Racial tension ramping up....

[Stadler]

Trump said both sides are wrong and the media is killing him for saying it. Reality is, you are not justified to respond with violence because you are responding to hate groups. That's not acceptable. Would I get in someones face? Maybe, but it wouldn't make me right for doing so.

Its up to law enforcement to handle it, not a vigilante mob. You have to address the fact that no violence is ok. You don't you send the message its ok to respond with violence as long as your on the right side. No.

But those things are the ESSENCE of the "intolerance of intolerance" ideal.    People DO actually believe it's justified, if not absolutely NECESSARY. 

[Nekov]

So you think it's ok for people to propagate hate speech?

I can't speak for Stadler, but I will answer for myself:  Absolutely, unequivocally, YES.  The freedom of speech doesn't exist to protect speech everyone agrees is good and inoffensive.  It exists to protect that speech that offends somebody, even if it offense pretty much EVERYBODY.  I don't like it.  But when we get into the business of censoring one group because we don't like the message, there is nothing to prevent the government from censoring our own message because someone else deems it offensive.  So, yes, I do very much think it is okay for people to propagate "hate speech." 

So, you're saying that if I stand in the middle of times square with a megaphone and start saying that I support ISIS and what they are doing, and not only them but other terrorist groups and say people should join that support that it would be OK? Becuase I'm pretty sure that I would end up in jail for supporting terrorists even though I actually haven't commited an act of terror.

[antigoon]

I think there's always going to be a fundamental disconnect between how Americans and the rest of the world view speech rights.

[XeRocks81]

You don't you send the message its ok to respond with violence as long as your on the right side. No.

Except that's not what anybody (in my opinion) wants a POTUS to say.  That's slightly misrepresenting the point (again, imo)   "Nazis are bad"  I mean that should've been a gimme,  the easiest pitch to hit but he still bungled it. 

[Tick]

You don't you send the message its ok to respond with violence as long as your on the right side. No.

Except that's not what anybody (in my opinion) wants a POTUS to say.  That's slightly misrepresenting the point (again, imo)   "Nazis are bad"  I mean that should've been a gimme,  the easiest pitch to hit but he still bungled it.

My point is he said both sides are wrong, and they are. Period. He is getting ripped for saying that and that makes no sense to me.

"Nazis are bad"
"Black Lives Matter" are bad.

Hate groups are bad, plain and simple.

[Implode]

...implying BLM is a hate group? 

Like sure, you could make an argument that they are misguided or wrong in methods or mindsets. I wouldn't agree, but they aren't a hate group.

[Tick]

...implying BLM is a hate group? 

Absafuckinglutely they are!

[antigoon]

sure, genocide is bad but have you considered that demanding police not wantonly kill black people is also bad

[XeRocks81]

...implying BLM is a hate group? 

Absafuckinglutely they are!

Yeah, no.   I mean what kind of discussion are we supposed to have if that's the starting point.   I have to agree with you just to start having it, that doesn't work.

[Chino]

A lot of people (not specifically saying Tick) associate this behavior with the BLM movement.

[Implode]

Setting aside what is considered "true BLM," vandalism, rioting, and looting still doesn't equal a hate group.

[Chino]

Setting aside what is considered "true BLM," vandalism, rioting, and looting still doesn't equal a hate group.

The narrative is that they hate cops and white people.

[XeRocks81]

Setting aside what is considered "true BLM," vandalism, rioting, and looting still doesn't equal a hate group.

The narrative is that they hate cops and white people.

no that's a misrepresentation

[Adami]

Well this thread certainly was busy while I slept. God damn.

[Tick]

I'm not drawing comparisons between hate groups. Nazis, and the KKK are hate groups.
Black Lives Matter is surely not a group filled with compassion and love. Its an angry group with an angry demeanor attacking issues with outrage and anger. If anyone sees it differently, that's your deal. I call them a hate group cause there ain't an ounce of love.

[Adami]

I'm not drawing comparisons between hate groups. Nazis, and the KKK are hate groups.
Black Lives Matter is surely not a group filled with compassion and love. Its an angry group with an angry demeanor attacking issues with outrage and anger. If anyone sees it differently, that's your deal. I call them a hate group cause there ain't an ounce of love.

I'd say those are extreme members of those groups. I know people who support BLM (being in LA, it's not hard to find) and none of them hate anyone or anything other than racism.

Nazis and KKK are literally founded on hating specific groups of people. It's not like just the extreme KKK and Nazi people hate others.

