Governor Rick Scott (R) has declared a state of emergency in the county where the University of Florida lay, due to a planned speech by Richard Spencer. According to NPR:
When Hurricane Irma was bearing down on Florida last month, Gov. Rick Scott declared a state of emergency. On Monday, he did the same thing in Alachua County, ahead of a speech by white nationalist Richard Spencer at the University of Florida in Gainesville.
"We live in a country where everyone has the right to voice their opinion, however, we have zero tolerance for violence and public safety is always our number one priority," Scott said in a statement. "This executive order is an additional step to ensure that the University of Florida and the entire community is prepared so everyone can stay safe."
"I find that the threat of a potential emergency is imminent," Scott declared in his executive order, noting that Alachua County Sheriff Sadie Darnell had requested the state's assistance. The order will make it easier for various agencies to coordinate a security plan for Thursday's speech at the university.
[...] No campus group invited Spencer to speak, and the university is not hosting or sponsoring the event. Spencer's group, the National Policy Institute, is paying the university $10,564 for facility rental and security.
And it looks like it could get expensive:
The speech and accompanying protests are also a major expense: The university as well as state and local agencies expect to spend more than $500,000 to provide additional security.
And the University of Florida can't demand that Spencer pay the full cost of protecting him, because of a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement.
In that decision, the university explains, "the Court clarified that the government cannot assess a security fee on the speaker based upon the costs of controlling the reaction of potential hostile onlookers or protestors," under legal doctrine known as the "heckler's veto."
Well, that is the cost of free speech in a free country.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Wednesday October 18 2017, @09:24PM (38 children)
Have a bunch of highly-controversial people have speeches every day. Before long, the government will run out of funding for all the security.
(Score: 5, Touché) by bob_super on Wednesday October 18 2017, @09:35PM (9 children)
Clearly works: The last highly controversial figure to have his speeches broadcast live essentially every day, is trying very hard to bankrupt the whole country.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday October 18 2017, @09:48PM (8 children)
Remember, every nation gets the government it deserves.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday October 19 2017, @01:50AM (7 children)
Yeah, you know that we both highly disagree on that.
Just like Trump, I don't take any responsibility for it. I've not enabled the corruption, and I vote with what really counts in this world; My Wallet.
I find it awfully harsh to put the blame on the people. If we truly took it into our hands to do what is required, it would mean rising up and killing every politician, banker, and other member of the ruling class. At that point, I will agree with you that we get what we deserve. However, the reason why the people are oppressed, is that most people just don't have the sociopathic makeup to do it. We live in a world where regular people, that are people you could trust to act decently with humanity, are literally surrounded in a sea of sociopathic/psychopathic assholes hellbent (spiritually) on taking from the world whatever the fuck they want.
Otherwise we get what they decide we are getting. Or are you going to try to convince me that the Electoral College is actual democracy? That we actually choose our political candidates again? You're right, it's not one big game of power, and the little people actually have sway ;p
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday October 19 2017, @02:59AM (6 children)
The blame always lies with the people. The people have the ultimate power, since they have the numbers. If the government isn't the peoples' responsibility, then whose is it? Some other country's? Aliens? Countries with good governments have them because their people took whatever actions needed to be taken to get to that state. Joseph de Maistre was absolutely right when he said that every nation gets the government it deserves.
We live in a world where regular people, that are people you could trust to act decently with humanity, are literally surrounded in a sea of sociopathic/psychopathic assholes hellbent (spiritually) on taking from the world whatever the fuck they want.
Yet there's plenty of countries where the government actually works reasonably well: there's a good rule of law, crime is low, public services are good and efficient, etc. Just look at Japan: excellent public transit, excellent infrastructure, no trash anywhere, violent crime is almost unheard of, great healthcare, extremely high standard of living, etc. And it's not just them, the Scandinavian countries have world-leading standards of living. None of these countries have high levels of corruption.
Or are you going to try to convince me that the Electoral College is actual democracy?
No decent country has direct democracy, unless you count Switzerland which still has a representative system, just with more referenda. In every highly-developed nation, they don't elect their executive at all; that position is elected by the parliament. Only countries with crappy governments even have "presidents": Russia, Turkey, El Salvador, etc. The Electoral College isn't the problem here, broken American culture is. (After all, if we were any good at governing, we would have fixed the EC problem somehow long ago, but instead we run around talking about how perfect and holy our Constitution is.)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by driverless on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:42AM
And only allowed women the vote in the 1980s and 1990s, and even then it was rigged so that men could override the women's votes (I can't remember the details, it was explained to me by a Swiss woman). In addition, women needed a man's permission to go out and buy things, and faced various other restrictions. In the 1970s, it was easier to be a woman in Iran than in Switzerland.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:38PM (1 child)
Your example of Japan is not a good one.
You point out their country NOW, but remember the atrocities they committed during WW2?
Did the Japanese people suddenly change post WW2, or is it different leadership that is the result (plus the constitution the US forced on them after the war)?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @04:44PM
FWIW, the Japanese Government changed drastically after the war (e.g. your example of the constitution). I'd assume their culture changed quite a bit too, but that's a less easily defined question.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:47PM (2 children)
So Americans should revolt, then? We agree.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @10:28PM
So Americans should revolt, then?
Aren't they already? Surely the president is...
