Page 730 of 766 FirstFirst ... 230630680720728729730731732740 ... LastLast
Results 11,665 to 11,680 of 12247

Thread: In The News Thread

  1. #11665
    All Star silvergun's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    6,115
    Thanks
    7,283
    Thanked 2,082 Times in 1,311 Posts
    Bed bath and beyond tiki torches: For when you want your white supremacist rally to be real white.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to silvergun For This Useful Post:

    jays4life19 (08-13-2017)

  3. #11666
    Blue Chip Prospect
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,446
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 236 Times in 169 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobthe4th View Post
    Well it obviously is debatable, otherwise everyone would agree with you.
    In America right now any conservative voice/opinion or what is even perceived as such in a public setting there is an attempt to suppress and meet with violence. It isn't debatable. Progressive liberals/extreme left are the largest threat of fascism in America. It isn't even close.

  4. #11667
    Orioles Hangout Admin Boxcar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    22,201
    Thanks
    2,107
    Thanked 7,919 Times in 4,939 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by KingKat View Post
    Cool and a couple of months ago when Richard Spencer was on the receiving end of an inconsequent punch you were pearl clutching with the best of them talking about bad it is that people might express sympathy for someone committing an act of violence. Now someone drives a car into a crowd and you make sure to point out how you can understand how they got to that point.
    You know, for someone who loves to portray themselves as an intellectual, you don't seem to be very good at thinking.

    Richard Spencer has never employed violence towards anyone.

    Antifa showed up to that protest with the intention of starting violence, like they've done at literally every other event they've tried to ruin, and cops are ordered to stand down and do nothing.

    Do you see the difference there, you fucking morality warrior? My god, your holier than thou attitude is nauseating. Try harder next time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Dinger View Post
    All black people have an obligation to their own people to not further their own systematic oppression. Go fuck yourself.

  5. #11668
    Orioles Hangout Admin Boxcar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    22,201
    Thanks
    2,107
    Thanked 7,919 Times in 4,939 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobthe4th View Post
    Well it obviously is debatable, otherwise everyone would agree with you.
    You are aware that these people carry around banners with Stalin's face and often wave hammer and sickle flags? Stalin was worse than Hitler.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Dinger View Post
    All black people have an obligation to their own people to not further their own systematic oppression. Go fuck yourself.

  6. #11669
    Blue Chip Prospect
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,446
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 236 Times in 169 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Boxcar View Post
    You are aware that these people carry around banners with Stalin's face and often wave hammer and sickle flags? Stalin was worse than Hitler.
    Not even taking into consideration what he did to his own people, what Stalin and the red Army did to Poland and its people in WW2 is on par with the German atrocities of WW2. Stalin was a piece of shit.

  7. #11670
    Moderator KingKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    17,187
    Thanks
    14,340
    Thanked 5,941 Times in 3,790 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Boxcar View Post

    Richard Spencer has never employed violence towards anyone.

    Antifa showed up to that protest with the intention of starting violence, like they've done at literally every other event they've tried to ruin, and cops are ordered to stand down and do nothing.
    And once again the point misses your head by a mile. I wasn't defending antifa nor attacking Spencer for that matter. I was just pointing out your blatant hypocrisy. Months earlier you got mad at lefties who didn't really mind Spencer getting a punch because they felt he deserved it. That was just a punch. That was nothing but here you are expressing the same kind of sentiment about a guy getting run over. "Gee, it's kind of bad that someone got killed but you can't really blame a guy for snapping." And I'm the one who is nauseating. O.K. there bud.
    Last edited by KingKat; 08-13-2017 at 04:37 PM.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to KingKat For This Useful Post:

    intentional wok (08-13-2017)

  9. #11671
    All Star silvergun's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    6,115
    Thanks
    7,283
    Thanked 2,082 Times in 1,311 Posts
    I guess I just don't feel like white supremacists (or any similar movement) should even have the right to protest.

    I appreciate free speech and the need to support it even if you disagree with it, but if your mandate is advocating racial genocide, guess what: Fuck your rights.

  10. #11672
    All Star z3r0s's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    5,362
    Thanks
    931
    Thanked 1,398 Times in 987 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by silvergun View Post
    I guess I just don't feel like white supremacists (or any similar movement) should even have the right to protest.

    I appreciate free speech and the need to support it even if you disagree with it, but if your mandate is advocating racial genocide, guess what: Fuck your rights.
    If you don't support free speech for your worst enemy, you don't support free speech.
    It's one of those annoying things about it, but its important.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to z3r0s For This Useful Post:

    jaysblue (08-13-2017)

  12. #11673
    Moderator KingKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    17,187
    Thanks
    14,340
    Thanked 5,941 Times in 3,790 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by z3r0s View Post
    If you don't support free speech for your worst enemy, you don't support free speech.
    It's one of those annoying things about it, but its important.
    Have you ever read about the pardox of tolerance? It puts a name to something that many observe and sense but fail to articulate: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

  13. #11674
    All Star z3r0s's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    5,362
    Thanks
    931
    Thanked 1,398 Times in 987 Posts
    I haven't, I'll give it a read.

  14. #11675
    All Star z3r0s's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    5,362
    Thanks
    931
    Thanked 1,398 Times in 987 Posts
    Wiki link didn't really offer much depth in the topic, but I don't find it particularly convincing myself. Seems to me that the correct approach to encountering intolerance is to use your freedom of speech to argue against it. I honestly believe the majority of people are going to be convinced by arguments from the tolerant side vs the intolerant side, and good arguments against it are pretty easy to make.

    I particularly like this line in the Wiki link; "it seems contradictory to extend freedom of speech to extremists who... if successful, ruthlessly suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree,". I see this applying to both the alt-right and the progressive left these days. Both extremes are quick to label dissenters as extremists of the other side who don't deserve a platform.

    The way I see it, denying free speech to someone who you have deemed 'extreme' only leads to the other side doing the same thing. And a denial of free speech will always 'creep' to less and less extreme ideas. I don't really believe anything outside free speech for all will lead to a truly free society. (but who the fuck knows if I'm right or not)

  15. #11676
    Moderator KingKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    17,187
    Thanks
    14,340
    Thanked 5,941 Times in 3,790 Posts
    I get what you're saying Z3R0S and it all seems very noble but I have long since stopped believing. I think it's a very utopic, way too idealistic way of looking at the world. I was reading recently about the history of Twitter and I think it's pretty interesting to look at in the context of these questions. And yeah the source was Buzzfeed but the article is pretty thorough about Twitter's history and it leaves some room for interpretation. Twitter was founded (by former Google employees) with radical free speach in mind. This would be the wild west of the Internet. Well it didn't take long for Twitter to become a place where it was remarkably easy to harrass and abuse people en masse. Twitter was the anti safe space and it became to quote the below article "a honey pot for assholes". So Twitter had to start improvising rules on the fly and their enforcement was a mass of contradictions because they were improvising on the fly. This all would have been a lot simpler if they had been willing to draw implemented strong policys and regulations from the start and drew some lines in the sand. When people's ability to make rape threats on Twitter becomes a free speech issue, to me and maybe this makes me a libtard or whatever, but again to me that's when you've lost the plot as far a free speech is concerned. There's no societal benefit to protecting that and no, you're not going to end it by merely making anti rape threat arguments.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarz...r-failure-to-s

  16. #11677
    MVP
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    11,610
    Thanks
    608
    Thanked 2,593 Times in 1,930 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by z3r0s View Post
    Wiki link didn't really offer much depth in the topic, but I don't find it particularly convincing myself. Seems to me that the correct approach to encountering intolerance is to use your freedom of speech to argue against it. I honestly believe the majority of people are going to be convinced by arguments from the tolerant side vs the intolerant side, and good arguments against it are pretty easy to make.

