A basic right in the U.S.A. has been the Freedom of Speech, yet of late it has been under heavy threat. United States Foreign Service Officer (ret.) and author of Hooper's War Peter Van Buren at We Meant Well blogs about Five Bad Arguments to Restrict Speech.
"Open discussion, debate, and argument are the core of democracy. Bad ideas are defeated by good ideas. Fascism seeks to close off all ideas except its own."
The blog entry itself is rather long and contains numerous links to supporting material. Here is the list; below the fold includes an elaboration on the statement and a summary. Read the blog itself for more details and exposition.
- The First Amendment Only Applies to Government?
- What's Said May Provoke Violence in the Room (A Clear and Present Danger)
- What's Said May Provoke Violence Outside (Public Safety)
- Speech Can or Should Be Restricted Based on Content (Hate Speech)
- Free Speech Should Not Be Subject to the Heckler's Veto
[...] 1. The First Amendment Only Applies to Government?
The first fallacious argument used to shut down free speech is that the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution only applies to government, and so universities or other entities are entitled to censor, restrict or shut down altogether speech willy-nilly.
Short Answer: Not really. Public funding invokes the First Amendment for schools, and free speech runs deeper than the Bill of Rights. It's as much a philosophical argument as a legal one, not a bad thing for a nation founded on a set of ideas (and ideals.)
[...] 2. What's Said May Provoke Violence in the Room (A Clear and Present Danger)
Some claim that certain conservative speakers, such as Milo Yiannopoulos, who purposefully use anti-LGBTQ slurs to provoke their audiences, should be banned or shut down. Their speech is the equivalent of yelling Fire! in a crowded movie theatre when there is no actual danger, provoking a deadly stampede for the exits.
Short Answer: The standards for shutting down speech are very restrictive, and well-codified. Milo comes nowhere close.
[...] 3. What's Said May Provoke Violence Outside (Public Safety)
The idea that a university or other venue cannot assure a speaker's safety, or that the speaker's presence may provoke violent protests, or that the institution just doesn't want to go to the trouble or expense of protecting a controversial speaker has become the go-to justification for canceling or restricting speech. Berkley cited this in canceling and then de-platforming (rescheduling her when most students would not be on campus) Ann Coulter, whose campus sponsors are now suing, and New York University cited the same justification for canceling an appearance by Milo Yiannopoulos.
Short Answer: Canceling a speaker to protect them or public safety is the absolute last resort, and some risk to safety is part of the cost to a free society for unfettered speech.
[...] 4. Speech Can or Should Be Restricted Based on Content (Hate Speech)
There are no laws against "hate speech." A speaker can call people names, and insult them by their race, sexual orientation or religious beliefs. What many people think and say is hateful. It is carefully thought out to inspire hate, to promote hate, to appeal to crude and base instincts. Indeed, that is their point. But there is no law or other prohibition against hate speech. Even restrictions on "hate speech" meant to prevent violence, often cited as the justification to restrict such speech, are by design extremely narrow.
Short Answer: You cannot restrict hate speech. Free speech means just that, with any limited restrictions content-neutral.
[...] 5. Free Speech Should Not Be Subject to the Heckler's Veto
Another argument used by some progressives is that the so-called Heckler's Veto is in itself protected speech. Someone may have a right to speak, but someone else has the same right to shout them down and prevent them from being heard.
Short answer: Free speech is not intended to mean whomever can literally "speak" the loudest gets to control what is said. The natural end of such thinking is mob rule, where Speaker A gets a bigger gang together to shout down the gang Speaker B controls.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday August 19 2017, @04:30PM (18 children)
What morons don't understand is that free speech is a timeless value, we all saw how those leftist psychos were all in favor of restricting free speech when their guy was in charge. We saw with our own two eyes how the same morons calling the constitution an "antiquated document written by old White men" and calling for gun bans only now started waving around muh constitution and learning how to shoot after Trump got into office. If people of all political colors would understand why free speech is a timeless value and respect the opposition's right to free speech then they wouldn't allow themselves to be jerked back and forth by the Republican/Democrat false dichotomy.
This is what frequently happens when you try to explain things to angry minorities and other rabblerousing losers like Antifa. To those kinds I say -- You have no ideology other than violence, and you're not fooling anybody with your hysterical obsession with Nazis and calls for justice. Your kind are fighting for interests which run counter to your own, and your groups don't have organizers -- they have handlers. Many of you are even paid to do what you do. Your kind need to be rounded up, convicted of sedition, and sent to the gulags. How does it feel to be a useful idiot?
And just who defines what "hate speech" is? It seems that more and more things are considered to be "hate speech" nowadays. See my first item above -- you'll appreciate a populus that respects free speech when it's your ass that's up against the wall.
See my second point above -- If you don't respect free speech, then off to the gulags with you.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:01PM (9 children)
That sounds stupid and yappy.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:45PM (8 children)
Your momma sounds stupid and yappy, but I put up with it just to get my dick sucked.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:47PM (7 children)
Not my momma. That's a man in a wig. You're gay. And still stupid!
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Saturday August 19 2017, @08:29PM (6 children)
Does Eth post this crap himself or does he really have a groupie hanging out on SN 24/7 waiting for an opportunity to reply?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @08:45PM (1 child)
Somebody trying to cure stupid one idiot at a time? Way too much dumb on the internet to fix!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 19 2017, @09:28PM
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday August 20 2017, @02:13AM (3 children)
Frankly, that person is annoying as fuck. If they were a little more creative about their arguments, then they would be more bearable, but I dislike those posts just as much as you all do.
Outspoken people generally attract weirdo-stalker types. If there's any question here, it should be why it took so long for me to get one here.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @02:53PM
Good, be annoyed. Karma is a motherfucker.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @03:54PM
Stupid people generally attract attention.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @03:59PM
You're really, really overrating yourself if you think you are some sort of "internet star" with a following of fans and weirdos. Look at your past posts and you will see just another dumb-ass with a keyboard.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by n1 on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:28PM (3 children)
There seem to be just as many useful idiots who think Soros, BLM/Antifa and the 'liberal elite' are the cause of all the social ills as there are useful idiots who think Nazis and and 'old white men' are the root of the problems.
You seem to be buying into the same false dichotomy but instead of the more typical Republican/Democrat branding, we just replace it with the more reactionary alt- faux anti-establishment branding on the fringes of those old brands.
The D/R labels manufactured useful idiots the same as this new 'counter culture' versions liberalism and conservatism brands is manufacturing new generations of useful idiots. Ultimately it still comes back to the D/R branding anyway, since mostly you're still all voting for them, and will continue to do so, to beat 'the other' side. They both want their safe zones, be it on popular social media networks or gab.ai and the now popular 'locker room banter' clause. Freedom of speech is extremely important, sadly the most vocal about it's importance invest very little energy to use it constructively to educate and inform. it's all preaching to the choir for the high-fives, shitposting memes like thousands of others and proclaiming you're 'woke' and virtue signaling works for both factions.
I am not a centrist, I do not believe in the horseshoe political theory that comes along with it. I am completely non-partisan and not affiliated to any political ideology, and I think we're still all dancing to the tune as intended. The 'liberals' and 'conservatives' are more militant and divided, less willing to seek dialogue despite how both sides proclaim to be defenders of liberty and free speech. And the rest of us, people like me, have just become so disillusioned with any attempt at political discourse we can't even talk politics anymore.
I have spent the last decade following politics, domestic and internationally very closely. Enjoying discussing it at length for many hours with people I agree and disagree with, playing devils advocate on many occasions, taking on fringe positions to get as deep into the ideologies as possible. But now, it's seems impossible to do that because any attempt at rational discourse or objective examining of a position is countered with accusations of 'fake news' or other dismissive catchphrases from anyone who actually proclaims to support a political/social ideology.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:49PM
You are correct. In fact, I should have included the useful rightist idiots in the recent White Nationalist rally in which we saw a protestor killed.
It seems really convenient how all of a sudden White Nationalist rallies are getting media attention, and provides a convenient opportunity to conflate more moderate rightists with extremist Nazis, which also conveniently plays right into the hands of the Antifa extremists when egged on by the media traitors.
That operation was also not planned, but rather handled.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday August 19 2017, @08:33PM
Cognitive ills are eternal. Fueling them with money will make it worse and in some cases necessitate negative feedback back to the source.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @10:12AM
Well, we know who's really doing it. [youtube.com] But we're forbidden to point out obvious commonalities in advocates of destructive policy. [pastebin.com] All groups are allowed to advance their own interests, even to the detriment of others except ~8% of the world population (those of European descent), but if you point that you're "insane" or "evil", despite such things being facts. And then false flags are believed by fools all around [youtube.com], because people don't study history or know that such things are the standard method of governance. [youtube.com]
The problem is that the common person is completely ignorant about the nature of reality, and so indoctrinated that even the smarter ones will fight any attempt to show them they've been deceived. Almost everything taught to the masses is full of lies. Here is a point to begin from: You keep slaves ignorant. If you need slaves that can read to do your labor then fill their heads with bullshit. Knowledge is power. Rulers don't give serfs power. Failing to realize this and not questioning Everything, even the farcical academic sciences, is the root of the problem. For not teaching you this properly you can blame your parents and their parents, etc. going all the way back to the Reformation and Spanish Inquisition which rewrote history and enforced a bogus worldview and timeline as well as many other falsehoods still preached in schools today. We have never repaired the damage done by burning books, historians and their scholars at the stake as witches and heretics to enforce the bogus worldview. That is ultimately wherefrom the current batch of mindrot stems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @11:24AM (3 children)
One could do much worse than simply quoting Sid Meyer games when it comes to political issues.
As a cyberneticist I feel this is a more precise conceptualization. It's not "free speech", it's free flow of information. Economics, Thermodynamics, and Information Theory (which borrows from both prior) support the observation that unfettered sharing of ideas and energy breeds prosperity and freedom. Alas, the average person or politician has not the desire to learn the universal truths of our world. Consider the environment which restricts the expression of some form of information (let's say a certain class of genes). In some portion of probability it may be the very restricted information that leads to expression of more complex information (adaptations) and even better suitability for the environment. What good would eyes ever be to creatures living in the darkest deeps? And yet because some are allowed to see where sight is otherwise useless bioluminescence has emerged in wondrous variety.
Think about this: Hitler was on the cover of Time Magazine twice for his "German Miracle", reviving a destitute nation from depravity, rampant prostitution and poverty in just a few short years into an economic marvel. I'm not saying genocide or racism is just or virtuous, I'm saying that if we do let these so called Nazis speak we may learn something else from them. Nature ignores the bad ideas and rewards the good, even when they come from the same set of mutations. In order to do likewise in the marketplace of ideas competition must be allowed, i.e., speech must be free.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 20 2017, @12:57PM (2 children)
One of these things is not like the others. Poverty is an actual problem. Meanwhile depravity and rampant prostitution didn't go away [wikipedia.org].
If we are to discuss the solving of problems, it's worth noting that Nazis are notorious for actions not meeting words.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @12:21AM (1 child)
That can be said of all current ideologies, even more so today.
Let's take a look at a so-called "Nazi" who is actually a race realist (recognizing differences in race) that was once involved in foreign aide in Africa (whence comes their realism). [imgur.com]
In that discussion they detailed their compassion for Africans but the utter destructiveness of putting local farmers out of business by giving free food. Then the food stops, even less farmers exist to feed the populace, and so even more people die awaiting foreign aid. Furthermore, this "Nazi" claims that it is folly to give unfettered medical aide to a people who have evolved to combat high infant mortality by having a high fertility rate. Claiming that even more children are born into suffering with parents who can not support them also starving. They said that perhaps a public works program which awarded health care and subsidies food to those who actually worked to build up their nations would be a better solution (which I noted was indeed in line with pre-WWII National Socialist agendas).
I don't agree with their proposition that all foreign aide should be cut, leaving African culture to evolve as they might. Nor do I agree that we are wrong to assume Africa needs help because "we are being racially-bigoted by judging African culture by European cultural yardsticks and finding them inferior". However, I do think their views could be instructive in creating a better foreign aide program. For, you see, currently the world claims to care about Africa but most charities are cash grabs funneling goods to war lords who take control of the majority of aide to feed their armies of soldiers who fight just to eat. So, you can see that the current world's nations are more than "notorious for actions not meeting words", but at least the "Nazis" actually realize there is a problem with the methods employed and seek to do something to reduce suffering.
When the "Nazis" have done more to shed a light on the plight of the African Bantu peoples than the "anti-racists", it SHOULD really makes you think. Have you ever talked to a Nazi before? I think not.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 21 2017, @02:41AM
This is relevant because the "Nazi" is claiming that Africans can't change because they're African (or at least of the "African Bantu peoples") rather than because they're immersed in a primitive culture which is not adapted to modern ideas of advancement and progress. It's a position of helplessness based on unfounded assumptions about the impact of race. But everyone else was in that same stagnant position and they changed.
Further, this narrative also ignores that Africa is changing in the same ways as everyone has been changing. They're becoming, for example, wealthier and lower fertility just like everyone else. they're just further behind on the curve.
And if one thinks about it, why would the Peace Corps approach work any better anywhere else? Go to a primitive European, American, or Asian farmer who is happy with his situation, what's going to stick of the new, unnecessary teachings?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @04:37PM (17 children)
Seems to be a very thoughtful and well-reasoned article.
However, it will not be debated, here or elsewhere, on it's merits.
It will, instead, be drowned in an emotional tsunami of bleating about "hate" and "safe zones", with the usual attendant accusations of racism, phobia du jour, and privilege.
Such is the nature of scholarly discourse in the 21st century. We debate in echo chambers, not forums.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @04:52PM (3 children)
Read your own comment if you want to understand why discourse has turned to shit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:31PM (2 children)
Learn the difference between observation and debate.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @09:04PM (1 child)
Lol, can't cure stupid I guess.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:00AM
Okay, that was an observation. Now, can you show me a debate?
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 19 2017, @04:53PM (12 children)
You just made that claim in a venue that is specifically designed to encourage debate and admins who will never silence speech that isn't clearly and without question breaking the law. Personally, I wouldn't silence it even then but not doing so could get us shut down, so we go with the lesser of two evils.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:29PM (10 children)
Yes, you a have practical issue there, but the law is fickle and capricious, based solely on the whims of the majority. These days more people are becoming rabidly anti-1st amendment. When they become a majority we have a serious problem with majority rule itself. Some things should never be subject to a popular vote. So, does the minority fight back, or sit back? I still hope (against all odds) that we can develop an indelible internet that is impossible to censor. That should put an end to the argument altogether.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:36PM (3 children)
Thankfully, the Venn diagram of gun ownership doesn't include many of them. Neither does the military. There's pretty much zero possibility of them winning a violent clash of ideologies with those of us who do value our rights.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:12PM (2 children)
But they can scare enough people into doing their dirty work for them non violently through legislation. It is those people following along that jump on the bandwagon you have to watch out for. What do we do when a majority becomes anti-freedom? Is there a peaceful way to stop them? Or do we have to *put down our books and pick up a gun*?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @09:06PM (1 child)
Obligatory observation about you both being nutjobs.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 19 2017, @11:38PM
Without any explanation there, I'll just have to assume you're conducting a drive-by with nothing really to say. Still working on the "infinite monkey theorem" I take it?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Troll) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday August 19 2017, @10:52PM (5 children)
No they aren't. It is the same sort of thing that has always gone on. One side or the other always whining the government should do something, or the government shouldn't allow that, etc., etc., piss, moan. Should it actually come down to something actually in danger of being done on a government level to restrict free speech, the vast majority wake up and oppose it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 19 2017, @11:46PM (4 children)
Funny, there wasn't much opposition to the Patriot Act, and various other gag orders passed at the time and more recently, certainly not enough to affect the vote. I believe you overestimate the liberalism in the US. It won't be difficult to get people to go along if you can convince them that only Nazis and other terrorists want free speech and privacy, which looks like is getting easier all the time.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 20 2017, @12:29AM (3 children)
Exactly.
It might be interesting to read The Turner Diaries again, substituting "Antifa" in suitable places.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:34AM (2 children)
Oh, you white supremacist, Runaway!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 20 2017, @09:09AM (1 child)
Oh, you illiterate shite, AC!!
Oh, wait. You think that I AGREE WITH everything I've ever read? If so, then fek, you're not even smart enough to be illiterate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @05:55PM
No, I have a reasonable doubt that you CAN read, or that if you are able, you actually ever exercise such a skill.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:42PM
Nowhere did I suggest silencing anything or anyone. If anything, I am merely guilty of stating the obvious regarding the general nature of modern debate in broad terms. I am 100% in favor of free speech.
Said favor does not require approval of hyperbole, just a tolerance, which is all I will begrudge it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Saturday August 19 2017, @04:47PM (1 child)
Because profits are more important than freedom!
One really nutty notion was "protecting" laws with copyright, so that the state could extract fees from anyone who wanted to know what the law actually says. Costs a lot to run a government, you know. Refusing to pay fees and remaining ignorant of the law is of course no excuse for breaking it. And naturally, that racket wouldn't work if people blabbed, telling each other what the laws were, even posting the text of said laws online somewhere.
Don't tell anyone how to repair their tractors. Don't photograph buildings, that might give terrorists valuable information needed to calculate where to place bombs for maximum effect. Don't take photos in the museum. Don't video the police at work. Think of the starving painters who were forced out of business by the camera!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by pdfernhout on Sunday August 20 2017, @12:36AM
http://www.pdfernhout.net/microslaw.html [pdfernhout.net]
"My fellow Americans. There has been some recent talk of free law by the General Public Lawyers (the GPL) who we all know hold un-American views. I speak to you today from the Oval Office in the White House to assure you how much better off you are now that all law is proprietary. The value of proprietary law should be obvious. Software is essentially just a form of law governing how computers operate, and all software and media content has long been privatized to great economic success. Economic analysts have proven conclusively that if we hadn't passed laws banning all free software like GNU/Linux and OpenOffice after our economy began its current recession, which started, how many times must I remind everyone, only coincidentally with the shutdown of Napster, that we would be in far worse shape then we are today. RIAA has confidently assured me that if independent artists were allowed to release works without using their compensation system and royalty rates, music CD sales would be even lower than their recent inexplicably low levels. The MPAA has also detailed how historically the movie industry was nearly destroyed in the 1980s by the VCR until that too was banned and all so called fair use exemptions eliminated. So clearly, these successes with software, content, and hardware indicate the value of a similar approach to law. ..
First off, we all know our current set of laws requires a micropayment each time a U.S. law is discussed, referenced, or applied by any person anywhere in the world. This financial incentive has produced a large amount of new law over the last decade. This body of law is all based on a core legal code owned by that fine example of American corporate capitalism at its best, the MicroSlaw Corporation.
MicroSlaw's core code defines a legal operating standard or OS we can all rely on. While I know some GPL supporters may be painting a rosy view of free law to the general public, it is obvious that any so called free alternative to MicroSlaw's legal code fails at the start because it would require great costs for learning about new so-called free laws, plus additional costs to switch all legal forms and court procedures to the new so called free standard. So free laws are really more expensive, especially as we are talking here about free as in cost, not free as in freedom.
In any case, why would you want to pay public servants like those old time -- what were they called? -- Senators? Representatives? -- around $145K a year out of public funds just to make free laws? Laws are made far more efficiently, inexpensively and, I assure you, justly, by large corporations like MicroSlaw. Such organizations need the motivation of micropayments for application, discussion or reference of their laws to stay competitive. MicroSlaw needs to know who discusses what law and when they do so, each and every time, so they can charge fairly for their services and thus retain their financial freedom to innovate. And America is all about financial freedom, right! [Audience applause]. ..."
The biggest challenge of the 21st century: the irony of technologies of abundance used by scarcity-minded people.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @04:48PM (12 children)
It wasn't 10 years ago that a person suggesting free speech no longer be tolerated would be immediately regarded as, at best, an authoritarian fascist. And that isn't even getting into the even more absurd issue of being complicit, if not outright supporting, violence against individuals because of their political beliefs. I remain liberal but it's increasingly embarrassing. I do believe that these lunatics are a minority, an extremely small minority, but the coverage they get is likely breeding further radicalism and is in any case very frustrating for the vast majority of us who haven't lost our minds.
More bizarre is that not only has this change been incredibly rapid, but the behaviors, actions, and so on are all fairly uniform throughout. I can't believe it's been orchestrated, but it sure is a terrifying display of echo chambers producing individuals who cease thinking for themselves. This is not the sort of behavior somebody who truly believed themselves to be a liberal would voluntarily turn to. This is learned behavior.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:03PM (5 children)
Believe it. Soros is funding the extremists and extremism in a huge way. Universities are doing their dead level best to radicalize everyone crossing their doorsteps. The MSM refuse to air anything that doesn't advance their agenda unless it's simply too big to ignore, and even then you can bet your ass they're going to spin it like a top. Oh, there's a component of grassroots in any movement but it is most definitely organized as well. Not under a central leadership but under several collaborating factions.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:45PM (4 children)
Free speech, my left nut.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:53PM
You have no nuts.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Saturday August 19 2017, @08:50PM
A few billionaires fund the right wing rascals, a few different billionaires fund the left wing loonies. It's like the billionaire version of cock fighting, where people who show up to these protests get to be the cocks. When they bump into each other is when we have a crisis. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 20 2017, @12:36AM (1 child)
Your nuts are all stashed in your skull by a squirrel.
But, you're not all that far wrong. Soros and the Cock brothers fund extremists and extremism. But, they are filthy fucking rich, and they can do whatever they want with their money.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 20 2017, @03:37AM
Including shutting down your speech (by sucking all the oxygen from the media) whenever your discourse is balanced and reasonable (that is, non extremist).
Because, you see, competition is the core of American values and in a competition there can be only one winner!
At all cost (because there ain't such a thing as a free lunch) and win-win solution are not acceptable (who heard of a competition will all the competitors ending winners?). Right?
If you pretend to have something else than nuts in your skull, use it.
You think of yourself as Americans, supposed to have a lot in common... more in common than you are different.
How come you forget what you have in common and stick your teeth in each other's throat for the differences between you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:36PM (4 children)
the coverage they get is likely breeding further radicalism
Careful there! That's the argument being used against free speech right now. "Radicalizing" and "incitement" are the very words used as a means of suppression.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:15PM (3 children)
I think it's disingenuous to ever even pretend that free speech has no negative consequences. The reason it's valuable is because these consequences are nothing compared to the alternative.
In a way it's kind of remarkable that we live in a capitalist society, which ultimately means money is power - yet I am, nonetheless, free to sit here and post negative views of the speech and actions of an industry collectively worth hundreds of billions of dollars and with an immense degree of political influence. Imagine a peasant in the times of the earliest great democracy, the Greeks, publicly speaking negatively in written form about less than ethical companies whom the senate found themselves indebted to. A goat come sacrifice time would likely have a brighter future than that individual.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 19 2017, @07:11PM (2 children)
The "consequences" are a byproduct of the followers, not the speaker. It is their choice to follow where we should direct our attention.
I am, nonetheless, free to sit here and post negative views of the speech and actions of an industry collectively worth hundreds of billions of dollars and with an immense degree of political influence.
It is permitted because nobody listens. It is more pragmatic to allow you to vent. If your negative views had any real impact, you would find that freedom quickly evaporates [theintercept.com]. So, in effect, your freedom of speech is limited by the number and effectiveness of the followers you acquire.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 19 2017, @09:42PM (1 child)
(Score: 2, Informative) by fustakrakich on Sunday August 20 2017, @12:00AM
No, the law already exists [archive.org]. The link is for expanding it. I do not know if any aspect of it has been tried in a public court.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Interesting) by mr_bad_influence on Saturday August 19 2017, @10:42PM
I'll probably be crucified for saying this, but here goes...
It's learned in childhood when we're exposed to competitive team sports. It's $TEAM_A vs $TEAM_B and there are winners and losers. As a kid, who wants to be associated with losers? Nobody. So we learn to associate with the winners and avoid the losers. If you don't think $TEAM_A is the best, I'll shout it until you can't hear or think anything else. $TEAM_B is saying the same thing. Now we have conflict. And, in sports, conflict is OK so it must be OK when political groups/politicians engage in the practice as well. IMO, the connection between zealously supporting a sports team foments the divisiveness in politics today.
As George Carlin said "this is the best we got folks"
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @04:52PM
Dick Niggers.
You know so we never fuck no old pussy.
We fuck a whole lot of young pussy though.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:10PM
i like to slap my ass and go WEE WEE WEE all the way home!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:11PM (30 children)
Why does this stuff only pop up when people are getting antsy about racists and homophobes getting shut down, but the same people show no interest when it's Islamic fundamentalists?
A bit meta isn't it? Complaining about double standards whilst demonstrating them
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:32PM (25 children)
Mostly because not many organizations have been shutting down Islamic Extremist speech compared to shutting down any speech right of center in the US. You can read IE nutjobs going on any day of the week on Twitter without getting shut down. The only thing Islamic they actually will shut down are channels used to organize violence. Which is as it should be.
What's not as it should be is they'll happily shut down anyone arguing against a radical-progressive position in a heartbeat. Except Islamist Extremists. Yeah, nobody said they made a whole lot of sense.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:46PM (20 children)
The only thing Islamic they actually will shut down are channels used to organize violence. Which is as it should be.
Please, do not conflate preaching and practice. Shut people down for what they do, not what they say. The words themselves are insufficient grounds. We all have the power to turn our backs on them. Since they do practice murder, you can shut them down for their actions. That is how it should be stated.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:38PM (19 children)
I never said otherwise, I was simply stating what's being done. I have no problem with letting them spew their regressive hatred publicly. They should absolutely be allowed to so that everyone will know how vile they are; exactly the same as with the Klan, antifa, BLM, etc... Though I will say coordinating an attack goes beyond a speech issue.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 19 2017, @07:24PM (18 children)
A coordinated physical attack goes beyond free speech and is already justifiably restricted. The verbal coordination itself, no matter what the content, is just words. The followers choose to abide by them, or not. Don't blame the speaker for the people who listen and follow. Let those who follow know unequivocally that they will suffer the consequences of their actions. *The devil made me do it* is not a defense, though it appears that it is a legal one that can keep you out of jail for what you do.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 19 2017, @09:13PM (2 children)
Coordinating the physical attacks via speech is what I was speaking of. Mind you, it's still wise to leave those channels open so you can know as well but it is not morally obligatory.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday August 20 2017, @02:00PM (1 child)
Coordination is not the same as execution. The chasm between the verbal and the physical remains extremely wide. The only link being the choice the followers make, and prosecution must be limited to those people and their choices. They must not be allowed to hide behind "incitement". Temporary insanity, maybe, but that's their only option.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 20 2017, @03:46PM
Who said anything about absolving anyone? I'm saying there's blame enough to cover everyone involved, even only in the planning stages.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday August 19 2017, @09:53PM
So following your logic, if you make a contract with a contract killer, you do nothing wrong, because it's just words, and the contract killer could still choose to not act on those words?
And no, the contract killer is not off the hooks for the fact he was fulfilling a contract. Guilt is not something of which there is a fixed amount so that if one person has it then there's nothing left to the other. Rather, if one person is 100% guilty, another person still can be 100% guilty as well.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 20 2017, @12:44AM (13 children)
Coordinating the attack is commonly known as "conspiracy". What you seem to be suggesting is, a general can lead an army to war, get thoroughly beaten, then during war crime trials, claim that he only talked his way through the war. See the Nuremburg trials. Germany's leadership colluded to lead the nation into World War Two, and were held responsible for the war and all of that war's consequences.
There are many much smaller scale conspiracies that have been successfully prosecuted.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:41AM (12 children)
A general can lead only those that choose to follow. That choice is the real offense.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 20 2017, @02:03AM (9 children)
It is indeed but the leader is not blameless. The blame game is most definitely not zero-sum.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:47PM (8 children)
With the choice to turn your back, what exactly is the leader guilty of? Think beyond the legalities for a minute. What did the leader do to compel his followers to act involuntarily? The incitement thing still doesn't fly. It only gives the guilty individuals the opportunity to hide in the crowd, the same way an executive hides inside his corporation to avoid prosecution. The amendment says: ...the right of the people peaceably to assemble.... Once the rioting starts, all bets are off. Each person who riots is guilty. That may or may not include the leaders. There are no leaders, only followers. Take out the leader, and they'll choose another.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 20 2017, @03:50PM (7 children)
Let's have ourselves an extreme example then. You're literally saying Hitler should have been absolved of all wrongdoing because he never actually did anything but speak? No. When you give orders regarding or intentionally impart useful information in the furtherance of a crime, you are a criminal.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday August 20 2017, @06:28PM (6 children)
You should follow through on your example. How famous would Hitler be if nobody followed? And besides, we shouldn't go on and on about Hitler. He received an awful lot of support and encouragement from the outside above and below him when they had the chance to shut him down early on.
Information *in the furtherance of a crime* is just another pretext, and it dilutes your ideas of "free speech", especially with the presently very fluid definition of "crime", watch the action or reaction. That is what you should prosecute. Thee guy who offensively draws first blood is the one to hang first. The triggerman is the bad guy.
The power is not in the words, it is in us, to dispose of as we see fit. The contrary is learned helplessness. To control speech is to control thought, which of course is the intention. It is an appeal to instinct at the expense of reason. I'll grant that its expedience cannot be denied.
We're back to free will again. Do we or don't we have it? Just say no so I can back off.
Oh, and yes, there are situations where words necessitate immediate action with 100% certainty, but this ain't it.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 20 2017, @07:34PM (5 children)
If the power is not in the words, why are you arguing?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Touché) by fustakrakich on Sunday August 20 2017, @08:08PM (4 children)
Got some free time before dinner... I'm not keeping you from anything, am I?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 20 2017, @10:38PM (3 children)
Just making a point. I believe you're the only person in all of history to ever argue that words are completely harmless.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday August 21 2017, @07:52AM (2 children)
They are completely harmless. And nobody has scientifically proven otherwise. They have no intrinsic value of any kind. All responses to them have to be taught as a conditioned reflex. There is nothing about them that has the ability to compel action outside that conditioning, aside from maybe the decibel level.
And why am I arguing, you ask? Because I choose to. Need I another reason? I'm trying to get to the fundamentals that nobody else will even approach.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 21 2017, @10:09AM (1 child)
As a rebuttal, I offer every leader of any sort in human history. There's your empirical evidence. If you still fail to draw the conclusions that the history of your species all but screams, there's little I can do to help you.
You know I'm a big free speech guy but there's a huge difference between recognizing that the up sides of unfettered expression outweigh the down sides and saying there are no down sides.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday August 21 2017, @04:34PM
As a rebuttal, I offer every leader of any sort in human history.
None of that accounts for the choice to follow, but of course telling people to look in the mirror makes me the heretic. Expedience rules. I can only write it off as a conditioned rote response, but it needs to be challenged at every turn. If my little "crusade" is a solitary one, I can live with that.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 20 2017, @09:08AM (1 child)
Nonsense. You've heard of the draft. Sure, you can dodge the draft, but there are often some serious consequences, possibly including execution. Bottom line, a private soldier probably bears little or no resposibility for war crimes, because he is given orders, and little if any choice in the matter. The senior officers who give the orders, are also the same officers who will prosecute and punish any form of insubordination - and they bear almost, if not all, of the responsibility for war crimes.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:26PM
Physical prosecution and punishment go way beyond speech and the context of this discussion. An electric cattle prod can incite a person, the words by themselves cannot.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Informative) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday August 19 2017, @11:04PM (3 children)
I still see a whole lot more speech from the extreme right, let alone just "right of center", than I ever saw of Islamic extremist speech. You have to dig pretty deep outside of normal channels to see any Islamic extremist speech, while it is hard to wander any thread on YouTube for instance, without seeing the like of Alex Jones or such popping up in the recommended videos list. There sure as hell are not any radio stations in the US playing syndicated shows from any Islamic extremists, yet it is hard to turn on a radio and avoid those right wing hate mongers like Jones, or Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 20 2017, @02:01AM
By normal channels you mean "places I hang out". To this I say: well no shit. Radicalized Muslims generally are going to be speaking something other than English. You're not going to be following anyone who's not speaking English, thus you're not going to hear much of anything from them. Even the ones who do speak English aren't going to be talking to you unless you're a radicalized Muslim. They have nothing to say to you except "die infidel pig".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @03:37PM (1 child)
Don't forget the power dynamic going on here as well. Islamic Extemists are a minority here wielding no actual political clout. The far from center right holds many political positions at local, state, and federal levels.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 20 2017, @03:53PM
It's amusing to watch people out themselves in how far out into the lunatic fringe they are. Thanks.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:53PM
Why? Because most discourse goes via social media and Facebook probably outsources moderation to ilsamic countries like Malaysia. It doesn't help that one of the largest owners of Twitter is an islamist from an islamist country and owns more than the founder. It doesn't help either that islamist are buying up controlling shares in many mainstream media. Just a few days ago, The Independent (UK) gained a major investment by an islamist. It has gained an inertia over the years. These days you can't even discuss islam without getting banned or at least shadow-banned.
A portion of every cent you spend at the pump goes to the islamists. The portion that does not disappear in decadence or corruption, comes back to Europe and the US in the form of mosques and media purchases.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:00PM (2 children)
If "racists and homophobes" are directly inciting violence, that is not protected speech. Islamofascist nonsense certainly isn't:
Unless there's direct incitement or a credible threat of violence, it's protected speech. Those who don't understand such distinctions should be gathered on a small island and we'll nuke the whole site from orbit - it's the only way to be sure!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @12:45AM (1 child)
> Unless there's direct incitement or a credible threat of violence . . .
Have you not paid attention to any part of history since before the 7th century?
How about since the last few days?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/19/finland-police-believe-turku-knife-attack-was-terrorism [theguardian.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:49AM
What does that have to do with speech?
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:34PM (2 children)
Why is George Soros trying to incite a race war by funding BLM and Open Borders?
On September 16, 1992, Black Wednesday, Soros's fund sold short more than $10 billion in pounds,[48] profiting from the UK government's reluctance to either raise its interest rates to levels comparable to those of other European Exchange Rate Mechanism countries or float its currency.
In 1999, economist Paul Krugman was critical of Soros's effect on financial markets.
