PixelatedBookake
Junior Member
Both should be protected.
Y'all really out here wylin
Both should be protected.
I was getting a few laughs out of this thread but now I'm just sad again.
Maybe things will be better for our great grandchildren, after America is rebuilt, colonized, and split into smaller more manageable sections by actually functioning nations
They're regular people who just want to live their lives on their own terms, and once you realize that, most straight people realized that it's not just intellectually incorrect but cruel to deprive them of equal rights under the law.
They have no more love for Black people than America.
They have no more love for Black people than America.
Hasn't even been a century since the Holocaust and someone genuinely said that nazis should be a protected class....what the actual fuck.
We will agree to disagree on Stonewall but IMO, no Stonewall = no gay rights movement and no marriage equality by this point in time.I tried to give it in the post you quoted. Stonewall was ancient history by the time the needle moved on marriage equality. It's extremely difficult to argue that a widely-supported 2015 court decision was driven mainly by a 1969 riot.
When I say "mainly by reason," I'm trying to get at two things simultaneously. First, a lot of people who just sort of uncritically accepted marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman in 2004 actually stopped and thought about it and realized that there's no good logical case for that proposition. The other thing, which is really more empathy than reason, is that as gay folks came out of the closet, a lot of straight people observed through their own lived experience that gays aren't evil or depraved of whatever. They're regular people who just want to live their lives on their own terms, and once you realize that, most straight people realized that it's not just intellectually incorrect but cruel to deprive them of equal rights under the law. The important thing about both of those dynamics is that neither one had anything to do with civil disobedience.
Both should be protected.
Wow.
And do you feel like self-professed Neo-nazis will buy into the "intellectual incorrectness" of not committing ethnic purges? That ship sailed for these people a long time ago.
I have no idea. IMO Extremists on either side of any conflict are all the same amount of terrible and should be treated with an equal amount of disdain.
Lol it can get worse? Damn my two decades of being a black man in America has really been privileged in the grand scheme of things...
White supremacists are unshackled right now in the way you describe.
White supremacy has been ingrained in the structure of this country for a few hundred years. It's not new in the slightest and ignoring its history doesn't make it doesn't go away no matter how much The Good Colorblind Liberal/Moderate would like it to.
Being a nazi isn't a constitutional right. Nazism is a direct call for violence, which according to the constitution, isn't protected:If you are attacking someone for exercising a constitutional right, that's what it is. I would look the other way if they were attacked, but I'm not going to sugar coat it and say it isn't a form of illegal vigilantism.
The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".
Don't agree.
America's existence IS racism. Other countries also have racism of course, but it's not a central tenet of their existence.
I mean you're correct but that doesn't make what I said any less true: Other nations don't give a shit about black people. Great the cops won't shoot us in the streets like dogs. Great. Still relegated to second class citizens and tossed in ghettos but sure. Progress.
Being a nazi isn't a constitutional right. Nazism is a direct call for violence, which according to the constitution, isn't protected:
Can you give some examples of how BLM people are the same as nazis?
Imminent lawless action is very narrowly defined and wouldn't apply to that situation. Also note that a person saying something which is "not protected" doesn't mean you have the right to physically assault them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
Proclaiming you're a Nazi means that you are actively going to kill a whole lot of people if you have the chance.
That's more an issue with how shitty U.S. law is regarding hate speech.The actual Supreme Court has a highly circumscribed definition of incitement that Neo-Nazis' and white nationalists' ideas do not fall under. Incitement has to be "Everybody, go attack John who is over there". "We should create a white European ethno-state", while it obviously has implied violence in it on some level, is not incitement in the legal sense, not even close in fact.
Tell that to the crying nazi who was recently just arrested with this reason includedImminent lawless action is very narrowly defined and wouldn't apply to that situation. Also note that a person saying something which is "not protected" doesn't mean you have the right to physically assault them.
The judge has decided he is a flight risk and his hate speech makes him a threat to others
I would read the entry about the US carefully.
That's more an issue with how shitty U.S. law is regarding hate speech.
Tell that to the crying nazi who was recently just arrested with this reason included
Also nazis are ALL about imminent lawless action. They're nazis, they're inherently a violent and evil group.
The 1969 riots led to the gay pride parades and open celebration of LGBT people every year in June, for decades. These didn't stop before 2015. LGBT organisations developed out of the riots, like the Gay Liberation Front. The movement became more demanding and militant rather than begging. Several other changes started happening. Here's a rundown from 1970 up to the Supreme Court decision. It wasn't "overnight" and lawmakers didn't suddenly see reason where they hadn't before. It was a long march.I tried to give it in the post you quoted. Stonewall was ancient history by the time the needle moved on marriage equality. It's extremely difficult to argue that a widely-supported 2015 court decision was driven mainly by a 1969 riot.
When I say "mainly by reason," I'm trying to get at two things simultaneously. First, a lot of people who just sort of uncritically accepted marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman in 2004 actually stopped and thought about it and realized that there's no good logical case for that proposition. The other thing, which is really more empathy than reason, is that as gay folks came out of the closet, a lot of straight people observed through their own lived experience that gays aren't evil or depraved of whatever. They're regular people who just want to live their lives on their own terms, and once you realize that, most straight people realized that it's not just intellectually incorrect but cruel to deprive them of equal rights under the law. The important thing about both of those dynamics is that neither one had anything to do with civil disobedience.
Basically. America only cares about issues when it affects white people. Look at the opioid crisis.No one would be debating the legality of assaulting ISIS members in the US. This is like 100% pure white privilege. Not cut. No filler. Perfectly distilled.
He was denied bail.I believe he was deciding bail, no?
I hope no one is interpreting what I'm saying as some kind of fringe legal doctrine of hatred or something. It's a standard understanding of the first amendment as it is applied today and is litigated routinely by the ACLU.
Basically. America only cares about issues when it affects white people. Look at the opioid crisis.
Yes, I know about Stonewall. It was before my time (I'm 45), which is sort of my point. As recently as 2004, gay marriage was a winning political issues for social conservatives. Stonewall occurred over three decades earlier, so it's kind of hard to argue that that's the thing that turned the tide for marriage equality. And of course, it would be silly to say that no pro-gay rights person every protested between 2004 and 2015 (picking Obergefell as the "moment of victory" here). But that's not clearly not causal. What was causal was millions of gay people coming out of the closet, living their lives, and showing the rest of the country that equality is the right thing.
(I understand at this point people are going to respond with "Well, people came out of the closet because of Stonewall, et. al. That's one that I'm going to just leave in agree-to-disagree territory. My experience with gay rights is that this is one where people became enlightened nearly overnight, mainly by reason).
I can see this is degrading, as it usually does, to equating an accurate statement of the law and how it applies to the real world with a defense of nazi ideals and hatred.
I've described the laws as they apply right now in response to some people misinterpreting them. You can say they need to change. That's an important and useful discussion. But they don't currently work that way and aren't applied that way by the courts.
What do you think you're doing by repeatedly asserting that hate speech is perfectly legal other than demanding acceptance of it?
I'm responding to people repeatedly asserting that the law allows them to punch people who spout hate speech. They can argue it should, but the truth is that it doesn't.
What do you think the verdict will possibly be in this context?For the reason stated, sure. I don't really understand why you think that contradicts anything I've said. It's bail, not a verdict.
IncredibleBoth should be protected.
What do you think the verdict will possibly be in this context?
Both should be protected.
What the actual fuck! Nazis absolutely shouldn't be protected.
Hell the fuck no!! What are you smoking!?! One is literally talking about genocide of a race, I repeat: what are you smoking!?!
I have no idea. IMO Extremists on either side of any conflict are all the same amount of terrible and should be treated with an equal amount of disdain.
Incredible
Or about the civil rights movement! Motherfuckers think MLK made a speech and the white power structure went "OK" and ended Jim crow.
You have any ideal how ACTUALLY violent the civil rights moment was?! How many black people were beaten, killed and raped on that road?
Fuck your revisionist history!
Or our justice system could fail it's citizens yet again. Remember a judge recently deemed the phrase "Let's kill this motherfucker" to be ambiguous.If I remember right there's all kinds of photo evidence of him doing what he's accused of, which is spraying someone with pepper spray, so unless there's some wrinkle we haven't heard of I suspect he'll be found guilty.
Or our justice system could fail it's citizens yet again. Remember a judge recently deemed the phrase "Let's kill this motherfucker" to be ambiguous.
Lol.Listen we clearly have no idea if the man the officer killed had ever in fact had sexual relationships with a mother. Therefore it can not be used to determine if he was intending to kill that particular man instead of some other guy who had in fact had sex with mothers.
I wonder why? People like you don't grasp what "BLM" MEANS. It is a statement that Black lives Matter AS MUCH AS everyone else, ESPECIALLY White lives. That Black lives are NOT worthless or sub-human, that they should be treated with the dignity, understanding and compassion that all Whitefolk receive by default. The problem with people like you is that you either perceived the message wrong, believing "Black Lives Matter" means "Black Lives Matter MORE than everybody else", or you just don't believe Black people's lives are worth anything at all.
As for the violence, sometimes protests bring out a few people that look to capitalize on these protests by using them to mask their own troubles. Though, other times, you gotta understand how systematically the Black communities of the nation got fucked by the Whites in charge. Even to this day people are telling them how to protest, how to walk down the street, basically coded variations of "Know your place!". Forgive them for being pissed, especially when the police hold no qualms about killing them for no reason at all, and these blue bastards get away with it every damn time. How would you feel if you wanted to state that YOU matter, and that your people matter, but everybody is saying, "Yeah, nah, everybody matters", then those people leave it at that, turn their backs as the police rush in and fuck you up JUST FOR THE FACT that YOU EXIST?
"All Lives" DON'T matter UNTIL Black Lives do, because if Black Lives DON'T, then there is NO "All".
I feel like they'll probably still have worse lives just because of all the radiation
The actual Supreme Court has a highly circumscribed definition of incitement that Neo-Nazis' and white nationalists' ideas do not fall under. Incitement has to be "Everybody, go attack John who is over there". "We should create a white European ethno-state", while it obviously has implied violence in it on some level, is not incitement in the legal sense, not even close in fact.