First they came for the anti-fascists

[Jarhyn]

View attachment 22902

"Pushing too fast" == pushing at all for real change
"Most are violent" == Quit resisting our abuse!
"You hurt your own cause" == You want something we don't, so we don't respect you.

 

[dismal]

How about addressing the point?

In the US you have to release a minor to a guardian, not simply onto the streets. That leaves no options but to detain them if there is no available guardian.

Loren is absolutely right about this.

There was a sudden spike in the number of unaccompanied minors arriving at the border during the Obama Administration. The government suddenly had the responsibility to house, feed, clothe, and care for them while their applications for admittance were processed and guardians for them found. Did it do an awesome, amazingly wonderful job? No. But here's the difference: the Obama Administration wasn't creating and adding to the problem by separating children from their parents. It wasn't cruelly punishing them and their families as a deterrent to other would-be migrants. It wasn't carelessly, thoughtlessly, or deliberately forcing them to live in squalor, on short rations, depriving them of sleep and medical care and clean clothes and basic necessities. It wasn't putting sick toddlers in the care of 12 year olds as a matter of course.

There is a huge difference between what happened then and what is happening now because of why it happened/is happening.

I've been informed that defending camps is fascist apologism. You just made the list.

 

[dismal]

View attachment 22902

"Pushing too fast" == pushing at all for real change
"Most are violent" == Quit resisting our abuse!
"You hurt your own cause" == You want something we don't, so we don't respect you.

Well, except these antifa people actually are violent, are trying to suppress speech (a cherished right of minorities) which places them on the wrong side of history, and are "pushing back" against a phantom menace from 75 years ago.

Other than being totally wrong it's a great analogy though.

 

[PyramidHead]

Well, except these antifa people actually are violent, are trying to suppress speech (a cherished right of minorities) which places them on the wrong side of history, and are "pushing back" against a phantom menace from 75 years ago.

Other than being totally wrong it's a great analogy though.

Yours is a position impossible to falsify: it will never be the case that fascism is an actual threat, and even if it were, it will never be the case that rational discussion is inadequate to stem the tide.

 

[Jarhyn]

View attachment 22902

"Pushing too fast" == pushing at all for real change
"Most are violent" == Quit resisting our abuse!
"You hurt your own cause" == You want something we don't, so we don't respect you.

Well, except these antifa people actually are violent, are trying to suppress speech (a cherished right of minorities) which places them on the wrong side of history, and are "pushing back" against a phantom menace from 75 years ago.

Other than being totally wrong it's a great analogy though.

Some violent Antifa are not "most".

Antifa are not trying to suppress speech, but rather to suppress action through responding to speech: that fascist actions will be resisted to.

And as to the "phantom menace" tell me again whether there are, right at this moment, persons in high places of power who are disregarding the Constitution and acting above the law? Concentration camps. They are running fucking concentration camps.

 

[dismal]

Well, except these antifa people actually are violent, are trying to suppress speech (a cherished right of minorities) which places them on the wrong side of history, and are "pushing back" against a phantom menace from 75 years ago.

Other than being totally wrong it's a great analogy though.

Some violent Antifa are not "most".

Antifa are not trying to suppress speech, but rather to suppress action through responding to speech: that fascist actions will be resisted to.

And as to the "phantom menace" tell me again whether there are, right at this moment, persons in high places of power who are disregarding the Constitution and acting above the law? Concentration camps. They are running fucking concentration camps.

Well, in this thread I have only been referring to the ones who openly advocate violence. Which is most of them here, apparently.

If you would like to go on the record as not being in favor of using violence as a weapon against speech feel free. Then you should probably consider why you are arguing with those people who do advocate violence instead of against them.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, except these antifa people actually are violent, are trying to suppress speech (a cherished right of minorities) which places them on the wrong side of history, and are "pushing back" against a phantom menace from 75 years ago.

Other than being totally wrong it's a great analogy though.

Some violent Antifa are not "most".

Antifa are not trying to suppress speech, but rather to suppress action through responding to speech: that fascist actions will be resisted to.

And as to the "phantom menace" tell me again whether there are, right at this moment, persons in high places of power who are disregarding the Constitution and acting above the law? Concentration camps. They are running fucking concentration camps.

Well, in this thread I have only been referring to the ones who openly advocate violence. Which is most of them here, apparently.

If you would like to go on the record as not being in favor of using violence as a weapon against speech feel free. Then you should probably consider why you are arguing with those people who do advocate violence instead of against them.

Are violent != Advocating violence.

I advocate violence under a specific set ofnpredicates. Most people do. You could paint damn near any person as "an advocate of violence".

I was a fucking soldier for fuck's sake. I advocate violence, hell, I took multiple oaths explicitly stating I would use violence in defense of the Constitution of the United States. "100% of military and police advocate violence!"

"Advocates violence" is meaningless except for you to dog whistle insinuate that advocation of violence is wrong.

I am, however, more in the German school of thought than the US school, when it comes to speech: some forms of speech amount to actions which warrant a suppressive response particularly with regards to Nazis.

 

[dismal]

Well, in this thread I have only been referring to the ones who openly advocate violence. Which is most of them here, apparently.

If you would like to go on the record as not being in favor of using violence as a weapon against speech feel free. Then you should probably consider why you are arguing with those people who do advocate violence instead of against them.

Are violent != Advocating violence.

I advocate violence under a specific set ofnpredicates. Most people do. You could paint damn near any person as "an advocate of violence".

I was a fucking soldier for fuck's sake. I advocate violence, hell, I took multiple oaths explicitly stating I would use violence in defense of the Constitution of the United States. "100% of military and police advocate violence!"

"Advocates violence" is meaningless except for you to dog whistle insinuate that advocation of violence is wrong.

I am, however, more in the German school of thought than the US school, when it comes to speech: some forms of speech amount to actions which warrant a suppressive response particularly with regards to Nazis.

Look, I made it pretty clear we are talking about violence against speech here. No need to dodge about.

If you see a person with a sign or hat saying X, do you advocate you or another person punching them based on what X says?

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, in this thread I have only been referring to the ones who openly advocate violence. Which is most of them here, apparently.

If you would like to go on the record as not being in favor of using violence as a weapon against speech feel free. Then you should probably consider why you are arguing with those people who do advocate violence instead of against them.

Are violent != Advocating violence.

I advocate violence under a specific set ofnpredicates. Most people do. You could paint damn near any person as "an advocate of violence".

I was a fucking soldier for fuck's sake. I advocate violence, hell, I took multiple oaths explicitly stating I would use violence in defense of the Constitution of the United States. "100% of military and police advocate violence!"

"Advocates violence" is meaningless except for you to dog whistle insinuate that advocation of violence is wrong.

I am, however, more in the German school of thought than the US school, when it comes to speech: some forms of speech amount to actions which warrant a suppressive response particularly with regards to Nazis.

Look, I made it pretty clear we are talking about violence against speech here. No need to dodge about.

If you see a person with a sign or hat saying X, do you advocate you or another person punching them based on what X says?

Depends on what X says, as per my last paragraph that you clearly didn't read.

If X says "come over here and join me so we can form a lynch mob against some uppity n------ and trannies", I advocate taking them at gunpoint to the nearest constabulary for inciting a mob and conspiracy to commit murder.

 

[PyramidHead]

Far-right racists threaten to burn down German kindergartens because they stopped serving pork

Far-right racists in Germany have threatened to burn down two nursery schools and kill their management if they do not reintroduce pork to their lunch menus.

Two daycare centres in the city of Leipzig were criticised by right-wing politicians for removing pork, apparently out of consideration for Muslim children who attend.

Burkhard Jung, Leipzig’s social democratic mayor, said the criticism had sparked a tirade of hate and threats against the kindergartens and city authorities from people with far-right and Islamophobic views.

 

[PyramidHead]

Topic of this thread: antifa to be designated as a terrorist organization by the US government (KKK, Proud Boys, Patriot Prayer, and other established right-wing organizations not targeted)

Rebuttal from the goldfish contingent: some antifa people do assault, like this MAGA hat example that does not mention antifa anywhere in the article

 

[dismal]

Look, I made it pretty clear we are talking about violence against speech here. No need to dodge about.

If you see a person with a sign or hat saying X, do you advocate you or another person punching them based on what X says?

Depends on what X says, as per my last paragraph that you clearly didn't read.

If X says "come over here and join me so we can form a lynch mob against some uppity n------ and trannies", I advocate taking them at gunpoint to the nearest constabulary for inciting a mob and conspiracy to commit murder.

OK, then you are in fact an advocate of violence against speech -- unless the violence you claim is being "incited" is both likely and imminent. In which case you should probably be running away not punching.

Someone who is not an advocate of violence against speech would not advocate violence for anything X might say.

In the future you should not claim you aren't an advocate for violence against speech.

 

[Jarhyn]

Look, I made it pretty clear we are talking about violence against speech here. No need to dodge about.

If you see a person with a sign or hat saying X, do you advocate you or another person punching them based on what X says?

Depends on what X says, as per my last paragraph that you clearly didn't read.

If X says "come over here and join me so we can form a lynch mob against some uppity n------ and trannies", I advocate taking them at gunpoint to the nearest constabulary for inciting a mob and conspiracy to commit murder.

OK, then you are in fact an advocate of violence against speech.

Someone who is not an advocate of violence against speech would not advocate violence for anything X might say.

In the future you should not claim you aren't an advocate for violence against speech.

Yeah, and now we get back to the point where you are attempting to tar political opponents for holding fairly universal positions that are unambiguously ethical.

Free Speech is not yelling fire in a theater, nor is it to invite a mob, nor is it to conspire to commit an unethical act, nor is it a great many other things.

What if the sign is held in front of a cop, and says "I've got a gun and I'm going to shoot you if you turn your back on me!" Would this be justification for the violence of detaini g them, forcing a search of their person, and arresting them with all necessary force?

You seem to be unable to comprehend that you are fighting a losing position: some speech invites a direct response.

Edit: Don't worry though. I can wait right here while you go ahead and shift those goalposts of yours...

 

[PyramidHead]

Look, I made it pretty clear we are talking about violence against speech here. No need to dodge about.

If you see a person with a sign or hat saying X, do you advocate you or another person punching them based on what X says?

Depends on what X says, as per my last paragraph that you clearly didn't read.

If X says "come over here and join me so we can form a lynch mob against some uppity n------ and trannies", I advocate taking them at gunpoint to the nearest constabulary for inciting a mob and conspiracy to commit murder.

OK, then you are in fact an advocate of violence against speech -- unless the violence you claim is being "incited" is both likely and imminent.

Someone who is not an advocate of violence against speech would not advocate violence for anything X might say.

In the future you should not claim you aren't an advocate for violence against speech.

Framing the issue as "advocacy for violence against speech" and not "resistance against brutality toward minorities" is peak boomer liberal energy. Hate speech is advocacy for violence and should itself be considered violence.

 

[PyramidHead]

[Steve Rogers voice] I could do this all day



Reichstag Fire Decree

Though the origins of the fire are still unclear, in a propaganda maneuver, the coalition government (made up of Nazis and the Nationalists) blamed the Communists. They exploited the Reichstag fire to secure President Hindenburg’s approval for an emergency decree, popularly known as the Reichstag Fire Decree, that suspended individual rights and due process of law. The Reichstag Fire Decree permitted the regime to arrest and incarcerate political opponents without specific charge, dissolve political organizations, and to suppress publications. It also gave the central government the authority to overrule state and local laws and overthrow state and local governments. The decree was a key step in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship. Germany became a police state in which citizens enjoyed no guaranteed basic rights and the SS, the elite guard of the Nazi state, wielded increasing authority through its control over the police.

 

[dismal]

OK, then you are in fact an advocate of violence against speech -- unless the violence you claim is being "incited" is both likely and imminent.

Someone who is not an advocate of violence against speech would not advocate violence for anything X might say.

In the future you should not claim you aren't an advocate for violence against speech.

Framing the issue as "advocacy for violence against speech" and not "resistance against brutality toward minorities" is peak boomer liberal energy. Hate speech is advocacy for violence and should itself be considered violence.

When you advocate violence against someone for saying X how is that not advocating violence against speech?

I'm not really interested in the efforts you go through to delude yourself.*shrug*

 

[dismal]

OK, then you are in fact an advocate of violence against speech.

Someone who is not an advocate of violence against speech would not advocate violence for anything X might say.

In the future you should not claim you aren't an advocate for violence against speech.

Yeah, and now we get back to the point where you are attempting to tar political opponents for holding fairly universal positions that are unambiguously ethical.

Free Speech is not yelling fire in a theater, nor is it to invite a mob, nor is it to conspire to commit an unethical act, nor is it a great many other things.

What if the sign is held in front of a cop, and says "I've got a gun and I'm going to shoot you if you turn your back on me!" Would this be justification for the violence of detaini g them, forcing a search of their person, and arresting them with all necessary force?

You seem to be unable to comprehend that you are fighting a losing position: some speech invites a direct response.

Edit: Don't worry though. I can wait right here while you go ahead and shift those goalposts of yours...

No, false. My position is exactly consistent with the legal definition of free speech in this country established by what are commonly referred to as "liberal" courts.

Note that in most cases these decisions protected the rights of minorities, who are typically the ones who need speech to be free the most. Popular speech needs no protections

History is full of examples where the totalitarian majority attempts to use the "ZMFOG that's incitement11@!11" argument to stifle people they disagree with.

The very "fire in a crowded theater" quote you just rolled out was used to criminalize opposition to the draft in WWI.

 

[Jarhyn]

OK, then you are in fact an advocate of violence against speech -- unless the violence you claim is being "incited" is both likely and imminent.

Someone who is not an advocate of violence against speech would not advocate violence for anything X might say.

In the future you should not claim you aren't an advocate for violence against speech.

Framing the issue as "advocacy for violence against speech" and not "resistance against brutality toward minorities" is peak boomer liberal energy. Hate speech is advocacy for violence and should itself be considered violence.

When you advocate violence against someone for saying X how is that not advocating violence against speech?

I'm not really interested in the efforts you go through to delude yourself.*shrug*

Let me try this one more time: "how is (the violent act of) arresting someone for saying 'snitches get stitches' to a witness at a federal RICO trial not advocating violence against speech?"

Not all speech should be considered free.

Edit: I could do this all fucking day. I'm with PyramidHead, speech to invite violence is violence, consent to the commission of violence, and so consent to violence against the self.

 

[dismal]

When you advocate violence against someone for saying X how is that not advocating violence against speech?

I'm not really interested in the efforts you go through to delude yourself.*shrug*

Let me try this one more time: "how is (the violent act of) arresting someone for saying 'snitches get stitches' to a witness at a federal RICO trial not advocating violence against speech?"

Not all speech should be considered free.

Edit: I could do this all fucking day. I'm with PyramidHead, speech to invite violence is violence, consent to the commission of violence, and so consent to violence against the self.

I've already explained the dividing line in current law. Abstract calls to violence are protected speech. For incitement to apply there must be a reasonable belief the violence being called for is imminent and likely.

So you can say "somebody ought to punch Trump". You can't punch someone for wearing a MAGA hat because you think he's inciting violence.

Note these tests have been applied to protect both the rights of KKK members and Viet Nam war protestors.

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

Everyone here seems to be of the opinion that if violence against speech gets sanctioned they will be the ones who get to decide what speech its OK to ban. A curious belief given the topic of this thread. This is why civil libertarians deny the power to punish speech.

 

[PyramidHead]

When you advocate violence against someone for saying X how is that not advocating violence against speech?

I'm not really interested in the efforts you go through to delude yourself.*shrug*

Let me try this one more time: "how is (the violent act of) arresting someone for saying 'snitches get stitches' to a witness at a federal RICO trial not advocating violence against speech?"

Not all speech should be considered free.

Edit: I could do this all fucking day. I'm with PyramidHead, speech to invite violence is violence, consent to the commission of violence, and so consent to violence against the self.

I've already explained the dividing line in current law. Abstract calls to violence are protected speech. For incitement to apply there must be a reasonable belief the violence being called for is imminent and likely.

So you can say "somebody ought to punch Trump". You can't punch someone for wearing a MAGA hat because you think he's inciting violence.

Note these tests have been applied to protect both the rights of KKK members and Viet Nam war protestors.

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

Everyone here seems to be of the opinion that if violence against speech gets sanctioned they will be the ones who get to decide what speech its OK to ban. A curious belief given the topic of this thread. This is why civil libertarians deny the power to punish speech.

Who the fuck is calling for sanctioning violence against speech legally?