• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Charlottesville: video evidence that the alt-right attacked first

Still other words are "stupid", "diversion" and "rhetorical".

Sorry, I thought you were responding to blastula:

Clearly inciting violence is not protected. But they're usually not so direct about it to cross the line to illegality.

Hmm, do you have a language you prefer to English?

I already produced words in English that say inciting violence is protected unless that violence is imminent, lawless and likely.

For example, if I said 'Let's put Hillary Clinton on trial for high treason and execute her" that statement calls for violence that is neither a) imminent, b) lawless or c) likely.

Incitement to imminent lawless action, yes. Were you saying that no such thing occurred in Charlottesville, or that Trump had nothing to do with inciting the lawless violence there, or that the Nazis didn't start it?
If not... one must wonder wtf your point might be.
 
A football player takes a knee during the national anthem and he is castigated by the right-wing.
Liberals questioned invading Iraq, and were accused of being Saddam Hussein sympathizers.

Where the heck were these right-wingers then that now rush to aid of Neo-Nazis who carried torches and chanting for Genocide?
 
Still other words are "stupid", "diversion" and "rhetorical".

Sorry, I thought you were responding to blastula:

Clearly inciting violence is not protected. But they're usually not so direct about it to cross the line to illegality.

Hmm, do you have a language you prefer to English?

I already produced words in English that say inciting violence is protected unless that violence is imminent, lawless and likely.

For example, if I said 'Let's put Hillary Clinton on trial for high treason and execute her" that statement calls for violence that is neither a) imminent, b) lawless or c) likely.

Incitement to imminent lawless action, yes. Were you saying that no such thing occurred in Charlottesville, or that Trump had nothing to do with inciting the lawless violence there, or that the Nazis didn't start it?
If not... one must wonder wtf your point might be.

You're going to have to tell me exactly what speech you are referring to that you believe incited imminent, lawless and likely action before I can render judgement.

You mean like when antifa chants " Every nation every race, punch a Nazi in the face"?

- - - Updated - - -

A football player takes a knee during the national anthem and he is castigated by the right-wing.
Liberals questioned invading Iraq, and were accused of being Saddam Hussein sympathizers.

Where the heck were these right-wingers then that now rush to aid of Neo-Nazis who carried torches and chanting for Genocide?

You better check under your bed for nazis Jimmy. They're everywhere!
 
Still other words are "stupid", "diversion" and "rhetorical".

Sorry, I thought you were responding to blastula:

Clearly inciting violence is not protected. But they're usually not so direct about it to cross the line to illegality.

Hmm, do you have a language you prefer to English?

I already produced words in English that say inciting violence is protected unless that violence is imminent, lawless and likely.

For example, if I said 'Let's put Hillary Clinton on trial for high treason and execute her" that statement calls for violence that is neither a) imminent, b) lawless or c) likely.

Incitement to imminent lawless action, yes. Were you saying that no such thing occurred in Charlottesville, or that Trump had nothing to do with inciting the lawless violence there, or that the Nazis didn't start it?
If not... one must wonder wtf your point might be.

You're going to have to tell me exactly what speech you are referring to that you believe incited imminent, lawless and likely action before I can render judgement.

You mean like when antifa chants " Every nation every race, punch a Nazi in the face"?

I can't open your eyes for you dude. There IS help available though, IF you seek it out.
 
Still other words are "stupid", "diversion" and "rhetorical".

Sorry, I thought you were responding to blastula:

Clearly inciting violence is not protected. But they're usually not so direct about it to cross the line to illegality.

Hmm, do you have a language you prefer to English?

I already produced words in English that say inciting violence is protected unless that violence is imminent, lawless and likely.

For example, if I said 'Let's put Hillary Clinton on trial for high treason and execute her" that statement calls for violence that is neither a) imminent, b) lawless or c) likely.

Incitement to imminent lawless action, yes. Were you saying that no such thing occurred in Charlottesville, or that Trump had nothing to do with inciting the lawless violence there, or that the Nazis didn't start it?
If not... one must wonder wtf your point might be.

You're going to have to tell me exactly what speech you are referring to that you believe incited imminent, lawless and likely action before I can render judgement.

You mean like when antifa chants " Every nation every race, punch a Nazi in the face"?

I can't open your eyes for you dude. There IS help available though, IF you seek it out.

So, you got nothing.
 
A football player takes a knee during the national anthem and he is castigated by the right-wing.
Those insisting that people must stand during the national anthem are asinine.
Liberals questioned invading Iraq, and were accused of being Saddam Hussein sympathizers.
Which liberals? Certainly not those in Congress - they voted for it. Personally, I questioned it.
Where the heck were these right-wingers then that now rush to aid of Neo-Nazis who carried torches and chanting for Genocide?
I see no one on this thread "rushing to the aid of Neo-Nazis". I see people condemning their ideology but supporting the right of all Americans (including nut cases) to express their opinions.
 
Liberals questioned invading Iraq, and were accused of being Saddam Hussein sympathizers.
Which liberals? Certainly not those in Congress - they voted for it. Personally, I questioned it.
You are mistakenly mixing Democrats with Liberals.
Where the heck were these right-wingers then that now rush to aid of Neo-Nazis who carried torches and chanting for Genocide?
I see no one on this thread "rushing to the aid of Neo-Nazis".
Really?
I see people condemning their ideology but supporting the right of all Americans (including nut cases) to express their opinions.
Oh... that's cute. These people are not nut cases, they are advocating genocide.
 
Which liberals? Certainly not those in Congress - they voted for it. Personally, I questioned it.
You are mistakenly mixing Democrats with Liberals.
O.K. maybe that was my error. I thought congress critters at the time like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, etc. were accepted as being liberals. So tell me, who are the liberals?
 
Last edited:
You can't use the both sides are exactly as bad argument when one side includes Nazis, but thank you for publicly defending Nazis and letting everyone know what you are.

When the criminal street gang the Crips are fighting the criminal street gang the Bloods, you can't use the both sides are exactly as bad when one side includes the Crips, but thank you for publicly defending Crips and letting everyone know what you are.

Sincerely,
Not a Nazi
You're seriously putting nazis and anti-fascists on the same moral plane?
 
Well, no, actually there's a pretty clear set of tests.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[1][2]:702 Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Yes? Where did I disagree with any of that?

Oh my dear dismal, you are so cute when you try to understand words.
 
If your politics more important to you than reality? Is it more important to you than people?
Reality is very important to me. Ignoring the destructive contributions of left-wing radicalism to US political discourse is to be ignoring reality.
Calling people left wing radicals just creates more left wing radicals.
 
I'm just happy that in a post finally he has said that these people are despicable, even though he's throwing blame around. I guess Trump lowered my expectation bar and sometimes I think that's his political purpose to move the country Right by normalizing this shit. In any case, the dog whistle of the left has been purported to be calling people out for racism, not for Nazism and part of that huge criticism was calling Hillary a politically correct champion when she said half the people voting for Trump were a basket of deplorables. Well, if we look at things, more than half of the people who voted for Trump are still with him even after all this bullshit. So, she appears to have been right.

Tip: If you weren't so busy flinging around Seig heils! you'd probably realize that (almost) everyone thinks neo-Nazis are despicable
I wish the president was part of (almost) everyone.
 
Among those few who don't appear to think so is Trump. At least that's the image he prefers to cultivate. How anyone could think that's responsible leadership is beyond me. His insecurities about obligatory duties are more important to him than his duty.

Large numbers of Americans remember when troglodytes such as these Nazi marchers were in positions of influence. That they are casually accepted by a President supposedly representing everybody is alarming.

So, Trump said this:

As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America.

And as I have said many times before: No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God. We must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence. We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.

Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.

You consider that support for neo-nazis?
The neo-nazis seem to think so. They're ecstatically happy with Trump's responses so far.
 
The word was "inciting". Check again.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[1][2]:702 Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

A word is "inciting". Others words are "imminent", "lawless" and "likely".
You mean like inciting someone to drive their car into a crowd of people?
 
We can add the ACLU to the list of Nazi sympathizers.

Tensions grow inside ACLU over defending free-speech rights for the far right

t was 1934 and fascism was on the march not only in Europe but in America. People who admired Adolf Hitler, who had taken power in Germany, formed Nazi organizations in the United States.

The American Civil Liberties Union, represented by lawyers who were Jewish, faced an existential question: Should the freedoms it stood for since its founding in 1920 apply even to racist groups that would like nothing more than to strip them away?


Ultimately, after much internal dissent, the ACLU decided: Yes, the principles were what mattered most. The ACLU would stand up for the free-speech rights of Nazis.

“We do not choose our clients,” the ACLU’s board of directors wrote in an October 1934 pamphlet called “Shall We Defend Free Speech for Nazis In America?” “Lawless authorities denying their rights choose them for us. To those who support suppressing propaganda they hate, we ask — where do you draw the line?”

Once again, the ACLU is wrestling with how to respond to a far-right movement in the U.S. whose rising visibility is prompting concerns from elected officials and activists.

In response to the deadly violence at a rally in Charlottesville, Va., last weekend, the ACLU’s three California affiliates released a statement Wednesday declaring that “white supremacist violence is not free speech.”

The national organization said Thursday that it would not represent white supremacist groups that want to demonstrate with guns. That stance is a new interpretation of the ACLU’s official position that reasonable gun regulation does not violate the 2nd Amendment.

Officials in Charlottesville had initially denied organizers of the “Unite the Right” rally a permit to hold the event at the site of a Robert E. Lee statue. But the ACLU filed a lawsuit defending protesters’ rights to gather there. The rally ended with one woman killed and dozens of people injured as neo-Nazis and other far-right groups that had come armed with shields, helmets and even guns clashed violently with counter-protesters.

It's good ACLU defends Nazis' speech rights because those same decisions in their favor then protect everyone else's speech too. I support their new policy as well. Walking around with guns creates an environment not very conducive to free speech.

Another link. ACLU Will No Longer Defend Hate Groups Protesting With Firearms - WSJ
 
When the criminal street gang the Crips are fighting the criminal street gang the Bloods, you can't use the both sides are exactly as bad when one side includes the Crips, but thank you for publicly defending Crips and letting everyone know what you are.

Sincerely,
Not a Nazi
You're seriously putting nazis and anti-fascists on the same moral plane?

Lots of people are anti-fascist. A much smaller subset within that group is Antifa. Antifa wants us to believe that everyone who is anti-fascist is part of Antifa, but that is not true.
 
You're seriously putting nazis and anti-fascists on the same moral plane?

Lots of people are anti-fascist. A much smaller subset within that group is Antifa. Antifa wants us to believe that everyone who is anti-fascist is part of Antifa, but that is not true.

Sounds like a "yes".
Or maybe it's "No, only the anti-fascists who self identify as Antifa are on the same moral level with Nazis"?

Maybe you can clarify, or even define for us the difference between your garden-variety antifascist and the kind you despise?
 
Everyone rightly regards Hitler as evil for his Democide. Yet even today we find people who think Mao and even Stalin are not so bad even though Stalin killed 30 million outside of combat and Mao killed 70 million. Based on what I can infer from Jimmy's post, Hitler's motives make him worse than those who killed more people. I'm sure that those who died under Mao and Stalin can feel good about their deaths knowing that their death wasn't due to the wrong reasons.

I'll give Mao half a pass as he didn't actually kill all that many. That 70 million is from inept leadership, not deliberate murder.
 
You're seriously putting nazis and anti-fascists on the same moral plane?

Lots of people are anti-fascist. A much smaller subset within that group is Antifa. Antifa wants us to believe that everyone who is anti-fascist is part of Antifa, but that is not true.
So what? In Charlottesville it was nazis vs antifascists. Where is the moral ambiguity?

You seem more worried about the Antifa antifascists then about the nazis. Why is that?
 
Back
Top Bottom