|
Atticus_1354 posted:It's possible to dislike multiple people. For instance that video makes me as happy as Nazi punching videos. Yes, it's possible, but most people dislike Nazis quite a bit more than they dislike people who dislike Nazis. In fact, most people like people who dislike Nazis.
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
Blackchamber posted:How many followers or whatever do you need to get a free taco from taco bell? I may or may not start a youtube channel depending on the answer. You should be careful about getting free tacos on YouTube. https://youtu.be/LMdtYZFTvhY
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:
I had the same reaction. With the added comment of "why isn't the loving safety on?"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2018 08:17
|
|
There are things you just don't do. Not because of the nutshot, but the casual discharge of a gun he isn't even holding. The firearms safety watchdog in my brain is freaking the gently caress out and would be telling me to never trust that guy to be within reach of a weapon ever again.
|
Ah, thanks for reminding me of the saga of Phanatic, Pedophile Defender. That's some good schadenfreude.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
I've found it kind of endearing ever since playing [Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon] as a kid.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2018 06:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
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
|
|