    I particularly like this line in the Wiki link; "it seems contradictory to extend freedom of speech to extremists who... if successful, ruthlessly suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree,". I see this applying to both the alt-right and the progressive left these days. Both extremes are quick to label dissenters as extremists of the other side who don't deserve a platform.

    The way I see it, denying free speech to someone who you have deemed 'extreme' only leads to the other side doing the same thing. And a denial of free speech will always 'creep' to less and less extreme ideas. I don't really believe anything outside free speech for all will lead to a truly free society. (but who the fuck knows if I'm right or not)
    I'm not sure there's any right answer to this stuff. Clearly if free speech was reduced, it would have to be done in a very limited and targeted way. Ultimately, I feel like the way to handle this is by increasing the stakes for people when they express their opinions, rather than limiting their ability to do so. For example, if people are not allowed to hide behind anonymity (especially on the Internet), they will almost certainly be far more likely to act in a civilized manner. Clearly you will still get some of this nonsense happening, but it would hopefully be reduced in scale. I also think, if you say something that is clearly designed to suggest or promote violence, and someone acts because of it, both the offender and inciter should be charged.

  17. #11678
    All Star z3r0s's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    5,362
    Thanks
    931
    Thanked 1,398 Times in 987 Posts
    shit posting on the internet is not really what I argue about when I talk about free speech as I honestly don't see it as a real issue.

    Regarding threats, direct threats of violence are, and I feel should, be illegal. I'm not going to make any arguments that rape threats should be protected speech, even online.

    I will say that its a hard thing to really curb, because most of the trolls that go around making them will just start a new account once they get banned.

    Free speech online gets ugly, I just don't see it as a big enough issue to get worked up about. Don't go on twitter... its dumb. Don't take anything anyone says anonymously on the internet that seriously.

  18. #11679
    Moderator KingKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    17,187
    Thanks
    14,340
    Thanked 5,941 Times in 3,790 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Abomination View Post
    I'm not sure there's any right answer to this stuff. Clearly if free speech was reduced, it would have to be done in a very limited and targeted way. Ultimately, I feel like the way to handle this is by increasing the stakes for people when they express their opinions, rather than limiting their ability to do so. For example, if people are not allowed to hide behind anonymity (especially on the Internet), they will almost certainly be far more likely to act in a civilized manner. Clearly you will still get some of this nonsense happening, but it would hopefully be reduced in scale. I also think, if you say something that is clearly designed to suggest or promote violence, and someone acts because of it, both the offender and inciter should be charged.
    Back in the days before the Internet, a lot of print media came to the conclusion that there was a benefit to refusing the publication of anonymous letters to the editor. That if a live person with an identity, a family, a job, whatever, wasn't comfortable standing behind it, it probably wasn't worth publishing and was also more likely to just be complete bullshit. As we transitioned to social media / the internet, we find ourselves in a position where we're having to learn these same lessons again.

  19. #11680
    All Star z3r0s's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    5,362
    Thanks
    931
    Thanked 1,398 Times in 987 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Abomination View Post
    I'm not sure there's any right answer to this stuff. Clearly if free speech was reduced, it would have to be done in a very limited and targeted way. Ultimately, I feel like the way to handle this is by increasing the stakes for people when they express their opinions, rather than limiting their ability to do so. For example, if people are not allowed to hide behind anonymity (especially on the Internet), they will almost certainly be far more likely to act in a civilized manner. Clearly you will still get some of this nonsense happening, but it would hopefully be reduced in scale. I also think, if you say something that is clearly designed to suggest or promote violence, and someone acts because of it, both the offender and inciter should be charged.
    Yeah its a tough issue. I like my anonymity on the internet, but I like to think I'm not a complete d-bag while doing it. I get scared posting anything controversial on FB tho because I like in a small town and if someone decided what I post is racist or sexist it could affect my job or my company. It won't matter if i actually AM racist or sexist (or what I said actually qualifies as those things), the accusation is enough to cause real damage.

    Tough issue to be sure.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •