Support NeoGAF

[KarneeKarnay]

I was thinking about this thread recently and I wondered about the comparisons between BLM and the Anti-Choice protesters that protest Abortion Clinics. Depending on your moral points of views, they aren't exclusive. Comparisons can be made (not very good ones I think). So why is one more demonized than the other.

This is just a theory. I think the right are much better at playing within the lines than the left are. The right can get away and do get away with some appalling shit, because it isn't illegal. That fact shields them, but not as much as apathy. If someone tells you Nazis and white supremacists are marching in a tow nearby, people don't care. Even if they march in your town you might not care. Because you're white in this scenario. Lots of white people protested, but even more could have if they cared.

Meanwhile the left when they have an issue like BLM, that needs to be acted upon and needs nationwide attention, they refuse to play by the rules. When the left has a cause that needs it, highways and cities get locked down. BLM issues might not effect white people directly, but the consequences of their protests do. So to you apathetic white person who doesn't really care about race or the issues that are still present in society, the Nazis aren't the reason they can't get to work today.

The Lefts biggest flaw and biggest advantage is it's refusal to play by the rules. It rocks the boat and break the rules doing so. It's much easier to demonise them and BLM, than it is the right. We already know nazis are bad, BUT DID YOU KNOW THAT BLM MAY BE THE NEW NAZIS! WE CAN'T PROVE IT BUT YOU'LL LISTEN TO US IMPLY THEY ARE JUST AS BAD AS THE NAZIS!

 

[pigeon]

I was thinking about this thread recently and I wondered about the comparisons between BLM and the Anti-Choice protesters that protest Abortion Clinics. Depending on your moral points of views, they aren't exclusive. Comparisons can be made (not very good ones I think). So why is one more demonized than the other.

This is just a theory. I think the right are much better at playing within the lines than the left are. The right can get away and do get away with some appalling shit, because it isn't illegal. That fact shields them, but not as much as apathy. If someone tells you Nazis and white supremacists are marching in a tow nearby, people don't care. Even if they march in your town you might not care. Because you're white in this scenario. Lots of white people protested, but even more could have if they cared.

Meanwhile the left when they have an issue like BLM, that needs to be acted upon and needs nationwide attention, they refuse to play by the rules. When the left has a cause that needs it, highways and cities get locked down. BLM issues might not effect white people directly, but the consequences of their protests do. So to you apathetic white person who doesn't really care about race or the issues that are still present in society, the Nazis aren't the reason they can't get to work today.

The Lefts biggest flaw and biggest advantage is it's refusal to play by the rules. It rocks the boat and break the rules doing so. It's much easier to demonise them and BLM, than it is the right. We already know nazis are bad, BUT DID YOU KNOW THAT BLM MAY BE THE NEW NAZIS! WE CAN'T PROVE IT BUT YOU'LL LISTEN TO US IMPLY THEY ARE JUST AS BAD AS THE NAZIS!

There have been 41 bombings and 173 arsons of abortion clinics since 1977.

The right doesn't play within the rules. They just get to do what they want, because the people they victimize are societally disadvantaged.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

There have been 41 bombings and 173 arsons of abortion clinics since 1977.

The right doesn't play within the rules. They just get to do what they want, because the people they victimize are societally disadvantaged.

Time * Distance = Apathy.

The Right are better at coming together and standing with a party line. I bet the leaders of Anti-Choice protesters and their followers came out as against these attacks. If they didn't at the start, they do now.

 

[Matt]

This is a very papist understanding of the Supreme Court.

Did the text of the Constitution change on June 8th, 1969? Or did our agreed-upon interpretation of that document change? Or, even, did our legal structure, as inspired by particular values we ascribe, for our own purposes, to that document change?

My main point here is simply that assertions about what the Constitution says or does are problematic because of the implication of eternal continuity. There are people alive today who lived in an America where it was perfectly constitutional to ban white supremacists from holding rallies and declaring their intention to murder people of color, and constitutional to arrest and imprison them for doing so. There is no particular reason to consider that America somehow less American.

So simply asserting that "the Constitution lets them do it" is not a real argument. You should explain why it's good that the Constitution lets them do it and why we shouldn't agitate for another change in America's understanding of the Constitution.

Yes...which is what I said. The SC, who determines what is or isn’t constitutional, made a determination. Or, I suppose, corrected a previous misinterpretation. Either way, that is what is constitutional until something changes.

I was responding to a poster who said being a Nazi is unconstitutional, and that is simply false.

 

[pigeon]

Yes...which is what I said. The SC, who determines what is or isn’t constitutional, made a determination. Or, I suppose, corrected a previous misinterpretation. Either way, that is what is constitutional until something changes.

I was responding to a poster who said being a Nazi is unconstitutional, and that is simply false.

Eh, I think it's true. Being a Nazi is unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has erred.

 

[*Splinter]

Ha! I made this and yes, she is absolutely hypothetical.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=192674423&postcount=8677
I made her 153... that should have been a dead giveaway.

Damnit, I tried looking this up yesterday (assumed it was real and right wing would be playing it up to discredit the protests, but wanted to double check). Was confused when the only references I could find led back to GAF.

When I say get off the streets, I should specify arterial roads, such as highways and interstates. Obviously I would expect certain city streets to be jammed during a protest, and that is mostly fine. And like I mentioned, it doesn't happen often, so it's not worth beleaguering the point.

I hope this doesn't sound like sarcasm, but if it doesn't happen often enough to concern you then I can only conclude it should happen more often.

You seem to misunderstand protest, or simply not care about the issues at hand.

 

[Matt]

Eh, I think it's true. Being a Nazi is unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has erred.

I don’t know what part of the Constitution you think allows for the banning of certain beliefs, even contemptible ones.

Constitutional isn’t the same thing as “good.” If it was life would be much easier.

 

[pigeon]

I don’t know what part of the Constitution you think allows for the banning of certain beliefs, even contemptible ones.

Ask Oliver Wendell Holmes.

 

[Matt]

Ask Oliver Wendell Holmes.

I think you need to read up on him again if you think he was in favor of banning beliefs.

 

[pigeon]

I think you need to read up on him again if you think he was in favor of banning beliefs.

He was in favor of applying a stricter standard than imminent lawless action to First Amendment freedoms, which is the point.

I missed earlier that you moved the goalposts from "communicating violent ideas" to "being a Nazi." Sure, the constitution doesn't ban beliefs, but it can ban certain actions, including broadcasting those beliefs.

 

[Matt]

He was in favor of applying a stricter standard than imminent lawless action to First Amendment freedoms, which is the point.

I missed earlier that you moved the goalposts from "communicating violent ideas" to "being a Nazi." Sure, the constitution doesn't ban beliefs, but it can ban certain actions, including broadcasting those beliefs.

No, he was against speech that attempts to encourage the committing of a crime that are likely to succeed. He got pissed when they tried to expand clear and present danger in subsequent cases.

And I didn’t change any goalposts! This started from me replying to Eden who said being a Nazi is unconstitutional.

And, again, expressing any ideas can’t be banned, unless again you are effectively setting up an imminent crime.

 

[Bold One]

To some white people, black lives don't matter.

Done and done.

Question answered, what else is there to say?

 

[FStubbs]

I was thinking about this thread recently and I wondered about the comparisons between BLM and the Anti-Choice protesters that protest Abortion Clinics. Depending on your moral points of views, they aren't exclusive. Comparisons can be made (not very good ones I think). So why is one more demonized than the other.

This is just a theory. I think the right are much better at playing within the lines than the left are. The right can get away and do get away with some appalling shit, because it isn't illegal. That fact shields them, but not as much as apathy. If someone tells you Nazis and white supremacists are marching in a tow nearby, people don't care. Even if they march in your town you might not care. Because you're white in this scenario. Lots of white people protested, but even more could have if they cared.

Meanwhile the left when they have an issue like BLM, that needs to be acted upon and needs nationwide attention, they refuse to play by the rules. When the left has a cause that needs it, highways and cities get locked down. BLM issues might not effect white people directly, but the consequences of their protests do. So to you apathetic white person who doesn't really care about race or the issues that are still present in society, the Nazis aren't the reason they can't get to work today.

The Lefts biggest flaw and biggest advantage is it's refusal to play by the rules. It rocks the boat and break the rules doing so. It's much easier to demonise them and BLM, than it is the right. We already know nazis are bad, BUT DID YOU KNOW THAT BLM MAY BE THE NEW NAZIS! WE CAN'T PROVE IT BUT YOU'LL LISTEN TO US IMPLY THEY ARE JUST AS BAD AS THE NAZIS!

This is because the right makes the rules.

The right breaks those rules quite a bit, but when they do, who's enforcing the rules? The right! So they get away with it.

 

[Tangled Up in Blue]

I feel like it is even a trap that we go to talk about nazis in the same breath as BLM.

Like their messages are even in the same reality.

Man the game is rigged

Of course it is. That's been the alt-right's goal overall: to muddy the waters of political discourse to the point that the average (white) person can't tell the difference between basic good and evil anymore, and thus traditionally abhorrent views become a normalized part of the culture. Nazis and KKK are no longer seen as monsters on the fringe, but merely another voice on the political spectrum.

This is where live now. It's shit.

 

[Oersted]

And, again, expressing any ideas can’t be banned, unless again you are effectively setting up an imminent crime.

That is what national-socialism is about.

Time * Distance = Apathy.

The Right are better at coming together and standing with a party line. I bet the leaders of Anti-Choice protesters and their followers came out as against these attacks. If they didn't at the start, they do now.

The core of your claim was a asspull and wrong.

Just like this claim.

 

[Matt]

That is what national-socialism is about.

Again, a theoretical desire isn’t the same as setting an imminent and direct plan into action.

 

[Slayven]

Again, a theoretical desire isn’t the same as setting an imminent and direct plan into action.

Personal question, why are defending Nazis?

 

[golduck342]

Saw this on facebook and it reminded me of this thread, sorry if posted already

https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTu...wlXLq11KS_2Ik0B75aMFEWVjzjjzRZiFip4EwHtYg9NSc

 

[Slayven]

Saw this on facebook and it reminded me of this thread, sorry if posted already

https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTu...wlXLq11KS_2Ik0B75aMFEWVjzjjzRZiFip4EwHtYg9NSc

Nah on the young Turks because they were on some "Protest the right way" bullshit too.

 

[Matt]

Personal question, why are defending Nazis?

Absolutely not “defending” Nazis. These laws apply to everyone, and I think it’s important for everyone to understand them. If you think they should change that’s a whole different issue and one worthy of debate, but saying Nazi beliefs are unconstitutional is an essential misunderstanding.

 

[Slayven]

Absolutely not “defending” Nazis. These laws apply to everyone, and I think it’s important for everyone to understand them. If you think they should change that’s a whole different issue and one worthy of debate, but saying Nazi beliefs are unconstitutional is an essential misunderstanding.

You just spent the last few pages saying Nazis were not inherently violent. When they are, they were for the extermination of the disabled, LGBTQ, and entire races. If you call yourself a nazi you are saying you support that violence. There is no such thing as a nonviolent nazi.

 

[Llyranor]

saying Nazi beliefs are unconstitutional is an essential misunderstanding.

This is why nearly every other Western country aside from the great US of A has hate speech laws. I know I know, but then it wouldn't be true free speech, and what if you slip on some slope, and I wouldn't want to live in those poor suppressed countries in which advocating genocide could lead to a criminal offense and imprisonment.

 

[Matt]

You just spent the last few pages saying Nazis were not inherently violent. When they are, they were for the extermination of the disabled, LGBTQ, and entire races. If you call yourself a nazi you are saying you support that violence. There is no such thing as a nonviolent nazi.

When did I say Nazi’s are not inherently violent? I even think i’ve the opposite a few times. It’s just that being “violent” speech isn’t enough. You can advocate for violence theoretically, it’s specific plans and direct calls to action that are likely to result in said action that are not protected.

 

[mnannola]

It comes from the same place as when someone in your family/team/friend circle does something bad, you probably give them more leeway versus when someone you don't identify with does the same thing.

These nazi apologists (why this is still a thing in 2017 I don't know) identify with the white people looking out for there own race more than black people trying to shine a light on things that don't really affect white people nearly as much. This feeling of identifying with only white people is probably much greater when some of these white people in rural america don't even know any black people. So they just lack the ability to identify with them and their issues.

They don't have anyone personally telling them of a time that a cop pulled them over for no fucking reason other than the color of their skin. They probably do have friends where a black person broke into their car, stole a candy bar from a shop, or just did something they don't agree with. Since they only hear one side of things from people they know and trust, the other side is just on TV, it's not really a problem that they can see first hand.

 

[Matt]

This is why nearly every other Western country aside from the great US of A has hate speech laws. I know I know, but then it wouldn't be true free speech, and what if you slip on some slope, and I wouldn't want to live in those poor suppressed countries in which advocating genocide could lead to a criminal offense and imprisonment.

I never said those things here. Free speech vs. hate speech is an incredibly complicated issue, and one that I have felt strongly about in the past but have found myself struggling with recently. But I do think it’s important to understand the current legal situation as a first step to change, if change is what you advocate for.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

That is what national-socialism is about.



The core of your claim was a asspull and wrong.

Just like this claim.

wHaT cLaIm?

No, I think you didn't read my post. I drew comparisons between anti-choice groups and blm in the way they protest. I even go on to say the comparison isn't great. I go on to the make the point BLM along with most Left groups are setup to be demonised by the current system.

So please. What claim?

EDIT:

This is because the right makes the rules.

The right breaks those rules quite a bit, but when they do, who's enforcing the rules? The right! So they get away with it.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not, but because of the above I've gotta clarify.

My post is to point out how the system is setup to be against the left and how right groups exploit it in a way the Left can't. Nor should it.

 

[cwmartin]

I believe you could argue chanting "blood and soil" and "jews will not replace us" at a gathering that resulted in the murder of somebody is active violent speech, even "specific plans and direct calls to action". But i'm sure you will school us on the nuances of constitutional legal argument instead.

 

[Slayven]

I believe you could argue chanting "blood and soil" and "jews will not replace us" at a gathering that resulted in the murder of somebody is active violent speech, even "specific plans and direct calls to action". But i'm sure you will school us on the nuances of constitutional legal argument instead.

Basically

 

[Matt]

I believe you could argue chanting "blood and soil" and "jews will not replace us" at a gathering that resulted in the murder of somebody is active violent speech, even "specific plans and direct calls to action". But i'm sure you will school us on the nuances of constitutional legal argument instead.

If a speaker advocated for someone to go hit those protesters with their car (or hurt them specifically), the Constitution very well might not have protected them.

 

[cwmartin]

If a speaker advocated for someone to go hit those protesters with their car (or hurt them specifically), the Constitution very well might not have protected them.

So only the constitution is up for interpretation?

 

[Matt]

So only the constitution is up for interpretation?

? Not sure I understand the question.

 

[cwmartin]

? Not sure I understand the question.

I interpret those chants and the subsequent actions as violent and deliberate plans to action. Which you've stated is not protected under the constitution.

 

[Vicetrailia]

The things nazis say, they actually try to do.

 

[Matt]

I interpret those chants and the subsequent actions as violent and deliberate plans to action. Which you've stated is not protected under the constitution.

They have to imminent, specific, and direct. Not theoretical or general.

Again, “let’s go now kill Stan the Jewish guy” vs. “the world would be better if all Jews were gone.”

That doesn’t make them less gross, or not inherently violent, or not bad for society and the world. Obviously they are.

 

[cwmartin]

They have to imminent, specific, and direct. Not theoretical or general.

Again, “let’s go now kill Stan the Jewish guy” vs. “the world would be better if all Jews were gone.”

That doesn’t make them less gross, or not inherently violent, or not bad for society and the world. Obviously they are.

I literally understand what your saying. I'm arguing that different people can interpret "imminent", "specific" and "direct" the same way that you interpret the constitution.

I can understand as well that you don't agree, because you keep repeating yourself because you think people don't understand.

 

[Matt]

I literally understand what your saying. I'm arguing that different people can interpret "imminent", "specific" and "direct" the same way that you interpret the constitution.

I can understand as well that you don't agree, because you keep repeating yourself because you think people don't understand.

I mean, what I’m saying is “the” understanding of the Constitution. There is an official body that makes those determinations. Of course you can disagree with them, but that doesn’t change what the legal situation is.

 

[Oersted]

Again, a theoretical desire isn’t the same as setting an imminent and direct plan into action.

The core of Nazis is "white people are superior and for their purity we have to kill unworthy, subhuman life".

It is a direct call to weapons and to murder.

If they would be brown, white people would get the issue.

wHaT cLaIm?

No, I think you didn't read my post. I drew comparisons between anti-choice groups and blm in the way they protest. I even go on to say the comparison isn't great. I go on to the make the point BLM along with most Left groups are setup to be demonised by the current system.

So please. What claim?

EDIT:



I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not, but because of the above I've gotta clarify.

My post is to point out how the system is setup to be against the left and how right groups exploit it in a way the Left can't. Nor should it.

There have been multiple terrorattacks at abortion clinics which resulted in deaths.

They don't play by the rules.

 

[pigeon]

No, he was against speech that attempts to encourage the committing of a crime that are likely to succeed. He got pissed when they tried to expand clear and present danger in subsequent cases.

Clear and present danger is explicitly a stricter standard than imminent lawless action. That's my entire point here!

And I didn’t change any goalposts! This started from me replying to Eden who said being a Nazi is unconstitutional.

Did it?

I’m not sure what the contradiction is. The Constitution does not prevent communicating violent ideas. Just the direct call to an immediate violent action.

This is the post I responded to. "Being a Nazi" doesn't appear in it.

And, again, expressing any ideas can’t be banned, unless again you are effectively setting up an imminent crime.

We've literally been discussing the flaw in this sort of statement for our entire discussion, so you looping back to it doesn't accomplish anything. The constitutional interpretation you're referring to is relatively new, and those interpretations themselves are delivered by an ultimately partisan and politically responsive court. We should not treat them as holy writ and talk about what "can" and "can't" be done. Instead, we should agitate for our viewpoint and attempt to politically control the Supreme Court and demand a constitutional interpretation that does allow the banning of expressing certain ideas, an interpretation that Americans lived under happily and without apparent negative consequences prior to 1969.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Their “larger goals” aren’t germane to the discussion. What they have in mind doesn’t change what they have the right to communicate.

Communicating is how the original nazis came into power in the first place.