• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Why do Nazis get free speech apologetics while BLM gets finger wags?

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 have no more love for Black people than America.
 

Haly

One day I realized that sadness is just another word for not enough coffee.
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.

Er, if by "most" you mean strict numerical majority, sure, but there is still a sizeable portion of America who wouldn't think of twice of removing those rights if they could. Obergefell v. Hodges was 5-4 after all.

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.
 

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Hasn't even been a century since the Holocaust and someone genuinely said that nazis should be a protected class....what the actual fuck. :mad:
 
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.
We will agree to disagree on Stonewall but IMO, no Stonewall = no gay rights movement and no marriage equality by this point in time.

You can't give 100% of the credit for marriage equality to reason and strategy alone. White American people in general only empathize with other whites. A major hurdle to racial equality is a large segment of white people will never view minorities as full human beings like themselves, whereas that cousin or friend you always loved that just came out has a better chance of being accepted. Not always the case but yeah, race is a huge barrier to empathy for white people and we see that in nearly every walk of life whether it be the healthcare debate, drug epidemics, welfare allocation, criminal sentencing etc...

To add, the Birmingham Riots got civil rights legislation started.
 

Late Flag

Member
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.

Yeah, I agree with you there. On one hand, I see the gay rights movement a really positive thing that makes me optimistic about the ability of people to see reason. On the other hand, I look at the status of the immigration debate in the US and get kind of depressed. It wasn't that long ago that the Republican party had a pro-immigration wing. Now we have a major party that explicitly wants to "deport" people to countries that they've never lived in as adults, have no connection to, and don't speak the native language. Not really an ethnic purge in the sense that I know you mean it, but it's the same kind of cruelty that I was happy to see overcome in the other case.
 
nazis2nazn9.png

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. Sometimes vigilantism is justified. And in my opinion, this is one of those cases.
 

night814

Member
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...

Of course it can get worse, and I feel for you. The more people have been coming out lately and being more overtly racist will cause more people to follow and latch on to white supremacists shitty ideals.

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.

No argument here, but in the last few months it's been turned up to 11 I feel as opposed to the last few years where it was more a closed door thing where white idiots would complain to each other and look down upon other races in private. Now with social media and the prevelance of it, it's been much easier for these fools to find each other and act on their foolishness.
 

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
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.
Being a nazi isn't a constitutional right. Nazism is a direct call for violence, which according to the constitution, isn't protected:

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".

So once again, being a nazi isn't an exercise of free 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.
 
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.
 
Maybe the laws of America aren't infallible, i dunno

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.

ok
 

KHarvey16

Member
Being a nazi isn't a constitutional right. Nazism is a direct call for violence, which according to the constitution, isn't protected:

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.
 
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.
 

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
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.
That's more an issue with how shitty U.S. law is regarding hate speech.

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.
Tell that to the crying nazi who was recently just arrested with this reason included

The judge has decided he is a flight risk and his hate speech makes him a threat to others

Also nazis are ALL about imminent lawless action. They're nazis, they're inherently a violent and evil group.
 
I would read the entry about the US carefully.

Yes, and?

Nazism is an inherit threat of violence. If you're proclaiming you're a Nazi then guess what, you're threatening to kill people I know and care about and I have every right to punch your stupid Nazi bully face.

Punch Nazis. If you clutch your pearls over Nazis getting punched then you are supporting their cause.
 

KHarvey16

Member
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.

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.
 

KHarvey16

Member
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.
 
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.
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.

June 27 and 28, 1970
150626-gay-rights-jsw-parade_7a7d9ed8b1c59688c880a88081e6a74e.nbcnews-ux-600-480.jpg

On the anniversary of the Stonewall riots, the first gay pride parades are held in New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Fred Sergeant, who was at the New York parade, reflected on the march years later in the Village Voice newspaper.

"It took a new sense of audacity and courage to take that giant step into the streets of Midtown Manhattan," he said. "I stayed at the head of the march the entire way, and at one point, I climbed onto the base of a light pole and looked back. I was astonished; we stretched out as far as I could see, thousands of us." Pride events now are held worldwide every year.

1973
The American Psychiatric Association’s board of trustees removes homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Nov. 27, 1978
150626-gay-rights-jsw-milk_7a7d9ed8b1c59688c880a88081e6a74e.nbcnews-ux-600-480.jpg

Harvey Milk, a San Francisco city supervisor and the first openly gay man elected to major office in the United States, is assassinated, along with Mayor George Moscone, by a former supervisor.

June 5, 1981
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, publishes an account of five mysterious cases of pneumonia in gay men in Los Angeles.

The CDC sets up an investigative team and, a year and a half later, identifies all the major risk factors for what would become known as AIDS.

June 30, 1986
The Supreme Court, in Bowers v. Hardwick, rules that states have the right to outlaw sodomy.

May 30, 1987
150626-gay-rights-jsw-barney-frank_7a7d9ed8b1c59688c880a88081e6a74e.nbcnews-ux-600-480.jpg

Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts becomes the first openly gay member of Congress.

July 19, 1993
150626-gay-rights-jsw-clinton-military_7a7d9ed8b1c59688c880a88081e6a74e.nbcnews-ux-600-480.jpg

President Bill Clinton announces the policy that would become known as "don’t ask, don’t tell."

"It is the best way to proceed because it provides a sensible balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of our military to remain the world’s No. 1 fighting force," he says at the National Defense University.

May 20, 1996
The Supreme Court, in Romer v. Evans, strikes down a Colorado law that blocked any legislative or executive action to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination.

"If the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest," Kennedy writes.

Sept. 21, 1996
Just before 1 a.m. and before no cameras, Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman. It also allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

April 14, 1997
Ellen DeGeneres appears on the cover of Time magazine with the headline “Yep, I’m Gay.” Two weeks later, on the television show “Ellen,” the character she plays comes out.

Oct. 12, 1998
150626-gay-rights-jsw-matthew-shepard-02_3aefdad42cf8ae00364b7ce9c1c2897c.nbcnews-ux-600-480.jpg

Matthew Shepard, a 21-year-old college student, dies less than a week after he is tied to a split-rail fence and beaten outside Laramie, Wyoming.

April 26, 2000
Gov. Howard Dean signs a law making Vermont the first in the country to allow civil unions, which offer some of the benefits of marriage.

June 28, 2000
The Supreme Court, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, rules that the Boy Scouts, under the First Amendment guarantee of expressive association, have the right to ban gay members. Kennedy joins the majority.

June 26, 2003
The Supreme Court, in a decision called Lawrence v. Texas, strikes down criminal sodomy laws, overturning the Bowers decision from 17 years earlier. Kennedy writes for the majority that gays are “entitled to respect for their private lives.”

Nov. 18, 2003
The Massachusetts Supreme Court rules that the ban on gay marriage in that state is unconstitutional. In May 2004, gay couples begin marrying in Massachusetts.

Nov. 2, 2004
Eleven states pass constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

Nov. 4, 2008
California voters pass Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage in the country’s most populous state.

April 7, 2009
The Vermont Legislature passes same-sex marriage, the first state to do it by legislative action and not a court ruling. By the end of 2009, five states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage.

July 22, 2011
150626-gay-rights-jsw-obama_7a7d9ed8b1c59688c880a88081e6a74e.nbcnews-ux-600-480.jpg

President Barack Obama certifies the repeal of "don’t ask, don’t tell."

"As of Sept. 20th," he says, "service members will no longer be forced to hide who they are in order to serve our country. Our military will no longer be deprived of the talents and skills of patriotic Americans just because they happen to be gay or lesbian."

May 9, 2012
Obama becomes the first sitting president to support same-sex marriage.

"I’ve been going through an evolution on this issue," he tells Robin Roberts of ABC News, then says: "At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that — for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Nov. 6, 2012
Voters in three states — Maine, Maryland and Washington — become the first to authorize same-sex marriage by popular vote. By the end of the year, nine states and the District of Columbia allow it.

May 23, 2013
150626-gay-rights-jsw-boy-scouts_7a7d9ed8b1c59688c880a88081e6a74e.nbcnews-ux-600-700.jpg

The Boy Scouts of America votes to lift its ban on gay youth.

June 20, 2013
Exodus International, which had claimed that it could cure same-sex attraction with prayer and therapy, announces that it will close its doors after more than three decades. Its leader apologizes: “I am sorry that some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn’t change.”

June 26, 2013
150626-gay-rights-jsw-edith-01_7a7d9ed8b1c59688c880a88081e6a74e.nbcnews-ux-600-480.jpg

The Supreme Court, in two landmark decisions, strikes down the Defense of Marriage Act and allows gay marriage to resume in California by declining to decide a case about Proposition 8.

Kennedy, writing for the majority, says that DOMA’s main effect "is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal."

Edith Windsor, the 84-year-old woman who brought the case against the federal law, says: "Children born today will grow up in a world without DOMA, and those same children who happen to be gay will be free to love and get married."

Oct. 6, 2014
The Supreme Court declines to take up appeals of rulings that allowed same-sex marriage in five states. Within weeks, the number of states allowing same-sex marriage climbs to 30.

Nov. 6, 2014
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a departure from other federal appeals courts, upholds bans on same-sex marriage in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The split in the appeals courts lays the groundwork for the Supreme Court to settle the matter for the whole country.

June 26, 2015
The Supreme Court, in Obergefell v. Hodges, rules that gay couples across the country have a constitutional right to marry.

"It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage," Kennedy writes. "Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves.

"Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."​
 

besada

Banned
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).

Your "experience" is dazzlingly wrong. And, if you're 45, there's no excuse for your perception that the gay community wasn't "on the streets". Presumably you've forgotten ACT UP and their breaking into churches, as well as the hyper-aggressive Pride marches during the 80's and 90's. Did you forget Queer Nation? Lesbian Avengers?

Overnight? Are you fucking kidding me? The visibility of gay people in the US was thrust upon them by the HIV crisis, not some magical moment in 2004 when you think everyone suddenly decided to come out to the world for no reason. There's been a long, slow, often angry and sometimes violent progression of the gay community forcing itself into society. Gay marriage is neither the single goal of the LGBT community, nor the end of LGBT civil rights, for that matter.

In short, I'm comfortable suggesting you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
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?
 

KHarvey16

Member
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.
 

KHarvey16

Member
What do you think the verdict will possibly be in this context?

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.
 
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!?!

Buy GUUYYYYYY... slippery slopes an' stuff!

"Slippery slope" is usually invoked when people (in these cases, white people that think they've got something to loose) want to get others to stop focusing on the main problem and start questioning little things, hoping that all that time they spend going back and forth, sifting through the little bits, they'll forget the bigger problem.
 
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.

This is what South Park has done to people.

People think the golden mean fallacy is the peak of intellectualism.
 
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!

Additionally, people think that only a small group of evil (yet powerful) people opposed MLK.

The truth is the majority disapproved of MLK until well after his death,

6082764673_ced897c532.jpg


People also think MLK was thought of as peaceful. He wasn't.

r8oo00dvlhiz.jpg



People opposing BLM today would have been saying the same exact stuff about MLK. It's sad.
 

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
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.
 
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.

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.
 

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
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.
Lol.
 

Hesh

Member
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".

This is a 5-star post. I wish I had this handy to give to people to read whenever they say "All Lives Matter" in complete ignorance.
 

Not

Banned
I feel like they'll probably still have worse lives just because of all the radiation

Maybe the constant hurricanes and earthquakes will distract them

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.

So should the conversation be whether to permit implied violence depending on how much visible support it acquires?
 
Top Bottom