Page 3 of 4 [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,545
Location: USA

30 Aug 2017, 7:27 am

ASPartOfMe wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
Friday night at UVA, Antifa did not attend and the Nazis beat the snot out of peaceful protesters. Saturday at the park, Antifa attended and the Nazis got stomped. You can have it one way or the other. Decide.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... world.html


None of the above
Law enforcement and their political bosses need to do their job which is to defend the constitutional right of peaceful assembly.

People are under this misguided perception that the government has to protect your assembly when you decide to make it, that's not the case at all, they merely have to allow you access to public property.

"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."

Nowhere does it say a counter-demonstration is not allowed to drown out your free speech with their own, nor is there a clause that says the government even needs to defend your speech against other people. The bill of rights is a contract between the people and the government, it doesn't apply to non-government entities, hence the reason a private institution can give you the boot for saying things they don't like to hear, but the government cannot. Take Charlotteville for example, the claim against the counter protesters was that they were trampling on the free speech of another group-- that's impossible because free speech is a contract between said groups and the government, not between the two said groups. The most the counter protesters did was march without a city permit, which is a safety hazard and possible fine, but it's not a first amendment issue at all.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,280
Location: The end of the northwest passage

30 Aug 2017, 7:33 am

Ignore Nazis, let them hold their rallies without objectuon outside of moaning about them to your friends, and their ideas become mainstream. Come out to peacefully protest them, and get beaten up without fughting back. Or fight back.

Those are the realistic options. I suppose someone could dislike the first two, and criticize anyone who chooses the third option. I would put them in the first category.

Lots of these Nazis seem like bored disaffected young white men who find it fun to punch down. Someone needs to make it not fun. Step up with your own actions, or shut up.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,065
Location: Long Island, New York

30 Aug 2017, 8:16 am

Aristophanes wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
Friday night at UVA, Antifa did not attend and the Nazis beat the snot out of peaceful protesters. Saturday at the park, Antifa attended and the Nazis got stomped. You can have it one way or the other. Decide.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... world.html


None of the above
Law enforcement and their political bosses need to do their job which is to defend the constitutional right of peaceful assembly.

People are under this misguided perception that the government has to protect your assembly when you decide to make it, that's not the case at all, they merely have to allow you access to public property.

"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."

Nowhere does it say a counter-demonstration is not allowed to drown out your free speech with their own, nor is there a clause that says the government even needs to defend your speech against other people. The bill of rights is a contract between the people and the government, it doesn't apply to non-government entities, hence the reason a private institution can give you the boot for saying things they don't like to hear, but the government cannot. Take Charlotteville for example, the claim against the counter protesters was that they were trampling on the free speech of another group-- that's impossible because free speech is a contract between said groups and the government, not between the two said groups. The most the counter protesters did was march without a city permit, which is a safety hazard and possible fine, but it's not a first amendment issue at all.


Shouting down people for holding Nazi views is constitutional. Attacking people for their views is not. Usually, when a politician takes an oath of office it mentions something about defending the Constitution. If there a barroom brawl gets out of control, the cops are called, the fights are broken up and people arrested. In Charlottesville and Berkeley, the cops did not protect people expressing views from being beaten up. Whose fault that is we may never be known but it is the local government officials job to set policy or guidelines and their ultimate responsibility. The mayor claims the situation was beyond the control of the local police because the "Unite the Right" people were better armed. If the situation is beyond the ability of the local police to handle the National Guard needs to be called. In Berkeley, my guess is that the local officials told the police not to interfere because they were sympathetic to Antifa or knew their voters are.

The free speech provisions were put in and have been upheld by SCOTUS with the express purpose of protecting people whose views are very unpopular or whose views are not liked by government officials.


_________________
Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

"The lunatics have taken over the asylum" - The Specials


Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 30 Aug 2017, 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,545
Location: USA

30 Aug 2017, 9:04 am

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
Friday night at UVA, Antifa did not attend and the Nazis beat the snot out of peaceful protesters. Saturday at the park, Antifa attended and the Nazis got stomped. You can have it one way or the other. Decide.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... world.html


None of the above
Law enforcement and their political bosses need to do their job which is to defend the constitutional right of peaceful assembly.

People are under this misguided perception that the government has to protect your assembly when you decide to make it, that's not the case at all, they merely have to allow you access to public property.

"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."

Nowhere does it say a counter-demonstration is not allowed to drown out your free speech with their own, nor is there a clause that says the government even needs to defend your speech against other people. The bill of rights is a contract between the people and the government, it doesn't apply to non-government entities, hence the reason a private institution can give you the boot for saying things they don't like to hear, but the government cannot. Take Charlotteville for example, the claim against the counter protesters was that they were trampling on the free speech of another group-- that's impossible because free speech is a contract between said groups and the government, not between the two said groups. The most the counter protesters did was march without a city permit, which is a safety hazard and possible fine, but it's not a first amendment issue at all.


Shouting down people for holding Nazi views is constitutional. Attacking people for their views is not. Usually when a politician takes an oath of office it mentions something about defending the constitution. If there is a barroom brawl gets out of control, the cops are called, the fights are broken up and people arrested. In Charlottesvile and Berkeley the cops did not protect people expressing views from being beaten up. Whose fault that is we may never be known but it is the local government officials job to set policy or guidelines and their ultimate responsibility. The mayor claims the situation was beyond the control of the local police because the "Unite the Right" people were better armed. If the situation is beyond the ability of the local police to handle the National Guard needs to be called. In Berkeley my guess is that the local officials told the police not to interfere because they were sympathetic to antifa or knew their voters are.

The free speech provisions were put in and have been upheld by SCOTUS with the express purpose of protecting people whose views are very unpopular or whose views are not liked by government officials.

Well yes, the operable word in the clause is 'peaceably'. When it moves outside 'peaceably' it's a safety issue and that's also the only current restrictions to the first amendment are those that deal in safety. My point is one of access, namely that's all the government claims in the Bill of Rights, is that they will provide you access, no more, no less. They don't claim they'll make your speech unfettered by nuisance or disagreement, merely they won't get involved if you choose to use it.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,065
Location: Long Island, New York

30 Aug 2017, 11:03 am

Aristophanes wrote:
Well yes, the operable word in the clause is 'peaceably'. When it moves outside 'peaceably' it's a safety issue and that's also the only current restrictions to the first amendment are those that deal in safety. My point is one of access, namely that's all the government claims in the Bill of Rights, is that they will provide you access, no more, no less. They don't claim they'll make your speech unfettered by nuisance or disagreement, merely they won't get involved if you choose to use it.


Nothing in the Constitution protects you from microaggressions :D


_________________
Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

"The lunatics have taken over the asylum" - The Specials


techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,702
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

30 Aug 2017, 1:01 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
Ignore Nazis, let them hold their rallies without objectuon outside of moaning about them to your friends, and their ideas become mainstream.

What on earth makes their views irresistibly seductive? That's the part I'm having trouble understanding. This hypothesis almost seems to be on the Christian 'kingdom of Satan' model and that demons will be giving people full-body massage, aromatherapy, crystal-healing, and happy endings to seduce them to eternal perdition when they hear a neonazi talk about hate.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,280
Location: The end of the northwest passage

30 Aug 2017, 1:58 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
Ignore Nazis, let them hold their rallies without objectuon outside of moaning about them to your friends, and their ideas become mainstream.

What on earth makes their views irresistibly seductive? That's the part I'm having trouble understanding. This hypothesis almost seems to be on the Christian 'kingdom of Satan' model and that demons will be giving people full-body massage, aromatherapy, crystal-healing, and happy endings to seduce them to eternal perdition when they hear a neonazi talk about hate.

They give people someone to blame for all their problems. Stupid people eat it up. It also represents an explicit statement of the underlying attitudes toward the other. Implicit racism conflicts with how people are supposed to think. White supremacy makes the implicit explicit and removes the cognitive dissonance. People can say all the things they learned from movies and the nightly news, namely the false and dangerous ideas that brown people commit more crimes and violence.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,545
Location: USA

30 Aug 2017, 2:01 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
Ignore Nazis, let them hold their rallies without objectuon outside of moaning about them to your friends, and their ideas become mainstream.

What on earth makes their views irresistibly seductive? That's the part I'm having trouble understanding. This hypothesis almost seems to be on the Christian 'kingdom of Satan' model and that demons will be giving people full-body massage, aromatherapy, crystal-healing, and happy endings to seduce them to eternal perdition when they hear a neonazi talk about hate.

One only needs to look at Germany, the Nazi's never won a majority vote, merely a plurality @ 30%. Most Germans were not pro-nazi in 1933, but by 1934 Hitler had used his new institutional power in the German government to either assassinate or ban his opposition. After that point most Germans became Nazi supporters, the writing was on the wall: join us or be eliminated. Fascism spreads aggressively like a virus, it's not so much 'irresistibly seductive' as it is a 'deal you can't refuse' (think Tony Soprano).



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,702
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

30 Aug 2017, 5:03 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
They give people someone to blame for all their problems. Stupid people eat it up. It also represents an explicit statement of the underlying attitudes toward the other. Implicit racism conflicts with how people are supposed to think. White supremacy makes the implicit explicit and removes the cognitive dissonance. People can say all the things they learned from movies and the nightly news, namely the false and dangerous ideas that brown people commit more crimes and violence.

Aristophanes wrote:
One only needs to look at Germany, the Nazi's never won a majority vote, merely a plurality @ 30%. Most Germans were not pro-nazi in 1933, but by 1934 Hitler had used his new institutional power in the German government to either assassinate or ban his opposition. After that point most Germans became Nazi supporters, the writing was on the wall: join us or be eliminated. Fascism spreads aggressively like a virus, it's not so much 'irresistibly seductive' as it is a 'deal you can't refuse' (think Tony Soprano).


This is why I absolutely hate identity intersectional politics - ie. this would be the right playing the left's game but with muscle and intimidation rather than race/gender privilege-shaming and doxing.

I suppose if this is really the way of it, that we agree that freedom of speech stops at demagoguery and race/gender blaming we might be able to walk things back but wow, it would really have to be universal to fly. Any corner of 'but it's okay for this group to shame this group because of x historical event' would pull the rug right out from under things and we end up right back where we're at.

I still have to ask though, with Germany having nearly the full austerity weight of the Treaty of Versailles and a Venezuela-type living situation when Hitler came to power, do we have a model for what this looks like - ie. when fascists are given speaking rights, and it's in times that are relatively stable? It seems like something's over-inflated in the math here one way or the other.

Also, if I'm really to follow this pessimism out to its completion - the elites are right. We may be too dumb/feeble for democracy and our freedoms need to be taken from us so that a more authoritarian state can take it's proper parental place over us. In a lot of ways the core ideals of the Enlightenment are really under test here and from a lot of directions there seems to be agreement - at least on the left and right - that this is the case.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 30 Aug 2017, 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,545
Location: USA

30 Aug 2017, 5:17 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
They give people someone to blame for all their problems. Stupid people eat it up. It also represents an explicit statement of the underlying attitudes toward the other. Implicit racism conflicts with how people are supposed to think. White supremacy makes the implicit explicit and removes the cognitive dissonance. People can say all the things they learned from movies and the nightly news, namely the false and dangerous ideas that brown people commit more crimes and violence.

Aristophanes wrote:
One only needs to look at Germany, the Nazi's never won a majority vote, merely a plurality @ 30%. Most Germans were not pro-nazi in 1933, but by 1934 Hitler had used his new institutional power in the German government to either assassinate or ban his opposition. After that point most Germans became Nazi supporters, the writing was on the wall: join us or be eliminated. Fascism spreads aggressively like a virus, it's not so much 'irresistibly seductive' as it is a 'deal you can't refuse' (think Tony Soprano).


This is why I absolutely hate intersectional politics - ie. this would be the right playing the left's game but with muscle and intimidation rather than race/gender priveledge-shaming.

I suppose if this is really the way of it, that we agree that freedom of speech stops at demagoguery and race/gender blaming we might be able to walk things back but wow, it would really have to be universal to fly. Any corner of 'but it's okay for this group to shame this group because of x historical event' would pull the rug right out from under things and we end up right back where we're at.

Well my issue with fascism is that it's the antithesis to democracy. A democratic government can't function without some form of free expression, which inevitably leads to people arguing for some sort of totalitarian regime. That's all fine, freedom of speech and all, but that speech needs to be met with louder speech to keep it in check or the nation loses it's democracy and eventually that free speech altogether. It has nothing to do with identity politics for me and everything to do with preserving the democratic society we all have the privilege of living under.



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,702
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

30 Aug 2017, 5:20 pm

My understanding of how my own country works might be lacking, if so please forgive me, but I was always under the impression that violence or calls to violence had immediate legal repercussions. We keep civil discourse and the uplifting or destruction of ideas on their own merit based on people's ability to speak without violence. Once violence threatens speech the whole project of the marketplace of ideas sorting things out is in trouble.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,545
Location: USA

30 Aug 2017, 6:02 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
My understanding of how my own country works might be lacking, if so please forgive me, but I was always under the impression that violence or calls to violence had immediate legal repercussions. We keep civil discourse and the uplifting or destruction of ideas on their own merit based on people's ability to speak without violence. Once violence threatens speech the whole project of the marketplace of ideas sorting things out is in trouble.

If you're here in the states we have no restrictions on hate speech, you can freely call for violence against all manner of groups, that's constitutionally protected by the first amendment. If it actually steps into violence then criminal law applies, not the first amendment. Basically as long as you don't actually follow through, you're welcome to argue for the extermination of entire groups, ethnic or otherwise, and it's not a crime, you can even argue for the downfall of the U.S. and it's not a crime. The founders left it up to the people to engage on the speech front, the government keeps it's distance. That's why I say, I may disagree with the militant attitude the antifa movement has taken up the last half decade but they're still better than the alternative, which is the same militant attitude but directed at everyone that's not protestant anglo-saxon and a large portion of protestant anglo-saxons that are deemed 'inferior'.

And for any aspies reading this thinking fascism is an appealing argument and beneficial because they're white protestant: you go with all the Jews, Muslims, and gypsies to the camp, fascism is about a 'pure' bloodline, deformities such as autism are not tolerated.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,736
Location: Queens, NYC

30 Aug 2017, 6:07 pm

Nope....they are not.

Many disabled people were put into the death camps. Many were "experimented" on.

What is not often mentioned here on WP is how the Nazis used to perform experiments on people.



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,702
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

30 Aug 2017, 6:41 pm

Aristophanes wrote:
If you're here in the states we have no restrictions on hate speech, you can freely call for violence against all manner of groups, that's constitutionally protected by the first amendment. If it actually steps into violence then criminal law applies, not the first amendment. Basically as long as you don't actually follow through, you're welcome to argue for the extermination of entire groups, ethnic or otherwise, and it's not a crime, you can even argue for the downfall of the U.S. and it's not a crime.

Right, and I think there's also a line with respect to moving from philosophic abstractions to specifics such as imploring people to harm or kill a specific person or to go out and take up violence against a given group.

Aristophanes wrote:
The founders left it up to the people to engage on the speech front, the government keeps it's distance. That's why I say, I may disagree with the militant attitude the antifa movement has taken up the last half decade but they're still better than the alternative, which is the same militant attitude but directed at everyone that's not protestant anglo-saxon and a large portion of protestant anglo-saxons that are deemed 'inferior'.

I think we do have a genie to stuff back in the bottle (ie. the harder thing to do) or we have to hope that some of the people who are working to eat away at the termites themselves who've been eating away at the foundations of western civilization. A good example is Jonathan Haidt's Heterodox Academy project - I really do hope that he's able to continue drawing like minds in high places to a similar assessment, ie. that we as human beings are so badly riddled with our own biases that once you get an echo-chamber of a particular belief the quality of thought suffers to the degree that there's a monocultural purity. While it could come down to the major colleges folding up and most higher education being online, and I do think there's a higher education bubble set to burst even if were economics and relative value of degrees alone, I have concerns as well as to what the standards would look like if that did happen. My best guess is that there'll be a healthy tree-shaking an academia in the next five to ten years, it may be in it's beginning stages already, and we may be hearing less and less about what are essentially activism studies and degree programs.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,702
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

30 Aug 2017, 7:25 pm

There's probably a lot of hype in this, but, there's probably plenty of truth in it as well:



My guess is that there are several reasons this dynamic is occurring - news being rigged like enertainment for advertising demographics, growing bureaucracies that want more employment, and I'd also add my hunch that the elite are getting deeply concerned about the heightened leverage that technology is giving people to do ill in the world, might be equally pessimistic about our ability to self-govern, and so plenty of this might be provocation - as the video suggests - toward a more authoritarian balance.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling