I Think I Will Scream

[emilynghiem]

Hi Emily, I appreciate your moderation between our discussion, i've had many with Conservative65 and I know exactly what he was trying to do by bringing Muslims into the discussion and that was divert the conversation to something that thinks he can "get me" on. It is a cheap and petty game. But i'm with you. Stick to the topic and have an intellectual debate of opposing viewpoints and let logic/reason prevail.

Thanks Slade3200 I appreciate you posting that clarification of where you stand and where you made a stretch.
I'm also finding something similar but in the opposite direction: because certain people I talk with need ASSURANCE
that I'm NOT enabling or justifying the bad racist oppression discrimination and genocide, it appears they NEED TO HEAR
THE WORDS that I oppose the white nationlists/neo-nazis. It's like people who NEED to hear you oppose ALL BLM and
it isn't enough to say you oppose the attacks on police by SOME. Or they think you are justifying the mob riots by not being unequivocal enough.

Do you mind if I reference your msg to propose the next step?

I am trying to take the step with people who NEED TO HEAR that I or Trump "unequivocally denounce" KKK and White Nationalists as a group.
I have heard the Alt-Right spokesperson say he is against any such illegal activity and conspiracy to incite attacks or other violations of equal civil rights.
(The one thing I opposed, he said if he got hit they would hit back. I didn't agree with that response, but if they did it I wouldn't blame them.
I would focus on avoiding the hitting in the first place if they just can't take it without committing equal violence even if it is proportional.
I would advise them to stay on the upper moral and legal ground, and not strike back; only use force for defense but not retaliation or the other
side can still file complaints. It is harder to distinguish and defend who was following laws if both sides end up in a fight like Martin and Zimmerman.)

So I think I am somewhere closer to understanding where Conservative65 is with "wanting to hear" that you denounce
Muslims as enabling the Jihadist terrorist attacks. I would hesitate to blame all them as a group.

But can we try working through this:

Conservative65 -- Slade took the step of distinguishing the free speech issue from enabling/not denouncing the White Supremacists/NeoNazis.
You brought up the parallel context of either denouncing or enabling the Muslims/Jihadists.

I can distinguish the difference between: Muslims who are lawabiding and obey civil authority and govt,
Islamists who dangerously mix religious authority with govt and military/police force which becomes oppressive of equal democratic rights and process,
Jihadist terrorist who seek to violate laws by committing military violence and waging political religious wars against civilians without any due process.

Can you make this distinction? Or do you see all three as one: Muslims Islamists and Jihadists all "enabling" terrorist attacks because it's too hard to distinguish these.

I just ran into more people who see the White Supremacists, Confederate defenders, and Free Speech Constitutionalists as all enabling the same KKK NeoNazi crap. Because they can't distinguish these easily, it becomes an oppressive threat politically, even if legally you could in fact do so; it's so inconvenient it's causing mob fear anyway.

Now, since Slade3200 said basically "let's take the Constitutional Free Speech as separate from promoting the White Supremacist/NeoNazi agenda"

Are YOU equally willing or able to take a similar step
and distinguish peaceful Muslims - who also are just asking for equal respect under Civil and Constitutional laws they seek to follow -
from Jihadist Terrorists who DON'T follow or respect civil authority and laws.

or were you asking Slade3200 to denounce these without distinction?
Cuz I can't do that without making a distinction first.
I can distinguish the Muslims from Jihadists and Islamist,
but when this guy today asked me to denounce KKK and White Supremacists, I can
denounce past KKK lynchings and mob attacks and discrimination teachings that Blacks are inferior by birth. But from what I understand of the current nationalist movements, there are different groups such as ones seeking to promote
Western Civilization which isn't necessarily just White, so I can't tell these apart yet.
I have to know WHICH persons or WHICH groups you are talking about first.
If they run together in my mind, that still doesn't make me so afraid that I am willing to condemn by association and not do "due process" to distinguish who did what.

