Let's hope for the sweet relieve of cleansing nuclear fire! If we are lucky it might happen soon!
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm also worried about anti-fascist and the left who are advocating for use of violence. Not even talk about their pro censorship tendencies which was very prominently showed this week.
Just when did the world start to go to insanity?
Comment has been collapsed.
Im pro free speech, but I also don't think censoring Nazism is necessarily bad. We especially shouldn't preach and teach white nationalism at universities.
And yeah, voilence isn't good, and while it's sometimes necessary, here it's not. But if these people can't open preach thier bigotry without fear of being punched, I have no sympathy, because it's people like them that make me and tohers have to fear for our lives.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you are advocating for violence against these people? Just for using their rights of free speech?
Comment has been collapsed.
And yeah, voilence isn't good, and while it's sometimes necessary, here it's not.
I'm saying I have no sympathy for those who receive voilence in return for hate speech.
Comment has been collapsed.
Potentially violent counter protest? Knowing the tactics and history of the people against these right leaning groups it was pretty clear that things could end up badly...
Comment has been collapsed.
You're literally blaming this horrific TERRORIST attack on the leftist counter-protestors and not the right-wing fascists who held their rally?
Does that mean you blame non-Muslims when radical ones commit terrorism? I bet not.
Comment has been collapsed.
If they hadn't been there in first place and right had their peace to get it over with. So yes they are absolutely at fault.
Comment has been collapsed.
#NotAllMusl..
Oh, wait, wrong hashtag.
#NotAllRightwingers
Comment has been collapsed.
Just for using their rights of free speech?
More like, for all the other laws they're breaking in the process. Hate speech, harassment, slander, etc are all protected by free speech, yes- that however just means the government can't file criminal charges on them; the individual being targeted, however, can still file civil charges. Of course, direct, targeted threats toward individuals are another matter, as they actually aren't protected by free speech, in addition to legally classifying as assault, which is a criminal charge.
I'm not going to get into the broader topic of what's being discussed, my intent is only to address the fact that your "just for using their rights of free speech" comment was, bluntly, asinine- at least, within a context that relates to direct interactions [as seems to be the intended topic, by way of "because it's people like them that make me and tohers have to fear for our lives."].
As far as interfering with the private gatherings of groups or individuals, no, that's ridiculous in either direction, unless you're to the point of organized, open confrontation [ie, a war]. While some semblance of reasonability still exists, the intuitive thing to do is to go as far away as possible- at least, after you've actively encouraged them to freely hold their rallies upon private land you own, which just happens to be across an unstable cliffside.
Even while interpretations may differ [between us] as to what the current subtopic is, hardline responses are generally inadvisable for topics of this nature. Especially as even within the other interpretation, your point has issue: You'll find plenty who'll push for tighter restrictions toward hate speech, without dipping into censorship and restrictions on free speech; Much like how assault is already a crime, it'd be easy to add or emphasize criminalization elements toward other dedicated, targeted verbal attack forms [based solely within hate speech].
Having a narrow list of legally recognized intrinsic traits that are at least minimally protected from extremist personal attacks wouldn't in any way restrict freedom of speech's allowance toward untargetted or personalized forms of verbal hatred. Saying, for example, that "the color of one's skin isn't something related to politics or personal perspective and as such individuals should have certain personal protections against mistreatment under that basis" isn't only sensible, it's the foundation of basically every equality law we have. Don't confuse the government taking away freedom with the government protecting freedoms. Much like the "if you let gay people marry, people will marry their pets" argument, it's an irrational leap of logic to put such things together under the same umbrella, despite their surface similarity.
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem I have with this argument is the ever loosening definition of "Nazism", "white nationalism", and "bigotry." Those folks exist in small numbers, but I'm tired of this broad brush -- I'd call it hyperbole, but I fear that most of the left actually believes it. I'd much rather have no restrictions on speech than let anyone, much less today's left, decide what is unacceptable or "hate speech" unworthy of protection under the first enumerated freedom in the bill of rights.
And it shouldn't need to be said, but of course I, along with every conservative I know, read, watch, or listen to, condemn any violent act, committed by people with views on either side of the divide. I wish I could say the same for the liberals I know, but sadly, I can't. Just as you are demonstrating.
Comment has been collapsed.
Believing that we don't know (m)any good people with differing opinions from ourselves is a common experience for people of all political beliefs, as the manner in which we choose to affiliate, understand, and recall our relationships is colored by our world views. It is a self fulfilling prophecy, but also an epiphenomenon of numerous biases, cognitive distortions, and self-esteem maintenance. I sometimes like to think that if the zeitgeist were less politically polarized, then perhaps the thinking "I haven't met a good person with an opposing political viewpoint" would be less pervasive.
Comment has been collapsed.
Surely that's the insanity of it though, the people painted as 'the left' in America would be centre-right anywhere else. There's always a reaction against the established government as they wind down but insanely this seems to been held up as a backlash against the left because Obama was somehow... left-wing? Beyond the headache-inducing concept when your politics are viewed through such a slanted prism it's not surprising standard ways of describing and dealing with the world start to creak a bit.
Everyone from the outside sees this as a civil war within the right-wing and yeah, the people on the furthest extent are going to be painted as on the extremes because a lot of them are frankly. When an elected government's 'Chief Strategist' is Steve Bannon can that even seriously be questioned?
Comment has been collapsed.
But Obama was staunchly left-wing, in some ways.
Don't you remember how all these controversies started?
Comment has been collapsed.
Anyone who wants to educate me is always welcome cause I cannot think of a single Obama policy that could be considered genuinely leftist. Everything he did seemed designed to do just enough to stop companies flat out ignoring the absolute poorest while leaving more than enough wiggle room to keep exploiting people in the name of the free market. Classic neoliberalism with a slightly smiling face.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, not really any policies, but a failure of leadership, and I say this as a disappointed former Obama supporter.
Comment has been collapsed.
What Universities are teaching white nationalism? Most people in the education system are liberals...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/6/liberal-professors-outnumber-conservatives-12-1/
Hell, wasn't there just some college campus in Washington state that was taken over by the BLM group - fighting against some non real racial injustice committed by a liberal professor?
Comment has been collapsed.
I was assuming that censorship reffered to the protests, fights and bans towards white nationalists speakers at universities.
And I'm not sure what you're referring too in Washington, but I wouldn't be suprised.
Comment has been collapsed.
The Washington thing was the Evergreen State University - although admittedly it is a few months old.
I understand what you meant now, I appreciate you clarifying, I misread it.
The problem with censorship is really this (in my mind) - if you want to ban some type of speech, like 'white nationlism' then you are suggesting that it is okay to have 'black nationalism' speech. If you want to roll all of that up into a term like 'hate speech' then that term has to be clearly defined under law... or you run the risk of prosecuting innocent people under 'hate speech' laws who merely challenging ideas and not making hateful comments. I don't think we are capable of making such a law.
Canada passed M103 (An Anti-Islamophobia law), and recently had its first two arrests:
Comment has been collapsed.
This is the only really good article I've read about what happened at Evergreen surrounding the Day of Absence. Most of it's coverage in the media was extremely biased and intentionally spun the information. This article is long but it's really amazing and important, and I think it's very related because it has to do with white supremacists trying to bully a liberal college town, and bad media coverage.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/evergreen-state-college-another-side_us_598cd293e4b090964295e8fc?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003
Comment has been collapsed.
Probably the most relevant part of the article: The double standard has been astonishing, as we watch people who claim to be “even-handed” in their politics uphold the “free speech” of white supremacists, while condemning as “intolerant radical leftists” those who exercise their own free speech to challenge hate speech. What has been happening at Evergreen is a conflict between different parties and beliefs, with both sides exercising free speech. Nevertheless, some media have equated having an unpopular political opinion on a campus to being a marginalized racial or gender “minority.” Radio host Bryan Fischer lionizes Bret Weinstein as “Rosa Parks” for “refusing to go the back of the diversity bus.”
A diversity of ideological viewpoints is not the same as diversity of identities. Having a political viewpoint that doesn’t match the majority viewpoint on a campus does not lead to a shorter life span, nor does it create fear of being assaulted in a routine police stop, or lead to higher suicide rates. Identities connected to race or LGBTQ status do all these things in 21st-century America.
As one Evergreen staff member described the student protesters’ decisions, “it is clear that if you are not a white college student, you will certainly pay for your mistakes long after the 30 minutes have passed and be described in terms that cement the fear people have about angry or insistent people of color. No one will ever focus on what the reasons for that anger might be, but rather the fact that they dared to voice it.”
Evergreen is not the first place where white moderates have criticized people fighting against injustice more than the injustice itself. These words from Martin Luther King’s 1963 “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” were never truer than today:
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods.’Comment has been collapsed.
If you don't think that Huffpo is an extremely biased source as well, I truly don't know how I could ever help you understand..
Comment has been collapsed.
The article was written by actual evergreen professors who were there.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, not even an independent source? Even more biased. Great. I guess that leaves us with the good ole' he-said-she-said...
Comment has been collapsed.
Technically yes an independent source, not affiliated with any publication, they wrote an article that was published in the huffing-ton post. Also, more importantly a firsthand source, not a secondhand source. Secondhand sources bring us closer to hearsay. But what are you arguing here? That you've decided an article is biased before even reading it? Congrats, you're right. If you wanted to set aside your confirmation bias and give it a fair shot though, I still think it's the best article I've read on the subject.
Comment has been collapsed.
But what are you arguing here?
Probably just that Huffington Post is garbage and not to be taken seriously.
Huffington Post mocked American killed by North Korea
The Huffington Post ran a similar article before Warmbier’s death, titled “North Korea Proves Your White Male Privilege Is Not Universal.”
The author, La Sha, blamed Warmbier’s alleged theft of the poster on his “reckless gall” that could only come from him being “socialized first as a white boy, and then as a white man in this country.”
“The high of privilege told him that North Korea’s history of making examples out of American citizens who dare challenge their rigid legal system in any way was no match for his alabaster American privilege,” La Sha continued.
I can't link to the original article because they altered it after the huge backlash without any indication of the changes in the article.
Comment has been collapsed.
They've also won a Pulitzer among other awards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HuffPost#Awards
Even if they have published some bad articles that's not somehow proof that they never publish good articles. This whole argument is ridiculous anyways. I could say the article you cited is biased against the Huffington Post. It' not like anyone has some magical connection to objective truth, articles are written by humans, and humans all have some form of bias. What matters is the objectivity presented in the language and writing of an article in and of itself, and the insights and truths of the actual matter the article presents, as opposed to, say, lies and obfuscation.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also that article you posted shows a couple clear signs of bias. one being that it says, "Warmbier was brutalized and terrorized while imprisoned by the rogue regime" when the actual doctors who examined him found no evidence of physical abuse or torture. The huffington post article is an opinion article and the one you cited cherry picks from it to use the parts that support it's headline the most, but it was written over a year after the huffington post article, when Warmbier died, with the knowledge of hindsight. The headline "Huffington Post mocked American killed by North Korea" implies they were mocking him after he died, which is a misrepresentation. These are examples of using leading language to support a bias.
None of that really has anything to do with my original post though, because I really don't give a shit about huffington post, I just liked an article that happened to be published by them. Being familiar with the actual events that happened at Evergreen myself because I'm a local, I saw how they were misrepresented and sensationalized by the national media using more biased language (college craziness, Student takeover of Evergreen State College, etc). This article sets the story straight and says what actually happened. Now you can try to color me as a leftist and use that as a way of rationalizing ignoring my recommendation, but that's only showing your own bias. Read the article or don't, go stick your head in the sand, I don't really care, if you're too set in you're beliefs to want to look at anything you can label as leftist, you probably won't believe it anyways.
But for everyone else who is interested it's a very good article.
Comment has been collapsed.
So what if they won a Pulitzer ? Somebody saw fit to give Bob Dylan a Nobel prize for literature.
What matters is the objectivity presented in the language and writing of an article in and of itself, and the insights and truths of the actual matter the article presents, as opposed to, say, lies and obfuscation.
You mean obfuscation as in let's say changing a controversial article without being upfront about it ?
And I seem to remember the doctors who examinded him concluded that he had most likely been exposed to an oxigen deprivation chamber.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you can discount the Pulitzer prize and Nobel prize that easily, what makes the publication you cited any more reliable or worth paying attention to? All that tells me is that you have the personal opinion that Bob Dylan isn't a good writer, but many people would disagree.
As for death by oxygen deprivation chamber, that would be speculation, they really don't know exactly what caused his death. He did have brain damage consistent with long periods of oxygen deprivation. But they found no evidence of beatings or strangulation either. Doctors said that type of brain injury was usually seen as a result of cardiopulmonary arrest. The "brutalized and terrorized" line actually came from Otto's dad at a press conference, not any official report. Other people have speculated that he could have been drowned or resuscitated, but there is no real evidence of that either. He was held for months in NK after he went into a coma, so it's also possible evidence for the cause of his death would be gone by the time he was returned. Even NKs claim that he contracted botulism and then was given a sleeping pill is possible. Doctors found no sign of botulism when they finally got to examine him, but it could have cleared out of his system before he was released. So it's all speculation, perhaps his cardiac arrest was the result of some non physical torture, perhaps he had a panic attack, perhaps it was for other reasons entirely. It's impossible to know, because the only real source on what happened is the North Korean government and they have too much conflict of interest to be fully trusted.
Anyways, my point was that since there is no real way to tell, but that article says he was brutalized and terrorized, it's using language that leads you towards a certain interpretation of events that implies a bias. But that's still less telling than my other point, that they imply that the article was mocking a dead man even though it was published over a year earlier, just after he was sentenced and well before his death. It also missed the major point of the original article, using a small segment that sounded the worst out of context, and used it to discount the entire publication, even though it was an opinion piece.
And this is all terribly off topic and derailing the conversation very far from what I originally was trying to talk about, a really good article that I assume you still haven't bothered to read.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you can discount the Pulitzer prize and Nobel prize that easily, what makes the publication you cited any more reliable or worth paying attention to? All that tells me is that you have the personal opinion that Bob Dylan isn't a good writer, but many people would disagree.
I didn't choose that particular article because it is such an amazing article but because it was the first article adressing the topic I found.
In retrospect I should have probably rather used waybackmachine or a similar website to find the unedited article by La Sha and let that article speak for itself because it's race baity as hell. And while it may be an opinion piece by printing it and giving that person an outlet to spew their garbage Huffington Post perpetuates hate in the pursuit of cheap clicks. There is a reason why respected newspapers like the New York Times or the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wouldn't give people like Alex Jones from Infowars a column. By printing what they have to say they give those people credibility and it undermines the journalistic integrity of the newspaper.
And about Bob Dylan, I actually like him. He's a great musician and a poet but in my opinion the Nobel prize for literature is ment for literature, not music. If we go this direction in 30 years we will have Nobel prizes for literature for One Direction and Justin Bieber.
For me that choice was nothing more than a desperate try by the Nobel Committee to stay relevant.
While there is still room for speculation if you look at the video statement by him it's pretty obvious that those were not his own words but rather a prepared text that was given to him to read. And there are plenty of ways to torture somebody without using physical violence. That ranges from sleep deprivation over simulated drowning to oxigen deprivation. And even the United States are known to use torture to gain intelligence so why would North Korea be above it to set an example ?
Frankly I don't see the big difference between mocking a man that is about to die and a man that has died. That doesn't change the fact that the article was highly racist and toxic and way below the standards professional journalism should hold itself to. I wouldn't be surprised about such hatemongering from a silly little blog but it has no place in a professional publication.
But on what I conceive to be your main point I have to admit you are correct. This single digusting article by a hateful person does not prove that every other article published by Huffington Post is as bad as this one. It is still theoretically possible for them to publish a decent article but it also shows me where on the political spectrum to place them and to easily identify their bias.
