Charlottesville

[whomario]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Thanks. Interesting.

It wasnt me that made the original points though. That was CUTiger.

In this country, we have always had white supremacist groups. These neo nazis are not a new thing.

The world was a different place in between the wars. And Germany got raped by the world and was suffering. Their collective state of mind was in the dumps. The country was a mess. Then this radical group shows up. With a charismatic leader. And he talks about German pride and how the people are getting screwed.

This is a whole different country in a whole different time. Nazism will not win out here. At least, I dont think it will.

I see this organization as more like a bunch of independent cells doing there thing. There is no cohesion or unity of the groups.

Im not sure that can be said of Germany in the 20s.

Yeah, i just noticed that as well ...

Yet your electorate just chose a charismatic leader who ran, among other things, on the premise that America is "loosing", promises to put America first and make it great again and who now (and then ? Honestly don't know) continually points out how everybody else is screwing America for their own self-interest.

Again, i am not making a comparison in terms of ideology or anything of the sort. Merely pointing out that quite a few of the same buttons are still pushed today to gain power.

And as i pointed out: Hitler went from being an absolute nobody (and not at all being the only right-wing nobody out there, there were plenty of factions) to absolute ruler in 4 years. And not nobody in the sense that he came out of nowhere, but in the sense that he had tried for 10 years and people were just not interested in his message.

A prime example somewhere between "harmless" Trump and Hitler is Erdogan in Turkey, who has not only pushed many of the same buttons to get recognized initially but used many of the same tactics in terms of paramilitary actions to get into power (and stay there) as well as using loopholes in the political system to gain absolute power in a democratic state. One person/party managed to do that today, coming essentially from nowhere.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

It only takes one person, and one moment to change that dynamic crucially.

While it's true that white nationalists have existed in America forever in some form or another, if we accept that the answer to that question doesn't have to be a binary, yes/no answer, and can instead be answered in relative terms, it seems undeniable that white nationalists obviously have a much bigger and more powerful cultural presence in America right now than they have at any time in the last 20 years, and that is something I personally hesitate to push aside as just normal American happenings.

I think the difference is that Germany was ripe for the picking in the 20s.

I think you are right about the presence though. I was typing to disagree, but the more I typed the more my thinking came around to your point.

I think the civil rights movement ran them underground. Those that didnt get arrested. And it stayed there for the most part.

Or maybe its just the fact that there is a lot more cameras available and it is easier to get the message out today. Im sure there has been many KKK and neo nazi marched in the last 20 years. But the way the country is, it gets more attention.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by whomario

Yeah, i just noticed that as well ...

Yet your electorate just chose a charismatic leader who ran, among other things, on the premise that America is "loosing", promises to put America first and make it great again and who now (and then ? Honestly don't know) continually points out how everybody else is screwing America for their own self-interest.

Again, i am not making a comparison in terms of ideology or anything of the sort. Merely pointing out that quite a few of the same buttons are still pushed today to gain power.

And as i pointed out: Hitler went from being an absolute nobody (and not at all being the only right-wing nobody out there, there were plenty of factions) to absolute ruler in 4 years. And not nobody in the sense that he came out of nowhere, but in the sense that he had tried for 10 years and people were just not interested in his message.

A prime example somewhere between "harmless" Trump and Hitler is Erdogan in Turkey, who has not only pushed many of the same buttons to get recognized initially but used many of the same tactics in terms of paramilitary actions to get into power (and stay there) as well as using loopholes in the political system to gain absolute power in a democratic state. One person/party managed to do that today, coming essentially from nowhere.

I think those buttons are pushed by every politician. HRC was trying to scare her base into voting. Just as Trump did and most other politicians. The boogie man is always good for votes.

[mckerney]

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Im not defending Nazis, Im defending their right to assemble.

Is this really what all these posts are about? You somehow feel this thread is lacking a Nazi can assemble defender (trooper, if prefer)?

Again, I suspect there's something else behind these comments. I mean it's been kind of a 2016 greatest hits: trump is as racist as Obama, BLM are terrorist, Michael Brown, Fergason... what's next? Pokémon GO?

Edit: HRC has made an appearance!!!

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I think the difference is that Germany was ripe for the picking in the 20s.

I think you are right about the presence though. I was typing to disagree, but the more I typed the more my thinking came around to your point.

I think the civil rights movement ran them underground. Those that didnt get arrested. And it stayed there for the most part.

Or maybe its just the fact that there is a lot more cameras available and it is easier to get the message out today. Im sure there has been many KKK and neo nazi marched in the last 20 years. But the way the country is, it gets more attention.