"[N]obody who has read a business magazine in the last few years can be unaware that these days there really are investors who not only move money in anticipation of a currency crisis, but actually do their best to trigger that crisis for fun and profit."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by n1 on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:47PM (1 child)
Krugman was right, and would have been right at any point in the last hundred or more years. If Soros is one of those people or not is almost irrelevant, he's not the only person who finds opportunity in and benefits from crisis, real or manufactured.
It has been the bread and butter of the entire finance, mining/resource and 'defense' industries generations.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 20 2017, @12:48AM
For example, the Bank of England, and the Napoleonic wars. Profiting from crisis and war is a long established Western tradition.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:39PM (31 children)
the nazis, the fascists, the pureblood dictators, they all started with free speech and only later formalized slavery, shooting children in the streets and gas chambers. they're smart, they don't lead with the atrocities.
why do americans ignore the facts of history? certain ideologies are absolutely intent on destroying society. they don't generally bother announcing going after your right to speak, they just go for your throat. think long and hard about this before you start clamouring to let them speak, because if they can take away the human rights of $out_group, they can take away your rights.
the modern variants, e.g. confederate sympathizers, holocaust deniers, white nationalists, make no mistake - they want blacks and jews dead, or at best in chains with a gun to their head. pretending that it's ok because the threat isn't in the room right now makes you an accomplice.
let them keep talking and you'll find that all it takes is one form with a checkbox to make you a member of an out group - in chains with a gun in your back, forced to dig a mass grave that you'll end up in.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:54PM (1 child)
Funny that the countries with more terrorists and in bigger danger of being a failed state are the ones with the least free speech and other individual rights. Freedom is key to security and prosperity. Restrictions on freedom only bring poverty and corruption, and real radicalization. The numbers speak for themselves.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @03:50PM
Surely you see that the ideology being preached by neo-Nazi movements would seek to suppress individual liberties for all, correct? Shouldn't we opposed something so anti-American as that as vigorously as possible? Why should we shield those who seek to destroy our values with our values? I don't believe in that. It might make me a lesser person but I'm not about to hand a convicted murderer a knife and trust he won't stab me with it when I turn around.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:55PM (6 children)
America needs segregation. But not by race, as was attempted in the past, but by ideology. While not pleasant, forcibly relocate (just like we did with the native americans) anyone who doesn't meet the ideological qualifications for the new region to another one, hopefully with closer ideological leanings and similiar geographical makeup (mountain people to mountains, plains to plains, city to city, etc.)
Give the white surpremacists a stronghold state or two, possibly reboundarying it with buffer zones for existing and unrelocatable groups (probably native americans, unless they were forcibly relocated from somewhere else and we can get them to volunteer and repatriate some of their original land to them.)
Similiar with 'Black only' types, Jew-only types, etc. Given the sheer quantity of people in the US, it should be possible to give each group an 'exclusive' region, after much drama and paperwork, and then enforce those borders like they keep talking about doing to mexico. All those white haters can live in their own little clusterfuck and prove how superior they are to us. Same with the black supremacists. The Jewish supremacists already have Israel, but like the aforementioned groups as well as the Muslim supremacists they prefer to taint everywhere with their presence. Push each of these groups into their own region, do what is necessary to provide uniform supply of resources, so each group can't claim disenfranchisement because of oppression, and then let them live like they want, dealing with them harshly if they step out of bounds.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:04PM (3 children)
A whole state, for 200 people? Hardly fair, or even workable. You would have a better chance with a couple thousand libertarians trying to take over a state, but that doesn't seem to be able to work, either.
We could just ignore the TMB, while he goes off ranting about Nazis being muzzled, and women being able to speak. Free speech entails no obligation to listen.
(Score: 2) by http on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:42PM (2 children)
If you think it's only 200, you're in for a nasty surprise. There's more than that at your school. Or your kid's school, if your demographic goes that way.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 19 2017, @09:15PM
Only if you go by the SJW definition of "racist". Which is to say "white or disagrees with me".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @05:01PM
A place without blacks? I'm there.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:41PM
There aren't enough of them to merit Rhode Island. There are less than 10k Klan members left in the entire US, for instance.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:56PM
Your idea was called a "Thuisland" [wikipedia.org] in South Africa:
Have you ever heard of Eugène Terre-Blanche (nomen est omen) [wikipedia.org]? He was disappointed that the Apartheid regime wasn't strict enough against nie-blankes (non-whites).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:13PM (3 children)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @07:11PM (2 children)
This is the thing I find most interesting. I think it's a giant pink elephant in the room. This [wikipedia.org] is the list of the 25 fundamental goals of the Nazi party. Economically and socially they align extremely well with groups like Antifa. Our history records the Nazis as far right, but they were called National Socialists for a reason. The thing that separates them is, ostensibly, the racism. Yet increasingly these groups are now adopting, as you mention, 'white male' as their own version of the Jew. And for the exact same reasons. And they're the ones now working to normalize violence as part of their political platform and restrict freedom of speech - all while calling everybody who disagres with them nazis. The number of parallels is interesting if nothing else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @08:44PM
And they are sponsored by big capital too.
Islamists also have eerie similarities with WWII Germany.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:14AM
The big difference is that Hilary didn't have anywhere near the charisma and integrity of Adolf.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @07:11PM (4 children)
So we should turn our backs on freedom of speech--a fundamental right--because something bad could happen at some unspecified point in the future that's not even really caused by the speech itself but by people's actions. And this authoritarian drivel gets modded up?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @07:38PM (3 children)
if you don't understand that speech and action are fundamentally connected, why discuss anything with you on any topic? you must be a whiz at business, what with making contracts and not having to follow through on them.
everywhere in life but especially in politics, speech is how you find like minded people and co-ordinate with them to actually do things... and there are some things that should not be done.
little pissbaby thinks commonsense rules gleaned from history are 'authoritarian'.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday August 19 2017, @08:19PM
We simply hear speech; but we perform actions. In between is the mind, and in the process of deriving action from speech, the mind becomes responsible. That's us, the listeners.
The laws only apply to actions, when they are well written.
It is our actions we are, and should be, responsible for. This is why we need to think about what we hear.
I have heard Hitler's speeches. I have yet to gas a Jew. Etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @08:25PM
If you don't understand that freedom of speech is a fundamental right that must be protected at all costs, then you're an authoritarian scumbag and our values are utterly irreconcilable. I'd say you'd be happier in North Korea.
Here's your "common sense": 'If we let group X speak, then at some unspecified point in the future this could lead to undesirable results. Therefore, we need to limit their ability to speak now.' This logic could be used to limit your, my, or anyone's right to speak based on completely unlikely 'what if' scenarios. Maybe you should self-censor before that happens.
The problem with Germany was hardly freedom of speech; that's an overly simplistic way of viewing it. It's also too simplistic to believe that everything would play out the same way.
But I'll be extremely generous and assume that your delusions are correct. So what? I value freedom over safety. I would rather take the risk of something undesirable happening in the future than limit people's free speech rights, because I am not an authoritarian coward. I would also oppose mass surveillance even if it stopped terrorism. You are the type of authoritarian coward who could be persuaded to discard any of your rights in the name of safety, since you lack principles.
Like I said, you could have all the authoritarianism you want in North Korea; that country seems more in line with your values.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 19 2017, @10:10PM
So all your politicians do exactly what they say they'll do? >
Further, a point of speech is to persuade others. History has shown that heavy handed punishment of speech by the authorities makes listeners more sympathetic to the target's speech.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Saturday August 19 2017, @08:13PM (5 children)
The problem is that we have communists on one side and neo-nazis on the other. If we attribute all the deaths from WWII the Nazis stand at a kek 50-80 million, the commies stand at 150-400 million between Russia/Cambodia/Burma/China.
Who do you side with? When you say you don't like either, you become a target of Antifa.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @08:45PM (3 children)
Where are you getting these figures? Common, realistic estimates are about 20 million for Hitler and 100 million for 20th Century Communism.
Neither, they're opposing cheeks of the same asshole!
Correct. It was violence from the communists that enabled Mussolini and Hitler to seize power. [theepochtimes.com] Chomsky gets it. [dailywire.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @09:41PM
But in Boston, they were down to about 20. Power? This is why we cannot have white supremacy! All these white racists suck at math.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:18AM (1 child)
For the Nazis I just gave them the entire 80 million from WWII on the highest estimates. I did this because if I didn't someone else wld try to refute my other numbers and say I'm a Nazi for underestimating. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties [wikipedia.org]
Admitedly I haven't looked up the numbers on communist caused deaths in a decade or so, so I guess this is a good chance to see what the modern counts are.
Cambodia - 1-3 million
China Great Leap Forward - 55
NK Famine - 1-3 if we want to count these
Tibet annexation - .5 (some claim more, but I think part of the 55 above)
Russian Revolution - 8
Russian Famine 21/22 - 5
Russian Famine 32/33 - 7
Russian Gulag - 4.5
Chinese Revolution - 17
Just a few of the events but I ran out of time. Looks like ~100 so I was way off.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:49AM
You are a Nazi, AND you are underestimating.
Or just making stuff up off of the intertubes. What do all these dead people you are talking about have to do with anything? Nazism is evil, even if it never harmed a fly, because it is dumb. Nazis are dummkopfs. There, I said it.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday August 19 2017, @11:50PM
Speaking of which - I'm yet to see a death caused by antifa yet there are heaps of deaths caused by white supremacists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Saturday August 19 2017, @09:01PM
You seem to think that atrocities depend on ideology and are a recent invention in human history. Counterpoint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 19 2017, @10:00PM
The facts are that words don't shoot children or build gas chambers. Let us keep in mind that a fair bit of the laws that were exploited by Wiemar Republic Nazis once they were in power were before used by the enemies of the Nazis to suppress those very Nazis (and the Communists who were also seen as a threat). What's much more ridiculous than the words and ideals of Nazis are people who pave the way for a Nazi tyranny in a failed attempt to fight them.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 20 2017, @12:49AM (3 children)
You may be right. So, do you suggest that we hunt down Antifa members like we would hunt rabid dogs?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 20 2017, @03:40AM (2 children)
How many deaths so far from antifa actions?
How many deaths so far from white supremacists actions?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 20 2017, @09:02AM (1 child)
Quality, not quantity.
You're suggesting that because Texas documented x rabid dogs last year, and Oklahoma documented x/2 rabid dogs, that Oklahoma might stop destroying rabid dogs.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:42PM
Speaking of quality, I suggest keeping the dogs which haven't kill (yet) on leash until you can determine if they are of rabid "quality" or not.
Meanwhile, keep a peeled eye on the dogs mob you know to have killed in the recent very past.
And... yeah, if you (the law and order mob, not you runaway) pride yourself in doing your job, keep the two kind of dogs separated, otherwise your "quality" sounds hollow.
Fair enough for yea, Runaway?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday August 20 2017, @06:30PM
Free speech is one thing: incitement to violence is another. Let the stupid inbreed sheet-heads march all they want saying "I hate niggers" but as soon as one of them even suggests actual violence, come down on them like a ton of rectangular buildin'-things.
A friend from college, one of the most dour humorless people I've ever met (think about who this is coming from here...) has uncharacteristically suggested fighting these fucks with mockery. Specifically coating them in glitter, trailing them with a tuba playing ridiculous music, and dressing in deliberately satirical versions of their costumes. He's also been tinkering with the idea of Bayesian poisoning, which he refers to as "shitting in an ocean of piss." I can only surmise he means infiltrating these groups and spreading false information about where and when rallies take place, gaining information for doxxing, etc.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...