[Politics] Nazis Attack LGBT Pride Parade

[Silvanus]

That is a call to action, namely a violent action. Should any group behave in such a manner then yes, the law should stomp on them immediately for said actions.

[...]

Promote whatever ideology you wish, just do it within the legal framework provided by the nation you are in.

These two statements would seem to be at odds with one another. There are certain ideologies which are fundamentally violent-- violence is a core, central tenet, and so to espouse that ideology is to espouse violence.

 

[Abomination]

Because the South's entire (evil) way of life was built on the oppression and dehumanization of black people.

No it wasn't.

Citation needed.

Citation needed that the entire South's way of life was built on slavery. That is an absurd claim.

And so when they win 50.1 percent of the vote, you can die happy that democracy has achieved its purpose and things are as they should be. Then they will outlaw democratic expression. But at least they did it democratically.

Yes, if they somehow managed to convince 50.1% of the population that the very framework they are using to vote this government into power is something that should be removed, then by all means do so.

You do, of course, realise that the probability of this happening is so close to 0 that for all intents and purposes it might as well be.

Don't jump the gun yet. I want to hear your thoughts first on why the GOP is an autocracy.

The fact they have not done anything to remove Trump from office is proof enough. It is the "Toe the Line" party. Trump's appointment is a complete insult to any in the Republican party that they would consider such a figure their leader.

These two statements would seem to be at odds with one another. There are certain ideologies which are fundamentally violent-- violence is a core, central tenet, and so to espouse that ideology is to espouse violence.

As long as threats and violence are not being used to influence the democratic process, then they are free to promote what they think should be the way of things.

Take note, I propose that any official that takes a bribe while in office or adheres to campaign doners demands or backdealing should be executed for treason. I desire violence to be used in upholding the affairs of state. I am not using threats or violence to promote this ideology - but it is certainly a "violent" stance to take.

 

[Asita]

Because the South's entire (evil) way of life was built on the oppression and dehumanization of black people.

No it wasn't.

Citation needed.

Citation needed that the entire South's way of life was built on slavery. That is an absurd claim.

Perhaps, but it's also a negative claim as Saelune is claiming a lack of additional factors. As an analogy, asking that she cite that is like asking that someone prove that birds don't have blue feet. Proving the lack of such a bird is virtually impossible as proving that something does not exist requires first cataloging every instance of the phenomena you say it doesn't exist in. Proving a claim that a blue footed bird does exist, however, is relatively simple to demonstrate, as you only need cite your reasons for believing in such a bird's existence.

As you are the one claiming the existence of additional causes - a positive claim - it behooves you to cite the factors you believe to exist and provide the resources with which we can educate ourselves. Don't fall back to "no, you" out of aggravation.

 

[TheVampwizimp_v1legacy]

And so when they win 50.1 percent of the vote, you can die happy that democracy has achieved its purpose and things are as they should be. Then they will outlaw democratic expression. But at least they did it democratically.

Yes, if they somehow managed to convince 50.1% of the population that the very framework they are using to vote this government into power is something that should be removed, then by all means do so.

You do, of course, realise that the probability of this happening is so close to 0 that for all intents and purposes it might as well be.

IT'S LITERALLY HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

Of course it's not just as simple as taking a poll asking "should we abolish democracy?" and doing what the results say. It's an entire process of undermining the rights and ability of political opponents to vote against you.

Gerrymandering has crippled the power of American votes. Voter suppression is a real thing, such as targeting low-income areas with mandatory ID laws. You don't have to convince half the population to dump democracy in one fell swoop. You have to rig the system to get yourself and your like-minded friends in power, and then rewrite that system behind you to hold on to that power. That is what the GOP is doing right god damn now, and in another generation at this rate anyone voting Democrat might as well throw their vote in the gutter for all the effect it will have.

 

[Armadox]

And so when they win 50.1 percent of the vote, you can die happy that democracy has achieved its purpose and things are as they should be. Then they will outlaw democratic expression. But at least they did it democratically.

Yes, if they somehow managed to convince 50.1% of the population that the very framework they are using to vote this government into power is something that should be removed, then by all means do so.

You do, of course, realise that the probability of this happening is so close to 0 that for all intents and purposes it might as well be.

IT'S LITERALLY HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

Of course it's not just as simple as taking a poll asking "should we abolish democracy?" and doing what the results say. It's an entire process of undermining the rights and ability of political opponents to vote against you.

Gerrymandering has crippled the power of American votes. Voter suppression is a real thing, such as targeting low-income areas with mandatory ID laws. You don't have to convince half the population to dump democracy in one fell swoop. You have to rig the system to get yourself and your like-minded friends in power, and then rewrite that system behind you to hold on to that power. That is what the GOP is doing right god damn now, and in another generation at this rate anyone voting Democrat might as well throw their vote in the gutter for all the effect it will have.

You forgot packing courts as quickly as they can in order to undermine any precedent that opposes their ideology. When Mitch McConnell can hold a supreme court seat hostage during his opponent's term, then say that everything he said before was bullshit and he's going to fill in those seats come hell or high water. There is no moral code, no ethical constant. They're losing ground when it comes to policy, so the goal is to fill in as many lifetime positions as they can in hopes that when they're gone their influence can continue far into the foreseeable future.

 

[Trunkage]

What your definition of Politcally Correct?

Going to overzealous and comical lengths to avoid the possibility of offending people.

So you certainly fall under "avoid possibility of offending people." The words Hitler, concentration camps and bigot being example of offense to certain people.

So the only possible contention is whether you were overzealous and comical.
Here some evidence:

"trying to use the genocide and concentration camps as an easy way to trigger moral outrage" I would agree, some fall into this category. But you started the sentence "when people", implying that this is the main reason people talk about gencide and concentration camp. Continuing on from that sentence...
"trigger moral outrage without actually having to give solid justifications for their reasoning." This is 8 pages long thread, but somehow, all these people you disagree with HAVE NOT JUSTIFICATION. Perhaps, might I suggest, that you just disagree with their reasoning. And it doesnt magically disappear because you disagree with it.
"80% of the country has been accused of being bigots and white supremacists since trump got elected" Well, I've got to say, at least you did say 90%. That would have been an unrealistic and made up number.
"This is one of the few threads in 3 years where the label actually fits". So, by your logic, only people who actually wear swastikas are Nazis? Anyone with the same views are definitely not white supremist or Nazis. That would be ridiculous.

Yeah, so I'd say check for overzealous and check for comical. Well done. Politically Correct Achievement Unlocked. Have a cookie

Meh. I would disagree completely. My point had less to do with offense. People are free to make terrible comparisons, it's just that being alarmist doesn't help whatever their point actually is.

Hence me pointing out that you were being alarmist

 

[Shadowstar38]

Hence me pointing out that you were being alarmist

Except I wasn't being alarmist, so the point kind of falls flat.

Edit: And yes, I understand that your earlier response was supposed to point out some type of hypocrisy on my part. But even after picking through the hyperbolic assessment, I'm still not seeing it.

 

[Abomination]

As you are the one claiming the existence of additional causes - a positive claim - it behooves you to cite the factors you believe to exist and provide the resources with which we can educate ourselves. Don't fall back to "no, you" out of aggravation.

I am going to in this case because let's be quite honest, there is no way the South relied 100% on slave labour to operate. I am not going to waste the time digging up examples of pre-war Southern businesses that did not employ slave labour, not to mention the fact that it was the aristocracy that owned slaves, not the everyday man.

 

[Abomination]

And so when they win 50.1 percent of the vote, you can die happy that democracy has achieved its purpose and things are as they should be. Then they will outlaw democratic expression. But at least they did it democratically.

Yes, if they somehow managed to convince 50.1% of the population that the very framework they are using to vote this government into power is something that should be removed, then by all means do so.

You do, of course, realise that the probability of this happening is so close to 0 that for all intents and purposes it might as well be.

IT'S LITERALLY HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

Of course it's not just as simple as taking a poll asking "should we abolish democracy?" and doing what the results say. It's an entire process of undermining the rights and ability of political opponents to vote against you.

Gerrymandering has crippled the power of American votes. Voter suppression is a real thing, such as targeting low-income areas with mandatory ID laws. You don't have to convince half the population to dump democracy in one fell swoop. You have to rig the system to get yourself and your like-minded friends in power, and then rewrite that system behind you to hold on to that power. That is what the GOP is doing right god damn now, and in another generation at this rate anyone voting Democrat might as well throw their vote in the gutter for all the effect it will have.

Yes, and the best way to combat this is with... more suppression?

"Get them first" is not an ethical democratic strategy.

 

[Armadox]

"Get them first" is not an ethical democratic strategy.

Ha ha ha ha ha, no. No, see... You can't hand wave all that by saying "They're allowed to do it, but you can't because if YOU do it, it's MORE suppression." More indicates the assholes are already suppressing. You can't get them first, if they've already dug up the goal posts and are running away with them. That's not how this works. Disingenuous argument aside. The them this started with are still god damn NAZIS. Yes, I have no problem suppressing Nazis. I have no problem suppressing them when they say "Kill All Gay People". I have no problem suppressing their ideology, hate and call to violence. You SHOULD stand up against that. You SHOULD not let them get a foothold that makes them worse, more dangerous, and harder to deal with.

You can give a blind eye to all this, you can ignore it cause it doesn't effect you, but when things hit the bottom. I don't think it's going to be possible to ignore the consequences of letting the worse people use people like you to defend their horrible behavior while they force the brakes on everything that has been accomplished in the rights of those who had none. Even if at it's most base concept you're trying to do the right thing for the right reasons, common sense says if you don't do something now while you can change what is happening. You might not get the chance to fix it later.

 

[Saelune]

Because the South's entire (evil) way of life was built on the oppression and dehumanization of black people.

No it wasn't.

Citation needed.

Citation needed that the entire South's way of life was built on slavery. That is an absurd claim.

How is it an absurd claim? They had slavery, you know this, right? This is no secret that the US South was huge into slavery more than anywhere, AND that they fought a war OVER SLAVERY.


Citation needed that it is not over just slavery AND citation needed that it is an absurd claim. But then, you think it is absurd to criticize Nazis for ACTIVELY ENDORSING GENOCIDE!, Or is it absurd to think people who want to kill all Jews and Blacks and Gays and Disabled want to do those things?


https://archive.org/stream/causescivilwar02chadgoog#page/n30/mode/1up

 

[Saelune]

As you are the one claiming the existence of additional causes - a positive claim - it behooves you to cite the factors you believe to exist and provide the resources with which we can educate ourselves. Don't fall back to "no, you" out of aggravation.

I am going to in this case because let's be quite honest, there is no way the South relied 100% on slave labour to operate. I am not going to waste the time digging up examples of pre-war Southern businesses that did not employ slave labour, not to mention the fact that it was the aristocracy that owned slaves, not the everyday man.

If you wont back your claims, then don't make them. You are literally saying you refuse to put up a reasonable debate.

 

[Abomination]

The paradox of tolerance

A tolerant society must be intolerant of intolerance

If someone is preaching and working towards supressing people because of their race or other characteristics, suppressing that person doesn't make us as bad as them

I understand the Paradox and in most other nations I would be fine with a certain type of group or organization being suppressed. But this is the US we're talking about, I do not believe giving any government organization the legal authority to suppress someone would not be used as an excuse to suppress others.

It's also this feeling that... if you need this type of legislation to ensure this type of mindset does not catch on, it's a bandaid on a festering wound. It's covering up a far greater problem.

Ha ha ha ha ha, no. No, see... You can't hand wave all that by saying "They're allowed to do it, but you can't because if YOU do it, it's MORE suppression."

They aren't allowed to do it. I am not saying they are allowed to suppress others either. Not sure where you are getting the idea that I think they should be allowed to break the law...

If you wont back your claims, then don't make them. You are literally saying you refuse to put up a reasonable debate.

"Entire" was your choice of words, not mine. Not wasting my time...

 

[Armadox]

Ha ha ha ha ha, no. No, see... You can't hand wave all that by saying "They're allowed to do it, but you can't because if YOU do it, it's MORE suppression."

They aren't allowed to do it. I am not saying they are allowed to suppress others either. Not sure where you are getting the idea that I think they should be allowed to break the law...

It's not breaking the law in examples given, it's reshaping the law to bake suppression in. It's creating barriers that make it harder to change things back, and easier to take it further by inches rather then by force. Your dismissal of a "get them first" strategy is sort of undermined by the fact that the examples TheVampwizimp (I hate your name by the way) gave are already happening. Already real institutionalized suppression.

The Southern Strategy didn't go away, it just was refined over the years.

 

[Silvanus]

As long as threats and violence are not being used to influence the democratic process, then they are free to promote what they think should be the way of things.

Wait, so you do not recognise restrictions on speech even for advocating violence, just so long as that violence doesn't get in the way of the democratic process? Am I understanding that right?

If so, that's incredibly far beyond even what most libertarians would argue.

 

[TheVampwizimp_v1legacy]

And so when they win 50.1 percent of the vote, you can die happy that democracy has achieved its purpose and things are as they should be. Then they will outlaw democratic expression. But at least they did it democratically.

Yes, if they somehow managed to convince 50.1% of the population that the very framework they are using to vote this government into power is something that should be removed, then by all means do so.

You do, of course, realise that the probability of this happening is so close to 0 that for all intents and purposes it might as well be.

IT'S LITERALLY HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

Of course it's not just as simple as taking a poll asking "should we abolish democracy?" and doing what the results say. It's an entire process of undermining the rights and ability of political opponents to vote against you.

Gerrymandering has crippled the power of American votes. Voter suppression is a real thing, such as targeting low-income areas with mandatory ID laws. You don't have to convince half the population to dump democracy in one fell swoop. You have to rig the system to get yourself and your like-minded friends in power, and then rewrite that system behind you to hold on to that power. That is what the GOP is doing right god damn now, and in another generation at this rate anyone voting Democrat might as well throw their vote in the gutter for all the effect it will have.

Yes, and the best way to combat this is with... more suppression?

"Get them first" is not an ethical democratic strategy.

And this is why it's been allowed to happen.

 

[Abomination]

It's not breaking the law in examples given, it's reshaping the law to bake suppression in. It's creating barriers that make it harder to change things back, and easier to take it further by inches rather then by force. Your dismissal of a "get them first" strategy is sort of undermined by the fact that the examples TheVampwizimp (I hate your name by the way) gave are already happening. Already real institutionalized suppression.

The Southern Strategy didn't go away, it just was refined over the years.

Those barriers are not presently being created by Neo-Nazis though. It has nothing to do with Neo-Nazi policy. The solution to the problem is to finally elect a representative with genuine popular appeal. The fact that the DNC was able to shoot itself in the foot last election is what caused this horrible regression in political mobility.

Taking shots at Neo-Nazis is not the solution to the problem, it will do nothing but create a new one. It's wasting resources fighting the wrong opponent.

Wait, so you do not recognise restrictions on speech even for advocating violence, just so long as that violence doesn't get in the way of the democratic process? Am I understanding that right?

If so, that's incredibly far beyond even what most libertarians would argue.

I believe a group should be allowed to preach or promote a political leaning, no matter how abhorrent or even contrary to the very system that allows them the freedom to express such contrary policy, so long as they do so within the bounds of the law.

I am not a libertarian, I am not a conservative, I am not a democrat, I am not a republican.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Those barriers are not presently being created by Neo-Nazis though.

Not solely, no, but racist authoritarianism isn't an issue totally separate from Neo-Nazis, oddly enough.

I believe a group should be allowed to preach or promote a political leaning, no matter how abhorrent or even contrary to the very system that allows them the freedom to express such contrary policy, so long as they do so within the bounds of the law.

So, if a law was passed specifically banning Nazis and allowing people to punch them, you'd be fine with that?

 

[Saelune]

If you wont back your claims, then don't make them. You are literally saying you refuse to put up a reasonable debate.

"Entire" was your choice of words, not mine. Not wasting my time...

Which means it shouldn't be hard for you to prove me wrong then.

If you cant prove me wrong, then you're just proving me right.

The consistent inability to prove me wrong only fuels and justifies me by the way.