Cheers to being thoughtful and changing your opinion, whatever it may be....a lot easier said then done sometimes, at least as far as my efforts usually go.

As I've written in a couple of my posts, the neo-nazi/skinhead scene was huge in the North West in the '80s and '90s, and it takes discussions like these to remind me that it wasn't necessarily the case nationwide. You would see skinheads everywhere any youth would gather, and their express purpose was to intimidate, make uncomfortable, and basically just ruin the event for everybody else. It didn't necessarily involve violence most of the time, but it was an implied threat all of the time. At one time they were relatively unorganized, but as their cultural presence grew eventually leaders of militias and larger hate groups started to target them for recruitment, and there were some skinhead groups that became 'enforcers' for right wing groups that previously had no such extension. Both groups, left unchecked, served to support each other into evolving into something more violent and more organized, on both ends.

All of which is to say that I've seen firsthand these groups start as seemingly unorganized groups of random criminals looking for any kind of mischief, and evolve into organized, co-ordinated groups representing a specific leader or credo, and it doesn't take much time at all. Since that all culminated for Portland in the murder trial of Ken Mieske, and the civil trial that bankrupted Tom Metzger and his White Aryan Resistance for ordering skinheads to incite violence against minorities, skinheads (and white nationalist violence as a whole) faded away out of Portland rather immediately....until about three months ago, when a white supremacist stabbed three people on the light rail, killing two, while ranting about Muslims, blacks, and free speech.

I can only speak to my personal experience, but white nationalist violence practically disappeared from my view and my world by the turn of the 2Ks, it is now firmly back on my radar and something I now interact with on literally a daily basis, in one way or another. While some of that is surely due to media manipulation and love for conflict, I think it's very dangerous to not acknowledge it's expanding presence in reality. That presence certainly isn't going to get any smaller if we all half-dismiss them as an unaccepted, but also unavoidable part of America.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Cheers to being thoughtful and changing your opinion, whatever it may be....a lot easier said then done sometimes, at least as far as my efforts usually go.

As I've written in a couple of my posts, the neo-nazi/skinhead scene was huge in the North West in the '80s and '90s, and it takes discussions like these to remind me that it wasn't necessarily the case nationwide.

It was huge on both sides of the DC suburbs as well. It was big enough that it was included in several movies from that era like Higher Learning. If it wasn't national, it was pretty close.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

It was huge on both sides of the DC suburbs as well. It was big enough that it was included in several movies from that era like Higher Learning. If it wasn't national, it was pretty close.

It's certainly not a time or place that I want to travel back to.

Gentrification is a huge issue in Portland these days, as the city's growth maintains a rate near 200-300% of the national average, but often lost in the discussions about the 'good old days' is the fact that violent crime and murder rates pre-2K were close to double what they are now, and I think that pretty much extends across the country as well. I think that American culture has become so fear based that most people tend to believe the opposite is true, and that America is much more violent & dangerous now, but that is so far from the truth.

I get the impression from the current political/economic/cultural indicators that we could be headed back to an echo of that era, and I'm dreading how this country would react to REAL violence on par with the '80s and '90s, considering how bent out of shape we get right now based on shit that is largely invented and/or imaginary.

[molson]

I'm surprised so many of these outed Nazis came from different parts of the country. Most of them don't appear to have a lot discretionary income for travel. This event was a big deal.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Is this really what all these posts are about? You somehow feel this thread is lacking a Nazi can assemble defender (trooper, if prefer)?

Again, I suspect there's something else behind these comments. I mean it's been kind of a 2016 greatest hits: trump is as racist as Obama, BLM are terrorist, Michael Brown, Fergason... what's next? Pokémon GO?

Edit: HRC has made an appearance!!!

Thanks for adding to the discussion. Your points are spot on and undeniably well thought out.

Well done.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm surprised so many of these outed Nazis came from different parts of the country. Most of them don't appear to have a lot discretionary income for travel. This event was a big deal.

Yeah, they must be hired by George Soros.

[PilotMan]

I wonder where else disenfranchised young men with lots of time on their hands, access to violent weapons and stiff, dogmatic principles exist in the world? And what are they doing to better themselves and their situations? Gonna have ....to......think.......

[molson]

Originally Posted by Noop

I will never understand why these groups (who are mostly poor) continue to support a party that caters to the rich.

Ya, nothing says "white supremacy" more than these people

https://i1.wp.com/dakotafreepress.co...euters_KKK.jpg

I guess that's probably similar to the early Nazis and other "supremacy" movements which really come from a place of inferiority and inability to succeed in society's current status quo.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, nothing says "white supremacy" more than these people

https://i1.wp.com/dakotafreepress.co...euters_KKK.jpg

I guess that's probably similar to the early Nazis and other "supremacy" movements which really come from a place of inferiority and inability to succeed in society's current status quo.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, nothing says "white supremacy" more than these people

https://i1.wp.com/dakotafreepress.co...euters_KKK.jpg

Holy fuck, I counted more people than teeth in that picture.

[RainMaker]

Vice can be hit or miss but they did a great job on this. Really one of the only groups that got inside and listened to what people had to say.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I think the difference is that Germany was ripe for the picking in the 20s.

I think you are right about the presence though. I was typing to disagree, but the more I typed the more my thinking came around to your point.

I think the civil rights movement ran them underground. Those that didnt get arrested. And it stayed there for the most part.

Or maybe its just the fact that there is a lot more cameras available and it is easier to get the message out today. Im sure there has been many KKK and neo nazi marched in the last 20 years. But the way the country is, it gets more attention.

I certainly don't think we're headed for a holocaust but this country seems fairly ripe for the picking. There is an immense amount of hate flowing thanks to the internet and ease at which we can communicate. People seem angry about everything and blame their failures on other groups constantly. If this country hits another major economic depression, perhaps that gets amped up even more.

It's worth noting that early on in Hitler's reign, people said the same thing you're saying. The middle and upper class at the time ignored it. Most Jews still felt comfortable in the country and blew off the rhetoric. These things throughout history happen rather quickly and without much notice. When things such as white nationalism is normalized in the country (as seen by having them at the highest levels of government), that sounds off alarm bells.

Again I don't think we're headed toward something big as long as the economy is somewhat stable. But I do think things could get bad for groups and violence could escalate. Thankfully I still think we have enough honorable people in government to prevent it from going too far despite the bad apples.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Blacks just play the victim card.

So I take it you would disown your daughter or son if they brought home a black significant other.

Heaven forbid Thanksgiving at your house be filled with blacks playing the victim and race card.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Vice can be hit or miss but they did a great job on this. Really one of the only groups that got inside and listened to what people had to say.

And its horrifying... but its OK, they should totally get to hold rallies with their threats of killing counter-protesters, threats of sending 200 armed guys against the police, and bringing literal clubs to their rallies.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Noop

So I take it you would disown your daughter or son if they brought home a black significant other.

Heaven forbid Thanksgiving at your house be filled with blacks playing the victim and race card.

Oh brother. Pick and choose, dude.

I also said I didnt say that correctly. That I generalized it. I didnt know how to be more specific with my statement.

But then, that is typical of you. Pick and choose what you want to attack.

Heck, my youngest daughter has already told us she wants to be an athletic trainer for the Boston Celtics and marry an NBA player. Seems to me she will be marryin a black guy.

So, no, you are wrong. And fuck you for implying Im a racist.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

So, no, you are wrong. And fuck you for implying Im a racist.

Maybe next time just don't sound so racist.

[whomario]

Blood and Soil - Wikipedia

Hey, Idiots: You are all descendants of relatively recent Immigrants. But maybe give some Native American Tribes a ringy if they wanna join in.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Oh brother. Pick and choose, dude.

I also said I didnt say that correctly. That I generalized it. I didnt know how to be more specific with my statement.

But then, that is typical of you. Pick and choose what you want to attack.

Heck, my youngest daughter has already told us she wants to be an athletic trainer for the Boston Celtics and marry an NBA player. Seems to me she will be marryin a black guy.

So, no, you are wrong. And fuck you for implying Im a racist.

You surely must realize how some of the things you type would lead to that assumption. You have made that comment about a few of your statements in this thread, so maybe take the time to read your thoughts from a broader prospective before you hit post.

I'll be honest, I find your statement of victimization somewhat troubling. When have whites, as an ethnic group ever truly been victims in this country by law, or action?

Let me add this perspective. I am 54 years old and in my lifetime it would have been illegal in up to 21 states at various times to be married to my wife because she is black. So in reality for only 50 years (Loving vs. Virginia 1967) there has been true equality in this country. Do you really think black America has had enough time to make up 200 years of oppression and gain equal footing? So, yes, there is still a lot of resentment to work through, and yes, sometimes race gets played unfairly. But the reality is, equal rights, still do not equate to equal opportunity, yet the white nationalist movement somehow thinks whites are now treated unfairly and being attacked?

