Warned by which side?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
- Thread starter aspiegamer
- Start date
- Status
Warned by which side?
neurosisxeno
Member
Obviously both sides.
BronsonLee
Member
Sessions is actually in a great position to do what he wants, and Trump doesn't want to fire him so he keeps trying to make him resign. Homie can just sit and bat away everything.
Bannon has no actual power beyond pretending he's Palpatine
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
This is America and you have to believe it.
I believe this the term of choice for Glenn Greenwald types.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/why-the-alt-center-is-a-problem-too.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ng_with_america_s_establishment_liberals.html
Spoiled Milk
Banned
most of my closest friends are really involved in the radical left. prison abilitionists, communists, and socialist anarchist
I mean, those people are insufferable and awful, but not at all equivalent to the alt-right. They're just fucking paranoid idiots, not hateful racists calling for a white ethno-state. Plus they're a tiny minority with no influence or authority. I've never even met one in IRL (well, I have encountered the anti-GMO ant-vax bullshit, but not combined with Putin apologist). Alt-left is and always has been a stupid term. I don't think it was ever very wide spread (I also avoid Twitter like the plague so...), but assholes like Joy Reid using it as an overly broad cudgel to demean anyone to the left of Clinton certainly didn't help.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Many sides
Randolph Freelander
Member
But how many have permits.
Abinash117
Member
I see this myself. The Congress will follow their own agenda and ignore Trump's probably this fall. There are a quite a few items that Trump wants passed that will guarantee an ugly fight. I think if he fails any single one of them, Congress will cut their loses and follow their own agenda. Tax reform will be handled by them( meaning they will hold off on it later) and any ideas by Trump with not have much weight and others like infrastructure will be completely ignored.The WH will try to push policies but they'll likely be fall on deaf ears as well. Might get a few resignations too since Trump's legislative agenda is basically dead in the water at that point.
Right now, Trump is walking on a very fine line, any mishap going forward could jeopardize is entire legislative agenda considering I think the current mood of Trump is that of a president that is willing to separate himself from Congress while at the same time push forward is own agenda after the establishment failed to protect him after Charlottesville and the CEO councils denounced him. Trump really, really needs the fall to go well for him or it is over.
Sessions is the conduit through which Bannon can get much of his agenda set in motion.
I am thinking about going but also thinking about not going for precisely this reason.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
You know, this isn't a joke.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
SatelliteOfLove
Member
So...everyone with suspicion of working with Russian deza just up and decide "Imma fuck myself over real good today" or something?
They're all white supremacist idiots, what do you want? You can be a Nazi or you can be smart, apparently you can't be both.
The jokes are how we cope.
I'm hoping your friends are wrong, a violent protest in Boston would end up far worse than Charlottesville in a number of ways.
excelsiorlef
Member
Salon is desperate for relevance
Infinite Stars
Member
For as batshit insane Bannon is, he's not wrong on the shifting of power from the United States to China. Granted, it's no excuse for his racist ass ideas, but the economic movements mirror this change. Functionally, you could argue that every major power shift has occurred surrounding a war(The era of the US as the defacto Western super power began in the wake of WW1/2 much in the way that the English did following the 7 years war and the French did following the varying defeats of Spain in wars), so I'm not sure why Bannon seems to think that causing a war will prevent this.
Idle thought: if any terrorist organisation wanted to watch America burn, all they'd have to do is set-off a device at a White Nationalist meeting and claim responsibility.
Secondary thought: they could set-off a device at a point where they know Neo-Nazis and BLM protestors would clash, not take credit, and watch the chaos from afar.
People need to be careful out there. :/
Secondary thought: they could set-off a device at a point where they know Neo-Nazis and BLM protestors would clash, not take credit, and watch the chaos from afar.
People need to be careful out there. :/
CrimzonSamurai
Member
You really can't. The Nazis dismissed the foundations of modern physics because it was largely created by German Jewish mathematicians.
That's why all the wunderwaffe from the latter days of the war sound cool but would never work because they threw out basic physics.
Lord_Byron28
Member
However, do we really know the full extent of who is showing up to Boston? The white supremacists may get scared and not even show up or at least that's what I'm hoping. After Charlottesville there is pure hysteria and many stories of rallies being started and then being shutdown as they are outnumbered or the place won't allow them.
excelsiorlef
Member
The fuck?
Sady Doyle is awesome. She saw through Assange while everyone and their mother on the left were treating him like a fucking hero.
She helped get Micheal Moore to apologize for his bullshit rape apologism over Assange by creating and leading the #MooreandMe campaign.
No one should get her to quiet down
Valdfellgar
Banned
Ugh. God I hope not. I'd hate for Boston to turn into another Charlottesville and perhaps come out even worse.
Also for more selfish/personal reasons my wife, my dad and I are going into the city to see a movie, bought tickets for the theater right next to the freaking Boston Common before any of this happened. My wife also isn't white so.... sigh, guess we'll have to really pay attention to the news before heading in.
Did I miss something? What did they do?
Here's some video.
edit: And WaPo article
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...615178-82f0-11e7-902a-2a9f2d808496_story.html
https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/898000173992902660
Aaron Strife
Banned
That's cool and all, but then she said something I disagreed with.
There might be an internal schism within the ACLU forming: https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/898044409131839488
(This is good.)
(This is good.)
excelsiorlef
Member
The California ACLU position seems clear and reasonable. If you show up with guns and the intent to commit or instigate violence, they will not defend them. The Vice video shows how these white supremacists are intent on violence and explicitly preparing for it. Violence is not protected by the 1st amendment.
excelsiorlef
Member
Qu'elle surprise
That's my state!.
excelsiorlef
Member
Apparently they're too loud for Valhelm and thus preventing leftists (his definition) with the Democratic Core.
And apparently Doyle is some Democratic core (which is what slang for centrist or merely liberal?)
Doyle was a very random writer to get mad about... especially in the context of a conditions for unity framework.
But I have a sedan.
That's not breaking rank. The ACLU has never held the position that incitement to violence is protected under the first amendment.
Quelle.
excelsiorlef
Member
ShironRedshift
Member
That would definitely be a huge step forward, but still isn't good enough for me personally if I'm getting that right. That would be saying that it's just the guns and other weapons that are the problem and if they didn't bring them with them or whatever the speech itself is still fine. That only makes sense if on some level one believes "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" to be true when it's in fact quite obviously false on its face. Not only is the pen is mightier than the sword, that words in both spoken and written form can inform and inspire hope and wonder, but they can also inflict tremendous pain, doubt, and fear. And indeed, that's the intent of these assemblies--to attempt to put fear and despair into the hearts of those despise and to more effectively do that as much as they're able to by assembling in numbers to strengthen the impact of those words and acts as much as they can. Permitting such acts intended to cause pain, fear, or any other type of suffering in the mind of another under the guise of "freedom" is simply unacceptable and as nations such as Canada and Germany have proven, unnecessary besides.
No, I offer an alternative premise based on an extension of the bolded statement carried to its logical (and rightful, IMO) end: we each, as individuals, have our freedoms, but our freedoms end where the rights of another begin. That doesn't seem controversial and is generally accepted, correct? That freedoms and rights are great, but when they infringe on the rights or well-being of another, they've gone too far. In this particular case, that of the speech of white nationalists, Nazis, and other hate-groups, their speech by it's very nature is intended to infringe on the rights and well-being of its intended recipients. Their speech is inherently meant to harm and degrade, to cause fear and doubt, pain and suffering, in the hearts of minds of the groups they. At that point, it's gone far beyond an issue of free speech, the rights of the speaker, as such speech inherently violates the rights and well-being of its intended recipients.
And even if one wants to personally believe in the adage of "sticks and stones," despite it being incorrect on its face, even if one believes in it anyway, clearly white nationalists, etc, don't, or else they wouldn't engage in such speech or actions to begin with. Their intent is to cause harm/fear/suffering in their targets by their own admittance. At that point, the rights of the speech of the hate groups and the rights of the well-being of their targets are in conflict. Only one can win out. You have to side with one or the other. There's no way of avoiding that conflict.
Traditionally, we've been siding more with the white nationalists, saying their right to free speech is more important. But I challenge that and turn it on its face. Why side with them in the first place? Only one can win, but why them? Why not side with the rights and well being of their targets, instead? After all, denying the rights of these hate groups to free speech in these particular instances causes them no harm whatsoever, other than mild mental discomfort and frustration due to not being able to spread their hate. On the other hand, letting them speak, and siding with the free speech of the hate group, can cause any of a number of different types of pain and lack of well-being in their targets. And indeed, that's the intent of these groups to begin with! To cause that very thing!
So, since in these situations, it's impossible to avoid an infringement of the rights of one one group or the other, and restricting the rights of free speech to hate groups would cause them no particular pain or suffering, but letting these groups speak will, and indeed that's their intent on top of it all, the only logical conclusion that I can reach is that their rights to speak on these topics should indeed be fully restricted in order to prevent such harm from coming to be. Such speech inherently causes harm in its targets and is its intent as well, and denying the right to that speech causes no such harm in the would-be speakers. Therefore, a conflict between the two groups rights being unavoidable, and to protect the rights and well-being of the victims, such speech must be restricted, in doing so both protecting others from harm and inflicting no particular harm or discomfort on the speakers.
I can see no flaw in this unless one refuses both premise
a.) that speech can cause harm, in such forms as emotional/mental pain, fear, despair, or self-doubt/self-hate etc.
and premise
b.) that the intent of these groups is to cause that exact type of pain with the speech (among other potential courses of action)
Otherwise, one naturally comes to the conclusion that such speech crosses the line from freedom of speech to illicit action by ceasing to be a mere expression of thought by infringing on the rights and well-being of another, which should be unacceptable and where we draw the line for rights or freedom (unless, that is, one disagrees with that premise and feels we should be able to violate one another's rights which is a huge can of worms that I hope no one would want to open).
(And yeah, I realize this post was long-winded. Just trying to make sure as well as possible any enthymemes don't creep into posts of this nature that might cause confusion.)
Thats how we do.
aspiegamer
Member
I can appreciate some in the ALCU being kinda pissed with one another after they went to court to assure a protest could happen where 3 people died ended up dying over the course of that day. Hell, I'm pissed! Yeah, it's their "thing," I know, but, come on, seriously? Way to look like jackasses. They can still be compelled to defend freedom of expression in all forms without having to be even passive enablers of violence at the same time.
There will always be strange cases that the ACLU takes up that go outside what most people would consider societal norms, but I doubt those are ever used as a permit for criminal activity. That's the difference. They shouldn't be compelled to assume good faith out of armed nazis who made no effort to hide their intentions prior to the event.
There will always be strange cases that the ACLU takes up that go outside what most people would consider societal norms, but I doubt those are ever used as a permit for criminal activity. That's the difference. They shouldn't be compelled to assume good faith out of armed nazis who made no effort to hide their intentions prior to the event.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Look up ordoliberalism, knock yourself out.
Gov McAuliffe said on Pod Save The People that they wanted to move the nazi march to a different location but the ACLU sued to allow them where they were. Further searching brought me this piece from today:
ACLU takes heat for its free-speech defense of white supremacist group
I kinda shrugged my shoulders at the ACLU's gun rights stance and defense of Milo (I'm vehemently opposed to both of course) but this is super fucking questionable. They put people's lives in danger over their dumb free speech absolutism and we should all be thankful that it wasn't much, much worse.
ACLU takes heat for its free-speech defense of white supremacist group
I kinda shrugged my shoulders at the ACLU's gun rights stance and defense of Milo (I'm vehemently opposed to both of course) but this is super fucking questionable. They put people's lives in danger over their dumb free speech absolutism and we should all be thankful that it wasn't much, much worse.
excelsiorlef
Member
And ACLU Virginia was quick to jump on and post on Twitter false info that the murder's car was getting rocks thrown at it.
They deleted and apologized but they ran way that way too fast
It's true, both Hillary and Sanders were deployed by Russia as emergency measures to destroy the one true candidate, Martin O'Malley.
Definitely a conspiracy theory, and probably not the case, but it's an exaggerated version of facts we already know about how the Russians may have had a hand in exaggerating tensions within the Dem electorate:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-fake-news-russia_us_58c34d97e4b0ed71826cdb36
Jill Stein, on the other hand...
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Yeah, it's possible (if not likely) Russia took advantage of Sanders to create a wedge in the Democratic party by using bots and fake news bullshit. But there is absolutely nothing to suggest Sanders was a willing participant.
And yes, on the other hand, it would not surprise me at all if Stein is implicated during Mueller's investigation.
Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism
Sounds pretty good, but I think there are some cases where Government provided services might work better. But using the Free Market as a tool rather than an ideology is smart. People are too irrational and selfish for a Pure Free market to work, which is why there has never been a successful society based on it.
- Status