[Politics] Dumb People Protest and Look Dumb

[Saelune]

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]

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]

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

 

[Leg End]

Slavery was legal once.

...And? Can you go in-depth here?

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

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]

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!

 

[Saelune]

Slavery was legal once.

...And? Can you go in-depth here?

That 'Its legal' is a terrible defense of anything.

 

[Leg End]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Proud Boys are racists, white supremacists, misogynists, and beyond. They deserve to be protested against at every turn, even if they scream loudly.

They do and they should be -- non-violently, which is my point. That means turning away from and condemning black bloc tactics. Compare this week's news cycle with regards to Proud Boys protest to last. Last week Andy Ngo was lionized on corporate media for wandering into a crowd of Antifa expecting to get his ass whooped on camera, and getting what he wanted. This week we get to point and laugh at Tinder incels and Gavin McInnes losing a fight against a pair of plastic handcuffs.

I know which one I'd rather deal with. I'm also sick of people drawing false equivalencies and excluding middles against me for condemning the black bloc and violent counter-protest. This is a battle that can and should be won in the marketplace of ideas, that can only be lost in the streets, and I'm sick of people on my side picking the losing option; ergo, when a scenario happens demonstrative of what should be done and how, damned right I'm going to shout it from the mountaintops.

Hate speech is not free speech. 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.

Honestly, as an American, having an American perspective and understanding America's track record of censorship, I find the continental conceptions of speech and expression repugnant and morally bankrupt. Over here, laws, rules, or policies permitting the regulation of "dangerous" or "offensive" speech have a far, far greater track record for leading to the suppression of voices dissenting or critical to those in power, and persecuting historically-disadvantaged persons, than they do of protecting them. Viewpoint- or content-based suppression of speech should never be a power afforded to governing entities. Ever.

Public or private sphere, lest anyone forget the oppression of LGBTQ's in Hays Code and Red Scare-era Hollywood.

It means that things can and should change for the safety and protection for all of a nation's people.

I can think of at least one famous quote by Benjamin Franklin that would serve as adequate clapback to this...

...and in the spirit of that, how about hijab bans? What's the compelling government interest in banning hijab? Niqab and burka bans, you could relatively easily make the argument...that is, in service to a surveillance state, so fuck that right there.

LGBT people literally fought back against abusive cops and it helped spark the LGBT rights movement.

You're emphasizing and idealizing the violence at the cost of all else. That's what's wrong with your argument. If you can't or won't understand how that's contrary to the reality and the spirit of the topic, that's on you. Least of all if you can't tell a difference between defending oneself against a physical assault by a dirty cop, and assaulting others on the street.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

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.

If I may?

Antifa, at the very very VERY worst in my opinion... Is like a Gang. I personally don't believe them to be this bad, but if I had to say that they were trouble, it would be of the Blood and Crips variety.

You know, minus the gun running and drug selling. So ok, not like the Blood and the Crips. Like a low level gang that wants to rumble with the establishment. To me, yeah, that's barely a blip in what I'm concerned with politically.

However, Antifa isn't running for Congress, Senate, and Gubernatorial races on the Democratic ticket. But people who are supported by White Nationalists and Neo-Nazis are running. A good deal are losing... But some won [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/7/18064670/white-supremacist-candidates-2018-midterm-elections].


If the worst Antifa has done are skrimishes, fine. They fought with a group like a gang. But they aren't trying to run for office like the White Nationalist movement constantly does.

I look at it like this; If I have a headache, a fresh bullet wound takes priority. I'm not going to stop at the drug store for some Ibuprofen on the way to the ER because the bullet wound is definitely a more pressing matter than the other.

And yes, the segment that can affect laws for citizens while also taking to the street and flexing muscle are more dangerous than the group that can only flex muscle.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

You know, minus the gun running...

I have my fair share of buddies in the RR/JBGC sphere, and there are definitely some dumbass practices. Mostly out of ignorance of transportation laws and best safety practices. One of them wanted me to come out on a handful of occasions, shoot and help teach, but...hell naw. Some people, just going around them with a gun in their hands is begging to get accidentally shot.

EDIT: Changed some wording because I realized after the fact more could be interpreted from my post than I intended.

 

[Shadowstar38]

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.

Awesome. We're right back to the BS first day back. I love it.

This event by itself is only meant to illustrate that you can combat ideologies you disagree with in a productive way. I didn't claim it solved the specific issues you choose to point out in your response.

My only reason for bringing up Antifa is because they serve as a counter-point for how you combat right-wing ideologies incorrectly. It served a purpose to the context of the conversation. So no. I did not "show my hand".

EDIT: It's also worth noting the weird whataboutry here. I pointed out X group of people are dicks and you managed to jump to "But group Y is a bigger issue". I didn't say anything about which group is worse, or which needs to be prioritized. Why are we making it a competition?

 

[Leg End]

If I may?

Of course! Love your opinions even if I didn't reply to one before R&P was kill.

Antifa, at the very very VERY worst in my opinion... Is like a Gang. I personally don't believe them to be this bad, but if I had to say that they were trouble, it would be of the Blood and Crips variety.

You know, minus the gun running and drug selling.

Issue is, they may actually be elevating their shit so they are actually arming themselves to do really fucked up shit.

So ok, not like the Blood and the Crips. Like a low level gang that wants to rumble with the establishment. To me, yeah, that's barely a blip in what I'm concerned with politically.

However, Antifa isn't running for Congress, Senate, and Gubernatorial races on the Democratic ticket. But people who are supported by White Nationalists and Neo-Nazis are running. A good deal are losing... But some won [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/7/18064670/white-supremacist-candidates-2018-midterm-elections].

My issue is that while Antifa isn't directly running for anything that I am aware of, you have politicians praising them and supporting their actions. Though it seems that at least Biden has wised up and fired some shots at them. My problem is the free pass and that the problem is only getting worse. The shit they do isn't fucking cool, and even comparing them to small-time gangs means you're still comparing them to shitheads that murder people.

If the worst Antifa has done are skrimishes, fine. They fought with a group like a gang. But they aren't trying to run for office like the White Nationalist movement constantly does.

What if that changes? People are fighting Neo-Nazis, I'm fighting these shitheads that are getting a lot of free passes and hoping to stop them before we actually have them running for positions of power. Not too different from Saelune's own approach, actually.

I look at it like this; If I have a headache, a fresh bullet wound takes priority. I'm not going to stop at the drug store for some Ibuprofen on the way to the ER because the bullet wound is definitely a more pressing matter than the other.

From my view, it's less a small headache and more of a symptom of a serious concussion we're not aware of, and all too dangerous if we simply sleep on it. You have priority on skinheads? Cool. But please don't discount the very real dangers that these rioting shitheads pose and them getting away with it.

And yes, the segment that can affect laws for citizens while also taking to the street and flexing muscle are more dangerous than the group that can only flex muscle.

Same point as above. Getting big people in power to support their actions. They don't need to get people elected. They already have the support inside. These shitheads are already getting off with random acts of violence. We need to cut the head off early, and preferably we do it with every violent rioting fuck at the same time. Everybody wins because the people that want to be left alone don't have to deal with everyone wanting to put a boot on their throat, just in different colors and by different designers.