Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
That can be solved before it ever becomes a problem by giving concrete and specific definitions of what constitutes as hate speech. e.g., the difference between "white people can't dance" and "white people are biologically superior to all other races".
Perhaps we could also put some sort of structure or law or something in place that dictates what you can and can't sue over, because as it is now, you can probably sue someone over just about anything.
Edited by PhysicalStamina on Nov 23rd 2018 at 11:32:15 AM
i'm tired, my friendComey got subpoenaed by the Republicans in the House, who apparently are trying to manufacture one last bit of drama before they lose power. He's saying he'll testify only if the hearing is public, since it has become obvious by now the Republicans use closed door hearing to selectively edit what was said before publishing it to the rest of the country.
There are already laws that curb free speech, such as ones that stop people from inciting violence. What we have to do is expand those laws, or at least enforce them properly.
For instance, saying “this ethnic group are a plague” SHOULD be seen as a call to direct violence at said group. Saying “trans people go into women’s restrooms to rape and pillage” SHOULD be seen as inciting violence against trans people.
Nazi comes up , the boot comes down on them.
Talking and arguing with Nazis don't work for the purpose of keeping their heads down. Shutting them off, counter protesting, denying them service and if those fail, the only language they truly understand is violence.
Essentially, they are still cowards and cowards who overestimated the size of the silent majority sympathetic to their side, a few punches to the face and they are afraid to show their faces in public again.
These idiots are still showing up, but it is actively fighting them. Be it in fist fights and denying them service, platforms and shutting down the spaces where they can exercise their right of free speech work.
Inter arma enim silent legesNot violence. They feed on violence. Counterprotests. You need to show who the actual majority is. You don't argue with them, and you don't let anyone complain about having to be open minded. You can't be open-minded towards them, because their own lack of open-minded thinking is undermining the concept of tolerance more than you shutting them up does.
Another Stone associate is in plea negotiations with Mueller.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/23/politics/jerome-corsi-robert-mueller-plea-deal/index.html?adkey=bn
![]()
![]()
![]()
I'd prefer to just class such statements as defamation instead. Having insulting claims in general count as inciting violence creates loopholes. Especially if you fail to point out that they need to be false.
Or maybe just have a general law against presenting unproven claims as facts, though I admit that something like that is pretty much just wishful thinking on my part.
Edited by Corvidae on Nov 23rd 2018 at 7:06:52 PM
Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.With regards to debating a Nazi, I think wisewillow and M84 are arguing different scenarios. And I agree with both within the context of the scenarios they're discussing.
M84 is talking about formally inviting Nazis to come speak at public campuses and stuff in the interest of having a balanced debate. To do such a thing is to validate their perspective. It says to the world that they have a valid platform worthy of debate.
Wisewillow is talking about engaging Nazis in an informal setting when you notice them spreading their rhetoric. This is a very important activity to engage in. We can no longer assume that reality can speak for itself, and that everyone's bullshit filter will automatically disregard hate speech with zero input required from us.
When the only voice a person hears is a Nazi, the Nazis start to sound reasonable. It may seem ridiculous that we even need to dignify hate speech with a response, but by not dignifying it, we allow people to believe that the hate speech is so reasonable that no counterargument is being made against it. When one person talks at length about a subject and nobody interjects to call them out, they don't sound like a fool. They sound like an expert.
If we want the world to understand that Nazis are bad, we must be willing to explain why Nazis are bad.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Nov 23rd 2018 at 11:25:06 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Just to be clear: When I talk about violence against Neo-Nazis, I'm talking about responding to their own acts of violence (such as in the Charlottesville riots) or public demands for such. Obviously I'm not calling for lethal force against those guilty of the latter; simply punching them (a la Richard Spencer) would suffice. But if and when they start killing people with impunity on the streets, I don't find any good reason why we shouldn't retaliate in kind.
Simply put, Neo-Nazism goes well beyond being merely disgusting. It's even in the name: They know their beliefs are so beyond the pale that only the most deranged and short-sighted of them openly call themselves "Nazis".
Like others have said: We're dealing with a cancer. And at this point, this cancer has already festered and is threatening to metastize.
... Now I'm wondering if my culture and religion emphasizing retributive justice might be affecting my opinion. I certainly have always been baffled by you guys' seeming obsession with "being civil" (as you put it; sometimes I wonder if it's actually used appropiately) even when fighting back against Neo-Nazis.
Edited by MarqFJA on Nov 23rd 2018 at 9:47:51 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Yes, it does. Not I like it or even agree with the legal authorities that decided that even Neo-Nazis deserve such legal protections, but I can accept TV Tropes not wanting to get into legal trouble. It's certainly far more logical than a moral hang-up about the issue that I cannot fathom.
Edited by MarqFJA on Nov 23rd 2018 at 9:55:15 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.The way I see it, unless they actively use violence, there's no excuse to use violence against them.
By all means, shut down their rhetoric and make it clear it's unacceptable - which is what most people are doing to them anyway. Witness what happened at that pathetic attempt at the Unite the Right Rally number 2 that they tried. Or what happened in Berlin, when the counter-protesters made it absolutely clear they weren't going to tolerate Neo-Nazis in their city. Cowards that they are, they didn't even dare to face them down directly, instead slinking away as they were yelled at by damn near everyone around them.
That kind of tactic works superbly well, as long as they're trying to stay within the bounds of established law. But never throw the first punch or cast the first stone. It just gives them the excuse to do what they wanted to do in the first place.
If they're flagrantly flouting all laws and public safety, by all means feel free to get going with the wrath of an angry god. But not before.
If it's any consolation, always remember that the loudest yelps come from the ones who are losing, not the winning side.
Asimov had a pretty solid point when he said that Violence is the Last Refuge of the Incompetent.
It's not fair - but it's the price you pay for civilised society.
And this is coming from an immigrant, mind you.
I hold the secrets of the machine.It's quite possible that our (middle-class American, and Western in general) culture puts a greater emphasis on the rule of law and the authority of specially-designated police than yours does. Someone being an asshole and calling for "death to Muslims" does not give you, personally, the right to respond with violence even though they are advocating for you, personally, to die. If they cross the line to immediate incitement, then you're supposed to let the police and the lawyers do their jobs.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are the police in Saudi Arabia more concerned with protecting the state from its own citizens and enforcing a particularly stupid mutation of Islam than they are with protecting the people? That may be related.
To be fair, the concept of retributive justice isn't exactly unheard of in the western world either. Just look at pretty much any discussion about the death penalty, and you'll get an example.
Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.![]()
Retributive Justice has been a thing for a long time. Some have argued that all Laws and the concept of Public Order is basically just Appeal to Force magnified.
![]()
![]()
There's a lot of countries where the Police basically exist as a stick to keep dissent down with the purpose of enhancing State power. Britain and the United States are pretty big exceptions to this.
As for Saudi Arabia's warped Islamic theology - damn, where to even begin? The Wahhabis (they call themselves Salafists IIRC) are absolutely shithouse rat insane. They're pretty much THE reason Islamic fundamentalism is a huge problem. Think the Westboro Baptist Church with Oil Money. That's how bad it is.
Edited by TechPriest90 on Nov 23rd 2018 at 2:23:14 PM
I hold the secrets of the machine.I hope you can see why I have little faith in sticking to the ideal of "maintaining the moral high ground" even in the face of people calling for genocide, openly racist laws, criminalizing any form of abortion with the death penalty, and other such despicable things.
The costs of a free and just society.
Edited by MarqFJA on Nov 23rd 2018 at 10:32:38 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
The Wahhabis appropriated the term, much like how Neo-Nazis call themselves the Alt-Right. Actual Salafists hate them just as much as everyone else.
Actual Salafists generally tend to be Modernists - in that they basically try to reconcile the old teachings of Islam to the present day. Still quite conservative, but they're usually not psychotic. The Wahhabis on the other hand....
I hold the secrets of the machine.Absolutely - and yes, it's entirely the case that our belief in the rule of law tends to be driven by people who can count on the more-equal-than-others protection of the law, such as myself.
That said, Trump (and to a lesser extent atrocities like Guantanamo Bay, which happened because the people with the guns refused to obey the law) is an example of what happens when respect for that rule breaks down. Trump is a living manifestation of contempt for the law, and therefore, he's a rather strong argument that we might want to go back to respecting the system. An amendment to redefine the First Amendment might be a good idea, but it's highly impractical unless we can first break the Republicans as a party. 'til then, we work with what we've got.
The alternative is to give power to armed gangs who are strong enough to resist the police. And you know that if we did that, the gangs who won the ensuing power struggle would be the neo-Nazis and others who are our version of the Wahhabis.
It's a bit of a mixed bag for me. On one hand, you have to ask what good free speech is if it only protects ideologies that are popular. On the other hand I'm of the opinion that tolerance should not mean letting the devil have the pulpit.
Leviticus 19:34The law exists to serve people. People do not exist to serve the law.
The demand that people must bend to law rather than law bend to people always comes from those who benefit most from disproportionate legal protection.
Imagine a game of Monopoly, except the rules state that the player who plays the Car token gets to start with $20,000 and all other players start with $200. Of all the tokens on the board, which one's player do you think is the most likely to insist that the rules are the rules for a reason and should be followed?
Edited by TobiasDrake on Nov 23rd 2018 at 12:55:45 PM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Believe me, I've noticed.
People aren't cancer cells. And I really shouldn't need to say that.
Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.

"Yeah, but my point is, complacency is the worst move with those scum. The only way to handle them is staying vigilant. "
People kept saying this but is just a too broad and generic wayt o said something: you CANT always be vigilant about stuff, specially if that stuff morphed into another, nobody expect nazism, facism and other to creep into memes, neither a SWJ movement and so long.
At one point you will get blind spots and the US got one.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"