[RD] Berkeley Riots

[onejayhawk]

Keep carrying water for white supremacists. It's not a very good look, but it's certainly the one we're used to from you. The fact that you equate a religion (just so happens to be Judaism) with white supremacy in trying to make a point kind of shows your true colors.

I carried water for no one. You tilt with windmills to justify reprehensible behavior. By seeking to fight fire with fire, you commit arson. Antifa IS the hate group.

In other words, "I flatly reject the premise of free speech".

This.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

Which KKK? The ones we have now, which you can count on fingers and toes, or the enforcement wing of the Democratic party pre-WW II period. The first is pathetic and the second is a straw man. Nazis are another impolite fiction in today's society. So, who are you really referring to? The closest you can find to either group calls themselves antifascist. Ironic, no?

So its the old, tried and true "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is... defense? OK, whateves, that's cool.

In other words, "I flatly reject the premise of free speech".

In other words... "I can make a Confederate flag my avatar in the middle of a debate over the racist underpinnings of the Confederacy, then switch the Avatar to a picture of the car named General Lee's roof, prominently displaying the same flag... and then claim that "Oh I'm just defending the Dukes of Hazzard show, not the Confederacy or their ideals"

But then, this is an old debate between you and I... I know where you stand and you know where I stand. We don't agree... and that's fine.

 

[onejayhawk]

So its the old, tried and true "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is... defense? OK, whateves, that's cool.

Not hardly. I called a straw man a straw man. Abstracts make perfect bogiemen because they have no inconvenient qualities. There is no real KKK around to confuse things. Pick a real organization and ask again. If you want a hate group, try Antifa.

J

 

[Manfred Belheim]

In other words... "I can make a Confederate flag my avatar in the middle of a debate over the racist underpinnings of the Confederacy, then switch the Avatar to a picture of the car named General Lee's roof, prominently displaying the same flag... and then claim that "Oh I'm just defending the Dukes of Hazzard show, not the Confederacy or their ideals"

But then, this is an old debate between you and I... I know where you stand and you know where I stand. We don't agree... and that's fine.

Well that's realllly relevant to the point in hand. You might as well have said "In other words, you smell". Still, in lieu of a real response, character attacks will have to do I suppose

 

[Sommerswerd]

Not hardly. I called a straw man a straw man. Abstracts make perfect bogiemen because they have no inconvenient qualities. There is no real KKK around to confuse things. Pick a real organization and ask again. If you want a hate group, try Antifa.

Well we disagree on there being "no real KKK". This red herring about whether Nazis and the KKK exist is just bald-faced misdirection in avoidance of answering the question. That's fine. Your non-answer serves just as well to prove my point. You essentially are channeling our illustrious Supreme Leader, who famously (infamously) said..."I don’t know anything about David Duke. OK? I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don’t know."

So that's what you're going with? "KKK? What KKK? Never heard of em..." Fine. Makes sense.

Well that's realllly relevant to the point in hand. You might as well have said "In other words, you smell". Still, in lieu of a real response, character attacks will have to do I suppose

Character attacks? This reminds me of that SNL skit where Baldwin as Trump accuses the media of painting him in a bad light saying "Everyday I turn on the news and all the newscasters are making me look so bad." When Tom Hanks as Chris Wallace asks him how the media is making him look bad, he hilariously answers “By taking all of the things I say, and all of the things I do, and putting them on TV.”

 

[Manfred Belheim]

This reminds me of that SNL skit where Baldwin as Trump accuses the media of painting him in a bad light saying "Everyday I turn on the news and all the newscasters are making me look so bad." When Tom Hanks as Chris Wallace asks him how the media is making him look bad, he hilariously answers “By taking all of the things I say, and all of the things I do, and putting them on TV.”

The point was it has nothing to do with what I said at all. You're attacking the person saying something, not what they're saying, hence character attack. That's literally the definition of a character attack.

If it helps, just imagine that anyone other than me had pointed out that you rejected the whole concept of free speech, in exactly the same words, then respond to that instead. Or don't if you don't want to, it doesn't really matter, just don't pretend that "you smell" is any sort of valid retort for people over the age of about 13.

 

[caketastydelish]

Not hardly. I called a straw man a straw man. Abstracts make perfect bogiemen because they have no inconvenient qualities. There is no real KKK around to confuse things. Pick a real organization and ask again. If you want a hate group, try Antifa.

J

I'm confused. Are you saying there is no real, actual organization of "THE KKK". Here's your proof since you are too lazy to google: https://www.kkk.com/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

Any other questions?

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: I understand that a discussion like this is going to be somewhat heated, however standards of civil discussion still apply - specifically discuss the content of each others' posts not the character of each other. And of course name calling, calls for violence and such are off limits.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I tried a spot of googling and apparently its been policy among American recruiters and trainers for the past decade to try and spot neo-nazi tattoos and other warning signs of ties to groups that it would be undesirable if they were to gain tactical knowledge and training. Sounds like some event got them concerned somewhere along the line.

If you didn't see my edit:

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31...-supremacist-infiltration-of-law-enforcement/

FBI is concerned about neo-nazi infiltration of police forces, just like British law enforcement is concerned about neo-nazi infiltration of their police forces.

The difference is in the US, if police are found to be members of a white supremist group they usually get fired (but they sometimes challenge this on first amendment grounds), unless they were committing or planning violence then obviously they would go to prison. In the UK, just being associated with the group is grounds for prison time.

Reaction from some other people have been:
Happens in the US: "Oh, the extremists have infiltrated the police/army 'all over the country', see they are a real threat!"
Happens in Great Britain: "See, the police take the infiltration seriously!"

Are they not a real threat in Great Britain, does the US judicial branch not take the threat seriously? The difference is whether or not the neo-nazis would go to prison (for not committing violence). Because of free speech laws in the US, that's not going to change, unless the neo-nazi groups are declared a terrorist group and their supporters are treated the same as if someone was supporting ISIS (even in Great Britain, the first far-right group to be 'banned' only happened in the last year.)

 

[Sommerswerd]

The point was it has nothing to do with what I said at all. You're attacking the person saying something, not what they're saying, hence character attack. That's literally the definition of a character attack.

If it helps, just imagine that anyone other than me had pointed out that you rejected the whole concept of free speech, in exactly the same words, then respond to that instead. Or don't if you don't want to, it doesn't really matter, just don't pretend that "you smell" is any sort of valid retort for people over the age of about 13.

But I was referencing what you said. You don't see that? All I did was accurately point out what you've said in the past. I made no personal attacks on you whatsoever. The point of my post was to draw a comparison between the position you took on the Confederate flag issue and the position you are taking now. More specifically, I was pointing out that the position you are taking now, makes perfect sense to me as it is completely consistent with your prior position. In a way, I am giving your argument a compliment (albeit I admit, a somewhat backhanded one), by taking note of its consistency.

So in summation, my response to your comment was essentially. "Yes that statement is consistent with the positions you've taken in the past. I disagreed with your position then, and I disagree with your position now, but you already know that, so there you have it." That's not a character attack.

 

[Berzerker]

But don't you understand that if you let society crack down on white supremacists and nazis and other scummers that the next thing you know that society will crack down on people who voice their appreciation for bunnies and rainbows? Don't you see that as the obvious outcome since only actions matter and intent is too complex to be analyzed?

We need to all get out there and stand shoulder to shoulder with nazis, psychopaths, and geeks and support their oppressing, killing, and biting of live chickens...lest we lose our freedumbs.

Maybe you should look at the crowd attending your anti-free speech rally, you'll be standing next to those people and so will antifa. Dictatorships are happy with bunnies and rainbows and they share your disdain for freedumbs.

You told me protesters deserve to be run over if they're at a protest with neo-Nazis and you changed that to they're taking a risk. Go ahead, post what you said. Lets see who is lying...

crickets

Keep carrying water for white supremacists. It's not a very good look, but it's certainly the one we're used to from you.

The fact that you equate a religion (just so happens to be Judaism) with white supremacy in trying to make a point kind of shows your true colors.

Judaism preaches tribal or ethnic supremacy... They are the chosen ones and we are....what are we again? Oh well, people thinking they're better than other people is found all over the world and some religions reinforce the idea on a larger scale. I think its absolutely hilarious Jesse Owens went into Nazi Germany and kicked their butts but then I realize Jesse was the product of slavery which was in reality a quasi-eugenics system run by white supremacists and I get lost in the irony.

But why stop there, nature is a eugenics program. A sense of superiority seems to be natural - even the downtrodden can find sanctuary by looking down on someone else - but the sight of neo-Nazis and skinheads doesn't inspire it. Just makes me worry about our species, maybe we were more evolved a few million years ago. Sorry, rambling again...

I explained the first strawman (and the second) in post #717..

You seem to think I accused you of agreeing with Tim, but the quote you chose as evidence was asking your opinion, not replacing it. I was asking what I (you) should do and your response was defend the free speech of people I like (and ignore people I dont like I guess).

As for there being two parts... on this we disagree. there were definitely two parts because I broke it up into two part without changing any of your words. If you can't see that the question had two parts, we can just agree to disagree on that point and move on.

I understand breaking it down, there clearly are two options offered. But I meant it as one question because I didn't know where you came down on attacking protesters. I assume you'd support defending the free speech of people you like.

First, I reject this premise. Nazis are not the vanguard of free speech.

The vanguard is always changing, the vanguard generally is whatever speech is under attack. But hasn't Nazi speech been banned in some countries? These weren't just Nazis, I have my own reasons to hate them and the KKK but I support the guns rights people and I dont dislike people for wanting the statues. Keep attacking the vanguard and it'll stifle speech from all sorts of groups, everyone will need antifa's 'permission' to speak.

Second, free speech does not exist in a vacuum. You aren't just defending "free speech", you're defending Nazis speech. In other words you're defending Nazis, which you have every right to do, but I just flatly reject the premise that you can defend "free speech" in the abstract with no context given to who or what the speech is. You can defend Nazis by defending their free speech rights, but that is still defending Nazis. You have to own it all. Defending Nazi's speech is defending Nazis. And you're not jumping in the way of a gun to prevent a killing here... its just arguing on the internet. So the whole coal mine/canary stuff is a little too rich frankly... the republic will survive if Nazis have to carry their own water.

Will free speech survive if the Nazis cant speak any more? What Nazi speech did I defend? If somebody burns the flag I'm not defending their reason, just their freedom....even if they burn the flag to protest freedom.

I know where you are coming from... you are probably thinking that "Hey if I can defend the free speech of the worst of the worst, then what a great champion of free speech I am! I so pure, so non-ideological!" then you pat yourself on the back for not being like all those other hypocrites... which brings me to "virtue signaling". That's virtue signaling or at least one form of it, as I understand the term. See the term itself is new to me and I didn't even know that term when I had that realization from my Dean's advice... but that was what I realized I was doing... I was taking a position purely for the vanity of showing how morally superior and high-minded and fair and clever I was... which we now refer to as virtue signaling.

So you took morally inferior and unfair positions to signal less virtue? Jesus condemned the men who stood in the churches and streets openly praying as hypocrites, he said they wanted to show others their piety. They were virtue signaling, showing they were politically correct... Free speech is not politically correct, some guy even had a show called Politically Incorrect. Got cancelled because he didn't have free speech on network TV. Anyway, identifying hypocrisy in somebody's argument isn't virtue signaling.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

But I was referencing what you said. You don't see that? All I did was accurately point out what you've said in the past. I made no personal attacks on you whatsoever. The point of my post was to draw a comparison between the position you took on the Confederate flag issue and the position you are taking now. More specifically, I was pointing out that the position you are taking now, makes perfect sense to me as it is completely consistent with your prior position. In a way, I am giving your argument a compliment (albeit I admit, a somewhat backhanded one), by taking note of its consistency.

So in summation, my response to your comment was essentially. "Yes that statement is consistent with the positions you've taken in the past. I disagreed with your position then, and I disagree with your position now, but you already know that, so there you have it." That's not a character attack.

Right, well lovely. Now can you explain how only supporting the free speech of people who say nice things, or who say things you already agree with, is not a disavowal of the very concept of free speech? Or do you happily hold your hands up to that? Or would you rather just sidestep it with more of this wiffle? As I said, you don't have to address it at all, it was just an observation, but if you don't want to I'd rather skip the wiffle as well if that's at all possible. Thank you in advance.

 

[Traitorfish]

This is a very nefarious way of doing politics, and in an insidious way: if it is only "us versus them", battle lines already drawn, then the largest side in the present wins, and there is no room for evolution. There is no room to aim at achieving a big change from the status quo because you start by assuming that the status quo is set in stone already, the adversaries cannot change, only be battled. But you are not going to actually fight a civil war and kill them, so what does this style of divisive politics achieve? Nothing? No. It achieves the maintenance of the present status quo.

Aye, that'll be why establishment politicians are singing the praises of militant anti-fascists, and pushing for- ah, wait, not, they're trying to get them classified as domestic terrorists, which would make simply associating with branches of Anti-Fascist Action a federal offense? Huh. "Domestic terrorists". Dang.

I wonder if you're aware that, in the wake of WW2, Americans who had advocated against fascism before 1939 were labelled as "premature anti-fascists" and swept up in the McCarthyist purges? Even when the Western establishments had just finished waging the largest war in world history against fascist regimes, autonomous working class anti-fascism was still suspect. Were the American establishment simply paranoid, or did they see something that you do not?

As I've shown in this thread, I'm not unwilling to criticise the anti-fascist movement, but if your criticism relies on supposed ideological common ground between anti-fascists and the Clintons, you're going to have to try harder than this wishy-washy appeal to implication and symbolism.

The word free(dom) defines speech... If freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint, then I'm not free to murder people or make death threats, not because of some law, but because the word freedom limits my behavior. I cant coerce or constrain others with my actions or my speech.

You can't coerce or constrain others with libel or fraud, but those things are illegal, and this is generally accepted by even the most ardent civil libertarians. Your whole framing of "free speech" assumes a prior distinction between "speech" and other, non-"speech" forms of expression, which cannot tenably be presented as pre-social when all those other form of expression are distinguished from "speech" precisely by their social consequences. What is your actual framework, here?

They aint the only ones standing on the wrong side of history, the fate of the South's 'heritage' takes a back seat to the health of free speech. But your photo showed some guys in fatigues having each other's backs, I dont see neo-Nazis around them.

I show you an armed paramilitary and you see a friendly nieghbourhood grandpa. I think we just inhabit different and contradictory perceptual universes.

Indeed, maybe might makes right, not valid claims of moral authority... On the other hand nature has produced critters who question the moraliy of the design. But murder is a term we apply among humans, not when critters kill. I do see a moral hierarchy in nature though, animals seemingly protect the homestead with more vigor so maybe 'property rights' run deeper than human institutions.

If your conception of "natural rights" is "touch my stuff and I'll waste you", then you are using that vocabulary in a very different way than the rest of us.

 

[innonimatu]

Aye, that'll be why establishment politicians are singing the praises of militant anti-fascists, and pushing for- ah, wait, not, they're trying to get them classified as domestic terrorists, which would make simply associating with branches of Anti-Fascist Action a federal offense? Huh. "Domestic terrorists". Dang.

I wonder if you're aware that, in the wake of WW2, Americans who had advocated against fascism before 1939 were labeled as "premature anti-fascists" and swept up in the McCarthyist purges? Even when the Western establishments had just finished waging the largest war in world history against fascist regimes, autonomous working class anti-fascism was still suspect. Were the American establishment simply paranoid, or did they see something that you do not?

Where is this autonomous working class anti-fascism now anyway? The "antifa"? It puts me in mind of something Pasolini said one about policemen and protesters. I have to wonder how many of those "antifa" are daddy's boys playing their fight club thing for a while. Though I have no means to verify that.

But the point is not what they are, but what they are trying to achieve. Are they really fighting against "fascism"? Then they're lousy fighters, fascism is winning. Not despite them. but thanks to them also. Fascism requires, and aims for, a concentration of power. Free speech is an impediment to that, as is the presence of a diversity of opinions. And free speech can be limited not just by "what the government silences" but also by what the owners of the media silence. Google and Facebook* are a far more dangerous fascist threat now that these neonazi groups could hope to be. The current status quo is already one where free speech is an unenforceable right, but it can get worse. And the culture wars are the excuse (and the common ground between at least some "anti-fascists" and the clintonites and conservatives) that will be used to make it worse. The common grounds needs not be ideological for one side to make use of useful idiots on another side.

* You know, when the DNC leaks happened, I had to wonder: why does a major american internet corporation host the blog of the self-proclaimed "hacker" and allows it to remain online? Most logical explanation is that the "hacker" was a misdirection play. Why do the "online social media" corporations happily allow some "protesters" to organize, but censor others? Hard to believe in accidents where it comes to politics. Keep in mind that these businesses don't need any "anti-terrorist" law to shut down content. They just need to manufacture consent for censorship passed off as "security" or "protection" against something "dangerous".

 

[Sommerswerd]

You seem to think I accused you of agreeing with Tim, but the quote you chose as evidence was asking your opinion, not replacing it. I was asking what I (you) should do and your response was defend the free speech of people I like (and ignore people I dont like I guess). I understand breaking it down, there clearly are two options offered. But I meant it as one question because I didn't know where you came down on attacking protesters. I assume you'd support defending the free speech of people you like.

Now you got it . As for the other issue, you're asking about... ie attacking protesters... I need more context. What does "attacking" mean? What are the protesters doing? Why are they being attacked? Who are the attackers? Who are the protesters? What are they protesting?

For example. If the protesters are firebombing a laboratory with scientists inside, because they disagree with what is being researched, I would probably support the police donning the riot gear and "attacking" them.

hasn't Nazi speech been banned in some countries?

Probably... I think so... but that's a little... I dunno, strawman-ish isn't it? Nazi speech hasn't been banned in the US. Again, I fully understand the slippery slope argument you are making, but I just don't buy it.

Will free speech survive if the Nazis cant speak any more? What Nazi speech did I defend? If somebody burns the flag I'm not defending their reason, just their freedom....even if they burn the flag to protest freedom.

To the first issue, again, I just don't buy the slippery slope argument. Nazi's free speech isn't in any danger. If a few less people want to be Nazi's because of the social cost... oh well I'm not shedding any tears for that. As for the second issue, I know we disagree on this but I will repeat since you asked. I don't buy the notion that you can separate the cause that the speech is advocating from your defense of the speech on abstract grounds. If you are defending Nazis rights, you are defending Nazis. A question that lawyers get asked all the time, is "What if you had to defend someone accused of some horrible crime?" Now when you get asked this question... if you respond with "Oh well you see, I'm not defending the person or what they did, I'm defending our Constitutional right to a lawyer"... you would rightfully get eye-rolled or dubious faced

Of course you're defending the person and what they did. You may not agree with what they are about, but you're still defending them. The question is not whether you're defending them... you are. The question is why. Why are you defending them? And one possible answer (of several) is... for example "Because I'm being paid to. Its my job to defend them and keeping my job is important enough to me to defend people accused of horrible crimes." Another answer is "Upholding my oath as an officer of the Court and maintaining my professional integrity is important enough to me for me to defend people accused of horrible crimes." Another possible answer is "Because I believe in the Constitutional right to a lawyer and a trial and I think that protecting that right is worth defending people accused of horrible crimes."

