Charlottesville

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by tarcone

LOL. And the same could be said about you. Your narrow minded and ill-conceived comments make you look like a fool. Or a tool.

Maybe we could do a Dr. Suess story about you.

Oh Noop, oh Noop why does your mouth spew so much poop? Are you that stoop-id? Or just easily Dooped? Oh Noop, Oh Noop what will you do? Keep spewing poop? How does that help, Noop? Im not sure it does.

I guess we all have our crosses to bear.

See, his was a clever play on your own words.

You, however, resorted to calling him names (on top of the nursery rhyme). At least the rhyme took some creativity and satirical license.

I don't think you're a racist either, but I think his view of you being narrowly focused in your views is spot on (and I have been accused of the same).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

As reprehensible as they are, they have the right to congregate peacefully, speak freely without fear of incarceration, however I, and the majority behind me including business, have the right to drown them out and render them irrelevant. They can be nullified through social actions without empowering them or eliminating first amendment rights.

I agree and I think the government did the best they could. They gave them the park for their protest. When it became a dangerous situation they had to shut it down.

People who committed acts of violence should be arrested for it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

You guys say Trump is a white supremacist. So this is just as fair as that.

Actually after today I think he said it himself.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Actually after today I think he said it himself.

Yeah I think today gave no doubt as to where he stands in that regard ...

One thing I'd like to ask is whether any Republicans here abouts would be brave enough to protest visibly AS REPUBLICANS if Neo Nazis come to their area ... I hate the 'alt-right' tag as it correlates the Nazis to Republicans which is simply not true and entirely unhelpful ... having more visible protest from that sphere against them might discourage the media from using that tag.

[tarcone]

While I am registered as a republican, I dont vote just that way.

I doubt I would go. Seems like a volatile situation. And I dont want to get involved in violence. Not my cup of tea.


I bet my daughters would go though. Thet are at that age.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by tarcone

While I am registered as a republican, I dont vote just that way.

I doubt I would go. Seems like a volatile situation. And I dont want to get involved in violence. Not my cup of tea.


I bet my daughters would go though. Thet are at that age.

There was open carry at Charlottesville. I'm not clear who they were but to their credit, no shooting/discharges happened (that I know of at least).

IMO, I wouldn't let my kids go now knowing how volatile it could be.

BTW, I'm good with open carry assuming one is trained, not a felon etc. but it shouldn't have been allowed for the protest.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Having your name associated with this cause on the internet forever is a far greater punishment than getting arrested and released and all the protesting street-cred that goes with that (and maybe having a shot at a big payout if you're injured in a protest melee).

I wish we had more Europeans on this board to explain how those countries deal with hate protesters (though whomario seems to indicate that they allow protests but not hate symbols at least and I know that Germany's incitement of the masses crime does allow for fines or jail time), however I think it is pretty obvious that having your name associated with it on the internet is absolutely no penalty whatsoever. One can even say that the internet has emboldened the alt-right and White Supremacists. The internet has definitely radicalized some young white men in the same way it has radicalized some young Muslim men (which makes me wonder what would happen if young Muslim men marched chanting Death to America and Kill the Unbelievers - would it be considered a free speech march or terrorist threats). The radicalized young white men however seem to have no shame in using their real name in advocating for white supremacy on platforms like Facebook. Hell, in the past, White Supremacists would cover their faces - they don't even do that anymore. The President caters to White Supremacists. Companies may try their best to fire those they know that march in Charlottesville, but it is like playing pop goes the weasel.

And all the while, you have folks who are technically not associated with the alt-right trying to say that it is anti-freedom of speech (the principles not legality) to fire someone for having 'different views' even if they are for white supremacy.

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by Edward64

There was open carry at Charlottesville. I'm not clear who they were but to their credit, no shooting/discharges happened (that I know of at least).

IMO, I wouldn't let my kids go now knowing how volatile it could be.

BTW, I'm good with open carry assuming one is trained, not a felon etc. but it shouldn't have been allowed for the protest.

My wife and I talked about open carry and it got me thinking: Does open carry apply only to residents of the state or, if you're licensed in any state, you can open carry in Va?

[molson]

Germany hasn't eliminated nazi protests or hate symbols being displayed at them (or other nazi cultural events - nazi concerts seem really big right now), it's pretty easy to find references to them online. It doesn't seem like the government responds with mass arrests or shutting down the protests/concerts/display of nazi symbols. There's one famous holocaust denier mentioned in one of the articles that they seem to go after occasionally, but he's obviously not locked up for long.

It seems that the police primarily respond the same way they do in the U.S. - to prevent the protest from interfering with regular life and the rights of others - in the case of the bottom article, police intervened not to arrest people for protesting, but to protect a migrant shelter.

(These are all from just the last year or so, and there's many more).

German soldiers performed Nazi salute | JerusalemOnline

Neo-Nazis rally in Dresden ahead of war anniversary | Germany | DW | 11.02.2017

Neo-Nazis rock small town in Germany | News | DW | 15.07.2017

Report: Number of neo-Nazi rock concerts on the rise in Germany | News | DW | 20.08.2016

Neo-Nazi-rock-concert-draws-massive-crowds-in-Germany-499924

German neo-Nazi protesters clash with police at new migrant shelter | World news | The Guardian

This stuff doesn't seem to get a ton of press in the U.S. But let's not pretend that enlightened Europe, as much as they love to talk down to us, has figured out the Nazi issue.

[ISiddiqui]

I never said there are no neo-Nazi protests in Germany, just that they have laws against it and they sometimes use them to jail leaders of the movement. They also may fine or jail folks involved in these events (the concert that you mentioned had 6 people placed provisionally under arrest and led to a federal investigation being opened), depending on what they were doing. Though it also depends on which state in Germany the marches or rock concerts are being held.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by rjolley

My wife and I talked about open carry and it got me thinking: Does open carry apply only to residents of the state or, if you're licensed in any state, you can open carry in Va?

I don't open carry so I don't know the details. I googled it and found this forum. Open Carry, State to State

I think basically it depends on the state, if there is reciprocity agreement etc.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I never said there are no neo-Nazi protests in Germany, just that they have laws against it and they sometimes use them to jail leaders of the movement. They also may fine or jail folks involved in these events (the concert that you mentioned had 6 people placed provisionally under arrest and led to a federal investigation being opened), depending on what they were doing. Though it also depends on which state in Germany the marches or rock concerts are being held.

If it's illegal to be involved in these events why are they arresting only 6 of hundreds or thousands? Why arrest only the leaders (to the extent that's even happening - it seems that Holocaust denial is the big thing that can get you in trouble). Why are they letting the events happen in the first place? Isn't that what the last few pages of this thread are about - whether these protests should be allowed to happen? Are we calling for a Europe-like response or something bigger?

What would be your response if you were the U.S. government and you weren't restricted by the first amendment?

Edit: Even if you're in the German military, giving a Nazi salute only results in a reprimand.

Pro-Nazi Soldiers in German Army Raise Alarm - The New York Times

I think the Nazi problem in Europe is much bigger, (and the government response is much smaller), than is assumed by a lot of the commentators I'm reading this week talking about how the U.S. is too tolerant of hate speech compared to other countries. I'm sure there's sound reasons Germany is a little reluctant to round these people up and lock them up en masse, even if their laws allow them to do that.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

If it's illegal to be involved in these events why are they arresting only 6 of hundreds or thousands? Why arrest only the leaders? Why are they letting the events happen in the first place?

As stated, its not illegal to be a neo-Nazi or march; it is illegal to use Nazi symbols and incite hatred against groups (and all these marches and rock concerts straddle the line - they try to go all the way to the edge, but sometimes they cross it). It's like the drug war. If it's illegal to do those drugs, why aren't their thousands of arrests a day in all sorts of neighborhoods? Obviously countries like Germany feel that making a few high profile arrests is enough to sufficiently reduce the desire of folks to join up to an acceptable level without having to spend millions more on police forces to monitor if these marches or rock bands are using banned language.

