What's America's problem? Page 219

  • Page

    of 225 First / Last

  • DrStrangelove 13 Aug 2017 16:28:41 11,303 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    @Mola_Ram

    I think if we want to leave out certain countries with their certain historical background, it comes down to the question of: should we tolerate intolerance? My stance is clearly: no. I am well aware of the contradictions: can you protect free speech by denying certain ideologies free speech?

    I'm a supporter of so-called fortified democracy: allow free speech for those who support it, but fight those who oppose it. Tolerance can go too far: when someone refuses tolerance towards others, they don't deserve being tolerated themselves.

    The reasoning is that a tolerant society is too precious to leave it unprotected against its enemies. This may be born of historical experience, but that may also serve as a warning. The point is to fight the enemies of democracy with all you've got.
  • BigOrkWaaagh 13 Aug 2017 17:14:32 6,933 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    But how far do you go with that? Do you then ban the EDL? BNP? UKIP? DUP? Conservative party?
  • Tuffty 13 Aug 2017 17:22:20 4,036 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I think any party who's political stance is "Anyone that isn't white is sub human and should be enslaved/killed" has no place in today's civilisation and shouldn't be considered for public debate. A punch to the face is a restrained response.
  • abumarkey 13 Aug 2017 17:26:39 13 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 4 months ago
    @RichieTenenbaum

    Re: comments that “we’re better than this”. You’re right we aren’t. Radicalisation can happen to anyone—it’s the sociopolitical context that matters, not the person.

    Re: Trump. That’s a politican telling people what they want to hear. He knew—or was advised—that there are certain notions in society, that quite a big segment of it feels left out. He reached to those people pretending he’s their friend while “confirming” the usual suspects are to blame for their problems—blaming the “other” his voters already blamed. He knows how to sell it.

    Re: alt-right/daesh. The mechanism is the same. Daesh’s members proved to have little knowledge of Islam; they rather join for identity’s purposes—many of those coming from the West were already pitty criminals and were radicalised in jail. So is the case for their local members—why Daesh have got so much traction in Iraq is the country’s state of failure (corruption, poor public services, lack of transparency, general poverty). Once Daesh came, local population in many places was indeed scared, but in others Daesh was praised for actually restoring order. How they’d view the organisation later varies, but imagine how bad it must’ve been before.

    edited for grammar, again. Sigh

    Edited by abumarkey at 17:28:56 13-08-2017
  • DrStrangelove 13 Aug 2017 17:36:31 11,303 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    BigOrkWaaagh wrote:
    But how far do you go with that? Do you then ban the EDL? BNP? UKIP? DUP? Conservative party?
    It's up to the courts to decide which of them violate the laws, EDL and BNP being likely. I know next to nothing about the DUP, I'm afraid. Ironically, the Conservative Party would probably not be harmed even though it probably is more harmful to Britain than any other of those, but that's another story.

    The point is that legislation decides which behaviour deserves banning, but jurisdiction decides who violates the law and who doesn't.

    Edited by DrStrangelove at 17:39:16 13-08-2017
  • Tuffty 14 Aug 2017 00:54:25 4,036 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    If you look at a bunch of Neo Nazi's and think "Their free speech must be protected" then I hope to fucking God you feel the same way about movements like Black Lives Matter.
  • Mola_Ram 14 Aug 2017 02:24:12 16,521 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Tuffty wrote:
    If you look at a bunch of Neo Nazi's and think "Their free speech must be protected" then I hope to fucking God you feel the same way about movements like Black Lives Matter.
    Yes, I do.

    The whole point of having rights is that everyone gets the same ones, and can exercise those rights to (for example) call those neo-Nazis a bunch of manbabies. They can call for a boycott of businesses owned by the manbabies. Private companies and universities can exercise their rights and eject protesters for trespassing (though whether that's a good idea is a separate question). Aside from specific limitations - libel, direct calls to violence, etc. - private entities can use their own speech rights to respond however they like.

    That's all fine. But when governments start withholding speech rights, criminalising speech from certain classes of people who otherwise haven't done anything criminal, they are crossing a line. You can argue maybe that it's justified because *group x* is uniquely awful, that the sacrifice is worth it for the sake of national harmony (hello, Chinese Communist Party), whatever. But it sure as hell isn't protecting "free speech".

    So if you want to limit the speech rights of neo-Nazi scum, go for it. But be honest about it and say "I don't believe in universal free speech", rather than trying to have your free speech cake and eat it too. If you only believe in the right to free speech when it's convenient for you, then imo you don't believe in it at all.

    EDIT: "You" means figurative you. Rant not directed specifically at the poster I replied to, just more of a general thing. :p

    Edited by Mola_Ram at 04:10:08 14-08-2017
  • SYS64738 14 Aug 2017 08:32:13 4,858 posts
    Seen 58 seconds ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I'm with DrStrangelove on this one.

    There was this case in Berlin a few weeks back where a bunch of Chinese tourists threw Nazi salutes for selfie lulz, in front of the Reichstag building out of all places.

    They got arrested by police (as it's a criminal offense) and rightly so. Wouldn't have (and didn't) happened in the US, more specifically over the weekend.

