What's America's problem? Page 220

  • Page

    of 222 First / Last

  • reddevil93 14 Aug 2017 11:38:26 14,006 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Yep, didn't say it was fitness reasons though. Maybe cause he was a Hitler loving nut as confirmed by his High School teachers.
  • Tonka 14 Aug 2017 13:37:26 26,893 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    No free speech for Fascist is a really bad idea

    Triggered PC snowflake goes boo boo
  • DrStrangelove 14 Aug 2017 17:37:59 11,652 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    The Daily Stormer has allegedly been hacked by Anonymous, hosting an entry supposedly written by the hackers that says they will allow the site to stay online for another 24 hours "so the world can witness the hate" before it will be shut down permanently. It also tells the nazis that their time is short and that "hackers of the world have united in the defense of Jewish people".

    YourAnonNews however has no confirmation yet that Anonymous was involved, and it curiously happened about the same time as the provider cancelled the contract and has given them "24 hours to move the domain to another provider", after an article insulted the murder victim of Charlottesville. Coincidence?







    edit: now Andrew Anglin of the Daily Stormer, who claims to live in Lagos (Nigeria), claims he has taken it back, with the help of "weev". He praises the Nigerian military for the help (he claims "weev" was brought from Georgia to Lagos in a Nigerian military helicopter who violated Turkish and Israeli air space to help them--he also personally thanks Nigerian president Muhammadu Buhari "who authorized this operation"). What the hell is even going on there?

    Edited by DrStrangelove at 18:47:09 14-08-2017
  • You-can-call-me-kal 14 Aug 2017 17:45:56 10,048 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I've seen a fair amount of Jewish conspiracy theory stuff posted on the Anonymous FB page. They're such dicks. They just cause disruption for the sake of it. No actual understanding of the issues they supposedly stand for or against.
  • Tonka 14 Aug 2017 18:03:22 26,893 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    A lengthy post on lulzing taken too far

    https://medium.com/@DaleBeran/4chan-the-skeleton-key-to-the-rise-of-trump-624e7cb798cb
  • nickthegun 14 Aug 2017 18:39:28 72,347 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Tbh, if trump had emerged when I was in my late teens/early twenties, I probably would have thought it was funny and edgy to push the useless cunt, too.

    Im still amazed that the joke got this far.
  • MrTomFTW Best Moderator, 2016 15 Aug 2017 11:13:49 47,415 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago


    19:05 onwards is a good example of why not allowing them to organise and rally is not a free speech issue. He gloats about the murder, he blames the people hit by the car as they're less than human to him. He predicts more deaths. They are not there to exercise their freedom of speech. Their freedom of speech is when they talk on the Internet about how they want to kill degenerates... What happened this weekend is them putting it into action.

    Edited by MrTomFTW at 11:23:05 15-08-2017
  • Mola_Ram 15 Aug 2017 11:49:58 16,881 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I agree. If they are specifically planning to go out and kill people or commit violence, that is an exception to free speech rights that I am on board with. Other peoples' right to live outweighs that. I wouldn't want Islamist terrorist groups invoking "but free speech!" when they're openly discussing plots to massacre people.

    But that is not what a lot of people are proposing here. They are proposing to ban whole groups from marching, not based on what their members have done or want to do (if everyone at that march came there to kill, there would have been a whole lot more deaths), but based on who they are. It would be like banning Black Lives Matter people from protesting, because some idiots decided that attacking cops at one or two of their rallies would be a good idea. I wouldn't support that either.

    Anyway, I think I'm going to stop this, because I don't want to keep banging my head against a wall and have people thinking that I support these dickheads in any way. I just think that, if you're going to ask the government to withhold previously-universal rights from specific groups of people, you need to consider what you might be sacrificing for that. It's not as simple or as clear-cut as you think.

    In sum, I'm basically on side with the ACLU here: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/12/16138326/aclu-charlottesville-protests-racism

    Edited by Mola_Ram at 11:54:27 15-08-2017
  • MrTomFTW Best Moderator, 2016 15 Aug 2017 11:56:54 47,415 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Mola_Ram wrote:
    It would be like banning Black Lives Matter people from protesting, because some idiots decided that attacking cops at one or two of their rallies would be a good idea. I wouldn't support that either.
    Only not really because you only have to ask yourself - what's BLM's aim, and why are organising? Then ask what's the Nazi's/White Supremacist's aim, and why are they organising?
  • DrStrangelove 15 Aug 2017 12:08:25 11,652 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Very good video, thank the Lord for Vice
  • reddevil93 15 Aug 2017 12:08:31 14,006 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    MrTomFTW wrote:


    19:05 onwards is a good example of why not allowing them to organise and rally is not a free speech issue. He gloats about the murder, he blames the people hit by the car as they're less than human to him. He predicts more deaths. They are not there to exercise their freedom of speech. Their freedom of speech is when they talk on the Internet about how they want to kill degenerates... What happened this weekend is them putting it into action.
    How tiny must that guys dick be to be carrying around all them weapons? Murderous scum.
  • DrStrangelove 15 Aug 2017 12:36:00 11,652 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Mola_Ram wrote:

    But that is not what a lot of people are proposing here. They are proposing to ban whole groups from marching, not based on what their members have done or want to do (if everyone at that march came there to kill, there would have been a whole lot more deaths), but based on who they are. It would be like banning Black Lives Matter people from protesting, because some idiots decided that attacking cops at one or two of their rallies would be a good idea. I wouldn't support that either.
    Just in case, I am not for denying free speech just to certain groups. No free speech for fascists but free speech for everyone else would be stupid. I am for banning incitement to hatred and violence. It can't be that someone who beats up someone else is jailed, but someone who successfully encourages many others to beat up or even kill other people goes free. No matter if they worship Adolf Hitler or Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi.

    As for the ban on nazi imagery, there is of course a certain background to this matter in Germany. After thinking about the pros and cons, I decided for myself that it is right to ban them altogether in Germany. As much as I'd love thinly veiled nazi groups like the NPD (Germany's national socialist party in all but name) to reveal themselves by marching with swastikas, I think of Jewish citizens living here today to witness people with swastikas walking around in front of their synagogues undisturbed again in present-day Germany. It is a dreadful thought, and the modern German state must make perfectly clear that it protects the victims of the Third Reich and doesn't tolerate neo-nazism. Being anti-fascist is a defining trait of post-war Germany.

    Specifically banning nazi imagery is another matter in most other countries, although when it comes to imagery that symbolises the most extreme hatred and dehumanisation, swastikas and SS runes are the way to go.

    Edited by DrStrangelove at 12:53:04 15-08-2017
  • beep 15 Aug 2017 13:01:29 507 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Defending free speech is one thing, being a complete fucking moron is another. I can understand tolerating the former, but why should any civilised society allow the latter?
  • Mola_Ram 16 Aug 2017 00:18:15 16,881 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Because most modern democracies allow everyone to speak, even if they're complete fucking morons? Really, I don't know why this is such a difficult concept.

    Edited by Mola_Ram at 00:35:59 16-08-2017
  • beep 16 Aug 2017 00:28:28 507 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    The problem, Mola_Ram, is that morons usually take things beyond speech and into physical violence. Not that hard a concept to comprehend, is it? And to be clear, there are morons in EVERY group, regardless of political affiliation.
  • Rodney 16 Aug 2017 03:36:05 3,403 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I'm with Mola on this, I think the free speech is a fundamental right, it's the bedrock from which all other rights are built.

    The test of free speech is tolerating speech which you find intolerable.

    I think denying free speech to certain groups or ideologies poses a greater risk to society, than people who use three free speech to spread hate.

    Because once you limit free speech to what you consider acceptable, you are completely at the mercy of whatever poltical power defines what is and what isn't acceptable. And history shows this has never really worked out well.

    As hateful as I find these white supremacists, and I honestly see them as equivalent to Jihadists, until they commit an actual crime, they should be allowed to spew their hatred and publicly protest. Banning them is not even a practical possibility in any case and it would only renuforce their ideological narrative.

    Better to let them speak and discredit themselves, I think.
  • Mola_Ram 16 Aug 2017 03:55:31 16,881 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    beep wrote:
    The problem, Mola_Ram, is that morons usually take things beyond speech and into physical violence. Not that hard a concept to comprehend, is it? And to be clear, there are morons in EVERY group, regardless of political affiliation.
    But violent expression doesn't necessarily lead to violent action (unless it's obvious that something is being planned, which is why I'm ok with some limitations on speech). People get angry, people vent. And yes, people spew racist bile on the internet. But if you punish people before they've actually done anything, you're essentially punishing thoughtcrime. It's getting into Minority Report territory.

    And aside from the practicalities of enforcing such a thing (Where do you draw the line between what's legal and illegal? Do people get a right to appeal? What if the government gets it wrong, and someone's name is dragged through the muck for nothing? What if someone wants race segregation, but doesn't want to enforce it with violence?), you set a precedent for the government to suppress speech that you support.

    One of the things that separates us from, say, a dictatorship, is that the government mostly doesn't lock us up for the things we say. Making exceptions to that is not something that should be taken lightly.

    Edited by Mola_Ram at 04:06:56 16-08-2017
  • Mola_Ram 16 Aug 2017 04:01:27 16,881 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    But yeah, I guess maybe this thinking is different in Europe, what with the laws in Germany and other ones banning Holocaust denial and whatnot.

    I personally believe in the universal free speech enshrined in US law, so any solution that involves the government banning certain groups from protesting is not going to fly with me. I have values, and I'm not going to let those values be affected by the actions of dickheads of any colour, ideology or religion. I believe they should have the right to speech (barring very specific exceptions), just as I believe criminals should have the right to a fair trial.

    Anyway, regardless of whether you agree with it or not, white nationalist marches aren't going to be banned in America anytime soon, absent a constitutional amendment. God help all Americans if the government gets the power to suppress speech there at the moment. There's no way in hell I'm trusting Trump to use that power responsibly.

    Edited by Mola_Ram at 04:52:56 16-08-2017
  • Mola_Ram 16 Aug 2017 05:13:13 16,881 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Post deleted
  • Mola_Ram 16 Aug 2017 05:18:36 16,881 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Mola_Ram wrote:
    There's no way in hell I'm trusting Trump to use that power responsibly.
    Finally on this point, lookie here...

    https://www.dreamhost.com/blog/we-fight-for-the-users/

    This is what they're trying to do *with* constitutional free speech protections. What do you think they would do with the power to make exceptions? Politely ask anti-Trump protesters to stop?
  • ecu 16 Aug 2017 09:42:02 80,245 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I feel like Donald Trump will ban me from America for creating this thread.
  • Deleted user 16 August 2017 09:47:51
    Giving someone the ability to pick and choose what is allowed to be said is a dangerous precedent and will end up with a lot of shit beingn censored that should be spoken about.

    Having said that, we can't just stand aside and allow people to spread hate and intolerance. I think there is a fine line but someone needs to draw it.
  • MrTomFTW Best Moderator, 2016 16 Aug 2017 09:56:14 47,415 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Well we're gonna get to see their free-speech in action again on Saturday in rallies across America. Hopefully this time their free-speech doesn't result in any more assaults or murders.
  • Load_2.0 16 Aug 2017 10:03:35 25,936 posts
    Seen 48 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    There is no such thing as Free Speech. The idea that it some universal freedom enjoyed by the US is ridiculous.

    Defamation, incite to hatred, harassment, domestic abuse, national security, secrecy laws, contempt laws, intellectual property laws, anti-discrimination laws can all supersede (rightfully) someones ability to go and scream whatever shit they want in public.

    The balance between someones right to be heard versus the damage they incur has always and will always need to be measured.
  • LittleSparra 16 Aug 2017 10:11:22 7,369 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    MrTomFTW wrote:
    Mola_Ram wrote:
    It would be like banning Black Lives Matter people from protesting, because some idiots decided that attacking cops at one or two of their rallies would be a good idea. I wouldn't support that either.
    Only not really because you only have to ask yourself - what's BLM's aim, and why are organising? Then ask what's the Nazi's/White Supremacist's aim, and why are they organising?
    I sympathise with BLM more than Nazis, obvs, but this is easily flipped into 'ends justify means'. It doesn't matter how noble a cause is, at heart, if its mired in violence and repression. People don't just hate Nazis because of the evil cause, they also hate the violence and repression. Speaking purely in terms of principle here: the Nazis worship violence, BLM doesn't.

    Edited by LittleSparra at 10:14:46 16-08-2017
  • Tonka 16 Aug 2017 20:00:49 26,893 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    Try and sit through this entire video of you can.

    Jeeeeeeesus Christ the fucking nerve of that anchor

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/foxs-abby-huntsman-humiliates-herself-as-guests-weep-over-morally-bankrupt-trump
  • JamboWayOh 16 Aug 2017 20:25:31 4,505 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Tonka wrote:
    Try and sit through this entire video of you can.

    Jeeeeeeesus Christ the fucking nerve of that anchor

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/foxs-abby-huntsman-humiliates-herself-as-guests-weep-over-morally-bankrupt-trump
    Sigh. I wonder when these 'news hosts' go home, do they feel like they've added anything of value to the world, feel any regret for peddling outright lies or think about how their stance fans the flame America's race issues? My take, they probably don't give a flying fuck, just like they don't give a fuck about a child once it's been born or the average American making minimum wage.

    Edited by JamboWayOh at 20:28:28 16-08-2017
  • Tonka 18 Aug 2017 12:55:28 26,893 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    Good write up on the free speech challenge.

    To silence or not

    Boils down to the usual "They might use it against us" argument, which is valid for sure.
    But "Might use it" feels a bit redundant. Of course they will. They don't need our permission to silence speech. They don't need decent people to write some half assed laws for them. Some good bulletpoints at the end but again, I doubt fascist will bother with that stuff if they gain power.
  • mal 18 Aug 2017 16:06:40 28,819 posts
    Seen 46 minutes ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Tonka wrote:
    Good write up on the free speech challenge.

    To silence or not
    In this specific instance, I support cloudfare in ending their subscription. You have the right to say what you want, but you can't expect anyone else to defend you against the hordes that disagree, however much you pay them.
  • Page

    of 222 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.