Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
08-17-2017, 11:09 PM,
Post: #51
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
Excuse the diversion. Back to discussion fratscism!
ClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbie
ClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbie
ClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbie
08-17-2017, 11:16 PM,
Post: #52
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
Did you just make up that word? As a grammar Nazi, I can't allow that.
Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie ClubbieClubbieClubbie



08-17-2017, 11:31 PM,
Post: #53
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
(08-17-2017, 09:04 PM)roo Wrote:
(08-17-2017, 12:14 PM)Gippy Wrote: Here's one we can all argue applies to our preferred viewpoint:
Quote:The paradox of tolerance is important in the discussion of what, if any, boundaries are to be set on freedom of speech. Popper asserted that to allow freedom of speech to those who would use it to eliminate the very principle upon which they rely is paradoxical. Rosenfeld states "it seems contradictory to extend freedom of speech to extremists who... if successful, ruthlessly suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree," and points out that the Western European Democracies and the United States have opposite approaches to the question of tolerance of hate speech.

The very concept that a government provides liberty is a paradox.  We do what we can within that paradox to provide a place where the people can have as much liberty as possible, in this case, to say what they want.  I can say unpopular things.  I can even say hateful things.  I can do this by right, as we live in a society that values intellectual discourse and believes that strength lies in diversity and that the road to truth and wisdom is paved with divergent principles.

The notion that there are absolutes or that certain ideas may not be expressed is alarming to me.  I know that there were many Nazis assembled in VA.  I think they're turds. But I dare not bully them into silence with force because it sets a dangerous precedent.  In fact, silencing the populace with force is precisely the behavior that I've been taught takes place in oppressive regimes and is a symptom of tyranny.  I have always thought that that is a fundamental truth that all Americans are taught.

As for your paradox of being willing to sacrifice my freedom of speech by defending the right to freedom of speech?  I prefer to defend liberty than to attack and implement tyranny as a solution.

If you were already spoken for and I wasn't straight …
08-17-2017, 11:45 PM,
Post: #54
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
Rights are not absolute. Your right to swing your fist ends somewhere short of my nose. Your right to shout "FIRE!" does not extend to a crowded building (assuming no fire exists). Your right to gather as a group and yell things at people in public does not extend to advocating for the extermination of people.

I'm sorry if you're having a hard time grasping this.
Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie ClubbieClubbieClubbie



08-17-2017, 11:50 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-18-2017, 12:23 AM by Gippy.)
Post: #55
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
(08-17-2017, 08:39 PM)roo Wrote:
(08-17-2017, 12:13 PM)Gippy Wrote:
(08-17-2017, 10:48 AM)roo Wrote:
(08-17-2017, 08:31 AM)Gippy Wrote: normalize their own behavior.

OT: I'm surprised that the definition of normalize took a 180° turn so quickly in the hands of intellectuals.

How so? (asking for a friend)

(08-17-2017, 10:52 AM)roo Wrote: I tend to agree that people who initiate violence are criminals. I don't think that's ever been OK, and I'd hate to think that we as a society are willing to turn a blind eye to reckless vigilantes.

Do you really see reckless vigilantism here? Resistance, and yes, violent response, to an undeniably horrible group is vigilantism? Do you feel that the 60s would have brought the same racial progress had there been no resistance and push back (and, yes, violence)?


You can tell your friend that normalize once meant the process of returning to a normal state and not the process of making the current state the norm.  e.g.  I'm overworked, I need to normalize my workload before I can relax.

Okay, that's pedantic. That's fine, but there's a longer definition to Normalization: the process of bringing or returning something to a normal condition or state. So there's no perversion of the definition. Even in respect to database normalization that isn't returning to a state, that's putting it in a state. So... Shrug


roo Wrote:Your argument that violent opposition to the civil rights movement is what made it successful is worrisome, and it touches on the theme of the thread:  If violent opposition lends credence to a movement, then it'd be wiser to ignore these yahoos.

