Alligatorjandro
Banned
LmaoLMAO, Madame M got a new tag change and it's hilarious!!!!
LmaoLMAO, Madame M got a new tag change and it's hilarious!!!!
If their ideology can get them to power, I don't think it can be helped.
Who had mentally ill on the bingo board?
LMAO, Madame M got a new tag change and it's hilarious!!!!
You don't think it's possible to be mentally ill in a way that you kind of appear mentally ill and also not be racist? That's not a good bingo play, as I've seen people who that description applies to pretty accurately. Not everyone who is mentally disturbed is racist. Hell, not even everyone who is white and a sociopath is racist.
I think you know.
The only thing? Nope."Only one thing could have stopped our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement." - Adolf Hitler
You can also stop an ideology from gaining power by having a better one. Look at how US has held it's ideology through history.You can stop an ideology from gaining power through use of force. Look at how the US has meddled in communist nations in the past. Or how the US funded Islamic extremists in the past, allowing that ideology to gain power. You saying "it can't be helped" if an ideology rises to power is kind of... blind to history and current affairs.
You don't think it's possible to be mentally ill in a way that you kind of appear mentally ill and also not be racist? That's not a good bingo play, as I've seen people who that description applies to pretty accurately. Not everyone who is mentally disturbed is racist. Hell, not even everyone who is white and a sociopath is racist.
The only thing? Nope.
This movement? Sure.
But having a fool proof way to stop this kind of movement is very hard if you don't have a population that values freedom highly.
I've been a target of bigots before due to my "effeminate" way of expressing myself.
Is it true that Milo faces no consequences for his actions? He sure seems to have less media presence to me since his man/boy love comments.
No. State having monopoly of force in order to maintain freedom and justice is good.Are taxes theft? Just want to know what strain of "freedom" I'm dealing with.
No, you can criticize it and discuss/preach how there are better ways, just like they do. If they fight, you fight.And how does your freedom group handle fascism and its continuing rise to power? More hand-wringing about how we need to respect the fascists?
No, you can criticize it and discuss/preach how there are better ways, just like they do. If they fight, you fight.
No. State having monopoly of force in order to maintain freedom and justice is good.
.But its alright, cause its all white - Chris Rock
A party can want whatever it wants. If the rules are good, the game will be fair. That's why i argue that liberty is the best rule. Nothing beats being free.
I understand. I will hold no bad feelings about it.Apologies, but I find this seriously naive and I cannot agree with it.
What i mean by that is that the state - not individuals - should be the one holding people accountable for their crimes by the use of force. I understand that people should have the right to protect their freedom from the government. But i don't believe people should be able to initiate violence against one another.The State should never have a monopoly on force. That's why we have a Second Amendment.
Some rules? Yes. I would like more liberty. People should not go to jail for victimless crimes. Fixing this would already help a lot.The rules as they exist in practice are not good. But thank you for contributing a thought-out attempt at a rationale of the side that doesn't make sense in order to further strengthen the one that does. If those are your intentions.
I don't really get the point of this thread to be honest.
The people pulling the free speech argument for those rallies are racists, so of course they don't like the idea of black people themselves protesting.
No not because white people, it's because racists.
To be honest a more pertinent thread would be: why is it so common on GAF to make these statements about "white people"?
If someone said "because black people" they'd be annihilated from orbit (and rightly so).
So what's with this double standard?
Preference for negative peace to actual justice.
Majority believes that the return of overt white supremacy tied with fascism won't affect their lives at all, so a broken window means more to them than a woman run down or a man's head busted open. They can ignore that their friends and family didn't help bring this to pass.
As long as they keep their words vague ("different opinions, political violence") they can appear to oppose the problem without having to actually acknowledge the causes or do anything to alleviate the effects.
Cultural liberalism has largely won during the past fifty years albeit at a slow pace. Hate speech lacks moral legitimacy of any kind so therefore there's a need to wrap the argument up in a concept that's more abstract in order to act as a dog whistle. Free Speech is fundamentally something that a majority of Americans and a majority of GAF believe in, it's not something that any of us want to condemn.
By hiding behind a holy truth like free speech, they're sidestepping a lot of the moral arguments against their ideology. It's the same language tactics Barry Goldwater employed in the 60's to obfuscate their true racist philosophy. Even many Republicans today denounce that sort of dog whistling but by in large it works because the common man barely has the critical thought to decipher obvious motives, nonetheless ulterior ones.
Oh yeah, the 'apology' from the person behind all lives splatter:
Code:[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKKbgnEUMAEZMW4.jpg[/IMG]
A nazi rally is itself a form of social violence, but is taking it to the next level by physically assaulting them into bloodshed always a good idea?
That and a high increase in violence in general makes antifa look like violent thugs and that could work against them in some ways
But i don't believe people should be able to use violence against one another.
I would argue that you must hold police accountable for what they do. It does not look like this is happening at the moment. Remove victimless crimes and have the law enforced on the policeman, most of this issue would be solved in a few years.Me neither. IF the police were impartial to race-based class and actually treated everyone the same.
I said goddamn
People are quick to bring up mentally ill to give these people a pass, it is a tiresome trope at this point
What does this line of conversation have to do with American double standards on Nazi rallies versus black activism?
In that case I apologize for that assumption.
Milo doesn't get as many or as high-profile engagements now as he had been, but he still gets them.
A bunch of Nazis parading around with tiki torches and talking about ethnic cleansing is free speech and even if you disagree with it, and responding with violence is an attack on the first amendment.
Are you serious?
One advocates for genocide of non whites and the other for the preservation of human life. Nazi ideology and political speech is inherently advocating violence by its nature.The much more interesting question not raised by the topic creator: Should the most direct protest actions of Black Live Matter, such as blocking roads and traffic, be considered a form of free speech protected under the 1st Amendment, while merely the hate speech from neo-Nazis and white nationalists (assuming they only voice the speech and not conduct any other action) be considered a form of violent, threatening action that should not be protected at all under the same standard?
The much more interesting question not raised by the topic creator: Should the most direct protest actions of Black Live Matter, such as blocking roads and traffic, be considered a form of free speech protected under the 1st Amendment, while merely the hate speech from neo-Nazis and white nationalists (assuming they only voice the speech and not conduct any other action) be considered a form of violent, threatening action that should not be protected at all under the same standard?
These young men are being radicalized largely through the work of a popular group of new far-right internet personalities whose videos, blog posts and tweets have been consistently nudging the boundaries of acceptable conversation to the right — one of the explicit goals of racist extremists everywhere.
In Britain, Mr. Hermansson attended a private dinner of extremists where Greg Johnson, a reclusive leading American far-right figure who is editor in chief of Counter-Currents Publishing, explained the need to ”mainstream this stuff — or, more precisely, we need to bring the mainstream towards us."
This goal of mainstreaming is an abiding fixation of the far right, whose members are well aware of the problems their movement has had with attracting young people in recent decades. At one point in Mr. Hermansson's footage, Colin Robertson, a far-right YouTube personality who goes by the name Millennial Woes, explained to an older extremist the importance of putting forward a friendly, accessible face: ”If we don't appear like angry misfits, then we will end up making friendships with people who don't agree with us," he said.
The alt-light promotes a slightly softer set of messages. Its figures — such as Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson and Mike Cernovich — generally frame their work as part of an effort to defend ”the West" or ”Western culture" against supposed left-liberal dominance, rather than making explicitly racist appeals. Many of them, in fact, have renounced explicit racism and anti-Semitism, though they will creep up to the line of explicitly racist speech, especially when Islam and immigration are concerned.
This apparent moderation partly explains why they tend to have much bigger online audiences than even the most important alt-right figures — and why Hope Not Hate describes them as ”less extreme, more dangerous."
All of which can explain why members of the hard-core alt-right are watching the explosive success of their more moderate counterparts with open glee, unable to believe their good luck. ”I'm just fighting less and less opposition to our sorts of ideas when they're spoken," Mr. Johnson, the Counter-Currents editor, told Mr. Hermansson. His optimism, unfortunately, appears to be well founded.
The much more interesting question not raised by the topic creator: Should the most direct protest actions of Black Live Matter, such as blocking roads and traffic, be considered a form of free speech protected under the 1st Amendment, while merely the hate speech from neo-Nazis and white nationalists (assuming they only voice the speech and not conduct any other action) be considered a form of violent, threatening action that should not be protected at all under the same standard?
The much more interesting question not raised by the topic creator: Should the most direct protest actions of Black Live Matter, such as blocking roads and traffic, be considered a form of free speech protected under the 1st Amendment, while merely the hate speech from neo-Nazis and white nationalists (assuming they only voice the speech and not conduct any other action) be considered a form of violent, threatening action that should not be protected at all under the same standard?
What do you think...
Subconscious racism isn't a thing. Not anymore and hasn't been since 4,000 years ago at leastThere is your answer. I think subconscious racism plays a part in this. They look at certain groups gathering together and think "oh they're causing trouble" and "you want equality, I can understand that, but why do you have to protest and make a big deal about it?" etc, etc... A whole lot of people who claim they aren't racist simply haven't examined their own behavior and reasoning enough to understand and combat their own biases.
White people who think they are criical/skeptical and don't think they are racists and white moderates who don't speak up about injustices because of how inconvenient are also to blame.I don't really get the point of this thread to be honest.
The people pulling the free speech argument for those rallies are racists, so of course they don't like the idea of black people themselves protesting.
No not because white people, it's because racists.
To be honest a more pertinent thread would be: why is it so common on GAF to make these statements about "white people"?
If someone said "because black people" they'd be annihilated from orbit (and rightly so).
So what's with this double standard?
Like how the fuck is this a thing someone can say?
We'll erect a statue of her and place it all over Interstate 10ooh, who is Nana Ruth? A defender of traffic laws?
ooh, who is Nana Ruth? A defender of traffic laws?
Nana Ruth is fictional.if your legitimately asking, she was some old lady who died on the highway BLM were blocking. i guess she became some sort of symbol for white folk of how black people were inconveniencing people. Basically they were using her as a rallying cry for black people to sit in the corner and not protest
ooh, who is Nana Ruth? A defender of traffic laws?
if your legitimately asking, she was some old lady who died on the highway BLM were blocking. i guess she became some sort of symbol for white folk of how black people were inconveniencing people. Basically they were using her as a rallying cry for black people to sit in the corner and not protest
Aren't BLM demonstrations more violent/prone to riots though? That's the impression media gave me anyway, following the events from eastern europe.
Trolling. He can't answer why he would be against BLM protesting. Because BLM is protesting ACTUAL LOST LIVES. So he claims to care about the hypothetical ambulance saving hypothetical lives; but asking him about the actual black lives lost leaves him with no out. And he knows it.
A Nazi ran over and killed people with their car.
They also bring fire arms to protests. Which they fire at people openly and with minimal consequences.