Antifa rocks!

Status
Not open for further replies.
hobbsyoyo said:
I mean come on dude. This isn't true and you know it. The holocaust wasn't whipped up apropos of nothing; there was over a decade of virulent hate speech that led up to the violence. And this is of course overlooking more direct harmful speech like yelling Fire! in a crowded theater or instructing your crowd to 'rough up' protestors and promising to cover legal bills at campaign rallies and other direct incitements to violence.
Click to expand...

directly
 
hobbsyoyo said:
I called it out right here
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/antifa-rocks.640909/page-78#post-15499123
Click to expand...
That's a response to a post about free speech it says nothing about there not being any sort of a problem. There have clearly been incidents in which people have been killed, that's clearly a problem on some level, but some of us don't think its enough to start binning everyone's rights. If you ask Berserker or Manfred if they think right-wing nutters murdering people is at least a minor issue in the grand scheme of things I doubt they'd answer in the negative.
Cloud_Strife said:
We have armed fascist militias over here brennan.

They've killed before.
Click to expand...
You have armed everybody over there.

Cloud_Strife said:
Yes but i would actually really prefer it if we didn't take that risk Brennan or put ourselves in a similar position, all things considered mate.

I mean... am i unreasonable?
Click to expand...
The proportion of people who agree with a bell-weather progressive statement like "Do you believe gay or lesbian relationships between consenting adults should be legal" has been steadily increasing for the last 30 years and is now about 75%. No I don't think your vision of the USA as a stone's throw from fascism bears much relation to the actual situation. People aren't joining the Nazi party en masse, nor are jackbooted thugs turning up at Democrat rallies to put the boot in.

Edit: there's a visibility issue in the States with the ludicrous degree of partisanship on display in the media (old and new) that makes things look (even) worse than they are.
 
Cloud_Strife said:
Your argument hinges on the idea that the state currently does not already hold a monopoly on various aspects of your life, even going as far as to what you can and cannot do physically.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't. This isn't an all-or-nothing question. It's not complete anarchy vs battery-farmed humans. I think people should be allowed to say pretty much what they want to say. I don't think people should be allowed to go around beating other people up. My stated position therefore already contains some restrictions within it that I find acceptable.

You even accept that with greater freedom comes greater possibility of harm, but i don't think that is a reasonable position to take, if it means others might be harmed for it.
Click to expand...

Well then logically you can only support keeping all humans locked in solitary confinement for their entire lives, in straight jackets, in padded cells, whilst being sedated. Because any more freedom that that means that someone might be harmed as a result. Freedom by its very nature allows people to harm each other, because it requires restrictions to guarantee that that can't happen.

And I realise that seems hyperbolic, particularly as I just said that it's not an all-or-nothing question, but if your stance is as absolute as "no freedom is acceptable if it means others might be harmed for it" then that logically leads to only that extreme position. I mean surely you must agree that there is a balancing point to be found between freedoms and the potential risks of those freedoms, even if we completely disagree where that point is?

Why is it shackles to expect the bare minimum of tolerance?
Click to expand...
This isn't what either of us said. I said you can't shackle everyone else in the entire world to prevent even the possibility that they could harm you. If you want to live in a free society you have to accept that this makes it easier for people to hurt you. If you want to live in a society where you are never hurt, then this inevitably means some sort of totalitarian regime (however benign in its goals) where everyone is kept shackled, including you. You can't have both.

This is completely unrelated to asking for the bare minimum of tolerance.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences and if those consequences result in the harm of minorities then that is something that must be strongly considered and factored into before going full steam ahead.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what "freedom of consequences" could mean. But aren't you basically saying "being allowed to drive a car doesn't mean you're allowed to drive into crowds of children, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to drive a car"?
 
brennan said:
People aren't joining the Nazi party en masse, nor are jackbooted thugs turning up at Democrat rallies to put the boot in.
Click to expand...

International travel to Democrat rallies is a hobby of yours I take it?

For the record I have been PAID to attend Democrat rallies. Purpose, to take out right wing disruptors who ACHE to get into a conflict with official security that the right wing rags can turn into "candidate's thugs stifle free speech." By having an "ordinary attendee" squash them the design is foiled. Do they wear jackboots? None that I encountered. No doubt that's why you didn't notice them.
 
hobbsyoyo said:
I called it out right here
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/antifa-rocks.640909/page-78#post-15499123
Click to expand...

Yes. Incorrectly. In a way that demonstrates you can't really have been reading what I've been saying at all. This for example:

Manfred Belheim said:
there are indeed grey areas, and dangers inherent in allowing certain ideas to propagate, and that there does of course need to a be a line set somewhere that cannot be crossed. And that pinning down where this line should be is very difficult for even a single person to decide, never mind groups and societies. And it's not even clear if there even is a "right" or "wrong" answer to the question.
Click to expand...

And that was from tonight, about a page before...
 
brennan said:
If you ask Berserker or Manfred if they think right-wing nutters murdering people is at least a minor issue in the grand scheme of things I doubt they'd answer in the negative.
Click to expand...

I mean... in the grand scheme of things the entire history of this planet probably doesn't even register as a minor issue to be fair.
 
Manfred Belheim said:
So not directly then.
Click to expand...
Ah, there it is! Well this was nice and all but we're not getting anywhere if this is the game we're playing.

Yes, words can't physically harm someone unless you're shouting in someone's ear with a microphone*. That's a rather daft point to make and I don't think what you were getting at either. But now we're playing semantics and I'm not interested.

*And that would disprove the literal reading of your point in any case but again, this is a dumb game to play.
 
It is indeed a dumb game to play. I'm glad you've decided to stop playing it.
 
Timsup2nothin said:
For the record I have been PAID to attend Democrat rallies. Purpose, to take out right wing disruptors who ACHE to get into a conflict with official security that the right wing rags can turn into "candidate's thugs stifle free speech." By having an "ordinary attendee" squash them the design is foiled. Do they wear jackboots? None that I encountered. No doubt that's why you didn't notice them.
Click to expand...
They're so committed to violence that one 'ordinary attendee' can make them leave. Sturm Abteilung they clearly aren't.

Timsup2nothin said:
International travel to Democrat rallies is a hobby of yours I take it?
Click to expand...
No more than you do my Labour Party canvassing.
 
hobbsyoyo said:
Yes, words can't physically harm someone unless you're shouting in someone's ear with a microphone. And that would disprove the literal reading of your point in any case
Click to expand...

I mean... I already said this...

Manfred Belheim said:
I did say directly harmful. Speech in and of itself is never harmful. Unless you have a voice loud enough to burst eardrums or something.
Click to expand...

You really can't actually be reading anything you're replying to.
 
brennan said:
They're so committed to violence that one 'ordinary attendee' can make them leave.
Click to expand...

My purpose isn't to "make them leave." My purpose is to get thrown out with them. But the story is 'right wing crashers get in fight with rally attendee' instead of reflecting badly on campaign staff.
 
Cloud_Strife said:
You realise this could be interpreted as an attempt to belittle the issue, right?
Click to expand...

Believe me, at this point I'm well aware that pretty much anything can be interpreted as anything the interpreter wants it to be. But I would struggle to see how a statement that literally everything that's ever happened on planet Earth is of no real importance could be taken to actually only apply to some specific things that happened on planet Earth. Or as anything other than a joke really. Unless you're just saying that making a joke in this thread is in and of itself an attempt to belittle the issue. But sometimes you just have to stay sane.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H4run
US Foreign Policy and How it impacts Politics
Replies
4
Views
263
Klaus Hergersheimer
Klaus Hergersheimer
Samson
  • Poll Poll
Internet privacy, security, age restrictions, VPNs and backups
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
2K
Samson
Samson
Bonyduck Campersang
Campus Protests
5 6 7
Replies
121
Views
8K
Bonyduck Campersang
Bonyduck Campersang
Dhoomstriker
Congress, Stop Supporting Censorship! KOSA Threatens Free Speech in the US
2
Replies
23
Views
3K
Dhoomstriker
Dhoomstriker
Birdjaguar
Fighting Back
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
4K
Valka D'Ur
Valka D'Ur
Back
Top Bottom