(Now with BLM I have seen so much more irresponsible behavior and shootings, I am more likely to hold all BLM responsible than try to figure out which group is for or against what thing. I only recently found 1 BLM leader who is like me, willing to work with all people and groups, and not preaching violence; similar to Muslims who don't even relate to Jihadists at all. But that isn't enough to undo the bad associations that BLM has as a collecive entity. So for BLM I do tend to be biased against the whole movement without distinction because the lack of being able to do so HAS COST police their lives. so to me that is dangerous, to hide behind lack of distinction of responsibility. With the White Supremacist and nationalist, the people I have seen are able to be distinguished from each other, and held to account for each person's beliefs.
So I'd rather finish distinguishing what is Alt Right from Western bias, etc. first)

Can we start with the Muslim/Islamist/Jihadist distinction?
Do you want to hear that we denounce ALL Muslims for enabling the other two?

Or are you able to distinguish the free exercise of Muslim beliefs within Constitutional laws?
So that's like distinguishing free speech within Constitutional bounds, and is
not about "enabling or condoning" abuse to promote a hostile discriminatory or oppressive belief system against others.

Thanks Conservative65

If this doesn't work, we can try comparing with BLM. I admit I lump all of that as one image in my mind. So I guess that's like people who do that with White Supremacists or "ALL Muslims period", where if you don't condemn the whole group, then you are enabling violent terrorism.

I can take the step @Blade3200 took when I distinguish "Jihadists" from Islamists and Muslims or "Zionists" from Jews and Christians. But I"m still at a loss trying to figure what to call the differences in BLM that all seem to be enabling anti-cop attacks, and in the language I would need to use to distinguish KKK/Supremacists vs. nationalists/patriots. Otherwise that is confusing and offending others who run these together as well.

Of course I denounce any kind of jihad and terror, I have no hesitation in doing so, except when I'm asked as a diversionary tactic to change the discussion. The difference I see in the two scenarios is you have the core belief which is Islam. At its core it is a virtuous religion just like the other major religions. It is focused on peace but, like the other religions, it has violent elements in its doctrine that get focused on and distorted by extremists. I completely denounce the extremist views that lead to violence. I want to be careful that we don't lump good hearted Muslims in with the extremists.

As for the Nazis and white supremacists, I don't see any virtuous elements of their mission. It is all hate and division. We should all be able to decisively condemn the ideology of these hate groups.

Wouldn't those good Muslims denounce what the radical ones do?

Yeah, millions do. Google Muslims against Isis

More Muslims are killed by Isis and other extremist groups than Christians. Go educate yourself

Are you justifying radical Muslims killing others because they're of the same religion?

??? Conservative65 No, Slade3200 quote was that millions of Muslim
are DENOUNCING not justifying killings by ISIS and jihadist extremists.

This is what I mean by making a distinction between these groups.
Even the head of CAIR I spoke with is so far removed and opposed
to ISIS Jihadists he doesn't even RECOGNIZE them as Muslims.
They are just so far out there, they are no longer recognizable as Muslims.

So it is the opposite of what you fear. They are not of the same religion.
This is like how Hitler or Zionists are not recognized by Christians.
The extremists believe they are following the same God and Bible.
But what David Koresh did, and what other cult leaders do who preach
death and armageddon to get to heaven, this is as twisted beyond recognition,
as the Jihadists preaching war instead of peace. The spiritual meaning to Muslims
of jihad means an internal struggle for peace, to overcome negative temptations
and influences in one's own conscience to stick to what is right. The Jihadists do
the opposite and think the freedom of the West is corrupted and evil, so they want to attack
Western society they think is too corrupted to be saved. They believe as Hitler did
that in order to enforce moral order, force is needed to extinguish the people they blame.
Hitler blamed Jews for economic disparity, blaming greed on them; then seizing all their
property and killing them to redistribute that wealth by military force. The Jihadists wage
war on society blamed for corruption, and try to establish law and order by their forces.

The Muslims who follow the full teachings follow the same God and Bible as the
Jews and Christians are under. So these three are called to live in peace as
neighbors in the Kingdom of God. The peaceful ones achieve this, and work
together as fellow believers. That is why they do not understand how people
can accuse them of being affiliated or enabling the Jihadists terrorists. That's
like blaming Christians for why Zionists are preaching Armageddon and want to blow up the world.

We can try to rebuke these people using the Bible, but it takes a unified partnership
and teamwork between Jews Muslims and Christians standing together to get
these violent offshoot cults from Zionists to Jihadists to stand down and receive
peaceful instructions instead of rallying war cries. by Uniting in Christ, then the
authority can be invoked to shut down the violent abuses. Jews and Muslims
who do unite with Christians SHARE this authority. We need to help them
stand together, not divide them over words and prevent the unity required.

 

[Slade3200]

Thanks Slade3200 I appreciate you posting that clarification of where you stand and where you made a stretch.
I'm also finding something similar but in the opposite direction: because certain people I talk with need ASSURANCE
that I'm NOT enabling or justifying the bad racist oppression discrimination and genocide, it appears they NEED TO HEAR
THE WORDS that I oppose the white nationlists/neo-nazis. It's like people who NEED to hear you oppose ALL BLM and
it isn't enough to say you oppose the attacks on police by SOME. Or they think you are justifying the mob riots by not being unequivocal enough.

Do you mind if I reference your msg to propose the next step?

I am trying to take the step with people who NEED TO HEAR that I or Trump "unequivocally denounce" KKK and White Nationalists as a group.
I have heard the Alt-Right spokesperson say he is against any such illegal activity and conspiracy to incite attacks or other violations of equal civil rights.
(The one thing I opposed, he said if he got hit they would hit back. I didn't agree with that response, but if they did it I wouldn't blame them.
I would focus on avoiding the hitting in the first place if they just can't take it without committing equal violence even if it is proportional.
I would advise them to stay on the upper moral and legal ground, and not strike back; only use force for defense but not retaliation or the other
side can still file complaints. It is harder to distinguish and defend who was following laws if both sides end up in a fight like Martin and Zimmerman.)

So I think I am somewhere closer to understanding where Conservative65 is with "wanting to hear" that you denounce
Muslims as enabling the Jihadist terrorist attacks. I would hesitate to blame all them as a group.

But can we try working through this:

Conservative65 -- Slade took the step of distinguishing the free speech issue from enabling/not denouncing the White Supremacists/NeoNazis.
You brought up the parallel context of either denouncing or enabling the Muslims/Jihadists.

I can distinguish the difference between: Muslims who are lawabiding and obey civil authority and govt,
Islamists who dangerously mix religious authority with govt and military/police force which becomes oppressive of equal democratic rights and process,
Jihadist terrorist who seek to violate laws by committing military violence and waging political religious wars against civilians without any due process.

Can you make this distinction? Or do you see all three as one: Muslims Islamists and Jihadists all "enabling" terrorist attacks because it's too hard to distinguish these.

I just ran into more people who see the White Supremacists, Confederate defenders, and Free Speech Constitutionalists as all enabling the same KKK NeoNazi crap. Because they can't distinguish these easily, it becomes an oppressive threat politically, even if legally you could in fact do so; it's so inconvenient it's causing mob fear anyway.

Now, since Slade3200 said basically "let's take the Constitutional Free Speech as separate from promoting the White Supremacist/NeoNazi agenda"

Are YOU equally willing or able to take a similar step
and distinguish peaceful Muslims - who also are just asking for equal respect under Civil and Constitutional laws they seek to follow -
from Jihadist Terrorists who DON'T follow or respect civil authority and laws.

or were you asking Slade3200 to denounce these without distinction?
Cuz I can't do that without making a distinction first.
I can distinguish the Muslims from Jihadists and Islamist,
but when this guy today asked me to denounce KKK and White Supremacists, I can
denounce past KKK lynchings and mob attacks and discrimination teachings that Blacks are inferior by birth. But from what I understand of the current nationalist movements, there are different groups such as ones seeking to promote
Western Civilization which isn't necessarily just White, so I can't tell these apart yet.
I have to know WHICH persons or WHICH groups you are talking about first.
If they run together in my mind, that still doesn't make me so afraid that I am willing to condemn by association and not do "due process" to distinguish who did what.

(Now with BLM I have seen so much more irresponsible behavior and shootings, I am more likely to hold all BLM responsible than try to figure out which group is for or against what thing. I only recently found 1 BLM leader who is like me, willing to work with all people and groups, and not preaching violence; similar to Muslims who don't even relate to Jihadists at all. But that isn't enough to undo the bad associations that BLM has as a collecive entity. So for BLM I do tend to be biased against the whole movement without distinction because the lack of being able to do so HAS COST police their lives. so to me that is dangerous, to hide behind lack of distinction of responsibility. With the White Supremacist and nationalist, the people I have seen are able to be distinguished from each other, and held to account for each person's beliefs.
So I'd rather finish distinguishing what is Alt Right from Western bias, etc. first)

Can we start with the Muslim/Islamist/Jihadist distinction?
Do you want to hear that we denounce ALL Muslims for enabling the other two?

Or are you able to distinguish the free exercise of Muslim beliefs within Constitutional laws?
So that's like distinguishing free speech within Constitutional bounds, and is
not about "enabling or condoning" abuse to promote a hostile discriminatory or oppressive belief system against others.

Thanks Conservative65

If this doesn't work, we can try comparing with BLM. I admit I lump all of that as one image in my mind. So I guess that's like people who do that with White Supremacists or "ALL Muslims period", where if you don't condemn the whole group, then you are enabling violent terrorism.

I can take the step @Blade3200 took when I distinguish "Jihadists" from Islamists and Muslims or "Zionists" from Jews and Christians. But I"m still at a loss trying to figure what to call the differences in BLM that all seem to be enabling anti-cop attacks, and in the language I would need to use to distinguish KKK/Supremacists vs. nationalists/patriots. Otherwise that is confusing and offending others who run these together as well.

Of course I denounce any kind of jihad and terror, I have no hesitation in doing so, except when I'm asked as a diversionary tactic to change the discussion. The difference I see in the two scenarios is you have the core belief which is Islam. At its core it is a virtuous religion just like the other major religions. It is focused on peace but, like the other religions, it has violent elements in its doctrine that get focused on and distorted by extremists. I completely denounce the extremist views that lead to violence. I want to be careful that we don't lump good hearted Muslims in with the extremists.

As for the Nazis and white supremacists, I don't see any virtuous elements of their mission. It is all hate and division. We should all be able to decisively condemn the ideology of these hate groups.

Wouldn't those good Muslims denounce what the radical ones do?

Yeah, millions do. Google Muslims against Isis

More Muslims are killed by Isis and other extremist groups than Christians. Go educate yourself

Are you justifying radical Muslims killing others because they're of the same religion?

??? Conservative65 No, Slade3200 quote was that millions of Muslim
are DENOUNCING not justifying killings by ISIS and jihadist extremists.

This is what I mean by making a distinction between these groups.
Even the head of CAIR I spoke with is so far removed and opposed
to ISIS Jihadists he doesn't even RECOGNIZE them as Muslims.
They are just so far out there, they are no longer recognizable as Muslims.

So it is the opposite of what you fear. They are not of the same religion.
This is like how Hitler or Zionists are not recognized by Christians.
The extremists believe they are following the same God and Bible.
But what David Koresh did, and what other cult leaders do who preach
death and armageddon to get to heaven, this is as twisted beyond recognition,
as the Jihadists preaching war instead of peace. The spiritual meaning to Muslims
of jihad means an internal struggle for peace, to overcome negative temptations
and influences in one's own conscience to stick to what is right. The Jihadists do
the opposite and think the freedom of the West is corrupted and evil, so they want to attack
Western society they think is too corrupted to be saved. They believe as Hitler did
that in order to enforce moral order, force is needed to extinguish the people they blame.
Hitler blamed Jews for economic disparity, blaming greed on them; then seizing all their
property and killing them to redistribute that wealth by military force. The Jihadists wage
war on society blamed for corruption, and try to establish law and order by their forces.

The Muslims who follow the full teachings follow the same God and Bible as the
Jews and Christians are under. So these three are called to live in peace as
neighbors in the Kingdom of God. The peaceful ones achieve this, and work
together as fellow believers. That is why they do not understand how people
can accuse them of being affiliated or enabling the Jihadists terrorists. That's
like blaming Christians for why Zionists are preaching Armageddon and want to blow up the world.

We can try to rebuke these people using the Bible, but it takes a unified partnership
and teamwork between Jews Muslims and Christians standing together to get
these violent offshoot cults from Zionists to Jihadists to stand down and receive
peaceful instructions instead of rallying war cries. by Uniting in Christ, then the
authority can be invoked to shut down the violent abuses. Jews and Muslims
who do unite with Christians SHARE this authority. We need to help them
stand together, not divide them over words and prevent the unity required.

Very well said Emily... I might have to reference this post in the future as you explain the situation so articulately. Good job

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't sympathize with anybody that calls for the elimination of the Jews. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

You referenced the KKK, Nazis, and white supremacists related to "marching down the streets and calling for the banishment of Jews". You said nothing about the Muslims that do the very same thing. Taking a note from your fellow lefty's playbook, silence means you consent to what those Muslims do. I don't have to put words in your mouth. Your lack of words is all I need to know your sympathize with the Muslim desire to eliminate the Jews.

That is just about the dumbest thing I've heard today... Grow up

The dumbest things you've heard is yourself making excuses why you only address certain groups you say do those things.

Be a man for once in your miserable life.

Why are you silent on Muslims? Your silence says a lot about you, hypocrite.

Muslims??? Are you high? Why are you bringing them into this? If I say something about Muslims are you going to come after me for not denouncing Hillary? If I denounce Hillary, is it what about Bill?.... How far does it go? Stop with the games. We are talking about Charlottesville and what happened there. Muslims were not involved.

We are talking about the hypocrisy of you leftwing assholes. Your fellow lefties have claimed silence equal agreement. Why does that not apply when you're silent on something?

Dear Conservative65
I Think I Will Scream
^ here is the msg ^ where I first read that Slade3200 was changing and clarifying the stance
where it isn't for silencing anyone's free speech. There is a longer msg linked there that goes in more detail.
Racist groups vs Free Speech, i've converted...

Can we all get caught up to speed and back on the same page?

Slade3200 did try to clarify to you about denouncing Jihadist attacks terrorism violence etc.
I think you do not hear the sincerity in Slade's and my statements
because we make a distinction between Jihadist and Muslim that you don't.
You need to hear that we denounce all Muslims for this "to be sure we are not apologizing or enabling
any abuses of the Muslim ideology to commit or engable Jihadism"

Can you please forgive this flaw in our language?
We mean to reassure you UNEQUIVOCALLY that we
MEAN the same as you do when you blame/condemn "all Muslims" across the board.
We just happen to be more specific and use Jihadist for that religious ideology.

What is upsetting Conservative65 is not just this split in language getting in the way.
I found out from my CAIR friend he cannot even connect Jihadist and Muslim AT ALL.
they are so foreign they don't belong in the same sentence.
So that is a level I have to forgive, my friend cannot even distinguish between
Jihadist Islamist and Muslim because Jihadist is so anti-Muslim to him,
he can't go with that three-part division. They don't have ANYTHING to do with
what being Muslim means to him. So he can't use Islam to mean any of that trash
that is so far outside his spiritual faith and understanding, he is at a loss. Despite this loss with words, He told me he DOES SPEAK OUT and condemn the violence and attacks everytime terrorism strikes. He does try to emphasize and explain this,
using the terms people want him to use so they can understand. He tries over and over.

But he gets the same treatment you give Slade!
You don't believe his words, so you think people are "justifying" violence
even when we try to denounce it using as clear terms as possible.

And that's why Trump isn't being heard either.
They don't believe he is really denouncing the violence
because he doesn't want to blame good people within
the pro-Trump and pro-nationalists camps who do follow civil laws
and denounce the violence and illegal abuses.

The problem Conservative65 we are facing in America
is similar to the Islamic regimes that are 'too easily abused'
to enable jihadist militant oppression and attacks.
In our political system, because the parties abuse it for civil wars,
it's still oppressing and obstructing democratic process and protections.
Both sides feel threatened. So even when we SAY we are for
civil and democratic process, parties are bullying and silencing each other.

So we don't trust that either.
There are at least 3 levels to address.
it's not enough just to denounce the illegal violence and bullying abuses.
But we need to address the "legalized bullying"
and that's where the left calls this racism and fascism,
the root of "genocide" where antifa activists believe in
striking out preemptively which is different from self-defense.

When we cut each other down because we aren't hearing
each other denounce things strongly enough,
that's part of the political bullying that indirectly silences us.
We can't hear what each other is saying if
we don't trust the words. But I'm trying to point out our
words are going to fail us, and not mean the same thing
to both sides.

Can we forgive the limitation and entangement of the words
and get to what we mean underneath?

I think we will agree, we both want to fight for what is right
and stop the oppression abuse and wrongs. How can we
get there from here, despite the words we use that don't mean or
sound the same to each other.

I believe you both want to champion what is right.
I can hear you through the words and terms that fail us.

Can you hear what Slade and me are saying?
Thanks, let's keep trying. It isn 't perfect
and that's why humans have failed for thousands of years to make peace.

Love and thanks for your efforts
May these all be blessed and multiplied
in support of thousands of others struggling
to make peace in the midst of war around us.

Yours truly, Emily

 

[The Derp]

1 NAZI, 1 act of terror, yet you ignore the Muslims.

Muslims weren't marching for fascism in Charlottesville. Nazis were. And we've bombed the shit out of the middle east for the last 16 years. So if we're gonna do that to Muslims, shouldn't we do that to Nazis?

 

[The Derp]

We have laws and if people break the laws then they get arrested. .

Do they? You sure about that? Wall Street broke all sorts of laws leading up to the economic collapse...how many of them were arrested?

If you don't like fascist and you resort to fascism to silence them then it makes you no better than them.

Since when is it fascist to shut down fascists? You're stuck in the "Tolerance Paradox".

 

[The Derp]

A couple hundred Nazis marching down the street is completely different from the 1930's

Even the Nazis started with a couple hundred people. And no one shut their shit down in its infancy. So then the 1930's happened. You know about the "Beer Hall Putsch"? Look it up. Gain some perspective. Stop trying to "be nice". Being nice is what led those hundred or so Nazis in 1923 to turn into genocidal fascists by 1939.

 

[The Derp]

We don't have to be emotionally charged "in order to take this seriously"

Yes we do. Because this shit is serious. You all seem to think that you can peace, love, and hug your way through fascism and I'm telling you, that doesn't fucking work. Did we peace, love, and hug our way across Europe in the 1940's? No. We killed Nazis. So why don't we do the same thing today? Nazis are Nazis. Aren't Nazis the ultimate bad guys? Unless you're going to say that there are "good people" among the Nazis. Which would make you no better than Trump.

Do you think that if people hugged Hitler more, he wouldn't have become what he was? Seriously? You can't fight hate with love. Because that would mean you would love Nazis. And if you love Nazis, then you're a Nazi.

 

[Slade3200]

We have laws and if people break the laws then they get arrested. .

Do they? You sure about that? Wall Street broke all sorts of laws leading up to the economic collapse...how many of them were arrested?

If you don't like fascist and you resort to fascism to silence them then it makes you no better than them.

Since when is it fascist to shut down fascists? You're stuck in the "Tolerance Paradox".

If crimes were committed on Wall Street and nobody was arrested then that is a failure with our legal system that needs to be fixed.

If you try and shut down the speech of anybody, even fascist, then you are practicing fascism. You may think you are justified but your are really just being hypocritical

 

[Slade3200]

A couple hundred Nazis marching down the street is completely different from the 1930's

Even the Nazis started with a couple hundred people. And no one shut their shit down in its infancy. So then the 1930's happened. You know about the "Beer Hall Putsch"? Look it up. Gain some perspective. Stop trying to "be nice". Being nice is what led those hundred or so Nazis in 1923 to turn into genocidal fascists by 1939.

I'm not trying to be nice I'm being objective, honest and realistic

 

[laffatlibs]

What's wrong with you people.... Nazis, the KKK and white supremacist groups are marching down our streets and calling for the banishment of Jews and blacks. And you are yawning and annoyed because it makes your President look bad when he waters down the seriousness of this problem? Y'all need to do some serious self reflection

The problem isn't Nazis, the KKK and white supremacist groups calling for the banishment of Jews and blacks. The problem is ANTIFA's calling for the banishment of free speech while using violence.

 

[Slade3200]

What's wrong with you people.... Nazis, the KKK and white supremacist groups are marching down our streets and calling for the banishment of Jews and blacks. And you are yawning and annoyed because it makes your President look bad when he waters down the seriousness of this problem? Y'all need to do some serious self reflection

The problem isn't Nazis, the KKK and white supremacist groups calling for the banishment of Jews and blacks. The problem is ANTIFA's calling for the banishment of free speech while using violence.

Disagree, both are problems

 

[ChrisL]

Lol! I saw this video and had to laugh.

 

[The Derp]

If crimes were committed on Wall Street and nobody was arrested then that is a failure with our legal system that needs to be fixed.

OK, so then your statement that the law is the law isn't really relevant, is it?

If you try and shut down the speech of anybody, even fascist, then you are practicing fascism. You may think you are justified but your are really just being hypocritical

By positioning fascism as merely a political opinion, you are legitimizing genocide as a political opinion. We fought a war about this 75 years ago. Why all of a sudden do we not continue that war today, now that the enemy has resurfaced?

 

[The Derp]

I'm not trying to be nice I'm being objective, honest and realistic

But you're not. You're being delusional. Fascists shouldn't even rear their ugly faces, let alone march for genocide. If you don't stop them now, they will only grow stronger. And as they grow stronger, it becomes harder to get rid of them. They're already entrenched in the White House and Congress.

What's it gonna take before you finally realize this shit is serious and dangerous? Nazis marching through the street with torches, screaming Nazi slogans, and killing people? Too late. Shit's already happening.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What's wrong with you people.... Nazis, the KKK and white supremacist groups are marching down our streets and calling for the banishment of Jews and blacks. And you are yawning and annoyed because it makes your President look bad when he waters down the seriousness of this problem? Y'all need to do some serious self reflection

I don't get it either.

Where is their patriotism?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Slade3200]

If crimes were committed on Wall Street and nobody was arrested then that is a failure with our legal system that needs to be fixed.

OK, so then your statement that the law is the law isn't really relevant, is it?

If you try and shut down the speech of anybody, even fascist, then you are practicing fascism. You may think you are justified but your are really just being hypocritical

By positioning fascism as merely a political opinion, you are legitimizing genocide as a political opinion. We fought a war about this 75 years ago. Why all of a sudden do we not continue that war today, now that the enemy has resurfaced?

OK, so then your statement that the law is the law isn't really relevant, is it?

Of course it is... I never said that our enforcement of the law nor did I say that all laws were perfect. We can always do better and we should always strive to do better in all areas.

By positioning fascism as merely a political opinion, you are legitimizing genocide as a political opinion. We fought a war about this 75 years ago. Why all of a sudden do we not continue that war today, now that the enemy has resurfaced?

Because we have rights in our society that are dictated by our constitution and laws. There is a process to deal with law breakers. As our laws stand we have freedom of speech, even speech that we don't agree with, even speech that we find morally disgusting. If that speech becomes threatening or disturbs the peace then it can be shut down and deemed a violation. If you want change then you create a law that makes hate speech illegal. You don't hit the streets and shut down a groups right to speak. That is the definition of fascism versus using the democratic process that our country is founded on.

 

[Slade3200]

I'm not trying to be nice I'm being objective, honest and realistic

But you're not. You're being delusional. Fascists shouldn't even rear their ugly faces, let alone march for genocide. If you don't stop them now, they will only grow stronger. And as they grow stronger, it becomes harder to get rid of them. They're already entrenched in the White House and Congress.

What's it gonna take before you finally realize this shit is serious and dangerous? Nazis marching through the street with torches, screaming Nazi slogans, and killing people? Too late. Shit's already happening.

If you want to stop them then do so within the bounds of our laws using the democratic process. Don't be a hypocrite and fight it with Fascist techniques, that just makes you a hypocrite.

 

[The Derp]

Because we have rights in our society that are dictated by our constitution and laws.

Since when is fascism protected by the Constitution? Since when is incitement protected by the Constitution? The entire point of being for fascists is to incite violence and genocide. Isn't that antithetical to our Constitution, specifically the part about all men being created equal? Again, we wouldn't have fought a war 75 years ago over this very thing. You seem to be arguing that we should let Nazis be...that didn't work the last time, why would it work this time?

There is a process to deal with law breakers. As our laws stand we have freedom of speech, even speech that we don't agree with, even speech that we find morally disgusting.

Why do we find it "morally disgusting"? Because it's incitement for genocide, which is what fascism entails. You're under the mistaken impression that being fascist is somehow free speech. It's not. It's the opposite of free speech. Free speech doesn't protect genocide, it doesn't protect incitement, yet that is entirely what Nazis and fascists are all about. When you start positioning fascism as a free speech issue, you are positioning genocide as a free speech issue. And I ask, since when is genocide a "free speech issue"?

If that speech becomes threatening or disturbs the peace then it can be shut down and deemed a violation.

You don't think calling for genocide, white supremacy, or fascism threatens or disturbs the peace? Really? So at what point does it disturb the peace? Could it be when we have Nazis literally marching with torches down the street, murdering people?

If you want change then you create a law that makes hate speech illegal. You don't hit the streets and shut down a groups right to speak. That is the definition of fascism versus using the democratic process that our country is founded on.

See above.

 

[The Derp]

If you want to stop them then do so within the bounds of our laws using the democratic process.

So that's really vague and general, not to mention a cop-out for someone who wants to preserve the illusion of reasonableness for no one but themselves. Well, get over yourself. Who are you doing this for?

Ion't be a hypocrite and fight it with Fascist techniques, that just makes you a hypocrite.

So when we fought against Nazis 75 years ago, that was fascist of us??? What should we have done instead? Held hands and sing kumbaya?

 

[Slade3200]

Because we have rights in our society that are dictated by our constitution and laws.

Since when is fascism protected by the Constitution? Since when is incitement protected by the Constitution? The entire point of being for fascists is to incite violence and genocide. Isn't that antithetical to our Constitution, specifically the part about all men being created equal? Again, we wouldn't have fought a war 75 years ago over this very thing. You seem to be arguing that we should let Nazis be...that didn't work the last time, why would it work this time?

There is a process to deal with law breakers. As our laws stand we have freedom of speech, even speech that we don't agree with, even speech that we find morally disgusting.

Why do we find it "morally disgusting"? Because it's incitement for genocide, which is what fascism entails. You're under the mistaken impression that being fascist is somehow free speech. It's not. It's the opposite of free speech. Free speech doesn't protect genocide, it doesn't protect incitement, yet that is entirely what Nazis and fascists are all about. When you start positioning fascism as a free speech issue, you are positioning genocide as a free speech issue. And I ask, since when is genocide a "free speech issue"?

If that speech becomes threatening or disturbs the peace then it can be shut down and deemed a violation.

You don't think calling for genocide, white supremacy, or fascism threatens or disturbs the peace? Really? So at what point does it disturb the peace? Could it be when we have Nazis literally marching with torches down the street, murdering people?

If you want change then you create a law that makes hate speech illegal. You don't hit the streets and shut down a groups right to speak. That is the definition of fascism versus using the democratic process that our country is founded on.

See above.

Since when is fascism protected by the Constitution? Since when is incitement protected by the Constitution?

It is protected in the First Amendment of the Constitution along with all other forms of speech within the law. What law specifically outlaws fascist talk?

Free speech doesn't protect genocide, it doesn't protect incitement, yet that is entirely what Nazis and fascists are all about.

Free speech protest TALKING about whatever we want to talk about. It protect Gifford when she take a photo with a fake severed head of our POTUS. Talk is Talk and it is protected unless it violates a specific law. You are fighting against a disgusting group who I condemn with all my soul, but you are proposing to fight Fascist talk with Fascist actions. You are proposing doing the actual fascist action of forcefully shutting down speech. If the Nazi move into fascist actions, if they move beyond talk then you have a stronger case to make. But right now you are just sounding hypocritical. I appreciate your passionate opposition to those groups, I feel the same way. I Just think you are misguided in your approach to combatting it.

You don't think calling for genocide, white supremacy, or fascism threatens or disturbs the peace? Really? So at what point does it disturb the peace? Could it be when we have Nazis literally marching with torches down the street, murdering people?

I'm fine with legislation that outlaws a certain level of hate speech. Draft it up and lets take a look. But if a group has a legal permit to gather and speak their minds then they are not breaking laws. If they murder somebody then of course they are breaking a law and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.