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday October 20 2017, @12:35AM
They *did* revolt: they elected Trump (plus GOP politicians in a sweep at all levels). So as I said before, every nation gets the government it deserves.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by arcz on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:03PM (27 children)
Or maybe, just maybe. The government could buy security cameras, collect evidence, and arrest, indict, and charge the hecklers with a crime, whereafter they are convicted and locked up instead of allowed to cause more disruption.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:11PM
What?? Follow the rule of law? But then how can governors and presidents declare martial law for no good reason? What happens when at the next million man march? We just let em invade a city with no heads busted????
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:50PM (25 children)
Except for one teensy weensy little problem: heckling isn't a crime. I know there are lots of people who would like to make it into a crime for all kinds of reasons, but it is a constitutionally protected right to heckle somebody in public to your hearts' content.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Funny) by rylyeh on Wednesday October 18 2017, @11:11PM (3 children)
I used to play in rock bands. I would have gladly jailed the next idiot who shouted out: "Play some Skynyrd!!!"
SO, I'm guilty of 1A oppression - clearly.
"a vast crenulate shell wherein rode the grey and awful form of primal Nodens, Lord of the Great Abyss."
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday October 18 2017, @11:29PM (2 children)
Filter error: I've seen it played live.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by rylyeh on Wednesday October 18 2017, @11:45PM (1 child)
Yes. FYI this was Seattle in 1992!
"a vast crenulate shell wherein rode the grey and awful form of primal Nodens, Lord of the Great Abyss."
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:39AM
I don't remember when but I do remember that the woman I was seeing at the time didn't wan't to go, so I went by myself and had a really bad time.
For a great many reasons I should have stopped seeing her as soon as she started treating me really badly. But I persisted for five years - five years I cannot get back.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 18 2017, @11:24PM (3 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 18 2017, @11:25PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:44AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @03:39PM
Just cause there is a law that may outlaw it ignoring the constitution, enforcement of that law would fail if it was used in an unconstitutional way.
Screaming and making noise in the middle of a night out side someones house? Breach of peace.
Screaming and making noise at a public gathering, particularly one with a political streak? Constitutionally protected speech.
You should look up a book called "We Must Not be Afraid to be Free"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:49AM (11 children)
In Clown World it apparently is so, in a sane one it isn't, In a Sane World you eject the hecklers and get on with the program people went to the bother of obtaining tickets to attend. Because the authorities are usually on the side of the hecklers though, this never happens when the speaker is on the Right. Not even the Alt-Right mind you, plenty of ordinary cucked National Review type Republicans get shouted down now. Yet it never happens to the Left, when someone on the Right gets the idea to return the favor they discover the police do know how to do their job, it is a matter of the orders being different depending on the event.
And we aren't even discussing hecklers buttmunch, you don't even contemplate declaring a State of Emergency because someone might be about to be heckled. Antifa riots, burns, maims and destroys. As does Black Lives Matter and the rest of the militant Left, while their pet politicians declare a safe space for the rioters to "express themselves." Meanwhile the businesses looted and burned discover their insurance does not cover acts of insurection, civil disorder, war or terrorism so they are shit outta luck.
The solution is obvious. If you don't like what somebody says you disagree. That can involve attending and asking a question intended to make them look like a fool, it can involve standing outside with protest signs, the media is certain to give you at least equal coverage if you are on their side. It might even involve a speech of your own, a lecture, an article.
What it can't include is the "shut it down!" attitude and behavior we see now. Anyone who is a student caught disrupting a speaker should be expelled, no appeal, no refund and no application for readmission for at least two years while they are encouraged to undertake a study of what a life of the mind involves and the expected behavior for a scholar. Anyone identified participating in an act of violence / riot should be arrested, jailed and generally have their life screwed over as an example to others that free speech and civil order will both be maintained. Anyone caught looting during a riot, insurrection or natural disaster (other than life critical supplies) should simply be shot on sight.
Do those obvious things, which used to be standard procedure, and civilization would suddenly be restored to much of the stability which has recently been lost.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 19 2017, @03:08AM (3 children)
Get off the fuckin' cross, J-Mo, we need the wood.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @01:20PM (2 children)
Has J-Mo got wood? And Azuma wants it?
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 19 2017, @03:47PM
Azuma's down with the beaver not the wood.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 19 2017, @04:33PM
Uzzard's right, I'm the local strict vagitarian :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:27AM
jmorris need an editor. I offer my services, gratis.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:50PM (1 child)
I agree with you. Everyone needs to smurf up their courage and speak, instead of trying to prevent others from speaking.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:07PM
Really, this deserves a +2 for the gratuitous but proper use of the word "smurf" but I can only give it +1 without cheating.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by arcz on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:13PM
So you really think that stripping away the constitutional right to due process is a good way to protect the constitutional right to free speech? You're a special kind of idiot.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday October 20 2017, @03:01PM (2 children)
In a private venue, absolutely. But in a government building (like a public university), the hecklers have a constitutional right to speak their minds. There are limits of course, the first amendment requires you to speak "peacefully", and if you don't you'll get a charge like disturbing the peace...but that generally only applies to speech intended to "incite violence" and does not cover actions that "merely annoy".
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/disturbing-the-peace.html [findlaw.com]
If this guy wants to give some grand speech free from interruption or opposition, he can go hire a private venue for that. But if he's going to have his speech partially supported by our tax dollars, then we've got every right to be part of that conversation too. If you're gonna use my own money to insult me, the least you have to do is gimme a chance to tell you to go fuck yourself too.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday October 20 2017, @05:48PM (1 child)
You aren't even trying to debate in good faith. Sad.
So you are wanting people to believe that you are serious when you claim that if a building is public there can be no scheduled events, no public speakers because anyone, absolutely anyone, is free to simply stand and speak there? You assert that I can walk into my local city council during a meeting and begin speaking and there is nothing they can do, that when they have the large armored gruff policeman drag my ass out they are violating my rights and should sue? Really. And if I want to go to a university, walk into an occupied lecture hall and begin holding forth they simply have to accept that I am exercising my right to speak instead of calling campus security?
Or are you are so utterly convinced of the rightness of your cause and the utter wickedness of the speaker in this case that you simply can't imagine anyone being against "shut it down!" Or more bluntly: Fascism is good when YOU do it. SJWs Always Project. Always.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday October 20 2017, @07:02PM
There are different laws against interrupting a public meeting...but this isn't a public meeting, it's a lecture.
Yes. When I was at Penn State that happened several times; nobody ever got arrested or expelled for it. If it's a frequent, persistent campaign you could maybe get them arrested for harassment, but single incidents are perfectly acceptable.
Oh sure, and I suppose the priests that weren't students or in any way affiliated with the university that would still come around every week shoving giant posters of aborted fetuses in everyones' faces were leftist SJWs, huh? Because tons of people complained but nobody could ever get them booted off campus either because that too is protected speech. Not that I disagree with that decision either, of course they have that right, no matter how much I would have preferred to not have to look at that every goddamn week...
(Score: 3, Informative) by arcz on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:11PM (4 children)
Heckling is not the same as protesting.
Heckling involves violence and is illegal. It's considered ordinary assault, battery, and disorderly conduct.
Heckling is not protected by the first amendment. You have no right to assault people because you disagree with them.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday October 20 2017, @02:12PM (3 children)
What exactly do you think heckling is? Heckling is basically just shouting something. How is speech assault? How is speech not protected by the right to free speech?
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=define%3A+heckle&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001 [yahoo.com]
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by arcz on Monday October 30 2017, @09:54PM (2 children)
We have the legal sense of heckling vs the common meaning of the word. Sometimes these definitions are different.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday October 30 2017, @10:33PM (1 child)
This does not appear to be one of those times:
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/heckling [thefreedictionary.com]
http://legaldictionary.lawin.org/heckler/ [lawin.org]
(Score: 2) by arcz on Wednesday November 01 2017, @04:20PM
Oh I'm sorry I referred to the word in the way that the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken of the word instead of some random "dictionary" run by who knows who. Because a dictionary is more authoritative than the Courts.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @09:24PM (86 children)
The cost has nothing to do with the free country and has a lot to do with
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. Derek Bok"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PocketSizeSUn on Wednesday October 18 2017, @09:34PM (85 children)
Actually the cost of security for these things *is* the cost of ignorance ... and poor impulse control.
If the effing black clad morons and other ilk would stop showing up to 'violently protest free speech' because they don't like it or disagree with it then all this security non-sense would go away.
We have put up with these hate mongers in many forms for many years and the best way to deal with then has, and will always be, to ignore them and marginalize them. Everything else provides them with the power and attention they are seeking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:13PM (10 children)
You realize that "ignoring them" requires that they don't get prime slots on the university lecture circuit?
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:37PM (9 children)
No, it means you do not attend the lectures. Get a dictionary. Look up the word "ignore".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:16AM (5 children)
Depends who you are asking to do the "ignoring". If a university or business or church or mosque is not allowed to "ignore" people who want to exercise free speech in their building then let's open those flood gates, friend.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:38AM (3 children)
They take federal money, they have to abide by the prohibitions that go along with it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:52AM
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:15PM (1 child)
Do you mean that US universities are required to rent out rooms to the general public, or that *if* they are renting out rooms to the general public, *then* they cannot reject folks based on the contents?
The latter makes sense in terms of the first amendment. As well as a reason not to rent out rooms in general. (but you and I have had a similar discussion before)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 19 2017, @03:50PM
The latter, of course. More complex than that outside the scope of renting to the unsolicited general public but in this case that's the bit that matters.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by arcz on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:06PM
Private Universitys can ignore people. Public Universities don't have that right. Public churches are illegal so we don't even need to worry about that.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:11AM (2 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:49AM
Who ever said I wanted to prevent anyone from being able to reach an audience? That'd be stomping all over the rights of both the speaker and those who cared to listen to him.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by arcz on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:59PM
If the university is a public university it has a duty not to deny the forum based on what is being said or likely to be said. Because that would be content-based speech discrimination. The government isn't allowed to do that, free speech 101.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:22PM (72 children)
Sounds good in theory, but will not work in practice.
What will happen is that while those protesting the hate mongers stay away, those attracted by the hate mongers will show up and eventually be indoctrinated. Consequently the hate mongers grow stronger.
A lot of people thought the Nazis would just die out and look how that worked out.
You must stand up to hate mongers whenever they leave their cockroach nest....
(Score: 4, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:39PM (60 children)
You're saying we should go beat the shit out of a bunch of antifa? Man, I think they're authoritarian douchebags but that's too far. Just arrest them for the laws they break.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:57PM (58 children)
It is annoying when you're willfully wrong. Arrest any violent protesters, but heckling a public venue? No one had the right to perfectly undisturbed platforms. False flag on your part, intellectually bankrupt. Except for the rule of law part, that was good.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 18 2017, @11:10PM (57 children)
I'm curious, how many videos of antifa and friends committing violent acts do you need to see to decide they're not peaceful protesters?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:10AM (7 children)
Ah yes, the good ol' thought crime! "THEY WERE THINKING IT! JUST LOOK AT THEIR FACES!"
We should create a new police unit, since we'll be hunting down people for their premeditated acts I think we should call it "Precrime"!
How many times are you going to put words into my mouth? How many times are you going to ignore violence from the Right and only crow on about antifa? Ya, that's what I thought.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:14AM (6 children)
Thought crime? No, actual crime with video documentation of such. Are you using the same Internet as the rest of us?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @03:26AM (5 children)
You do realize the context is "governor declares state of emergency" which drastically increases the infringement of individual freedom. Nothing has yet happened. Do you even?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:51AM (4 children)
A terrorist organization does not just turn over a new leaf one day and start helping old ladies across the street instead of attacking people and destroying property. Being prepared is nothing but practicality.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:42PM (3 children)
How quickly you turn your belly up in the air for you masters, and you have the gall to think you're courageously pro-freedom. Right, in some warped attempt to guarantee one man's freedom of speech we must clamp down on the entirety of Alachua County.
I've said this many times before, you need therapy and/or pharmaceuticals. There is something wrong with your brain.
(Score: 2) by arcz on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:56PM
Exactly what freedoms are being crushed by having more police around than usual?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:52PM (1 child)
What he needs is to be on the receiving end of this shit. You know that old saying "A liberal is a conservative who's been jailed on false charges?" Yeah. Uzzard is a very common type among the right wing, the low-caliber sociopath who simply can't understand other peoples' suffering until it happens to him personally.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:09PM
Liberty is not a right-wing core consideration last I checked. Then again, it's not even paid lip-service to by the left anymore.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @02:47AM (48 children)
Nazis (neonazis, alt-right, white nationalists, etc,) want Jews, Muslims, POC, LGBTQP people, ‘non-contributing’ disabled people dead just for existing.
Antifas want Nazis afraid to organize and communicate because they are aware of the above and want those people to be safe. Since the USA has abdicated its responsibility to forcibly prevent such organization and communication, private violence is the ethically correct path until such a time as the state grows a pair.
It is not “the same thing”. It is not “more hate”. It is defending the world against people who want most of the people in it dead.
Concern that this violence might be illegal is fake, coming from you. You're worried about victims fighting back, not about their being attacked in the first place.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mykl on Thursday October 19 2017, @03:33AM
So there was this awesome movement that opposed capitalism and the ruling class. It promised a government of the people and for the people, where everyone would receive the help that they needed and contribute what they could. A worker's paradise, a just society for everyone.
Upon seizing power in 1917, this left-leaning group proceeded to murder all of their political opponents, including their spouses and children, before setting up a brutal dictatorship. In the following years, these idealists proceeded to oppress and enslave their entire country as well as many of their neighbors.
In my opinion Antifa, if left to their own devices, would follow that very same path. They are not interested in a peaceful and free society - they're just interested in opposing the right using "any means necessary". We've seen where that can lead.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @05:12AM (3 children)
#NotAll of the people in those groups support violence against Jews, Muslims, POC, LGBTQP people, and ‘non-contributing’ disabled people which undermines your rationale for using violence against them. Who is in the alt-right again? 30% of everyone who voted for Donald Trump?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @02:47PM (2 children)
So down with antifa yet some Nazis are "good people"? Lol, you alt-nutters are fucked in the head.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by arcz on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:53PM
Don't judge the worth of a man by his speech but by his actions. Neither does one judge the worth of a man by his associations but rather one must judge them as an individual.
I'd prefer a law abiding Neo-Nazi over a violent Antifa terrorist any day. Both of them advocate violence, but the Antifa are the main ones actually being violent.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Friday October 20 2017, @02:45AM
FTFY.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:57AM (26 children)
No, sweety, you really don't concern me at all. The regressive left are pussies and couldn't scare anyone with even one working testicle. You should concern law enforcement though. Terrorist scumbags are terrorist scumbags, regardless of what they claim as reasons.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:12PM (25 children)
regardless of what they claim as reasons.
Even inciteful propaganda?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:41PM (24 children)
Especially using words alone as justification. Words you don't like are among the least justifiable reasons possible to commit violence.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Friday October 20 2017, @12:07AM (15 children)
Yet incitement remains the chief pretext used to justify censorship
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @08:12AM (14 children)
You claim that "incitement" is the deceptive excuse for imposing censorship. Government (and those in bed with it) are the only ones forbidden under the Constitution from censoring speech.
Given that you wrote that government and its associates are deceptively attempting illegal censorship, what do you propose to do about the problem? If your answer is "vote", please explain how your reasoning that leads you to believe that approach will work when using it over the preceeding generations government power has only grown.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday October 21 2017, @07:28PM (13 children)
The majority votes for bigger government. Where's the mystery?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2017, @05:56AM (12 children)
The mystery is how you can reconcile your statement here, that suggests voting to stop illegal government activity doesn't work, with your previous statement [soylentnews.org] that claimed voting was the only answer to the question of what people should do when told to "do something!" to resist.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday October 22 2017, @12:00PM (11 children)
I never claimed that voting doesn't work. You're just making shit up. You have the government you voted for.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2017, @07:11PM (10 children)
Then explain what you meant by "The majority votes for bigger government. Where's the mystery?". The plain language you used indicates that 1. most people vote for bigger and thus more criminal government, and 2. *I* obviously didn't, and therefore voting both does not work for me and also doesn't work to keep government from acting criminally. Did you intend some hidden, coded meaning?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday October 22 2017, @07:52PM (9 children)
No. And again you continue to make shit up. I never said voting doesn't work. The government you have shows that it works like a charm. It exists in its present form by the voters' choice. Couldn't be more obvious. This "hidden, coded meaning" thing is entirely in your head, serving as nothing but distraction.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @04:44AM (8 children)
It kinda sucks when you have an inconsistent belief and someone points it out to you using your own words bearing your own signature, eh?
People followed your "do something!" advice [soylentnews.org] and voted out [soylentnews.org] the establishment republicans during the Tea Party revolution a few years ago. What happened? Voting got us another crop of lying, criminal weasels which only served to expand the power and criminality of government.
Because of that, one of your two assertions are wrong: either voting does NOT work as a means to "do something!" to stop illegal actions by government, or voting "works" but still doesn't do anything to stop illegal government actions. Do you care to re-evaluate your positions?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday October 23 2017, @05:05AM (7 children)
No
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @06:57AM (6 children)
I thought not, since it seems literally incomprehensible for you to even entertain the idea that you could be wrong - even when you are demonstrably shown to be wrong.
For most readers, though, it isn't incomprehensible that you are wrong. It is obvious.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday October 23 2017, @02:16PM (5 children)
Sorry, I'm not wrong. You are, making things up in a rather banal fashion with your typical blame passing. Maybe it can't be helped. I'll never know in my lifetime. Whatever, do what you like. I don't mind the attention.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @06:23PM (4 children)
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Would you like some more rope?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday October 23 2017, @10:53PM (3 children)
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
:-) Exactly! Apply that to yourself, enlightenment, and maybe comprehension, shall be yours. Or you can carry on in denial and projection. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @12:27AM (2 children)
I've had more original [soylentnews.org] and honest conversations with cleaning rags
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 24 2017, @01:02AM (1 child)
Yet you choose waste your time on little ol' me, talking some inane jibber jabber that doesn't relate to what I posted. How strange... Your cleaning rags are missing you
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @07:40AM
The fact that you choose not to understand when small words are used to show you that your own statements contradict each other - requiring that at least one of your statements be incorrect - does not change the simple demonstrated fact that at least that one of your two conflicting statements is wrong. Using weak, limp-wristed tricks such as calling that which you do not like "jibber jabber" is something I'd expect to encounter in an insulated little child, and one not very bright.
I am more interested in your past and present environments than you at this point, ones that allowed and possibly even cultivated the laughably dictatorial mindset you exhibit along with your habit of attempting to deem something ludicrous into reality. My current guess has it being something involving government schooling, possibly a day-care.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday October 20 2017, @03:43PM (7 children)
The US justice system says otherwise:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#United_States [wikipedia.org]
If the police claim that words alone justify violence on their part, then they ought to recognize that same attempt at justification from others.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 20 2017, @04:05PM (6 children)
The US justice system also says it's perfectly okay for the NSA to spy on citizens without a warrant. They view the Constitution as a suggestion or rough guidelines; I do not.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday October 20 2017, @07:05PM (4 children)
I agree...but you're the one that was calling for the justice system to take action:
So, if law enforcement is going to say that words justify violence, and you want them to go after anyone who claims that words justify violence...then they ought to be spending all their time investigating THEMSELVES for terrorism, shouldn't they?
Although that probably WOULD be a better use of their time...
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 20 2017, @10:27PM (3 children)
You're misunderstanding. Either deliberately or accidentally but you're definitely misunderstanding. Antifa and BAMN do not stick to words. They're happy to crack people in the head with blunt objects, pepper spray people, set things on fire, and worse for the crime of disagreeing with them. If the police know ahead of time that this might be an issue, it behooves them to be on site to make any necessary arrests.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by urza9814 on Saturday October 21 2017, @05:33PM (2 children)
I think you are the one who is not understanding. I'm not saying that Antifa uses only words; I'm saying that Antifa responds to words the same way the police do, yet here you are supporting the police in the same sentence that you criticize Antifa!
You say the cops should respond to that violence because words alone do not justify that violence. But those cops themselves claim that words alone CAN justify violence. I don't think the cops are *correct* in that belief, but if you're going to call for them to take action, you have to accept their rules. And their rules are that shutting down extremist rhetoric by any means necessary *is* sometimes justified. It's not "progessives" or "leftists" pushing that belief; it's a very conservative, established idea. It's how humanity has behaved throughout all of recorded history. It's the one idea that Antifa, the KKK, and the US government all agree on. You can't criticize Antifa for sucumbing to these insticts while simultaneously supporting others whose behavior fits the exact same pattern.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday October 21 2017, @05:43PM (1 child)
Where have you seen me support the policing of speech by anyone, exactly? Like I said, you're misunderstanding.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday October 22 2017, @10:21PM
Forti et alietum sibi loquitur.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday October 21 2017, @06:39PM
Is there a difference between "fighting words" and "incitement"? That seemingly singular exception to free speech is still up for grabs.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Disagree) by VLM on Thursday October 19 2017, @01:34PM (12 children)
One big problem with the argument is if you let your enemy define you, you end up with ridiculous parodies like the above. And I assume there exist equally and opposite ridiculous parodies of antifa types made by the right.
