Portland Republicans considering using militia groups as "security" for public events.

[Kon_El]

What Milo does is not a mere "exchange of ideas". It's not "just a discussion". He actively endangers people and those in power who have witnessed it have refused to act to stop him. Therefore, people begin to view nonviolent protest as ineffective. Stronger measures are adopted.

They do not have the right to silence his speech. They didn't want him to speak and didn't get their way. Boo hoo. Milo does what he does to get a reaction. By using violence to get their way they have shown themselves to be the intolerant oppressors he had been painting them as. As vile as what he says may be it is protected. Neither you or I nor they gets to decide what is or is not an exchange of ideas or discussion. There have always been people like him. When 150 people storm an event he is speaking at and cause over $100,000 in damages to Berkeley campus he wins. He couldn't have hoped for a better response.

[Dragon Angel]

They do not have the right to silence his speech. They didn't want him to speak and didn't get their way. Boo hoo. Milo does what he does to get a reaction. By using violence to get their way they have shown themselves to be the intolerant oppressors he had been painting them as. As vile as what he says may be it is protected. Neither you or I nor they gets to decide what is or is not an exchange of ideas or discussion. There have always been people like him. When 150 people storm an event he is speaking at and cause over $100,000 in damages to Berkeley campus he wins. He couldn't have hoped for a better response.

What world do you live in where you honestly believe outing a queer person is consequence-less and results in only hurt feelings? Or blatantly smearing another with accusations of child rape, causing hordes of trolls to descend upon her day after day reminding her of how he managed to get it to stick? Or is libel something you're willing to defend? What about plain old queer panic and murder?

Or maybe you're intentionally ignoring these and being dishonest. In your view, people fighting against their oppression is as bad as the people oppressing them.

[Kon_El]

Or is libel something you're willing to defend? What about plain old queer panic and murder?

Or maybe you're intentionally ignoring these and being dishonest. In your view, people fighting against their oppression is as bad as the people oppressing them.

If it is libel then file a suit. Violence is not the answer. Setting fire to a famously left leaning university is certainly not the answer. If solving societies problems was easy there would be nothing left to accomplish.

[Dragon Angel]

If it is libel then file a suit. Violence is not the answer. Setting fire to a famously left leaning university is certainly not the answer. If solving societies problems was easy there would be nothing left to accomplish.

Oh, sure thing, rely on courts that will take lots of money, lots of time, and lots of energy. Meanwhile as that is progressing--if it can progress, as money, time, and energy are rather difficult to come by when you're marginalized--he gets to continue smearing people and endangering people unchecked thanks to everyone who is supposed to prevent that allowing it to happen. That's completely fair and reasonable.

Don't think I missed your forgetting about violence against queer people either, jackass.

[Kon_El]

If it is libel then file a suit. Violence is not the answer. Setting fire to a famously left leaning university is certainly not the answer. If solving societies problems was easy there would be nothing left to accomplish.

Oh, sure thing, rely on courts that will take lots of money, lots of time, and lots of energy. Meanwhile as that is progressing--if it can progress, as money, time, and energy are rather difficult to come by when you're marginalized--he gets to continue smearing people and endangering people unchecked thanks to everyone who is supposed to prevent that allowing it to happen. That's completely fair and reasonable.

Don't think I missed your forgetting about violence against queer people either, jackass.

He isn't committing acts of violence. Legally he is not inciting violence. There is a line as long as he stays on the right side of it he is protected. I am angry at these asshole for making me defend the man but make no mistake, they hurt their cause that day. The made it so easy for him and others like him to vilify them. He won that day. Advocating further violence just adds to his victory.

[Dragon Angel]

He isn't committing acts of violence. Legally he is not inciting violence. There is a line as long as he stays on the right side of it he is protected. I am angry at these asshole for making me defend the man but make no mistake, they hurt their cause that day. The made it so easy for him and others like him to vilify them. He won that day. Advocating further violence just adds to his victory.

Ah, so what is legal is what is right. People fighting against him when the authorities will not touch him are only making his position even more right. Therefore it is ..... right, now, when he exposes queer people to violence?

Even Martin Luther King hated people like you.

[Kon_El]

He isn't committing acts of violence. Legally he is not inciting violence. There is a line as long as he stays on the right side of it he is protected. I am angry at these asshole for making me defend the man but make no mistake, they hurt their cause that day. The made it so easy for him and others like him to vilify them. He won that day. Advocating further violence just adds to his victory.

Ah, so what is legal is what is right. People fighting against him when the authorities will not touch him are only making his position even more right. Therefore it is ..... right, now, when he exposes queer people to violence?

Even Martin Luther King hated people like you.

Are you seriously arguing they helped their cause by doing what they did? They set fire to Berkeley. They put Milo on the map. They spread his message far and wide. Do you want blood in the streets? Do you want some Nazi skinheads to open fire on anti-fa members killing them in mass and get away with it because there are YouTube videos of the event from 7 different angles that show the anti-fa members started the fight? That is where this is leading. In the OP article the groundwork is being laid for it. Escalation of violence doesn't prove anyone right it just gets people dead.

Dr. King hated people who didn't want blood in the streets? Do tell.

[Dragon Angel]

Are you seriously arguing they helped their cause by doing what they did? They set fire to Berkeley. They put Milo on the map. They spread his message far and wide. Do you want blood in the streets? Do you want some Nazi skinheads to open fire on anti-fa members killing them in mass and get away with it because there are YouTube videos of the event from 7 different angles that show the anti-fa members started the fight? That is where this is leading. In the OP article the groundwork is being laid for it. Escalation of violence doesn't prove anyone right it just gets people dead.

Whether they helped or hurt their cause is irrelevant. Whether violence sways the mindless middle is irrelevant. What is relevant is Milo is being given blank checks to terrorize a marginalized community, which can and has historically lead to violence against that marginalized community, and people see violence as the only realistic response because they see that the system will not protect them. (see next answer) Milo was "on the map" for far longer than you recognize. You're just a joke pretending to know everything when you only know the surface details of what really happens.

People who would seriously think "well that Milo guy is right trans women are potential rapists in the bathroom" because some property was set on fire ..... they are already far gone. Let's not be dramatic, shall we? And, let's keep to the discussion at hand: You're attempting to frame Milo's actions as "just a discussion" when he has done far worse than mere provocations.

Dr. King hated people who didn't want blood in the streets? Do tell.

Dr. King disliked the "white moderate", who cared more about civility and decorum rather than justice. Dr. King, though he disliked riots and stressed a nonviolent movement, still knew the truth that they were the language of the unheard. He had far more empathy for them than those who cared little about whether or not there was true justice.

Your constant ignoring of the consequences of outing queer people or calling specific queer people pedophiles shows to me that you are exactly the type of person Dr. King would distaste. You are far more invested in protecting a broken system than empathizing with the people who may find themselves the targets of far right hate mobs.

[Kon_El]

Are you seriously arguing they helped their cause by doing what they did? They set fire to Berkeley. They put Milo on the map. They spread his message far and wide. Do you want blood in the streets? Do you want some Nazi skinheads to open fire on anti-fa members killing them in mass and get away with it because there are YouTube videos of the event from 7 different angles that show the anti-fa members started the fight? That is where this is leading. In the OP article the groundwork is being laid for it. Escalation of violence doesn't prove anyone right it just gets people dead.

Whether they helped or hurt their cause is irrelevant. Whether violence sways the mindless middle is irrelevant.

Not so irrelevant if it sways them away from you. When it makes them less likely to listen to your complaints. When it makes them sympathize with Nazis(they will hate you for that one). To achieve equality and acceptance you need those people. The normalization of this idea of punching Nazis in the face being OK will lead to death. Will lead to stupid young people who think they are fighting the good fight being goaded into getting themselves killed in "self defense".

What is relevant is Milo is being given blank checks to terrorize a marginalized community, which can and has historically lead to violence against that marginalized community, and people see violence as the only realistic response because they see that the system will not protect them. (see next answer) Milo was "on the map" for far longer than you recognize.

What he is doing is legal. It is protected by a law that is nearly impossible to change by design. Setting fires and beating people will not change that. It will broaden his audience. The system does offer protection. Hate crime laws were a dream 30 years ago.

People who would seriously think "well that Milo guy is right trans women are potential rapists in the bathroom" because some property was set on fire ..... they are already far gone. Let's not be dramatic, shall we? And, let's keep to the discussion at hand: You're attempting to frame Milo's actions as "just a discussion" when he has done far worse than mere provocations.

No. I am saying that no one gets do decide that a topic is taboo and use the treat of violence to keep people from talking about it. If you don't like what someone is saying then speak out against them. Expose the consequences of their actions far and wide. Rob them of any support they might hope to gain. The moment you get frustrated and use violence you are conceding the debate.

Dr. King hated people who didn't want blood in the streets? Do tell.

Dr. King disliked the "white moderate", who cared more about civility and decorum rather than justice. Dr. King, though he disliked riots and stressed a nonviolent movement, still knew the truth that they were the language of the unheard. He had far more empathy for them than those who cared little about whether or not there was true justice.

I'm not more concerned about civility and decorum than I am about justice. I care about those things because 150 people showing up to a speech and setting fires makes that fight for justice harder. It pushes away people who would otherwise offer support. It makes a mockery of the cause. It is self defeating. I don't want to condemn people who feel they have no other option but I will condemn their actions.

Your constant ignoring of the consequences of outing queer people or calling specific queer people pedophiles shows to me that you are exactly the type of person Dr. King would distaste. You are far more invested in protecting a broken system than empathizing with the people who may find themselves the targets of far right hate mobs.

I am not ignoring anything. I am stating that violence is not the answer. Non violent advocacy works. It is slow and cumbersome and mindbogglingly frustrating but it works. Violence will not fix the "broken system" it will only bring more violence.

[The Romulan Republic]

Dr. King disliked the "white moderate", who cared more about civility and decorum rather than justice. Dr. King, though he disliked riots and stressed a nonviolent movement, still knew the truth that they were the language of the unheard. He had far more empathy for them than those who cared little about whether or not there was true justice.

Your constant ignoring of the consequences of outing queer people or calling specific queer people pedophiles shows to me that you are exactly the type of person Dr. King would distaste. You are far more invested in protecting a broken system than empathizing with the people who may find themselves the targets of far right hate mobs.

I should note that my own opposition to political violence is not about "civility and decorum" for their own sake. Rather, it is about the very real, often catastrophic harm, that political violence causes to many people, including the innocent. It is not a simple choice between "non-violent status quo" and "violence in the name of Justice". Because any violent conflict almost necessarily entails a great deal of injustice (even if its in the name of a greater good), and it is not just "bad people" who get hurt and killed and have their rights violated.

Remember that there is no guarantee that your side will win such a conflict, and that even if it does, the cost will be high- and the brunt of that cost, as always, is likely to be bourn by those vulnerable groups-the poor, racial minorities, religious and cultural minorities, etc.-who you want to protect.

I'm not trying to take Kon_El's side here, much less defend that shit stain Milo. I just wanted to address this specific argument.

[Dragon Angel]

I should note that my own opposition to political violence is not about "civility and decorum" for their own sake. Rather, it is about the very real, often catastrophic harm, that political violence causes to many people, including the innocent. It is not a simple choice between "non-violent status quo" and "violence in the name of Justice". Because any violent conflict almost necessarily entails a great deal of injustice (even if its in the name of a greater good), and it is not just "bad people" who get hurt and killed and have their rights violated.

Remember that there is no guarantee that your side will win such a conflict, and that even if it does, the cost will be high- and the brunt of that cost, as always, is likely to be bourn by those vulnerable groups-the poor, racial minorities, religious and cultural minorities, etc.-who you want to protect.

Except that wasn't the point of King's argument. He mentioned it because there were people like Kon_El here who focused on and on about how people reacted, while spending much less time focusing on the reasons why they reacted that way. Whatever he thought of violent resistance, he still recognized the place they came from and why people were upset. He also recognized that, no matter what he did or advocated, those people would continue to feel desperate because they felt no one will protect them, even those who claimed they were for black equality but could care less about what actually happened to black people. Black people were not being heard, and white liberals condemned the rioters thinking their actions just came out of a void.

Not so irrelevant if it sways them away from you. When it makes them less likely to listen to your complaints. When it makes them sympathize with Nazis(they will hate you for that one). To achieve equality and acceptance you need those people. The normalization of this idea of punching Nazis in the face being OK will lead to death. Will lead to stupid young people who think they are fighting the good fight being goaded into getting themselves killed in "self defense".

If people really thought like you, no one would have ever sympathized with what happened at Stonewall. Those poor cops, they were just doing their civic duty by the laws they were given, those <expletives> should have just stood by and let the cops abuse them. Only the State should have the right to violence. Those gays just proved the cops were right all along.

Nazis like Richard Spencer who advocate that everyone who isn't white should be murdered, and shits like Milo who paint targets on the backs of trans people, deserve a sock in the face if the government isn't willing to stop them and their kind. That is, frankly, the most generous option people who are affected will take, once the chips are down.

What he is doing is legal. It is protected by a law that is nearly impossible to change by design. Setting fires and beating people will not change that. It will broaden his audience. The system does offer protection. Hate crime laws were a dream 30 years ago.

What is legal is what is moral. Therefore outing queer people to an audience that has a statistically large chance of having violent radicals is moral. Understood.

No. I am saying that no one gets do decide that a topic is taboo and use the treat of violence to keep people from talking about it. If you don't like what someone is saying then speak out against them. Expose the consequences of their actions far and wide. Rob them of any support they might hope to gain. The moment you get frustrated and use violence you are conceding the debate.

Oh, the "a vigorous debate will stop the Nazis" argument. I'm pretty sure the debate has been had for decades now and the result is white supremacy having closer ties to American power ..... that sure worked I guess.

Glad to know too the gays at Stonewall conceded the debate for their rights when they defended themselves.

I'm not more concerned about civility and decorum than I am about justice. I care about those things because 150 people showing up to a speech and setting fires makes that fight for justice harder. It pushes away people who would otherwise offer support. It makes a mockery of the cause. It is self defeating. I don't want to condemn people who feel they have no other option but I will condemn their actions.

You seem to care far more about a personal appearance boogeyman when in reality, queer rights are being slowly dismantled. I don't think the people who are affected are going to care about outside appearances when they can't even use a bathroom without the threat of being arrested and jailed.

If you don't want to condemn them then ... don't? It's not that difficult. You could like, stop condemning them. I did long ago, because I know that desperation is an extremely bitter taste made all the more bitter when outsiders tut tut you for not working hard enough using those bootstraps, within a system that does not care.

I am not ignoring anything. I am stating that violence is not the answer. Non violent advocacy works. It is slow and cumbersome and mindbogglingly frustrating but it works. Violence will not fix the "broken system" it will only bring more violence.

We've had decades of incrementalist politics that are about to break down because people with privilege decided to be complacent and let a fascist wannabe and his entire party into power. You can stuff that "slow and cumbersome but it works" fallacy deep up your rectum, thanks.

[Kon_El]

He mentioned it because there were people like Kon_El here who focused on and on about how people reacted, while spending much less time focusing on the reasons why they reacted that way.

That is what I am focusing on because that is the topic of discussion. The OP post was about a conservative group who had received threats of violence and were considering accepting armed security from "alternate sources". I pointed out that this seemed like further escalation after what had happened in Berkeley. It isn't necessary to go into a long back history of the issues involved in order to have a discussion about how people killing each other is bad and is going to lead to more killing.

Not so irrelevant if it sways them away from you. When it makes them less likely to listen to your complaints. When it makes them sympathize with Nazis(they will hate you for that one). To achieve equality and acceptance you need those people. The normalization of this idea of punching Nazis in the face being OK will lead to death. Will lead to stupid young people who think they are fighting the good fight being goaded into getting themselves killed in "self defense".

If people really thought like you, no one would have ever sympathized with what happened at Stonewall.

The two events are different enough that the PR effects are not going to be the same. Stonewall also sparked the creation of advocacy groups which did more to help the situation than the events of that day ever could.

Nazis like Richard Spencer who advocate that everyone who isn't white should be murdered, and shits like Milo who paint targets on the backs of trans people, deserve a sock in the face if the government isn't willing to stop them and their kind. That is, frankly, the most generous option people who are affected will take, once the chips are down.

Are you willing to accept the deaths that this will result in? Stop dancing around the issue. Stop ignoring that part of my posts. When a group of young adults is dead in the street because they started a fight they couldn't win. Will you be happy? Will you feel that the "moral" thing has been done? When the people who killed them are able to point to their online posts about punching Nazis to reinforce their self defense claim? When they serve no jail time? Will you be happy then? How many people have to die?

What he is doing is legal. It is protected by a law that is nearly impossible to change by design. Setting fires and beating people will not change that. It will broaden his audience. The system does offer protection. Hate crime laws were a dream 30 years ago.

What is legal is what is moral. Therefore outing queer people to an audience that has a statistically large chance of having violent radicals is moral. Understood.

What is moral and what is legal are not the same. When they differ they create a dilemma. You can take the time to change public perception or you can take the action that you see as moral even if it violates the law. If you choose to violate the law you must be prepared for the consequences. They can be quite severe.

[Flagg]

If you'd bothered to have done a modicum of research, you would know just why people tend to violently dislike Milo.

I have watched the man speak. I know who he is.

I'm not advocating violence against Nazis and other peddlers of hate and pro-genocide speech, I'm simply saying I don't overly give a fuck and won't cry too hard if at all over a few (or more) spilled Nazis.

The problem with that train of thought is that if people don't feel like they will be protected by the law they tend to arm themselve (or hire less than reputable security) which leads to violent escalation. You may laugh when those rotten bastards get punched in the face but when it leads to a massacre you may feel differently.

Yeah, I will. I'll want every surviving Nazi and their accomplices thrown in a hole next to Charlie Manson where they can make toilet paper and poop swastikas that are regularly taken away and burned until they die and thus will be the end of their pestilence in most of Western Civilization.

[Dragon Angel]

That is what I am focusing on because that is the topic of discussion. The OP post was about a conservative group who had received threats of violence and were considering accepting armed security from "alternate sources". I pointed out that this seemed like further escalation after what had happened in Berkeley. It isn't necessary to go into a long back history of the issues involved in order to have a discussion about how people killing each other is bad and is going to lead to more killing.

I mean, if you're going to just take everything out of their contexts and place them into complete vacuums while pretending we were discussing something else, then this conversation is a waste of my time.

The two events are different enough that the PR effects are not going to be the same. Stonewall also sparked the creation of advocacy groups which did more to help the situation than the events of that day ever could.

Nice goalpost moving. You started making blanket assertions that any amount of violence would mean that the people who fought automatically conceded any argument they had. I countered that with an example of violence that would render your assertions to be idiotic.

The second sentence makes absolutely no sense. If the events of that day could never help as much as the advocacy groups, then what caused the inception of those advocacy groups?

Are you willing to accept the deaths that this will result in? Stop dancing around the issue. Stop ignoring that part of my posts. When a group of young adults is dead in the street because they started a fight they couldn't win. Will you be happy? Will you feel that the "moral" thing has been done? When the people who killed them are able to point to their online posts about punching Nazis to reinforce their self defense claim? When they serve no jail time? Will you be happy then? How many people have to die?

Why am I suddenly responsible for the choices of people who are desperate enough to use violence against groups they fear violence from? Do you seriously think the vast majority of them have not weighed the outcomes of violent resistance versus the status quo?

I would not be happy if anyone was dead. But, this is the risk they viewed they needed to take. Do you think the queer people at Stonewall thought their rebellion against the cops was going to end cleanly? Do you think the real possibility of death was not on their minds?

You're clueless bro.

What is moral and what is legal are not the same. When they differ they create a dilemma. You can take the time to change public perception or you can take the action that you see as moral even if it violates the law. If you choose to violate the law you must be prepared for the consequences. They can be quite severe.

If you're also going to refuse to address random points of mine in your extremely selective quoting (for one example, where I pointed out how incrementalism is about to lead to nothing), then that is also an indication this conversation is a waste of my time.

[Flagg]

I love the "argument" put forth by Con hEil. "It's legal so it's fine and don't make it illegal!"

A finer example of the problem with the willful blindness of the privileged cannot be found.

[Beowulf]

In this story, another trans woman whom he outed in front of an audience of frothing dogs.

Not to defend Milo, but a trans woman he outed using a picture from a news story about her?

[Kon_El]

That is what I am focusing on because that is the topic of discussion. The OP post was about a conservative group who had received threats of violence and were considering accepting armed security from "alternate sources". I pointed out that this seemed like further escalation after what had happened in Berkeley. It isn't necessary to go into a long back history of the issues involved in order to have a discussion about how people killing each other is bad and is going to lead to more killing.

I mean, if you're going to just take everything out of their contexts and place them into complete vacuums while pretending we were discussing something else, then this conversation is a waste of my time.

You are the one trying to change the subject. The context is already known and doesn't change the result. Violence breeds more violence. All of the historical context in the world isn't going to revive the people who will die if this spirals into bloodshed.

The two events are different enough that the PR effects are not going to be the same. Stonewall also sparked the creation of advocacy groups which did more to help the situation than the events of that day ever could.

Nice goalpost moving. You started making blanket assertions that any amount of violence would mean that the people who fought automatically conceded any argument they had. I countered that with an example of violence that would render your assertions to be idiotic.

When someone resorts to violence they are no longer engaging in debate. They have abandoned it in favor of changing minds with force. At the Milo protest they brought the violence to him. The contrast between the suppression of free speech and the historical bastion of its defense at which it occurred was to much to pass up and they were mocked. They did not help their cause.

The second sentence makes absolutely no sense. If the events of that day could never help as much as the advocacy groups, then what caused the inception of those advocacy groups?

If not for those advocacy groups Stonewall would have been forgotten. The violence of that night accomplished nothing in of itself. Those groups and the debate for freedom and equality that they advanced were what mattered. $100,000 in damages to a famous California collage will inspire nothing of the sort.

Why am I suddenly responsible for the choices of people who are desperate enough to use violence against groups they fear violence from? Do you seriously think the vast majority of them have not weighed the outcomes of violent resistance versus the status quo?

I would not be happy if anyone was dead. But, this is the risk they viewed they needed to take. Do you think the queer people at Stonewall thought their rebellion against the cops was going to end cleanly? Do you think the real possibility of death was not on their minds?

You have outright denounced advocacy for incremental change. You have outright stated that people deserve to be assaulted for their speech. You are advocating violence. You can't try to pass it off as other people making their own decisions when you are advocating for that choice. You can't attack people for stating that violence will only lead to more violence and then act like you had nothing to do with it when said violence breaks out.

I love the "argument" put forth by Con hEil. "It's legal so it's fine and don't make it illegal!"

More like It sucks that their is no legal recourse but unless you have a plan for amending the constitution restricting speech is off the table. Use available methods to advance your cause.

Yeah, I will. I'll want every surviving Nazi and their accomplices thrown in a hole next to Charlie Manson where they can make toilet paper and poop swastikas that are regularly taken away and burned until they die and thus will be the end of their pestilence in most of Western Civilization.

How will you feel when they successfully plea self defense due to their victims having posted on social media that "Nazi's should get the shit kicked out of them at every opportunity." proving they had prior intent to inflict violence.

[Dragon Angel]

Not to defend Milo, but a trans woman he outed using a picture from a news story about her?

What news story? Did that story out the trans woman too?

Anyway, even if the photo/outing had been published elsewhere (source?) there is still extreme context.

You are the one trying to change the subject. The context is already known and doesn't change the result. Violence breeds more violence. All of the historical context in the world isn't going to revive the people who will die if this spirals into bloodshed.

Okay yeah you're not worth talking to. If you think context has no meaning here then you're a just pompous idiot who cannot have a meaningful discussion on philosophy without resorting to binary ideals.

When someone resorts to violence they are no longer engaging in debate. They have abandoned it in favor of changing minds with force. At the Milo protest they brought the violence to him. The contrast between the suppression of free speech and the historical bastion of its defense at which it occurred was to much to pass up and they were mocked. They did not help their cause.

Great job Stonewall conceded the debate for their rights to the cops then!

If not for those advocacy groups Stonewall would have been forgotten. The violence of that night accomplished nothing in of itself. Those groups and the debate for freedom and equality that they advanced were what mattered. $100,000 in damages to a famous California collage will inspire nothing of the sort.

Accomplished nothing in itself ..... except strike the match for further movement on gay rights.

Makes you think.

You have outright denounced advocacy for incremental change. You have outright stated that people deserve to be assaulted for their speech. You are advocating violence. You can't try to pass it off as other people making their own decisions when you are advocating for that choice. You can't attack people for stating that violence will only lead to more violence and then act like you had nothing to do with it when said violence breaks out.

I've stated my personal opinion. Whether something should or shouldn't happen should realistically be judged on a case-by-case basis, but I personally don't mind if all the punches thrown in human history land on Richard Spencer's face. There is a difference between what happens in thought and what happens physically. Or, are you now a thought cop?

Am I a leader in the movement, though? When did I gain the power to cause hundreds of followers to punch everyone in the right wing on my whim? I'd like you to point out where those people are because there are plenty of things I have in mind for them to do, I've always wanted a nice mindless cult for myself.

I'm not even going to bother explaining myself re: incrementalism because you're more than demonstrating you are not interested in a conversation besides trying to be an almighty preacher.

[Kon_El]

Okay yeah you're not worth talking to. If you think context has no meaning here then you're a just pompous idiot who cannot have a meaningful discussion on philosophy without resorting to binary ideals.

Oh we were discussing philosophy. I thought you were advocating for political violence and I was warning of the consequences of such a thing. Silly me

[Flagg]

I love the "argument" put forth by Con hEil. "It's legal so it's fine and don't make it illegal!"

More like It sucks that their is no legal recourse but unless you have a plan for amending the constitution restricting speech is off the table. Use available methods to advance your cause.[/quote]
I said we should amend the constitution to ban hate speech, idiot.

Yeah, I will. I'll want every surviving Nazi and their accomplices thrown in a hole next to Charlie Manson where they can make toilet paper and poop swastikas that are regularly taken away and burned until they die and thus will be the end of their pestilence in most of Western Civilization.

How will you feel when they successfully plea self defense due to their victims having posted on social media that "Nazi's should get the shit kicked out of them at every opportunity." proving they had prior intent to inflict violence.

Umm, you posited the government being the ones wiping the filth up, so why would random people on a half-dead Star Wars messageboard saying dead Nazis = Good even be relavent?

[Kon_El]

I love the "argument" put forth by Con hEil. "It's legal so it's fine and don't make it illegal!"

More like It sucks that their is no legal recourse but unless you have a plan for amending the constitution restricting speech is off the table. Use available methods to advance your cause.

I said we should amend the constitution to ban hate speech, idiot.

"We should" is not a plan, ass.

Yeah, I will. I'll want every surviving Nazi and their accomplices thrown in a hole next to Charlie Manson where they can make toilet paper and poop swastikas that are regularly taken away and burned until they die and thus will be the end of their pestilence in most of Western Civilization.

How will you feel when they successfully plea self defense due to their victims having posted on social media that "Nazi's should get the shit kicked out of them at every opportunity." proving they had prior intent to inflict violence.

Umm, you posited the government being the ones wiping the filth up, so why would random people on a half-dead Star Wars messageboard saying dead Nazis = Good even be relavent?

I was pointing out that if this trend continues it will lead to a massacre. You said you wanted the government to lock them up. I used a quote of something you had posted as an example of the kind of thing that can be used by Nazis to justify "defending themselves" thus making it less likely they end up in jail after such an event.

[Joun_Lord]

The thing I worry about with Nazi bashing even leaving aside my distaste of using violence in response to words is that it might create the situation where fucktarded ass skinheads are driven to violence of their own in "defending themselves" and that violence could spill over to innocent people.

Already we might be getting into a legal area where a fucking Neo-Nazi can shoot someone in self defense for assault. Punching.......... people like Richard Spencer is assault and battery, he can respond with violence of his own up to and including lethal force. Smacking some dude over the head with a bike lock is assault with a deadly weapon. Creating mobs and burning down shit is probably going to scare the ever loving shit out of people.

They aren't going to just sit and take it. Some will arm themselves, some will be far more proactive in defending themselves from harm. They will be the ones punching leftist mouthpieces, bitching about how free speech is teh bads because people on the left can advocate violence against them without an legal consequences. And then alot of people including innocents are going to wind up caught in the possible literal crossfire.

Its one of the reasons other then me being a mindless middle privileged wimp who foolishly believes in free speech and that words do rarely warrant violence that escalating things is a bad idea except as a last resort. Violence is like cats, violence breeds violence until its out of control and the local bird and rodent population is fucking wrecked. The people who usually wind up paying for the violence are not the people doing the violence. I probably wouldn't give a shit if the Neo Nazis and extremist Antifa shitbags were locked in some arena to fight it out but unfortunately our laws prohibit gladiatorial matches to the death so the fuckers have to fight it out on the streets, around peoples homes and jobs and tons of soft fleshy people.

[Flagg]

More like It sucks that their is no legal recourse but unless you have a plan for amending the constitution restricting speech is off the table. Use available methods to advance your cause.

I said we should amend the constitution to ban hate speech, idiot.

"We should" is not a plan, ass.

True. But it's more than "Oh well, it's legal, swastika flags for all zzzzzzzz."*

How will you feel when they successfully plea self defense due to their victims having posted on social media that "Nazi's should get the shit kicked out of them at every opportunity." proving they had prior intent to inflict violence.

Umm, you posited the government being the ones wiping the filth up, so why would random people on a half-dead Star Wars messageboard saying dead Nazis = Good even be relavent?

I was pointing out that if this trend continues it will lead to a massacre. You said you wanted the government to lock them up. I used a quote of something you had posted as an example of the kind of thing that can be used by Nazis to justify "defending themselves" thus making it less likely they end up in jail after such an event.

Right. Except Nazi's in this country either commit the massacre or do something so outrageous that the government (well, not the Trump government, being fellow travelers and all) confronts them and the Nazi's (be they calling themselves Branch Davidians, yadda yadda) end up killing Federal agents, getting killed by Federal agents, and killing a bunch of each other and themselves with the survivors being charged, convicted, given life sentences, and sharing "baking recipes" with Ted Kazinski in supermax until they stop breathing and the world becomes a slightly better place. So +1 for reality, and you can rest easy because it's all nice and legal.


*No, not saying you're a Nazi, just an apathetic sadsack loser who enables Nazi's and is thus part of the problem. If that gave you a sad, write your congressman (Or woman. I know, progress is scary take a Xanax and go nap.) once you Google it since I doubt you know and enjoy your form letter begging for money.

[Flagg]

The thing I worry about with Nazi bashing even leaving aside my distaste of using violence in response to words is that it might create the situation where fucktarded ass skinheads are driven to violence of their own in "defending themselves" and that violence could spill over to innocent people.

Already we might be getting into a legal area where a fucking Neo-Nazi can shoot someone in self defense for assault. Punching.......... people like Richard Spencer is assault and battery, he can respond with violence of his own up to and including lethal force. Smacking some dude over the head with a bike lock is assault with a deadly weapon. Creating mobs and burning down shit is probably going to scare the ever loving shit out of people.

They aren't going to just sit and take it. Some will arm themselves, some will be far more proactive in defending themselves from harm. They will be the ones punching leftist mouthpieces, bitching about how free speech is teh bads because people on the left can advocate violence against them without an legal consequences. And then alot of people including innocents are going to wind up caught in the possible literal crossfire.

Its one of the reasons other then me being a mindless middle privileged wimp who foolishly believes in free speech and that words do rarely warrant violence that escalating things is a bad idea except as a last resort. Violence is like cats, violence breeds violence until its out of control and the local bird and rodent population is fucking wrecked. The people who usually wind up paying for the violence are not the people doing the violence. I probably wouldn't give a shit if the Neo Nazis and extremist Antifa shitbags were locked in some arena to fight it out but unfortunately our laws prohibit gladiatorial matches to the death so the fuckers have to fight it out on the streets, around peoples homes and jobs and tons of soft fleshy people.

I don't know if you jumped in from a rainbows and kittens parallel universe, but Neo-Nazi's are already notoriously violent and regularly harm innocent people due to idiotic notions that skin color, sexual orientation, gender identity, or just because they (The walking fecal matter who own cum stained paperbacks of 'The Turner Diaries' and 'Mein Kampf' as if they can actually read, not the victims of said not-worm-food-soon-enough shitpiles) are drunk and/or on drugs (usually meth, the glass dick) warrants robbery, rape, torture, mutilation, murder, or some combination (and in the really fucked up cases all of the above) of said violence is justified to "defend the white race" (because white people, especially males, in America have it so bad). So that genie is as out of the bottle of whatever engine solvent the local KKK chapter drinks before playing grabass.


The only difference is that the Mindless Media now consumes the same engine solvent and calls Nazis in suits and ties (who used to only be called "The Defendant" ) the "Alt-Right".

[madd0ct0r]

edit. whoo boy. I'm two pages behind. catchingup.