Isn't that what the last few pages of this thread are about - whether these protests should be allowed to happen? Are we calling for a Europe-like response or something bigger?

What would be your response if you were the U.S. government and you weren't restricted by the first amendment?

I'm pretty sure that those who are saying free speech absolutism isn't the only answer aren't talking about completely banning protests (it isn't one choice or the other). A Charlottesville march where they chanted "White Lives Matter" but not the invectives against the Jews (and perhaps "Blood and Soil") and didn't wave Nazi flags may have been on juuust the right side of the line in Germany or France.

If I was in charge with wide legal leeway (King for a day), I think I'd jail Duke and other leaders of the march. Perhaps ban the use of Nazi and Confederate flags in protests. Consider all of it (the chants and flags) terrorist threats and incitement to violation and not legitimate lawful speech. As pointed out above, I would consider young Muslim men marching while chanting "Death to America" and "Kill the Unbeliever" to be treated similarly (ISIS flag in that case, I guess). Also crack down on violence inciting websites (that wouldn't kill it, but hosting sites like GoDaddy and Google would drop a bunch of them and they'd be harder to find on overseas hosting servers). I used to be a free speech absolutist, but I just don't think it works as intended anymore (as I mentioned, internet shaming doesn't seem to work at all - the internet has only seemed to emboldened people).

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Yeah I think today gave no doubt as to where he stands in that regard ...

One thing I'd like to ask is whether any Republicans here abouts would be brave enough to protest visibly AS REPUBLICANS if Neo Nazis come to their area ... I hate the 'alt-right' tag as it correlates the Nazis to Republicans which is simply not true and entirely unhelpful ... having more visible protest from that sphere against them might discourage the media from using that tag.

I'm not sure you understand what Republicans are. If they cared enough about the issue, most Republicans would. Both conservative religious Republicans and Libertarian Republicans (as I have generally been) both hate Neo Nazis. But Republicans don't do protests so much, from what I have seen.

Personally, I would protest against Neo Nazis, and as a Republican. Nor do I think it would take bravery to do so.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And all the while, you have folks who are technically not associated with the alt-right trying to say that it is anti-freedom of speech (the principles not legality) to fire someone for having 'different views' even if they are for white supremacy.

It is anti freedom of speech, IMO, to stop them from saying it and from assembling. The social consequences, though? To my way of thinking, at least, it's all fair game. If a company feels a person does not hold values consistent with them, they have the right to not (or no longer) employ them.

If you choose to advocate for hate, you should expect to suffer the consequences. It's actually a very Republican view that you reap what you sow. One of the party's main issues with the left is how much they want to give away to people who won't work for it or haven't earned it. Well, that cuts both ways. If you make a decision or take a stance most others wpuld find deplorable, you should not be surprised (nor be able to legally against) your termination from your job, or being ostracized socially.

So if people are advocating that the social consequences of being a bigot are somehow illegal as a violation of freedom of speech, then those people are terrible Republicans and have thrown away what it historically has stood for.

[RainMaker]

Remember that Republicans have pushed for at-will employment status across the country so they kind of reap what they sow in that regard.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Remember that Republicans have pushed for at-will employment status across the country so they kind of reap what they sow in that regard.

Yup, at will policy is exactly in line with what they support historically. So if there are a few backtracking now to protect alt-right/Neo Nazis, screw those guys.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I'm not sure you understand what Republicans are. If they cared enough about the issue, most Republicans would. Both conservative religious Republicans and Libertarian Republicans (as I have generally been) both hate Neo Nazis. But Republicans don't do protests so much, from what I have seen.

Personally, I would protest against Neo Nazis, and as a Republican. Nor do I think it would take bravery to do so.