And no. I have not read the article and I do not intend to. That's not because I think every word printed by Huffington Post if per definition a lie but simply because College riots on the other side of the great pond are just not relevant to me. I've already wasted way more time on this topic than I intended to and I'm certainly not going to waste more.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, you've made some points, hatemongering is strong but yes it's race baity. They also didn't know he was going to die at the time, and acknowledged his sentence was overly severe. I think they had a fair point in saying that it's foolish to steal in north Korea knowing they kind of hate Americans there and are just looking for an excuse to prosecute you, but that's also easy to say in hindsight and kind of like flogging a dead horse, and they are assuming and projecting a lot about his character, so yeah I agree it's kind of a dumb article. Is songwriting literature? I mean it's writing, maybe they didn't have a songwriting category and wanted to acknowledge him for the writing he had done so did some slight hedging to get him in? I'm being brief because the time wastey bit. Feel free to not respond, I won't be offended. I really only wanted to talk about the article I posted, preferably in the ways in which it's relevant to what happened in Charlottseville. But since you aren't reading the article, you should at least know that saying "a college rioted" is a severe misrepresentation of what happened.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think they had a fair point in saying that it's foolish to steal in north Korea.
Well Duh :P I would go so far to say that even going there is foolish, particularly when you're from a country that has constant beef with North Korea because you're quite likely going to end up being used as a political pawn.
But since you aren't reading the article, you should at least know that saying "a college rioted" is a severe misrepresentation of what happened.
Point taken.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's a difference between "having no sympathy" and "condoning" something.
I didn't see Jennifer condoning violence at all.
I wouldn't feel bad at all seeing a white supremacist punched in the head, but that doesn't mean I'd do it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe personal responsibility and leading by example is enough in that regard.
Jennifer has shown that personal responsibility by not condoning or excusing violence from herself.
Anything beyond that is someone else's choice.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the issue is that sometimes the ideas someone is promoting can be a form of violence. What if a white supremacist is exercising free speech to convince other people to hurt or mistreat people because of their race. Is it okay to punch them to shut them up?
Or would it be better to let them keep talking until they convince someone to go do harm to innocents?
Also think about how well appeasement worked during world war 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement#The_conduct_of_appeasement.2C_1937.E2.80.9339
"By August 1939 Hitler was convinced that the democratic nations would never put up any effective opposition to him. He expressed his contempt for them in a speech he delivered to his Commanders in Chief: "Our enemies have leaders who are below the average. No personalities. No masters, no men of action… Our enemies are little worms. I saw them in Munich."[21]
On 1 September 1939, German forces invaded Poland; Britain and France joined the war against Germany. Following the German invasion of Norway, opinion turned against Chamberlain's conduct of the war; he resigned, and on 10 May 1940 Winston Churchill became Prime Minister."
Comment has been collapsed.
No you are right, not all right wingers are Nazis, but in Virginia there were white supremacist groups protesting, probably among other right wingers. And there are plenty of right wingers who display varying amounts of racism, without identifying as white supremacists. Left Wingers too. I'm talking about that because of the white supremacists and members of the alt right involved with what happened in Virginia, and ones who have turned up at other colleges.
I also think there are varying levels of incitement, for example you might not outright say people of a certain race should be murdered, but if you say they are inferior and the cause of all our problems or something like that, you're spreading hate rhetoric that is a step towards incitement of violence. I don't believe in using violence except as self defense, so I think I agree with you. I believe in peaceful protest, but again often violence is done to peaceful protesters, whether it's pepper spray or a police baton or a fire hose. At some point a violent response is just a form of self defense, and in the current state of affairs peaceful protestors often need to be prepared for violent confrontations.
I've also seen actual nazi's walking the streets, threatening people and making people feel unsafe, and I've seen large groups of people reacting to violently drive them out. I've had arguments with people who thought there was nothing wrong with killing a known neo-nazi, because I think any rhetoric that boils down to arguing that certain groups should be attacked or killed are wrong, but at the same time I sympathize, and I think the groups of people that formed to drive neo-nazi's out of their communities were doing the right thing. Why? How is this not hypocritical? Because of the violence and hateful rhetoric that Neo-nazi's represent and historically practice. For the same reason I agree with someone who says that they have no sympathy for someone who can't spread hate speech without fear of being attacked, because for many people hate speech is not just words, but a very real threat of violence.
As for all of the talk about freedom of speech being attacked and censorship at college campuses, I think it's unfair to call it censorship when it's a peaceful disruption. Protest is another part of free speech, and the right to free speech is not the same thing as a right to be given a public platform to speak in front of an audience at a college. Not everyone should be given a public platform to speak, and not everyone is given a voice in that decision making. When people come to protest a speaker, that's part of the conversation, it's much more accurate to call it a public argument than censorship. If a public speaker is promoting dangerous ideas, sometimes a disruption is the only way to speak out against it, and it's not much different than a crowd booing an offensive speaker off a stage. It's a form of protest that has been used for a very long time, probably as long as there have been public speakers, and an essential part of free speech.
Comment has been collapsed.
Most often white nationalism is just a trying to put a nicer public face on white supremacy, and their ideas show a willful ignorance of the actual history of racism. Like people who talk about white genocide just have their heads up their own asses, they act like racial integration and equality is a plot to murder them. At best they are paranoid as a result of listening to pseudo-academic studies.
Also saying you are stupid would not be hate speech, saying your entire race was genetically inferior would be. I mean, you are right that freedom of speech is important and that censorship is bad because once we start censoring one group, they could use the same tactics to censor us later. It ends up bad for everyone. But I feel like what we actually disagree on is the definition of incitement. So I'm curious, what do you believe constitutes incitement? Direct threats only? What about promoting ideologies that promote violence, and that have historically led to violence over and over again?
I have a hard time believing that there isn't some person in the world, not a single group or ideology that you would be against being given a public platform to speak. What would cross the line for you if not Nazis? Terrorists? ISIS? A serial killer? There must be a line. Should we give anyone their own stage and microphone, their own publication, their own TV show? There's always a judgement call about these things, someone has to decide who they want to support, what ideas they want to broadcast. Is there no group whose opinions would be unethical to promote?
Comment has been collapsed.
But I then hope you wouldn't feel bad as well for seeing a young socialist activist getting punched in the head.
Comment has been collapsed.
Depends on what that young socialist activist is preaching.
If he's preaching violence, racism and genocide ... well, gotta admit I wouldn't care too damned much if he got punched in the head.
(kinda sad I had to edit and add the last few words - already got one idiot running around claiming I'm a Nazi).
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, that stinging fear of the dreaded Nazi label...
Depends on what that young socialist activist is preaching.
As long as you're consistent here, all good.
The thing is, I've seen self described white supremacists openly speak out against violence, racism and genocide, so you need to be careful with your classification here.
And still okay with deserving getting punched? Yes? No?
Even worse, I've seen someone getting punched with "NAZI SCUM" for even far less, and I think this is what it really boils down to, what is actually happening out there and not on some theoretical level.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't need to be careful with anything.
I believe in personal responsibility, and take responsibility for my own actions and words.
I'm no more responsible for the next guy than the example I set.
That I'm not one of those reactionaries going around condoning hate and violence is about the best I can do. It's their choice what example to follow, and it's most certainly not my place to force anyone to see things my way.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then we have something in common, I deeply believe in personal responsibility as well..
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe if more people did, we'd have fewer issues (edit: Fucked if I know, though. We're all still animals).
Anyway, cheers.
Comment has been collapsed.
You have a twisted sense of what humans are.
There's no such thing as "personal responsibility" without rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
Control F reveals that the word Nazi has been used 123 times on this page (including me saying it just now)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not a fan of hate speech, and other people shutting that down ain't censorship, they have the freedom of speech too.
And violence shouldn't happen, but I'm honeslty not gonna feel bad about a white nationalist being punched.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, it's not. They have a right to say hatespeech, and others have a right to speak out agaisnt them, that's not censorship. Freedom of speech isn't acceptence of speech.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes it is, they have a right to say it but not to shutdown speeches with thier speech, any shuting down of speech is against the right to speech, especially when they themselves can wait till the end like many have to debate ideas in a civil manner or to call for a debate,
Like this?
Comment has been collapsed.
I would argue that my provided example illustrates how this type of vitriolic discourse is now not only condoned, but encouraged. The results speak for themselves.
Comment has been collapsed.
You have the right to talk over people, you don't have the right to forcibly stop it or arrest them for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not agaisnt the rights of free speech though, maybe principles. Also, they were peacfully counter protesting, so I don't see what your point is.
Comment has been collapsed.
I found a good article on this exact subject that has both sides of the argument represented. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/02/17/heckle . The conclusion of the article is that while heckling and disruption are valid forms of free speech, there are better ways. I think it's important to remember that protest is often in opposition to unjust popular social views, or the views of the state (emphatically so in the case of the founding of the United States) and often the only way for Protest to be effective is for it to be visible. When these views are actively being suppressed by society and those in power, as they will often be, especially the further a society sinks into despotism and bigotry, being disruptive is necessitated. In such cases it's impossible to protest without being disruptive. Likewise civil disobedience, explicitly breaking laws that are unjust, is a valid and necessary form of protest. Therefore, depending on the severity of the issues under protest, sometimes being more disruptive is the appropriate response. I would argue that disrupting the organization of anyone whose views are classist, racist, sexist, etc, any ideology that favors discrimination, is an appropriate response, as it constitutes a direct threat to anyone who is a member of the group being discriminated against. It is, of course, easier to defend the free speech of such a group when you are not a member of any group that has experienced institutionalized discrimination, which is exactly what happens when a group that supports discrimination reaches a certain level of organization and popularity.
Comment has been collapsed.
if you say you are pro free speech and then say you support censoring nazis you arent pro free speech. thats the problem with the left, they love to appear to be pro free speech, but then when someone says anything they disagree with, they categorize it as hate speech and therefore excluded from free speech, which of course it isnt because it is just speech like anything else. supporting free speech requires you to support someones right to say something you despise. anything less dont cut the mustard
Comment has been collapsed.
noun: free speech
the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.
I wonder how long this definition will last :s
Comment has been collapsed.
So you uphold the “free speech” of white supremacists, while condemning leftists who exercise their own free speech to challenge hate speech. Isn't that a double standard? Also, legally free speech doesn't extend to libel, slander, obscenity, "true threats," and speech that incites imminent violence or law-breaking, these are all illegal. White supremacists slander entire races.
Comment has been collapsed.
you arent getting this. yes i uphold the fight to free speech for everyone. i never said people cant disagree with someone elses speech, but you need to define what you mean by "challenge". i was crystal clear in my post. i disagree with censorship. what are you missing?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah but what you are saying is oversimplification. In much of the world Hate speech is illegal, and stopping Nazis from speaking hate speech, which is pretty much their entire Modus operandi, is not the same as "the left" instituting censorship whenever "someone says anything they disagree with". At all.
Comment has been collapsed.
I mean, these people were literal neo nazis. I'm only calling the nazis nazis.
Comment has been collapsed.
This attitude of being against neo nazis and white nationalists?
Comment has been collapsed.
I still support the right to spout hatespeech as a nescarry part of free speech. I also support the right to speak against hate speech.
While I am for free speech, I also don't think countries with rules against hate speech are necessarily wrong or bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you want to cite any other metric, please go ahead, I'm waiting.
You can ask the UN, OECD, IMF etc. and look up their numbers, the facts are pretty obvious.
But maybe you have your own "alternate" facts?
Comment has been collapsed.
How do you get that? I support freedom of speech, which includes the right to speak out agaisnt hatespeech.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, I still support the right to spout hatespeech as a nescarry part of free speech. I also support the right to speak against hate speech.
While I am for free speech, I also don't think countries with rules agaisnt hate speech are necessarily wrong or bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
"I also don't think censoring Nazism is necessarily bad" and that's the start of a road where things go very bad, very fast. A black man convinces 200 KKK members to leave the KKK. How? He talked to them. He befriended them. Dialogue works better than censorship. The reason there's violence nowadays is because people are shortsighted. If it's fine to punch a "Nazi" when anyone gets called a nazi for stupidly inane reasons, then everyone gets punched eventually.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know talking works well. Hitler was a great speaker and had great propagandists which help the spread of Nazism which is why censoring that isn't nesscarrilly wrong imo. The reason theres violence is because of hatred. Media and politcal plays up the battles between the two sides so they hate each other, but I feel hate against actual nazis is justified.
Comment has been collapsed.
Martin Luther King was also a great speaker. A lot of great people in history were great speakers. And they swayed other people.
The reason there's violence is because a climate of "political violence is ok because the other side is X" has become the norm. People are getting labeled as Nazis when they express mildly controversial opinions (and no, I don't mean people like Spencer or the dolts at the KKK, I mean actual, normal people whose only views might be that censoring any non-left leaning speakers is oke doke and yes, I've seen this shit happen). There's an over-use of labels like nazi, racist, sexist, white supremacist, etc nowadays and it's poisoning discourse to an unprecedented level.
I agree we can thank (mostly) the media for this stupidity, adding some political power plays to the mix. But for the fucking love of god, stop calling people shit just because the media convinced you that milk is a new white supremacist symbol or that a cartoon frog is a sign of the second coming of fucking Hitler.
It's maddening.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, there is an over anf misuse of politcal lables, but here is somewhere where it's actually appropriate.
Comment has been collapsed.
For sure. Actual unequivocal Nazis and white supremacists showed up for once.
Comment has been collapsed.
AFAIK, it is a 4chan thing that started because everything remotely connected to the "alt-right" was branded a nazi symbol so they exploited it, with the most blatant usage being during the HWNDU livestream.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll leave you with this, it's a pretty good watch, I'd say.
I personally think that if their points aren't valid, then the people will realize that and the movement will die. The Westboro Baptist Church got a whole lot of media attention, no one censored them and they died out. Well, there's still people there, but the vast, vast, vast majority mocks them. Allow people to speak, regardless of what they'll say. Otherwise you make them look like the victims and through that you'll cause distrust amongst the undecided and the less dedicated, causing the surge in popularity for those that have been censored.
Same with fake news. Trump does stupid shit so often, but when people like J.K. Rowling spread misinformation and then don't even apologize to Trump for her essentially spreading hate, Trump supporters will eat it up and feed their own narrative on why Trump's mistreated.
Comment has been collapsed.
The Westboro church didn't die out though? And there are tons of crazy hateful evangelicals in America.
I'd say most are also agaisnt white nationalism and nro nazism but it still has a large following.
Comment has been collapsed.
If going from 200 members to 70 doesn't show that they're dying out, then I don't know what does count as dying out.
"And there are tons of crazy hateful evangelicals in America." - There are. So? There are tons of people that desire communism, fascism, extreme capitalism, anything that's pretty extreme. What does that have to do with this argument? Those evangelicals haven't achieved anything of note in a very long time now. They're a dying breed. Religion's been on the downfall as of late. They're an older demographic and the simple truth is that they'll literally die out. Some offsprings will still stay, throwing their hate, but for the most part the issue is that they've already been allowed to speak and they got laughed out of the playground. They were never censored. There weren't that many violent acts against them either. Of course the rogue opposing person here and there, but nothing on the level of what we've been having for the past few years.
Neo-nazis don't have power. The end.
White nationalism has been dying out too. You can't expect them to die out immediately. Things like that don't happen. Of course, it's resurged in the media because for some reason the opposition started punching the dying ideal, making it stand up again and start flailing back.
Comment has been collapsed.
Lol. Dying out != dead. Dying out is still presents. And evangelicals have passed a lot of anti lgbt laws on state levels.
And no, white nationalism has been growing since the past election campaigns.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course, it doesn't equal dead. So what? I don't know why that's even an issue. Do you want a small, unharmful presence of a bad thing to remind everyone how awful they are or will you let history repeat itself like with Nazis, where they banned everything and more rebellious people got the courage and started the movement again with more force?
Having a nearly dead community, which can't harm you is way better for you than letting history repeat itself.
You need to allow stuff like that. Keep those fools content. If you don't, they'll become more and more disgruntled and one day they'll snap back at everyone and drag so many people with them into their scheme. It's not ideal, of course, but we all know that almost nothing is.
Those insane evangelicals have had the biggest laurel be their bathroom law. Now, fine, it's not a good thing for your side (personally I don't really care, so I won't get myself involved on either side). But then again, your side managed to get homosexual marriages across the country, which is a much more important, more impactful thing. Yeah, having to go to a different bathroom isn't ideal. But I'd rather have them that than everything that you've accomplished. Life isn't a win/win. It's a win/lose. You just have to make sure that you win more than you lose. And once you've done that you start worrying about how to turn that loss into a new win. They have as valid opinions as anyone else. Once you start dehumanizing them, you've lost them and you've lost a real way of making a difference.
White nationalism has been on the rise. So has black nationalism. One's affected the other in obvious manners. These days, whites get as much shit as blacks. Now, one's getting more flak on the legal side and the other gets it mostly on the social side, sure. I won't debate as to whether either one is actually justified or not, but my point is that everything was going well. Black people started becoming equals and it was slowly, but steadily getting better. Suddenly, people started claiming that there was another race issue. Everything was turned upside down and now there is essentially a race war going on. Everything's racist, sexist, whatever.
And here's where I understood that we've gotten our points across and we've gotten as far as we've gotten.
We're two fundamentally different people. You're more of an idealist, who aims for the top and tries to make it up there as quickly as possible. I, on the other hand, am more of a realist. I never go too far and I might go there slowly.
People like you are a great way to get the ball moving and making sure that people pay attention. People like us though, while not perfect, should be trusted to keep it rolling for you.
Some might say that idealists are the kind that are out of their time and that everything's already been achieved or they've already gotten those topics and issues on their way to being fixed. But, I disagree with that. I think there are a lot of issues that need to be dealt with. Environmental issues, feminism in the middle-east. Things like that. The issues that have been drummed up have been either non-issues or they've been blown out of proportion. They were being fixed, but now because some have started forcing the hands of others, some have started retaliating. This has caused an unnecessary conflict and because of that, progress has been set back. I mean, yeah, those people probably meant well and those who resisted did the same. But what we actually had was good. Really good. It was only getting better. But now... you can see for yourself.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wasn't talking about bathroom laws, more the conversion camps and the fact contracters can legally discriminate lgbt people.
Yes, having nearly dead community that is harmless is no problem, but nazis arent harmless.
I see legitimizing Nazism as just an alternate opinion and letting them grow as dangerous, but I recognize that the allowal of hate speech is nescarry part of free speech and ain't trying to end that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, if disallowing something makes people want it less in your opinion, then fine.
I wonder why weed's such a big deal then or why people turned against the nearly mandatory political correctness.
People see it as a constriction. Humans by nature need freedom. Taking that freedom away causes more problems than it prevents/dissipates.
Comment has been collapsed.
I support the right to spout hatespeech as a nescarry part of free speech. I also support the right to speak against hate speech.
While I am for free speech, I also don't think countries with rules agaisnt hate speech are necessarily wrong or bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
the only way of free speech, is everyone and everything being allowed to speak their mind, sure, what people say may affects their image and so on, but otherwise there is, by definition, no free speech
besides, if you need censorship to win a debate, perhaps it is you who is wrong
Comment has been collapsed.
You're right, maybe the nazis are right. /s
And I'm not advocating censorship.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Im pro free speech, but I also don't think censoring Nazism is necessarily bad."
your quote
Comment has been collapsed.
"I support the right to spout hatespeech as a nescarry part of free speech. I also support the right to speak against hate speech.
While I am for free speech, I also don't think countries with rules agaisnt hate speech are necessarily wrong or bad"
My clarification.
Comment has been collapsed.
What I quoted, is very clearly phrased. I found your clarification to be rather confusing. So I'll go on and ramble about it.
According to wikipedia, Denmark has defined hate speech as:
"(...) defines it as publicly making statements by which a group is threatened, insulted or degraded due to race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation."
However, from this point of view, hate speech is not as much related to freedom of speech, as it is to mere common sense and a matter of security. However, this definition does not address other forms of discrimination, nor discrimination towards groups for other reasons than the stated ones. A flaw in this definition, is also the vagueness and arbitrarity with which a group can claim to have been insulted, which is a commonly exploited point. Also worth noticing, is that faith is in itself also a very vague word. As seen in (linked), faith can be loyalty to an organisation or a dogma, not necessarily a religious one, and according to point 3 (in the link), one just needs to have enough conviction in ones belief, dogmatic or not.
(link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith )
All in all, i find that, in the same way that recycling is not a solution to over-consumerism while often being considered to be so, all this vague talk around "hate speech" is but a simple way of ignoring the real issues that plague our civilisation. On top of that, I find that nowadays it is even common for those who wish to open debate on what some consider to be such issues, to be promptly disregarded as a preacher of doom or a dangerous extremist. So, as I see it, and supported by the above definition and elaboration, this way of dealing with this group of people, is in itself, hate speech.
Comment has been collapsed.
then you are not pro free speech if there is a but
Comment has been collapsed.
I support the right to spout hatespeech as a nescarry part of free speech. I also support the right to speak against hate speech.
While I am for free speech, I also don't think countries with rules agaisnt hate speech are necessarily wrong or bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
and thats the problem, hate speech is defined in a very ambiguous way - that means anything you can disagree with or hurt your feeling can be defined as hate speech.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hatespeech ain't really that vauge. Attacking people through speech based on their race, gender, sexuality, ect.
Comment has been collapsed.
One liberal advocated violence and conservatives run around saying, look, look liberals are violent. Conservatives constantly advocate violence towards liberals thousands of times and the conservatives cheer and then deny. Yes some colleges have tried to censor crazy conservatives, which they shouldn't. But Conservatives are constantly trying to censor liberals. You really need to get better info. Things are happening because big money behind conservatives are pushing things this direction. Liberal progressives are always the ones without big money support.
Comment has been collapsed.
What about this most recent event on Google? I would argue that it was pretty clear that very large and rich company was using it's muscle to force out people who don't have extreme liberal progressive mind. Or at least want to discuss the issues...
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe in freedom of speech for everyone. Google is a corporation. Totally different than state university censoring. Corporations fire people all the time if you say something that might offend someone. You can say anything you want, that is freedom of speech and the government should not jail you for it! Freedom of speech doesn't prevent someone else from firing you or to stop doing business with you for your speech.
Comment has been collapsed.
Using it's muscle, lol, they fired him, not beat him.
Also did you read it? It was so disgustingly misogynistoc and would obviously cause problems with his coworkers.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, but I read enough of condensation to tell that it was to start a discussion. On how to actually effectively change things. Not just forcing diversity by affirmative action. Which btw was encouraged at Google... Until someone leaked the memo on purpose and anti-intellectual media jumped on it...
Comment has been collapsed.
It wasn't really, it basically said men are better than women so women are only hired because of quotas.
Comment has been collapsed.
He basically said that men are less emotional and can easily work in such a place, while woman are more open to depression as they are more emotional... You are fucking sexist.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, he basically said that most of the women hired by Google are there because of affirmative action not based on merit and are possibly harmful to the company.
Comment has been collapsed.
No. I just realized it's pointless. Already wasted an hour, why must I force myself longer? It's 3:22 AM and I woke up at 8 AM the day before.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then why even argue in the first place? If you're going to have controversial opinions and don't want to argue then simply keep them in your bloody head.
Some people, I swear.
Comment has been collapsed.
And men aren't emotional?
The wife is on her period, the kids have bad grades at school, the dog shit on the carpet, the bills are piling up and your favourite team lost.
You think men don't have their work and work relationships affected by their private life too?
I preferred working more with women than men because there generally was less macho bullshit and know-it-all attitudes.
And there was less talk about football too ;)
Sexism works both ways, i.e:
Women are less capable
Men are deemed to be less emotional so they shouldn't show their feelings. Unless they're shouting orders, that seems to be acceptable behaviour when it comes from a man, weirdly.
Comment has been collapsed.
i haven't turned into a man yet (maybe i will try in a few years ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) but i know they are also affected by hormones.
it's like excusing men for being aggressive because they had a testosterone imbalance.
Comment has been collapsed.
By stating women are emotional the implication is that men aren't or aren't as much as women.
Comment has been collapsed.
Suppose women as a group are more emotional, should this play any factor in hiring? I don't think anyone would argue that there are no scientifically-backed generalizations about differences between genders and races, but as long as there's overlap (and there always is), these generalizations shouldn't be used as a tool for hiring (or for much of anything else). They bring no additional value compared to just evaluating the applicant's merit.
Comment has been collapsed.
How do you expect employers to measure if a job applicant is dramatic and psychotic, and are you saying all women fit this description while all men do not? If you have no way to measure it, and if you don't claim that they apply to all women and do not apply to all men, then again this has zero value in evaluating applicants for a job.
Personally, I don't find any of my colleagues - men or women - to show any psychotic signs (luckily), and the more dramatic people happen to be men, me included :-)
Even if you could link to a scientific paper that shows women fall into these categories more (and I seriously doubt you can), as long as it's not total (e.g. "all psychotic people are proven to be women"), it can't provide any value in hiring. For a matter of fact, even if you can find some other attribute which would be totally one-sided, it likely can't be used as a benchmark for hiring, because there are many other attributes that measure the overall merit of an employee / job applicant.
Bottom line: Evaluate merit, forget about gender or race.
Comment has been collapsed.
You seem to have missed my my point. In short, there is absolutely no reason to take gender or race into consideration when hiring or when interviewing candidates, because whatever race- or gender-based differences there are, they are not absolute, i.e. they don't apply to all candidates. For example, men are in general taller than women, but there are plenty of women who are taller than many men. Do you disagree with any of this?
Comment has been collapsed.
And one more thing - I didn't claim you said what is quoted. It's just an example to what one would need to say to meet the claim of totality. It's an example to demonstrate show how ridiculous such claim would be, and if you agree that the claim of totality can't be made, then you basically concede that such differences shouldn't play a role in hiring (unless you think that making hiring a slightly more efficient process is good grounds to disqualify good candidates who happen to be members of the "wrong" race or gender).
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, at least you won't disqualify women from getting to the interview. That is something I guess. Unfortunately your very obvious bias would probably skew your decision toward not hiring women, so I can only hope you're not tasked with such hiring in real life.
As for race, it perfectly illustrates my point and is very applicable to this thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
This entire thread you're basically painting women in a very negative light - "dramatic", "psychotic", "emotional", "just causing problems for other employees", "manipulate or lie". If that's not bias, I don't know what is. My experience working with both men and women for many years is that the chances of finding these attributes in women isn't even 1% higher than in men.
Granted the amount of people I worked with over the years doesn't represent a big enough sample size to come to definite conclusions, but it doesn't need to, because even if you could come up with research that shows that there's 10% higher chance, it still makes zero sense to use it as a tool in hiring instead of evaluating merit. For it to be acceptable tool, you need to prove that 100% of women are always worse in these attributes than any men. Good luck with that.
And if you understood my point about totality, you'd also understand why race does indeed perfectly illustrate it (as do nationality, age and basically any other generic grouping). But you don't seem to want to understand it, and I'm tired of explaining it again and again, so I'll let you say the last word.
Comment has been collapsed.
statistics demonstrate he was right. in 2015 82% of it graduates were men, 18% female or other. googles workforce is 59% men and the rest women or other, now unless you are saying that women it graduates were more than 2 times better than males, then you would have to assume that sexist quotas were being used, and that less qualified women were being artificially placed higher than men in hiring.
see facts dont care about feelings
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, so what I read wasn't tue full thing, and I founs and read the full thing now. He comes to some poor conclusions, but dors genuinely seem to want some research or discussion on the effects of diversity campaigns.
Still, it can come across as saying hat most of the women and minorities hired by Google are there because of affirmative action not based on merit and are possibly harmful to the company, which would obviously be controversial in house and probably why he got fired.
Comment has been collapsed.
Proof you didn't read it yourself. He's right, both genders are with different hormones and work differently. Both their mind sets and skills are different only because of that. Just because some weirdos decided that they are not the gender they are born, doesn't make them correct on the matter.
Comment has been collapsed.
And there was no talk about individuals. In pool of 42 000 employees or what. These population level statistics start to play role. Also I find it discouraging that the word "preferences" was so ignored in the quotes. It's probably the major factor.
Comment has been collapsed.
And some people prefer to ignore 90% of the words and see only sexism and racism :D Welcome to Earth 2k17.
Comment has been collapsed.
I did, and while men and women have differences, a lot of the differences he was talking about were disproven false science.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, white men and white woman dont have a difference.
Females and Males as a whole have a difference. Quit putting the race tag, all males and all females are in the same spot. Both bodies and minds work differently. Both are good at different things. Every rule has an exception, but that doesn't make them the same. Females tend to get more depressed at higher posts than males, as they are way more emotional... Do you even read books?
Comment has been collapsed.
Nah, someone just edited it. Most likely the same person who's planning to remove all racial words he used in the thread so I wont be able to make screenshots =[]
Comment has been collapsed.
Lol, you know comments show an asterick if they've been edited.
I believe the only thing I edited is the main piat to add the least paragraph.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, so what I read wasn't tue full thing, and I founs and read the full thing now. He comes to some poor conclusions, but dors genuinely seem to want some research or discussion on the effects of diversity campaigns.
Comment has been collapsed.
It was so disgustingly misogynistoc
As kapy mentioned.
No it's not.It's neither hatespeech nor sexism.
But people (like you, judging from your comments) only read like one sentence like "women and men are not equal" and scream HATESPECH; SEXISM and if google hadn't fire him, they would have spammed google until they did.
What hes saying (in a very condensed form) is:
Women and men are biologigly different, that is not bad, but good. But instead of saying "We just hire a women for this position ignoring (possibly better qualified) men.", which is sexist and dumb, he suggests different methods of increasing the diversity in computer science.
The problem is, with
censoring Nazism is necessarily bad
is one thing. What is needed to be censored and what is not? I live in germany and we already had laws against Nazispech and Hatespeech. They were working well...
Now (thanks to the left) we have a new law, that allows to basically censor anything that offends people. and this is plain shit.
If someone can only "discuss" by screaming hatespeech at "the wrong opinion" no matter what they are just plain out idiots. No matter if left or right or whatever.
If you can not argue with arguments, just don't argue at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is, women and men have inherent differences, but a lot of the ones he said were disproven false science. What he was saying is that men are better than women, and so the women that google hired didn't earn it, they are only thier to meet a quota.
Comment has been collapsed.
What he was saying is that men are better than women
No he's not.
Had a good laugh, when a german "expert" on that topic said "He said women are worse than men, but I worked in that area and I noticed that women are better at communication which is an important part as well."
Which is literally what he fucking said.
There are differences. Men are better in some regards, women in others.
women that google hired didn't earn it, they are only thier to meet a quota.
He said, that currently men (especially white men) are discriminiced.
So yes, if all of the women were white men, google wouldn't have hired all of them.
Some would be hired because they are really better/as good as their colleagues, some wouldn't because there are better candidates.
This is just a plain and simple fact.
Even a (female) fellow student complained about that. She won a price were 4 people are people are being honored. Per definition one price has to go to a women. ... She got the price along with 3 men.
Her work was ranking 2 out of 4 and she would have gotten the price anyways, but due to the "1 has to be a women" she felt like "only best of the women, not best of all".
Especially in areas dominated by one gender enforcing a quote that is higher than the quote of people studieng that topic forces you to pick non optimal candidates.
PS: His main message is "Just hire people because of the person, not because of the race/gender he/she belongs to". But it seems you have not read that part.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, so what I read wasn't the full thing, and I found and read the full thing now. He comes to some poor conclusions, but dors genuinely seem to want some research or discussion on the effects of diversity campaigns.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes exactly.
His Arguments might not be perfect. They might not even be (all) good, but it is definetly a base/memo that can be discussed on a scientific/factual level.
Most news pages display it as indiscutable sexist hatespeech. And thats the problem. And everyone should be concerned about that (independent if you agree with him or not).
Comment has been collapsed.
It can come across negatively which could be controversial in house and so I don't really think Google firing him for that is a huge issue, but the way news outlets are reporting it is not just biased, but misrepresentitive and a definite issue.
Comment has been collapsed.
It sure is controversial.
I only agree with it partially and even though I personally thing fireing him was the wrong desicion, it was googles right to do so (as far as I understood US law).
I feel german newspages are even worse, because they "translate" stuff, so even "quotes" are missleading.
Comment has been collapsed.
not clear what you are writing. do you even live in the U.S.?
Comment has been collapsed.
On the other side of the spectrum, the believe EXACTLY the same, It's ironic. Big money support, Soros et. al, you know..
Comment has been collapsed.
oh gawd, right wingers and Soros. Soros is a billionare, and he only cares for his companies. He may support establishment, but that is it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nooooo you cannot call people Nazies just because they sport Nazi memorabilia and use a Roman salute! That's not politically correct, maybe they are Nazies just ironically! >:(
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe they just adopted it as they were being called Nazis anyway... And you have to admit, they did have cool style at the time.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would believe that if it being a neo-nazi was a new thing. But they've been around for ages, Neo-nazi marches were a yearly occurence, but suddenly you can't call people (neo)Nazies anymore, because...?
I am not calling every 16y/o kekfrog a Nazi, but you have to admit, there were some actual nazies in the crowd today.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry to break it to you, but I doubt any of them lived during world war 2
Comment has been collapsed.
That means there are no Commies left in the world either, because all the Bolsheviks are dead, really makes you think. 🤔
Breaking news: words can have meanings.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh please... Nazi's lost the war and stop existing, communism never stopped even after the war ended. Hell my country was still in communism 30 years ago, China still is... North Korea... Idk what that is. Russia is a mixed communism and democracy. Don't bloody compare communism with Hitler's Nazis.
Comment has been collapsed.
Russia is a mixed communism and democracy.
lol okay
Comment has been collapsed.
Dont look at me, they claim they are a democracy. I say they arent. Soo...
Comment has been collapsed.
Currently a Democracy ruled by the right. Giving the fact that the left nearly destroyed it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bulgaria is as far from democracy as any of us on the Balkans are. And that's Russia multiplied by 20.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can literally go out and shout "Hitler is my waifu" and nobody will ever do anything to me... If you call that far from free speech then you really are lost to the world.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can also destroy monuments to Soviet soldiers just to prove to Murica and frau fürer that you are obedient little bitch.
Comment has been collapsed.
No. People are just idiots and think that the poor who were in camps were innocent and they get butthurt when they see communism monuments.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nazi's lost the war and stop existingThat is a very limited view on history. The term Nazi was coined at least in 1923, maybe even 1903 (german source). Nazi is short for Nationalsocalist and if you agree to call everyone who was a member in the NSDAP a Nazi, you will find many in German post war politics and CIA operations, just to give you some examples.
In my book the members of the NSU were/are Nazis too.
If you take a look around Europe (and the world), you will still find many Nazis today.
Comment has been collapsed.
I doubt any of us were around to see Jesus crucified, too.
Your logic cuts both ways.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not sure if stupid or yes. The two things are literally nothing in common.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your logic -- If Nazis cannot exist today, Christians cannot, either.
Comment has been collapsed.
my logic - Nazis exist because of a war and IS a military force, which is over and doesn't exist anymore.
Christianity exist because it gave and it still gives hope to the common people and is kept in the hearts of actual believers for the ages, it was never a war. It was never an army. It was never anything. It was just fate for the common. Maybe some nations abused it and made crusades, but doesn't mean that's Christianity, that was just madness caused by a madman in the name of something he abuses rather than believe in.
For the record, I am against all religions, but when I see idiotic logic like yours, I would defend even Islam...
Comment has been collapsed.
Your fallacy is assuming Nazism was only a military force.
It was (and still is) a belief system (ideology) and a way of life, same as any religion.
Please spare me the petty insults. You'll get nowhere good with them, and you're only making yourself look bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your retarded brain claims that Nazism is a white bullshit. Meanwhile MUSLIMS, who are NONE WHITE. Were assisting the NAZI ARMY, because Hitler was against Christianity and the oppression it had caused. Learn some bloody history you insulted excuse of a person.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was merely refuting your claim that Nazis don't exist today and your "logic" behind it.
Lighten up, Francis. Your panties go any further up your ass, you're gonna have to wash em twice. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
True story. I still want one of them black officer jackets, they are totally bad arse with the black leather and the red/white combo.
Comment has been collapsed.
Typically it means the constitution is suspended. Government may impose curfews or prevent you from going to certain zones etc.
I believe it may also entitle them to federal assistance (money, support) but perhaps that's only in the case of natural disasters.
Comment has been collapsed.
i don't get why white nationalist are marching chanting "you will not replace us". what are they talking about? we are all human! skin color doesn't matter! yes there are social differences in groups, but why hate? focus on being a better person yourself, ie educate, get skills, etc. no one is trying to replace you. love thy neighbor? (for the Christians that believe)
Comment has been collapsed.
what are you talking about? nothing you wrote makes any sense. what party? who is censoring history?
Comment has been collapsed.
is it bad to remove nazi symbols? i think people want to remove those statues from state land because they attacked America and treasonous to their country. Plus they lost.
But they are still in the history books.
Comment has been collapsed.
it wasn't seen as bad. it is bad, very bad, terrible and traitorous!
there is no censoring! people can put up a statue on their own private property if they want. just not on public land. because traitors don't deserve public endorsement.
Comment has been collapsed.
are you even in the U.S? you don't write like an native english speaker.
Not my opinion , fact the south tried to secede from the U.S. so they could have slaves and attacked the U.S. That my friend is treason and un-American! Not my opinion, but scholar and historians assessment.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a far cry from censorship to simply being ashamed of a time when people were abused for being considered "inferior to whites." There are memorials in Germany to remind people that the holocaust must never happen again. Can you point to a confederate war memorial that gives the same promise?
Comment has been collapsed.
hey, I hope you don't mind if I move over there, receive state subsidies, then bring my whole family, receive double the subsidies, get funding from Saudi Arabia to build a Mosque, have three times more kids than you do, send them to schools that only speak my own language, and vote on that new muslim party we'll call "national party". BTW, my three wives won't ever be attended by male doctors, nor I by female ones. I'll help in prohibiting the raising of christmas threes in my village (democracy right? we're a muslim majority here), and don't forget that swimming pools must be divided by gender, and all pork must be banned from school canteens. Shall I go on?
Comment has been collapsed.
When Muslims go out speak of white genocide. When black lives matter speak about white genocide. Nobody buzzes a fly. White people say something and they all lose their minds. Double standards are real.
Comment has been collapsed.
Whos speaking for white genocide? And I can also garuntee it 'causes controversy, because even being muslim or blm alone bring controversy.
Also, these people commited terrorism and mudered a person,
Comment has been collapsed.
and blm murdered/beaten and who knows what else A LOT Of people. Gangster (which are majorly black) murder other blacks daily and few whites in the process. WE at Europe are at constant terror attacks by muslims who have taken over 300 lives... So please... Double standards. I don't see you whining "Fight the ISIS" or "Fight the Gangsters"...
P.S founder of blm is literally the number 1 most wanted terrorist in the US...
Comment has been collapsed.
you are factually wrong! you watch too much Fox propaganda!
Comment has been collapsed.
We actually don't get Fox News here, thankfully. Which does not mean we have a shortage of cranks, sadly. Just they tend to be slightly less neo-nazis and more new agers. Which I guess is good, since new agers mostly just kill themselves and each other with fake medicine instead of shooting innocent people.
Comment has been collapsed.
You brain washed ape. The news here are coming from CNN, not Fox. Best get your info right. Fox, FoxLife, FoxCrime, FoxComedy dont have any news on them, only movies and tv series. Get a bit educated, about Fox and Bulgaria first.
Comment has been collapsed.
weak! first i don't know where you are from and don't care. you are not getting your propaganda from CNN. CNN is a corporate media outlet, but they don't say what you are saying! What right wing media outlet are you getting this nonsense from?
Comment has been collapsed.
Stupid, not weak. Stupid for wasting my time with a brain washed idiot like you.
And yes, I insult. It gives me joy, because I'm an evil whitey. Roarrrr! Run from me or I'll eat you! Roarrr! I'm the evil white monster! Roarrrr!
(Meanwhile the internet is full with memes how CNN is fake news, but this guy says they are nice folks GG)
Comment has been collapsed.
lol, you admit you are stupid not weak. By the way, I am a white male. LOL.
I don't think white people are bad, as well as I don't think other skin colors are bad either.
Never said I thought you are evil. Don't believe in evil. But you are wrong about many things.
You say memes about something proves something? O.o
Fake news is a made up comment from our moron president. CNN is corporate media that advocates for the establishment. CNN sometimes distorts, sometimes pushes nonsense to make money, sometimes makes mistakes and sometimes gets stories correct. I don't like CNN, but they are not fake news.
Comment has been collapsed.
When you call yourself stupid and some random idiot comes and claims you.'re stupid for calling yourself stupid...
My "wrong things" are "wrong" in the eyes of a liberal puppet.
If you claim that CNN makes "mistakes" some times, then I got nothing more to say to you.
Comment has been collapsed.
everyone makes mistakes. clearly you know that better than anyone since you have made so many.
Comment has been collapsed.
Blm isn't a well organised group, so I have no idea what you mean by founder. Amd there aren't dounle standards there, people are way against blm. And okay? Gangs and isis are also bad, but fascism isn't response to this.
I'm not saying fight isisright now because the latest terrorist attack was by a far right white supremacist group. I still think we should fight isis though. I also think we should fight the reasons that cause intercity voilence along with current gangs and criminals amd have worked towards it. You can be agaisnt a thing without being for everything else.
Fuck fascist, fuck isis, fuck gangs amd intercity voilence.
Comment has been collapsed.
The awkward moment when you realize, that if you finally leave your president to work and quit with the fucked in the brain protests, these so called "facist terrorists" wouldn't even exist, because they wont have a reason to cause violence. Then maybe your police will have time to take care for gang violence and your army with ISIS and the North Korea crisis. JUST MAYBE... IMAGINE... But no, best make "Fuck the right and white ppl" threads and expect things to become better...
Comment has been collapsed.
Um, the nazis and white nationalists were protesting. And they had no legitimate reason to cause violence now either and they still did.
I didn't say fuck the right or white people?
Down with alt right, white nationalists, and neo nazis.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nazis dont fucking exist. Hitler is dead. WW2 is over. Get your shite together.
"as we stand against the white supremacist and neo nazi fucks rallying." your words. "white supremacist" dickhead.
Comment has been collapsed.
Cool story. Am I a Nazi too now? Actually few months ago people did say I'm Hitler.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, but neo nazis do
Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II social or political movements seeking to revive the ideology of Nazism.
Comment has been collapsed.
Which is, destroy Christianity and Jews (who rules all banks atm)? History book missing much?
Comment has been collapsed.
No, they usually aren't agaisnt Christianity, would lose a lot of us base there. White supremacy mostly, "Aryan masterace", for elimination, physical removal and or eguneicts of non whites, believe jews run the world.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're an idiot... Nazi's never wanted to remove all none whites... Just jews. They had fucking arabs in their army... buy a book.
P.S Jews rule all huge banks. Bank = Money = World.
Comment has been collapsed.
Lol, are you fucking delusional? The nazis wanted to also get rid of slavs, gypsies, blacks and most other poc.
Comment has been collapsed.
Stop wasting your time. They're known for racist, homophobic comments. Personally I don't understand why they're still allowed here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Read a book. The Bulgaria and other slav countries were PART of the Nazi alliance.
Comment has been collapsed.
Read a book. The Bulgaria and other slav countries were PART of the Nazi alliance.
You deserve your citizenship revoked for this comment.
Comment has been collapsed.
Could be funny, but then .. it's just sad.
Comment has been collapsed.
And you dont even know your last 100 years history, wont even ask for the last 500... disgrace to your own nation. I'm 100% sure you're some Kornelia Ninova supporter or something.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, you need to read up:
1: Nazism was never destroyed. Its an idea furthered into an ideology. You cannot destroy that as long as one person, one scrap of it remains in the world (including in history books).
2: Nazism never amounted to destroy Christianity (well done on watching those weird corners of youtube).
3: Quit defending that which cannot be defended. A rather well known lawyer friend of mine stated; "You cannot persecute the crime, only the criminal - the crime itself must change through peoples minds, and under the form of government they live in."
In your case, this means quite watching those weird corners of youtube.
*passes you a tinfoil hat
Comment has been collapsed.
I tend not to slow down to gawk at a car wreck, much less get involved, but perhaps there's hope...
P.S founder of blm is literally the number 1 most wanted terrorist in the US...
Who do you consider the founder of the movement? According to Wikipedia's Black Lives Matter page:
- "The movement was co-founded by three black community organizers: Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi." -
I don't see this a massive fight on the talk/history page over this (kind of surprised given how political pages attract vandalism and conflicting views), so unless there's some reason to take it as wrong, I'm inclined to take it at face value. I don't see them on any of the FBI's most wanted lists:
On the other hand, the founder of the Nazi movement is literally Hitler.
While modern white nationalists are not literally Nazis, in that they're not card-carrying members of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, advocating Germany undergo political and economic reforms along with ethnic and religious purges, they do often use Nazi symbolism and draw on it as brand and use a similar approach to recruiting and motivating members. Since they want to be heir to it and people who are critical of them (everyone else) see it as a negative, both sides agree to think of them as (not literally-literally, but as close as you can get) Nazis.
The only source you've cited so far, PrisonPlanetLive, is the YouTube channel of a conspiracy theorist who believes that the U.S. government staged the Sandy Hook school shooting and is using chemtrails (the condensation vortices you see from a high-altitude jet) to poison people. His employer, Alex Jones, supports this and that many other things are government conspiracies: that the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center was done by the US government, that the landing on the Moon was faked, and before its release, ranted about how the movie Alien: Covenant outlined the beliefs of these alien-worshiping conspirators. In court, his lawyer has said that he (Alex Jones) is a performance artist, and the show is simply an act. While some people take it as real - including one viewer who shot at people at a pizza parlor because he had been told there was a child-molestation cult operating out its basement...even though it didn't have a basement - they shouldn't.
I'm sorry that you've been caught-up in the political-entertainment complex that's dominating American mass media and has suffused the Internet. It does so much harm here - please don't let it mess you up overseas, as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
"On the other hand, the founder of the Nazi movement is literally Hitler" Anton Drexler.
I fixed one of your statements for you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Technically, Drexler headed the DAP, which only later grew into the NSDAP. The "NS" comes from "Nationalsozialistische" which is what shortens to "Nazi"...but full points to you for nailing the founder of the movement rather than party namer. Thanks for being a stickler for historical accuracy.
Comment has been collapsed.
On the 24th of February 1940, the DAP was renamed to the NSDAP, which was the same day that Hitler gave the speech (his first speech) that outlined the 25 points of the party manifesto that had been written by Drexler, Gottfried Feder and Hitler.
Hitler did not take control of the party until 1941.
So he was the founder of the movement DAP but also the leader of the NSDAP for a year before Hitler took over the party... but still remained on as an adviser to Hitler.
Just trying to keep the facts the facts ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Damn. Okay, whitelisted. Short of literally admitting I was wrong, that's the best I can do.
Way to be a historical Nazi, dLo. Figuratively. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Short of literally admitting I was wrong, that's the best I can do.
That, and say thank you for the correction.
Comment has been collapsed.
provide proof black lives matter ever said anything about white genocide or US Muslims!
Comment has been collapsed.
Watch TV and open your eyes and ears... clearly you ignore such stuff.
Comment has been collapsed.
again you watch too much Fox lies! you lose because you provide no proof.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wonder what kind of an idiot thinks he won an argument just because he thinks I even got FoxNews...
Comment has been collapsed.
still no proof and now personal attacks really show how weak you argument is.
Comment has been collapsed.
What proof? What proof you want exactly? You want me to come to america and start filming with my phone? Clearly you never go out the streets to even see anything. Buy me a ticket and a green card and I'll come and film you proof whole day long.
Comment has been collapsed.
lol. you are funny! Anyways, links to articles proving the nonsense about Black Lives Matters or U.S. Muslims advocating white genocide! Not some crazy persons opinion on the internet!
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm too lazy to search for the stuff myself
https://www.youtube.com/user/PrisonPlanetLive
He has all the proof you need in his videos, take some time to watch em. I enjoy em at max. Especially when he gives proof in twitter and leftists just block him after that :>
Comment has been collapsed.
To be fair, I did warn him about all the insults LOL.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, I didn't report anyone, I just warned him it would get him nowhere good.
I get worse insults than that at work on a daily basis (and worse than insults, as you know lol)
Comment has been collapsed.
i read this, and thought funny. then moved on. later i thought, oh maybe he was suspended, so I came back to look, and he was.
Comment has been collapsed.
Depends on where you get your news. Fox is a proven republican propaganda outlet which blatantly lies. CNN is an corporate establishment outlet which distorts truth based in what will make them or the owners money. MSNBC is a corporate outlet bending truth towards establishment democrats sometime or just corporations. Fox wins the worst of the worst category! Online news like guardian or the theintercept.com are the best because they are more independent.
Comment has been collapsed.
Meanwhile CNN makes fake "Muslims against ISIS" Protests with 10 paid muslim actors. BBC claims that roman England was "racially divers". But Fox is the worst for saying "Trump is awesome". 10/10
Comment has been collapsed.
I clearly stated I don't, duh. Ok, you should stop reading right wing propaganda!
Comment has been collapsed.
All News are Liars - but the news I agree with tend to lie less. LOL. God Bless you, you make me laugh!
Comment has been collapsed.
what? all news are not liars. you just need to understand what their bias is. person bias is better than establishment bias. it has nothing to do with agreeing with news.
majority of conservatives are the ones usually looking for news they agree with. not to say some liberals do that too. but best to try to understand the underlying motivations of media.
Comment has been collapsed.
We appreciate your blanketed insightful opinions of:
"majority of conservatives are the ones usually looking news they agree with"
Comment has been collapsed.
do they watch Fox or read Breitbart? kind of proves my point.
I don't have any problem with honest bias, but people watch/read those and think it is true.
I use to watch Fox, but got lied to so many times I was had to stop watching.
Comment has been collapsed.
do they watch Fox or read Breitbart? kind of proves my point.
The only point it proves is that you have a dishonest bias, which was the point I was making to begin with. You live in this fantasy land where you can shove everyone into the same category and slap it with a label - that label being 'dumb republicans are all watching fox news and don't know nothin'. And then go on to discuss how 'smart liberals get their biased news from multiple, more honest but not truthful news sources'. You make a very interesting and bold claim on the current state of affairs.
Comment has been collapsed.
not dishonest at all.
the Forbes article only states how they get their news not from where.
that doesn't say much.
Comment has been collapsed.
"not dishonest at all."
LOL, I think we're done here.
Comment has been collapsed.
yes, the fantasy world you live in the poor innocent conservatives are oppressed by the big powerful liberals. your poor favorite news has been outed for what it is. sorry to hurt your feelings.
i never wrote anything like what you have been trying to say I have. make better arguments.
Comment has been collapsed.
You have outed yourself by making opinionated statements of
"Fox is a proven republican propaganda outlet which blatantly lies."
"do they watch Fox or read Breitbart? kind of proves my point."
Suggesting that republican's only get news from two sources which you claim provide only 'blatant lies'.
Yet, you cannot prove any of those statements to be remotely true. 1) That both of those news outlets are 'blatant lies' and 2) That Republicans only get their news from those sources.
Meanwhile you suggest that 'I haven't even been making those claims'... while the claim is clearly obvious, and anyone can read it. And furthermore suggesting that your opinion is not dishonest bias.
So, yes we are done here. And yes, you do live in a fantasy world.
Comment has been collapsed.
You lied! You said we were done here. Apparently not.
You live in a fantasy land if you think Fox and Breitbart are not propaganda.
No one asked me to prove it because everyone knows it.
I didn't say republicans ONLY get their news from those outlets. What other outlets do you get your news from?
You accuse me of doing something you are doing, totally hilarious!
But then again, you did say you are republican, and republicans haven't seen hypocrisy they didn't like.
You are silly. Your arguments are, Brilliant! Are we done? You keep saying it. LOL.
PS: Fox is a den of sexual predators also. You do know that at least?
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't say I was a republican.
You cannot cite 'everyone knows it' as evidence to a claim. You have to cite.... a peer reviewed study that is actually a fact.
I accused you of your inability to cite evidence that would support your opinions. I am not doing that - not sure how you would infer that anyways.
You said "majority of conservatives are the ones usually looking for news they agree with" and then went on to say "do they watch Fox or read Breitbart? kind of proves my point."
It doesn't prove your point until you can prove that the majority of conservatives get their news from those two locations. Or you would need more proof to prove your point - and of course that proof would need to be tangible evidence to begin with - and not some dishonest bias that you are showing by making pawning off far left liberal propaganda as facts because 'everyone knows it'.
Also, if Fox is a den of sexual predators, then there is probably some proof out there and the people would have been arrested. Or I suppose that is another thing that 'everyone knows'.
Comment has been collapsed.
you wrote "We appreciate your blanketed insightful opinions" inferring "we" as in republicans.
if you are not, why are you all butt hurt about the comments?
and why are you trying to defend a despicable organization like Fox if you are not a conservative republican?
you said you are overseas, but why are you talking like you know about Fox if you don't know about the many sex scandals at Fox. they fired Roger Ailes, Bill Oreilly, the list goes on. Yeah, literally "everyone know" even at Fox. LOL. how ignorant are you?
Comment has been collapsed.
"inferring "we" as in republicans" people who practice intellectual honesty.
I fixed your statement.
I am not defending fox... I am defending honesty by challenging opinions that are being passed off as fact.
I also challenged another posters comment about the origin of the Nazi party... because he erroneously stated that Hitler was the founder... that does not make me a Hitler defender... it makes me historically accurate.
Comment has been collapsed.
you are delusional! stop denying you are right wing. you are defending right wing Fox and other right wing. you are not defending honesty. LOL
Comment has been collapsed.
I would also defend ABC and CNN if you made baseless accusations against them as 'sexual predators'.
Comment has been collapsed.
you are still writing nonsense! you were done so long ago. you are obviously a right wing nut job defending "baseless" ie truth.
i made similar statements about CNN and you didn't defend them. Talking to right wingers is like talking to the wall. Nothing can get inside your bubble.
Comment has been collapsed.
Where did you call CNN sexual predators with no evidence? I must have missed that.
I would have easily defended liberals if you had said that the "majority of conservatives liberals are the ones usually looking for news they agree with. not to say some liberals conservatives do that too"
Of course you didn't say that, you suggested that the majority of conservatives are mindless idiots but only a few select some of liberals are.
I would defend any claim that is baseless, has no merits, and no evidence. You are a vile human being.
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you are delusional or dense? Tons of evidence against Fox. Here are just a few.
you defend truth about right wingers. stop with the lies.
http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/bill-oreilly-fired-fox-news-sexual-harassment-murdoch-1202044514/
http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-charles-payne-fox-business-20170706-story.html
https://www.mediamatters.org/stories-and-interests/sexual-harassment-fox-news
Comment has been collapsed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_predator
People who commit sex crimes, such as rape or child sexual abuse, are commonly referred to as sexual predator.
It seems like you didn't prove anyone was a sexual predator... which is what you stated they are. And if they were, the police would launch an investigation, and they would be convicted. Are you playing a delusional game? You cannot call someone a sexual predator and then use evidence of sexual harassment... they are ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT THINGS THAT EVEN A DENSE PERSON WOULD KNOW, YET YOU DONT SEEM TO.
Comment has been collapsed.
The super rich get away with many things in the world including the U.S. So stating "the police would launch an investigation" is factually wrong. Those people were not just sexual harassers, but also predators. Nice that you defend sexual harassers and predators. Roger Ailes was a clear predator.
Again, your motivation is clear. Defend at all cost your dear right wing leaders.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Those people were not just sexual harassers, but also predators."
Still waiting for that little thing called evidence ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I am not defending anything. I simply won't let your baseless claim go unchallenged.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah right, or should i say, yeah right wing nut. didn't see you defending anything but right wing.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is a tread about right wing white supremacist attacking and killing people. And you are on here trying to defend that. Not much else to say than you are a lost cause!
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't defend it at all, I simply asked for your EVIDENCE that the majority of republicans get their news from Fox or Brietbart. I'm sorry that you are too dumb to understand that, and we are still waiting for the evidence of the claims you have made against republicans.
That has absolutely nothing to do with defending murder. Like a meme once said, 'u so dumb'.
Comment has been collapsed.
You never asked for evidence until way later. When given evidence you just ignored it.
You have been defending white supremacy the whole time. Doing in a way to say, who me, I didn't say that I said this. All along pushing the right wing narrative.
Comment has been collapsed.
1) You never provided evidence that "majority of conservatives are the ones usually looking for news they agree with".
2) You never provided evidence that "Fox is a den of sexual predators" - you provided evidence that a few people had workplace sexual harassment allegations and terminations due to those allegations. I then went on to provide the the meaning of your own term 'sexual predators' and asked for evidence which was never provided.
You make statements with no evidence - and 20 something posts later have still provided NONE - because none exists... they are just regurgitated nonsense from your Facebook feed of some moronic liberal group that spreads lies AKA FAKE NEWS. You trying to unknowingly push that narrative here is unacceptable, and to knowingly do so is even worse. You are either unable to research the bs yourself, don't care to, or are a complete piece of human filth knowingly attempting to spread lies.
You are the reason the USA has become what it is today. A bunch of people at each others throats both sides ignorant of the facts, both sides as disgusting as each other, both sides pretending to be innocent and pure. DISGUSTING.
So either supply some evidence to your claims, or be done.
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree. People like you are the reason the USA has become what it is today!
Comment has been collapsed.
You're right, people who provide evidence of their claims are the worst! Good call guy! Hope I didn't keep you from your ANTIFA meeting!
Comment has been collapsed.
Also, if Fox is a den of sexual predators, then there is probably some proof out there and the people would have been arrested.
Come on dude, even you can't defend this line of reasoning. "If people are guilty, then we would probably know about it and they would already be locked up."
Really?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sorry, my justice system is based on innocent until proven guilty. So yes, I am absolutely suggesting that it is up to the accuser to provide sufficient evidence of guilt... and saying 'everyone knows it' is not evidence. I am open to any and all evidence that is available while I am not open to baseless accusations.
Comment has been collapsed.
Despite the countless historical examples of corruption uncovered all throughout human history?
I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty." But, you make it sound as though no investigation is required for questionable instances and all guilty parties will be known as general knowledge. Which, oddly enough, you seem to be rallying against? I don't know, that's a tad confusing.
Edit: btw, there no need for combative courtesy such as the:
I'm sorry,
I don't agree with your views, but I'm not angry or yelling at you. We're just talking.
Comment has been collapsed.
I in no way made it sound that questionable instances require no investigation... I suggested questionable instances provide no evidence. I said
"Also, if Fox is a den of sexual predators, then there is probably some proof out there and the people would have been arrested. Or I suppose that is another thing that 'everyone knows'."
Inferring that if there is proof, an investigation will lead to an eventual prosecution and that I do not accept biased ideology as evidence to such an accusation as 'sexual predators'. This is the same mindset of fox news claiming there were pedophile rings under pizza parlors - baseless accusations with zero evidence. If you hate fox news, I could care less, I am not their fan, but I won't sit around and let people make baseless accusations (whether its you or fox news) and pretend that their accusation has merits based solely on their hatred of a competing ideology. If you want to accuse someone of something, then come up with some evidence... or kick rocks.
This is all part of the problems of today's culture... a willingness to make bullshit statements that are never fact checked, and then attack someone who would rightfully point our your bullshit as such and demand evidence.
Comment has been collapsed.
Which is indicative of the times, as the current POTUS exemplifies such behavior. Citizens will naturally look to him as an example.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I have never been trendy, and I certainly won't be starting now as I will neither make baseless accusations nor will I allow them to go unchallenged.
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha, don't sell yourself short! I'm pretty sure being an ex pat is considered rather hip these days 😎
Comment has been collapsed.
that is a different country and has nothing to do with the U.S. obviously that person is wrong.
just stupid to say skin color make you superior one way or another.
Comment has been collapsed.
This thread is about right wing white supremacist attacking and killing counter protesters. And you defend that by bringing up someone somewhere might have said something bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you know what Black Live Matter is about? Are you in the US? White Supremacist literally don't want equality with people that have different skin color, does that seem bad to you?
Comment has been collapsed.
I've never understood why groups of people could believe violence is a viable method to sway others to their views.
(Even when I was taught how to deal with violence, I was taught to avoid it unless absolutely necessary)
That said, I've never really understood racism in any form, either.
I handed in my humanity card ages ago.
Any quick and dirty links where I could read what happened? I haven't caught any news sites and haven't watched the news this evening.
Nevermind, the first news site I looked at had it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hahaha, you ass.
Dr Pepper hurts coming out my nose.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pick your poison
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/vehicle-strikes-pedestrians-in-charlottesville/536670/
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/us/charlottesville-protest-white-nationalist.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/charlottesville-rally-turns-deadly-one-killed-after-car-strikes-crowd-n792116
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/local/fights-in-advance-of-saturday-protest-in-charlottesville/2017/08/12/155fb636-7f13-11e7-83c7-5bd5460f0d7e_story.html
http://amp.usatoday.com/story/562372001/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/12/emergency-declared-ahead-unite-right-rally-in-virginia.amp.html
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/08/12/us/charlottesville-white-nationalists-rally/index.html
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks, I'm already checking things out.
Those videos of the car hitting the crowd upset my stomach. I'll never understand how people are capable of that sort of thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't believe anyone thinks violence is increasing the merit's of their position/argument, and I certainly don't believe that was the intent of the violence in this case. Violence only has one real world practical application and that is to end opposition.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, at least they've got what they wanted out of it - agitation.
Comment has been collapsed.
As a US Expat, it appears like the folks back home are racing as fast as possible towards a full blown civil war - a combo race war / political ideology war. It is both sad and disgusting to watch it play out in real time and I fear it will only be getting worse as time goes on.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a blessing and a curse altogether, looking from the outside in.
I don't know about civil war though, but the eagerness for war and intellectual deterioration all across the western world (and the rest too) is mind-boggling, spreading across every political spectrum, social class, origin - you name it. And yet here we are, fooling ourselves that we surpassed the decadence and ignorance of colonial times, both WW's or - even further - ancient Rome (pick one, there's so many :o)... I don't know, there's a saying here: After the rain, sun sets again (equivalent to 'After the storm comes the calm.'). One can only hope that in the end there'll be not that many who are prevented from witnessing it. Not much else one can say about such idiocy.
Comment has been collapsed.
History repeats itself. :/ American Civil War 2.0
Again there is a big rift, this time between Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans have been losing numbers for a long time now and soon the balance will tip into the favour of the Democrats. The only thing that prevented it from already happening is a high level of disinterest on the Democratic side and a very active Republican side.
The one thing that can delay it a bit longer is a well timed foreign war. It's the American way to stand behind a President when a war has just started, patriotism usually doesn't have a basis in fact and logic. Will it be in Venezuela? North Korea? Another country? Or could the Republican party find some "new" information on Trump and replace him with the creepier Vice-President?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm a little confused by your statement. Considering that in 2016/2017, the Republican party controls more state senates (35), state house's (31), and state governorship's (34) than any time in the history of the party... meanwhile, have 52 Senate seats (highest ever was 57 in the 111th Congress), 241 House seats (which is the most ever) and of course the Presidency.