Very little of that definition has anything to do with my beliefs or the people I listen to or read (including Spencer, for example) but it is the standard left wing definition to make them look as bad as possible.
Lets talk about Jews for example. Most of the right wants an ethnic home state for whites because the Jews have an ethnic home state so why can't we? Our culture is taken over by leftists, and they hate white people, so we clearly don't have an ethnic home of our own. Also the Jews get to blabber on about being "gods chosen people" and all that ancient superstition crap, so why isn't a little white supremacy equally tolerated? The NRX people on the far right have a particularly weird outlook on Jews, such that letting them take over culture by writing your sitcoms and news articles is an invasion that must be taken care of like any military psyop invasion, but letting Jews design your nuclear weapons is the nicest thing ever, essentially living here is fine but trying to take over and remake culture in an image of Israel is completely unacceptable, or rephrased again, Israel on the other side of the planet is literally not on my radar, but Israel on my TV is a big problem. From the point of view of the far right people, wanting to visit Israel on the other side of the planet is not the slightest problem at all, but trying to turn the USA into something like "West Israel" is a huge problem to fight against. You see this in the attacks the far right make on Jews, its always against journalist/politician despicable sex criminals, not exactly kristallnacht against the little old accountant down the street like the Germans did decades ago, the moderns have a completely different strategy and outlook and opinion. In stark comparison, the antifa as a general rule side with the Palestinians, and they're the ones who want the Jews dead. More people on the far left want to nuke Israel than on the far right, yet the propaganda is reversed, because there's a lot of Jews in the more moderate left, think of almost all of the communists from the last century, for example. For another example essentially the Democratic party is now Jews, cat ladies, handful of remaining cucks, some FDR-era-elderly, and minorities, therefore the right must by definition be "anti-Jew" which is probably correct WRT normie moderate less-political people (especially after the mostly Jewish neocon movement temporarily screwed over the Republicans until Trump uncucked the R party, mostly). Claiming the far right wants Jews dead for existing is simply ridiculous.
The claim about euthanasia combines the above, where the modern right doesn't care at all, with a different problem. Lets say an enemy of the USA invaded and took over and got to write the history books. You get one guess how the previous regime's euthanasia programs would be portrayed. Naturally, a doctor not restricting the respiratory system impairing pain killers for a terminally ill cancer patient a couple of times, is going to get rewritten in the history books as a former USA fedral government presidentially endorsed policy of bayoneting millions of crippled children. Its just how propaganda works. What do you think, they're going to be honest, LOL? That mixes with outright lying about modern views to make slander that's unrecognizable from reality.
This problem of fake names, is why libel and slander laws were seen as necessary for a functioning democracy. It would be interesting to implement those again, would probably help the level of discourse quite a bit. Of course you'd have to arrest like everyone at CNN and MSNBC and numerous newspapers... the left controls most mass media and those media outlets are mere D party propaganda departments as has been proven numerous times in email leaks and so forth. How do you have a functioning democracy in a one party totalitarian authoritarian rule, is a mystery.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @03:02PM
How do you spew such crazy shit when reality is evident for everyone to see? One party in control? You've got some of the worst republicans gutting taxes for you yet you complain? You're insane VLM, your brain is malfunctioning, you have issues, need therapy and probably medication. Seek help.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 19 2017, @04:37PM (8 children)
Hey, hey! I JUST got J-Mo off the damn cross and now YOU climb up on it? Shoo, shoo, winter's coming and we need to burn that timber! Take your delusional skull-vomit elsewhere.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:02PM (7 children)
Can I take the ranting and personal attacks as evidence I'm factually correct? Just felt like asking, LOL. Can't unswallow the red pill of course.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:49PM (6 children)
No, you can take it as evidence that you're wrong, since in this case the ranting is factually correct and the personal attacks are well-deserved. But do go on; I know how your kind works. You learn nothing until the flames of Hell burn away your dross.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:21PM (5 children)
More global warming alarmism; tired.
Have a nice day!
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday October 20 2017, @03:35AM (4 children)
No, sweetie, it's YOUR world that'll be unbearably hot. Try reading for comprehension sometime. I know that's a crime in your culture, but do it for me?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Friday October 20 2017, @01:13PM (3 children)
Humor is wasted on the left.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday October 20 2017, @04:27PM (2 children)
You aren't funny, though. I've been to funerals that were funnier than you. Free hint 'cause I'm in a generous mood: saying something sociopathic and then walking it back with "jeez, it was just a joke" doesn't work. You don't fool anyone but yourself.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2017, @05:59AM (1 child)
Sociopathic jokes are still easier on the ears than constant harpy keening.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday October 22 2017, @03:00PM
Cry some more :) Tone trolling, like false patriotism, is the last refuge of the scoundrel. But since you like my voice so much (I'm an alto, not a screeching soprano, that's my sister) I'll make sure to talk riiiiight into your ear next time!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday October 20 2017, @03:46PM (1 child)
...so your logic is, essentially: "Two wrongs DO make a right"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2017, @06:04AM
So you're saying that using freedom of association to create a place that turns out to be a home state for the ethnic Yahudym is a wrong?
Or are you the enlightened soul who has opened up his home and hearth to all and currently has half a dozen drifters sleeping in your living room?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by arcz on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:49PM (2 children)
When people say that violence is an ethical response to prevent a conjectured, speculative future, my answer to that is that you've been fundamentally corrupted.
Violence is never an acceptable response based on mere speculation. Furthermore, history shows us that ideas that "need suppression" are often correct. Incorrect ideas usually do not spread widely. The doctrine of counter speech is useful here, not violence.
The anonymous coward above me appears to be a terrorist-sympathizer and/or shill.
(Score: 2, Troll) by http on Friday October 20 2017, @06:11PM (1 child)
It's not "mere speculation". It's an easily acquired sense of history.
I've said it before [soylentnews.org], but it bears repeating, that the communication patterns prior to genocide, and various other hate crimes, follow a consistent pattern. It's not mystic prophecy to see it happening and make predictions.
And reading the news today, it turns out that AC was 100% correct, because guess what! After the Spencer talk, these assholes thought would be just peachy to fire a gun at a crowd [nbc-2.com] that they viewed as "not like us". And in a not at all surprising move, the shooter openly espouses the racist beliefs at the heart of american white supremacy in an interview. [washingtonpost.com] With the Washington Post. Not exactly shooting the shit over beer and barbeque. His lawyer must be facepalming so hard he's sniffing his elbow.
Still think counter-speech alone is useful against those who are intent on normalizing the murder of "not like us"?
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by arcz on Monday October 30 2017, @09:35PM
You honestly think that it's better to go after the speaker than the people who react violently?
He isn't responsible for people who act violently. Especially if he doesn't suggest violence.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:13AM
And he huffed, and puffed, and blew away another straw man.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:58PM
If I show up saying the earth is flat, and you prevent me to speak with vandalism, some people might think the conspiracy is real.
You gotta tell me "oh the earth is flat? then draw a map of it that takes into account the flight time between places, or maybe you think all airline pilots are part of the conspiracy?" or something like that.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday October 18 2017, @11:59PM (7 children)
You know, if high schools and colleges did their job rather than indoctrinate students in bulk, we wouldn't have that problem (at least not to a degree that was threatening to society). But one of the problems with indoctrination is once you've created a pseudo-educational product that can be indoctrinated in a way you like, it can also be indoctrinated in a way you don't like.
For example, a certain Vidkun Quisling [wikipedia.org] of Norway was a die hard communist after getting the religion in 1918 during his exposure to the Communists at the start of the Russian Civil War. In 1928, the USSR blew him off during a Norwegian attempt to help with the Ukraine famine (the infamous Holodomor [wikipedia.org]). Rather than grown up and develop some sort of sensible political beliefs, Quisling shortly after fell hard for Hitler and Nazism, culminating in his appointment as head of the puppet government following the Nazi conquest of Norway in 1940 and ending ignominiously with his execution by firing squad in 1945.
Another such example to consider is Dick Morris [wikipedia.org] who ran Clinton's reelection campaign in 1996 until fired for letting a prostitute listen in on his conversations with the president. He then switched sides, managing a couple of Republican campaigns (as well as a fair number of foreign campaigns) and becoming a pundit for Fox News and other outlets since 2000. Currently, he seems vaguely aligned with the alt-right camp.
Moving on, a third example is who apparently has joined the alt-right movement. Here [thedailybeast.com], libertarians are blamed as a "pipeline" to the alt-right. A different take [nationalreview.com] notes that the Occupy Wall Street movement has also contributed. The latter story attributes this to "marginal movements attract marginal people".
My view is that whatever the case, there's a bunch of people hopping from one belief system to another, often without any sort of intellectual connection between the systems. A better education system won't eliminate this problem, but it can reduce the number of gullible and/or intellectual shapeshifters who seem to be all over crazy belief systems like white supremacy and such.
And a key to education is to allow such beliefs a fair airing so that they may shoot themselves in the foot as best they can and the grievances that feed these belief systems can be exposed and addressed.
(Score: 2) by rylyeh on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:20AM
Yes.
"a vast crenulate shell wherein rode the grey and awful form of primal Nodens, Lord of the Great Abyss."
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @01:33AM (4 children)
Quisling [...] was a die hard communist [...] in 1918
Well, apparently, he mistook Leninism for what Marx called Communism (commune-ism).
In 1928
Stalin took power in 1924 when Lenin died.
If you think that Lenin was an Authoritarian (and, boy, was he ever), take a look at what a Totalitarian Stalin was.
Communism is an extension of Socialism, with Socialism being empowerment of The Workers.
Ask The Workers of the USSR or North Korea if they felt/feel empowered under a top-down Authoritarian government.
WRT "communist", the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea still isn't "democratic".
-Calling- yourself something doesn't make it so.
Quisling shortly after fell hard for Hitler and Nazism
The phrase "true colors" applies at this point--if not before.
...but I'm sure that you have a point--besides the one at the top of your head.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Arik on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:07AM (3 children)
Words drained of blood, pinned on a page for display, with no life left in them.
How, precisely, do you "empower the Workers?" Who, precisely, are "the Workers?"
I mean it sounds great, of course, the people that do the work should be empowered, err, whatever that means, and non-workers? Who are they? What's their excuse?
In reality, EVERY SINGLE TIME this has been implemented it's been a horrible bloodbath. Stalin. Mao. Pol Pot. The Kims etc.
In reality, this is the oldest scam. The original.
Oh, it's gotten much bigger and more wordy and more complicated and more prestigious as time has gone on. But it's still roughly the same game that was played in the stone age.
You split everyone up into two sides. This is called 'dialectic.' It doesn't exactly matter how you split them up, light and dark, tall and short, whatever. What matters is that having done so, you can make a convincing argument to 'your' side that they should be much better off, and that the reason they aren't much better off is that the other group are snakes who steal from them, who hold them down, who oppress them and backstab them etc.
Once you get that idea across, of course, humans tend to move pretty inexorably towards the idea of "let's kill these snakes and take our stuff back!"
Now maybe you just wanted their stuff, and if so, this is one way to grab your share of it for sure. But maybe you're really evil and you don't even care about the stuff, even more opportunity in this for you. But either way, eventually, say you finally manage to wipe out the other. That's what you've been working for all this time but when it happens suddenly you realize this ruins everything. But the solution is easy too. You just divide the group again.
Traitors. Fifth columnists. Backsliders.
See the devils in the details. Empower the workers. But how, and who are the workers, and who are the nonworkers? Who decides?
Someone has to decide, and once we have a decider, we have a tyranny. Someone, a person or a committee, will decide who is a non-worker and who is a worker. It will take all the power of the non-workers, and it will hold it in trust for the workers. Should any worker disagree with the arrangement, he or she can become a non-worker and be dealt with accordingly. All the pretty words are only props for the con.
Take that stone age con into the industrial age and the outcome is as predictable as it is tragic. It doesn't matter whether your dialectic is between bourgeois and prole, or between aryan and non-aryan. Nazism and Communism are not opposites, they are close cousins. The portrayal of each other as opposites is a ruse that both implicitly preserve because both benefit from it. Each uses the other as a bogy man to motivate their supporters, and ultimately each worships power, not truth.
https://archive.org/stream/AleksandrSolzhenitsynTheGulagArchipelago/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn_The_Gulag_Archipelago_djvu.txt
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:53PM (2 children)
Slight nitpick
Almost correct, but we generally deprive NK of any kind of status such as evil. Instead, end it with Venezuela. Observe.
OMG Socialism! Hitler! Stalin! Mao! Pol Pot! Venezuela!
See, two syllables max per chant beat until the very end where a four syllable word makes a very good coda. The problem with "the Kims" is that "the" is not stressed, so you have this awkward thing where you have to stress the second syllable, which completely destroys the solid rhythm from "Hitler" through "Pol Pot." That doesn't work for chants, and it also clashes with the other names since they have emphasis on the first syllable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @10:36PM (1 child)
...and a major rebuttal:
Top-down is NOT Socialism.
It is the antithesis.
Again: Calling your thing by a name that is completely inappropriate doesn't magically make your thing into that thing.
Example: USA claims to be a Democracy, yet the desires of supermajorities of USAians are routinely ignored by their gov't.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 19 2017, @10:52PM
Agreed. Fully. There does come a point where every instance of a thing being called Thing ever put into practice changes the meaning of the word though. It offends my sensibilities but language does evolve if you don't put your foot down.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:30PM
This reminds me of a news report a few weeks ago saying something to the effect of "ha, ha, lots of people believe these two contradictory things."
I think this hopping between disconnected belief systems is merely a "bring me a different rock" [blogspot.com] phenomenon. These are people who think the status quo isn't working, but don't know how or why. So they are trying "something else," and keep trying something else until they find one which does improve their lot in life.
If Communism will get them more money, then sure. If Fascism will, then sure. If liberalism will, then sure. If free market trade will, then sure. If mercantilism will, then sure.
The consistency between their swinging positions is, "the status quo is 'bad.' Somebody make it better."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @03:03AM
Richard Spencer is not standing on stage as a magician popping Nazis out of his ass. This is not a spawning pit. If you honestly believe your neighbors, friends, or just people in your community will align themselves with an ideology you simply can not live with, you can thus not live in their community. In that case, as is your freedom in this country, you should move elsewhere. If moving elsewhere isn't an option due to the size of this (from your perspective) newly-spawned demographic, then war is the only solution left by reality. However, with their current supporters numbering less than a 1% of this nation, there's absolutely no cause or justification for war at this time.
You can't stop people from thinking and making up their own minds, confrontation should only come afterwards, and usually in our civil society we are able to do so in a verbal format. People have a right to their own mind and self-determination, and if you don't think so you have no place championing how the rights of others are violated in any shape way or form.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:34AM
You write as though these things have not been tested!
Read! There was something called the 20th century, not so long ago.
"A lot of people thought the Nazis would just die out and look how that worked out."
Like I said, you clearly have some reading to do. Nazis (and Fascists in a very similar fashion) came to prominence in large part by effectively opposing Communists in the streets. History teaches the exact opposite of what you think.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:46PM
Parent is not flamebait. This is what is happening.
First they don't ignore you
Then they step down at your level or even lower.
Then you don't win. Yet, they lose.
But maybe it is part of the game. Two barking dogs direct the sheep better than one.
Account abandoned.