I wouldn't doubt that violence is lending credence to the racists and nazis for some people. I'd love to see the nazi flags flags fly with just a group of idiots with a 1 mile radius buffer where everyone else GFTO'd. But that's not the truth of it. Ignoring them will tell them that there's no opposition, that there's weight or validity to their ideas. Ignoring them will let more people feel comfortable with aligning with them. Ignoring them will allow them to think that their viewpoints should be tolerated. Ignoring them sends a message to those who they would oppress that the idea of oppression is ok and accepted.

Their viewpoints, while they should be allowed to have them, should also be rebuked. And an inherently violent group will meet violent resistance. For better or worse. Its what they'll understand.

You're pigeon holing my comment on the civil rights movement. The success of the civil rights movement didn't hinge on, and wasn't purely successful because of the violence and I never said that it was. It was successful because of all those things. Yes, non-violent protest was a huge part of why it was successful and violence was overwhelmingly in defense, not offense. But I don't want this to get us OT. I'll concede that my invocation here was ill advised and its a bad thing to try and use as an example.


(08-17-2017, 09:04 PM)roo Wrote:
(08-17-2017, 12:14 PM)Gippy Wrote: Here's one we can all argue applies to our preferred viewpoint:
Quote:The paradox of tolerance is important in the discussion of what, if any, boundaries are to be set on freedom of speech. Popper asserted that to allow freedom of speech to those who would use it to eliminate the very principle upon which they rely is paradoxical. Rosenfeld states "it seems contradictory to extend freedom of speech to extremists who... if successful, ruthlessly suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree," and points out that the Western European Democracies and the United States have opposite approaches to the question of tolerance of hate speech.

The very concept that a government provides liberty is a paradox.  We do what we can within that paradox to provide a place where the people can have as much liberty as possible, in this case, to say what they want.  I can say unpopular things.  I can even say hateful things.  I can do this by right, as we live in a society that values intellectual discourse and believes that strength lies in diversity and that the road to truth and wisdom is paved with divergent principles.

The notion that there are absolutes or that certain ideas may not be expressed is alarming to me.  I know that there were many Nazis assembled in VA.  I think they're turds. But I dare not bully them into silence with force because it sets a dangerous precedent.  In fact, silencing the populace with force is precisely the behavior that I've been taught takes place in oppressive regimes and is a symptom of tyranny.  I have always thought that that is a fundamental truth that all Americans are taught.

As for your paradox of being willing to sacrifice my freedom of speech by defending the right to freedom of speech?  I prefer to defend liberty than to attack and implement tyranny as a solution.

Nobody is taking away anything from these idiots. They're allowed to speak. They were allowed to assemble. The government did the right thing in allowing them to gather and hold a rally. There was no institutional repression of their ideas. THE PEOPLE gathered and responded to what they determined was a threat to the safety and to their society. And the police didn't clear the area until after the violence started. Again, no institutional repression of ideas (I can't wait 'till one of you latches on to my distinction of "institutional" and thinks that they're carrying a football to the goal line). We have plenty of history to look at how the racist and fascist ideals play out. Its not like the response to them comes from nowhere. The white supremacist message is backed by strategy of intimidation and oppressive strength and its long term vision leads to death.

That we're willing to debate someone's right to protest for their desire to oppress someone is great. But at some point someone's gotta tell them no. Tell them that they're not wanted. That they're the fringe and against the American ideal.

Salute
08-17-2017, 11:51 PM,
Post: #56
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
(08-17-2017, 11:16 PM)agedgruel Wrote: Did you just make up that word?
I did. And then I Googled it: 0 hits. So if it catches on, you may claim you were present when it was minted.
08-18-2017, 12:03 AM,
Post: #57
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
(08-17-2017, 11:45 PM)agedgruel Wrote: Rights are not absolute. Your right to swing your fist ends somewhere short of my nose. Your right to shout "FIRE!" does not extend to a crowded building (assuming no fire exists). Your right to gather as a group and yell things at people in public does not extend to advocating for the extermination of people.

I'm sorry if you're having a hard time grasping this.

So you too are condemning the antifa.
08-18-2017, 12:20 AM,
Post: #58
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
(08-18-2017, 12:03 AM)Kev Wrote:
(08-17-2017, 11:45 PM)agedgruel Wrote: Rights are not absolute. Your right to swing your fist ends somewhere short of my nose. Your right to shout "FIRE!" does not extend to a crowded building (assuming no fire exists). Your right to gather as a group and yell things at people in public does not extend to advocating for the extermination of people.

I'm sorry if you're having a hard time grasping this.

So you too are condemning the antifa.

Oaf Wtf
08-18-2017, 12:23 AM,
Post: #59
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
(08-17-2017, 11:50 PM)Gippy Wrote:
(08-17-2017, 08:39 PM)roo Wrote:
(08-17-2017, 12:13 PM)Gippy Wrote:
(08-17-2017, 10:48 AM)roo Wrote:
(08-17-2017, 08:31 AM)Gippy Wrote: normalize their own behavior.

OT: I'm surprised that the definition of normalize took a 180° turn so quickly in the hands of intellectuals.

How so? (asking for a friend)

(08-17-2017, 10:52 AM)roo Wrote: I tend to agree that people who initiate violence are criminals. I don't think that's ever been OK, and I'd hate to think that we as a society are willing to turn a blind eye to reckless vigilantes.

Do you really see reckless vigilantism here? Resistance, and yes, violent response, to an undeniably horrible group is vigilantism? Do you feel that the 60s would have brought the same racial progress had there been no resistance and push back (and, yes, violence)?


You can tell your friend that normalize once meant the process of returning to a normal state and not the process of making the current state the norm.  e.g.  I'm overworked, I need to normalize my workload before I can relax.

Okay, that's pedantic. That's fine, but there's a longer definition to Normalization: the process of bringing or returning something to a normal condition or state. So there's no perversion of the definition. Even in respect to database normalization that isn't returning to a state, that's putting it in a state. So... Shrug


roo Wrote:Your argument that violent opposition to the civil rights movement is what made it successful is worrisome, and it touches on the theme of the thread:  If violent opposition lends credence to a movement, then it'd be wiser to ignore these yahoos.

I wouldn't doubt that violence is lending credence to the racists and nazis for some people. I'd love to see the nazi flags flags fly with just a group of idiots with a 1 mile radius buffer where everyone else GFTO'd. But that's not the truth of it. Ignoring them will tell them that there's no opposition, that there's weight or validity to their ideas. Ignoring them will let more people feel comfortable with aligning with them. Ignoring them will allow them to think that their viewpoints should be tolerated. Ignoring them sends a message to those who they would oppress that the idea of oppression is ok and accepted.

Their viewpoints, while they should be allowed to have them, should also be rebuked. And an inherently violent group will meet violent resistance. For better or worse. Its what they'll understand.

You're pigeon holing my comment on the civil rights movement. The success of the civil rights movement didn't hinge on, and wasn't purely successful because of the violence and I never said that it was. It was successful because of all those things. Yes, non-violent protest was a huge part of why it was successful and violence was overwhelmingly in defense, not offense. But I don't want this to get us OT. I'll concede that my invocation here was ill advised.


(08-17-2017, 09:04 PM)roo Wrote:
(08-17-2017, 12:14 PM)Gippy Wrote: Here's one we can all argue applies to our preferred viewpoint:
Quote:The paradox of tolerance is important in the discussion of what, if any, boundaries are to be set on freedom of speech. Popper asserted that to allow freedom of speech to those who would use it to eliminate the very principle upon which they rely is paradoxical. Rosenfeld states "it seems contradictory to extend freedom of speech to extremists who... if successful, ruthlessly suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree," and points out that the Western European Democracies and the United States have opposite approaches to the question of tolerance of hate speech.

The very concept that a government provides liberty is a paradox.  We do what we can within that paradox to provide a place where the people can have as much liberty as possible, in this case, to say what they want.  I can say unpopular things.  I can even say hateful things.  I can do this by right, as we live in a society that values intellectual discourse and believes that strength lies in diversity and that the road to truth and wisdom is paved with divergent principles.

The notion that there are absolutes or that certain ideas may not be expressed is alarming to me.  I know that there were many Nazis assembled in VA.  I think they're turds. But I dare not bully them into silence with force because it sets a dangerous precedent.  In fact, silencing the populace with force is precisely the behavior that I've been taught takes place in oppressive regimes and is a symptom of tyranny.  I have always thought that that is a fundamental truth that all Americans are taught.

As for your paradox of being willing to sacrifice my freedom of speech by defending the right to freedom of speech?  I prefer to defend liberty than to attack and implement tyranny as a solution.

Nobody is taking away anything from these idiots. They're allowed to speak. They were allowed to assemble. The government did the right thing in allowing them to gather and hold a rally. There was no institutional repression of their ideas. THE PEOPLE gathered and responded to what they determined was a threat to the safety and to their society. And the police didn't clear the area until after the violence started. Again, no institutional repression of ideas (I can't wait 'till one of you latches on to my distinction of "institutional" and thinks that they're carrying a football to the goal line). We have plenty of history to look at how the racist and fascist ideals play out. Its not like the response to them comes from nowhere. The white supremacist message is backed by strategy of intimidation and oppressive strength and its long term vision leads to death.

That we're willing to debate someone's right to protest for their desire to oppress someone is great. But at some point someone's gotta tell them no. Tell them that they're not wanted. That they're the fringe and against the American ideal.

Salute

This is a remarkably well written post. Is this where I hit on you, a la Kev and roo?
08-18-2017, 12:24 AM,
Post: #60
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
(08-18-2017, 12:03 AM)Kev Wrote:
(08-17-2017, 11:45 PM)agedgruel Wrote: Rights are not absolute. Your right to swing your fist ends somewhere short of my nose. Your right to shout "FIRE!" does not extend to a crowded building (assuming no fire exists). Your right to gather as a group and yell things at people in public does not extend to advocating for the extermination of people.

I'm sorry if you're having a hard time grasping this.

So you too are condemning the antifa.

By the very definition, I AM antifascist. I assume you are, too. Ignoring Nazis will not make them go away. Ask the Weimar Republic about that.
08-18-2017, 12:26 AM,
Post: #61
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
Nothing will make them go away. Containment (and hence impotence) is all one can hope for.
ClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbie
ClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbie
ClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbie
08-18-2017, 12:28 AM,
Post: #62
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
(08-18-2017, 12:26 AM)Alien Wrote: Nothing will make them go away. Containment (and hence impotence) is all one can hope for.

Having a president that actively courts their support certainly doesn't help.
08-18-2017, 12:31 AM,
Post: #63
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
But this... this is... genius.

Quote:In the small town in Germany where Nazi leader Rudolf Hess was born, every year right wing activists have been showing up to commemorate his birthday. Counter marches didn't stop them. What really got to them was when people organized to sponsor donations on their behalf, treating their march like an AIDS walk. For every meter marched, there would be 10 euros donated to anti-racist organizations. People then turned it into kind of a sports event as they showed up with banners and music cheering the facists on like "Thank you for marching for racial justice" and updating with bullhorns how much money the facists marching had already raised.- Yannik Thiem

I bow before that creativity!
The chaos army seems suspiciously well organized.
flickr | Stupid Blog | Twitter
08-18-2017, 12:40 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-18-2017, 12:43 AM by Gippy.)
Post: #64
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
Oof. This may turn out to be tame.
The upcoming DC rally for racism is gonna be met by... wait for it... Juggalos.

Two inherently low intelligence groups with a penchant for weapons are set to clash.
The chaos army seems suspiciously well organized.
flickr | Stupid Blog | Twitter
08-18-2017, 12:51 AM,
Post: #65
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
(08-18-2017, 12:28 AM)agedgruel Wrote:
(08-18-2017, 12:26 AM)Alien Wrote: Nothing will make them go away. Containment (and hence impotence) is all one can hope for.
Having a president that actively courts their support certainly doesn't help.
Indeed. Look, fascism is basically how companies are run. Every now and again, some dimly-lit bulb will suggest that nations should be run like companies, because, hey, companies are invariably run mightily efficient and competent, are they not?

If the last time fascism reared its ugly head was recent enough, the populace at large will fondly remember the smoldering ruins it left their world in and oppose it. Once the memory fades away, well, remember what I said about people offering simple solutions to complex problems.
08-18-2017, 01:21 AM,
Post: #66
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
(08-18-2017, 12:40 AM)Gippy Wrote: Oof. This may turn out to be tame.
The upcoming DC rally for racism is gonna be met by... wait for it... Juggalos.

Two inherently low intelligence groups with a penchant for weapons are set to clash.

How will you tell them apart?
08-18-2017, 01:23 AM,
Post: #67
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
Where's the need? Just sit back and enjoy the spectacle.
ClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbie
ClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbie
ClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbie
08-18-2017, 01:24 AM,
Post: #68
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
(08-17-2017, 08:19 AM)Kev Wrote:
(08-17-2017, 08:11 AM)Gippy Wrote:
(08-17-2017, 07:47 AM)Kev Wrote: Dude, it's the antifa that hide their faces and carry bats.
Don't be a fucktard like the losers at macstack.

So, the guys who brought the sheilds, bats, and guns, and celebrated the death of a protestor, but didn't cover their faces are ok. Got it. You prefer your antagonists to show skin. Oaf

Actually I'm saying neither group has the moral high ground and show oppressive anti freedom and liberty with violent tendencies that should be condemned.
Cheering for the alt left isn't something you should be doing if you consider yourself to be a better man than the alt right.

Harriet Tubman didn't get permits for her underground railroad, so she's just as bad as slave owners.

That's the kind of logic you're pushing right now.
08-18-2017, 01:57 AM,
Post: #69
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
(08-18-2017, 01:21 AM)Jehannum Wrote:
(08-18-2017, 12:40 AM)Gippy Wrote: Oof. This may turn out to be tame.
The upcoming DC rally for racism is gonna be met by... wait for it... Juggalos.

Two inherently low intelligence groups with a penchant for weapons are set to clash.

How will you tell them apart?

Clubbie
08-18-2017, 03:27 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-18-2017, 03:28 AM by Gippy.)
Post: #70
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
Quote:The joint FBI-DHS alert that was issued in May pointed out that white supremacists – a large contingent of those who marched at Charlottesville – "were responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks from 2000 to 2016," which it said was "more than any other domestic extremist movement."

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-new...-dangerous

Someone wanna continue to argue equivalence to Antifa? Antifa hasn't murdered anyone. It has been less than a week since a white supremacist has killed someone.
The chaos army seems suspiciously well organized.
flickr | Stupid Blog | Twitter
08-18-2017, 04:10 AM,
Post: #71
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
(08-18-2017, 12:20 AM)Gippy Wrote:
(08-18-2017, 12:03 AM)Kev Wrote:
(08-17-2017, 11:45 PM)agedgruel Wrote: Rights are not absolute. Your right to swing your fist ends somewhere short of my nose. Your right to shout "FIRE!" does not extend to a crowded building (assuming no fire exists). Your right to gather as a group and yell things at people in public does not extend to advocating for the extermination of people.

I'm sorry if you're having a hard time grasping this.

So you too are condemning the antifa.

Oaf  Wtf

Kev you're going to have a hard time getting through to these guys. They have formed their understanding of the world around their opinions, instead of the inverse. Aged Gruel has already conveniently forgotten all about the Inauguration Day riots and all the property damage and injuries, and nothing is going to jog his memory.
08-18-2017, 06:41 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-18-2017, 06:46 AM by Gippy.)
Post: #72
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
:sigh:

This old trope again? You don't learn, do you?

Quote:Obama’s election in 2008 was preceded and followed by violent attacks and property destruction targeted against minorities.

Kaylon Johnson, an African American campaign worker for Obama, was physically assaulted for wearing an Obama T-shirt in Louisiana following the 2008 election. The three white male attackers shouted “Fuck Obama!” and “Nigger president!” as they broke Johnson’s nose and fractured his eye-socket, requiring surgery.

More frequently, Obama’s presidency was marked by effigies of our first black president hanging from nooses across the country, for example in Kentucky, Washington State, and Maine, or being burned around the world. What Trump supporters fail to remember is that following Obama’s election, property was destroyed across the country, for example in Pennsylvania, Texas, and North Carolina, and a predominately black church was torched in Massachusetts.

In 2008, anti-Obama protesters lashed out against minorities because of their discontentment with a black man being voted into the office of president for the first time in our nation’s history. Conversely, in 2016, anti-Trump protesters are holding mostly peaceful demonstrations because of their discontentment with a man, who has ostracized minorities, being voted into the office of president.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/pr...-discredit

The resistance to Agent Orange and his ilk is not some aberration of violence.
The chaos army seems suspiciously well organized.
flickr | Stupid Blog | Twitter
08-18-2017, 06:47 AM,
Post: #73
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
(08-18-2017, 12:31 AM)Gippy Wrote: But this... this is... genius.

Quote:In the small town in Germany where Nazi leader Rudolf Hess was born, every year right wing activists have been showing up to commemorate his birthday. Counter marches didn't stop them. What really got to them was when people organized to sponsor donations on their behalf, treating their march like an AIDS walk. For every meter marched, there would be 10 euros donated to anti-racist organizations. People then turned it into kind of a sports event as they showed up with banners and music cheering the facists on like "Thank you for marching for racial justice" and updating with bullhorns how much money the facists marching had already raised.- Yannik Thiem

I bow before that creativity!

You should, this is exactly how it's supposed to be.
No violence needed, you beat bad ideas with better ideas.
08-18-2017, 06:57 AM,
Post: #74
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
In the absence of better ideas, I'll take punching a Nazi as an acceptable fallback.
The chaos army seems suspiciously well organized.
flickr | Stupid Blog | Twitter
08-18-2017, 08:19 AM,
Post: #75
RE: Why do people get upset when fratboys with tiki torches assemble?
(08-17-2017, 11:50 PM)Gippy Wrote: Okay, that's pedantic. That's fine, but there's a longer definition to Normalization: the process of bringing or returning something to a normal condition or state. So there's no perversion of the definition. Even in respect to database normalization that isn't returning to a state, that's putting it in a state. So... Shrug

I'm just pointing it out, you don't have to defend it or call me a pedant.  You may continue to use the new definition, that's your call.

(08-17-2017, 11:50 PM)Gippy Wrote: Nobody is taking away anything from these idiots. They're allowed to speak. They were allowed to assemble. The government did the right thing in allowing them to gather and hold a rally. There was no institutional repression of their ideas. THE PEOPLE gathered and responded to what they determined was a threat to the safety and to their society. And the police didn't clear the area until after the violence started. Again, no institutional repression of ideas (I can't wait 'till one of you latches on to my distinction of "institutional" and thinks that they're carrying a football to the goal line). We have plenty of history to look at how the racist and fascist ideals play out. Its not like the response to them comes from nowhere. The white supremacist message is backed by strategy of intimidation and oppressive strength and its long term vision leads to death.

That we're willing to debate someone's right to protest for their desire to oppress someone is great. But at some point someone's gotta tell them no. Tell them that they're not wanted. That they're the fringe and against the American ideal.

Salute

I think we're on the same page with this bit.  They can do their thing.  I agree that we tell them no, that's even codified in law.  All men are created equal and all that.

I think where this topic gets interesting, to me at least, is that it's a given that Nazis are in direct conflict with the nation's.  It should also be a given that good leaders condemn them. It comes as no surprise (and hopefully everyone else) to me that Trumpy Bear is fucking it up. But in spite of all of these givens -- and even in spite of the smug satisfaction of knowing that some idiot skinhead got his teeth kicked in for being an asshole -- many in the country are so concerned with branding themselves as anti-nazi that they're shrugging off the foundational ideals of their country in the process.

Not for nothing, but I'm unwilling to submit to tyranny because my frans on Twitter are afraid of an obscene frat party.


Forum Jump: