White Nationalist Violence

[Elixir]

Anyone who argues that White Nationalists, White Supremacists, Nazis, current-title, etc., should not be allowed to speak is advocating that the Constitution be suspended, so it was never a strawman. In case you have forgotten, the 1st Amendment is part of the Constitution.

Those who advocate that it is permissible to initiate violence against the same are advocating that the rule of law be suspended.

How about someone who argues that the licenses of network news agencies who don't toe the party line, should have their licenses reviewed/revoked?
How about someone screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? (I know what you said about that last time - you're unwilling/unable to get the metaphor of American society being inflamed by teh Trumpuppet)

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Anyone who argues that White Nationalists, White Supremacists, Nazis, current-title, etc., should not be allowed to speak is advocating that the Constitution be suspended, so it was never a strawman. In case you have forgotten, the 1st Amendment is part of the Constitution.

Those who advocate that it is permissible to initiate violence against the same are advocating that the rule of law be suspended.

How about someone who argues that the licenses of network news agencies who don't toe the party line, should have their licenses reviewed/revoked?
How about someone screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? (I know what you said about that last time - you're unwilling/unable to get the metaphor of American society being inflamed by teh Trumpuppet)

I was never a Trump supporter so your attempts at tu quoque fail.

 

[Elixir]

How about someone who argues that the licenses of network news agencies who don't toe the party line, should have their licenses reviewed/revoked?
How about someone screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? (I know what you said about that last time - you're unwilling/unable to get the metaphor of American society being inflamed by teh Trumpuppet)

I was never a Trump supporter so your attempts at tu quoque fail.

False equivalence.
Were you ever one "who advocate that it is permissible to initiate violence"?
No?
You don't hesitate to comment on them, so what's your problem with commenting on others whom you say are not you? ... hmmm.

 

[sharon45]

I have no problem with hating the haters, it is about how the anger is used. That Dylann Roof was hoping to spark a race war, as others like him want everybody fighting in the mud, because they have such a dreary view of people.

"hating the haters?" No, there's strong dislike/hate, and then there's genocidal agenda like the Nazis. Those are different beasts.

It's all about hate, again, it is how the hate is used.

"Dylan Roof ...as others like him" don't "want everybody fighting in the mud." They want to bond with other losers while killing people. They don't care if their opponents are swearing or hating, maybe some of them even want to catch everybody by surprise.

His own words is he wanted to start a race war, and everybody fighting in the mud, not literally, is a good start towards that. The victim's families forgiving him though, kind of threw cold water on any proposed heated retaliation.

"they have such a dreary view of people" -- they have a dreary view of their targets --blacks, Jews, etc.

Right, but as I have said many times before, these foul people hate themselves.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anyone who argues that White Nationalists, White Supremacists, Nazis, current-title, etc., should not be allowed to speak is advocating that the Constitution be suspended, so it was never a strawman.

I think that no one has a constitutional right to vocally advocate genocide. There, I said it. I know it is controversial and that the Founders would have welcomed the idea of praising genocide, but I think that Neo-Nazis and people that promote the idea of murdering the Jews should be compelled by law to shut the fuck up. They want to talk about how great it is to be part of the master race, have at it. Want to pretend that being white means they are awesome, they can shout it from the mountain tops.

But Genocide is fucking out of bounds!

Those who advocate that it is permissible to initiate violence against the same are advocating that the rule of law be suspended.

Shifting goalposts now?

 

[Elixir]

I think that no one has a constitutional right to vocally advocate genocide.

Hear here. That's why we should round up all the white supremacists and gas 'em! (Starting with El Cheato)

Seriously, it is a conundrum. If white supremacy is really the way that a democratic republic wishes to go, they should go that way. My problem is that I don't believe that a plurality of US citizens want that. but they're likely to get it anyhow due to gerrymandering, voter suppression and other tactics that should be illegal, being SOP for the Republican party. They cheat, and whenever Democrats get a chance to, they cheat too. Unluckily for Americans at large, one of those parties is much more adept and practiced in The Art Of The Cheat than is the other.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think that no one has a constitutional right to vocally advocate genocide.

