Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Bunni-kat
May 25, 2010

Service Desk B-b-bunny...
How can-ca-caaaaan I
help-p-p-p you?

Odddzy posted:

I think that if anyone has fantasies on the subject of beating up Nazis, I'd want to see them post in one of the martial arts threads on this here forum and actually train reliably in combat sports or they're only kidding themselves as to their actual chances and shouldn't go in harms way. I think Phanatic was kinda frustrated at the posturing of internet tough guys that albeit good hearted, have no loving clue what they are talking about.

I remember seeing a pic of a very light antifa lady that posted pics of herself before going to a protest looking for a fight and posted after pics with her face all bloody after getting beaten up by Nazis. That's what could happen to any protestor. It's dangerous out there and just crossing fingers and hoping that you've got people that will have your back in the crowd is taking a huge loving risk.

No, Phanatic is absolutely "the rule of law overrules all other concerns". If he saw someone training specifically to beat up Nazis he would throw an absolute shitfit.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

CommonShore
Jun 6, 2014

A true renaissance man


FogHelmut
Dec 18, 2003

Crain
Jun 27, 2007

I had a beer once with Stephen Miller and now I like him.

I also tried to ban someone from a Discord for pointing out what an unrelenting shithead I am! I'm even dumb enough to think it worked!

Powered Descent posted:

Appreciate the effortpost.

If he was less of an rear end in a top hat, I'd just find this whole story kind of sad. (A LOT of people get out of school and run head-on into the realization that being pretty good at math doesn't guarantee success and happiness, and doesn't even mean they're special. Hell, that happened to me.) But since he's gone all alt-right, that pushes all of this well into "funny" territory, and makes for prime fodder for this thread. Thanks again for the writeup.

I think the biggest thing that needs to happen is for people to fight back against these false narratives that the Alt-Right figure heads have constructed for themselves.

I know Greg's story. Someone out there knows Richard's. And the stories of all these other people that show what they really are.

Only sharing this here doesn't do much though, so I'm trying to figure out a good way to push some reporters into looking into it. Maybe point them toward his mother or some other people who know what's up.

DontMockMySmock
Aug 9, 2008

I got this title for the dumbest fucking possible take on sea shanties. Specifically, I derailed the meme thread because sailors in the 18th century weren't woke enough for me, and you shouldn't sing sea shanties. In fact, don't have any fun ever.
Phanatic, you know that incitements to violence aren't generally considered protected speech, right?

There's a reason I've set my browser's word filter to change "free speech" to "white supremacy." People who whine and scream about their "free speech" in 2017 are almost exclusively advocating for their right to threaten others. Yeah, saying "we want to secure a homeland for white people" might not sound like a threat by itself, devoid of historical and cultural context (and the context of the speech it's in). It might even sound like a bit of speech that is protected. But what they actually mean, and what is clearly in their speeches if you give it a few seconds of loving thought, is "we want to kill/evict/arrest/etc. all the people that we decide aren't white."

Now, if you're a constitutional scholar, you'll be screaming at me, "Hey DMMS! What about Brandenburg versus Ohio (1969), where it was concluded that incitements to violence had to be immediate in order to be unprotected? Nazis are only advocating for vague, future violence!" Well, for starters, I think that ruling is kind of bullshit and deserves another look to hash out some of the details when it comes to speech that is intended to organize and galvanize groups to commit future violence. But besides that, I'll direct you also to consider Chaplinsky versus New Hampshire (1942), where it was concluded that "fighting words," words that provoke a fight, are unprotected. In the words of the ruling, I think that people like Richard Spencer "tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." The words in the ruling that were considered "fighting words" were "damned racketeer" and "damned fascist" (ironic, that one), and I'd say being told that you're a garbage human who deserves to be driven from your home and/or killed (which, no mistake, is what white supremacist speeches say to non-white people) is much stronger than being called a racketeer and fascist. (Admittedly, Richard Spencer might swear less than Chaplinsky did, if you're the kind of infantile moron who thinks the word "damned" is the important part of what was happening there.)

So that's why, when you say that these Nazis need to have their speech protected, we think one of the following things must be true:
1. you stupidly think that all speech should be equally protected, with literally no limitation
2. you're under the mistaken belief that people like Richard Spencer aren't Nazis and aren't inciting violence, perhaps because you're too stupid to read their statements in context
3. you're a nazi
And then we check out your red text and go with option 3!

CommissarMega
Nov 18, 2008

THUNDERDOME LOSER
Put it this way: Would you let a radical Islamist preacher say whatever they like? Would you want them to have a platform to normalize their views? If you don't, then you shouldn't extend that courtesy towards Nazis, because they want practically the exact same things the ISIS guy does.

Barry Bluejorts
Jun 30, 2013

Now please touch your finger to the tip of your nose.
Pillbug
Jesus people, the page ended on a derail post please take the hint.

Away all Goats
Jul 5, 2005

Goose's rebellion

Won't somebody please think of the nazis :qq:

https://i.imgur.com/E6zNy8G.gifv

Bunni-kat
May 25, 2010

Service Desk B-b-bunny...
How can-ca-caaaaan I
help-p-p-p you?

Barry Bluejorts posted:

Jesus people, the page ended on a derail post please take the hint.

You’re not Weatherman, so it doesn’t work. Find your own derail gif.

Regalingualius
Jan 7, 2012

We gazed into the eyes of madness... And all we found was horny.




I took a break from this thread for a few months precisely because of Phanatic's apparent pathological need to be a know-nothing know-it-all every single goddamn time he posts in here. Coming back to the same bullshit (but worse) as when I left is... not exactly the best reintroduction.

Phanatic
Mar 13, 2007

Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

DontMockMySmock posted:

Phanatic, you know that incitements to violence aren't generally considered protected speech, right?

Unless the incitement is both intended and likely to lead to imminent lawless action, they are. Note that all the words in that sentence have specific legal meaning.

quote:

But besides that, I'll direct you also to consider Chaplinsky versus New Hampshire (1942), where it was concluded that "fighting words," words that provoke a fight, are unprotected.

Chaplinsky? You might as well go back to Schenck or Debs. Chaplinksy was, as your indicate with your date, very pre-Brandenburg. And subsequent cases, while they have not totally eliminated the fighting words doctrine, have curtailed it so much that it’s difficult to even envision a case where a fighting-words exception would apply. People have tried to shoehorn all kinds of “speech I don’t like” into the fighting-words doctrine (flag burning, wearing a jacket that says “gently caress the draft,” etc), and courts have never had any of it. If you think Chaplinsky means much about anything, then you should look into Gooding; if calling a cop a “white son of a bitch” while trying to strangle him isn’t fighting words, it’s hard to see what would be. The doctrine is all but dead.

https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-words-exception/

Moreover, if you’re going to suggest that if people get upset over a form of speech and get violent, then that makes the speech fighting words and hence unprotected, you are providing a hell of incentive for people to get violent when confronted by speech they don’t like. That’s called the heckler’s veto and courts don’t like it.

CommissarMega posted:

Put it this way: Would you let a radical Islamist preacher say whatever they like? Would you want them to have a platform to normalize their views? If you don't, then you shouldn't extend that courtesy towards Nazis, because they want practically the exact same things the ISIS guy does.

Alternately: if the state should oppress Nazi speech (or if it’s okay to punch Nazis) then shouldn’t it also oppress the speech of radical Islamist preachers (or it should be okay to punch them)?

Obviously, it’s okay to trust the Trump-led Department of Justice to tell the difference between the “radical Islamist” imams and just the plain regular non-radical imams, right? Nothing bad could come from having that be the policy in a country where most people can’t even tell the difference between a Muslim and a Sikh.

Phanatic has a new favorite as of 06:32 on Mar 6, 2018

Barry Bluejorts
Jun 30, 2013

Now please touch your finger to the tip of your nose.
Pillbug

Avenging_Mikon posted:

You’re not Weatherman, so it doesn’t work. Find your own derail gif.

Not a drat thing better than that one. But fair. I'll come back tomorrow when people are done talking at walls.

Fantastic Flyer
Aug 9, 2017
Lowtax would make a killing if he charged $5 to give another user a sixer.

Gum
Mar 9, 2008

oho, a rapist
time to try this puppy out

Regalingualius posted:

know-nothing know-it-all every single goddamn time he posts in here.

That's really good if it was deliberate

Poops Mcgoots
Jul 12, 2010

Phanatic posted:

Unless the incitement is both intended and likely to lead to imminent lawless action, they are. Note that all the words in that sentence have specific legal meaning.


Chaplinsky? You might as well go back to Schenck or Debs. Chaplinksy was, as your indicate with your date, very pre-Brandenburg. And subsequent cases, while they have not totally eliminated the fighting words doctrine, have curtailed it so much that it’s difficult to even envision a case where a fighting-words exception would apply. People have tried to shoehorn all kinds of “speech I don’t like” into the fighting-words doctrine (flag burning, wearing a jacket that says “gently caress the draft,” etc), and courts have never had any of it. If you think Chaplinsky means much about anything, then you should look into Gooding; if calling a cop a “white son of a bitch” while trying to strangle him isn’t fighting words, it’s hard to see what would be. The doctrine is all but dead.

Moreover, if you’re going to suggest that if people get upset over a form of speech and get violent, then that makes the speech fighting words and hence unprotected, you are providing a hell of incentive for people to get violent when confronted by speech they don’t like. That’s called the heckler’s veto and courts don’t like it.


Alternately: if the state should oppress Nazi speech (or if it’s okay to punch Nazis) then shouldn’t it also oppress the speech of radical Islamist preachers (or it should be okay to punch them)?

Obviously, it’s okay to trust the Trump-led Department of Justice to tell the difference between the “radical Islamist” imams and just the plain regular non-radical imams, right? Nothing bad could come from having that be the policy in a country where most people can’t even tell the difference between a Muslim and a Sikh.

lmao

Regalingualius
Jan 7, 2012

We gazed into the eyes of madness... And all we found was horny.




Gum posted:

That's really good if it was deliberate

It is.

Bunni-kat
May 25, 2010

Service Desk B-b-bunny...
How can-ca-caaaaan I
help-p-p-p you?

Barry Bluejorts posted:

Not a drat thing better than that one. But fair. I'll come back tomorrow when people are done talking at walls.

Yeah, it is really good.

GolfHole
Feb 26, 2004

Which ideology is it if you want everybody to shut the gently caress up forever.

Feonir
Mar 30, 2011

Ask me about aquatic cocaine transportation and by-standard management.
Phanatic is so loving dense we should use him as reactor shielding.

https://i.imgur.com/BgDzeXm.mp4

Trig Discipline
Jun 3, 2008

Please leave the room if you think this might offend you.
Grimey Drawer

FuhrerHat posted:

Which ideology is it if you want everybody to shut the gently caress up forever.

I don't know but I will at least read your pamphlet.

Pudding Space
Mar 19, 2014
No one cares about your inwardly spiralling arguments, you infantile dickheads. Go do something tangible instead of pissing your time and energy into the void of the internet. I'm here to see people get hit in the nuts and hoist on their own petards.

Sulla Faex
May 14, 2010

No man ever did me so much good, or enemy so much harm, but I repaid him with ENDLESS SHITPOSTING

Pudding Space posted:

No one cares about your inwardly spiralling arguments, you infantile dickheads. Go do something tangible instead of pissing your time and energy into the void of the internet. I'm here to see people get hit in the nuts and hoist on their own petards.

I was becucked by my own libtard :furcry:

Perestroika
Apr 8, 2010

Phanatic posted:

As I've mentioned before, if you look at any nation that has hate speech laws like you advocate, you'll find that those laws are not limited in application to the people you don't like. Germany recently prosecuted a comedian for making fun of Erdogan. Germany's new Net Enforcement Law is currently opposed not only by hard-right parties, but also by the Free Democrats, the Greens, and the Left party.

Actually, Böhmermann was not prosecuted. The prosecution investigated, came to the conclusion that his statements were obviously satirical, and didn't lay any charges against him. The relevant law that started the whole thing was also scrapped shortly thereafter, as it was basically an outdated relic that is no longer applicable to the modern world (much like a certain other document :v:). The whole thing was pretty much the system working as intended. Now, as for the the NetzDG, that is indeed garbage and mostly the fault of a certain minister who wanted to be seen as doing something. That said, it's borderline guaranteed to be either struck entirely or severely limited in scope once the constitutional court gets to it.

Saint Freak
Apr 16, 2007

Regretting is an insult to oneself
Buglord

DontMockMySmock posted:

Phanatic, you know that incitements to violence aren't generally considered protected speech, right?

There's a reason I've set my browser's word filter to change "free speech" to "white supremacy." People who whine and scream about their "free speech" in 2017 are almost exclusively advocating for their right to threaten others. Yeah, saying "we want to secure a homeland for white people" might not sound like a threat by itself, devoid of historical and cultural context (and the context of the speech it's in). It might even sound like a bit of speech that is protected. But what they actually mean, and what is clearly in their speeches if you give it a few seconds of loving thought, is "we want to kill/evict/arrest/etc. all the people that we decide aren't white."

Now, if you're a constitutional scholar, you'll be screaming at me, "Hey DMMS! What about Brandenburg versus Ohio (1969), where it was concluded that incitements to violence had to be immediate in order to be unprotected? Nazis are only advocating for vague, future violence!" Well, for starters, I think that ruling is kind of bullshit and deserves another look to hash out some of the details when it comes to speech that is intended to organize and galvanize groups to commit future violence. But besides that, I'll direct you also to consider Chaplinsky versus New Hampshire (1942), where it was concluded that "fighting words," words that provoke a fight, are unprotected. In the words of the ruling, I think that people like Richard Spencer "tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." The words in the ruling that were considered "fighting words" were "damned racketeer" and "damned fascist" (ironic, that one), and I'd say being told that you're a garbage human who deserves to be driven from your home and/or killed (which, no mistake, is what white supremacist speeches say to non-white people) is much stronger than being called a racketeer and fascist. (Admittedly, Richard Spencer might swear less than Chaplinsky did, if you're the kind of infantile moron who thinks the word "damned" is the important part of what was happening there.)

So that's why, when you say that these Nazis need to have their speech protected, we think one of the following things must be true:
1. you stupidly think that all speech should be equally protected, with literally no limitation
2. you're under the mistaken belief that people like Richard Spencer aren't Nazis and aren't inciting violence, perhaps because you're too stupid to read their statements in context
3. you're a nazi
And then we check out your red text and go with option 3!

Is the ironic part that the derail you typed all this about started over people inciting violence against white supremacists?

Weatherman
Jul 30, 2003

WARBLEKLONK
*sprints into thread, out of breath*

Sorry all, had a busy afternoon at work and couldn't grab time to shitpost. Thanks to those who stepped in for me. Without any further ado:

Samizdata
May 14, 2007

Weatherman posted:

*sprints into thread, out of breath*

Sorry all, had a busy afternoon at work and couldn't grab time to shitpost. Thanks to those who stepped in for me. Without any further ado:



That's okay. I am finally making my own backup copy. In case it is needed and our brave protector and re-railer is occupied elsewhere.

Schubalts
Nov 26, 2007

People say bigger is better.

But for the first time in my life, I think I've gone too far.

Saint Freak posted:

Is the ironic part that the derail you typed all this about started over people inciting violence against white supremacists?

Consider it inciting self defense against people who want non-whites dead or gone.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

EmmyOk
Aug 11, 2013

I'm gonna lock this thread for now, it's derailed a punch of times and like 5 pages happened over night of people yelling about nazis. It's 1600 pages so I'll reboot it in a few days with new rules in the OP. I'll be catching up with all these posts over the next day or two so don't be surprised if probations are a bit delayed.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply