law in question served no lawful purpose except to arbitrarily discriminate. And before you go there. No. I don't equate Loving to SSM. Ironically, the Loving case used as part of its basis for the decision the fact that procreation is a natural purpose of marriage, and being of different races did not affect the ability to procreate. So by denying a mixed race couple marriage, they would prevent the children from being born to a married couple, thus providing more harm to them. That is, quite obviously, not the same with a same *** couple.

But I don't feel like re-hashing that one again.


gbaji wrote:
Movements like white nationalism have been steadily losing steam for decades.
Until Obama got elected and they blossomed anew. Maybe you should get your news from somewhere.


Like here?

First off, no correlation to Obama being elected. Also, there's this bit:

There has been a rise in the number of hate groups operating in the United States for a second year in a row, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) monitoring group.

In a recent report , the SPLC found that the total number of hate groups in the US in 2016 grew to 917 from 892 a year earlier.

Since 1999, the total number of hate groups in the US has more than doubled.

There are now more anti-Muslim , anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT, white nationalist, neo-****, neo-Confederate and black separatist organisations.

But the number of Ku Klux Klan (KKK) chapters, racist skinhead groups and anti-government militias and political groupings has declined, according to the report.


Let's make another thing clear. The SPLC's definition of "hate groups" can be quite broad. And in this case, their definition of "white nationalists" included any group associated with the "alt-right", despite the fact that most people and groups who identify themselves as such don't identify themselves as white nationalists, nor engage in the behavior of white nationalists. Apparently, these days, all it takes to be labeled a white nationalist is to support crazy things like enforcing our existing immigration policies, and wanting better vetting of refugees from areas of the world where terrorist groups have strongholds.

The actual white nationalists, neo-*****, etc can hardly get more than a hundred people to show up to most of their events. I believe the count in Virginia was what? 500? That's the largest number I've been able to find. And that consisted of like a dozen different (known) groups that came from all over the country to attend. That's not a lot of people. And it's unclear how many were actual members of white nationalist groups, and how many were there because they opposed the removal of the statue, but had no affiliation with the other groups (and apparently a decent number of people who just showed up to express support for the 1st amendment, but didn't have a "side" at all).

If anything, the actions of antifa have *increased* the numbers of white nationalists showing up at these events. They're getting media attention that they didn't get before, and are able to play up the victim card. A previous event, planned by the same guy who planned the one on august 12th, managed to garner a whopping 50 protesters (and over a thousand counter protesters).

My point is that it's the violence of the counter protesters that is drawing media attention, both to the violence, and to the protesters themselves. It's counterproductive IMO. And yeah, what they're doing is also illegal. Showing up and voicing your opinion? Perfectly fine. Showing up and engaging in physical violence against the protesters? Illegal. I didn't think that had to be clarified.

You don't have a 1st amendment right to engage in violence. It stops at "speech". Again. I didn't think that this was something that had to be explained. And certainly didn't think I'd have to explain this so many times.

Quote:
So when racists and their ilk parade around and hold demonstrations to spread their message of hate just be silent and let them? Sounds like a swell plan there, man.


Sigh. There's a difference between countering the message, and engaging in violence. That's the point I've been making, repeatedly. It doesn't seem to be sinking in though.

Hateful ideologies like white nationalism are best fought by marginalizing them. In a large population, with the prevailing social message being in opposition to racism, the solitary guy who might have white nationalist leanings, perhaps passed down by previous generations in his family, will assume he's alone in his thoughts. He's the outlier in a sea of people who disagree with him. He'll tend to stay quiet, keep his hateful opinions to himself, and be less likely to pass them on to his children. Over time, the ideology dies out via this process. Is it fast? No. But it's the only way to accomplish this. Violence doesn't work.

What violence does do is raise national awareness of the ideology. Doesn't matter what that messaging is. It gives folks like that a "group" to associate with, and increases the likelihood that they'll begin speaking up themselves, and even taking action. Violence against that sort of ideology does not work. It has never worked. You're just giving them what they want.

Edited, Sep 19th 2017 10:20pm by gbaji


+1 if you read to here!

Edited, Sep 20th 2017 7:13am by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#451 Sep 20 2017 at 8:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I didn't read any of that.

Feels good, man.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 59 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (59)