I Think I Will Scream

[Slade3200]

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?

The Nazi's 75 years ago were killing people and committing genocide, we weren't fighting against ugly rhetoric. Again, words vs actions. You're steering away from the realm of reality, come back and stay on track.

 

[The Derp]

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?

The laws against incitement. Which is not protected by the First Amendment. Which is what fascism is...incitement. By flying the Nazi flag, that "speech" is effectively calling for ethnic cleansing and the death or oppression of millions. So the symbols the Nazi displays are tantamount to incitement, something the Supreme Court has said is not protected speech. Instead, it's a call to action. Thus, incitement.

Free speech protest TALKING about whatever we want to talk about.

But that's not what they were doing. They were inciting violence by virtue of the fact that the symbols, gestures, and phrases used are a call to action. So it's not "free speech" at all.

It protect Gifford when she take a photo with a fake severed head of our POTUS.

Did it? Someone should have told that to all the trolls who made a big deal about it. How does what Griffon did incite violence, exactly?

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.

What is a "fascist action"? That's what you aren't clear about. By fighting the Nazis in WWII, we were being fascist? Huh?

You are proposing doing the actual fascist action of forcefully shutting down speech.

It's not speech. It's incitement. It's a call to action. It's fascism. We killed fascists 75 years ago. Was that fascist of us????

If the Nazi move into fascist actions, if they move beyond talk then you have a stronger case to make.

Which is exactly what they did by marching through the streets, carrying torches, screaming about white supremacy, and 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.

So what is that certain level? You're the one who proposed it, why are you making me do your work for you? When you say that fascists are just people with opinions, you are saying genocide is a legitimate opinion. Do you think that's the case?

 

[The Derp]

The Nazi's 75 years ago were killing people and committing genocide

And the Nazis today killed people and are inciting genocide. I don't see the difference. So we should wait until the Nazis start committing genocide (which they say they want) before we stop them? Huh?

Twe weren't fighting against ugly rhetoric.

Yes, we absolutely were! Jesus Christ, do you think Nazis never talked about ethnic cleansing???????????

gain, words vs actions. You're steering away from the realm of reality, come back and stay on track.

I bet if I asked you if you could travel back in time and kill Hitler before he became what he was, you would do it. So what's the difference here?

 

[Slade3200]

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?

The laws against incitement. Which is not protected by the First Amendment. Which is what fascism is...incitement. By flying the Nazi flag, that "speech" is effectively calling for ethnic cleansing and the death or oppression of millions. So the symbols the Nazi displays are tantamount to incitement, something the Supreme Court has said is not protected speech. Instead, it's a call to action. Thus, incitement.

Free speech protest TALKING about whatever we want to talk about.

But that's not what they were doing. They were inciting violence by virtue of the fact that the symbols, gestures, and phrases used are a call to action. So it's not "free speech" at all.

It protect Gifford when she take a photo with a fake severed head of our POTUS.

Did it? Someone should have told that to all the trolls who made a big deal about it. How does what Griffon did incite violence, exactly?

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.

What is a "fascist action"? That's what you aren't clear about. By fighting the Nazis in WWII, we were being fascist? Huh?

You are proposing doing the actual fascist action of forcefully shutting down speech.

It's not speech. It's incitement. It's a call to action. It's fascism. We killed fascists 75 years ago. Was that fascist of us????

If the Nazi move into fascist actions, if they move beyond talk then you have a stronger case to make.

Which is exactly what they did by marching through the streets, carrying torches, screaming about white supremacy, and 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.

So what is that certain level? You're the one who proposed it, why are you making me do your work for you? When you say that fascists are just people with opinions, you are saying genocide is a legitimate opinion. Do you think that's the case?

What incitement law are you talking about? Please post the text. Does that also mean that movies like schindlers list would be outlawed as they portray Nazi symbols?

 

[Slade3200]

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?

The laws against incitement. Which is not protected by the First Amendment. Which is what fascism is...incitement. By flying the Nazi flag, that "speech" is effectively calling for ethnic cleansing and the death or oppression of millions. So the symbols the Nazi displays are tantamount to incitement, something the Supreme Court has said is not protected speech. Instead, it's a call to action. Thus, incitement.

Free speech protest TALKING about whatever we want to talk about.

But that's not what they were doing. They were inciting violence by virtue of the fact that the symbols, gestures, and phrases used are a call to action. So it's not "free speech" at all.

It protect Gifford when she take a photo with a fake severed head of our POTUS.

Did it? Someone should have told that to all the trolls who made a big deal about it. How does what Griffon did incite violence, exactly?

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.

What is a "fascist action"? That's what you aren't clear about. By fighting the Nazis in WWII, we were being fascist? Huh?

You are proposing doing the actual fascist action of forcefully shutting down speech.

It's not speech. It's incitement. It's a call to action. It's fascism. We killed fascists 75 years ago. Was that fascist of us????

If the Nazi move into fascist actions, if they move beyond talk then you have a stronger case to make.

Which is exactly what they did by marching through the streets, carrying torches, screaming about white supremacy, and 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.

So what is that certain level? You're the one who proposed it, why are you making me do your work for you? When you say that fascists are just people with opinions, you are saying genocide is a legitimate opinion. Do you think that's the case?

I'm saying that somebody can run through the street and talk about how they want eat dead babies but they aren't going to get arrested unless they actually get caught eating babies. There is a difference between talk and action. If it was a crime to speak out and challenge our laws then no laws would ever change

 

[Slade3200]

The Nazi's 75 years ago were killing people and committing genocide

And the Nazis today killed people and are inciting genocide. I don't see the difference. So we should wait until the Nazis start committing genocide (which they say they want) before we stop them? Huh?

Twe weren't fighting against ugly rhetoric.

Yes, we absolutely were! Jesus Christ, do you think Nazis never talked about ethnic cleansing???????????

gain, words vs actions. You're steering away from the realm of reality, come back and stay on track.

I bet if I asked you if you could travel back in time and kill Hitler before he became what he was, you would do it. So what's the difference here?

It extremely frustrating to debate you because you keep using false equivalancies. Let's just get real simple. Post the law that you think NAzi protesters are breaking

 

[The Derp]

What incitement law are you talking about?

I'm talking about the Brandenburg v. Ohio case brought before the US Supreme Court in 1969 that was decided that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

So would genocide be a lawless action?

Please post the text. Does that also mean that movies like schindlers list would be outlawed as they portray Nazi symbols?

No.

 

[The Derp]

I'm saying that somebody can run through the street and talk about how they want eat dead babies but they aren't going to get arrested unless they actually get caught eating babies.

OR - they can be arrested if they are inciting others to eat dead babies. See: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

See I have actual, legal precedent on my side. You don't.

There is a difference between talk and action. If it was a crime to speak out and challenge our laws then no laws would ever change

LOL! So we should wait until Nazis start killing people before we take action against them? Oh wait, too late for that! Nazis have already killed people.

 

[The Derp]

Post the law that you think NAzi protesters are breaking

They are violating the First Amendment, per the SCOTUS decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

 

[Slade3200]

What incitement law are you talking about?

I'm talking about the Brandenburg v. Ohio case brought before the US Supreme Court in 1969 that was decided that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

So would genocide be a lawless action?

Please post the text. Does that also mean that movies like schindlers list would be outlawed as they portray Nazi symbols?

No.

You are talking about "Clear and Present Danger" and imminent threats. Obviously that does not apply to the rallies this weekend as they had a permit to protest and were not stopped by the cops. The best we can do is ignore them or speak out with a stronger message of unity. If you engage with them, you empower them. If you legislate to have the government shut them down then you open the door to having the government shut down all kinds of speech... gay rights, Transgender issues, abortion rights. All of these can be considered a threat by political opponents. Do you really want to go down that road?

One thing is for sure thought. Citizens and mob groups like ANTIFA are only hurting things and empowering their opponents when they break laws, destroy property, and bring violence to their protests. Even people sympathetic to their protest, like I am with the Anti-hate group cause, can't make excuses for them.

 

[Slade3200]

Post the law that you think NAzi protesters are breaking

They are violating the First Amendment, per the SCOTUS decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

I appreciate you answering the question and making a good argument to back up your point. I think you are correct in some cases but the type of talk has to be provoking to the point where there is an imminent threat and that has to be considered in a case by case basis. I don't think saying any Nazi or White supremacist talk would be considered illegal. If a protestor says that he is going to kill another protestor or threatens to light a house on fire while holding a torch then you got a point and i'd hope the cops would step in. If a group of douchebag Nazi's get together to promote their bullshit ideology and they do so civilly then I don't think your precedent applies

 

[The Derp]

You are talking about "Clear and Present Danger" and imminent threats. Obviously that does not apply to the rallies this weekend as they had a permit to protest and were not stopped by the cops

Imminent threat like driving a car at full speed into a crowd of people? Why do you think that Moderate Republican Nazi did that? Because he was incited to do it by the violent and fascist rhetoric he preached and practiced. They had a permit to protest, but that permit did not extend to inciting violence. The march wasn't even about removing the statue. None of them even talked about it. You've seen the Vice documentary, right? What are your thoughts on that?

YThe best we can do is ignore them or speak out with a stronger message of unity.

How'd that work out before? How'd that work out in the 1920's? How about the 1930's? How about the 1940's? We fought a war over this very thing with millions of people dying. You're saying we should only act against Nazis once they've already committed genocide. But by that point, it's already too late. You have to kill that shit in its cradle. Do you think that guy who ran over those people gives a shit about unity? What about Trump? What about the GOP who has rubber-stamped Trump's agenda? Where do you get the impression that unity makes any difference to those people? It might make you feel good, but this isn't about you.

If you engage with them, you empower them. If you legislate to have the government shut them down then you open the door to having the government shut down all kinds of speech... gay rights, Transgender issues, abortion rights. All of these can be considered a threat by political opponents. Do you really want to go down that road?

They are already empowered, thanks to Trump and the Conservatives/Republicans who advance that agenda, who apologize for these people, and who pretend that they have equivalence with those who oppose them. When you equate fascists with antifascists, you are saying that fascists have legitimate grievances. Do they? And as far as the slippery slope argument, why not just take this shit one step at a time. Gay rights are a 14th Amendment issue. Nazi rights aren't a Constitutional issue at all. In fact, we killed Nazis. Maybe we should start doing that again. That's how we defeated them before. Why wouldn't it work again?

One thing is for sure thought. Citizens and mob groups like ANTIFA are only hurting things and empowering their opponents when they break laws, destroy property, and bring violence to their protests. Even people sympathetic to their protest, like I am with the Anti-hate group cause, can't make excuses for them.

Bullshit. The violence was brought by the people preaching violence and genocide. Nazis exist for no other purpose than those things. Antifa exists to oppose that. And as far as what happened in Charlottesville, it wasn't antifa who killed people. It was the Nazis. Who were incited to kill people by the twisted, anti-democratic ideology they hold that you are defending as "free speech". Nazism is the antithesis to "free speech", so it can't be a free speech issue. You wouldn't tolerate ISIS holding a march through American cities calling for genocide of non-Muslims...they'd get droned faster than you could snap your fingers. So if that's the standard, why not apply it to Nazis???? We did kill the shit out of them 75 years ago.

 

[Slade3200]

You are talking about "Clear and Present Danger" and imminent threats. Obviously that does not apply to the rallies this weekend as they had a permit to protest and were not stopped by the cops

Imminent threat like driving a car at full speed into a crowd of people? Why do you think that Moderate Republican Nazi did that? Because he was incited to do it by the violent and fascist rhetoric he preached and practiced. They had a permit to protest, but that permit did not extend to inciting violence. The march wasn't even about removing the statue. None of them even talked about it. You've seen the Vice documentary, right? What are your thoughts on that?

YThe best we can do is ignore them or speak out with a stronger message of unity.

How'd that work out before? How'd that work out in the 1920's? How about the 1930's? How about the 1940's? We fought a war over this very thing with millions of people dying. You're saying we should only act against Nazis once they've already committed genocide. But by that point, it's already too late. You have to kill that shit in its cradle. Do you think that guy who ran over those people gives a shit about unity? What about Trump? What about the GOP who has rubber-stamped Trump's agenda? Where do you get the impression that unity makes any difference to those people? It might make you feel good, but this isn't about you.

If you engage with them, you empower them. If you legislate to have the government shut them down then you open the door to having the government shut down all kinds of speech... gay rights, Transgender issues, abortion rights. All of these can be considered a threat by political opponents. Do you really want to go down that road?

They are already empowered, thanks to Trump and the Conservatives/Republicans who advance that agenda, who apologize for these people, and who pretend that they have equivalence with those who oppose them. When you equate fascists with antifascists, you are saying that fascists have legitimate grievances. Do they? And as far as the slippery slope argument, why not just take this shit one step at a time. Gay rights are a 14th Amendment issue. Nazi rights aren't a Constitutional issue at all. In fact, we killed Nazis. Maybe we should start doing that again. That's how we defeated them before. Why wouldn't it work again?

One thing is for sure thought. Citizens and mob groups like ANTIFA are only hurting things and empowering their opponents when they break laws, destroy property, and bring violence to their protests. Even people sympathetic to their protest, like I am with the Anti-hate group cause, can't make excuses for them.

Bullshit. The violence was brought by the people preaching violence and genocide. Nazis exist for no other purpose than those things. Antifa exists to oppose that. And as far as what happened in Charlottesville, it wasn't antifa who killed people. It was the Nazis. Who were incited to kill people by the twisted, anti-democratic ideology they hold that you are defending as "free speech". Nazism is the antithesis to "free speech", so it can't be a free speech issue. You wouldn't tolerate ISIS holding a march through American cities calling for genocide of non-Muslims...they'd get droned faster than you could snap your fingers. So if that's the standard, why not apply it to Nazis???? We did kill the shit out of them 75 years ago.

I appreciate your anti-Nazi feelings but they are not labeled as an active terror group like ISIS is. I want nothing to do with Nazi's, ISIS or any other hate groups. But if you are going to resort to mob violence to shut them down then your efforts are misdirected and will only empower their voices as you discredit yours. Fight for stronger laws and enforcement if you want but be sure that you are aware of the possible backlash as they try and turn the "new laws" that restrict free speech back against liberal causes.

 

[The Derp]

I appreciate your anti-Nazi feelings but they are not labeled as an active terror group like ISIS is.

Not according to the SPLC. Plus, would you call that Nazi driving his car at full speed into a crowd an "act of terror"? Because I sure as shit would.

I want nothing to do with Nazi's, ISIS or any other hate groups. But if you are going to resort to mob violence to shut them down then your efforts are misdirected and will only empower their voices as you discredit yours.

If you could travel back in time and kill Hitler before he became what he was, would you? Because I'm not so sure you would. When he first started out, no one thought he would become what he was. He worked his way to that thanks to appeasement, "niceness", and excuses. If you have the chance to stop that shit before it gets to the point it got to, would you do it? Because I'm not so sure you would.

Fight for stronger laws and enforcement if you want but be sure that you are aware of the possible backlash as they try and turn the "new laws" that restrict free speech back against liberal causes.

The "slippery slope" argument has never made sense before on any other topic, so why would it start making sense now?

 

[Slade3200]

I appreciate your anti-Nazi feelings but they are not labeled as an active terror group like ISIS is.

Not according to the SPLC. Plus, would you call that Nazi driving his car at full speed into a crowd an "act of terror"? Because I sure as shit would.

I want nothing to do with Nazi's, ISIS or any other hate groups. But if you are going to resort to mob violence to shut them down then your efforts are misdirected and will only empower their voices as you discredit yours.

If you could travel back in time and kill Hitler before he became what he was, would you? Because I'm not so sure you would. When he first started out, no one thought he would become what he was. He worked his way to that thanks to appeasement, "niceness", and excuses. If you have the chance to stop that shit before it gets to the point it got to, would you do it? Because I'm not so sure you would.

Fight for stronger laws and enforcement if you want but be sure that you are aware of the possible backlash as they try and turn the "new laws" that restrict free speech back against liberal causes.

The "slippery slope" argument has never made sense before on any other topic, so why would it start making sense now?

Yes that appeared to be an act of terror. He should be punished accordingly. Your hitler time travel fantasy is irrelevant. We can't predict the future and we either have values or we don't. Justifying crime to prevent future crime that you don't know for sure is going to happen is reckless and idiotic.

 

[The Derp]

Yes that appeared to be an act of terror. He should be punished accordingly. Your hitler time travel fantasy is irrelevant. We can't predict the future and we either have values or we don't. Justifying crime to prevent future crime that you don't know for sure is going to happen is reckless and idiotic.

Look, the time travel thing was me making the point that in retrospect, if you could have prevented Hitler, would you have? Because we're at the same point right now with American fascism. We only need look at historical precedent of Nazis to know where it would go if we simply stood by and showed "unity". It took Hitler 10 years from the Beer Hall Putsch to become Chancellor of Germany. In those ten years, the Weimar government did nothing to stop his rise. They accommodated him, gave him political power. In the ten years following, international heads of state accommodated him, appeased him, and gave him political power. Then he went on to commit genocide.

We already know what Nazis would do if given power. We saw it happen 80 years ago. We hear them when they say they want genocide today. So maybe we should kill these ******* guys. If it's going to prevent what happened 80 years ago, I think it's entirely reasonable to discuss.