I do understand Republican's are against Nazi's and don't think they share their beliefs at all - however the 'alt-right' label the media are using pushed the two together continually, heck we have a "Republican" president openly defending neo-nazis in the name of the 'right'.

As such while Republicans might not traditionally 'do protests' so much I'd have thought it in everyones best interest for them to have a presence and disassociate themselves from these asshats.

PS - You might not think it 'brave' but having been at a few anti-Trump protests where we stood with frothing people in red Trump hates yelling obscenities at us from 5 yards away I think it is, I know that I get somewhat nervous before attending such protests ... and they're nothing like what I've seen from the march at the weekend, I never feared for my life at them.

[Mike Lowe]

How did we get here? Uneducated parenting, and blaming one's problems on anyone but themselves.

Hatred of a people is something we are taught, and it's embarrassing to see these "marches."

These KKK, neo-Nazis, etc truly seem pathetic, leading sad lives. I pity them more than anything else, and hope they reexamine how they use the time they have.

Wake up. Do something fun. Enjoy your life. Put that energy into fixing your problems. No one you're marching against has made you miserable.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

So if people are advocating that the social consequences of being a bigot are somehow illegal as a violation of freedom of speech

No, they are saying that firing someone for their views is philosophically anti-freedom of speech, not legally. In other words, it violates the spirit as opposed to the letter (I don't particularly agree, that's just the argument).

As to the rest of your post, I agree.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No, they are saying that firing someone for their views is philosophically anti-freedom of speech, not legally. In other words, it violates the spirit as opposed to the letter (I don't particularly agree, that's just the argument).

As to the rest of your post, I agree.

Then I would discount the intelligence of those people.
I've been pretty clear in my support of their right to protest, say, wear whatever they want.

However if one of them worked for me, he's fired on the spot -with prejudice and without cause.

Why? Because I disagree with his belief system? Because I find it reprehensible?
Nope, even though both are true.
He is fired because his actions are bad for business.

[Easy Mac]

I know of a rather big (relatively) shipping house in the Greenville area. The guy is a staunch racist since long before Trump came into power. He would only hire blacks to work in the warehouse/drive trucks, because he didn't think they belonged in offices. He would only hire women as secretaries. He fired more than one person because they had a "diversity" and/or liberal sticker on their car in the parking lot. He wouldn't hire people who were openly gay. His top team consists of his two sons, both of who are drunks and idiots, so with any luck the business will go under when he dies. But he never got in trouble, partly because he knows people, and partly because he knew enough only to say it around people who wouldn't turn him in for it.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Mike Lowe

Wake up. Do something fun. Enjoy your life. Put that energy into fixing your problems. No one you're marching against has made you miserable. k

This is what it was like to be Jewish during the Nazi march this weekend ... I've a feeling that they were pretty miserable and with good reason.

You are 'correct' it doesn't affect me - but I have enough empathy to want to stand and help good people and protest against bad ...

In Charlottesville, the Local Jewish Community Presses On | ReformJudaism.org

[MrBug708]

Amateur Sleuths Aim to Identify Charlottesville Marchers, but Sometimes Misfire - NYTimes.com

For the greater good I suppose

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Yeah I think today gave no doubt as to where he stands in that regard ...

One thing I'd like to ask is whether any Republicans here abouts would be brave enough to protest visibly AS REPUBLICANS if Neo Nazis come to their area ... I hate the 'alt-right' tag as it correlates the Nazis to Republicans which is simply not true and entirely unhelpful ... having more visible protest from that sphere against them might discourage the media from using that tag.

This is one facet I find interesting about all this. One of the rallying we hear against Muslims is that they do not do enough to publicly renounce terrorist attacks, thus proving they support their actions.

Are republicans going vehemently and publicly renounce their vocal Nazi and White Nationalist contingent? Their leader only did grudgingly until he basically pulled it back the next day. Are his voters going to publicly and loudly state they disagree with Trump?

If not does that mean they support and agree with White Nationalism views? Or will they re-visit their excuse to label all Muslims terrorists?

Hypothetical of course, of course neither will happen and we'll all just continue to yell at each other with no tangible positive outcome.

[muns]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Amateur Sleuths Aim to Identify Charlottesville Marchers, but Sometimes Misfire - NYTimes.com

For the greater good I suppose

Na, ill call BS on that one. In higher ed, a mere accusation can get you fired. Thankfully the University of Arkansas didn't just jump on that and end the guys career, and thankfully the guy was able to be able to prove he was somewhere. Where would he be if he was just chilling at home by himself?

Although, it's still going to be hard for him to move onto another job without him having to either talk/speak/ prove it wasn't him. Imagine being in a room where a committee is interviewing you for a position and having to explain you aren't a racist because some other asshole made it true for a few hours on the internet.

I am waiting for someone to get misidentified and sue for libel because of it. The witch-hunt for all these assholes shouldn't produce this kind of stuff.

How we ended up here (this entire situation) is getting harder and harder to wrap my head around now a days.

[jeff061]

Yeah, in theory I'm ok with outing the protesters. If you are going to put yourself out there like that you should be ok with putting your name to it.

However it's the misfires that leads me not to support it. We saw it with the Boston Bombings and we've seen it elsewhere. The idea of crowd sourcing this stuff is interesting, but in reality does not work and is dangerous.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by muns

Na, ill call BS on that one. In higher ed, a mere accusation can get you fired. Thankfully the University of Arkansas didn't just jump on that and end the guys career, and thankfully the guy was able to be able to prove he was somewhere. Where would he be if he was just chilling at home by himself?

Although, it's still going to be hard for him to move onto another job without him having to either talk/speak/ prove it wasn't him. Imagine being in a room where a committee is interviewing you for a position and having to explain you aren't a racist because some other asshole made it true for a few hours on the internet.

I am waiting for someone to get misidentified and sue for libel because of it. The witch-hunt for all these assholes shouldn't produce this kind of stuff.

How we ended up here (this entire situation) is getting harder and harder to wrap my head around now a days.

We let 70 year olds use the internet.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I do understand Republican's are against Nazi's and don't think they share their beliefs at all - however the 'alt-right' label the media are using pushed the two together continually, heck we have a "Republican" president openly defending neo-nazis in the name of the 'right'.

As such while Republicans might not traditionally 'do protests' so much I'd have thought it in everyones best interest for them to have a presence and disassociate themselves from these asshats.

PS - You might not think it 'brave' but having been at a few anti-Trump protests where we stood with frothing people in red Trump hates yelling obscenities at us from 5 yards away I think it is, I know that I get somewhat nervous before attending such protests ... and they're nothing like what I've seen from the march at the weekend, I never feared for my life at them.

Hmm, I admit I am exactly that Republican who doesn't protest, so I have not yet participated in an anti-Trump protest. I do know there are potential conflcts, but I didn't know it was that bad.

That said, I don't think if I were to somehow display I was a registered Repuican that it would put me in any more danger than the others there. From what you say, it seems like it would be brave for any to attend.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Hmm, I admit I am exactly that Republican who doesn't protest, so I have not yet participated in an anti-Trump protest. I do know there are potential conflcts, but I didn't know it was that bad.

The police at the ones I've attended have done a fantastic job - as have the protest organisers and frankly its not been at all easy for either.

That said, I don't think if I were to somehow display I was a registered Repuican that it would put me in any more danger than the others there. From what you say, it seems like it would be brave for any to attend.

I don't think you'd be in 'any more' danger - but you'd definitely not be in less either.

I don't think there is a huge risk of injury or such if protesting is approached in the right way, I only do it with groups I know and we're organized and a fairly mature and sensible bunch even under pressure ... that being said I was incredibly surprised and disappointed by what happened this last weekend, it won't stop me protesting ... but it does make me aware of things I might have preferred to pretend didn't exist.

[Easy Mac]

Guy threatens to kill people to Vice, cries because he has a warrant out for his arrest. Pretty much how I'd expect the Trumpster youth to act.

Cantwell the Coward Blubbers Near Tears At Prospect of Arrest - YouTube

[JPhillips]

"I know we talk a lot of shit on the internet..."

[JPhillips]

OMG, he's crying because Chelsea Manning posted a mean picture about Nazis.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I'm not sure you understand what Republicans are. If they cared enough about the issue, most Republicans would. Both conservative religious Republicans and Libertarian Republicans (as I have generally been) both hate Neo Nazis. But Republicans don't do protests so much, from what I have seen.

Personally, I would protest against Neo Nazis, and as a Republican. Nor do I think it would take bravery to do so.

If you're a group in an advantaged position, you don't really protest. You might have a rally (see: Tea Party) but not a protest.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

If you're a group in an advantaged position, you don't really protest. You might have a rally (see: Tea Party) but not a protest.

I think that's a big part of it, yes, that the GOP leans strongly toward both the wealthy and the highest privelege ethnicity.

Another part of it is that the conservative ideology includes the concept of making one's own way without help, for good or ill. So that's another subset wouldn't really protest much, since they don't generally call on government or society to provde something for them, even if they have a good right to it.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Guy threatens to kill people to Vice, cries because he has a warrant out for his arrest. Pretty much how I'd expect the Trumpster youth to act.

Cantwell the Coward Blubbers Near Tears At Prospect of Arrest - YouTube

Poor baby.

[RainMaker]

If he's not a racist, he sure has a way of attracting them.

Trump Lawyer Forwards Email Echoing Secessionist Rhetoric - NYTimes.com

[Brian Swartz]

I agree with the common-sense ideas from Molson on the last page, and from MrBug much earlier in the thread.

Originally Posted by whomario

I just think it's disgusting to see those flags flying anywhere, especially in a free country that helped fight that evil.

You're not wrong here; you are in fact very, very right. Disgusting isn't nearly a strong enough word in fact. I think a free society, to remain free, must be willing to tolerate things that are disgusting, and far worse. Seems to be our difference.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

the question, and JPhillips alluded to this is whether drawing the borders differently is really 'eliminating' first amendment rights? If 'incitement to violence' or 'fighting words' is expanded to include some forms of hate speech is that eliminating the First Amendment rights on freedom of expression or is that merely changing the interpretation of that right.

To answer the first question, absolutely it is. It's not eliminating all of them, but the degree to which the interpretation is changed is the degree to which rights are in fact eliminated. And not only that, it's far worse than eliminating them via the proper method, since it would just contribute to the idea that the Constitution either A) doesn't matter, or B) can have it's meaning changed without actually being amended, a logical incoherence.

You are absolutely correct to point out that no rights are absolute, but there's a big difference between a specific threat against particular individuals and/or targets, and an advocacy of a general belief system, policy direction, etc.

[RainMaker]

It's an interesting debate. I'm against any hate speech laws being put in place. I do think it is what separates us from other countries.

However, there is a line where it turns to inciting violence or threats. If someone shows up at your house and says "I want to rape and murder your wife", is that a threat? Are you lawfully allowed to do something about that? Can you get a restraining order for that?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

However, there is a line where it turns to inciting violence or threats. If someone shows up at your house and says "I want to rape and murder your wife", is that a threat? Are you lawfully allowed to do something about that? Can you get a restraining order for that?

Uh no, you shoot him right there

Well maybe I'll "invite" him into the house first and then claim castle doctrine.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I know of a rather big (relatively) shipping house in the Greenville area. The guy is a staunch racist since long before Trump came into power. He would only hire blacks to work in the warehouse/drive trucks, because he didn't think they belonged in offices. He would only hire women as secretaries. He fired more than one person because they had a "diversity" and/or liberal sticker on their car in the parking lot. He wouldn't hire people who were openly gay. His top team consists of his two sons, both of who are drunks and idiots, so with any luck the business will go under when he dies. But he never got in trouble, partly because he knows people, and partly because he knew enough only to say it around people who wouldn't turn him in for it.

I kid you not but this sounds like a client of mine. I've even had to remind him that I am black when he goes on his rants. His reply to me is "you're one of the good blacks."

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Noop

I kid you not but this sounds like a client of mine. I've even had to remind him that I am black when he goes on his rants. His reply to me is "you're one of the good blacks."

There's definitely more than one here, but this is one I've had more interactions with than necessary. There's 0% chance he knew I'm 50% Mexican.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

To answer the first question, absolutely it is. It's not eliminating all of them, but the degree to which the interpretation is changed is the degree to which rights are in fact eliminated. And not only that, it's far worse than eliminating them via the proper method, since it would just contribute to the idea that the Constitution either A) doesn't matter, or B) can have it's meaning changed without actually being amended, a logical incoherence.

You are absolutely correct to point out that no rights are absolute, but there's a big difference between a specific threat against particular individuals and/or targets, and an advocacy of a general belief system, policy direction, etc.

Would it change your opinion at all to know that this level of First Amendment jurisprudence really only has been in existence since 1992? R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul drastically narrowed previous First Amendment freedom of speech cases such as Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942 - the 'fighting words' exemption decision) and Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952 - which upheld an Illinois law that made it illegal to publish or exhibit any writing or picture portraying the "depravity, criminality, unchastity, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens of any race, color, creed or religion")?

So really, this narrowing was a change to the accepted view of what fighting words and libel (though the libel reasoning was likely reversed by New York Times v. Sullivan) were, without amending the Constitution.

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by Noop

I kid you not but this sounds like a client of mine. I've even had to remind him that I am black when he goes on his rants. His reply to me is "you're one of the good blacks."

That always bothers me. In general, the worst examples of people that aren't like you are used to paint your view of all others that fit that type, while the best examples are used to paint your view of the ones that look like you. It's a prejudice that most people have and many don't try to fight to correct.

When I hear statements like Blacks are violent or Hispanics are lazy, I always wonder if people think other people are basically like the Borg and behaviors are spread through the collective. If people take the time to get to know the person, the interactions could be better. But who has the time for that? It's just easier to assume the stereotype and go from there. Damn the logical approach and the fact that your assumptions could cause the reaction that you assumed you'd get, confirming your view...

[JPhillips]

There's plenty of research that shows people are much more likely to ascribe positive motives to people more like them and much more inclined to ascribe negative motives to people less like them.

We're all susceptible to this. That's why it's important to realize that to some extent, yes, you probably are racist.

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There's plenty of research that shows people are much more likely to ascribe positive motives to people more like them and much more inclined to ascribe negative motives to people less like them.

We're all susceptible to this. That's why it's important to realize that to some extent, yes, you probably are racist.

Racist is probably not the right word for that. It's prejudice. It's something we all do.

Racist implies someone thinks they're better than the other based on race. I don't think the phenomenon we're talking about is about that a lot of the time. It's more about the preconceived ideas, usually backed by confirmation bias, that flavor your interactions.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by rjolley

Racist is probably not the right word for that. It's prejudice. It's something we all do.

Racist implies someone thinks they're better than the other based on race. I don't think the phenomenon we're talking about is about that a lot of the time. It's more about the preconceived ideas, usually backed by confirmation bias, that flavor your interactions.

That's fair.

[miami_fan]

I don't want to put these stories in the NFL and MLB threads. They are more in line with the discussions going on in this one.

Tony Dungy, Buccaneers, Rays, Lightning paying to move statue

Tony Dungy, Tampa sports teams help pay to move Confederate statue

Red Sox owner John Henry feels Yawkey Way evokes racist past

Boston Red Sox owner wants Yawkey Way name changed

[Mike Lowe]

For sure, bud. I was saying for the silly Nazi folks to go find something to do that's productive instead of their nonsense.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Mike Lowe]

For sure, bud. I was saying for the silly Nazi folks to go find something to do that's productive instead of their nonsense.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk