[Politics] Dumb People Protest and Look Dumb

Apr 17, 2009
1,751
0
0
Saelune said:
Few people who claim to support free-speech actually do. That goes for both sides. I think the left mostly agrees with me, but is afraid to be clear about that. I think the right just wants to call black people the N word without being condemned for it.
Yeah, it's one of those things where if you need to say it, it's clearly not true. Like a country calling itself the Democratic Republic of wherever. If you actually were the thing you were saying you were, you wouldn't have people doubting it so much you need to state it
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Eacaraxe said:
Saelune said:
...And this proves me wrong...how?
You're pushing the stonewall myth, which is actually an historically-revisionist thermonuclear take that underestimates the level of victimization suffered by the LGBT community at the time and the institutional forces arrayed against them, giving the Stonewall protesters less credit than they deserve, and calling the actual background of it anti-LGBT fake news? If you're only looking at the actions of the NYPD you're not even telling half the story, and you're not even telling the important part of the story.

Stonewall wasn't just a protest against anti-gay laws or police raids. They were protesting mob exploitation of the gay community, and police corruption as well. That's why the gathered crowd threw fistfuls of coins at the cops, and why the words that actually kicked off the riot were "they didn't pay off the cops". Because the cops were fucking dirty, and the raid was thought to be a shakedown.

Stonewall was a mob property, and the mob was blackmailing patrons, forcing them into prostitution, running child sex trafficking out of it, and paying off the cops to look the other way and stage fake raids to maintain appearances. Meanwhile, the Wagner mayoral admin was eager to look tough on organized crime during an election year, and was targeting gay bars because they made for easy, politically-acceptable, mob targets.

And indeed, the level of violence at Stonewall by the members of the gay community has been greatly exaggerated. The NYT article I linked earlier was a retrospective by the Village Voice writer who originally covered the story. Here's his original article [https://www.villagevoice.com/2010/07/21/stonewall-gay-power-comes-to-sheridan-square/] -- mind the language, it was written in '69 after all.

It began as a small raid ? only two patrolmen, two detectives, and two policewomen were involved. But as the patrons trapped inside were released one by one, a crowd started to gather on the street. It was initially a festive gathering, composed mostly of Stonewall boys who were waiting around for friends still inside or to see what was going to happen. Cheers would go up as favorites would emerge from the door, strike a pose and swish by the detective with a ?Hello there, fella.? The stars were in their element. Wrists were limp, hair was primped, and reactions to the applause were classic. ?I gave them the gay power bit, and they loved it, girls.? ?Have you seen Maxine? Where is my wife ? I told her not to go far.?

Suddenly the paddywagon arrived and the mood of the crowd changed. Three of the more blatant queens ? in full drag ? were loaded inside, along with the bartender and doorman, to a chorus of catcalls and boos from the crowd. A cry went up to push the paddywagon over, but it drove away before anything could happen. With its exit, the action waned momentarily. The next person to come out was a dyke, and she put up a struggle ? from car to door to car again. It was at that moment that the scene became explosive. Limp wrists were forgotten. Beer cans and bottles were heaved at the windows, and a rain of coins descended on the cops. At the height of the action, a bearded figure was plucked from the crowd and dragged inside. It was Dave Van Ronk, who had come from the Lion?s Head to see what was going on. He was charged with throwing an object at the police.

Three cops were necessary to get Van Ronk away from the crowd and into the Stonewall. The exit left no cops on the street, and almost by signal the crowd erupted into cobblestone and bottle heaving. The reaction was solid: they were pissed. The trashcan I was standing on was nearly yanked out from under me as a kid tried to grab it for use in the window smashing melee. From nowhere came an uprooted parking meter ? used as a battering ram on the Stonewall door. I heard several cries of ?Let?s get some gas,? but the blaze of flame which soon appeared in the window of the Stonewall was still a shock. As the wood barrier behind the glass was beaten open, the cops inside turned a firehose on the crowd. Several kids took the opportunity to cavort in the spray, and their momentary glee served to stave off what was rapidly becoming a full-scale attack.

[...]

The real action Saturday was that night in the street. Friday night?s crowd had returned and was being led in ?gay power? cheers by a group of gay cheerleaders. ?We are the Stonewall girls/ We wear our hair in curls/ We have no underwear/ We show our pubic hairs!? The crowd was gathered across the street from the Stonewall and was growing with additions of onlookers, Eastsiders, and rough street people who saw a chance for a little action. Though dress had changed from Friday night?s gayery to Saturday night street clothes, the scene was a command performance for queers. If Friday night had been pick-up night, Saturday was date night. Hand-holding, kissing, and posing accented each of the cheers with a homosexual liberation that had appeared only fleetingly on the street before. One-liners were as practiced as if they had ben used for years. ?I just want you all to know,? quipped a platinum blond with obvious glee, ?that sometimes being homosexual is a big pain in the ass.? Another allowed as how he had become a ?left-deviationist.? And on and on.

[...]

The people on the street were not to be coerced. ?Let?s go down the street and see what?s happening, girls,??someone yelled. And down the street went the crowd, smack into the Tactical Patrol Force, who had been called earlier to disperse the crowd and were walking west on Christopher from Sixth Avenue. Formed in a line, the TPF swept the crowd back to the corner of Waverly Place where they stopped. A stagnant situation there brought on some gay tomfoolery in the form of a chorus line facing the helmeted and club-carrying cops. Just as the line got into a full kick routine, the TPF advanced again and cleared the crowd of screaming gay powerites down Christopher to Seventh Avenue. The street and park were then held from both ends, and no one was allowed to enter ? naturally causing a fall-off in normal Saturday night business, even at the straight Lion?s Head and 55. The TPF positions in and around the square were held with only minor incident ? one busted head and a number of scattered arrest ? while the cops amused themselves by arbitrarily breaking up small groups of people up and down the avenue.
To that you can add this firsthand account [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/what-stonewall-means-to-the-people-who-were-there].

Stonewall has become a symbol of the LGBTQ rights movement, but its storied history has also been mythologized in some ways. Jay said the violence at the Stonewall riots was not as intense as has been portrayed.

She said the accounts of what happened at the Stonewall have been greatly exaggerated. ?The window was intact. The door was intact. There were no parking meters lying around in the street. I didn?t see any overturned cars or burnt cars. But there was a lot of anger. And people were just talking and shouting and saying, ?What do we do? What do we do??? ?But people were not agreeing with the Mattachine sentiment anymore that we should just go home and be good and eventually straight people would accept us,? said Jay.
However real the violence by police, the two-day all-out Jets vs. Sharks street brawl it's made out to be today it was not. We're discussing a protest that can be summarized by the showdown of riot cop phalanxes versus...impromptu chorus lines.

...Still haven't proven me wrong. LGBT people literally fought back against abusive cops and it helped spark the LGBT rights movement.

The mob took advantage of LGBT people...doesn't prove me wrong.

The cops took advantage of LGBT people...only verifies me as right.

By today's so called standard, the Stonewall Riot would have been condemned as 'a bunch of violent leftist thugs'. That's bullshit and you know it.

What is your goal here? Cause from where I am, it looks like you just want to dismiss the movement.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Leg End said:
Kyle Gaddo said:
Please understand what free speech actually is. (thanks to XKCD [https://xkcd.com/1357/])
Well, never expected this surprise. Thanks for popping in. But I'd like to explain where I'm coming from on this, and why that comic is ill-applied. Completely independent of my opinions regarding private domains hosting as they please, I am strictly referring her Saelune's very vocal support of the Democratic Party and, under her reasoning, support for dismantling First Amendment protections. Though it's somewhat moot because she outright expresses support for that directly.

In this instance, she herself supports suppression and criminalization of 'Hate Speech', which as ruled by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions, would violate the First Amendment. None of that calls upon a person, company, sentient etch-a-sketch, what have you, to host your opinions. None of that requires other people to listen to it. What is specifically being referenced goes against the very comic you posted because it does in fact call for the government to interfere with speech. I believe that whatever you, I, Saelune, whoever, thinks about what these specific people or whatever other idiot comes by with a stupid opinion has to say, they have the right to say it as much as you or I have our right to say whatever stupid opinions we may have, because we probably all believe someone else has an opinion we find stupid somewhere. The key is that everyone is free to engage in discourse regarding those opinions. Nobody has to play host to it, but the government should not be stepping in and imposing penalties. The very comic you post agrees with this concept, does it not?