How does those statistics align with the claim that "The Republicans have been losing numbers for a long time now and soon the balance will tip into the favour of the Democrats"? State governments have moved from split governments pre-2011, to Republican majority governments since 2011. It seems the figures are in contrast with your statements, and I don't buy into the whole notion of 'motivated base' as I believe both parties have equal dis-interest in most elections.
Now you might be tempted to cite 'Clinton won the popular vote' blah blah, or even a gallup poll - which we have seen is not remotely reliable (ala President Trump and not Clinton). I would probably counter it with something like -
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/NVRA-letter-CA-August-2017-1.pdf
And if you don't want to read that, here is the excerpt of the findings:
Comment has been collapsed.
This is a gaming website, can we talk about games and not news/politics/whatever this is about ?
Comment has been collapsed.
Agrees that this topic shouldn't be discussed on this website...
...Proceeds to write 40 comments and gets a 1 week suspension.
Yup, sounds about right.
Comment has been collapsed.
Has any big studio since Ubisoft done anything stupid/anti-consumer? Maybe we could move to that safe topic ;D
Comment has been collapsed.
Off-Topic
That's why this forum section exists.
If we stuck to gaming, it wouldn't. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I thought it was for shitposting, tangentially related to gaming? And General is for serious discussion...
Comment has been collapsed.
Seems that's what it gets used for most, doesn't it?
Comment has been collapsed.
If the general topic is for discussions related (at least vaguely) to gaming, then off-topic is for everything else we want to use it. At least that's how I undesrtood it.
Comment has been collapsed.
From an announcment Cg made:
To clarify a bit, the General category should be used for SteamGifts and Steam related discussions (How do I get points?, Fortix Giveaway, Should I Buy Portal?, Is Steam Down?, etc) and Off-Topic for everything unrelated.
In my opinion stuff like this should not be posted here at all, but that's just me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Let's talk about how Erdogan banned evolution theory in high schools.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well the mods keep closing my threads so I imagine they'll get tired of me at one point.
Comment has been collapsed.
btw i cant imagine why your life stands where it stands..
Comment has been collapsed.
It's pretty serious to get permanent suspension from what I have seen. Essentially either multi-accounting or massive feedback miss-use. Maybe a few others, but yeah...
Comment has been collapsed.
you should also tell people to stop posting racing, sports, anime, movie, book, national holiday, and illness threads.
Comment has been collapsed.
Those are not like religion or politics . There is a unwritten rule, dont talk about religion ot politics .
Comment has been collapsed.
Nah, this discussions section is already pretty much fucked up from a while.
I don't think there's a way to be back the way that it was.
Comment has been collapsed.
that's messed up.
funny how comments always come to the same comparative stupidity. fact is they were just celebrating and got hit by a terrorist. no excuses.
Comment has been collapsed.
Right was protesting removal of statue. The local government tried to stop these protest happening. Though federal government overturned this. Then the left formed potentially violent counter protest and whole thing had to be shut down. In this process there happened an incident.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then the left formed potentially violent counter protest
Potentially violent counter protest?
No. The honest thing to imply would be that when two protest groups meet, there is potentially violence. Not that the left counter-protest was exclusively the potentially violent side. Especially not given y'know... what actually happened. Which was not 'an incident that just happened' but someone literally drove a vehicle through a packed, contained area with the intent to kill counter protesters who were not a threat.
Your language is incredibly dishonest, and I have a very difficult time as seeing it as anything but intentional.
Comment has been collapsed.
deleted of course... but anyway, here it is https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/vehicle-strikes-pedestrians-in-charlottesville/536670/
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't take this personally, but from an outsider's perspective your country seems to be sinking into a chaos that started roughly around the date that the last primaries campaings were in full swing. However I don't believe that such a mess can start so suddenly, my guess is that this issue has always been there and that everyone chosed to ignore it during the past decade or so. You guys should start thinking about reorganizing your society.
Don't think that I'm preaching, my country is also a mess in its own way, but our problems mostly come from the fact that we have a history of being terrible administrators that have failed to get this country outside of the mediocrity realm despite having plenty of natural and human resourses. So mostly economic.
Comment has been collapsed.
Aspects of this has surfaced much earlier than the elections. One example I see as part of this continuum is GamerGate... Before that various other happenings. Then again the far-right have been around for a while... Primaries were likely the latest turning point when big clashes truly started.
Comment has been collapsed.
Before that international media wasn't paying that much attention to the internal issues on the US, they were mostly focused on europe's terrorist attacks and the middle east armed conflicts. You know how the media is, they love the smell of blood.
Comment has been collapsed.
You guys should start thinking about reorganizing your society.
Easier said than done.
Comment has been collapsed.
Start thinking about it, as in considering the possibility. Obviously a sudden paradigm change would be bonkers, but you need to plant the seed of change in the minds of the public years in advance if you want to have any real chance of doing it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have long considered that one good war on USA soil would make world much better place. Maybe a civil war would also work for that...
Comment has been collapsed.
That's more of a worst case scenario, a lot of random inocent people die in a war. A peaceful restructuration would be ideal, even if it takes decades, the dead toll will most likely be smaller. But then again we are talking about the US, a country that went to war to end slavery.
Comment has been collapsed.
Considering their recent actions I think it would make world safer place in the future. As such I see loss of some people there as net positive for the future.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe you're right, maybe you're not, I dunno I'm just anti-war by principle ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Comment has been collapsed.
Greater good. Greater good. Europe has been much more peaceful after WW2. As such I think war once in a while with true consequences locally will give general population less appetite for it. And USA seems way too aggressive...
Comment has been collapsed.
Let's get this started!! I've got $13.50, a Best Buy gift card, and deep political connections with my cat (she owes me big time for a favor I did a while ago)!!
Comment has been collapsed.
About this: "only place standing for rights and not being a yes man to the leftist control". Could you please go a little more in-depth in what you mean, specially on which rights aren't being defended in any other country.
Comment has been collapsed.
Being against people bearing arms is a cultural thing, is the people asking the goverments to have stricter controls not the other way around. I for example am against civilians having firearms, but that's my personal point of view, not left or right ideologies. If most citizens in a democratic state are against people carring weapons the most logical thing is to ban them, that's just how democracy works.
I'm assuming you meant "banned" instead of "banded", and yeah, banning opinions because it can be considered offensive is wrong for me. But don't fool yourself, the US isn't the only country where you can still say what you think, it's more of a constantly changing status across time for most of the world but it has been improving if you look at the big picture over the last century or so.
Also left and right are not as homogeneous as you think.
Comment has been collapsed.
What's good in fact that everyone can take out their assault rifle and go to shool to kill few ppl. BC something. I think you had enough mass shootings in recent years to know better.
I'm super glad that teachers didn't have to give me lessons "what to do if your colleague came to school armed". Or that the most people can do in my country right now (we have really deep divisions and a lot of hate flying around) is throwing eggs or shit at opposite politicians houses, not taking your gun and shoot people.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you're gonna make the joke at least do it right
Tumblr is this way -> www.tumblr.com
Also apparently news is tumnlr worthy now?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, five hours ago I attended a concert where we surprised the band by shouting " Nazis out!" in between the songs. Should happen everyday.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, so you just wanted your grandparents gone? Nice.
Comment has been collapsed.
They weren't Nazis.
And if you are really interested: if they would have been Nazis, it wouldn't change anything. If they would have changed their opinion, it would be great; if not, politics wouldn't be a topic at least. Also the statement isn't meant literally (exiling persons or sth. alike), but implies that the ideology isn't tolerated. Furthermore I think that forbidding to think or believe in a wrong ideology wouldn't help anyway, instead one should try to build up a dialogue to detect the real issue(s) (and, in the best case, provide solutions).
Comment has been collapsed.
I can only hope he's trolling you.
Sadly, he's probably not.
Comment has been collapsed.
German guy wants to provide solutions. That sounds familiar.
Comment has been collapsed.
From abroad this alt-righy rally in Charlottesville over some statue was expected to be like going to the movies. It didn't dissapoint its more entertaining than anything Hollywood has produced in a few years
Comment has been collapsed.
Something something Rules something something don't post political or religious stuff (probably because of the shit-storm they always result in).
I mean, seriously- stop being so judgemental of others. Some prefer their right hand when jerking off and others prefer their left hand. Everyone's being real petty with this whole "left vs right" thing.
Yes, that was a joke because when I'm feeling down I make bad jokes. Deal with it or stop making me feel worse!
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm getting real tired of having to babysit these threads.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not Jennifer, it's the rest of the idiots posting garbage. I've held tons of formal debates, everything across the spectrum of religion down to climate change. People arguing their points aren't doing it right here. It turns into a flame war too quick.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would venture to guess that significant part of population are...
Comment has been collapsed.
Well one side is literal nazis and the other are counter protesting against them, and condemning people agaisnt Nazis is stupid af.
Comment has been collapsed.
White nationalist, nazis, pro confederate, and alt right
Comment has been collapsed.
No, those are what the people of the rally specifically were.
Comment has been collapsed.
The rally started as Nationalist, then over time, had 10 negative labels added to it.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, it didn't. It was planned around the removal of a confederate statute by white nationalists, alt right, and pro confederates.
Comment has been collapsed.
They were white nationalists, alt right, neo nazis and pro confederates, i'd say the pro confederates are the only ones that could possibly be described as non hateful or violent and by aligning and supporting nazis, they are no better.
Comment has been collapsed.
Than nazis? Yes. Blm is disorganized af with some elements wanting to stop poilce in black violence, while others want black nationalism, it's a mess.
Antifa are also unorganized and only have one objective, down with fascism which I can get behind.
Comment has been collapsed.
blm have many leaders, its not one single movement under one leader or one idea. "The phrase "Black Lives Matter" can refer to a Twitter hashtag, a slogan, a social movement, or a loose confederation of groups advocating for racial justice. As a movement, Black Lives Matter is decentralized, and leaders have emphasized the importance of local organizing over national leadership."
And yeah, there have been cops murdered in response to blm, which is a horrible thing.
Disregarding the terrorist attack that just happened is fucking stupid, and white nationalists still praised and supported the act anyway. And their ideology is based on forcible removal or extermination of other races, so yeah violence is a part of their movement.
Considering the growing organization of fascists and neofascists and the support from the president of them, fighting fascism is a thing america is having to do again.
Comment has been collapsed.
What? No, attribute the cop killings to blm and nazi beatings to antifa, I'm just saying they aren't organized and not always with the same ideology. Nazi ideology is nesscarrilly violent. Blm isn't, but it is anti cop and has lead to violence against cops in perceived retribution on cops attacks on blacks.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, because no matter how bizarrely or ass-backwards a left extremist goes about their goals, their goals are noble, whereas nazism (or white supremacists) have a base goal that creates second-class citizens or tries to 'politely' and apologetically phrase racial purification.
I am staunchly against the hypocrisies and toxic mentalities that creep into the activists of the left (their own passive racism, other-ism, etc), but those remain extremists infesting a valid cause, whereas the right equivalent is more the rule than the exception, given the base objectives and values being espoused even by "non-extremists". While there is ample space for progression to be done on the left side of things and is a major bugbear of mine, constantly taking the stance of "they're equally as bad as each other" is IMO a major case of false equivalence. BLM and Antifa are movements created in reaction, with base goals that have their hearts in the right place. White Supremacy, nazism and the alt-right were not born out of reaction to fatalities or prejudice.
The whole horseshoe spectrum of idiocy is a major sour point for me, especially given how many friends I see sucked into the depths of the divide and the alarming amount of mirror-like hypocrisy that gets shown, but if by some weird monkeypaw situation I was forced to pick, there is no way in a frozen hell that I would side with the right on this. Less of two evils? One is the equivalent of a cornered animal willing to bite anything that comes close and seems threatening, and the other is a polite gent who assures you they want to evict you from your own house non-violently, while having tourettes-like outbursts where they reveal they're carrying a dagger under their cloak. :P
Nazism especially. I mean jesus didn't you guys literally have some kind of big war where the whole world got involved? I seem to recall something in a book somewhere about it, and some other stuff about accepting black people but also being wishy-washy and legally shrugging about chronic lynching problems.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you're going from that angle, you might as well just reply to this thread about attempted murder with an alternate cop-out of "who is to say what is moral and immoral?"
Doesn't matter what direction you shine the light on Nazism, its core goals and belief set have no noble goal. The fact that you have to deliberately try to search for a way to angle the behavior and values of the alt-right to be able to frame it as noble should tell you something, whereas the overriding, obvious core values of BLM, leftism, and even the growingly toxic genuine SJWism are all borne from things that have good intentions. BLM was a reaction to the trend of black fatalities and the police policies relating to it, that required not only fatalities but video recordings of mishandled situations to truly gain momentum (and is sustained by things such as non-hostile protest groups being tear-gassed). Leftism on its own is a broad political group, and is a simple mirror to the right. There is a reason the alt-right has to specify its difference to the simple plain right, because their methods and ideology are largely rejected for their values, tactics and approach, and for things like the overlap with sympathy to things like nazism and anti-humanitarian issues. The only good thing to come of the alt-right is that we can finally specify those who are trying to deconstruct certain civilised values, and those who are simply somewhere right of the political spectrum.
Even SJWism has its roots in good things. While originally the term "SJW" meant someone who was unafraid to back down from a fight when it comes to the subject of equality, it was quickly poisoned by those within the ranks who actively went looking for fights as a priority and seldom even tried civilised discourse. I actually resent that people overused the derogative term of SJW, because it was handy to differentiate between those with humanitarian interests and those who simply used those subjects as a means to bully others or elevate themselves. Now the derogative SJW pretty much means 'anyone who disagrees with me' or 'isnt a traditionalist'. Social Justice may have zigzagged off the straight and narrow but they were born from a desire to fight for the (perceived) underdog and challenge the status quo on their behalf. Yes, it snowballed into toxicity as the phenomenon became more public, and the SJ movement is a sour subject for me given how they have actually helped to further normalise certain sexism and racism, but the core intent still remains more progressive than the core intent of even the 'lesser' evil of the alt-right. All extremism is built upon the core values. Not every member of a group is an extremist. We all agree on this right? But when the core values themselves don't even have a solid good intention, then you're working with a deeply flawed foundation.
Yes, the horseshoe theory holds true at least in the mentalities and tactics that extremes of both sides are willing to use (and I frequently try to caution left activists of this!), but to say the left extremists are a flat equivalent of the right extremists is IMO a pretty big fallacy.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, as long as the goals are noble.. go for it?
Ah, the good old "the end justifies the means". That is always how it starts.
Both sides suck, it's just the way it is.
And I don't get this weird obsession with Nazism. It was bad and everything, yeah, absolutely true, but it was in no way anything unique in the history of mankind. Why are some always trying to paint it as some horrible historic singularity? It wasn't, get over it.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, as long as the goals are noble.. go for it?
Ah, the good old "the end justifies the means". That is always how it starts.
No. I was replying to someone on the matter of the base goals of the groups, and how they are not comparable. One starts with good intentions and the extremists are those who wandered away from a good idea. The other has purification at it's base, and genocidal atrocities directly attached to it. I noted that I am staunchly against the toxic creep in the left ideologies as well, and was drawing a comparison of their roots and the common direction they aim. Both sides have their examples of suck-ass individuals, but it's a false equation unless the operative goal of the left groups is to create and physically/legally enforce dehumanisation of a similar degree. They aren't. A person who steals a loaf of bread and a person who embezzles billions are both stealing, and that seems to be enough that people shrug and call them equal crimes. They're not. "Get over it"
Just because the nazi genocides aren't singularly unique in the bloody history of mankind, it doesn't mean their ideology hasn't been proven to be catastrophic when not properly moderated. Oh, and I'm pretty sure Nazism is pretty unique at least in scale and implication, unless there are a variety of other world wars I'm missing out on? Nah, lets just ignore the values they're espousing and hope they don't gradually poison their way into footholds again.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am glad that this event has been acknowledged as domestic terrorism and am still pissed that Obama would label events like the Ft. Hood shooting (I was stationed there, and on base during the events) as 'workplace violence'.
I also think that the BLM movement has racist tendencies and has members who are extremists and blatantly anti-white racists... yet that is never discussed and usually blatantly ignored.
That said, it was only a matter of time before pro-white groups clashed into violence with pro-black groups... but let's be honest about who those groups really are, they are not pro-color groups, they are both anti-white and anti-black groups. I am not condoning violence, merely pointing out that the expectation that none would eventually materialize was an incorrect analysis of the situation. And honestly, I would be surprised if this quells the mobs thirst for blood.
I would of course be remiss if I did not point out that the political bullshit rhetoric had only manifested itself into actual violence during this past election season - when far left liberal agitators and paid protesters started assaulting those who attended President Trump's campaign rallies. Pointing the finger does not generally help, but who is actually shocked to see former victims returning aggression on their former assailants? I'm not.
I don't support it. I don't condone it. But I am certainly not surprised by it.
"Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them and they'll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they'll roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the Senate, it's the sand of the Colosseum. He'll bring them death...and they will love him for it."
Comment has been collapsed.
It hasn't been acknowledged as an act of terroism afik, Trump Certainly hasn't called it that.
yet that is never discussed and usually blatantly ignored.
Lol, blm is called racist all the fucking time, theres so much controversy around it, It's not ignored.
And blm didn't clash with people here, the counter protesters were protesting nazis, they weren't blm.
And some Democrats were also attacked, futhermore, single crazy people is not the same as an organized group.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are absolutely right, BLM did not (as a group) clash with people here, but they regularly do, and when law enforcement do not shut down illegal events - it sends a message to all of those (on either side) who would incite riots / violent protests that the police will not act in a swift manner.
Law enforcement pandering to unlawful group activity sends a strong and powerful message - I have said that previously - and the far alt right has seen that message and have responded in kind. Not in direct response to BLM, but they certainly took a play out of the BLM playbook.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, that I can agree with, police are very slow reacting to these types of events so they keep getting worse because people know they can push them more without getting removed.
Comment has been collapsed.
My problem here is that, people who had no outrage over far left violent protests and riots are absolutely outraged about far right violent protests and riots. Of course, i am not trying to play down the fact that someone was killed - and it is a tragedy in its own right - but a little unity in what is and is not socially acceptable responses to injustice would go a long way in restoring order to this nation
Comment has been collapsed.
I mean, of course people who agree with the purpose of the protest don't have a problem. Small oitbreaks of voilence are usual in these protests that are not greatly led, especially with counter protesters present unfortunately. Thats something that needs to be fixed, but I doubt it will. And riots are condemmed by most on both sides. Murder is something completely different from those and unacceptable.
I don't have a problem with protests, I think a lot are stupid or disagree, but think people ahould have the right to protest thier views. However when nazis and white nationalists rally Imma be against that.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are a smart individual, smarter than most on these boards, and we have had good quality discussions previously - most recently with the Trump military trans ban. So, I think it will come as no surprise to you that I was previously a member of the military. The US Flag means a lot to service members, but I have no issues with people burning my flag or stomping on it. The Westboro Baptist Church protested soldiers funnerals not to long ago, and I have no issues with that either. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that individuals who do not exercise the rights that I swore to uphold and defend are doing my service a disservice. Now, I may not like flag burning, or funnerals being picketed/protested and I think they are done in bad taste, but I would support ANYONE who would choose to exercise their rights in any capacity and for any reason. Not their position, but their right.
As such, I support nazi's rights to protest. I support their right to assembly. Just as I would with any group, whether that group is the LGBT, BLM, Black Panther Party, etc. I will defend their rights so long as those rights continue to exist - regardless of whether or not I believe with the groups ideology or mission.
Comment has been collapsed.
Which is a noble ideal to uphold, but it is worth remembering that evil has no such standards. I am entirely for the protection of free speech, but given how politics is still driven by money, loopholes and a whole lot of circus pretense of rules that are often bent or ignored outright, can we be confident that history won't repeat itself? Western civilisation has grown in age but whether or not it has the capacity to resolve an idealogical rift without it escalating into a civil war has to be seen. It's a worrisome prospect with the saturation of firearms in the US.
The groansome line that was once repeated was "We saved your asses in the war!"
I just hope that the next big western war isn't going to be other countries trying to help stabilise your home. When it's like against like, I imagine it's far harder to slip yourself into the mentality of seeing "the enemy". Not every domino will fall the same direction, and the clusterfuck that could potentially happen... it's worrisome. Fear is an enemy in itself and can lead reasonable people to do unreasonable things, and Nazism is a particularly big symbol of the awful things humanity is capable of. The fact that their symbolism and such is being adapted by certain heavy-right groups and then being likened to being 'equally as bad' as those wanting to squash their rallying for 'purity'?
I worry.
A modern nation whose enemy is itself, where weapons are abundant and opinions are as diverse as the groups that composes the country itself? Even if the people keep it from boiling over, what about agitants from outside groups who want to see the US weakened? Hell, forget outside interests, it'll take a single misplaced agent provocateur during one fateful protest and that'll be the seed to the avalanche.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would of course be remiss if I did not point out that the political bullshit rhetoric had only manifested itself into actual violence during this past election season - when far left liberal agitators and paid protesters started assaulting those who attended President Trump's campaign rallies. Pointing the finger does not generally help, but who is actually shocked to see former victims returning aggression on their former assailants? I'm not.
You're right! Pointing the finger generally doesn't help. So, don't do it, cause mostly it just serves to mitigate/rationalize murder. Instead, check this out!!!
Comment has been collapsed.
I am not pointing it out in order to rationalize murder, I am pointing it out because "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."
Comment has been collapsed.
It's cool, it's obvious you're a thoughtful person and not trying to do that; that's just how a "well, they did it first" statement functions - it functions to rationalize antisocial behavior via prosocial notions of justice and reciprocity. The more we use them the more these behaviors are seen as not "so bad" and the more "bad" people feel emboldened and disinhibited to perform these antisocial behaviors. Also...
Comment has been collapsed.
Spot on, always positively surprised when I read something like this. Good job.
Comment has been collapsed.
white people having pride in their heritage and history and being 'pro white' are evil racists, and yet when a blm member guns down whites during a protest, or when black people form black 'pride' movements to be proud of their heritage and are 'pro black' in college campuses, this is called empowering, and brave, and righteous. To me, people who condemn one form of racism and support another are no better than those they claim to stand against.
I seem to remember a bunch of black people kidnapped and tortured a white guy, but no one, not even obama, wanted to call it a racial hate crime, because.. you know.. its acceptable when black people do it.
Im not for one side, i have no dog in this fight.. it just disgusts me when people refuse to condemn racism or hatred as being 'racism' and 'hatred'. its always THIS racism is bad... but that other stuff is fine... i doubt anyone here would be as animated or angry if this were another BLM protest instead of a white pride one. Seems its only bad to be proud of your skin colour if its the colour YOU dont like.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well "white pride" is about forcibly removing or exterminating other races, while black pride is about not hating what you were born as even if you face discrimination for it.
And those people tourtured the dude for being mentally handicapped, not white, and were charged with hate crimes.
And blm protests do get people very angry.
Comment has been collapsed.
Youve decided that to have pride in ones race and be white should be shunned because it is racism, but black people who are proud of their race and colour is totally acceptable because its somehow not racist just because theyre black? I mean.. congrats on being racist i guess... its ludicrous to suggest what youve just claimed. Why is one acceptable in your mind and one isnt? Do you just think black people cant be racist and all white people are?
Also good to see that you too refuse to believe that black people torturing a white guy couldnt possibly have been about race.. but i guess thats part of the problem with 'racism' in the world. Whenever black people do something specifically against someone who is white, youll always defend it as being ANYTHING other than a racial hate crime - and yet if a white person does something to a black person, it always must be racism and nothing else. They picked him because he was handicapped and thus couldnt fight back and was an easy target, for sure, but they tortured him for being white. I mean in the video they were heard yelling 'fuck white people'... whats not racist about that?
Comment has been collapsed.
Mate, white people can be proud of thier race. The white nationalists claiming white pride are neo nazis, not people who arr just proud of thier heritage.
I remeber the conclusion being that they targeted him for being mentally disabled, but apparently my memeory failed me on that. Yeah, it was rascim and they were charged with hate crime.
Comment has been collapsed.
You really should watch the video again, and pay close attention to what people are yelling.
Comment has been collapsed.
My post isnt about this specific event, its about racism perceptions as a whole. No one is debating that white people and pro white rallys can be racist, and im certainly not defending any side in this protest. My post is about the perception that when black people behave this way that it shouldnt be condemned with the same voracity - this is what i find so wrong with all this. When black people set a town on fire and beat up white people because theyre angry about the actions of one cop, no one seems to care.
We'll never get past racism if we always turn a blind eye to the actions of one race over another - or when we treat racism as WORSE just because one side did it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I never have or will watch it, it's really horribel and disguting. I remeber the conclusion being that they tourtured him fpr being mentally handicapped but my memory was wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I think you've understood the point being made. I don't believe you need to subject yourself to that ugliness if you figured it out. Racism is rampant in America, but it also exists in every other country I've been to or learned about. Despite that, there are few people who understand its causes, its effects, and how to deal with it. Racism is a learned, emotional phenomenon, and you cannot "argue" someone out of it. Until behavior patterns are overwritten by new experiences, the best you can hope for is tolerance rather than acceptance. A black man who hates white people and a white man who hates black people can still be good friends despite both being racist.
Comment has been collapsed.
You know what, I dont want to fight. It genuinely doesnt bother me that youre racist, it doesnt effect me, and i harbor no ill will towards you or anyone else. The only thing that gets me angry is when people.. and it doesnt matter if theyre black or white or anything in between, condemn racism but only when its one side that is doing it, while giving a pass (or worse, a blind eye because they cant even see it) when a particular race behaves the same way. All racism should be abhorrent and treated equally. Some people call it 'reverse racism' when black people do it, but ive never heard anything more stupid in my life. All racism is bad, all racism should be dragged out into the light without fear of being ostracized just for calling it out when a black person does it. All racism should be treated equally, otherwise how can we move forward as a species. Sad fact is that ill no doubt get a lot of heat for saying that black people can be every bit as racist and hate-filled as white people, but i dont care. More people need to say it. More people need to accept it.
We're really good at calling out racism when white people do it. Its sad that we're still so blind, ignorant, or just flat out indifferent when black people do it in our societies. It happens, and we should treat it exactly the same.
It shouldnt be bad to have pride in your colour and your heritage, regardless of skin colour. White people should be allowed to be every bit as proud of their race as black people, without it being branded as racism.. and every skin colour, white as well as black and everyone else, should be just as free to live without hatred and prejudice from ANYONE.
Comment has been collapsed.
White people should be allowed to be every bit as proud of their race as black people, without it being branded as racism
I've never seen any reason to be "proud" of any skin color. I'd as soon be as proud of the color of my shoes or t-shirt. It makes about as much sense to me.
Edit: Then again, maybe that's the problem. People are more proud of their skin color than what's beneath.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah doesnt make much sense to me either - im not advocating it, im just simply saying that if its acceptable for one, it should be perfectly acceptable for all... surely its one of the founding causes of racism to say otherwise, and its the reason i think there is so much animosity between different races.
I also agree with your edit. One of the best videos ive ever seen on racism is morgan freeman saying that to get rid of racism (and im paraphrasing here) is to stop talking about it, and just see people as people. Pro white movements, pro black movements.. nothing can be more damaging to us than this kind of nonsense.
Comment has been collapsed.
Mate, we treat black people hella worse for things they do so I don't know what you're on about. White people get shorter sentences when they do crime. Black people are displayed worse when theu commit crimes too.
But yeah, black people can also be racist, it ain't exclusive to white people.
And white people can be proud of their race, but the phrase "white pride" has been adopted by neo nazis and white nationalists.
Comment has been collapsed.
White pride is only those things because white nationalists and neo nazis adopted the word.
White people can be prideful of thier race, but the phrase "white pride" has been taken over by nazis, sorry.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd wouldn't mind the white pride thing, but sadly whenever such a thing is mentioned it is almost always attached to a milky cluster of bileous indignant assholes who can't shut up about how much the fact black people exist ruined their football buzz.
Here's a thought : If you want white pride to literally just mean being happy for our success or progress, then you have to reclaim it. You have to openly and loudly denounce every last shit-eating post-natal failure of a human being who uses it in conjunction with racial hate, and you gather likeminded people and you keep doing that until the term is detoxed.
No? Well sadly the white racists have already poisoned the term so thoroughly for the rest of us that unless there is a monumental effort to reclaim it and tell the fecal leftovers from the past generations to fuck off with their divisionary race garbage, that's the way it stays. If we want it, we have to take it back. Nobody else can do that for us. Unless we're willing, we have to deal with that connotation we're letting stand.
I have no issue with this, because while I like any other human being have my own struggles to deal with, and yes, they sometimes relate to my sex and my race despite being a white guy, the degrees my human demographic have been forced to fight for equality pales in comparison to that of women or blacks of the past. I have taken 'pride' to be more about "we overcame this stuff, and we're still ironing out the wrinkles, fuck yeah we're still here!" than just pride in your collective accomplishments. There are issues that all demographics and denominations have to face, some unique, some shared. Prejudice isn't a binary of simply oppressed or not oppressed, it's a landscape of highs and lows. But we have to fight our own fights, not bemoan the misconceptions and hold entire other races accountable for that. We run the risk of circular 'other'ism. Challenge injustice where you find it, don't just aim to throw the onus on an entire demographic and then wash your hands of it.
Comment has been collapsed.
i wouldnt mind if more gingers were in the world. i think ginger girls are adorable
Comment has been collapsed.
I've been to many places, and met people from all over the world. In my experience, there is no race that has a monopoly on racism. Even among people of the same race, there is division and hate of anyone "different" simply because they are "different." Having a difference of opinion should not be a source of outrage. Rather, it should be acknowledged as a difference of opinion. Unfortunately, too many people take disagreement as a personal challenge, as if they are being accused of being "wrong" or "bad" for having a different point of view, and so they feel the need to "defend" themselves against the "attack" of a different viewpoint. This is ignorance.
Beyond that, however, there is the entire issue of Hate. Sure, people have likes and dislikes, but hate is something that should be cast out of one's heart, not nurtured. Hate poisons one's intentions, and spoils one's good deeds. Certainly, it is just to be outraged over injustice or evil, to feel righteous indignation, but not hate. Hate hardens the heart, blinds one to the truth, and drives one to dark deeds. If you must hate something, hate the evil that people do, not the individuals who do it. After the wrongdoer has repented and paid the price for his or her crime, the option to walk the path of righteousness remains.
Comment has been collapsed.
A person's environment affects his or her behavior. You have only to hang out with a group of people to see the affect it has on you. Even so, people have free will and the freedom to choose their own response to what happens in life. There are countless examples of people who "escape" or "rise above" their circumstances due to the choices they make. It's not always easy, but the choice is always there.
As for Revolution, that is a deep subject, and one which is separate from Crime & Punishment. Imposing change by force always leads to upheaval and slaughter. If you want to change a society, focus on changing the mindset of its people. The Socialists have been trying to do that in America since the 30's, and look where we are, now. Well, I suppose you wouldn't notice if you were unfamiliar with Socialist ideologies. Let's just say that America has one foot in Socialism and the other in Capitalism. (Both have their problems.)
Comment has been collapsed.
Moreover, imposing change by force has repeatedly "worked."
Please read carefully. I never said it couldn't "work," I did say it always leads to upheaval and slaughter. All of the examples you cite included both.
Violent uprising tends to be the most efficient way to change a government, speaking in purely pragmatic terms.
No, not the most efficient. Merely the most expedient. That is why it is the method used most often. People are often impatient.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why prolong suffering when you can destroy the proponents of a corrupt society and rebuild anew?
