Alt Right rally emancipation park Virginia. [Archive] - Beyond.ca - Car Forums

cancer man

08-12-2017, 10:38 PM

This basically sums it up..

For those confused (in denial) of Trump's ties with the extreme right:

"
If you ever wondered what it would be like to live in 1937 or 1957, you don't have to look far. We are living in it.

America is an ugly place.

Dressed in khakis and polos, bearing torches, donning Nazi memorabilia, and chanting anti-black, anti-LGBT, anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant chants, white supremacist bigots have descended on Charlottesville, Va., in droves in what may very well be the largest public demonstration of its kind in generations.

With almost no resistance from local police, these public bigots have marched and stomped all over town giving Nazi salutes while chanting "f--- you, f----ts." They have yelled every racial slur imaginable and have done so with the full knowledge that they were being filmed.

They don't the mind the spotlight.

Why would they? Their President, who they love and adore, was voted into office in a white supremacist surge. They attended his rallies and events.

If Donald Trump can target and harass women, immigrants, Muslims, the disabled, the poor, and so many others with threats of physical violence and cruel insults and taunts, why can't they?

All of this hate, all of this ugliness, all of this bigotry and racism, didn't come out of nowhere.

Yes, hate and bigotry are baked into the cake that is the United States of America, but ever since this nation, after electing 43 white men as President of the United States, opted to elect and re-elect Barack Hussein Obama, public bigotry and hate crimes have been on the rise.

Not only that, but for years now, Donald Trump has been at the center of that hate — being the most visible spokesman for the racist birther movement that claimed President Obama was illegitimately elected because he's not actually an American, but is a secret African or an undercover Muslim who was determined to ruin the nation from the inside.

No more famous American parroted the talking points of this movement than Donald Trump — even going so far as to publicly claim he had dispatched private investigators to prove Obama was never born in Hawaii in the first place.

Donald Trump has been an immoral, offensive man for decades, but it was not until he put the very humanity of Barack Obama in his crosshairs that he became a cult hero to white supremacists from coast to coast.

Riding the wave of that newfound notoriety into the White House, Trump appointed two of the most bigoted men in the nation, Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, as his Chief Strategist and Chief Policy Advisor. When you choose to appoint men with lengthy, documented histories of bigotry, men so despicable that they probably could not pass through the human resources of a single Fortune 500 company, to some of the highest available positions within the White House, such a public embrace of bigotry has repercussions.

We are living through those repercussions right now.

This year is on pace to be the deadliest year ever measured for people killed by police in American history. The President of the United States casually announces bans on people — be it Muslims, immigrants, and refugees from certain countries or transgender service members in the American military.

Every single leader I know and work alongside receives regular death threats. They are regularly called every foul, bigoted name imaginable. They are regularly lied on and subjected to some of the most heinous attack I've ever seen. This, too, is my reality.

Whatever you thought about 2017 in America, if ugliness, bigotry, and hatred aren't at the center of your thoughts, then you should think again.

We are living in a dangerous, unstable time and I'm confident that Charlottesville isn't an outlier, but an indicator of things to come.

If you ever wondered who you'd be or what'd you do if you were alive during other tumultuous periods in American history, just look at your life right now.

If you aren't fighting back and speaking out right now, then that's the best indicator of who you would've been back in the day. The good news is this: you can join the fight against bigotry and hate in America right now."

Shaun King

ZenOps

08-13-2017, 06:24 AM

If anything this is a prime example of how media uses words to distort things.

If you use the words "white nationalist" it sounds wholly different than "white supremacist" or "rally" instead of "protest". Eventually you figure out that everyone lies, and that astronauts never ate freeze dried ice cream.

finboy

08-13-2017, 07:51 AM

Train wreck and a half

ZenOps

08-13-2017, 08:02 AM

So it was a white guy plowing into a bunch of black people (not to sound racist) Not entirely unexpected, Trump is moving at snails pace and not giving extra things to white people - he is simply taking away things like SNAP benefits. Everyone gets less but some people get less than others.

Everyone is fired. Sounds about right.

SKR

08-13-2017, 09:26 AM

There's too many people in that country.

Mista Bob

08-13-2017, 09:43 AM

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. On many sides."
:rolleyes:

What a time to be alive in, where the US president openly supports and encourages Nazis.

HiTempguy1

08-13-2017, 09:45 AM

What a time to be alive in, where the US president openly supports and encourages Nazis.

Yea, because BLM and and ACLU totally aren't racist organizations :rolleyes: Damn Democrats in general, what a time to be alive amirite?

Mista Bob

08-13-2017, 09:57 AM

Yea, because BLM and and ACLU totally aren't racist organizations :rolleyes: Damn Democrats in general, what a time to be alive amirite?

I guess those victims in the terrorist attack at Charlottesville all had it coming to them then, right? :rolleyes:

AndyL

08-13-2017, 09:58 AM

SJWs and professional protestors...

Just like the Calgary Rally's, ignore don't give them media and let the cops document the membership. They don't get the news coverage they're looking for and they have even less next year. Protest and get them news coverage - and they're encouraged.

Le sighs. Trump has nothing to do with it, Obama has nothing to do with it. Free speech in the home of the brave has everything to do with it.

phreezee

08-13-2017, 10:03 AM

phreezee

08-13-2017, 10:10 AM

I guess those victims in the terrorist attack at Charlottesville all had it coming to them then, right? :rolleyes:

They totally did. If you set out in the morning looking for conflict... well fuck. Just stay at home and bitch on the internet like the rest of us. :D.

Or accept the fact that you won't actually change anybody's beliefs, and be happy that you live somewhere where you are allowed to believe the opposite.

The left needs to stop trying to sanitize everything. Either side, left or right will lash out if they are silenced. Everything should be heard, and people should have the freedoms to decide for themselves.

HiTempguy1

08-13-2017, 10:31 AM

in the terrorist attack

:rofl: There was no "terrorist" attack. And you tell me, sure sounds like BLM/"progressives" were running around attacking the demonstrators.

Mista Bob

08-13-2017, 10:37 AM

Oh my bad, I forgot only brown people can be terrorists.

kertejud2

08-13-2017, 11:23 AM

:rofl: There was no "terrorist" attack. And you tell me, sure sounds like BLM/"progressives" were running around attacking the demonstrators.

Did they drive their cars into any of them?

#Whataboutism

- - - Updated - - -

They totally did. If you set out in the morning looking for conflict... well fuck. Just stay at home and bitch on the internet like the rest of us. :D.

'They deserved to get killed by a car because they counter-protested.'

These people were also counter-protesting, where are they "looking for conflict?"

896363415572295680

Everything should be heard, and people should have the freedoms to decide for themselves.

What the fuck is the matter with you? Teach the controversy with white supremacy?

HiTempguy1

08-13-2017, 11:28 AM

waaaah

https://m.popkey.co/4b8d51/dWoGz.gif

kertejud2

08-13-2017, 11:54 AM

When you find yourself on the side of Nazi's and white supremacists, perhaps you should re-think your life choices?

I'm going to post this again, because your whataboutism seems popular among the alt-right, this happened when a Rebel reporter was trying to show how violent and confrontational the counter-protesters were being...when her (and your) side drove a car down the middle of the street.

896437460036706308

You're defending this person. A murderer, and white supremacist. And have managed to cede the moral high ground to the likes of Ted Cruz.

bjstare

08-13-2017, 12:17 PM

kertejud2

08-13-2017, 12:35 PM

Classic case of play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Wanna know where I'm gonna be if there's a white supremacist demonstration/counter protest? At home where it's safe, watching all those idiots (note the collective term, literally meaning everyone there) on the news.

On one side, your absolute best case scenario for being there is that you just want to keep a statue of a losing general for the states that wanted to keep slavery and are willing to stand with guys wearing seastikas to do so.

On the other your worst case scenario for being there is that you were looking to start a fight with some white supremacists, taking it to the Nazis (you know, like the country did).

Stop prentending these sides are moral equivalents

bjstare

08-13-2017, 01:17 PM

On one side, your absolute best case scenario for being there is that you just want to keep a statue of a losing general for the states that wanted to keep slavery and are willing to stand with guys wearing seastikas to do so.

On the other your worst case scenario for being there is that you were looking to start a fight with some white supremacists, taking it to the Nazis (you know, like the country did).

Stop prentending these sides are moral equivalents

Where did I imply they were moral equivalents? Take off your triggered hat for a moment.

I said everyone there is an idiot. Don't overthink it.

It's smart (you know, for self preservation purposes) to avoid places where potential conflict is going to occur. Perfect example? Anywhere white supremacists are gathered. Even better example? A place where people are there to protest the white supremacists.

I would never posit that white supremacists are on level moral ground with... well anyone really. They're inbred trash.

HiTempguy1

08-13-2017, 01:39 PM

Where did I imply they were moral equivalents? Take off your triggered hat for a moment.

I said everyone there is an idiot. Don't overthink it.

It's smart (you know, for self preservation purposes) to avoid places where potential conflict is going to occur. Perfect example? Anywhere white supremacists are gathered. Even better example? A place where people are there to protest the white supremacists.

I would never posit that white supremacists are on level moral ground with... well anyone really. They're inbred trash.

I had a big post written, but then posted the triggered meme.Rhis is a great way of explaining what I think of the situation.

Its like taunting someone to throw a punch. Not deserved, but you askedfor it :dunno:

Civil discourse is essential for freedom of speech and healthy democracy. None of this shit is that

Darell_n

08-13-2017, 02:15 PM

All I see is Americans acting like Americans. I wish we were geographically further away so our society wasn't so obsessed with giving a shit what's going on down there.

Buster

08-13-2017, 02:19 PM

Let's not forget that this is essentially a clash between two socialist factions.

kertejud2

08-13-2017, 02:51 PM

Let's not forget that this is essentially a clash between two socialist factions.

Let's forget that right away, because it is absolutely not the case.

- - - Updated - - -

I would never posit that white supremacists are on level moral ground with... well anyone really. They're inbred trash.

Yet when it comes to self preservation purposes, if caught between the two groups, you'd rather stand with them.

Buster

08-13-2017, 03:35 PM

Both sides of the clash are, for any practical purposes, socialists. So yes, that's the case.

sexualbanana

08-13-2017, 04:35 PM

Yea, because BLM and and ACLU totally aren't racist organizations :rolleyes: Damn Democrats in general, what a time to be alive amirite?

The ACLU has defended the ability of groups like the KKK to advocate there position. Their job is to defend the civil liberties of all Americans and despite the shit-filled message that they distribute, they still have every right as afforded to them by the First Amendment. They've gotten plenty of flack for it too. But they continue to do so, and they continue to defend their position.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/we-all-need-defend-speech-we-hate

http://www.acluohio.org/assets/issues/FreeSpeech/SpeechBrochure.pdf

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/12/16138326/aclu-charlottesville-protests-racism

sexualbanana

08-13-2017, 04:38 PM

Yea, because BLM and and ACLU totally aren't racist organizations :rolleyes: Damn Democrats in general, what a time to be alive amirite?

I should also note that this Charlottesville protest might not have happened had it been for the ACLU, who defended the protest organizers when the City of Charlottesville tried to revoke their protest permit - arguing that revoking their permit was unlawfully restricting their right to free speech.

Xtrema

08-13-2017, 04:59 PM

googe

08-13-2017, 05:16 PM

Yea, because BLM and and ACLU totally aren't racist organizations :rolleyes: Damn Democrats in general, what a time to be alive amirite?

Just because the ACLU are representing Milo Yiannopoulos and the white supremacists in Virginia does not make them racist. In fact they have actually supported quite a few on the left as well. Yeah, these neo-Nazi clients are obviously racists, but the problem is that if the ban against the white supremacists planned protest were allowed to stick, we end up in a situation where only government approved protests are allowed.

They've been representing KKK people for decades when the case raises issues of free speech and curtailing of liberties. So, it's not all that unusual for them to continue that pattern when it comes to the freedoms of the extreme right groups. Hence their name! ;)

kertejud2

08-13-2017, 05:30 PM

I think that's how you get Nazi's in the first place but I didn't live it or fought against it almost 80 years ago, so what do I know.

What could possibly go wrong with a bunch of white supremacists gathering en masse with the tacit support of the public?

r3ccOs

08-13-2017, 06:26 PM

All I see is Americans acting like Americans. I wish we were geographically further away so our society wasn't so obsessed with giving a shit what's going on down there.

I saw this meme where it said that confederates and Nazi's both lost the war to white people and still blame the brownies

that said... I think history is history, so regardless of what perhaps General Lee stood for, the fact is he was part of history. but I guess only the winning side gets to write the history books.

its funny, but I'm for one to try to understand the demographics... its not just as simple as leftwingism or rightwingism that creates divisiveness, nor necessarily race... but I think that income demographics plays a huge role.

obesity, disease, drug abuse, racism, use of social entitlement, crime, "blame", to me all has to do with the ignornace that being "poor" brings. Poor white, brown, black... you see very similar results, yet all blaming each other for their social and economic conditions

how do you change this? you can't. You fucked up, you got rid of all middle class jobs, sending them to China and India and now the polarity of the rich and poor have never been bigger.

Poor people don't understand why the rich are rich

Rich people don't understand why the poor are poor

*edit*

I also need to add the fact that... its not a conspiracy but, the way Federal, State, County, Municipality taxes works is not that different than here, however municipal "property" taxes almost have more of a direct and proportional impact to the education your child is eligable to.

Poor areas, with low income taxes, recieve poorly funded schools... lacking basic amendities, such as Air Conditioning and teachers who are willing to be paid almost charity work.

The difference between the education system say in a 1mile block between Irving (Orange) and Venice (LA) is drastic.

dj_patm

08-13-2017, 07:00 PM

Yeah those poor disenfranchised white men aged 18-49.

This is simply angry confused red necks "protesting" diversity and progress. Its only about hate and nothing more, they're not fighting for anything.

J-hop

08-13-2017, 09:36 PM

:rofl: There was no "terrorist" attack. And you tell me, sure sounds like BLM/"progressives" were running around attacking the demonstrators.

No terrorist attack, just hate crimes, much better.

Does kind of suck in these situations. As a supporter of freedom of speech and freedom to gather I have to support the white supremacist's right to hold gatherings and demonstrations (as long as they don't cross the line to hate speech).

But at the same time I believe the fatal flaw of freedom of speech is that it assumes a base level of intelligence. There are some people and ideas that are just dumb and really don't deserve any airtime but we must give it to them. It's unfortunate as the problem requires the level of intelligence and education to increase. But these white supremacists keep restricting their gene pool which will undoubtedly lead to higher levels of inbreeding. Ultimately this will lead to a dumbing down of their followers as they attempt to remain "pure"

bjstare

08-13-2017, 10:41 PM

- - - Updated - - -

Yet when it comes to self preservation purposes, if caught between the two groups, you'd rather stand with them.

Don't be obtuse (I know, it's a big ask). Not sure what dots you connected to come to the conclusion I'd stand with them, but it must have been creative.

I'm saying I'd choose to not put myself between two feuding groups on a Saturday afternoon, I don't like getting run over by maniacs. I have no interest in showing up to places where there's a high potential for violence.

Buster

08-13-2017, 11:30 PM

No terrorist attack, just hate crimes, much better.

Does kind of suck in these situations. As a supporter of freedom of speech and freedom to gather I have to support the white supremacist's right to hold gatherings and demonstrations (as long as they don't cross the line to hate speech).

But at the same time I believe the fatal flaw of freedom of speech is that it assumes a base level of intelligence. There are some people and ideas that are just dumb and really don't deserve any airtime but we must give it to them. It's unfortunate as the problem requires the level of intelligence and education to increase. But these white supremacists keep restricting their gene pool which will undoubtedly lead to higher levels of inbreeding. Ultimately this will lead to a dumbing down of their followers as they attempt to remain "pure"

If you support freedom of speech, you must also support someone's right to "hate speech". Freedom is freedom.

ZenOps

08-14-2017, 09:17 AM

Freedom is overrated. If you had true freedom you could always overthrow any system of government, be it imperialistic, communist or capitalist.

Don't feel like using US dollars or paying US taxes? Freedom does not really exist in such a manner. Freedom to bear arms and move them freely across nations, not happening ever. You are absolutely not allowed freedom of speech, all you have to do is run through an airport screaming "Allahu ackbar!" and lets see how far freedom of speech and freedom of religion gets you while they are beating your ass down. Stand at same airport, but scream "God is great" in English, and you might make a ton of money.

Play the game the way its meant to be played and you will be rewarded. Try actual freedom and you will be punished severely.

Seth1968

08-14-2017, 09:23 AM

True freedom in this regard would be the ability to say and do as you see fit, provided you aren't assaulting another.

We aren't anywhere near freedom on most levels.

Xtrema

08-14-2017, 11:14 AM

What could possibly go wrong with a bunch of white supremacists gathering en masse with the tacit support of the public?

In their minds, their protest is no different than black lives matter protests.

It's just that one is about keeping the right of fucking somebody up while the other is about don't want to be keep being fucked.

Yin/Yang

J-hop

08-14-2017, 09:57 PM

If you support freedom of speech, you must also support someone's right to "hate speech". Freedom is freedom.

I see your point but in my eyes calling on people to murder individuals of a certain race isn't exercising freedom of speech it's abusing it.

Again it goes back to the base level intelligence that is required for freedom of speech to function properly.

Buster

08-15-2017, 07:50 AM

I see your point but in my eyes calling on people to murder individuals of a certain race isn't exercising freedom of speech it's abusing it.

Again it goes back to the base level intelligence that is required for freedom of speech to function properly.

That's the thing about the benefit of Freedom of Speech...it can't be limited by the opinions of you, or anyone else. This universality protects all of us.

suntan

08-15-2017, 08:26 AM

What could possibly go wrong with a bunch of white supremacists gathering en masse with the tacit support of the public?

Wow you really do think you're the lone bastion of enlightenment.

Have you tried actually personally interacting with a substantial number of humans?

ExtraSlow

08-15-2017, 08:58 AM

Mostly off topic, but a pal of mine had to fire a guy recently. The guy started yelling that buddy was "a disgrace to the white race" and he needed to start "taking care of his white brothers".

Buddy was happy to see the last of that dude.

kertejud2

08-15-2017, 10:16 AM

P54sP0Nlngg

J-hop

08-15-2017, 10:49 AM

That's the thing about the benefit of Freedom of Speech...it can't be limited by the opinions of you, or anyone else. This universality protects all of us.

Those are fine points. I get what you're saying. But hate speech encroaches on the rights of those it is directed to do you not agree? What constitutes a higher level of freedom? Freedom to run your mouth or the freedom to feeling safe and free of oppression?

By your definition of freedom of speech one should be able to walk up to a member of a different race start spewing racial slurs at them and threaten their life verbally. Is that a fair assement of your stance on freedom of speech? Or do you agree that feeedom can only exist as long as it doesn't remove fundemental freedoms of someone else?

HiTempguy1

08-15-2017, 10:55 AM

But hate speech encroaches on the rights of those it is directed to do you not agree? What constitutes a higher level of freedom? Freedom to run your mouth or the freedom to feeling safe and free of oppression?

I don't know, is "feeling" anything a right? Words do not oppress, action does. Arguably, you should be able to say whatever you want, because as soon as you start to restrict that ability, it becomes essentially thought control/thought police (look at the stupid gender bill the liberals just passed).

J-hop

08-15-2017, 11:02 AM

I don't know, is "feeling" anything a right? Words do not oppress, action does. Arguably, you should be able to say whatever you want, because as soon as you start to restrict that ability, it becomes essentially thought control/thought police (look at the stupid gender bill the liberals just passed).

"Words do not oppress", yea because propaganda never works, hate speech never incites violence. C'mon you know better than that!

Claiming that true freedom of speech means one should be able to say anything one wants no matter how violent. Is like saying true freedom means you can shoot your neighbor, because saying your not allowed to kill your neighbor means you aren't truly free.

The world doesn't work like that.

And in fact you can say whatever the hell you want but not without consequences.its called living in the real world

Buster

08-15-2017, 11:28 AM

sexualbanana

08-15-2017, 11:49 AM

Those are fine points. I get what you're saying. But hate speech encroaches on the rights of those it is directed to do you not agree? What constitutes a higher level of freedom? Freedom to run your mouth or the freedom to feeling safe and free of oppression?

By your definition of freedom of speech one should be able to walk up to a member of a different race start spewing racial slurs at them and threaten their life verbally. Is that a fair assement of your stance on freedom of speech? Or do you agree that feeedom can only exist as long as it doesn't remove fundemental freedoms of someone else?

Freedom of speech cuts both ways, and I think that's something that people have a tendency to forget - at the moment a lot of these alt-right/neo-nazi/white nationalists are very guilty of. Sure, you (not you specifically) may be allowed to spew anti-minority rhetoric all you want, as afforded to you by the Canadian Charter and the American Constitution, but your employer can use that same right to say "You know what, I don't like what you're saying and as your employer, I don't want you working for me."

It's only censorship when you're prevented from saying what you want. These are the consequences for saying what you want.

Buster

08-15-2017, 12:38 PM

Canada's Charter does not enshrine free speech, per se.

J-hop

08-15-2017, 01:16 PM

Buster

08-15-2017, 01:22 PM

What I am getting at is you are taking a very fundamentalist view of free speech. Which in theory sure that is what freedom of speech means. The ability to say absolutely anything under the sun without repercussion. That includes uttering threats BTW, excluding uttering threats while including hate speech is an opinion much like mine. Fear is just a feeling - you somewhat mocked my hate speech arguement as just feelings.

The world is not a better place when people can publicly preach hate and encourage violence. I cannot agree with you on that

I'm not saying the world is a better place when the DO. I'm saying the world is a better place when they CAN. Important distinction.

Also, I've never said that freedom of speech means there are no consequences. It just means that there are no consequences from the government. The value in protecting speech and enshrining it, is that it means that if guys YOU don't agree with get power, they can't abuse that power to squash your speech. On a related note: the best way to combat hate speech isn't to squash it, but to ridicule it and argue the stupidity of it. Bad ideas are easier t defeat if they are out in the open and exposed to criticism.

suntan

08-15-2017, 01:24 PM

These events are just about the only way for white people to know that there exists other white people that are prejudiced.

J-hop

08-15-2017, 01:36 PM

I'm not saying the world is a better place when the DO. I'm saying the world is a better place when they CAN. Important distinction.

Also, I've never said that freedom of speech means there are no consequences. It just means that there are no consequences from the government. The value in protecting speech and enshrining it, is that it means that if guys YOU don't agree with get power, they can't abuse that power to squash your speech. On a related note: the best way to combat hate speech isn't to squash it, but to ridicule it and argue the stupidity of it. Bad ideas are easier t defeat if they are out in the open and exposed to criticism.

Man now you're making this debate nearly impossible. You're saying the world is a better place when hate speech does not occur. Yet at the same time saying it is better when it's allowed to occur, which if it does would make the world both a worse and better place simultaneously some how and a better place than if hate speech were simply not allowed.

I do agree with the idea that ideas should be allowed to be aired and then ridiculed. Ultimately yes that is the optimal solution in theory but not in practice. In theory this would be done in a forum much like when Sam Harris et al debate publicly with religious representatives. But this is such an atypical setting, that is not what happens in practice.

Xtrema

08-15-2017, 01:44 PM

Man now you're making this debate nearly impossible. You're saying the world is a better place when hate speech does not occur. Yet at the same time saying it is better when it's allowed to occur, which if it does would make the world both a worse and better place simultaneously some how and a better place than if hate speech were simply not allowed.

I do agree with the idea that ideas should be allowed to be aired and then ridiculed. Ultimately yes that is the optimal solution in theory but not in practice. In theory this would be done in a forum much like when Sam Harris et al debate publicly with religious representatives. But this is such an atypical setting, that is not what happens in practice.

I think he is consistent. Much like Kahdr's case. Do we like him on the street? No. But we like our rule of law more.

Hate speech hiding being free speech is no different as questionable religious practices hiding behind freedom of religion.

Do you allow to be truly free or put in some conditions to that freedom and deal with the consequences. Now the alternative would probably be like China where there is censorship to control the population.

HiTempguy1

08-15-2017, 01:48 PM

"Words do not oppress", yea because propaganda never works, hate speech never incites violence.

All I read here is "thought police". It's mine (and anyone's) right to think and express what we want. I know that doesn't quite fit into the "one world, one government" utopia that 1st world leaders have been pushing the past decade, where everyone believes everyone has special rights over others and we basically live in a communist society.

I agree with banana, there are consequences to expressing yourself (both good and bad). It naturally self-regulates. Claiming "propaganda" is so 50's, everything is propaganda. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it not true.

And way to straw man it up. We're talking about freedom of speech. True freedom is not possible, as there is always someone else that can somehow impose their will on you. But yes, true freedom would be as you describe. Its also not a system I advocate for. But I absolutely advocate for 100% freedom of speech.

You can not "say whatever the hell you want" in the "real world". We live in societies where other entities limit our ability to have true freedom. That's not a "consequence" of your actions, its someone imposing their will on you with no ability to fight back.

Very different arguments. However, if one takes the view that democracy, rights, and freedoms (all social constructs made by people) are somehow natural laws and regulations (that would be, every liberal ever, even though they are not those things), I can see how you could not possibly understand the differences and basically have gone to a certain length to ascribe diety-like status to governments and the control they have.

tonytiger55

08-15-2017, 01:50 PM

I saw the title of the thread..
Im surprised nobody mentioned this yet.
Starts at 47 seconds. Ooooh the memories and lols...

https://youtu.be/8Bt3NyY8lEM?t=47s

A790

08-15-2017, 01:53 PM

Man now you're making this debate nearly impossible. You're saying the world is a better place when hate speech does not occur. Yet at the same time saying it is better when it's allowed to occur, which if it does would make the world both a worse and better place simultaneously some how and a better place than if hate speech were simply not allowed.
I think you're missing his point.

When the state or society actively persecutes speech that runs contrary to their doctrine, that's bad. People are no longer free to express their ideas, discuss them, vet them, and make decisions based on that dialogue.

When the state allows freedom of speech, people are free to share those ideas, discuss them, and so on. This is good- people's personal freedoms are less restricted, and the exchange of information happens more readily.

I think what Buster is getting at is that society in general is better when people CAN speak as they wish, and that being able to do so is preferable to a society where those freedoms are restricted. In this case, I agree: I want people to be able to discuss their ideas, even if they're hateful, because minds can be changed with reasonable dialogue and discourse. Minds cannot be changed when they are prevented from expressing the sentiments that perhaps could or should be changed.

Ideally, people CAN say whatever they want, but CHOOSE not to do so on the basis of their beliefs or values, not the basis of state control.

J-hop

08-15-2017, 01:58 PM

No I completely get where he's coming from. However I cannot agree with being allowed to preach publicly that "all people of x race, should be murdered".

I do not see a problem with restricting that kind of speech. Yet under buster's expressed version of free speech, people should be allowed to preach that publicly and we rely on society to correct this.

Again it goes back to my original arguement that freedom of speech relies on a base level of intelligence that these people simply don't have

A790

08-15-2017, 02:03 PM

Again it goes back to my original arguement that freedom of speech relies on a base level of intelligence that these people simply don't have
I mean, maybe, but the problem here is that you would prevent people from ever having the opportunity to prove or disprove this.

It's also a slippery slope: what level of restriction is acceptable, and how do we determine that? What metrics inform that judgement, and what evidence would we need to either justify or disprove it?

I think we can agree that nobody has ever changed their opinion on something (and meant it) when they were forced to. If you push someone in that direction, you can't be surprised if/when they push back.

kertejud2

08-15-2017, 02:06 PM

Freedom of speech also has restrictions such as libel and slander, not just inciting hate and violence.

J-hop

08-15-2017, 02:14 PM

I mean, maybe, but the problem here is that you would prevent people from ever having the opportunity to prove or disprove this.

It's also a slippery slope: what level of restriction is acceptable, and how do we determine that? What metrics inform that judgement, and what evidence would we need to either justify or disprove it?

I think we can agree that nobody has ever changed their opinion on something (and meant it) when they were forced to. If you push someone in that direction, you can't be surprised if/when they push back.

Completely agree with this. I guess I don't support freedom of speech as much as I think. I still believe that some restrictions must be in place. Toxic, horrific and violent ideas from deranged individuals have a habit of gaining traction there are countless examples of that in history. There are countless examples where thought policing and restriction of public expression has caused the exact same horrible outcomes.

I think it's a game where moderation is key.

Freedom of speech also has restrictions such as libel and slander, not just inciting hate and violence.

Again another example where fundamentalist free speech breaks down. How often does the rumour mill at work, school, social circles etc take hold? Pretty often.

Humans are social animals, fundemental free speech requires the allowance to publicly slander someone regardless of the truth behind it. The idea that this "will be sorted out" by intelligent rational people who ask the right questions and search for the answer is a ridiculous idea in practice. In reality people form opinions based on emotion, and choose a side and perpetuate it

kertejud2

08-15-2017, 02:15 PM

http://tu9srvbirvvtmjmkcgjzlnr3aw1nlmnvbq00.g00.hockeysfuture.com/g00/2_aGZib2FyZHMuaG9ja2V5c2Z1dHVyZS5jb20%3D_/TU9SRVBIRVVTMjMkaHR0cHM6Ly9wYnMudHdpbWcuY29tL21lZGlhL0RIUjBtMkNXQUFFd0diMC5qcGc6bGFyZ2U%2FaTEwYy5tYXJrLmltYWdlLnR5cGU%3D_$/$/$

Buster

08-15-2017, 02:24 PM

Completely agree with this. I guess I don't support freedom of speech as much as I think. I still believe that some restrictions must be in place. Toxic, horrific and violent ideas from deranged individuals have a habit of gaining traction there are countless examples of that in history. There are countless examples where thought policing and restriction of public expression has caused the exact same horrible outcomes.

I think it's a game where moderation is key.

Again another example where fundamentalist free speech breaks down. How often does the rumour mill at work, school, social circles etc take hold? Pretty often.

Humans are social animals, fundemental free speech requires the allowance to publicly slander someone regardless of the truth behind it. The idea that this "will be sorted out" by intelligent rational people who ask the right questions and search for the answer is a ridiculous idea in practice. In reality people form opinions based on emotion, and choose a side and perpetuate it

Many Canadians agree with your position. How about this: you give me a list of things we should not be allowed to discuss, and I will give you a list of things I consider immoral and hate filled. You won't like some of the things on my list, I'm sure, because I will choose to consider discussion of limiting my freedoms to be "Hate Speech." Your point here will not be allowed to stand.

You see my point here, I hope.

- - - Updated - - -

Freedom of speech also has restrictions such as libel and slander, not just inciting hate and violence.

I'm not a fan of slander and libel laws. But... they are also civil proceedings, which is quite different from criminalizing speech.

kertejud2

08-15-2017, 02:28 PM

I'm not a fan of slander and libel laws. But... they are also civil proceedings, which is quite different from criminalizing speech.

Defamation laws are criminal proceedings, just like hate speech laws.

J-hop

08-15-2017, 02:33 PM

Many Canadians agree with your position. How about this: you give me a list of things we should not be allowed to discuss, and I will give you a list of things I consider immoral and hate filled. You won't like some of the things on my list, I'm sure, because I will choose to consider discussion of limiting my freedoms to be "Hate Speech." Your point here will not be allowed to stand.

You see my point here, I hope.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not a fan of slander and libel laws. But... they are also civil proceedings, which is quite different from criminalizing speech.

Yes I see what you're saying. I just think your view is way too optimistic given the state of "modern" society. We are still debating whether the earth is older than 6/10000 years old, how can we be "entrusted" to have intelligent debates on hate speech?

suntan

08-15-2017, 02:36 PM

Yes I see what you're saying. I just think your view is way too optimistic given the state of "modern" society. We are still debating whether the earth is older than 6/10000 years old, how can we be "entrusted" to have intelligent debates on hate speech?No one's debating the earth's age except a tiny few losers on the internet. You need to get out more.

Buster

08-15-2017, 02:52 PM

Defamation laws are criminal proceedings, just like hate speech laws.

I wasn't being clear...as in the US they are not. At least federally. The newer state created criminal laws will likely be gone shortly too. In Canada, Criminal defamation is prosecuted very rarely, and will probably be removed as well at some point.

/derail

- - - Updated - - -

Yes I see what you're saying. I just think your view is way too optimistic given the state of "modern" society. We are still debating whether the earth is older than 6/10000 years old, how can we be "entrusted" to have intelligent debates on hate speech?

Let's look at this another way. We can agree that being safe from physical harm (assault) is a universal human right. Correct? Do you think that it is acceptable to harm someone physically, for an opinion that they hold - that if I don't like what you are saying, I can assault you?

J-hop

08-15-2017, 02:53 PM

I wasn't being clear...as in the US they are not. At least federally. The newer state created criminal laws will likely be gone shortly too. In Canada, Criminal defamation is prosecuted very rarely, and will probably be removed as well at some point.

/derail

- - - Updated - - -

Let's look at this another way. We can agree that being safe from physical harm (assault) is a universal human right. Correct? Do you think that it is acceptable to harm someone physically, for an opinion that they hold - that if I don't like what you are saying, I can assault you?

Agreed absolutely not acceptable to harm someone based on their opinion.

Buster

08-15-2017, 02:57 PM

Agreed absolutely not acceptable to harm someone based on their opinion.

Then I don't see how you can support the criminalization of speech (ie someone's opinion) is acceptable, given that the gov't then would enforce that law with physical force. You see the conundrum here?

J-hop

08-15-2017, 03:05 PM

Then I don't see how you can support the criminalization of speech (ie someone's opinion) is acceptable, given that the gov't then would enforce that law with physical force. You see the conundrum here?

Would the government be physically harming you as a result of your opinion?

Also how do you regard intent? Are words just words or would you agree intent must be considered? If for the neo-nazi example the end intent is to end the lives of a group because of their skin colour does that matter? Or again are words just words?

Buster

08-15-2017, 03:09 PM

Would the government be physically harming you as a result of your opinion?

Also how do you regard intent? Are words just words or would you agree intent must be considered? If for the neo-nazi example the end intent is to end the lives of a group because of their skin colour does that matter? Or again are words just words?

If you do something illegal, the government comes and takes you away. You get arrested. Thrown in jail. And harmed or killed if you resist. This is the thing you are suggesting is acceptable for someone speaking words. So you have to choose: what is more important...someone being safe from physical harm (as a right) or someone being safe from hearing words they don't like (as a right). You can't have both.

J-hop

08-15-2017, 03:12 PM

I'll grant you that in regards to the government harming you if you resist. However what are your thoughts on intent? Does it not matter?

Xtrema

08-15-2017, 03:16 PM

No one's debating the earth's age except a tiny few losers on the internet. You need to get out more.

Numbers are growing tho, thanks to the internet.

Buster

08-15-2017, 03:18 PM

J-hop

08-15-2017, 03:21 PM

What do you mean by intent? Expressing an opinion or making a statement doesn't require "intent". Maybe you mean that we should divine what the person intends to happen as a consequence of their words? Then no, I don't really think it matters. People should be held responsible for what they do.

Neo-nazis have no hesitation telling the world that they want other races exterminated. Their hate speech a tool to this end. Why is only the actual physical act that you take issue with?

Edit: I should say the allowance of the physical act vs the allowance of the hate speech, as obviously you take issue with the hate speech

dirtsniffer

08-15-2017, 03:27 PM

Numbers are growing tho, thanks to the internet.

I thought people were getting less religious and finally agreeing on the earths true age. Now if it is flat or not is another issue :rofl:

Buster

08-15-2017, 03:34 PM

Neo-nazis have no hesitation telling the world that they want other races exterminated. Their hate speech a tool to this end. Why is only the actual physical act that you take issue with?

Edit: I should say the allowance of the physical act vs the allowance of the hate speech, as obviously you take issue with the hate speech

Partly because the physical acts are actual acts, and we have laws to handle those perpetrators.

Again, the fundamental right we are discussing is that of the right to not be physically harmed. Ultimately what you are suggesting is that that right is superseded by someone's right to not be emotionally harmed. You would rather have the government assault someone for words, than those words be uttered. I do not think you have a moral leg to stand on - and I believe when you think about it in those terms, you will agree that you don't either.

J-hop

08-15-2017, 03:41 PM

Partly because the physical acts are actual acts, and we have laws to handle those perpetrators.

Again, the fundamental right we are discussing is that of the right to not be physically harmed. Ultimately what you are suggesting is that that right is superseded by someone's right to not be emotionally harmed. You would rather have the government assault someone for words, than those words be uttered. I do not think you have a moral leg to stand on - and I believe when you think about it in those terms, you will agree that you don't either.

How about another example. Neo-nazi gets elected priminister or president. Makes several public addresses where he states other races are subhuman and we should hate them. As a result these people start being attacked in the streets, publicly berated etc.

Are only the end acts punishable in your eyes?

Would you say that the presidents opinion is fine to be publicly expressed?

Xtrema

08-15-2017, 03:47 PM

Wow, a few states got laws in the works where running over protesters is going to be a protected right including North Carolina.

http://jalopnik.com/north-carolina-no-longer-thinks-its-a-great-idea-to-shi-1797854257

Buster

08-15-2017, 03:53 PM

How about another example. Neo-nazi gets elected priminister or president. Makes several public addresses where he states other races are subhuman and we should hate them. As a result these people start being attacked in the streets, publicly berated etc.

Are only the end acts punishable in your eyes?

Would you say that the presidents opinion is fine to be publicly expressed?

I'll answer a question with a question:

Do you think it would be wise to give this person the authority to restrict the speech of people he finds offensive?

J-hop

08-15-2017, 03:55 PM

I'll answer a question with a question:

Do you think it would be wise to give this person the authority to restrict the speech of people he finds offensive?

That's a great point. I would say no. But now you have to answer mine!

sexualbanana

08-15-2017, 03:57 PM

The argument that both sides of altercation are evil is a ridiculous one.

On one side, we have a group that is arguing against the removal of a statue commemorating a Confederate General fighting in support of slavery by neo-nazis, white supremacists and white nationalists shouting racial epithets and claiming the superiority of their white race and the inferiority of everyone else.

On the other side, you have a group of people saying their hate speech is wrong.

Care to tell me that both sides are equal?

Buster

08-15-2017, 04:06 PM

That's a great point. I would say no. But now you have to answer mine!

Okay, two points:

- For a hypothetical to be valuable in illustrating a point, it must be practical, otherwise you simply fall into a straw man fallacy.
- Most (all) western democracies have relatively efficient ways to ensure that the head of the executive branch can get removed if they turn out to be genocidal maniacs. So should there be a criminal law preventing them from spewing nonsense? No.

J-hop

08-15-2017, 04:42 PM

Okay, two points:

- For a hypothetical to be valuable in illustrating a point, it must be practical, otherwise you simply fall into a straw man fallacy.
- Most (all) western democracies have relatively efficient ways to ensure that the head of the executive branch can get removed if they turn out to be genocidal maniacs. So should there be a criminal law preventing them from spewing nonsense? No.

Ok change the president out with the leader of the KKK and answer the question.

Buster

08-15-2017, 04:48 PM

Ok change the president out with the leader of the KKK and answer the question.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Gman.45

08-15-2017, 05:12 PM

No, your freedom to not be triggered is not more important than the fundamental right to free speech. The world is a better place when people can speak as they please, but it is not a better place when people get to define what other people can say based on their "feelings" and "opinions." This is a priori. Do some reading into the value and difference between "positive rights" and "negative rights". These terms don't refer to good/bad but rather with whom the responsibility of delivering the right lies.

Having said that, even the most ardent free speech fundamentalists do not think free speech should be absolute. For instance, there should absolutely be a limitation when it comes to uttering threats. However, we need to define this very specifically and narrowly. It must be specific and credible. (It's also interesting that uttering a threat is still a threat even if the target is never intended to find out, and also if they target doesn't even feel threatened.) Most hate speech by definition does not fall into the "uttering threats" category.

Agreed.

Where is the criticism for the Antifa/BLM here? I think virtually everybody here would say fuck Nazis, and their beliefs, but they DID have a permit to protest. Antifa/BLM did not, and have not, not at the dozens of other protests where they have used violence - far more violence up until the car ramming incident - than the KKK/Nazi idiots have. Antifa/BLM and other groups are all just as guilty for the current protest BS going on as any other. The left and the left media seem to believe that violence attached to protesting is "ok" so long as it's furthering their BS agenda - look at the dreadlocks girl who was chucking bottles/etc, she had interviews and photo shoots with all kinds of high profile liberal rags and magazines. That's ok, because according to her and them, "sometimes the revolution is hard". It's a double standard, ALL violence at protests should be condemned, not just the Nazis and KKK.

And what's with tearing down Civil war monuments in the first place? Julius Caesar and other Roman leaders were responsible for FAR more slavery and innocent deaths than any Civil War general was, should we tear down every bust and monument of him and others? What about books about the Civil war, are Shelby Foote's books on the civial war from the Southern perspective next on list? It's a slippery slope, this social justice crusade to try and hide history, good or bad. Maybe Montcalm's statue should come down in Montreal, after all, the French supported the USA, and they allowed slavery in those times. Plus General Wolfe kicked his ass, and ended up with a statue a fraction of the size. It's isn't FAIR.

msommers

08-15-2017, 05:26 PM

Is anyone a criminal lawyer so we can understand what is actually legal and what's not in Canada?

Here's some info from Global:
http://globalnews.ca/news/3667745/charlottesville-attack-white-nationalist-movements-in-canada/

sexualbanana

08-15-2017, 06:06 PM

Agreed.

Where is the criticism for the Antifa/BLM here? I think virtually everybody here would say fuck Nazis, and their beliefs, but they DID have a permit to protest. Antifa/BLM did not, and have not, not at the dozens of other protests where they have used violence - far more violence up until the car ramming incident - than the KKK/Nazi idiots have. Antifa/BLM and other groups are all just as guilty for the current protest BS going on as any other. The left and the left media seem to believe that violence attached to protesting is "ok" so long as it's furthering their BS agenda - look at the dreadlocks girl who was chucking bottles/etc, she had interviews and photo shoots with all kinds of high profile liberal rags and magazines. That's ok, because according to her and them, "sometimes the revolution is hard". It's a double standard, ALL violence at protests should be condemned, not just the Nazis and KKK.

And what's with tearing down Civil war monuments in the first place? Julius Caesar and other Roman leaders were responsible for FAR more slavery and innocent deaths than any Civil War general was, should we tear down every bust and monument of him and others? What about books about the Civil war, are Shelby Foote's books on the civial war from the Southern perspective next on list? It's a slippery slope, this social justice crusade to try and hide history, good or bad. Maybe Montcalm's statue should come down in Montreal, after all, the French supported the USA, and they allowed slavery in those times. Plus General Wolfe kicked his ass, and ended up with a statue a fraction of the size. It's isn't FAIR.

According to the ACLU, counter-protesters don't need a permit so long as they don't physically disrupt the permitted protest.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_pdf_file/kyr_protests.pdf
Also, as I've mentioned, one group is there to oppose the removal of a Confederate statue that fought a LOSING (which I'll get back to later) general for slavery and the racial superiority of whites (see the Cornerstone Speech if there is any doubt that the Confederacy was about racial superiority). While the other group was voicing their opposition to those views. I think it would be difficult to argue that there is a moral equivalency there.

In my opinion, the statues of Confederate figures shouldn't even exist because they lost the Civil War. Since when, especially in a day now where participation trophies are (deservedly) maligned, is it okay to erect a statue of the losing side? As the old adage goes, history is written by the victors and to the victors go the spoils. Similar to why there are no statues memorializing Hitler, Ludendorff or Wilhelm II.

Buster

08-15-2017, 06:13 PM

According to the ACLU, counter-protesters don't need a permit so long as they don't physically disrupt the permitted protest.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_pdf_file/kyr_protests.pdf
Also, as I've mentioned, one group is there to oppose the removal of a Confederate statue that fought a LOSING (which I'll get back to later) general for slavery and the racial superiority of whites (see the Cornerstone Speech if there is any doubt that the Confederacy was about racial superiority). While the other group was voicing their opposition to those views. I think it would be difficult to argue that there is a moral equivalency there.

In my opinion, the statues of Confederate figures shouldn't even exist because they lost the Civil War. Since when, especially in a day now where participation trophies are (deservedly) maligned, is it okay to erect a statue of the losing side? As the old adage goes, history is written by the victors and to the victors go the spoils. Similar to why there are no statues memorializing Hitler, Ludendorff or Wilhelm II.

Good question. By that logic, why are we using Tsu Tina trail as the name of the ring road?

Also: we gave the losers the entire province of Quebec. And then some.

J-hop

08-15-2017, 08:36 PM

I'm not sure what you mean.

What I mean by that is now it's the KKK leader on TV encouraging hate towards other races and a cleansing of the country. This results in an increase in violent racially driven attacks around the country. Is he not liable on any level because alll he was doing was exercising free speech?

I also am still interested in what your view is on uttering threats in relation to freedom of speech. I think you would agree one should be punished for threatening to murder someone. But again those are just words and fear is just a feeling so how do you draw the distinction? Or do you believe we should be free to utter threats?

Gman.45

08-15-2017, 08:44 PM

According to the ACLU, counter-protesters don't need a permit so long as they don't physically disrupt the permitted protest.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/f...r_protests.pdf
Also, as I've mentioned, one group is there to oppose the removal of a Confederate statue that fought a LOSING (which I'll get back to later) general for slavery and the racial superiority of whites (see the Cornerstone Speech if there is any doubt that the Confederacy was about racial superiority). While the other group was voicing their opposition to those views. I think it would be difficult to argue that there is a moral equivalency there.

In my opinion, the statues of Confederate figures shouldn't even exist because they lost the Civil War. Since when, especially in a day now where participation trophies are (deservedly) maligned, is it okay to erect a statue of the losing side? As the old adage goes, history is written by the victors and to the victors go the spoils. Similar to why there are no statues memorializing Hitler, Ludendorff or Wilhelm II.

By that logic, we should have razed Japan to the ground, all of it, and destroyed every historical site, monument, temple, and anything connected to the Emperor - everything - we won, and they lost, right? The Japanese and their soldiers committed atrocities far worse than any slave owner ever did. And so did our side.

How much do you know about the Civil War? Yes, the Southern states fought to protect their slavery (and other) rights, but how many of the joe soldiers in the Confederate army do you think ever owned slaves? Statistics in dozens of history books say it's less than a percent of every Southerner who fired a rifle. Most were poor and working for somebody else themselves, and indebted, just another form of slavery. Only 6% of total Southerners even owned slaves, and yes, some of that number made up their officer corps, but again, very few of the overall fighting force of their armies. Most volunteered to defend their home and state after they were invaded by Union troops - yes the South fired first at Sumter, and yes, even the non slave owning volunteers still stood up in defense of slavery, but terrible acts weren't a feature of just the South. Stop thinking that the Union troops were some heroic force of kind heroes out to save the African Americans from bondage. That wasn't a motivation for many of them, something that is easily proved when you look at how most in the North still treated blacks for the next, oh, 100+ years until the the civil rights era began changing things.

Sherman's march, and all those that marched under him, are guilty of as brutal war crimes as any army has been of in history, and they all wore blue, not grey, and made deliberate war on women and children for months. If we're pulling monuments down for "human rights violations", his in Washington DC should be at the top of the list. Yet I bet if you asked that entire crowd of Antifa/BLM protestors - or you Banana - not a single one would even know who the fuck he is, much less what he and his troops are guilty of.

Using the "win/loss" idea when it comes to preserving history, is ridiculous. Once you've seen a war or two up close, you realize nobody wins, even in the necessary ones, but we absolutely can't just throw away and hide the historical monuments, books, and everything else to try and change the political narrative, or the meet some new social justice criteria.

Buster

08-15-2017, 08:49 PM

What I mean by that is now it's the KKK leader on TV encouraging hate towards other races and a cleansing of the country. This results in an increase in violent racially driven attacks around the country. Is he not liable on any level because alll he was doing was exercising free speech?

I also am still interested in what your view is on uttering threats in relation to freedom of speech. I think you would agree one should be punished for threatening to murder someone. But again those are just words and fear is just a feeling so how do you draw the distinction? Or do you believe we should be free to utter threats?

I addressed that point at length further back in the thread.

J-hop

08-15-2017, 08:54 PM

I addressed that point at length further back in the thread.

If you mean this you have not addressed how you are making the distinction. We are still 'merely' taking about words and feelings. You have not made an attempt to explain why in your opinion the line should be drawn there and not at hate speech.

Having said that, even the most ardent free speech fundamentalists do not think free speech should be absolute. For instance, there should absolutely be a limitation when it comes to uttering threats. However, we need to define this very specifically and narrowly. It must be specific and credible. (It's also interesting that uttering a threat is still a threat even if the target is never intended to find out, and also if they target doesn't even feel threatened.) Most hate speech by definition does not fall into the "uttering threats" category.