Do you disagree? EDIT: Do see Saelune's above post for confirmation regarding her opinion on this matter.
Slavery was legal once.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Palindromemordnilap said:
Saelune said:
Few people who claim to support free-speech actually do. That goes for both sides. I think the left mostly agrees with me, but is afraid to be clear about that. I think the right just wants to call black people the N word without being condemned for it.
Yeah, it's one of those things where if you need to say it, it's clearly not true. Like a country calling itself the Democratic Republic of wherever. If you actually were the thing you were saying you were, you wouldn't have people doubting it so much you need to state it
'Free speech' is a buzzword at this point, because the second you say 'I am against free speech', people will make their decision about you without really considering what they mean.

If opposing Nazi ideology makes me 'anti-free speech', fine. But that doesn't mean I think we should not be allowed to condemn the government. I think the left 'supports free speech' cause of the latter part, not the former, but to outright say 'We oppose free speech' would be a PR nightmare.

But then, the right also opposes actual free speech. They insult and then get mad when insulted, they say lies and slander, then condemn those who call them out on it. They absolutely oppose any condemnation of Trump's government. They want the ability to say whatever racist shit they want, but don't want to be called out for it.

I am sure there are plenty who do genuinely and unhypocritically support free speech, but they aren't condemning people for shitting on Nazis, and they aren't condemning only one side for violent reactions. But they have to decide what is more important to them, cause to vote for either side is to compromise.
 

Shadowstar38

New member
Jul 20, 2011
2,204
0
0
People with dumb ideas voiced their opinions. People responded with criticism. No laws were broken, no rights were violated, and counter intuitive ideologies gained zero traction. This is a pretty good example of the system at play actually functioning correctly. Now if only antifa would take notice and stop fucking around we'd make some progress.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/3/20677645/antifa-portland-andy-ngo-proud-boys
 
Apr 17, 2009
1,751
0
0
Saelune said:
Palindromemordnilap said:
Saelune said:
Few people who claim to support free-speech actually do. That goes for both sides. I think the left mostly agrees with me, but is afraid to be clear about that. I think the right just wants to call black people the N word without being condemned for it.
Yeah, it's one of those things where if you need to say it, it's clearly not true. Like a country calling itself the Democratic Republic of wherever. If you actually were the thing you were saying you were, you wouldn't have people doubting it so much you need to state it
'Free speech' is a buzzword at this point, because the second you say 'I am against free speech', people will make their decision about you without really considering what they mean.

If opposing Nazi ideology makes me 'anti-free speech', fine. But that doesn't mean I think we should not be allowed to condemn the government. I think the left 'supports free speech' cause of the latter part, not the former, but to outright say 'We oppose free speech' would be a PR nightmare.

But then, the right also opposes actual free speech. They insult and then get mad when insulted, they say lies and slander, then condemn those who call them out on it. They absolutely oppose any condemnation of Trump's government. They want the ability to say whatever racist shit they want, but don't want to be called out for it.

I am sure there are plenty who do genuinely and unhypocritically support free speech, but they aren't condemning people for shitting on Nazis, and they aren't condemning only one side for violent reactions. But they have to decide what is more important to them, cause to vote for either side is to compromise.
Its become a weapon people try to use against each other on forums like this, saying the other is "anti-free speech" just because the other guy said something they didn't like. And its usually from people who say nothing about Trump trying to cut down on how much the press can talk about him
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,948
58
53
Country
United States
Shadowstar38 said:
People with dumb ideas voiced their opinions. People responded with criticism. No laws were broken, no rights were violated, and counter intuitive ideologies gained zero traction. This is a pretty good example of the system at play actually functioning correctly. Now if only antifa would take notice and stop fucking around we'd make some progress.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/3/20677645/antifa-portland-andy-ngo-proud-boys
Man, it really is almost like we can fight people with words and win hearts and minds instead of acting like a bunch of violent savages!
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,948
58
53
Country
United States
Kyle Gaddo said:
Hate speech is not free speech.
An opinion I vehemently disagree with, as do numerous SCOTUS rulings. But again, your right to say such, as is mine to disagree. Particulars to that include what is specifically 'Hate Speech', which tends to carry a lot of personal opinion from person to person. A key factor here is that neither of us likely support the Speech you would personally define as 'Hate Speech'. Nonetheless, I fight for the right to people to state it in the public sphere, and for my right to call them out on it once they finish their sentence. This is again something that the comic you posted supports, and is now apparent that you disagree with on some level.
Despite the fact that it's protected under the First Amendment, hate speech is inherently violent, because it infringes on people's rights to live their life under the very same Constitution that should protect them.
Question then. what is your opinion of "Punching Nazis"? Or specific promotion of ideologies that have had less than a stellar human rights track record? We both know what your first idea of Ideology will come to mind, as it is mine as well in most cases, but what about various others? The same way those ideologies and subscribers of them can discuss them, so can the one we both think of first in particular. As has been shown, our Minds are powerful weapons, as are our Words. Man is a stronger creature than to just give in to the first rousing speech he hears.

For the record and in more direct words, I'm specifically thinking of Communism as my number 2, yet nobody tends to have an issue with that floating around. See: Antifa throwing around Hammers and Sickles like they have a quota.
A government should protect its people. Germany, for example, is pretty liberal with the types of speech it allows. Except one [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a], and I'm sure you already know which.
I do, and I do not care at all for Germany's approach to speech, highlighted among those who partake in our hobby during the 2000s, due to various government censorship there and repurposing anti-Nazi imagery for anti-violent game imagery. I am an American, and I value my ability to express myself here in my country. As for your statement regarding a Government's role to it's people, I direct to C. S. Lewis:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Such is my longstanding take on such matters.
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,948
58
53
Country
United States
Kyle Gaddo said:
It means that things can and should change for the safety and protection for all of a nation's people.
Sure. But this isn't anywhere near Slavery.
Saelune said:
That 'Its legal' is a terrible defense of anything.
Of course. But in this case, it's legal because it's mere words. My words do nothing to infringe upon your well-being or rights. You can use words and fire back, calling me every nasty thing in the book. It runs down like rain down a window. There is not a single thing I can say that can actually harm you or infringe upon your rights as a Human Being. Not one.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Leg End said:
Kyle Gaddo said:
It means that things can and should change for the safety and protection for all of a nation's people.
Sure. But this isn't anywhere near Slavery.
Saelune said:
That 'Its legal' is a terrible defense of anything.
Of course. But in this case, it's legal because it's mere words. My words do nothing to infringe upon your well-being or rights. You can use words and fire back, calling me every nasty thing in the book. It runs down like rain down a window. There is not a single thing I can say that can actually harm you or infringe upon your rights as a Human Being. Not one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Shadowstar38 said:
People with dumb ideas voiced their opinions. People responded with criticism. No laws were broken, no rights were violated, and counter intuitive ideologies gained zero traction. This is a pretty good example of the system at play actually functioning correctly. Now if only antifa would take notice and stop fucking around we'd make some progress.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/3/20677645/antifa-portland-andy-ngo-proud-boys
Nazis still exist, bigotry still exists, nothing was solved or fixed.


Remember when Antifa shot up that synagogue? And that mosque? Oh wait, those were Republicans. Well, what about that time Antifa sent bombs out of a van decked out in pro-Hillary pictures? Oh wait, that was a Republican in a pro-Trump van.

If you actually want to condemn violent actions, condemn the actual terrorists. Your focus on Antifa shows your hand.
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,948
58
53
Country
United States
Saelune said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F
I'm familiar with it. Please explain. Because if you can just start linking a single thing or say half a sentence, I can start doing it as well and the discussion just doesn't exist.
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,948
58
53
Country
United States
Saelune said:
Your focus on Antifa shows your hand.
I think the problem is that nobody else actually seems to be focusing on them, which I compare to how you state people are ignoring Nazis step onto the stage. Antifa gets a free pass because... reasons.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
9,155
3,086
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Okay, I know this is so long ago but I'm going to reply to the original post.

You're assumption is that counter protests were ineffective. Based on what evidence? Counter protesting has been going on for a while and these Alt-right rallies are attended to a lesser degree. Seems like the counter protests are working to me.

I don't know how the Alt-right words made them any less or more stupid now. They were saying these things beforehand and to me it looked like they were stupid but many disagreed with me. It was only when they killed someone that people baulked.

Free Speech doesn't lead to conversation. It doesn't point out stupidity. Because no one is listening. They're just saying what they want and not considering othets

I would say that my personal opinion is that Charlottesville had a huge effect. No longer could white Supremacist claim that they were nice.
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,948
58
53
Country
United States
Kyle Gaddo said:
People in positions of authority who say things in off-hand remarks often have people follow through at their behest, even if "accidental."
This however does not change the nature of Speech. Even to go as far as Speech being used and a different scenario where the remark would have been a direct Order, Words themselves have no power to perform the actions described. I cannot cut with a word, I cannot burn with a sentence. The only power words have is the power we give them. In the case provided, it was the initiative of Man to go into action.