So why are you defending Nazis?

Right, well lovely. Now can you explain how only supporting the free speech of people who say nice things, or who say things you already agree with, is not a disavowal of the very concept of free speech? Or do you happily hold your hands up to that? Or would you rather just sidestep it with more of this wiffle? As I said, you don't have to address it at all, it was just an observation, but if you don't want to I'd rather skip the wiffle as well if that's at all possible. Thank you in advance.

I don't know what "wiffle" is. And what does "Right, well lovely" mean? Are you acknowledging that you were wrong and that I did not engage in a personal attack? I am ready to address your question but I would like to do so from a standpoint of some mutual intellectual honesty. If you're not willing to give that, then there's no way for me to know whether you really even want a response.

 

[onejayhawk]

So why are you defending Nazis?

He's not. He never has.

There are no Nazis to defend and you should stop pretending there are. There are enough real groups with real issues that you do not have to hang an ugly name on a strawman.

Moderator Action: stop the trolling, you are well aware of the usage of Nazi in this case and it is not membership in the NSDAP -warned. ori
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

But the point is not what they are, but what they are trying to achieve. Are they really fighting against "fascism"? Then they're lousy fighters, fascism is winning.

Fascism isn't winning because fascism is not even playing. Antifa is bullying normal people with no shred of fascism

There are no fascists around, or KKK for that matter. If you mean someone, say who you mean.

J

 

[Senethro]

jay could you maybe explain your definitions or why other people are incorrect in seeing neo-nazis?

 

[Sommerswerd]

He's not. He never has.

There are no Nazis to defend and you should stop pretending there are. There are enough real groups with real issues that you do not have to hang an ugly name on a strawman.

He is and continues to do so, and that is what we are discussing... my position versus his. There are Nazis and you should stop pretending that there are not. This is a real issue not a strawman. This argument you keep raising (there are no KKK or Nazis) is the strawman. Berz isn't raising that strawman and you should stop trying to raise it in his name. Make your own argument for yourself, don't hang your strawman on other people's name.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So why are you defending Nazis? I don't know what "wiffle" is. And what does "Right, well lovely" mean? Are you acknowledging that you were wrong and that I did not engage in a personal attack? I am ready to address your question but I would like to do so from a standpoint of some mutual intellectual honesty. If you're not willing to give that, then there's no way for me to know whether you really even want a response.

That was wiffle. I made a perfectly cogent comment about how what you said flies in the face of the very concept of freedom of speech (i.e., that it's to defend the expressing of unpopular opinions and that to support free speech is to support exactly this). It was self-contained, clear, and the comprehension of it does not rely on anything else I or you have ever said or done in the past. The fact that you somehow feel the need to clear up all this other stuff that you brought up yourself, before you can even contemplate addressing that point, indicates to me that you have no intention of doing so and that diversion and deflection is your aim. Which I don't really understand as, as I keep saying, there was no requirement or onus on you to respond anyway, so it's completely unnecessary to do so. Anyway, I'll restate the observation that you are apparently against the concept of free speech, and I'll leave it there until such a hypothetical time as you might want to address it.

 

[onejayhawk]

He is and continues to do so, and that is what we are discussing... my position versus his. There are Nazis and you should stop pretending that there are not. This is a real issue not a strawman. This argument you keep raising (there are no KKK or Nazis) is the strawman. Berz isn't raising that strawman and you should stop trying to raise it in his name. Make your own argument for yourself, don't hang your strawman on other people's name.

Swing and miss. There are literally no Nazis. The National Socialist Party was in 20th century Germany and is defunct today. A tiny fragment of the KKK remains but it is not worth consideration. Calling them straw men overstates the case. These are fictions. Say who you actually mean.

Moderator Action: stop the trolling, you are well aware of the usage of Nazi in this case and it is not membership in the NSDAP -warned. ori
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

On second thought, say who you mean, if you can. The impression is that you have no idea.

J