Why include suffering needlessly when you can just go somewhere else with an agreeable population and begin anew? Even if you argue that there is "nowhere to go," that doesn't negate the fact that suffering is not a requirement for change.
Also, I must apologize for my error, above (which you didn't mention). For some reason, I read your citing of the American Revolution and thought of the Civil War, instead. The American Revolution was not imposed by force, and if the British Crown had simply chosen to allow the Americans to become independent, no war need ever to have been fought. That is not the only example of a population deciding to change things, however. History provides many examples.
Comment has been collapsed.
Change is sought because of suffering.
Change is sought for many reasons, one of which may be suffering. What I said, however, is that change itself does not require suffering. Two totally different things, there.
? If the government just accedes to the people's demands, no war would ever need to be fought.
I think you meant "no revolutionary war." True, no war would be fought. Revolution and war are two different things, and that was my point. You seem to be arguing that the former requires the latter, but history says otherwise. Change occurs for many different reasons, as does war, but the two are not inextricably linked. Change only invokes violence only when there is violent opposition to the change. It is not a matter of the "revolution's convictions," it is a matter of the opposition's convictions.
And lest there be confusion on the matter, no, I do not promote violence as the primary solution for any problem. Yes, it is sometimes necessary, but there are often better alternatives.
Comment has been collapsed.
Mine was that the least painful way to change a government is to do it with a populace that already supports the change. I think yours was that violent takeover is usually quicker and leaves less to chance. It seems we have both realized that we're not really arguing with each other. P
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm glad you brought that up. Most people don't even think about it, but anything becomes a problem when taken to extremes. For that matter, any extremist group is diametrically opposed to every other extremist group. There's something to wrap your head around.
Moderation is generally the best course of action, but not many people choose that path. Chasing after one's desires is simply too seductive. P
Comment has been collapsed.
Though I'd argue that many instances in history would prove you wrong, with the outcome of the majority of violent revolutions ending in an even worse dictatorship than before - see Stalin, Mao or Chomeini for example (I really can't think of a single one which ended up being better than before right now :?). Evidently, oppressed groups manage to oppose their exploitative rulers successfully, but end up mostly with a forced model of a truly liberated and democratic society, which in itself is doomed to fail since they mostly lose at really changing the system to begin with, simply put/force a new label on it and hope it will succeed anyway (disregarding the fact that especially the former mentioned were nothing but sociopaths keen on exploiting the respective movements for their own personal gain anyhow ;x).
Without changing the mindset of the people, which truly is a slow and tedious process, every little struggle for power within the movement or even other powers interfering from the outside will put the revolution to test and subsequently qualifies to throw it back to ground zero - look at what actually happens in the middle east, about every single state affected by the so called Arab Spring is in turmoil, struggling to find their place, identity and even common ground - they're far from living the good, dictatorship-free life they envisioned while protesting and overthrowing their old governments and are still being pushed around and abused by more powerful nations.
I do get your notion, but I really don't think that without fundamental changes in the way we as humanity think and behave and how societies are structured/work, which come slowly and unfortunately with a lot of hardship as it seems, every such endeavour will eventually fail and in the end only fuel the roller coaster of history - up and down, another ticket for the same ride, repeating the whole process once again... or mankind somehow collectively starts to use their brains the right way and we can start in an instant ;>...
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, maybe we should first establish what we would agree determines a successful revolution, hehe :P... I definitely wouldn't label the doings of mass murdering sociopaths like Mao or Stalin as beneficial for their countries/subjects and history wouldn't either since they both failed in the end and were overthrown themselves, more or less ;>. I certainly would argue that a truly successful revolution would benefit everyone in terms like the French Revolution tried to establish (why the hell didn't I remember ;D?) rather than one oppressive regime replacing the other - although btw one could argue that t had a pretty long lead time itself; with the urgent need for a more centralized bureaucracy and an imminent French bankruptcy, the advancement of the 'Age of Enlightenment' as a whole and the overall flaws every absolutist system inherits from the beginning, all laying the foundation for it way before anyone even thought of storming the Bastille... and even then, with the blatant disregard for human rights of today, the revolution kinda failed insofar as many people to this date can't truly benefit from what happened over 200 years ago (yeah, I know I'm stretching it, but as long as we don't agree on what makes a revolution successful, it's pretty much game :P). But I agree that our 'western' approach to democracy (we certainly like to apply to every state there is) isn't the only way and in many cases one that most probably will fail anyway, because there certainly is no panacea applicable to every country around the globe without at least minor modifications (or a completely new system altogether), let alone for history rich, proud nations like the aforementioned Russia and China :>. I'd like to ramble some more, but I need to go to sleep and struggle to keep a clear thought (hopefully one can kinda understand what I'm getting at ;x), so... I certainly welcome our new robot overlords!
Comment has been collapsed.
What they (tried) to create is almost extinguished to this date, therefore 'kinda' - e.g. the downfall of the USSR took place years after Stalin died, nonetheless the ideas they both promoted vanquished with it and are almost nonexistent nowadays - the fact that they're still nostalgically well-remembered for what reasons whatsoever doesn't change the fact that both systems failed. Was more figure of speech the way I used it though anyway, since I was tired as hell when I wrote it and thus too lazy to write a whole paragraph why both systems failed ;D.
EDIT: Oh, and while I just read my ramblings once again - I meant decentralized bureaucracy, otherwise it wouldn't make much sense. But nice to see Ozymandias mentioned, haven't seen that in a long time :>.
Comment has been collapsed.
Simply that they failed to establish what they rallied the masses for (if they ever intended to follow up on that in the first place) and additionally that the USSR did not only fail due to bad leadership, but to its system being flawed from the beginning - I didn't claim that they had no legacy of historical or any other value whatsoever. Still, as long as we don't agree on a definition what a successful revolution is or at least you elaborate on what you think it is, I'm kinda fishing in the dark here :D.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, and I just argued that doing a swift and possibly violent revolution won't probably get you that far, only replacing one evil through a (maybe) lesser evil - real change is nothing that comes over night but needs to grow on people. Basically, we're on the same page, only difference that you're rooting for a quick and abrupt change and me arguing for a slower, but more thorough one - did I get that right ;D? By the most basic definition, there were a lot of successful revolutions over time, the bigger question to me is if they had a real benefit or were just grabs for power by the same lunatics that were before them and if we should strive to repeat that process.
Comment has been collapsed.
More like 'social revolution', just like the French one was.
Comment has been collapsed.
The actual french revolution was nearly about 10 years long, not taking into consideration how long it took to plant its seed and to spread across Europe - I'd beg to differ that it was simply "an accumulation of anger that culminated in an upheaval", I don't think that a description like that really does it justice.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sorry, but what's the point you wanna make ^^? This exchange kinda drifted so much from the original thesis that we run the risk of going in circles or eventually lose ourselves in pointless driveling, hehe ;>.
I think there's too much emphasis on the time aspect, but that's not was the major flaw of your position necessarily is in my eyes: If one is to prepare a meal, it doesn't start with the cooking, even if it's one essential element of it - meaning that rebellion isn't the beginning of a revolution, even if it's more often than not used interchangeable, but more like part of it. I was only emphasizing that you run a great risk of ending up with no change at all but merely changing the name on the door bell plate (e.g. Haiti) if one doesn't take the right precautions, maybe even tends to put things out of context or focuses only on the most visible part, i.e. open rebellion. This, I believe and why I initially brought them up (well, actually you brought one of them up ;>), is what makes things like the French or Russian revolution so fascinating, since they're so wide-ranging that they can't be nailed down to only being this or that, yet with one of the major differences of them both being that in one instance change came from the bottom up and in the other was enforced from the top down, thereby in the end bearing very differentiating results.
Of course, only time will tell if the approach you propose will inflict a lasting change or if and how fast it'll be swallowed by the sands of time with nothing beside remaining ;>, though interpretation of historic events leads to an inference predicting you at least an overall hard time IMO (so much time, and yet so little ;D).
Comment has been collapsed.
I actually think the system in places like Belgium and the Netherlands works pretty well
then again, a similar system exists in Israel, where it doesn't work that well
Comment has been collapsed.
Stalin and Mao only seem bad for their countries when you compare them to the rest of the world, not to what they replaced. Consider how many people would have died of preventable diseases and occasional famines due to crop failures in a surviving pre-industrial Russian Empire versus those who were worked to death or starved in the Soviet Union. Consider the quality of life of perpetually impoverished and often starving villagers being exploited by the nobility versus Soviet factory workers with only a shortage of consumer goods. Consider that those villagers would be even less informed about the world than the citizens of the propaganda-heavy USSR. And they'd be just as brutally suppressed if they tried to oppose the government.
I don't know if I can make the same case for Mao since I'm less familiar with the specifics of Chinese society before and after the civil war. But I'd definitely consider the Russian revolution a success, since it replaced a very terrible system with a somewhat less very terrible system.
Comment has been collapsed.
Like I said, we kinda lacked a definition for what qualifies a revolution to be considered successful at the beginning of this, so it's still arguably for me if the lesser evil is really what we should strive for. And I don't wanna sound all anti-communism (even if both truly weren't) here, the west is historically also as evil as they come, but the countless and more important needless death tolls both amassed are... well, are just that and IMO speak for themselves. I really simplified it and broke it down in a kinda populistic way, granted :>.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wait. How do you judge the relative popularity of a dictator like Stalin? Surely he was not popular with the millions sent to the gulags or who knows how many more who avoided that by simply keeping their mouth shut and their heads down. There's no way to assess popularity honestly in a totalitarian state, even if you could go back in time and do it. People would simply lie to save themselves.
Comment has been collapsed.
Having a difference of opinion should not be a source of outrage. Rather, it should be acknowledged as a difference of opinion.Unless that difference of opinion is that legal citizens should be declassified and deported, and uses subtle language to suggest that more force may be used if polite channels fail to achieve this. Some opinions should very much be a source of outrage, at least in any civilised country that even pretends to have a semblance of egalitarianism.
As much as your second paragraph has good advice, the zen-like true-adult maturity is optional. People do not need to be perfectly centered machines before they engage with a dangerous and high profile opponent in the middle of attempting public integration. Instead I would suggest intermittent self-analysis to ensure we aren't turning into the mirror image of the demons we hate. Outrage and passion are amazing fuel for positive change, but it still has to be channeled and self-monitored unless it serves to turn into mere self-serving prejudice at expense of any actual progress. People are often far too satisfied to just lash out for the sweet catharsis, even if it actively serves to work against the cause they claim to champion. If something is worth fighting, it's worth fighting with as much clarity as we can muster, no copping out with easy scapegoats or blind lashing out, but it also means holding a sense of scope. Sometimes, being angry and unafraid to voice that anger is well within the scope of progress.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's lots of stuff in here. I'll have to return to this when I have more time. For now, it would seem I generally agree with what your point, so I don't see the contradiction between what I wrote and what you wrote.
Comment has been collapsed.
? ? ?
What propaganda? What political point of view?
Also hate is cool and as important part of emotional spectrum as any other, ... because EVERYONE thinks they are the good guys and that they oppose evil.
I disagree.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is a lot of propaganda going on here ...
I suggest you look up the word "propaganda" as you seem to misunderstand its meaning. Yes, there are many people expressing views, and the discussion does touch on various aspects of politics, but what I have read thus far has been mostly about social justice, not political causes. The two are not the same. I will have to catch up on this thread, later, but don't worry. either I or one of the other Mods will monitor things and take action if appropriate.
As for what I have written, you seem to misinterpreting it. I apologize if I'm not being clear.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're right, and that's a bit sad somehow. But you're still right.
Comment has been collapsed.
The most horrible thing to me is that I feel like if it was proven that the car was driven by a leftist radical the response here would be a lot different and it wouldn't be "both sides are problematic" so much as "fucking liberals, sjws, radicals etc they're all nuts!".
The future Martin Luther King JR, Gene Roddenberry, Gandhi, and other visionaries is harder to see every day...
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the major problem is that people tend to overlook or strike out that nice little word "consensus" in their dictionary. It's much easier to point the finger at someone or something and blame them/it for everything bad instead of working together, putting differences aside, and overcoming what divides or hinders humanity as a whole from progressing. Doesn't really matter if the nutcase driving the car was white, black, male, female, short, tall, ... - they were a product of that hate-filled environment which once again dicharged in a mass frenzy over a ridiculous and petty thing like a statue. Well, on the other hand, you can't argue with the self-deluded and self-righteous, the constantly recurring conundrum of being tolerant of the intolerant :x. Let's just hope that police'll do their job properly and disband everything or at least seperate them appropriately.
I gotta admit, you've put a smile on my face by squeezing Gene between King Jr. and Gandhi ;D.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's probably because any physical action seems to go against their verbal ones in many cases. At least in my neck of the woods we see Left as treehuggers, tea drinkers, fight fire with love... Next thing you know they murder an opposition leader and chain themselves to a gate while throwing molotovs... :P
Comment has been collapsed.
if it was proven that the car was driven by a leftist radical the response here would be a lot different and
it wouldn't be "both sides are problematic" so much as "fucking liberals, sjws, radicals etc they're all nuts!"."
Except, that there's no need for that, the vast majority of the western civilized world and their artificial intelligence knows.
Comment has been collapsed.
The future Martin Luther King JR, Gene Roddenberry, Gandhi, and other visionaries is harder to see every day...
I know you're a huge fan but don't you think naming Roddenberry among the other two detracts from the actual real achievements of Martin Luther King and Gandhi ?
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't think of too many other white people whose impact on popular culture and sociopolitical movements has had a more important affectover the past 50 years, tbh. Most white politicians are worthless, and while a lot of artists, musicians, and other creative intellectuals that happen to share my melanin levels have been very influential if you look at the many "firsts in the popular zeitgeist where progressive ideas and values were expressed you will find that Star Trek led most of them. Granted the show did not have the audience it does now but the germs of the ideas were there first.
Obviously I could have named more names but I chose those three specifically:)
Comment has been collapsed.
Interesting. I was going to ask you some questions, but then I found this.
https://www.libertarianism.org/media/free-thoughts/politics-star-trek
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh...hmm, not sure how much ST has to do with libertarianism (Roddenberry himself would probably be considered a socialist today) but I do recommend these if you're interested:
Star Trek and History
Trekonomics: The Economics of Star Trek
Otherworldly Politics: The International Relations of Star Trek, Game of Thrones, and Battlestar Galactica
Comment has been collapsed.
Considering how often the Prime Directive got broken (original series), more than you might think. I haven't finished reading it yet, but so far there's no attempt to pigeonhole ST or force it into a libertarian mold. It's just a deft and interesting political/cultural analysis that understands Rodenberry's et al roots in post WW2 humanism and individualism and knows how to bring that into perspective in the Cold War/New Left milieu of the 60s.
I will give those a try, but since they are all books, any one that stands out above the others that I could start with?
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess in a way Roddenberry's vision of the future inspired many other smart people to make some of his ideas reality but I'm not sure how much of the credit for that should go to Roddenberry and how much to the people doing those things.
When it comes to visionaries who actually changed the word I think Semmelweis or Fleming would have been a better fit.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not often I day this, but today I am proud to be Virginian, as we stand against the white supremacist and neo nazi fucks rallying.
They crashed a car into counter protesters murdering one and injuring 19, it really doesn't still feel like this decade with race based terrorism going on in this country.
A fucking terrorist attack is committed by white nationalists and the President is blaming both sides, because of course he wont blame the alt right, they're his voting base. "Egregious display of hatred and bigotry on many sides." I mean, I feel maybe the openly racist neo nazis, altright, and white nationalists are the bigots, and the violence , ya know, since they just rammed a car into a crowd?
Edit: the victim of the car attack is still unidentified as police are working towards notifying her family.Edit 2: Some people might get the idea that I'm saying anyone leaning right is bad with my previous title, I was just trying to make it opposite of #unitetheright. The neo nazis and white nationalists are who I am against.
Edit 3: The victim has been identified as Heather Heyer, a 32 y/o Virginian paralegal with the Miller Law Group,
Comment has been collapsed.