Support NeoGAF

[TheMikado]

I don't think anything the KKK do is for political gains and is purely for hate.

So, that would be a no.

Just to clarify for people who apparently do not know

Terrorism - the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

They are terrorist. There are several political agenda items, not the least of with their opposition to integration and support of segregation.

 

[TheMikado]

Resolutions like this are just political stunts to dare your "opponents" to take a stand that you can then mischaracterize somehow for political gain.

People on the "right" are guilty of the same thing with the Farrakhan resolution thing. It's meaningless, and they are just looking for a dumb issue to try to tar a few democrats with.

That's the crux of this. Getting people's panties in a knot to distract from actual issues.

 

[gunslikewhoa]

Nope, defend a nazi, get called out for it. I don't care about some loose interpretation of an amendment that the defenders didn't bother to understand.

You don't get to straddle the line anymore when one side is literal fucking nazis screaming "Jews will not replace us" in the streets, armed to the teeth.

Spewing this gibberish while claiming others don't understand the first amendment. Good luck in law school.

 

[mckmas8808]

In a free state or democracy they still should have the right to protest. If they do not have it why should BLM? It is your right to protest and this is one of the huge things we have to endure for freedom of speech and a democracy.

Hell in Germany we recently had protests from Muslims against Israel and they even did shout death to jews and Israel. You just have to endure this and make sure their extreme voices stay small. By censoring them they will get the victim position and gain more attraction,

I agree to their right to protest. But to say the KKK was never a terrorist organization is insane to me.

 

[Dunki]

I agree to their right to protest. But to say the KKK was never a terrorist organization is insane to me.

The moment they try to change political views or better the political climate in a country with intimidation, fear and or violence they are defined as terrorists. And there should really no arguing about that IMO.

 

[Spheyr]

You are being willfully ignorant to think that they weren't also packing weapons.

I'm assuming most of them over 21 with a license to carry were doing so legally, yes. That's what responsible adults do to ensure they have the ability for self defense. I switch between a Glock 17, an EAA Witness, and a Ruger LC9s depending on how I'm dressed myself.

 

[StrikeNinja24]

I'm assuming most of them over 21 with a license to carry were doing so legally, yes. That's what responsible adults do to ensure they have the ability for self defense. I switch between a Glock 17, an EAA Witness, and a Ruger LC9s depending on how I'm dressed myself.

It just sounds like you're a coward that's constantly in fear of those around you.

Or you have a hero complex because you're insecure about your surroundings.

I don't believe for a second that you'd have any sort of responsible reactions to a crisis.

 

[StrikeNinja24]

Spewing this gibberish while claiming others don't understand the first amendment. Good luck in law school.

It's absolutely in line with the first amendment. This was not a ban of speech. This was labeling a dangerous group of people who's core principle was to downgrade and outright destroy other nationalities.

However, defend a nazi? Get called a nazi. There's nothing getting you arrested for it. It's just calling someone by their principles.

 

[Spheyr]

It just sounds like you're a coward that's constantly in fear of those around you.

Or you have a hero complex because you're insecure about your surroundings.

I don't believe for a second that you'd have any sort of responsible reactions to a crisis.

Being wrong is completely your right and I support your freedom to think as you do. But I've been working as a bouncer at some pretty seedy clubs for years so my shitbag-sense is pretty well tuned, and I'd like to think I can handle the next crisis as well as the last.

 

[Dunki]

It's absolutely in line with the first amendment. This was not a ban of speech. This was labeling a dangerous group of people who's core principle was to downgrade and outright destroy other nationalities.

However, defend a nazi? Get called a nazi. There's nothing getting you arrested for it. It's just calling someone by their principles.

Ok please show me this. guess you were talking about the tiki torches thing? Again in Germany even Nazis have the right to protest as long they are following the rules. It was not a group of dangerous people. Right now I get the feeling the extreme left AKA ANTIFA even in the US is far more violent and dangerous to public safety than these idiots with their torches.

Same goes for BLM who were rioting in their own streets, burning and plundering buildings. IF you think these people are dangerous what about the other ones? And for the record I think both should be able to protest as long they do follow the rules. The moment they break them these protest should be disbanded by the police.

 

[gunslikewhoa]

It's absolutely in line with the first amendment. This was not a ban of speech. This was labeling a dangerous group of people who's core principle was to downgrade and outright destroy other nationalities.

However, defend a nazi? Get called a nazi. There's nothing getting you arrested for it. It's just calling someone by their principles.

You don't get to label people or organizations terrorists for speech. Sorry.

 

[RokkanStoned]

It's absolutely in line with the first amendment. This was not a ban of speech. This was labeling a dangerous group of people who's core principle was to downgrade and outright destroy other nationalities.

It was a clear intent of action against the freedom of assembly, which is in fact part of the first amendment. The resolution was poorly written as well, being such that it would potentially oppose itself. If they want to take a stand against racial hate, that's fine, but a resolution needs to be in line with the principles of the first amendment and it needs internal consistency. It also needs to signal for action to be made, action that's feasible.

However, defend a nazi? Get called a nazi. There's nothing getting you arrested for it. It's just calling someone by their principles.

Is there some rhetorical point hidden in there that I'm missing? Because the logic of "defend x, get called an x" seems dubious and fallacious. In a comparative view it's even more easy to disprove by comparing views, which makes it even more silly. More so it's just an ad hominem attack trying to bypass argument.

 

[DryvBy]

O brother, are we really worried about maybe 400-500 people and what they're doing? Should we walk around denouncing every single little group in public? Nazis suck and America knows it. Which is why they have such low membership. There's under a thousand neo-Nazis. What is the point of talking about such a minority of a minority of a minority group all the time?

That's like asking a politician to denounce cannibalism publicly. Why would they? It's pretty much a given.

 

[way more]

Doesn't the federal government consider them a domestic terrorist group? Why should it be this hard for a state to agree?

Skimming wikipedia it seems that Aryan Nation and KKK are called terrorist groups because they are neo-nazis but neo-nazis themselves are not a domestic terrorist group?

O brother, are we really worried about maybe 400-500 people and what they're doing? Should we walk around denouncing every single little group in public? Nazis suck and America knows it. Which is why they have such low membership. There's under a thousand neo-Nazis. What is the point of talking about such a minority of a minority of a minority group all the time?

That's like asking a politician to denounce cannibalism publicly. Why would they? It's pretty much a given.

I agree that the KKK and neo-nazis are so small in size we should just let the FBI continue to monitor them instead of sending drones or whatever people who compare them to ISIS say. But if it's so easy to dismiss them than why not do it?

 

[mid83]

Look, I don’t think 99.9% of the population would disagree that Nazis are disgusting human beings with a toxic and awful world view.

That said, one of the concerns I’d have with labeling these groups as terrorist organizations is what’s the definition of Nazi? Look at the nonsense on college campuses. Anybody who is invited to speak who isn’t in line with progressive ideology is shouted down as a Nazi. I’ve seen people online pretty much equate every Republican, Libertarian and/or Trump voter as a Nazi, or at least a Nazi sympathizer. I’m sure all the Antifa punks think everybody to the right of Bernie Sanders is a Nazi.

So does that make all these people terrorists? Where do you draw the line?

 

[Vicetrailia]

Look, I don’t think 99.9% of the population would disagree that Nazis are disgusting human beings with a toxic and awful world view.

That said, one of the concerns I’d have with labeling these groups as terrorist organizations is what’s the definition of Nazi? Look at the nonsense on college campuses. Anybody who is invited to speak who isn’t in line with progressive ideology is shouted down as a Nazi. I’ve seen people online pretty much equate every Republican, Libertarian and/or Trump voter as a Nazi, or at least a Nazi sympathizer. I’m sure all the Antifa punks think everybody to the right of Bernie Sanders is a Nazi.

So does that make all these people terrorists? Where do you draw the line?

The FBI seems to already know very well. Trump supporters were called racists fyi.

But for fun, How to tell if you are a nazi.

 

[Gun Animal]

The FBI seems to already know very well. Trump supporters were called racists fyi.

But for fun, How to tell if you are a nazi.

lol of course you'd say that, being the cultural marxist sjw you are (i might be trying to make a point here but im not sure what it is)

i for one think that labels and slurs are only as powerful as you let them be. that's why i think the GOP should rename itself 'The Nazi Racist Hitler N Word Party' (or, The NRHNP)

 

[StrikeNinja24]

Being wrong is completely your right and I support your freedom to think as you do. But I've been working as a bouncer at some pretty seedy clubs for years so my shitbag-sense is pretty well tuned, and I'd like to think I can handle the next crisis as well as the last.

So, hero complex. Got it. Whatever helps that insecurity of yours.

 

[StrikeNinja24]

You don't get to label people or organizations terrorists for speech. Sorry.

Speech that represents Nazis?

So Nazis never did terrorist acts? Ever? Are we rewriting history here?

You do know that freedom of speech is already restricted, right? If not, you're welcome to run into an airport and scream about a bomb. Claim afterwards that you were just representing your free speech. See how long that works for you.

Speaking of that march, they already got turned down for a march next year by Charlottesville https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/us/charlottesville-protest-permit-denied.html

 

[Gun Animal]

Speech that represents Nazis?

So Nazis never did terrorist acts? Ever? Are we rewriting history here?

You do know that freedom of speech is already restricted, right? If not, you're welcome to run into an airport and scream about a bomb. Claim afterwards that you were just representing your free speech. See how long that works for you.

nobody is going to convince you of anything and vice versa. you're not on the fence about anything, and you're not talking about anything that anyone here is on the fence about ("nazis" are bad? free speech should be less platonic?) why bother? this must all be so demoralizing for you.

 

[StrikeNinja24]

It was a clear intent of action against the freedom of assembly, which is in fact part of the first amendment. The resolution was poorly written as well, being such that it would potentially oppose itself. If they want to take a stand against racial hate, that's fine, but a resolution needs to be in line with the principles of the first amendment and it needs internal consistency. It also needs to signal for action to be made, action that's feasible.



Is there some rhetorical point hidden in there that I'm missing? Because the logic of "defend x, get called an x" seems dubious and fallacious. In a comparative view it's even more easy to disprove by comparing views, which makes it even more silly. More so it's just an ad hominem attack trying to bypass argument.

Most of the amendments, and the constitution in general, is poorly written. Maybe because we haven't updated any of them in literally hundreds of years. All the first amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The key word here is peaceably. One could argue that following a protocol of aggressively attacking opposition isn't peaceful, which is why they were denied the ability to march in 2018. I don't think I've ever seen anyone defend Antifa or BLM violence either. Let's be honest though, we have a lot of people either taking advantage of a movement to get away with doing actual crime or pretending to be a certain side in order to smear that campaign.

Or just falling for fake stuff. This one's my favorite: https://gizmodo.com/the-right-is-falling-for-its-own-fake-antifa-accounts-1798287977

 

[StrikeNinja24]

nobody is going to convince you of anything and vice versa. you're not on the fence about anything, and you're not talking about anything that anyone here is on the fence about ("nazis" are bad? free speech should be less platonic?) why bother? this must all be so demoralizing for you.

Man, easy there with the projection, you might hurt yourself. Wouldn't want to come off as a snowflake, would you?

 

[Gun Animal]

Man, easy there with the projection, you might hurt yourself. Wouldn't want to come off as a snowflake, would you?

s-s-snowflake... DRUMPF!!! #theResistance #NOTMYPRESIDENT

 

[Vicetrailia]

lol of course you'd say that, being the cultural marxist sjw you are (i might be trying to make a point here but im not sure what it is)

i for one think that labels and slurs are only as powerful as you let them be. that's why i think the GOP should rename itself 'The Nazi Racist Hitler N Word Party' (or, The NRHNP)

Someone finally accurately portraying the GOP, I like how bold you are.

But joking aside, The government does good work.

 

[StrikeNinja24]

s-s-snowflake... DRUMPF!!! #theResistance #NOTMYPRESIDENT

Please, you've got nothing, even as a bad troll.

 

[BANGS]

Don't you actually have to commit terrorism to be a terrorist? This is such an obvious bait move it's pathetic...