Hear here. That's why we should round up all the white supremacists and gas 'em!

Where in "gas 'em" you mean send them to live in Poland with their skin head buddies, yes.

 

[Elixir]

Hear here. That's why we should round up all the white supremacists and gas 'em!

Where in "gas 'em" you mean send them to live in Poland with their skin head buddies, yes.

Yeah. Then, if they get too uppity we can nuke Poland!

 

[ZiprHead]

Hear here. That's why we should round up all the white supremacists and gas 'em!

Where in "gas 'em" you mean send them to live in Poland with their skin head buddies, yes.

Haven't you heard? No one was gassed in Poland.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I think that no one has a constitutional right to vocally advocate genocide. There, I said it. I know it is controversial and that the Founders would have welcomed the idea of praising genocide, but I think that Neo-Nazis and people that promote the idea of murdering the Jews should be compelled by law to shut the fuck up. They want to talk about how great it is to be part of the master race, have at it. Want to pretend that being white means they are awesome, they can shout it from the mountain tops.

But Genocide is fucking out of bounds!

Then you are admitting my post wasn't a strawman. Thank you.

I wish other people were as open about their contempt for the constitution as you are.

Now you're going to tell me that my support for the first amendment is support for the Nazis. Just because I support their right to speak doesn't mean I support them. Not only do I defend their right to speak, I even defend your right to speak.

Shifting goalposts now?

No, adding a second point. There are those who believe they have the right to initiate violence against people whose ideas they find abhorrent. I believe that is wrong, and surely someone will say that by opposing punching a Nazi it means I support them. Not only do I defend their physical integrity, I even defend your physical integrity.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Then you are admitting my post wasn't a strawman. Thank you.

*self moderated, but believe me, it was witty and very insulting, okay, just a dropping some curse words*

I wish other people were as open about their contempt for the constitution as you are.

You have a shitty definition for the word "contempt".

Now you're going to tell me that my support for the first amendment is support for the Nazis.

Well, you tend to go with the strawman arguments, so that should be par for the course. I understand that nuance is just too much for you to understand.

Just because I support their right to speak doesn't mean I support them.

Correct. A Nazi wants to murder a Jew. A Libertarian supports that Nazi right up until the Jew is murdered, and after the Jew is murdered, you shrug your shoulders and walk away with a smug sense of greatness and condemn the murder of the Jew.

Good ole Libertarianism... the political belief that their beliefs don't have consequences.

Not only do I defend their right to speak, I even defend your right to speak.

Awwww... false equivalence. You care so much to double up the fallacies. I'm touched.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Just because I support their right to speak doesn't mean I support them.

Correct. A Nazi wants to murder a Jew. A Libertarian supports that Nazi right up until the Jew is murdered, and after the Jew is murdered, you shrug your shoulders and walk away with a smug sense of greatness and condemn the murder of the Jew.

Good ole Libertarianism... the political belief that their beliefs don't have consequences.

Earlier you were complaining about strawmen. Fascinating.

Libertarianism opposes murder. We go beyond saying murder is bad and actually advocate that those who murder be punished. And unlike you, we even advocate that the Jew has the right to adequate self defense. The rights that libertarianism supports include the right to life, but not the right to be shielded from bad words.

I know we live in a Twitter age where harsh words are supposed to be exactly the same as violence, but the Twits are wrong about that. You aren't assaulted by words, you are assaulted by actions. If you can't show me on the doll where the words hurt you, then you aren't hurt. The only thing hurt is your tender feelings. Grow a pair.

Not only do I defend their right to speak, I even defend your right to speak.

Awwww... false equivalence. You care so much to double up the fallacies. I'm touched.

You stated openly you oppose the constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech. I support your right to say that even as I oppose your position. There isn't any false equivalence.

The fascinating part is that 99% of the country has a negative opinion of the Nazis. This negative opinion ranges from dislike to hatred. The best way you can come up with to argue against them is censorship. Are your arguments really so weak you can't come up with anything better than censorship to oppose a group that 99% of the country opposes? Is the best argument you have against White Supremacy nothing more than saying "shut up or I'll have you arrested"?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The fascinating part is that 99% of the country has a negative opinion of the Nazis.

Emphasis added. Is this only an opinion?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Correct. A Nazi wants to murder a Jew. A Libertarian supports that Nazi right up until the Jew is murdered, and after the Jew is murdered, you shrug your shoulders and walk away with a smug sense of greatness and condemn the murder of the Jew.

Good ole Libertarianism... the political belief that their beliefs don't have consequences.

Earlier you were complaining about strawmen. Fascinating.

What strawman? You supported my claim in your post here. That you think words are harmless. My post was right.

You march along side with the Nazi, supporting their right to say they want to murder Jews. But the second they start murdering, you condemn the murder. Such a high standing moral citizen!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Earlier you were complaining about strawmen. Fascinating.

What strawman? You supported my claim in your post here. That you think words are harmless. My post was right.

You march along side with the Nazi, supporting their right to say they want to murder Jews. But the second they start murdering, you condemn the murder. Such a high standing moral citizen!

That's a big difference, though. What about a smaller difference, like does he support the Nazi Party free political speech right to being freely elected on a platform that they will commit genocide? And then does he support the free speech right of Nazi Party officials to lie saying Congress was burned down by communists? Does he support the free speech rights of a majority of Nazis to come to power if freely elected afterward when they're still saying they are going to commit genocide? Okay, so one of them kills one person. The rest, say they are for genocide and are going to commit it. Is he for their right to free "political" speech still? What about after killing a thousand people? It's still okay that they say they are going to kill?

We're not supposed to ever, ever shout them down though, or "shame" them because that's evil. We have to always engage them quietly in logical arguments and make sure we have a proper license for the space first.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What strawman? You supported my claim in your post here. That you think words are harmless. My post was right.

You march along side with the Nazi, supporting their right to say they want to murder Jews. But the second they start murdering, you condemn the murder. Such a high standing moral citizen!

That's a big difference, though.

Well, they were marching in Virginia, chanting about killing Jews, so I'm sticking with what actually happened, not hypotheticals. I'm ashamed that I hold the Constitution in such contempt, but this whole genocide thing is one of my few big button topics.

 

[sharon45]

Words are obviously not harmless, they are just not the same as physical violence. Someone could innocently say "Happy Birthday" to another, and it is like a kick, because the receiver is reminded of being one year older.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Words are obviously not harmless, they are just not the same as physical violence. Someone could innocently say "Happy Birthday" to another, and it is like a kick, because the receiver is reminded of being one year older.

Great point! Entirely in the ballpark as advocating genocide. Why do you waste your time?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Earlier you were complaining about strawmen. Fascinating.

What strawman?

Watch.

You supported my claim in your post here.

There's one.

You march along side with the Nazi,

There's two. And that one is ironic, because like you the Nazis have no respect for freedom of speech. This one also shows that my prior claims weren't strawmen.

Libertarianism opposes murder. We go beyond saying murder is bad and actually advocate that those who murder be punished. And unlike you, we even advocate that the Jew has the right to adequate self defense. The rights that libertarianism supports include the right to life, but not the right to be shielded from bad words.

I know we live in a Twitter age where harsh words are supposed to be exactly the same as violence, but the Twits are wrong about that. You aren't assaulted by words, you are assaulted by actions. If you can't show me on the doll where the words hurt you, then you aren't hurt. The only thing hurt is your tender feelings. Grow a pair.

The fascinating part is that 99% of the country has a negative opinion of the Nazis. This negative opinion ranges from dislike to hatred. The best way you can come up with to argue against them is censorship. Are your arguments really so weak you can't come up with anything better than censorship to oppose a group that 99% of the country opposes? Is the best argument you have against White Supremacy nothing more than saying "shut up or I'll have you arrested"?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Words are obviously not harmless, they are just not the same as physical violence. Someone could innocently say "Happy Birthday" to another, and it is like a kick, because the receiver is reminded of being one year older.

Great point! Entirely in the ballpark as advocating genocide. Why do you waste your time?

It's like that game in sesame street. Remember the alt-righter who was recorded in charlottesville saying he was there because
1. Republicanism
2. Killing jews
3. The free market

Which one of these things doesn't belong?