[jingle.boy]

Stadler... I no longer can be bothered to address most of your comments.  As I said, neither of us is ever going to convince each other of their perspective - which, btw, I don't believe I've ever said you're wrong for having it.. though you constantly criticize how I frame my positions/statements/arguments.  I will address this however ...

Look, don't conflate action with ideas, and don't conflate government interaction for personal accountability.   I'm not at all saying that the girl being attacked can't fight back.  I'm saying that if someone says to her "I'd love to fuck you" she can't resort to clawing their eyes out. 

But if a guy is following a woman at night in Central Park, yelling at her that he's gonna rip her dress off, and beat the shit out of her, and rape her, and comes close enough to grab her, then what?  She's just supposed to do nothing and wait until the action happens?

Ideas lead to actions.  People standing up to horrific and hateful ideas/intentions is not to be lumped in with those spreading and conducting the hateful ideas/intentions.

[XeRocks81]

Black Lives Matter is surely not a group filled with compassion and love. Its an angry group with an angry demeanor attacking issues with outrage and anger. If anyone sees it differently, that's your deal. I call them a hate group cause there ain't an ounce of love.

[bosk1]

Look, don't conflate action with ideas, and don't conflate government interaction for personal accountability.   I'm not at all saying that the girl being attacked can't fight back.  I'm saying that if someone says to her "I'd love to fuck you" she can't resort to clawing their eyes out. 

But if a guy is following a woman at night in Central Park, yelling at her that he's gonna rip her dress off, and beat the shit out of her, and rape her, and comes close enough to grab her, then what?  She's just supposed to do nothing and wait until the action happens?

Ideas lead to actions.  People standing up to horrific and hateful ideas/intentions is not to be lumped in with those spreading and conducting the hateful ideas/intentions.

Okay, but the guy in your scenario has committed assault.  He has acted and gone beyond the mere idea phase.  The following, the coming close enough to grab her, and the "I'm gonna..." take it beyond just speech and ideas.  That isn't what we are talking about.

[Chino]

I'm not drawing comparisons between hate groups. Nazis, and the KKK are hate groups.
Black Lives Matter is surely not a group filled with compassion and love. Its an angry group with an angry demeanor attacking issues with outrage and anger. If anyone sees it differently, that's your deal. I call them a hate group cause there ain't an ounce of love.

C'mon man. You're so much smarter than that. Hell, there was a 500 something person demonstration in Hartford last year that was completely peaceful and was done with permits and everything. You're taking the actions of a very small percentage and applying it to an entire movement. It's akin to blanketly labelling the entire religion of catholicism based on the actions of the Westboro Baptist Douchebags.

[lonestar]

For anyone who watched the Vice piece, seems the meth finally wore off...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyeTj002DCo&feature=youtu.be


The hypocrisy is beyond astounding, especially the whole "I am armed, but I don't want violence. I'm afraid you're going to shoot me...".... so pretty much what every black person has to deal with when pulled over...

[Stadler]

So you think it's ok for people to propagate hate speech?

I can't speak for Stadler, but I will answer for myself:  Absolutely, unequivocally, YES.  The freedom of speech doesn't exist to protect speech everyone agrees is good and inoffensive.  It exists to protect that speech that offends somebody, even if it offense pretty much EVERYBODY.  I don't like it.  But when we get into the business of censoring one group because we don't like the message, there is nothing to prevent the government from censoring our own message because someone else deems it offensive.  So, yes, I do very much think it is okay for people to propagate "hate speech." 

So, you're saying that if I stand in the middle of times square with a megaphone and start saying that I support ISIS and what they are doing, and not only them but other terrorist groups and say people should join that support that it would be OK? Becuase I'm pretty sure that I would end up in jail for supporting terrorists even though I actually haven't commited an act of terror.

Yeah, it IS ok.   Why not?  If you believe so strongly that it's wrong to join ISIS, then don't.   If the argument against ISIS is so good (it is) and if it's so obvious as people like Jingle and XeRocks81 say it is, there should be no problem.  Few if any will actually sign up.  If you feel THAT strongly that you have to ACT, then set up a booth on the opposite corner (get your permits!) with your own megaphone and solicit people to join your ANTI-ISIS group.  See who gets more signatures (I have no doubt that you will, and again, rightfully so).   

[Stadler]

sure, genocide is bad but have you considered that demanding police not wantonly kill black people is also bad

Again with the framing to suit your argument.  Okay.  I wish the world were that simple and cut and dry.

[Adami]

Nazis stand for racial superiority and strengthening Germany.

I have a feeling Germany isn't too high on their list anymore.

[Stadler]

Setting aside what is considered "true BLM," vandalism, rioting, and looting still doesn't equal a hate group.

It doesn't, but arguably it's worse, because that IS action that hurts people.  That IS harmful.  That's the differentiator that many miss.    I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't condone ANY of the ACTIONS that these hate groups profess to want to take, just their right to have the ideas. 

[antigoon]

sure, genocide is bad but have you considered that demanding police not wantonly kill black people is also bad

Again with the framing to suit your argument.  Okay.  I wish the world were that simple and cut and dry.

I, too, wish the rest of life and the world was as simple and cut and dry as distinguishing between nazis and and people who want black folks to be treated more fairly by law enforcement.

[lonestar]

Stadler, I just noticed that Illinois adopted an ordinance to urge the labeling white supremacist groups as terrorist organizations. By this designation, do they lose some of their constitutional rights?

[Stadler]

Stadler... I no longer can be bothered to address most of your comments.  As I said, neither of us is ever going to convince each other of their perspective - which, btw, I don't believe I've ever said you're wrong for having it.. though you constantly criticize how I frame my positions/statements/arguments.  I will address this however ...

You "can't be bothered"?  Sanctimony is so unbecoming.  Please.   And you're trying to convince us you're fair and you've considered all sides?   

Look, don't conflate action with ideas, and don't conflate government interaction for personal accountability.   I'm not at all saying that the girl being attacked can't fight back.  I'm saying that if someone says to her "I'd love to fuck you" she can't resort to clawing their eyes out. 

But if a guy is following a woman at night in Central Park, yelling at her that he's gonna rip her dress off, and beat the shit out of her, and rape her, and comes close enough to grab her, then what?  She's just supposed to do nothing and wait until the action happens?

Ideas lead to actions.  People standing up to horrific and hateful ideas/intentions is not to be lumped in with those spreading and conducting the hateful ideas/intentions.

Ugh, this is complicated and is considered under the law.   Yes, that woman CAN under certain circumstances fight back, but it's not because of the "hate speech" aspect of it.  It's because the totality of the circumstances are such that she might reasonably feel her person is in imminent danger.    That has little to do with the ACTUAL speech, and those same words, on a billboard, or in some other context, might not elicit the same reaction.  Similar to the scenario that the police often find themselves in.   If I'm in the police station, and the officer asks for my address or whatever (something benign, and not germaine to any crime) and I reach in my pocket to pull out my wallet, I'm likely not to be shot and if I am the cop doesn't have a great excuse.  But if he is standing in front of me, weapon drawn, and I'm standing over an unconscious body, and he says "HANDS IN THE AIR!" and I reach into my pocket, I'm taking a bullet, believe you me, and I don't have a legal argument in the world that can help me.   

You don't get to proximate a picture of some old smelly fuck giving a Hitler salute to someone in their bedroom in their slippers feeling "in imminent danger" because they happen to be minority or jewish or muslim or whatever. 

And again, stop with the blurring of lines; I'm not at all saying don't stand up to people.  It depends what you mean by "stand up".   That can't include:
- preventing them from speaking to begin with;
- physically harming them while they speak;
- killing them for their ideas
It can AND SHOULD include:
- understanding the difference between words and actions;
- having your own rally to show an alternate point of view;
- teaching your children how to live with love not hate;
- giving your business to companies that espouse those principles that you hold dear;
- understanding the root of this anger and why it might manifest;
- DON'T exacerbate the circumstances by amplifying these messages and giving them purchase;
- (not individual, but for the collective) aggressively prosecute those ACTIONS that cross the line

I'm sure there are others.   

[Stadler]

Stadler, I just noticed that Illinois adopted an ordinance to urge the labeling white supremacist groups as terrorist organizations. By this designation, do they lose some of their constitutional rights?

Depends; it's too broad a question, but on the whole, probably not.  They would still have their right to free speech, they would still have their right to due process and counsel, to the extend that those rights haven't been abridged by acts like The Patriot Act.    This isn't a free speech issue, though, and goes more to past history of actions, than anything else.

I would be interested in the discussion as to the labeling itself, though.   Constitutionally, if it's just because of their ideas, that ordinance probably doesn't pass muster.   If I'm not mistaken, Illinois tried passing a hate speech law that would have basically codified those things that people like Jingle have been espousing, and it was summarily shot down as unconstitutional, for many of the reasons that I have articulated here.   

[lonestar]

Stadler, I just noticed that Illinois adopted an ordinance to urge the labeling white supremacist groups as terrorist organizations. By this designation, do they lose some of their constitutional rights?

Depends; it's too broad a question, but on the whole, probably not.  They would still have their right to free speech, they would still have their right to due process and counsel, to the extend that those rights haven't been abridged by acts like The Patriot Act.    This isn't a free speech issue, though, and goes more to past history of actions, than anything else.

I would be interested in the discussion as to the labeling itself, though.   Constitutionally, if it's just because of their ideas, that ordinance probably doesn't pass muster.   If I'm not mistaken, Illinois tried passing a hate speech law that would have basically codified those things that people like Jingle have been espousing, and it was summarily shot down as unconstitutional, for many of the reasons that I have articulated here.

Gotcha.

[Stadler]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nazi-charlottesville-wearing-82nd-airborne-101611758.html

This is the kind of thing that brings a tear to my eye (sincerely).

"Our WWII Airborne forefathers jumped into Europe to defeat Nazism. We know who we are. We know our legacy."
and
"Anyone can purchase that hat. Valor is earned."

That guy Andy French is sort of a tool, but the response was classic.   No hate.  No trampling of any rights.  No judgment.  Just fact.   

[jingle.boy]

But if a guy is following a woman at night in Central Park, yelling at her that he's gonna rip her dress off, and beat the shit out of her, and rape her, and comes close enough to grab her, then what?  She's just supposed to do nothing and wait until the action happens?

Ideas lead to actions.  People standing up to horrific and hateful ideas/intentions is not to be lumped in with those spreading and conducting the hateful ideas/intentions.

Okay, but the guy in your scenario has committed assault.  He has acted and gone beyond the mere idea phase.  The following, the coming close enough to grab her, and the "I'm gonna..." take it beyond just speech and ideas.  That isn't what we are talking about.

I'm guessing everyone would believe that James Fields took things beyond speech and ideas.

I specifically tried to paint an example where the man DIDN'T commit any assault, but guess I wasn't clear enough.  When people (individuals, groups, or communities) feel extremely threatened, at what point is it ok to act?  Example - a police officer has a gun pointed at him/her.  The person hasn't fired, but the cop should only take action when violence is ACTUALLY committed, not the strong likelihood of violence?

I simply don't believe that responses to horrific ideas/intentions are the problem.  And no one drove a car into the protesters.  If they had, I'd be just as on board with how unacceptable that would have been.

[El Barto]

@Jingle: It's actually somewhat simple, even if vague in practice. If you feel threatened then by all means start whipping some ass. The catch is that you damn sure better be right. If it turns out the guy was just wanting to hand the girl a flower and she maced him she might face some consequences down the line. Like many things it comes down to a matter of reasonableness as judged by 12 of your peers after the fact.

And of course this doesn't apply to the police, as discussed in another thread.

[El Barto]

@Tick: I happen to agree with Trump's remarks about the cause being multi-faceted. The problem is that Trump, having absolutely no clue whatsoever how to actually be a president, said something that didn't need to be said. It'd be like Reagan announcing in 1986 "eh, those guys new space flight was dangerous. You play the game, you takes your chances. Hey, Rawhide's fixing to come on!" I understand that there are a lot of people who like Grabby specifically because he's not the slightest bit presidential. I disagree, but I recognize how that might appeal to some. But the consequence is that he's judged by people who've lived their entire lives seeing presidents who knew how to talk to people. He's not going to come away looking good. If he had a clue, Trump could have denounced neo-nazi shitheads, and then gradually over time pointed out the assholery of the other side. That's how a sensible person would have done it. Immediately casting blame on the side of the dead girl did no good and undermined the more important message. Right or not he deserves what he gets, and it's not at all unexpected; nor should it be.

[axeman90210]

Damn, you guys have been busy since yesterday.

This logic of "Trump has to disavow" is ridiculous, I'm sorry.   Jodie Foster is not at all accountable when John Hinkley cites her as a rationale for his evil deeds.   

I don't think you can compare the two because while nobody would argue that Jodie Foster actually did anything to encourage John Hinckley, I think it's very easy to argue that Donald Trump, in words and actions, has at times encouraged white supremacists right from the start of his campaign (that old "Mexicans are rapists" gem).