You don't need to defend the fact that you are white, and in terms of "guilt", you are only guilty if you have done something wrong, so there is no need to feel like a victim. Instead, try understanding that people, while embracing progress, still recognize there is ground to be gained and are fighting for that. A big part of the reality with these racist groups that spew this hate is this. They are not fighting to save "their" race, because their opportunities have not diminished. They fighting to return to how things were in the good old days, when society accepted the fact that it was okay to be a bully and a bigot because there was a severe power imbalance.

Now as it comes to their message and rights. Hate speech and advocating a cleansing of society is not the premise the first amendment was based on. Yeah, they have the right to say it, but the message is toxic, promotes anger and violence and should be quelled. You can make a threat on the Presidents life, or say you want to blow up a plane in the airport and you are protected by the first amendment, but you are also likely to get arrested. So at what point does accountability for spreading the wring message come into play, and I ask this for any radical group that spreads this type of message against anyone?

And finally since you also brushed against it in an earlier post, the term "white privilege" makes a lot of whites bristle. I am not a huge fan of the term myself, because the basic rights that give me that privilege should be the basic rights of all Americans. So when you really break it down, it is really under privilege for people of color and these fuckers in these extremist white nationalist groups want to keep it that way, and ultimately, regardless of their rights, that is unacceptable.

Perhaps a way you couldn't have over generalized your statement is to have said, "There are some minorities that play the victim card unjustly." And while that may be true, it also comes down to perception. Not always someone looking to shift accountability or make an excuse for a situation they created for themselves. And that perception comes most often from the experiences of them or others, so yes, which can skew it. You improve that perception through dialog and actions, showing people that America is inclusive. Not by marching with torches , bitching about how unfair it is to be a white man in America and advocating hate and violence against those that have done absolutely nothing to diminish your quality of life.

Sorry, I covered much more than what I responded to here, but I didn't want to comb through a bunch of posts to copy in exact talking points.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Logan

Maybe next time just don't sound so racist.

+1000

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

You surely must realize how some of the things you type would lead to that assumption. You have made that comment about a few of your statements in this thread, so maybe take the time to read your thoughts from a broader prospective before you hit post.

I'll be honest, I find your statement of victimization somewhat troubling. When have whites, as an ethnic group ever truly been victims in this country by law, or action?

Let me add this perspective. I am 54 years old and in my lifetime it would have been illegal in up to 21 states at various times to be married to my wife because she is black. So in reality for only 50 years (Loving vs. Virginia 1967) there has been true equality in this country. Do you really think black America has had enough time to make up 200 years of oppression and gain equal footing? So, yes, there is still a lot of resentment to work through, and yes, sometimes race gets played unfairly. But the reality is, equal rights, still do not equate to equal opportunity, yet the white nationalist movement somehow thinks whites are now treated unfairly and being attacked?

You don't need to defend the fact that you are white, and in terms of "guilt", you are only guilty if you have done something wrong, so there is no need to feel like a victim. Instead, try understanding that people, while embracing progress, still recognize there is ground to be gained and are fighting for that. A big part of the reality with these racist groups that spew this hate is this. They are not fighting to save "their" race, because their opportunities have not diminished. They fighting to return to how things were in the good old days, when society accepted the fact that it was okay to be a bully and a bigot because there was a severe power imbalance.

Now as it comes to their message and rights. Hate speech and advocating a cleansing of society is not the premise the first amendment was based on. Yeah, they have the right to say it, but the message is toxic, promotes anger and violence and should be quelled. You can make a threat on the Presidents life, or say you want to blow up a plane in the airport and you are protected by the first amendment, but you are also likely to get arrested. So at what point does accountability for spreading the wring message come into play, and I ask this for any radical group that spreads this type of message against anyone?

And finally since you also brushed against it in an earlier post, the term "white privilege" makes a lot of whites bristle. I am not a huge fan of the term myself, because the basic rights that give me that privilege should be the basic rights of all Americans. So when you really break it down, it is really under privilege for people of color and these fuckers in these extremist white nationalist groups want to keep it that way, and ultimately, regardless of their rights, that is unacceptable.

Perhaps a way you couldn't have over generalized your statement is to have said, "There are some minorities that play the victim card unjustly." And while that may be true, it also comes down to perception. Not always someone looking to shift accountability or make an excuse for a situation they created for themselves. And that perception comes most often from the experiences of them or others, so yes, which can skew it. You improve that perception through dialog and actions, showing people that America is inclusive. Not by marching with torches , bitching about how unfair it is to be a white man in America and advocating hate and violence against those that have done absolutely nothing to diminish your quality of life.

Sorry, I covered much more than what I responded to here, but I didn't want to comb through a bunch of posts to copy in exact talking points.

Thanks for the post. I appreciate it. Very well thought out statements.

If I sounded racist, I apologize. Not my intention. I was in a really good discussion with a few people and I was getting passionate and not putting my thoughts on paper as clearly as I intended, obviously.

I think I made a couple points in my ramblings. And I hate that some of the ramblings put me in a light I dont want to be in.

[tarcone]

Interesting think at work today. This relates back to fault. And me saying had the girl not gone she wouldnt have died.
We did an activity that placed blame. It was a story about a baron who told his baroness not to leave the castle until he returned a dawn the next day. She went to her lovers and had the servants leave the drawbridge down. When she came back a madman with a knife was blocking the bridge.
She freaked. Went to her lover and asked for help. He said no. Went to a boatman to get across the moat. He wanted to charge her. She had no money. He didnt help. Went to friend for money for the boat. They didnt help because of the circumstance of being with the lover.
She went back and tried to cross and the mad man killed her.

Of the 6 mentioned in the story rank from 1 to 6 who was most at fault with 1 being the most.

It was interesting.

I bet you can guess who I put at number 1.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Thanks for the post. I appreciate it. Very well thought out statements.

If I sounded racist, I apologize. Not my intention. I was in a really good discussion with a few people and I was getting passionate and not putting my thoughts on paper as clearly as I intended, obviously.

I think I made a couple points in my ramblings. And I hate that some of the ramblings put me in a light I dont want to be in.

Thank you as well, it is good to have dialog where we can talk to each other, props.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Interesting think at work today. This relates back to fault. And me saying had the girl not gone she wouldnt have died.
We did an activity that placed blame. It was a story about a baron who told his baroness not to leave the castle until he returned a dawn the next day. She went to her lovers and had the servants leave the drawbridge down. When she came back a madman with a knife was blocking the bridge.
She freaked. Went to her lover and asked for help. He said no. Went to a boatman to get across the moat. He wanted to charge her. She had no money. He didnt help. Went to friend for money for the boat. They didnt help because of the circumstance of being with the lover.
She went back and tried to cross and the mad man killed her.

Of the 6 mentioned in the story rank from 1 to 6 who was most at fault with 1 being the most.

It was interesting.

I bet you can guess who I put at number 1.

A more accurate comparison without built in biases (adultery, mad man) would be if mad men were storming the castle, but said they were there in peace while wielding knives. She went outside to try to talk sense into them, then after the guards made them leave, a mad man came through and killed her.

[digamma]

It's clear in any case that you blamed the victim.

[AENeuman]

So White Nationalist groups are now likely doing a demonstration in San Francisco and Berkeley this month. Of course there will be counter protest violence, but coming here is absolutely provocation.

Heard on NPR that WN saw the weekend as a success because they will probably and the end of the day increase their membership. Same probably goes for the Bay Area demonstrations.

[CU Tiger]

I've been thinking about this whole situation, a lot. I've now re-read this thread 3 times in its entirety trying to understand the various nuances of the discussion and the different sides.

I'm trying to summarize my thoughts into a nice "elevator pitch" thought bubble...and struggling.

The only things I am certain of in all of this:

The Skinhead/neo-nazi/White supremacist/KKK are pieces of shit that the world would be better off without.

Despite that I absolutely support their right to march/walk/chant/wear whatever they want in whatever town they want without government interference or without being physically harmed by private citizens.

I think 1st Amendment rights are among the 2 most important freedoms granted to citizens of this country that must be maintained.

If I am choosing a hill to die on, siding with that garbage is probably among the worst possible one to occupy. But if I truly believe my above statement, I have to defend their right to speak their opinion no matter how vile or disagreeable to me it is.

Where does the line between protests and chants and slogans end and threats and harassment begin? I dont have that answer but I feel its the crux of the whole debate. I mean I agree that nothing good comes from skinheads demonstrating in SF, but if we truly value free speech dont they have as much right to voice their opinions as Dr. King did to voice his in Birmingham in '63? (Again please don't twist my argument one was 'right' and the other 'wrong' - but both are in stark contrast to the accepted ideals of the given areas at the time of the event - that is the only correlation I am making)

I mean the inner Jon in me (and we all have one- just admit it) wants to just say Nuke the whole freaking lot of these nazi assemblers and dont think about it again. But is that truly in line with the very ideals this country was founded upon? Doesn't or shouldn't disention and strife constantly emplore us to challenge and evaluate our own inner beliefs. Doesn't seeing the wrong shine a light on how right the right is? How do we regulate away hate? I mean sure the hippies were right. Love is the answer. But how do we make everyone love each other. We are all imperfect beings in an imperfect world. Why does this shit have to be so hard? Why can't we have elected officials that work jointly to improve the state of the Union? Why cant we have reasonable discord? If two sides so vehemently oppose an idea why cant we trial both and study the repercussions and then make a decision....sorry that's getting way OT.

I just dont understand how any man can hate another man because of something beyond his control. Be it skin color, the country he happened to be born in, whatever. Deep down we are all freaking people that fundamentally want the same things, or we should be.

This just depresses me.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I mean I agree that nothing good comes from skinheads demonstrating in SF, but if we truly value free speech dont they have as much right to voice their opinions as Dr. King did to voice his in Birmingham in '63?

Well, there is also the other argument that sometimes Americans (I include myself) ignore - other countries have different opinions of what is free speech. They actually think it is nuts that we defend the right of racists to speak freely. In that they believe that freedom of speech is designed to create a marketplace of ideas, so people can debate and discuss and come to a decision, but hate speech has no real place in the marketplace of ideas because before you can really engage in a marketplace of ideas everyone has to have access to the market (therefore acknowledging everyone's dignity comes before and leads into freedom of speech). Of course some in the US may say that's not free speech at all, while those in these countries may consider us to be nuts valuing an abstract ideal over people.

So... there is a different ways to view this rather than a binary.

[Brian Swartz]

That's very true and PilotMan made basically the same point earlier. I'm not sure how important it is here though. This did happen in the US and the discussion is about American society, culture, politics. If it happened in Europe or wherever then it's a much different issue(and I'd personally be much less likely to weigh in as much, simply because I tend to try to stay away from telling people in other sovereign nations what their country should be like).

[Marc Vaughan]

I'll most likely be protesting against the Nazi's if they do come to UF as they appear to have planned - wish me luck, so far the protests I've been involved in have managed to retain peaceful despite provocation and I'm hopeful this one will also.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, there is also the other argument that sometimes Americans (I include myself) ignore - other countries have different opinions of what is free speech. They actually think it is nuts that we defend the right of racists to speak freely. In that they believe that freedom of speech is designed to create a marketplace of ideas, so people can debate and discuss and come to a decision, but hate speech has no real place in the marketplace of ideas because before you can really engage in a marketplace of ideas everyone has to have access to the market (therefore acknowledging everyone's dignity comes before and leads into freedom of speech). Of course some in the US may say that's not free speech at all, while those in these countries may consider us to be nuts valuing an abstract ideal over people.

So... there is a different ways to view this rather than a binary.

This is the second time I have seen you bring up other countries on this matter. I completely agree with you that other countries view this differently. That said, I don't see why it is relevant. The freedom of speech issues brought up here specifically relate to an American sub-group protesting on American soil. It seems to me that the American standard for freedom of speech is the standard to consider in this circumstance, and bringing up what other countries think is a red herring, drawing away from the relevant discussion.

And as much as I can't stand these particular protesters and the hate they espouse, I do as an American believe in our standard for this freedom. I would not be for stripping them of their freedom of speech or of right to assembly.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

That's very true and PilotMan made basically the same point earlier. I'm not sure how important it is here though. This did happen in the US and the discussion is about American society, culture, politics. If it happened in Europe or wherever then it's a much different issue(and I'd personally be much less likely to weigh in as much, simply because I tend to try to stay away from telling people in other sovereign nations what their country should be like).

Or what he said.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

That's very true and PilotMan made basically the same point earlier. I'm not sure how important it is here though. This did happen in the US and the discussion is about American society, culture, politics. If it happened in Europe or wherever then it's a much different issue(and I'd personally be much less likely to weigh in as much, simply because I tend to try to stay away from telling people in other sovereign nations what their country should be like).

Yeah, but CU Tiger was raising a more philosophical point than a legal one... at least that's how I read it.

(FWIW, that is another thing that somewhat bothers me, not that you are doing so at present, the correlation of a philosophical discussion of freedom of speech with the legal requirements under the US's First Amendment. They are not the same thing)

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, there is also the other argument that sometimes Americans (I include myself) ignore - other countries have different opinions of what is free speech. They actually think it is nuts that we defend the right of racists to speak freely. In that they believe that freedom of speech is designed to create a marketplace of ideas, so people can debate and discuss and come to a decision, but hate speech has no real place in the marketplace of ideas because before you can really engage in a marketplace of ideas everyone has to have access to the market (therefore acknowledging everyone's dignity comes before and leads into freedom of speech). Of course some in the US may say that's not free speech at all, while those in these countries may consider us to be nuts valuing an abstract ideal over people.

So... there is a different ways to view this rather than a binary.

I'd echo what Brian said, since this is a US issue I think laws of other countries are kind of irrelevant to the specific incident, but to take it a step farther.

I would strongly oppose laws such as those you suggest. In fact it would probably be a deal breaker for me to live in a country with those laws.

Once you grant the governing body the authority to control what is "good" speech and what is "bad" speech (and Im using speech generically. It could be written, spoken, worn...whatever) then you have no freedom at all. It seems only a matter of time until the political climate shifts to disallow your view point. Its a pretty capricious standard.

Your statement that 'while those in these countries may consider us to be nuts valuing an abstract ideal over people' totally discounts the (in this case) neo nazis as people.

That is where we differ philosophically. I could not hate their message more, but I would fight until my last breath for their right to speak their message. To me that is a fundamental value of an American. Frankly its a value I think far too many are losing far too quickly.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Once you grant the governing body the authority to control what is "good" speech and what is "bad" speech (and Im using speech generically. It could be written, spoken, worn...whatever) then you have no freedom at all.

Do you believe that Germany has no freedom at all? Hell, do you believe that Canada or the UK have no freedom at all? I don't think the later two go as far as Germany, but I also think they are more strict than the US in terms of hate speech (I believe in that case - of hate speech, it's under 'incitement', which is also a limitation in US jurisprudence, but the line is drawn in a different place).

Is freedom simply that binary to you rather than a sliding scale? Wouldn't you think it was absurd if someone said if you aren't given freedom from hunger (a more specific "Freedom From Want" from FDR's Four Freedoms) than you have no freedom at all?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I'd echo what Brian said, since this is a US issue I think laws of other countries are kind of irrelevant to the specific incident, but to take it a step farther.

I would strongly oppose laws such as those you suggest. In fact it would probably be a deal breaker for me to live in a country with those laws.

Once you grant the governing body the authority to control what is "good" speech and what is "bad" speech (and Im using speech generically. It could be written, spoken, worn...whatever) then you have no freedom at all. It seems only a matter of time until the political climate shifts to disallow your view point. Its a pretty capricious standard.

Your statement that 'while those in these countries may consider us to be nuts valuing an abstract ideal over people' totally discounts the (in this case) neo nazis as people.

That is where we differ philosophically. I could not hate their message more, but I would fight until my last breath for their right to speak their message. To me that is a fundamental value of an American. Frankly its a value I think far too many are losing far too quickly.

We already determine what is good and bad speech, it's just that our definitions put more into the good category. For example, if I follow a woman around and tell her I'm going to rape her, that's going to get me in trouble. If I say the same thing on the internet, that will get me in trouble.

Where things get tricky for me, is when someone advocates an ideology that advocates violence and murder, that's very unlikely to get you into trouble. The fact that I can say I want to kill the Jews, but I can't tell an individual Jew that I'm going to come to his house and kill him isn't obviously a good/bad situation. I'm pretty absolutist regarding free speech, so I'll generally advocate more speech, but I don't think the boundaries are very clear cut.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Do you believe that Germany has no freedom at all? Hell, do you believe that Canada or the UK have no freedom at all? I don't think the later two go as far as Germany, but I also think they are more strict than the US in terms of hate speech.

Is freedom simply that binary to you rather than a sliding scale? Wouldn't you think it was absurd if someone said if you aren't given freedom from hunger (a more specific "Freedom From Want" from FDR's Four Freedoms) than you have no freedom at all?

To be totally honest with you, I have never studied German, Canadian or British law to the level of nuance to be able to have an informed opinion as it relates to this topic.

Just not something that has ever been on my agenda.

[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.

[ISiddiqui]

But 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. After all, all rights (inc. Constitutional rights) have limits in place. None have been deemed completely absolute by the courts.

[Easy Mac]

They can't be nullified when the President defends them.

[cougarfreak]

So it turns out this wackjob went to the rival county HS to us. After looking him up in our system I'm not terribly surprised.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[whomario]

One problem i have with the whole "depends on how you define it" thing here ? The international community under US leadership declared the Nazis as war criminals, yet now allows the same symbols, slogans and "ideas" to be presented publicly.

They are not merely spouting generic non-sense where i might see how it would fall under freedom of speech/ideas, they are repeating slogans and displaying symbols that are without any doubt connected to the ideology of one of the most twisted regimes ever to walk the earth.

That is what i cannot comprehend about this. In Germany we do have right-wing parties and Neo-Nazis out marching, assembling, "protesting" and have their right to that protected by the state. (freedom of speech is extensively guaranteed) But the direct use of symbols and slogans from the Nazi terror ? That's not covered by freedom of speech here. (neither is the KKK symbol f.e.)

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

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by whomario

One problem i have with the whole "depends on how you define it" thing here ? The international community under US leadership declared the Nazis as war criminals, yet now allows the same symbols, slogans and "ideas" to be presented publicly.

They are not merely spouting generic non-sense where i might see how it would fall under freedom of speech/ideas, they are repeating slogans and displaying symbols that are without any doubt connected to the ideology of one of the most twisted regimes ever to walk the earth.

That is what i cannot comprehend about this. In Germany we do have right-wing parties and Neo-Nazis out marching, assembling, "protesting" and have their right to that protected by the state. (freedom of speech is extensively guaranteed) But the direct use of symbols and slogans from the Nazi terror ? That's not covered by freedom of speech here. (neither is the KKK symbol f.e.)

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

The fact that you don't see why that right is necessary is why you identify as German (above and beyond that you are German), and not American. Neither concept or level of freedom is right or wrong. You may find it unsettling that the U.S. believes more stringently in freedom of speech than Germany does. I find it equally disturbing that any country will engage in abridging the speech rights of any group--to me, doing so sets government on a 1984ish slippery slope where eventually any non-conformust idea (to that government) is anathema and illegal.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Oh brother. Pick and choose, dude.

I also said I didnt say that correctly. That I generalized it. I didnt know how to be more specific with my statement.

But then, that is typical of you. Pick and choose what you want to attack.

Heck, my youngest daughter has already told us she wants to be an athletic trainer for the Boston Celtics and marry an NBA player. Seems to me she will be marryin a black guy.

So, no, you are wrong. And fuck you for implying Im a racist.

I am not implying you're a racist. Your narrow minded and ill-conceived comments are doing that without my help. But then again I could be playing the victim which people like me are want to do.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Noop

I am not implying you're a racist. Your narrow minded and ill-conceived comments are doing that without my help. But then again I could be playing the victim which people like me are want to do.

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.

[molson]

Even assuming we could amend the constitution, or if there were enough judges who were willing to interpret the first amendment as providing less free speech protection, what exactly would we accomplish to say, send armed police to arrest a group of angry armed protestors?

I'm pretty sure there's be more casualties on all sides (both groups of protestors, police, bystanders, property). And what kind of punishments would we really get for whatever protesters were arrested? I also think the cause would be emboldened. And if the act of protesting was itself already criminal, then you've blurred the lines between peaceful protesting and destructive protesting (stopping traffic, damaging property, etc.), so I think there would be more of the latter.

Even countries with more restrictions on free speech rights don't seem to be breaking up these protests with force. You can find plenty of photos of neo-nazi rallies in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, complete with swastikas and Nazi slogans. Those governments have fewer restrictions on what they can do in response to that speech, but it still seems they take a pretty guarded approach.

Maybe the government could identify and prosecute protesters after the fact, in a safer environment. But again, I'm not sure what that accomplishes. Presumably we wouldn't be executing them or locking them up for years. We'd just be emboldening those who feel they don't have a lot to lose. I'm sure every protester loves a good arrest story.

I think U.S. private enterprise does a decent job of keeping these things in check. 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). The U.S. has more free speech protection than most countries, but our private employers and other organizations also have those same freedoms and can, in some ways, impose harsher punishments than the government can. I wonder if that's one of the disconnects between the U.S. and Europe. European governments don't seem to be using their enhanced speech-regulation powers to prevent protesting, but I bet they DO use that power to give employers, universities, and other organizations more power to get rid of racists. But those entities already have that power in the U.S.

There are some tougher questions downstream a little bit when it comes to other things, like universities and speakers. Private universities should generally be able to ban or expel whoever they want. With public universities, it's more complicated. But generally, I think the best response to speech you don't like is more speech. Or just ignoring it and drowning it out with indifference. If a conservative student group wants to bring in an alt-right goober with nazi sympathies to speak at the school, maybe that shouldn't scare us so much. Free speech can actually be less powerful when it's free and we're not looking at the government to save us from it.