• 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?

So that "All Lives Splatter" has made its way to my social media. I'm quite frankly a bit confused.

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.

Meanwhile BLM protesting by shutting down a freeway, is worthy of death by car. And even so called liberals will talk about how they understand BLM's frustrations, but how blocking a highway simply isn't right.

Why such a large difference in treatment? Is it because a freeway block has the potential to actually inconvenience the majority of Americans, whereas a rise of Nazism wouldn't?
 

Yeoman

Member
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.
Because white people.
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?
 
Why such a large difference in treatment? Is it because a freeway block has the potential to actually inconvenience the majority of Americans, whereas a rise of Nazism wouldn't?

Apparently inconvenience brought by people of color is a more unforgivable offense than calls for genocide by white people against people of color.

The difference is old fashioned racism. Also our president is a white supremacist neo-nazi sympathizer.
 
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.
 

Jmille99

Member
1. Black people dont matter
2. The kind of protest doesnt matter if you protest against what the racists believe in
A. Violent/Destructive protests are bad
B. Kneeling during the anthem is bad
C. Being inconvenient to others (blocking
traffic) is bad
3. Symbols of patriotism and authority are more important than the rights of those who have problems with either
4. Do as we say, not as we do
5. Ignore the problems on our side, blow the proportions out on the other
6. Theres plenty more I dont want to type up


Im thinking these are a good start to their mindset.
 

Cipherr

Member
So that "All Lives Splatter" has made its way to my social media. I'm quite frankly a bit confused.

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.

Meanwhile BLM protesting by shutting down a freeway, is worthy of death by car. And even so called liberals will talk about how they understand BLM's frustrations, but how blocking a highway simply isn't right.

Why such a large difference in treatment? Is it because a freeway block has the potential to actually inconvenience the majority of Americans, whereas a rise of Nazism wouldn't?

Yes. While they probably don't like Nazis, they aren't in their crosshairs. They don't worry about Nazis jumping them in the streets or really bothering them at all. So there's this passive ass "Yeah I don't like them, but they don't bother me so....". They have no skin in the game, but slowing traffic in between their trip to the supermarket? Now THAT shit hits home. How fucking dare these uppity assholes.

Its the same way with the people that cry "No one should complain about cops killing innocent black people until Black on Black crime rates are lower", meanwhile after 9-11 you could find exactly 0 people saying "Well maybe we shouldn't pursue justice for the innocent deaths caused by these terrorists until Americas high murder rate is brought below other countries!".

Even the thought of saying such a thing after 9-11 would throw most people into a dizzying rage, and rightfully so. But many of the same people frothing over that idea would willfully chuck that idiotic bullshit at POC in this country.
 
Things only matter if it's white people. Look at the opiate epidemic suddenly we gotta save all these white kids from over dosing but you look back at history and had this been minorities being the ones mostly affected they would have been tossing every junkie in jail for life sentences.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
"free speech" is basically a process argument, not a policy argument, and process arguments are typically insincere and motivated reasoning to shield an intended policy argument. of course this is not true in one hundred percent of cases, but in general if someone is arguing about process or rules or how the system works rather than what they actually want, just assume they've chosen their opinion on the process to support the outcome they want. the real question is why seeing a doofus on social media would cause you to think more deeply about it rather than unfollowing the person and thus improving your life.
 

Piecake

Member
Hidden Brain did a good episode on that

Hiding Behind Free Speech

Several weeks ago, white supremacists took to the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia, in a demonstration that left many Americans asking a lot of questions. Who are we as a nation? What do we stand for, and what do we tolerate? The United States goes further than many other countries to protect speech — even hate-filled speech like that used in Charlottesville. In this episode, we look at how people use free speech arguments, and why the motivations behind these arguments may not be apparent — even to the people making them.

http://www.npr.org/2017/09/04/54847...s-rhetoric-is-changing-the-way-americans-talk
 

Crossing Eden

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

Hubbl3

Unconfirmed Member
So that "All Lives Splatter" has made its way to my social media. I'm quite frankly a bit confused.

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.

Meanwhile BLM protesting by shutting down a freeway, is worthy of death by car. And even so called liberals will talk about how they understand BLM's frustrations, but how blocking a highway simply isn't right.

Why such a large difference in treatment? Is it because a freeway block has the potential to actually inconvenience the majority of Americans, whereas a rise of Nazism wouldn't?

Because the nazis aren't gonna stop Nana Ruth from gettin to the hospital

You know why :/
 
This is one of the reasons.

Current and former employees of a restaurant in Trump International Hotel have filed a racial discrimination lawsuit in DC Superior Court.

The Washington Post reports two former employees and one current employee of BLT prime “allege that the Trump Organization and hotel managing director Mickael Damelincourt saw to it that the restaurant routinely steered black employees to less lucrative shifts and subjected them to discriminatory behavior by other staff and by guests.”

“He used to say ‘This is white America time, you need to get used to it, and if you don’t get used to it you should go work somewhere else,’ ” Smith Jr. alleged.
 

FUME5

Member
Oh yeah, the 'apology' from the person behind all lives splatter:

Code:
[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKKbgnEUMAEZMW4.jpg[/IMG]
 
You've seriously not seen anyone at all defending BLM? Or people calling out the Nazis and actively protesting them?

Also surely you can see why blocking a highway is more intrusive than a march at night regardless of the message.
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
The answer is that your underlying premise is wrong, particularly on the forum you are posting on where almost nobody does that. Moroever, the fact you think that someone is a "so called liberal" if they don't support blocking highways neither establishes that premise nor does it make those people False Scotsmen.

The answer to why there are people who actually do say things like that should be virtually self-evident.
 
"free speech" is basically a process argument, not a policy argument, and process arguments are typically insincere and motivated reasoning to shield an intended policy argument. of course this is not true in one hundred percent of cases, but in general if someone is arguing about process or rules or how the system works rather than what they actually want, just assume they've chosen their opinion on the process to support the outcome they want. the real question is why seeing a doofus on social media would cause you to think more deeply about it rather than unfollowing the person and thus improving your life.

Are there not cases where process is outcome, depending on one's philosophical priorities? I philosophically value freedom and lack of paternalism (were I a lawyer, I would basically be an ACLU type), so I support both the message and the methods of much of BLM fighting for an end to systemic forms of oppression as well as the freedom of reprehensible assholes to assemble and disseminate their ideas, with the confidence there are means to curb the actual appeal and spread of their message, and their ability to gather and consolidate power, that do not necessitate the curtailing of First Amendment rights as they are currently constituted.
 

Aurongel

Member
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.
 
So that "All Lives Splatter" has made its way to my social media. I'm quite frankly a bit confused.

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.

Meanwhile BLM protesting by shutting down a freeway, is worthy of death by car. And even so called liberals will talk about how they understand BLM's frustrations, but how blocking a highway simply isn't right.

Why such a large difference in treatment? Is it because a freeway block has the potential to actually inconvenience the majority of Americans, whereas a rise of Nazism wouldn't?
This may shock you, but a large portion of Americans have been raised in a culture that is often openly racist towards non-white individuals - attitudes that have become deeply ingrained and cultivated. As the web has allowed contrarian opinions to be immediately and permanently silenced to any individual, these attitudes have gotten more pronounced. This new sense of empowered racism has led to the political success of right-wing politics across the western world.

Even though these individuals will talk about condemning the Nazi party, they will take far stronger offense to protesters that challenge their engrained and polished worldview.
 

Mr. X

Member
Equality sucks when you're struggling through life with advantages of white privilege. They sympathize.
 

Evening Musuko

Black Korea
Funny how for months cars ramming into people in Europe by terrorists was seen as the next big fear by the West, but as soon as a Nazi does it in Virginia and it becomes a Facebook meme in America.

🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
 
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.
this and then people buy into it without analyzing it deeper and repeat the words on fb. People who are not exposed to racism against them on a regular basis or don't have to worry about police killing them over a traffic stop are more susceptible to accepting the "free speech" lie without thinking about what's hiding behind it.
 
Top Bottom