|
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. 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.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 05:47 |
|
|
# ? Apr 29, 2024 07:34 |
|
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 05:49 |
|
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 05:54 |
|
Powered Descent posted:Appreciate the effortpost. 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.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 06:00 |
|
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!
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 06:02 |
|
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.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 06:08 |
|
Jesus people, the page ended on a derail post please take the hint.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 06:11 |
|
Won't somebody please think of the nazis https://i.imgur.com/E6zNy8G.gifv
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 06:14 |
|
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.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 06:16 |
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.
|
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 06:18 |
|
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 |
# ? Mar 6, 2018 06:19 |
|
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.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 06:19 |
|
Lowtax would make a killing if he charged $5 to give another user a sixer.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 06:23 |
|
Regalingualius posted:know-nothing know-it-all every single goddamn time he posts in here. That's really good if it was deliberate
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 06:26 |
|
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. lmao
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 06:30 |
Gum posted:That's really good if it was deliberate It is.
|
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 06:46 |
|
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.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 06:59 |
|
Which ideology is it if you want everybody to shut the gently caress up forever.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 08:50 |
|
Phanatic is so loving dense we should use him as reactor shielding. https://i.imgur.com/BgDzeXm.mp4
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 08:52 |
|
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.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 09:07 |
|
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.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 09:42 |
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
|
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 09:45 |
|
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 ). 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.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 10:25 |
|
DontMockMySmock posted:Phanatic, you know that incitements to violence aren't generally considered protected speech, right? Is the ironic part that the derail you typed all this about started over people inciting violence against white supremacists?
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 10:28 |
|
*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:
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 10:45 |
|
Weatherman posted:*sprints into thread, out of breath* 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.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 11:20 |
|
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.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 11:38 |
|
|
# ? Apr 29, 2024 07:34 |
|
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.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2018 11:39 |