Neo-Nazi speech shows they wanted violence

[Elixir]

You can sue anybody for anything, but suing someone for engaging in Constitutionally protected speech is not likely to succeed.

I guess vehicular homicide is an expression of free speech in some contexts ... the constitution makes no mention of prohibiting the use of an automobile for such purposes, so it must be permitted.

 

[Vork]

pretty laughable double standard. Getting in the way is an act of 'violence'

It certainly *is* an act of political violence. Imagine if someone blocked you everywhere you wanted to go. You wouldn't see it as an assault? I'm pretty sure you would.

at the same time "Death to traitors, death to enemies of the white race", and "wash ourselves in n***** blood" is not in any way violent or promoting violence.

I didn't say that. I said it may be (or should be) a case of illegal incitement to violence. But it's not clearly the same as, "go kill people on this particular protest".

Is it just me, or have the right-wing nutcases gotten so blatant, and so bad at lying about it

Please stop lying about what I said.

 

[dismal]

You can sue anybody for anything, but suing someone for engaging in Constitutionally protected speech is not likely to succeed.

I guess vehicular homicide is an expression of free speech in some contexts ... the constitution makes no mention of prohibiting the use of an automobile for such purposes, so it must be permitted.

Great point. But maybe you need to start a new thread where it would have some relevance.

 

[Vork]

Would the anti-fascists exist if there weren't any fascists?

They can just label anyone they like as "fascists". So anyone on the right-wing can be called that, and then it's a "moral justification" to attack them.
Or these groups can just attack the police, because I mean, they are fascists too right?

 

[Elixir]

Would the anti-fascists exist if there weren't any fascists?

They can just label anyone they like as "fascists".

Yes, there were very fine people on both sides, right?

 

[Vork]

You can sue anybody for anything, but suing someone for engaging in Constitutionally protected speech is not likely to succeed.

I guess vehicular homicide is an expression of free speech in some contexts ... the constitution makes no mention of prohibiting the use of an automobile for such purposes, so it must be permitted.

If someone called for that kind of attack at the event, then I'm pretty sure it's not protected free speech.

But do we even know that they were acting off that kind of incitement here? Did they hear anyone call for that kind of attack? Did they go there planning to do that kind of attack?

 

[LordKiran]

You can sue anybody for anything, but suing someone for engaging in Constitutionally protected speech is not likely to succeed.

I guess vehicular homicide is an expression of free speech in some contexts ... the constitution makes no mention of prohibiting the use of an automobile for such purposes, so it must be permitted.

If someone called for that kind of attack at the event, then I'm pretty sure it's not protected free speech.

But do we even know that they were acting off that kind of incitement here? Did they hear anyone call for that kind of attack? Did they go there planning to do that kind of attack?

So calling for the blood of unnamed masses is protected speech?

 

[laughing dog]

It certainly *is* an act of political violence.

"Political violence"? Where do you come up with such imaginary drivel?

Imagine if someone blocked you everywhere you wanted to go. You wouldn't see it as an assault? I'm pretty sure you would.

I would view as peculiar and inconvenient but not assault.

 

[LordKiran]

Its a curious phenomenon. At what point will those pushing identity politics realize that they are encouraging these neo-nazis? How far will this spiral go before the blinders come off?

First we had massive pushes for minority identity politics and differing treatment based on race, then we saw it take over schools ("you're a white male!"), then we saw people like Richard Spencer get propped up as identity politics in the other direction strengthening calls for white nationalism and arguing that white people and minorities can't and shouldn't try to live together, then we had him punched and people equating him to a nazi and saying its ok to punch nazis (encouraging violence: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html), now we have more actual nazis calling for the blood of minorities hyperbolically. This is spiraling more and more out of control, and neither side of it sees themselves as instigators or sees their similarity to the other side.

So your solution to stopping neo-nazi violence is to quiet their opposition?

Did I say that? No. I didn't. Pushing minority identity politics isn't the same as opposing neo-nazi violence. I am curious if you can grasp my actual point if you re-read what I actually wrote. Hint: Richard Spencer calls himself an identitarian.

You didn't need to say it. Your prioritization says it all. Why focus on the people who are actually killing people when you can complain about antifa all day because a guy named Spencer got punched?

 

[Vork]

Would the anti-fascists exist if there weren't any fascists?

They can just label anyone they like as "fascists".

Yes, there were very fine people on both sides, right?

It's not OK to label everyone you don't like on the right-wing as being a "fascist" and see that as a justification to attack them. These left wing groups will not stop at attacking genuine neo-Nazis. It will be Trump supporters are the "fascists". Or they will just attack the police.

I'm guessing there was a spectrum of belief at the protest in question.

 

[Vork]

"Political violence"? Where do you come up with such imaginary drivel?

Well it's a form of violence. And it's being done for political reasons. So "political violence". You are in fantasy land to deny it.

I would view as peculiar and inconvenient but not assault.

So if people decide to prevent you from leaving your house by blocking you in, that's not illegal violence. OK...

 

[LordKiran]

"Political violence"? Where do you come up with such imaginary drivel?

Well it's a form of violence. And it's being done for political reasons. So "political violence". You are in fantasy land to deny it.

I would view as peculiar and inconvenient but not assault.

So if people decide to prevent you from leaving your house by blocking you in, that's not illegal violence. OK...

If they're close enough to physically block your doors and windows then they're already tresspassing and potentially vandalizing your house, ie your property. This is a far different situation from standing in your way on a public street in opposition to a crowd of people to which you are a participant.

You can't change parameters and then pretend its the same exact scenario. Sorry.

 

[Vork]

So calling for the blood of unnamed masses is protected speech?

That depends on the case law in America. Someone did give a link.

Imo, that kind of speech should arguably have crossed the line into illegal incitement. But I'm guessing it's borderline in the USA because it wasn't a clear call for attacks at the particular event.

 

[LordKiran]

So calling for the blood of unnamed masses is protected speech?

That depends on the case law in America. Someone did give a link.

Imo, that kind of speech should arguably have crossed the line into illegal incitement. But I'm guessing it's borderline in the USA because it wasn't a clear call for attacks at the particular event.

I think its dangerous and a vector for instability and violence. Unfortunately it might just come to that before people realize that a society can be too individualistic for its own good.

 

[Vork]

If they're close enough to physically block your doors and windows then they're already tresspassing and potentially vandalizing your house, ie your property.

You don't need to do that, to block someone from leaving their property. I didn't mean "house" in the sense of blocking your door. I meant keeping you at home. You can be on a public street and effectively prevent someone from leaving their home. But even if they were trespassing, it wouldn't also be illegal violence to physically stop someone from walking out of their property? (I mean you let them walk out the door, but then block them from going where they want to go off their property.)

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Odd, because this whole "identity politics" is something they claim is being pushed by the left.

It is. And this is it backfiring on the left. The right do it too, and it works for the right: https://www.vox.com/2017/8/15/16089...iberalism-republicans-democrats-trump-clinton

Let’s go back to Reagan. He was elected on an anti-government message — if you get the government out of the way, everything will go well. There's no such thing as society. There are just individuals, families, church groups. Politics and government really have no dignity, and they're the problem.

At that moment, liberals needed to offer a political vision that said, "We're not just individuals. We're actually a republic based on certain values. We stick together. That's what Americans do, and we use government to help each other and to build something together."

Instead, they started talking about groups.

Specifics that it 'took over schools'?

We've been over this again and again. Go read this for a better approach: https://heterodoxacademy.org/

Odd, because the KKK dates back a while.

Yes, the KKK dates back a long while, but is having a resurgence. This is one reason why. You don't defeat white racism by reminding people how they are white, how that makes them so very different from minorities, and how important that should be to them, which is one of the constant drum beats of the regressive left.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Did I say that? No. I didn't. Pushing minority identity politics isn't the same as opposing neo-nazi violence. I am curious if you can grasp my actual point if you re-read what I actually wrote. Hint: Richard Spencer calls himself an identitarian.

You didn't need to say it. Your prioritization says it all. Why focus on the people who are actually killing people when you can complain about antifa all day because a guy named Spencer got punched?

The one feeds directly into and props up the other, so it makes sense to address both. And it makes no sense to "fight" neo-naziism in a way that encourages more of it. Similar for Islamism and Islamic terrorism. You don't take down Islamism by hating Muslims.

 

[laughing dog]

Well it's a form of violence. And it's being done for political reasons. So "political violence". You are in fantasy hypersensitive snowflake land to deny it.

Fixed it for you. Even though you are working hard to make excuses for neo-nazi behavior with your stupid false equivalences, you are failing miserably.

So if people decide to prevent you from leaving your house by blocking you in, that's not illegal violence. OK...

Where I live, people park and block driveways. You can call the police to have the vehicle ticketed and removed. No one is cited for assault or any type of violent behaviorr because that would be ridiculous. When your argument depends on ramping up on an idiotic analogy, you know the argument has no basis.

 

[LordKiran]

If they're close enough to physically block your doors and windows then they're already tresspassing and potentially vandalizing your house, ie your property.

You don't need to do that, to block someone from leaving their property. I didn't mean "house" in the sense of blocking your door. I meant keeping you at home. You can be on a public street and effectively prevent someone from leaving their home. But even if they were trespassing, it wouldn't also be illegal violence to physically stop someone from walking out of their property? (I mean you let them walk out the door, but then block them from going where they want to go off their property.)

I think there's a pretty big difference between two crowds of angry people intersecting because local authorities dropped the ball and a crowd ganging up on one person or small group of persons to in some way harm them. So again I say your scenarios don't equal out.

 

[dismal]

If someone called for that kind of attack at the event, then I'm pretty sure it's not protected free speech.

But do we even know that they were acting off that kind of incitement here? Did they hear anyone call for that kind of attack? Did they go there planning to do that kind of attack?

So calling for the blood of unnamed masses is protected speech?

Yes. I posted link earlier.