    I don't think an "anything goes" policy towards free speech works well - this ultimately means people fling deeply offensive stuff at each other without legal consequence, which means eventually it'll result in unhinged violence, at which point I think it's a little too late for the state to enter the fray - i.e. they act upon the physical violence rather than people being bastards towards each other.

    I'm aware that it's a slippery slope as touched on above already but as long as there's a society with a functioning moral compass, constitution/law that sets clear guidelines what is right and wrong (for those that need a little help with their compass i.e. extremists on all sides), and includes provisions to avoid politicians going down the authoritarian route, I don't see an issue with it at all.

    Edited by SYS64738 at 08:34:34 14-08-2017
  • Tonka 14 Aug 2017 08:46:31 26,609 posts
    Seen 44 minutes ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    There was another case this week where a drunk american was doing nazi salutes in Dresden. He got punched in the face by a local and then arrested.

    They way I see it is
    Nazis will not abuse any laws created against hate speech to limit free speech
    They will not abuse any laws created agains anti-democratic speech either
    They will simply ban all free speech. No need to take advantage of some half-assed shit.

    So I'm all for chucking them in jail.
  • shamblemonkee 14 Aug 2017 08:50:04 17,703 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    @Mola_Ram True Free Speech is a myth, it's not possible and shouldn't be the goal. You'll always have to curb aspects which come under the definition of hate speech. To think otherwise is naive.
  • FilthyAnimal 14 Aug 2017 08:58:40 173 posts
    Seen 56 minutes ago
    Registered 5 months ago
    Post deleted
  • drhickman1983 14 Aug 2017 09:06:37 5,008 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Mfolf wrote:
    Hate being the one doing this but it's worth pointing out that these nazi/white supremist rally's and violent protests are not new and have fuck all to do with trump. They may well be boosted by his presence in White House but this isn't a new thing.
    have fuck all to do with trump. They may well be boosted by his presence
    They may well be boosted by his presence
    ...
  • drhickman1983 14 Aug 2017 09:09:56 5,008 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    The concept of universal free speech is pretty naive. If you're promoting violence then it absolutely should be shut down.
  • SYS64738 14 Aug 2017 09:17:29 4,858 posts
    Seen 58 seconds ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    What really should've happened is the local authorities shutting down that march before it began - it seemed obvious that a bunch of guys sporting helmets and shields weren't going to leisurely walk about the town peacefully were they.

    But then we're talking about the same country where open-carry incl. assault rifles is a-ok (in some states at least) so... yeah.
  • drhickman1983 14 Aug 2017 09:34:42 5,008 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Godwin of Godwin's law -

    "By all means, compare these shitheads to the Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you."
  • disusedgenius 14 Aug 2017 09:36:04 8,688 posts
    Seen 18 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    SYS64738 wrote:
    What really should've happened is the local authorities shutting down that march before it began - it seemed obvious that a bunch of guys sporting helmets and shields weren't going to leisurely walk about the town peacefully were they.

    But then we're talking about the same country where open-carry incl. assault rifles is a-ok (in some states at least) so... yeah.
    Never mind the shields, they had fully armed and camo-geared militias with them as well.
  • SYS64738 14 Aug 2017 10:06:49 4,858 posts
    Seen 58 seconds ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    SYS64738 wrote:
    What really should've happened is the local authorities shutting down that march before it began - it seemed obvious that a bunch of guys sporting helmets and shields weren't going to leisurely walk about the town peacefully were they.

    But then we're talking about the same country where open-carry incl. assault rifles is a-ok (in some states at least) so... yeah.
    Never mind the shields, they had fully armed and camo-geared militias with them as well.
    Were they fully armed? I didn't see much footage on TV although noticed a camo wearing guy at the edge of the screen and thought "what is the army doing there" before realising it's a 'thing' over there, and more and more openly so.
  • LittleSparra 14 Aug 2017 10:11:20 7,135 posts
    Seen 32 minutes ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Yeah there were guys with assault rifles, all dressed up in their 'hard-on for military but not gubmint military' best.
  • MrTomFTW Best Moderator, 2016 14 Aug 2017 10:11:28 47,262 posts
    Seen 59 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Fully armed and body armoured militia. Makes me think how much money they must have to tool themselves up like this.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/militia-assault-rifles-unite-the-right-rally-charlottesville-virginia-white-supremacy-latest-a7890081.html
  • disusedgenius 14 Aug 2017 10:12:59 8,688 posts
    Seen 18 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    SYS64738 wrote:
    Were they fully armed? I didn't see much footage on TV although noticed a camo wearing guy at the edge of the screen and thought "what is the army doing there" before realising it's a 'thing' over there, and more and more openly so.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40912509

    There's a picture of them at the bottom, but yep! OP title remains accurate.
  • LittleSparra 14 Aug 2017 10:15:52 7,135 posts
    Seen 32 minutes ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    MrTomFTW wrote:
    Fully armed and body armoured militia. Makes me think how much money they must have to tool themselves up like this.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/militia-assault-rifles-unite-the-right-rally-charlottesville-virginia-white-supremacy-latest-a7890081.html
    It'll never be enough to stop the B1s of Washington!

    Then again, a militia well-armed enough could hole up in the back-end of beyond and be a right pain in the arse to the Legitimately Elected Government NWO Terrormongers
  • MrTomFTW Best Moderator, 2016 14 Aug 2017 10:21:04 47,262 posts
    Seen 59 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Suddenly the new Far Cry seems like a game I must buy :)
  • senso-ji 14 Aug 2017 10:37:57 8,128 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    LittleSparra wrote:
    Yeah there were guys with assault rifles, all dressed up in their 'hard-on for military but not gubmint military' best.
    It is funny how to many gun nuts in America like to think they are military warriors, yet very few of them have served in the armed forces. Hell, some of them look like they couldn't pass the physical exam to get in from the pics over the weekend.
  • SYS64738 14 Aug 2017 10:44:13 4,858 posts
    Seen 58 seconds ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    MrTomFTW wrote:
    Fully armed and body armoured militia. Makes me think how much money they must have to tool themselves up like this.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/militia-assault-rifles-unite-the-right-rally-charlottesville-virginia-white-supremacy-latest-a7890081.html
    I'd find it pretty scary if civilians were allowed that in my neighbourhood.

    I wonder when the first skirmish will take place between those guys and the authorities.
  • Deleted user 14 August 2017 10:46:15
    Y'know this BBC article is actually pretty good in evoking feelings and stuff (mainly anger)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40914748
  • Duffking 14 Aug 2017 10:46:58 14,918 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
  • SYS64738 14 Aug 2017 10:47:01 4,858 posts
    Seen 58 seconds ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    senso-ji wrote:
    LittleSparra wrote:
    Yeah there were guys with assault rifles, all dressed up in their 'hard-on for military but not gubmint military' best.
    It is funny how to many gun nuts in America like to think they are military warriors, yet very few of them have served in the armed forces. Hell, some of them look like they couldn't pass the physical exam to get in from the pics over the weekend.
    Hehe. I was thinking the same. They seem to like their heart-stopper burgers with that super size portion of freedom fries.

    Having served in the military myself (conscription) I can tell you they'd be the first ones to drop out of boot camp due to health reasons.
  • nickthegun 14 Aug 2017 10:48:48 72,036 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    It's not as expensive as you think and they start kitting themselves out at an early age.

    My cousin's boyfriend isn't exactly what you would call a gun nut but he has built up quite the arsenal by doing the equivalent of when you see a game really cheap, only to buy it and leave it in the wrapper.
  • Tuffty 14 Aug 2017 11:08:50 4,036 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Mola_Ram wrote:
    Tuffty wrote:
    If you look at a bunch of Neo Nazi's and think "Their free speech must be protected" then I hope to fucking God you feel the same way about movements like Black Lives Matter.
    Yes, I do.

    The whole point of having rights is that everyone gets the same ones, and can exercise those rights to (for example) call those neo-Nazis a bunch of manbabies. They can call for a boycott of businesses owned by the manbabies. Private companies and universities can exercise their rights and eject protesters for trespassing (though whether that's a good idea is a separate question). Aside from specific limitations - libel, direct calls to violence, etc. - private entities can use their own speech rights to respond however they like.

    That's all fine. But when governments start withholding speech rights, criminalising speech from certain classes of people who otherwise haven't done anything criminal, they are crossing a line. You can argue maybe that it's justified because *group x* is uniquely awful, that the sacrifice is worth it for the sake of national harmony (hello, Chinese Communist Party), whatever. But it sure as hell isn't protecting "free speech".

    So if you want to limit the speech rights of neo-Nazi scum, go for it. But be honest about it and say "I don't believe in universal free speech", rather than trying to have your free speech cake and eat it too. If you only believe in the right to free speech when it's convenient for you, then imo you don't believe in it at all.

    EDIT: "You" means figurative you. Rant not directed specifically at the poster I replied to, just more of a general thing. :p
    Don't worry, I meant "You" figuratively as well, not directed at anyone specific.

    My argument is that Nazi's shouldn't have a platform when their ideals are built on the idea of hatred & discrimination. If you look at parties like the BNP or UKIP, they have a platform of anti-immigration and how too many immigrants are upsetting the economy of the country. But at least that's something you can debate over and while you may not agree with those views, you can respect their right to hold it.

    How can we then entertain the idea that we should give a voice to people who thinks anyone that isn't white is subhuman scum that deserves to be enslaved or killed? Not because the economy is suffering but because you are genetically inferior? There's no place for it in today's society, we're all collectively better than entertaining this twisted viewpoint in the same way we don't tolerate extremist Islamic views.

    Edited by Tuffty at 11:10:37 14-08-2017
  • BillMurray 14 Aug 2017 11:24:09 9,075 posts
    Seen 22 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @SYS64738 Not sure if it is actually true but I've read in a couple of places that the shitlord who drove his car into the counter-protesters tried to join the US Army but couldn't make it through boot camp.
  • Page

    of 225 First / Last

Log in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.