|
Okay, no one who isn't projecting
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
FreeKillB posted:Hmm, yes what a well-considered and convincing position, I had never thought of this before. Surely if everyone adopted this reasoning only means that the right people (Nazis) would end up being punched. Other protestors (non-Nazis from across the political spectrum) would be fine!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
The funny part is that even if that Churchill quote were real, that Trump tweet shows more accurately what its real meaning would have been (ie not that people who fight fascists are automatically double-fascist)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:Whereas if we don't punch Nazis, I'm sure other protestors will be just fine as Nazis show the gratitude and respect that they're known for. Another dun thing to remember is a white supremacist shooting a protester in Seattle. The basis of democracy is letting opinions be openly stated and debated but Nazi ideology is committed to using violence to silence all others. They are no longer participants in democracy when they take up positions of genocide and fascism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:I would consider the argument that even Nazis have a right to not be punched in the face to be real. Like, it was funny and I'm not going to shed tears for the rear end in a top hat, but "it's okay to use violence to suppress the expression of political ideas I find abhorrent" is not a sentiment that I find compatible with the ideals of Western democracy. Is the freedom to express ideas that actively promote the destruction of that democracy and its ideals an essential part of democracy or is it a failing that leaves it dangerously unable to protect itself from absolutism? Should a democracy be forced to tie its hands behind its back against an ideology that actively seeks its destruction? You're using abhorrent as a personal value judgement when it's far more relevant that those political ideas are fundamentally incompatible with western democracy. There's a reason why German democracy values the preservation of said democracy over absolutist protections of free speech.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Honestly I disagree with the German approach, both on practical and theoretical grounds. I concede the point that taking the absolutist ACLU side often feels like unilateral disarmament. The price of freedom being eternal vigilance and all that. The short form of my position is that it's okay for people to have terrible views as long as they don't act on them. The harm done is by acting on one's toxic ideology, and such actions should, of course, be vigorously resisted. But preemptively going after the holders of such views under a veil of 'self-defense' smacks to me of thoughtcrime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
 Mike Dawson on climate change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
If someone was on a street corner handing out pro-ISIS literature they would, at best, get arrested. It should be the same for Nazis. Advocating for the genocide of entire races of people is unprotected speech. gently caress Nazis. You should get a metal for each Nazi poo poo weasel you punch with a nice bonus if you break their jaw.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Buzz Aldrin punched a moon-landing conspiracy theorist (Bart Sibrel) who pressed charges. The judge threw the case out of court. I feel like a judge would do the same. So yes, punching Nazis and moon-landing conspiracy theorists is cool and good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:Honestly I disagree with the German approach, both on practical and theoretical grounds. So, what if he had already acted, say, by organizing a campaign to intimidate local jews?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
 1Somehow, Horsey made Propaganda Barbie's outfit less ridiculous than the real thing.  2 3 4 5  6 7Put your head up Trump's rear end like Branco and you will see light!  8 9 10e: bonus LOL that's apparently making the rounds on Facebook  11"..and through the bong smoke I saw the guiding hand of Jesus." Sandpuppy fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Jan 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Sandpuppy posted:
That's not bong smoke, that's the artists semen staining the picture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:Honestly I disagree with the German approach, both on practical and theoretical grounds. Counterpoint: Nazis are bad and deserve to be punched.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Sandpuppy posted:
"Jesus teaches the president how to write"
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
I thought I remembered learning about this way back in highschool...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Buzz Aldrin punched a moon-landing conspiracy theorist (Bart Sibrel) who pressed charges. The judge threw the case out of court. I feel like a judge would do the same. So yes, punching Nazis and moon-landing conspiracy theorists is cool and good. That wasn't because of his views on the moon landing but because he was constantly harassing Buzz Aldrin. The nazi dude was giving an interview, which can't be construed as actively harassing or provoking someone even if he is a nazi douchebag who deserves to get punched.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
santanotreal posted:That wasn't because of his views on the moon landing but because he was constantly harassing Buzz Aldrin. Hmm yes, an interview with a man who advocates genocide is not provoking anyone, yes good point quite right
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Sandpuppy posted:e: bonus LOL that's apparently making the rounds on Facebook Vape Jesus is guiding his hand to The Button, freeing us from this gay earth and thread full of people inexplicably defending nazis
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
OldTennisCourt posted:Hmm yes, an interview with a man who advocates genocide is not provoking anyone, yes good point quite right Unfortunately he got punched when he was about to explain pepe memes, not while he was advocating genocide. Bad timing is all it was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
"No freedom for the enemies of freedom!" --Saint-Just I hope you will not try to argue morality with someone who is both Saint and Just.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
 Guardian:  "Martin Rowson on Donald Trump’s meeting with Theresa May – Prime minister indicates she will not challenge US president’s sexism when she visits the White House this week" Telegraph:  Independent:  Times: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Moddington posted:Unfortunately he got punched when he was about to explain pepe memes, not while he was advocating genocide. Bad timing is all it was. Didn't the splc just classify Pepe as hate speech?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Ambitious Spider posted:Didn't the splc just classify Pepe as hate speech? No, the ADL did that. quote:Pepe the Frog is commonly “used by haters on social media to suggest racist, anti-Semitic or other bigoted notions,” the ADL said in a statement announcing the hate-symbol designation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:No one equates non-nazis with nazis. In 2003, I was told that Saddam Hussein was a monster and if I didn't support violence against him then I was pro-Saddam. Now I'm being told that Richard Spencer is a monster and if I don't support violence against him then I'm pro-Nazi. Yes, yes, I know that it's different because a lot of civilians got killed in the Iraq invasion. It's still absurd to say that being opposed to violence means you are on the side of those targeted by violence. The argument that "no one's taking away their rights, they're just saying they should get attacked for exercising them" is equally stupid. It's not that different from "anyone who disrespects the flag should be beaten." There's always someone ready to say that violence is okay as long as the target is a really bad person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:There's always someone ready to say that violence is okay as long as the target is a really bad person. Well... huh... yes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:In 2003, I was told that Saddam Hussein was a monster and if I didn't support violence against him then I was pro-Saddam. Now I'm being told that Richard Spencer is a monster and if I don't support violence against him then I'm pro-Nazi. Yes, yes, I know that it's different because a lot of civilians got killed in the Iraq invasion. It's still absurd to say that being opposed to violence means you are on the side of those targeted by violence. The argument that "no one's taking away their rights, they're just saying they should get attacked for exercising them" is equally stupid. It's not that different from "anyone who disrespects the flag should be beaten." There's always someone ready to say that violence is okay as long as the target is a really bad person. He actively and frequently advocates for the extermination of all non-whites and the destruction of democratic rule. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:In 2003, I was told that Saddam Hussein was a monster and if I didn't support violence against him then I was pro-Saddam. Now I'm being told that Richard Spencer is a monster and if I don't support violence against him then I'm pro-Nazi. Yes, yes, I know that it's different because a lot of civilians got killed in the Iraq invasion. It's still absurd to say that being opposed to violence means you are on the side of those targeted by violence. The argument that "no one's taking away their rights, they're just saying they should get attacked for exercising them" is equally stupid. It's not that different from "anyone who disrespects the flag should be beaten." There's always someone ready to say that violence is okay as long as the target is a really bad person. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
