[The Succ Zone] I unblocked you, again, to say this: You don't fucking know me. - The Something Awful Forums

The C-Spam Times

Better Posts Aren't Possible

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.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [The Succ Zone] I unblocked you, again, to say this: You don't fucking know me.

«‹›2987 »

comingafteryouall: Aug 2, 2011

loquacius posted:

Yeah my take on this is that it is not literally illegal to be a Nazi, and that's good because a country where the government can dictate which political opinions are allowed is not a good country, but at the same time we should make drat sure Nazis know what we think of them, make sure everyone is perfectly clear on exactly what they are, scare the poo poo out of them and make them cry, and also punch them whenever possible

e: To make it clearer, we should deny Nazis a platform, but not use state machinery to do it

Just drown 'em out and make them go home crying. Boston did this well.

yeah this is basically how we're handling it now and the nazis aren't faring too well

without Trump around poo poo would really be bad for them

# ? Aug 25, 2017 15:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 13, 2024 00:19

Thoguh: Nov 8, 2002; College Slice

Gene Hackman Fan posted:

oh dear that is unfortunate Chomsky and Killer Mike?

Meh, the posters in the thread are divided on that. Personally I don't like the idea of anyone defining what speech can or can't be said because I don't trust the people who would be making the decisions about what constitutes reasonable speech.

# ? Aug 25, 2017 15:37

loquacius: Oct 21, 2008; Can't post for 2 hours!

comingafteryouall posted:

yeah this is basically how we're handling it now and the nazis aren't faring too well

without Trump around poo poo would really be bad for them

Without Trump around they'd still be underground where they belong keeping their loving mouths shut. The only reason they feel like they can suddenly be part of American discourse now is that someone got elected President while pandering to them. We need to show them they are mistaken, but again, it's a very good thing that state machinery is not our means of doing this.

Trump's election really emboldened a lot of America's seedy underbelly, I heard of drunk assholes groping women in public on Nov 9th because "Trump's President, I can do this whenever I want now" etc etc etc

Thoguh posted:

Meh, the posters in the thread are divided on that. Personally I don't like the idea of anyone defining what speech can or can't be said because I don't trust the people who would be making the decisions about what constitutes reasonable speech.

Yeah, basically this. Saying "those Nazis have the legal right to be Nazis" is ok as long as you're serious about opposing them by other means and not using it as an excuse to sit at home and eat sheetcake.

# ? Aug 25, 2017 15:42

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

loquacius posted:

Anyone who uses free speech as a justification to defend something they've said is basically saying "hey, this opinion I have is not technically illegal "

while this is true, it's not really relevant, and making an appeal to that at all shows you know you're loving wrong

I think it was the latest Chapo that said that the reason why Nazi rallies keep getting called Free Speech rallies is so that they don't have to argue in favor of Nazism, they just have to argue that Nazism technically isn't illegal.

....

Emmanuel Macron Is No Model For Democrats

quote:

Suave, clean-cut, and well-spoken, Macron the candidate seemed like the product of a centrist basement lab. He never pitched himself as a progressive savior. Instead, he perpetuated a pretense that is popular among a Bloombergian Western elite: that what voters really want is a candidate who combines progressive social positions with an economic agenda that is friendly to corporations and austerity-minded bureaucrats.

His policies, if enacted, would transfer wealth from the French working and middle classes to the upper class, and would only worsen an austerity crisis that he helped create as a minister in the previous government of Francois Hollande, the most unpopular president in French history. �All in all, it�s a program nearly guaranteed to aggravate the problems at the heart of France�s political crisis: unemployment, inequality, and poverty,� Cole Stangler wrote in Dissent in April. �These are the same forces driving growing numbers of French people to withdraw from politics altogether�or worse yet, cast ballots for the National Front.�

If Macron is an avatar for anything, it is not for genuine progress but for the presidency as product placement. A former investment banker, he promotes a soft tech-utopianism that reinforces rather than challenges the very forces that drive inequality and popular disillusionment with Europe�s technocrats. According to The Financial Times, Macron�s premier, Edouard Philippe, laughed at suggestions that Macron�s policies are conservative. �Yes, what did you expect?� he said.

...

Macron was able to position himself as a political outsider, a man apart from France�s loathed political establishment�never mind that he served in Hollande�s administration, first as deputy secretary-general of the �lys�e, then as minister of economy and finance, and in both positions established himself as an ally to the finance industry. Contra his maverick branding, he is not a real political outsider. His abysmal poll numbers are only the most obvious sign that his approach to politics is deeply, depressingly familiar. Marketing may put you in office, but it can only get you so far. You also need a philosophy, and Macron�s is intellectually and morally bankrupt.

There is no exact American analogue to Macron right now. Democrats and Republicans are both distrusted but there is no indication yet that a majority of voters would consider voting for a third party. But within the Democratic Party a similar choice is taking shape between a genuine vision for change and a centrist status quo�as well as a similar risk of producing a Macron-like presidential candidate in 2020.

On the one hand, Democrats have reason to hope. Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist, consistently tops popularity polls. Single-payer health care, one of his signature issues, is increasingly popular too; Rep. John Conyers� Medicare for All bill boasts the most co-sponsors it�s had since he started introducing it in 2003. The party�s platform now backs a $15 minimum wage. Democrats promising increased public spending�on public schools, specifically�just flipped two deep red seats in the Oklahoma legislature, and a Sanders supporter flipped a similar seat in the New York State Assembly in May.

It�s still too early to tell how successful a progressive populist strategy will be�populists lost special elections in Montana and Kansas, for example�and a populist candidate can�t immediately solve years of Republican efforts to gerrymander districts and suppress the vote. But the evidence strongly suggests there is a hunger for something bold and new.

On the other hand, there are plenty of reasons to worry. Despite the zeal of its base, which has led to competitive races across the country, Democrats are lagging behind Republicans in fundraising. The party�s leadership is ambivalent about the party�s platform, and has suggested it will compromise on social issues like abortion. Centrist groups like FTW and New Democracy and Third Way have sprung up alongside progressive alternatives like Our Revolution, and they boast the support of big names in official Democratic circles. Like Macron, the party has positioned itself as the only sane alternative to a right-wing fascist; but like Macron, the actual contours of its agenda are mostly vague, and when they are discernible they often reveal an overarching commitment to the status quo.

The lessons of Macron�s young presidency are clear. After decades of rising inequality, after years of inadequate and often counterproductive responses to the financial crisis, voters want real change, of the kind that strengthens entitlements, not weakens them; that makes it harder for corporations to lay off workers, not easier; that will raise taxes on the rich, not coddle them. An American Macron cannot fill that role; worse, it could play right into the hands of those on the right who are working toward a very different kind of change. Macron�s struggles reinforce a conclusion that has been a long time coming: Democrats must move left. And fast.

# ? Aug 25, 2017 15:43

fits my needs: Jan 1, 2011; Grimey Drawer

gradenko_2000 posted:

I think it was the latest Chapo that said that the reason why Nazi rallies keep getting called Free Speech rallies is so that they don't have to argue in favor of Nazism, they just have to argue that Nazism technically isn't illegal.

....

Emmanuel Macron Is No Model For Democrats

:pedophiles:

# ? Aug 25, 2017 15:45

docbeard: Jul 19, 2011

Lyrics gimmick on hiatus for now. IT MAY RETURN. I'm sure you all care.

Anyway, the way I see it is that the First Amendment's intent and purpose is very specific. It's not that you have the absolute right to say anything you please and no one anywhere can interfere with that in any way or even criticize you for expressing yourself, it's that the government (or other similar central authority figure) cannot be allowed to make the determination of what is and isn't okay for people to say because they will abuse that power. It grows from a (generally justified by colonial rule) skepticism toward centralized power.

Or, more simply, I am allowed to shout down Nazis. It is not a violation of their rights for me to do so.

The government isn't allowed to, because the government is probably made up of idiots like Donald Trump and so they cannot be trusted.

# ? Aug 25, 2017 15:45

Serf: May 5, 2011

if you make saying 'i'm a nazi" illegal, how will you find the nazis for purging

# ? Aug 25, 2017 15:46

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; Can't post for 14 minutes!

free speech is a bourgeois concept

# ? Aug 25, 2017 15:46

Oh Snapple!: Dec 27, 2005

Popped into TGRS, saw and wondered why negrotown had a sudden post spike.

Turns out we hate seeing successful black people, everyone!

# ? Aug 25, 2017 15:51

Frijolero: Jan 24, 2009; by Nyc_Tattoo

I also look at it like this:

Dems are a gently caress and keep losing. If you push to limit free speech, god knows how that would be implemented, then inevitably the Republicans are going to have another tool in their toolbox. They can store it next to nice the mass surveillance that Obama handed to them.

# ? Aug 25, 2017 15:51

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

docbeard posted:

Or, more simply, I am allowed to shout down Nazis. It is not a violation of their rights for me to do so.

The government isn't allowed to, because the government is probably made up of idiots like Donald Trump and so they cannot be trusted.

The way I've tried to frame it is that the government shouldn't censor speech, but society, as an assemblage of private individuals acting of their own accord, can and should be able to determine what's acceptable to them or not.

# ? Aug 25, 2017 15:51

loquacius: Oct 21, 2008; Can't post for 2 hours!

Oh Snapple! posted:

Popped into TGRS, saw and wondered why negrotown had a sudden post spike.

Turns out we hate seeing successful black people, everyone!

Just as this is the thread for holding Dems accountable for their decisions and policies, that is the thread for discussing whether various things are racist. It's the natural order of the forums.

the_byrds_turn_turn_turn.mp3

I looked though and it did amuse me that the second post I saw was a reaction gif, expressing very strong agreement with someone

don't see much of that on SA

# ? Aug 25, 2017 15:55

Frijolero: Jan 24, 2009; by Nyc_Tattoo

Nazis would love to get their rights curbed so they can have an actual revolutionary casus belli.

Whereas, if the public just beats them up all the time, they can't really coalesce against a tangible enemy.

# ? Aug 25, 2017 15:58

Squizzle: Apr 24, 2008

Raskolnikov38 posted:

free speech is a bourgeois concept

no thats free dressage saddles

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:00

loquacius: Oct 21, 2008; Can't post for 2 hours!

The right wing LOVES being affronted and playing the victim as a result of perceived injustice that doesn't actually harm them

They don't love being yelled at by angry people and beaten up. You can tell because they start crying.

Again, the Boston rally was a fantastic reaction, because it involved a tiny number of Nazis being besieged in a gazebo by an angry mob for a while before fleeing in literal tears under police protection :allears:

:allears:

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:01

Oh Snapple!: Dec 27, 2005

Squizzle posted:

no thats free dressage saddles

I've never been so disgusted by an item I've never heard of before

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:02

Zerg Mans: Oct 19, 2006

loquacius posted:

Yeah my take on this is that it is not literally illegal to be a Nazi, and that's good because a country where the government can dictate which political opinions are allowed is not a good country, but at the same time we should make drat sure Nazis know what we think of them, make sure everyone is perfectly clear on exactly what they are, scare the poo poo out of them and make them cry, and also punch them whenever possible

e: To make it clearer, we should deny Nazis a platform, but not use state machinery to do it

Just drown 'em out and make them go home crying. Boston did this well.

In Germany it's illegal to be a nazi and it's not some sort of horrifying hellscape of government excess. Some people don't deserve human rights afforded others because they forfeited their humanity by adhering to destructive ideas.

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:06

Frijolero: Jan 24, 2009; by Nyc_Tattoo

Oh Snapple! posted:

Popped into TGRS, saw and wondered why negrotown had a sudden post spike.

Turns out we hate seeing successful black people, everyone!

lol people are still crying about leftists being mad about Obama taking 400k from a Wall Street firm

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:08

Lastgirl: Sep 7, 1997; Good Morning!
Sunday Morning!

zegermans posted:

Some people don't deserve human rights afforded others because they forfeited their humanity by adhering to destructive ideas.

much like your posting

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:09

loquacius: Oct 21, 2008; Can't post for 2 hours!

zegermans posted:

In Germany it's illegal to be a nazi and it's not some sort of horrifying hellscape of government excess. Some people don't deserve human rights afforded others because they forfeited their humanity by adhering to destructive ideas.

That makes sense in Germany because of Germany's history of literally inventing the term "Nazi" and letting them run their government for a decade. They have a basis for outlawing that kind of speech that doesn't work for any other kind of speech.

That's not the case in this country. In America, given our history, we have exactly as much legal basis to outlaw Nazism as we do to outlaw, say, Communism. And outlawing Communism is actually more likely to pass at the government level. And once Communism is outlawed, a whole lot of socialist speech/organizing could be prevented as well, because a lot of American society has a vested interest in not knowing the difference between these two concepts.

So it's overall better for us if we just don't go down that path at all.

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:09

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

They deserve human rights, and they deserve civil rights, but they also ought to be held responsible for crimes they commit. And frankly the fact that inciting violence based on race or religion is not considered a crime is an omission and a mistake, not a triumph of liberalism.

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:10

Serf: May 5, 2011

loquacius posted:

That makes sense in Germany because of Germany's history of literally inventing the term "Nazi" and letting them run their government for a decade. They have a basis for outlawing that kind of speech that doesn't work for any other kind of speech.

That's not the case in this country. In America, given our history, we have exactly as much legal basis to outlaw Nazism as we do to outlaw, say, Communism. And outlawing Communism is actually more likely to pass at the government level. And once Communism is outlawed, a whole lot of socialist speech/organizing could be prevented as well, because a lot of American society has a vested interest in not knowing the difference between these two concepts.

So it's overall better for us if we just don't go down that path at all.

we should have outlawed confederatism

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:13

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

loquacius posted:

That makes sense in Germany because of Germany's history of literally inventing the term "Nazi" and letting them run their government for a decade. They have a basis for outlawing that kind of speech that doesn't work for any other kind of speech.

That's not the case in this country. In America, given our history, we have exactly as much legal basis to outlaw Nazism as we do to outlaw, say, Communism. And outlawing Communism is actually more likely to pass at the government level. And once Communism is outlawed, a whole lot of socialist speech/organizing could be prevented as well, because a lot of American society has a vested interest in not knowing the difference between these two concepts.

So it's overall better for us if we just don't go down that path at all.

That's the weakest defense I've ever heard. Not only do Americans share the same timeline as Germans, not only do they have the same awareness of WWII as Germans, not only do they know of the Holocaust, not only do millions of Americans share the experience of Nazism through their family members who fought in Europe, but also there are millions of people in the US descended from people who experienced Nazism firsthand every bit as much as any German living in Germany, including the world's largest Jewish community.

What you are saying is like suggesting that if there is a maniac stabbing people in a crowd, you should not react until he stabs you too because you can't really understand getting stabbed, so you can't act against it (even though you had been stabbed in the past).

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:13

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Frijolero posted:

I also look at it like this:

Dems are a gently caress and keep losing. If you push to limit free speech, god knows how that would be implemented, then inevitably the Republicans are going to have another tool in their toolbox. They can store it next to nice the mass surveillance that Obama handed to them.

lol the democrats are no strangers to fascism please do not assume the republicans have a monopoly

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:14

loquacius: Oct 21, 2008; Can't post for 2 hours!

guys

I am not defending Nazis

I want us to punch them and drown them out and make them go home crying, we don't need to make them illegal to do this

stop acting like I'm defending Nazis

I'm Jewish for god's sake

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:15

SKULL.GIF: Jan 20, 2017

Serf posted:

we should have outlawed confederatism

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:15

loquacius: Oct 21, 2008; Can't post for 2 hours!

steinrokkan posted:

What you are saying is like suggesting that if there is a maniac stabbing people in a crowd, you should not react until he stabs you too because you can't really understand getting stabbed, so you can't act against it (even though you had been stabbed in the past).

Like, I can't even express the extent to which this is not what I'm saying

I'm saying that giving the US government the power to determine which political opinions are or are not legal to have is a really loving bad idea

Serf posted:

we should have outlawed confederatism

this I'm ok with though

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:16

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

loquacius posted:

Like, I can't even express the extent to which this is not what I'm saying

I'm saying that giving the US government the power to determine which political opinions are or are not legal to have is a really loving bad idea

If you make it illegal to suggest murder of others, what will they ban next? The slippery slope!!!

There are countries far more functional than the US who work fine with a provision like that.

Also actually yes, you said that banning ideas becomes permissible once your country gets to experience their windfall, as in the case of Germany.

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:17

Frijolero: Jan 24, 2009; by Nyc_Tattoo

Expand our current speech limitations to Nazi and CSA symbols. Also, ban anime.

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:18

loquacius: Oct 21, 2008; Can't post for 2 hours!

steinrokkan posted:

If you make it illegal to suggest murder of others, what will they ban next? The slippery slope!!!

are you seriously telling me that the current American government wouldn't outlaw socialism if they could

because they absolutely would

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:18

Oh Snapple!: Dec 27, 2005

Can we please not bring this into a third thread.

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:19

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

loquacius posted:

are you seriously telling me that the current American government wouldn't outlaw socialism if they could

because they absolutely would

You'll notice I'm not asking for a taxonomic list of ideologies to be banned, only for punishment for calling for acts of violence that are already criminal.

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:21

loquacius: Oct 21, 2008; Can't post for 2 hours!

steinrokkan posted:

Also actually yes, you said that banning ideas becomes permissible once your country gets to experience their windfall, as in the case of Germany.

No, what I said is that America, with its history and culture, has a 100% chance of outlawing communism and thereby socialism as soon as it gets the ability to do this

whereas Germany had a very good reason to outlaw Nazism and only Nazism

jesus h christ "windfall" what is wrong with you

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:21

loquacius: Oct 21, 2008; Can't post for 2 hours!

steinrokkan posted:

You'll notice I'm not asking for a taxonomic list of ideologies to be banned, only for punishment for calling for acts of violence that are already criminal.

then why are you arguing with me? We're talking about two different things

You started this argument bucko

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:22

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

loquacius posted:

then why are you arguing with me? We're talking about two different things

You started this argument bucko

Because on some level the difference is only semantic, it accomplishes the same thing with a less problematic and charged implementation. And ultimately I suppose it could hurt socialists, but anybody who is serious about socialism probably already knows the state will push back against them at the slightest opportunity, with or without a legal justification, so it doesn't really matter.

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:27

Frijolero: Jan 24, 2009; by Nyc_Tattoo

The only Nazis I want to ban are grammer Nazis.

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:30

loquacius: Oct 21, 2008; Can't post for 2 hours!

steinrokkan posted:

Because on some level the difference is only semantic.

Then why bring it up now?

quote:

And ultimately I suppose it could hurt socialists, but anybody who is serious about socialism probably already knows the state will push back against them at the slightest opportunity, with or without a legal justification, so it doesn't really matter.

Alright well when the revolution comes we can revisit this topic. Btw please double-check the definition of "windfall", tia, because I was actually mad about that before I realized you probably just thought it meant something else

Frijolero posted:

The only Nazis I want to ban are grammer Nazis.

Hey now I liked Frasier when I was a kid

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:32

Lessail: Apr 1, 2011; tell me how vgk aren't playing like shit again

p.s. help my grapes are so sour!

Oh Snapple! posted:

Popped into TGRS, saw and wondered why negrotown had a sudden post spike.

Turns out we hate seeing successful black people, everyone!

"Political reality" lmao

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:46

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

loquacius posted:

Then why bring it up now?

Alright well when the revolution comes we can revisit this topic. Btw please double-check the definition of "windfall", tia, because I was actually mad about that before I realized you probably just thought it meant something else

Hey now I liked Frasier when I was a kid

Because while it would not be banning Nazi / white supremacist movements in an explicit way that would allow people to easily call for banning socialism (unless they wanted to admit their ideology could be reduced down to murder or genocide), it would still really be banning Nazism because it's an ideology that has nothing going for it but violence, unlike socialism. Basically outlaw their tools based on the illegality of the subject matter which they seek to actualize, do not outlaw their identity. On one level there is a large difference, on another there is none.

Also yes, I thought it also meant negative consequences.

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 13, 2024 00:19

Shear Modulus: Jun 9, 2010

remember how nobody complained about hillary's speaking fees because she was white

# ? Aug 25, 2017 16:48

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [The Succ Zone] I unblocked you, again, to say this: You don't fucking know me.

«‹›2987 »

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.9 (SABB-v2.24.06)
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright ©2024, Jeffrey of YOSPOS