[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[Seon]

And for the last freaking time, I reject the hypothetical that anything a Klansman says under capacity of operating as a Klansman should be protected under free speech. Hate speech and acts of hate are inherently antithetical to the idea of free speech, and should be suppressed whenever possible in a free society.

A lot of racists seem to be under the impression that free speech should mean that they get to say whatever they wish, but legal, rational, and moral interpretation of the ideal of Free Speech generally converge on the point that any behavior that undeservedly chills debate should not be protected by free speech.

Hate speech and racists acting in the open serves to intimidate minorities and is antithetical to free speech. Hate speech laws are not an exception to Free Speech, it’s a continuation.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So here you have an admission that he defends the Klan and has done so in the past... so that directly refutes your statements.

That would appear to be referencing a defence of the concept of freedom of speech. Would have to see the original quote he is referring to to be convinced it's anything other than that.

For clarification, I should say that by "defending the KKK" I meant expressing any degree of support for the goals, aims, ideology, or criminal actions. I didn't mean defending their right to the same freedom of expression that any other citizen would enjoy or anything like that. Apologies if you think that's me moving the goalposts, but I honestly thought my meaning would have been implicit there.

It also provides important context which others have pointed out to you repeatedly and you've ignored.

Not sure what you're even saying here. Either it's evidence of him defending the KKK or it isn't. If it is then that's all that matters. If it isn't then how could it be "context" that proves he is?

More Klan defending, via the moral equivalence argument.

I don't see how a reasonable person can interpret this as Klan defending. It's clearly a challenge to see how consistently you hold to your own standards, he isn't even stating his own opinion here (and previously his opinion has been pretty unambiguously against the behaviour mentioned regardless of who is doing it).

See above. Clearly, you only see what you want to see. Just drop it, you're wrong.

No, it's pretty clear to me you are being unreasonable and making accusations based on emotion and offence. I don't believe I'm wrong and I don't believe you're in a position to order I stop disagreeing with you.

If you want to agree with Berz's arguments go ahead, but trying to deny that he defends the Klan is pointless and obviously incorrect.

Oh okay... so now I don't have to drop it anyway. Fair enough then. It may well be pointless, but it's not incorrect.

 

[Sommerswerd]

That would appear to be referencing a defence of the concept of freedom of speech.

I'm not going down that tangent with you as the distinction you're trying to make is invalid. But if you really want to debate splitting hairs between "defending the Klan's free speech" and defending the Klan start a new thread. This thread is about George Floyd and the related protests.

Not sure what you're even saying here. Either it's evidence of him defending the KKK or it isn't. If it is then that's all that matters. If it isn't then how could it be "context" that proves he is?

He is defending the Klan currently and he has a well know history of doing so, which many of us are aware of, which creates heightened scrutiny for his current defense of the Klan. It's a pattern, and many folks recognize it. That's the point.

I don't see how a reasonable person can interpret this as Klan defending.

Clearly you can't. That's your problem not mine.

EDIT: I will add that the Klan, and their underlying ideology is evil, repugnant and should be opposed at all costs, including violent and illegal means if necessary. To quote Malcolm X... "by any means necessary". The goal/cause of the current protests, BLM and the like, are a righteous cause and as such, should be supported and praised, including a reasonable tolerance for the collateral damage that may result.

So I wholesale reject these and any attempts to put the Klan and the current protests of police brutality on equal footing or hold them to the same standards, because they are on inherently different moral standing. And calling for them to be treated the same or "held to the same standard" is defending the Klan, because among other things, it is an invalid moral equivalence argument.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh okay... so now I don't have to drop it anyway. Fair enough then. It may well be pointless, but it's not incorrect.

Actually, it is incorrect. You could have been correct had you confined yourself to a particular statement and said "in this statement Berzerker is not overtly defending the Klan." But the general discussion isn't about an overt meaning in a particular statement. So the more generalized "Berzerker doesn't defend the Klan" is much harder to defend as a position. Berzerker has a vast body of work to draw from, and the number of people who dismiss him as a defender of the klan, the GOP, Trump, and all things extreme right comes from assessment of that body of work, not from any one particular statement.

We've had this conversation before, in which you take the position that every post, or at the least every thread, should be considered in a vacuum. This is appropriate in media source comment sections, where commenting is more or less just tossing an anonymous opinion into the sea in a bottle. Here on CFC, like it or not, we are a community and have developed familiarity that forms a background matrix for every comment we make. That's what makes it special.

 

[Seon]

I mean that rationale (“that we should treat everything in a vacuum”) is how cops weaseled themselves out of constantly causing trouble before using Qualified Immunity.

so it’s not like it’s a new or particularly exciting phenomenon or philosophical stance for the right wing to take.

 

[Lexicus]

I mean that rationale (“that we should treat everything in a vacuum”) is how cops weaseled themselves out of constantly causing trouble before using Qualified Immunity.

"We should treat everything in a vacuum" is only selectively applied, though. You will notice how the right is constantly connecting dots to show how George Soros is busing in illegal antifas to vote for Hillary 30000 times each

Or, in a particularly wacky example from a different thread just recently, BLM "having ties with Assata Shakur"

 

[Berzerker]

Direction this has been purposefully led to.

I think a lot of well meaning posters here need to add a certain someone to their ignore list and move away from trying to engage racist klan apologia. There are lots of things others might like to discuss in this thread.

Then ignore me, stop being a hypocrite... And take Lex with you, I wont miss the constant insults and bad faith 'interpretations' of my arguments.

‘fine people on both sides!’

Berzerker has, by continually making false equivalences among other things. Just because he keeps saying that he's not doesn't make it true.

If the Klan were the fine people on one side, who were the fine people on the other side if fine people = the KKK? Here's what Trump said:

“Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”

“I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

“Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

Trump said there were fine people protesting the removal of a statue but he wasn't talking about the neo-Nazis and KKK.

You may not notice it, but I see some progress happening. It's slow and tortured, but its there. Keep talking. Stay engaged. Keep it up.

JHC ignore me then. You're a lawyer, you get paid to straw man people. Maybe you cant help but bring it here, but MB was spot on about you.

... ... So here you have an admission that he defends the Klan and has done so in the past... so that directly refutes your statements.

And that perfectly illustrates the lawyer in you... You brought up my past defense of the Klan's free speech rights. You brought that up, not me. Somebody here argued property crimes aren't violent so I asked them if the KKK torching a vacant black church would be a violent property crime. All I wanted to do was make the point property crimes can be violent, like burning down someone's store.

Thats what MB is asking about, not my recent 'admission' I've defended the Klan's right to free speech in the past. I also defended flag burners, school children coerced into reciting the pledge of allegiance, the Dixie Chicks and Colin Kaepernick taking a knee when Trump attacked him. Free speech for me but not for thee is not free speech. Its too bad 'the left' is so anti-free speech, it makes their antifa rhetoric look absurdly ironic.

More Klan defending, via the moral equivalence argument.

There should be a legal equivalence, but why isn't there a moral equivalence? Does looting become moral when the victim is white?

What does this have to do with ending racism or police brutality? Your reasoning is so tortured here.

What do you think the drug war in Mexico has to do with how black neighborhoods are policed in the USA? Well, illegal drugs flood the country from cartels, the police focus their war on drugs in population centers with large black populations and the resulting black market violence stemming from the illegal drug trade creates death, racism and police brutality.

But you're blind to this because you're a Democrat and they run most of the places hardest hit by the drug war. And now here comes Joe, the candidate most responsible for the drug war asking for our vote and you're supporting him. Well, okay... But why are you blaming other people for a situation he spent decades creating?

You gotta love MLK being criticized as the direction this has gone.

I'm not the one who brought up MLK's use of Jesus' metaphorical sword to condone riots.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Actually, it is incorrect. You could have been correct had you confined yourself to a particular statement and said "in this statement Berzerker is not overtly defending the Klan." But the general discussion isn't about an overt meaning in a particular statement. So the more generalized "Berzerker doesn't defend the Klan" is much harder to defend as a position. Berzerker has a vast body of work to draw from, and the number of people who dismiss him as a defender of the klan, the GOP, Trump, and all things extreme right comes from assessment of that body of work, not from any one particular statement.

We've had this conversation before, in which you take the position that every post, or at the least every thread, should be considered in a vacuum. This is appropriate in media source comment sections, where commenting is more or less just tossing an anonymous opinion into the sea in a bottle. Here on CFC, like it or not, we are a community and have developed familiarity that forms a background matrix for every comment we make. That's what makes it special.

There is a consistant pattern of entering threads about social issues and minorities and arguing/running defense for positions and groups that intrinsically harm minorities and then expressing exasperation when said minorities give blowback.

It's not a coincidence and it's not a bug; it's a malice, a lack of care towards and a dismissal of minorities. There's only so many times people will give them the benefit of the doubt but at some point we have to open our eyes to the fact that there is a reason behind their posts and posting.

I firmly believe that the only thing stopping them from saying outright how they really feel is the fact they'd get punished and a combination of the desire to avoid being dogpiled for a clearly abhorrent belief.

I've met people like this irl and they're always trying to skirt the boundaries of discrimination either by downplaying it or by defending a bigots right to spout their drivel, no matter how immediately innocuous it may seem there is a deeper pattern.

I'm tired of being told to treat people like this with decency or to ignore the increasingly large elephant in the room; there are people on this forum that genuinely believe non whites and non cis, non straight people are worthy of some forms of discrimination and they're normalizing this by just asking questions about whether or not an obviously bigoted act should either count as bigotry or if it's harmful or by framing it as an issue if free speech when the societal and material damage it does outweighs considerations for whether someone has the right to hold such beliefs and to express them.

Even the most charitable viewing of it still doesn't absolve them.

 

[Berzerker]

And for the last freaking time, I reject the hypothetical that anything a Klansman says under capacity of operating as a Klansman should be protected under free speech. Hate speech and acts of hate are inherently antithetical to the idea of free speech, and should be suppressed whenever possible in a free society.

A lot of racists seem to be under the impression that free speech should mean that they get to say whatever they wish, but legal, rational, and moral interpretation of the ideal of Free Speech generally converge on the point that any behavior that undeservedly chills debate should not be protected by free speech.

Hate speech and racists acting in the open serves to intimidate minorities and is antithetical to free speech. Hate speech laws are not an exception to Free Speech, it’s a continuation.

Thats a lot of slippery slope for free speech to descend into an Orwelian hell. Are you talking about death threats or "Jews will not replace us"? How about 'kill whitey'? Maybe a comedian holding Trump's severed head. There is a lot of hate speech out there... here... Thats the price we pay to speak our minds, I dont trust anyone with the power to define and punish hate speech even when I know someone is being hateful.

That will most definitely suppress free speech as the list of forbidden words grows until even its advocates are swallowed up. Its already happening, look at all the celebrities and comedians having to apologize for past and current transgressions. I'm no Jimmy Kimmel fan but I remember him dressing up like Karl Malone to make fun of him. It wasn't racial, it was ideological. He just made the effort to look like him just as he would have done if he was mocking Bob Dole.

Does deplatforming people chill debate? What happened to the Minneapolis mayor who was standing at a protest and was told to gtfo when he said he wouldn't abolish the police? They silenced him pretty damn quick. Instead of kicking him out they should have handed him the mic and asked him to explain what he would do in pursuit of reform.

That would appear to be referencing a defence of the concept of freedom of speech. Would have to see the original quote he is referring to to be convinced it's anything other than that.

For clarification, I should say that by "defending the KKK" I meant expressing any degree of support for the goals, aims, ideology, or criminal actions. I didn't mean defending their right to the same freedom of expression that any other citizen would enjoy or anything like that. Apologies if you think that's me moving the goalposts, but I honestly thought my meaning would have been implicit there.

He moved the goalposts, welcome to Sommers straw man. If I disagree with something MLK said I'm required to support the violent suppression of the KKK's speech. Thats his argument. But thx for being fair and brave enough to upset the ambient vibes of the echo chamber.

I'm not going down that tangent with you as the distinction you're trying to make is invalid. But if you really want to debate splitting hairs between "defending the Klan's free speech" and defending the Klan start a new thread. This thread is about George Floyd and the related protests.

You brought it up and you keep blaming others for going off topic.

He is defending the Klan currently and he has a well know history of doing so, which many of us are aware of, which creates heightened scrutiny for his current defense of the Klan. It's a pattern, and many folks recognize it. That's the point. Clearly you can't. That's your problem not mine.

My current 'defense' of the Klan was to accuse them of a violent property crime for torching a vacant black church to show property crimes can be violent. I didn't mention anything about defending the KKK's free speech until you changed the subject to our debate over their protest at Charlottesville a few years ago.

EDIT: I will add that the Klan, and their underlying ideology is evil, repugnant and should be opposed at all costs, including violent and illegal means if necessary.

Maybe a civil war will solve the problem

To quote Malcolm X... "by any means necessary". The goal/cause of the current protests, BLM and the like, are a righteous cause and as such, should be supported and praised, including a reasonable tolerance for the collateral damage that may result.

Hey man, I'm looting your store in honor of George Floyd. You should tolerate being collateral damage. Hey man, I'm destroying your country to liberate you from Assad, you should tolerate being collateral damage. Why ask people to tolerate it when you're so righteous?

Shouldn't they rejoice your victory against evil? Shouldn't they be out there helping the looters and arsonists destroy their property? Have you been out there looting stores? If not, whats the hold up? Why aren't all these apologists looting and burning their neighborhoods if its required?

So I wholesale reject these and any attempts to put the Klan and the current protests of police brutality on equal footing or hold them to the same standards, because they are on inherently different moral standing. And calling for them to be treated the same or "held to the same standard" is defending the Klan, because among other things, it is an invalid moral equivalence argument.

The Klan didn't loot and burn Charlottesville, they're not on equal footing with people looting and burning other cities. If they do engage in that behavior then I will put them on an equal footing and they can share jail cells with the people looting in George's name. I dont think its a coincidence MLK was murdered right after a protest he organized turned into a riot. I think that riot got him killed. It put another target on his back, a very big one.

 

[Berzerker]

Actually, it is incorrect. You could have been correct had you confined yourself to a particular statement and said "in this statement Berzerker is not overtly defending the Klan." But the general discussion isn't about an overt meaning in a particular statement. So the more generalized "Berzerker doesn't defend the Klan" is much harder to defend as a position. Berzerker has a vast body of work to draw from, and the number of people who dismiss him as a defender of the klan, the GOP, Trump, and all things extreme right comes from assessment of that body of work, not from any one particular statement.

We've had this conversation before, in which you take the position that every post, or at the least every thread, should be considered in a vacuum. This is appropriate in media source comment sections, where commenting is more or less just tossing an anonymous opinion into the sea in a bottle. Here on CFC, like it or not, we are a community and have developed familiarity that forms a background matrix for every comment we make. That's what makes it special.

That one particular statement was "the KKK has free speech too" which I defended as my body of work will attest. I've never supported their ideology and the effort to make people here believe I do requires actual quotes. Where are they? In this thread I've said a couple times the statues, flags and fort names should go.

Sommers is accusing me of defending the Klan as if I have some alliance with their cause because I believe they have the same right to speak he has. Thats akin to accusing the ACLU of liking Nazi ideology for defending their right to express it. I doubt the Klan and Neo-Nazis believe in free speech either, they share Antifa's hatred of dissent which makes Sommers accusation even more ridiculous. But I do know some of those people at Charlottesville believed in free speech, they were armed constitutionalists trying to keep the peace. PBS interviewed some of them.

There is a consistant pattern of entering threads about social issues and minorities and arguing/running defense for positions and groups that intrinsically harm minorities and then expressing exasperation when said minorities give blowback.

It's not a coincidence and it's not a bug; it's a malice, a lack of care towards and a dismissal of minorities. There's only so many times people will give them the benefit of the doubt but at some point we have to open our eyes to the fact that there is a reason behind their posts and posting.

I firmly believe that the only thing stopping them from saying outright how they really feel is the fact they'd get punished and a combination of the desire to avoid being dogpiled for a clearly abhorrent belief.

I've met people like this irl and they're always trying to skirt the boundaries of discrimination either by downplaying it or by defending a bigots right to spout their drivel, no matter how immediately innocuous it may seem there is a deeper pattern.

I'm tired of being told to treat people like this with decency or to ignore the increasingly large elephant in the room; there are people on this forum that genuinely believe non whites and non cis, non straight people are worthy of some forms of discrimination and they're normalizing this by just asking questions about whether or not an obviously bigoted act should either count as bigotry or if it's harmful or by framing it as an issue if free speech when the societal and material damage it does outweighs considerations for whether someone has the right to hold such beliefs and to express them.

Even the most charitable viewing of it still doesn't absolve them.

I dont think I'd be the one getting blowback from the people intrinsically harmed by the looters and arsonists. They might have some words for the people calling them required collateral damage though.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sommers is accusing me of defending the Klan as if I have some alliance with their cause because ...

Over the years he has gotten the distinct impression that you do.

So have I.

 

[Berzerker]

Then quotes can prove you're right... Where are they?

With all these years and my vast body of work there must be many many quotes. In fact, the moderators would have banned me long ago if your distinct impression was right.

If this was 1954 and I was defending the free speech of 'communists' I'm sure Joe McCarthy would have accused me of being one.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: Ok. Since I can't seem to get it through to you people what an RD thread is and what the whole concept is about, I will say that most of all, the concept of an RD thread is that the participants act like grown ups and approach the discussion points honestly and with a bit of decorum. Sadly this seems to be lacking in more than a few RD threads and we are being flooded with reports once again. Guess what happens when we get overwhelmed by a problem thread? The thread gets closed while we sort out the infractions. Also, there are more than a few of you who are on the verge of losing your posting privileges in this thread completely.

I will give you six hours to shape up collectively, get back on topic and generally behave yourselves. If I see no improvement by 2:00 AM EDT, the thread will be closed permanently. Do I make myself clear this time?
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Seon]

1. Slippery slope is not a rational counterargument. You cannot prove a causal connection between suppressing racism and suppressing anti-racism.

2. You should as a matter of fact not trust anyone to make unilateral decisions on what is good and not good. This is why we have consensus.

3. Apologizing for past and current transgression is not bad in itself.

4. Deplatforming racists and their allies do not chill debate, but builds context for rational debate to occur. No rational debate can occur if consensus is not the goal. Racists and their allies do not seek consensus as this goes against their core beliefs. As such, no rational debate with racists and their allies can prove valuable.

5. The mayor attempted to walk into a protest protesting police brutality and try to make it into one about his mayoral election and campaign promise, than subsequently tried to lecture them on what is acceptable and not acceptable change. The outrage was utterly a predictable moment.

Protests are not a place for rational debate or lectures. It happens to further a specific goal and cause—this case defunding the police. Would you go to a BLM rally to discuss with them why ‘BLM’ slogan is racist, and expect not to get punched in the face?

 

[Seon]

Even as cities across America draw giant murals in support of BLM (for which the money comes out of public coffers), rather than give into any actual concrete demands, the emptiness of these performative gestures are clear as the police are now investigating who “vandalized” the murals.

Once again, the core demand of BLM at the moment is to defunding the police force—which is a large umbrella demand for cutting up various small crime enforcement against spray painters, drug users, sex workers, etc, among other things. Seeing police block off roads to the mural to investigate spray painting “vandalism” is a cherry on the top for all of this.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

At this point I see very little chance of the protesting/rioting dying down before November, and if D'ump and the GOP steal the election it will likely become a full scale revolt. Only a proper appeal from the president can quell this now, and D'ump is incapable of providing that.

 

[Joij21]

Debates began with the Greeks and died with the Greeks. Nothing of value is to be gained from endless debate. Consensus can only be gained through one's own tribe, consensus of the whole is impossible. Debates exist primarily to sow conflict, as people often go into debates as though it were a competition. Colleges and the school system also teach us to treat debates as competitions, often time grading us and giving out trophies based on debate performance. The Greeks failed at this as well and their whole democracy fell into bloodshed and endless fighting, only to be replaced by a Macedonian king. Even the Roman's and their republic ended as their system of government became ineffectual under constant debate and bureaucracy, replaced by a stronger more capable emperor.

Bloodshed is the only way humans have found a way to resolve conflict. If two tribes exist in a nation and differences can't be resolved, then one tribe must annihilate the other out of existence for the nation to be whole again. That's how debate is truly resolved. Humans as a species are incapable of peacefully resolving issues, evolution bred us for war. Evolution made us selfish, prideful, wrathful, and greedy. These are things that can not be rid of. Debate can not hold up to the beast, the animal within. For debate is a product of an intellect that never existed among the kingdom of animals and nature. A new way of thinking that is completely useless to survival.

This is the way!

 

[Seon]

So if I’m understanding this right, are you actually literally advocating for the extermination of minorities to make the nation one?

 

[Takhisis]

I'm repetitive about economics, but one should follow the money to see the real causes and effects of the unequal distribution of power:

The Black-White Wage Gap Is as Big as It Was in 1950​

Debates began with the Greeks and died with the Greeks.

Eehhhh…

 

[Estebonrober]

Debates began with the Greeks and died with the Greeks. Nothing of value is to be gained from endless debate. Consensus can only be gained through one's own tribe, consensus of the whole is impossible. Debates exist primarily to sow conflict, as people often go into debates as though it were a competition. Colleges and the school system also teach us to treat debates as competitions, often time grading us and giving out trophies based on debate performance. The Greeks failed at this as well and their whole democracy fell into bloodshed and endless fighting, only to be replaced by a Macedonian king. Even the Roman's and their republic ended as their system of government became ineffectual under constant debate and bureaucracy, replaced by a stronger more capable emperor.

Bloodshed is the only way humans have found a way to resolve conflict. If two tribes exist in a nation and differences can't be resolved, then one tribe must annihilate the other out of existence for the nation to be whole again. That's how debate is truly resolved. Humans as a species are incapable of peacefully resolving issues, evolution bred us for war. Evolution made us selfish, prideful, wrathful, and greedy. These are things that can not be rid of. Debate can not hold up to the beast, the animal within. For debate is a product of an intellect that never existed among the kingdom of animals and nature. A new way of thinking that is completely useless to survival.

This is the way!

This whole entire premise can be flipped on its head and be even more true. Evolution made us altruistic, humble, pitiful, and compassionate. These are thing sthat cannot be rid of and deserve to be promoted relentlessly. The animal within is a garbage response from someone who can no longer hold merit in the "debate". Honestly this is a very similar argument that was coming from the South before the great American Slavery War.

The way is the golden rule. Live up to that and consensus is always achievable.