The surgeons glove suddenly propelling itself into the ceiling makes this the best Rall ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:In 2003, I was told that Saddam Hussein was a monster and if I didn't support violence against him then I was pro-Saddam. Now I'm being told that Richard Spencer is a monster and if I don't support violence against him then I'm pro-Nazi. Yes, yes, I know that it's different because a lot of civilians got killed in the Iraq invasion. It's still absurd to say that being opposed to violence means you are on the side of those targeted by violence. The argument that "no one's taking away their rights, they're just saying they should get attacked for exercising them" is equally stupid. It's not that different from "anyone who disrespects the flag should be beaten." There's always someone ready to say that violence is okay as long as the target is a really bad person. I appreciate the point you are making here, but I think that the fact that they are domestic threats with stated antidemocratic goals who are starting to wax in power, yet would take little or no militaristic power to take down is incomparable to a foreign power that we would need to expend massive military resources to avoid a small to nonexistent threat of direct attack. I mean Saddam was a monster but a full scale invasion was a massive over-reaction to an imagined threat while neo-nazism has gotten a very loud domestic voice that can be shut down with peaceful marches and the odd scuffle. The threat:action needed ratio is completely different.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:In 2003, I was told that Saddam Hussein was a monster and if I didn't support violence against him then I was pro-Saddam. Now I'm being told that Richard Spencer is a monster and if I don't support violence against him then I'm pro-Nazi. Yes, yes, I know that it's different because a lot of civilians got killed in the Iraq invasion. It's still absurd to say that being opposed to violence means you are on the side of those targeted by violence. The argument that "no one's taking away their rights, they're just saying they should get attacked for exercising them" is equally stupid. It's not that different from "anyone who disrespects the flag should be beaten." There's always someone ready to say that violence is okay as long as the target is a really bad person. "gently caress up anyone who disrespects the flag (an inanimate object of no material value)" and "gently caress up anyone who advocates for violent systemic oppression" are not equivalent just because you can categorize them a certain way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:He actively and frequently advocates for the extermination of all non-whites and the destruction of democratic rule. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. True, but strictly speaking that consequence should be legal. Don't get me wrong, I'm very viscerally happy that stupid Nazi man got punched, and as a crime it would definitely rate lower than assaulting a random person or even assaulting some WBC fuckhead. It's still a crime, however, and I'd stop short of advocating it as a policy. Systematically ignoring vigilantism is a pretty dangerous Pandora's Box to open. Lord Hydronium posted:Except, y'know, Nazis actually are bad people as a rule, unlike flag burners. This is like Lester complaining that protesting against homophobia is just as bad as protesting against gay people - both sides think the other is bad, who are we to judge? It's not that no one is judging them, it's that advocating violence against someone who is expressing an (admittedly monstrous) political opinion opens the door to bad things for everyone. Where do you draw the line? Is a punch okay, but a lasting beating bad? Can you kill them? And of course, the most obvious and important problem -- how hated does a group have to be to get beatings? Should it be cool to punch Stalinists? Maoists? Sex offenders? Religious radicals? A really important thing to remember is that the Nazi's didn't win political power just by sulking in their rooms and whining about the Jews like this guy does. They took very concrete, violent action -- they went into the streets, beat people up, broke up meetings, and did a ton of poo poo that is currently illegal. The example someone gave earlier about Muslims is actually a pretty good example -- there are some Muslims who ideologically support ISIL, but that doesn't get them arrested in our current system. Generally, the ones who get arrested are doing more concrete things, like funneling money and recruits to the actual organization.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Emasculator posted:The example someone gave earlier about Muslims is actually a pretty good example -- there are some Muslims who ideologically support ISIL, but that doesn't get them arrested in our current system. What the gently caress are you talking about
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Sandpuppy posted:
Jesus is helping guide Trump's hand to sign his resignation letter
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Emasculator posted:It's still a crime, however, and I'd stop short of advocating it as a policy. Batman did nothing wrong
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Attitude Indicator posted:The surgeons glove suddenly propelling itself into the ceiling makes this the best Rall ever. For a brief moment on first glance, I thought I was looking at a Twitter bird taking off. Thanks Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  (At first I thought it was Paul Ryan, but the artist says it's Goebbels)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:Batman did nothing wrong Batman would've won.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
Nope. He's your boy, Payne. You and Ramirez and tens of dozens of others of your profession have worked tirelessly to normalize his positions and views and now he's here, he's actually loving here and you're starting to realize what a huge loving mistake this all was. You don't get to have it both ways. You get your dickless rear end back to worshiping him. You loving shitbrain coward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 23:43
|
|