• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Nazi sympathizer profiled in New York Times loses job

According to the article, he and his wife have received $6,000 from a site that supports "extremists on the right".
 
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/us/nazi-sympathizer-profiled-by-the-times-loses-his-job.html

Ha ha!

I can't wait to hear all the conservatives complain that this is counts as "persecution" of white people. Aren't we attacking the free speech rights of Nazi sympathizers?

I 100% support free speech. And I'm very uncomfortable with the recent attempts to block right wingers from speaking on campuses. However, free speech has consequences. I damn sure would not want a Nazi on my team.
 
I 100% support free speech. And I'm very uncomfortable with the recent attempts to block right wingers from speaking on campuses.
this statement is oxymoronic. blocking right wing speakers at college campuses IS free speech - it is practically the very definition of free speech, in fact.

How is blocking someone's speech "free speech"? The best way to expose crazy right wingers is to let them speak IMO...
 
I 100% support free speech. And I'm very uncomfortable with the recent attempts to block right wingers from speaking on campuses.
this statement is oxymoronic. blocking right wing speakers at college campuses IS free speech - it is practically the very definition of free speech, in fact.

How is blocking someone's speech "free speech"? The best way to expose crazy right wingers is to let them speak IMO...

The same way that shooting someone who's running away is self defence.

America. Fuck ya.
 
How is blocking someone's speech "free speech"?
based on your fundamental misunderstanding of the US first amendment and what "free speech" in the context of america really means.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

a college is not congress and so whatever they do is not an action covered under the first amendment, and students exercising their free speech to express their desire to not have some fuckwad come to the campus and speak and having the administrating body hear them and respond to their desire is free speech in action.
"free speech" means you can say what you what and the government won't arrest you for it... it doesn't mean you're entitled to a platform from which to spew your stupidity, and it doesn't mean other people are obligated to listen to you.
it never ceases to astound me how much difficulty people in the US have with comprehending this. do you need this in comic form to make it easier?

free_speech.png


The best way to expose crazy right wingers is to let them speak IMO...
cool, so let them speak - that's why there is no law against them speaking. they can go stand on a street corner by the gas station with a bullhorn and scream about the liberal jews all day long.
 
This is a good thread to mention what happened with Faith Goldy being disinvited by Gad Saad and Jordan Peterson





Funny enough, Faith interviewed Gad when she was wearing a "Deus Vult" sweatshirt months before.
 
The article that first got him into the trouble that this second article describes is interesting too.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/us/ohio-hovater-white-nationalist.html?_r=0

Seems the basis of his choice of moving from being "vaguely left" to libertarian to alt-right is he perceives positive attention given to minorities as unfair. If American won't be a meritocracy then proceed onward to advocating full separatism. No cognizance here that whites have a "leg up" in such wished-for meritocracy if there isn't first more fairness for minorities.

He wishes it were easier for unskilled white persons like himself to get jobs. But I wonder how such persons would fair in a real "meritocracy" where there isn't the kind of inbuilt white advantage that's implicit within his way of framing social justice for minorities as "things getting worse".


ETA (about free speech rights):

They want normalization. Since Trump's election they feel they can be public with their views without fear of consequence.

Thank goodness they're mistaken, as this guy has helped illustrate.
 
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/us/nazi-sympathizer-profiled-by-the-times-loses-his-job.html

Ha ha!

I can't wait to hear all the conservatives complain that this is counts as "persecution" of white people. Aren't we attacking the free speech rights of Nazi sympathizers?

I 100% support free speech. And I'm very uncomfortable with the recent attempts to block right wingers from speaking on campuses. However, free speech has consequences. I damn sure would not want a Nazi on my team.

FOX News won't give me my own show in which I debunk the lies of conservatives, therefore FOX News is attacking my free speech rights! Why aren't you up in arms about the fact that FOX News is attacking my free speech?

Free speech doesn't mean anyone owes you a platform for presenting[ent]hellip[/ent]

Wait. Maybe words not the right approach with someone who defends Nazis. Let's try argument by cartoon instead:

free_speech_2x.png

Let me reiterate: free speech does not mean freedom from criticism. Freedom from criticism is the opposite of free speech.
 
This is a good thread to mention what happened with Faith Goldy being disinvited by Gad Saad and Jordan Peterson





Funny enough, Faith interviewed Gad when she was wearing a "Deus Vult" sweatshirt months before.


What are you complaining about?

Nazis have a platform for their speech: Stormfront, Daily Stormer, Breitbart, and 4Chan. What else do you need that those platforms can't already provide you?
 
How is blocking someone's speech "free speech"?
based on your fundamental misunderstanding of the US first amendment and what "free speech" in the context of america really means.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

a college is not congress and so whatever they do is not an action covered under the first amendment, and students exercising their free speech to express their desire to not have some fuckwad come to the campus and speak and having the administrating body hear them and respond to their desire is free speech in action.
"free speech" means you can say what you what and the government won't arrest you for it... it doesn't mean you're entitled to a platform from which to spew your stupidity, and it doesn't mean other people are obligated to listen to you.
it never ceases to astound me how much difficulty people in the US have with comprehending this. do you need this in comic form to make it easier?

free_speech.png


The best way to expose crazy right wingers is to let them speak IMO...
cool, so let them speak - that's why there is no law against them speaking. they can go stand on a street corner by the gas station with a bullhorn and scream about the liberal jews all day long.

Holy Crap! Did you read my post?? I said that speech has it's consequences. I fire a Nazi on my team without hesitation. All that I said that I'm very uncomfortable with shouting out someone's speech. And you sprout out with the above?? You are misprotraying my post.
 
This is a good thread to mention what happened with Faith Goldy being disinvited by Gad Saad and Jordan Peterson





Funny enough, Faith interviewed Gad when she was wearing a "Deus Vult" sweatshirt months before.


What are you complaining about?

Nazis have a platform for their speech: Stormfront, Daily Stormer, Breitbart, and 4Chan. What else do you need that those platforms can't already provide you?


Yea right. If you guys are going to lie about my post, then I'm out. But just to give you further ammo: the far right should have total freedom of speech, the left should be condemned, global warming is a liberal conspiracy, the world is 6,000 years olds, the all college football teams suck, except for the Oregon Ducks. I'm out of this thread...
 
I 100% support free speech. And I'm very uncomfortable with the recent attempts to block right wingers from speaking on campuses.
this statement is oxymoronic. blocking right wing speakers at college campuses IS free speech - it is practically the very definition of free speech, in fact.

No it is the opposite of it. Speaking against their views is the definition of free speech. Making it impossible for them to speak by blocking entrances (a criminal act) or yelling and refusing to leave (often a criminal act of trespass even when on a public campus) is the opposite of free speech.


And the principle of free speech is not limited to the 1st Amendment. That is merely one formal instantiation of the principle.
The principle, and the basis for the 1st Amendment, is that reasoned thought and human liberty are promoted in the long run, if all views are allowed to be aired, and that tyranny and intellectually/morally indefensible ideas are primarily benefited by any efforts to coercively prevent other ideas from being aired, no matter how seemingly immoral they are (since all suppression of speech uses the cover of morality as a justification).

Since profit concerns will always limit speech in privately owned venues, it is especially critical that publicly owned spaces designed to give voice to competing ideas (e.g., college campuses) be able to be used to voice any ideas and allow thus interested in hearing them to hear them (which is the entire point of speech).

Your use of that cartoon does not support your position. Threatening others safety, blocking their path, and screaming during a event where others have reserved the space for their use are not instances where "the people listening think you're an asshole". Rather they are instances where some people think your an asshole and are trying to prevent other who do not from having the chance to hear you.

In a democracy, the government is the people. So, there is no fundamental difference between the government coercively preventing an idea from being voiced in public and other citizens doing so. They both are attacks on this critical principle that underlies almost all long-term moral, political, and intellectual progress.

Note that a private company firing a person for speech is their own free speech, and you telling a company you won't do business with them because of their speech is your free speech. But you trying to physically prevent others from exchanging ideas in a public place because you don't want those ideas ever expressed is a direct attack on the principle of free speech.
 
Note that even this guy's firing involved violations of the principle of free speech. People made threats of violence against him, his family, and the restaurant. Besides being criminal (I hope they are tracked down and imprisoned), it is against the principle of free speech to use threats of violence or physically prevent others from speaking or third parties from allowing them to speak.
The fact that Underseer and pridefall saw no problem with this shows how eroded the value and understanding of the principle of free speech has become among some on left.
 
BTW, the leftist enemies or free speech (and thus reason and progress) that are okay with preventing others from having a conversation using public spaces designed for discourse (e.g., colleges) have the same mentality as the idiots who attacked the NYT itself for printing that story, claiming the NYT was trying to "normalize" nazis.
What did these enemies of thought hate about the story? That it is was a factual, honest, realistic portrayal of a man with ugly hateful views.
They wanted a cartoonish, editorialized attack piece that made all people with such views out to be the kind of evil from top to bottom that you can tell from a mile away, with no traits of a typical person. Since that is not the reality, that isn't what they article portrayed.
The article served the view useful journalistic function of showing that these hateful views are common enough that people who are rather normal in every other way hold them. That is a reality that no reasonable person would be upset to learn. Rather only people more concerned with earning social "outrage" points than doing anything useful would be upset about the NYT printing this story.

This is the regressive left many on hear pretend does not exist, which tries to suppress rather than counter ideas that don't fit their ideological narrative, even when those ideas are factual and/or plausible scientific hypotheses worthy of investigation.
 
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/us/nazi-sympathizer-profiled-by-the-times-loses-his-job.html

Ha ha!

I can't wait to hear all the conservatives complain that this is counts as "persecution" of white people. Aren't we attacking the free speech rights of Nazi sympathizers?

I am completely unfamiliar with this news, including things ronburgundy is talking about. Even so, if I were a restaurant owner I would not want a genocidal maniac serving possibly poisoned or shat-in food to minorities at my restaurant. I guess that means i am part of the regressive the left or whatever to some people who don't recognize basic tenets of capitalism or other rights such as freedom from being poisoned.
 
Back
Top Bottom