The News Thread

[TechnicalBarbarity]

.... uggggghhhh. why does that cockroach still have a mic?

re: sharpton

 

[HamburgerBoy]

1. Do you acknowledge that communism has historically been labeled "anti-American" and its believers subject to political witch hunts?

yes

2. Are you aware that we've fought wars against communism?

yes

3. Are you aware that we've censored communists in the past, including the banning of the American Communist Party?

yes

4. Today, would you support bringing back the censorship of communism we've had in the past?

in cases of violent/racist demonstration yes.

I don't support communism. at the same time, it doesn't simultaneously stand for racism in this country the way nazism does.

I support freedom of speech but there's a point where lines are crossed and you're inciting riots and threats and physical combat. That's when it goes too far, and it should have been broken up. Blatantly racist demonstrations should not be tolerated.

This discussion is not about communism why am i replying to this

What qualifies as incitement of a riot or blatant racism to you?

 

[Baroque]

Sometimes the government needs to intervene against the few to protect the freedoms of the many.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

were they going out beating up and lynching black people? What about flamethrowers, bats, sticks etc?

 

[CiG]

Sometimes the government needs to intervene against the few to protect the freedoms of the many.

Stop calling yourself anti-authoritarian from now on.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Remember, there are no prominent racists blacks in our nation, only white people are ethnic supremacists:

Sometimes the government needs to intervene against the few to protect the freedoms of the many.

Is there a freedom of not being offended?

 

[Nate Skalman]

 

[CiG]

GTFO.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

PEPSI > Coke all day eeeerday

but crystal pepsi was nasty

 

[Baroque]

The exact same arguments Muslims use to try to ban drawings of Muhammad or criticism of their religion and justify violence that occurs when the bans aren't met.



You have, since then you have way less oppression of minorities and way more freedom for thought, speech, expression, demonstration and so on.

That feeling when a anti-authoritarian is actually a milquetoast authoritarian and doesn't realise it.

White supremacists want something more authoritarian, than the government stepping in to stop them. It's a gray area but I'd rather have the military protecting again the freedoms of the many than the authority of the racists.

 

[CiG]

White supremacists want something more authoritarian, than the government stepping in to stop them. It's a gray area but I'd rather have the military protecting again the freedoms of the many than the authority of the racists.

Okay, fine, but that doesn't make you opposed to authoritarianism, as you're fine with the government crushing the constitutional rights of a minority simply for thinking and saying something you disagree with.

 

[Baroque]

Stop calling yourself anti-authoritarian from now on.

Again, your logic is flawed, since white supremacists are even more authoritarian. There has to exist some baseline/minimal authority the military or police to protect freedoms.

 

[CiG]

Again, your logic is flawed, since white supremacists are even more authoritarian. There has to exist some baseline/minimal authority the military or police to protect freedoms.

It's not flawed, it makes perfect sense.

Anybody who thinks the alt-right must be suppressed by the state in order to avoid a second coming of the Fourth Reich is more hysterical and paranoid than people who hide in bunkers surrounded by guns waiting for the end of the world.

This is where the McCarthyism connection comes in. They believed fellow-travelers must be suppressed by the state, lest Communism rise and take over America.

 

[Draehl]

I can appreciate Sharpton's argument on the general principal that something that is controversial shouldn't be funded with public funds. But neither should it be specifically disallowed to exist either. I take the same stance on other issues- Have all the abortions you like, but you can pay for them yourself. Only problem with this stance is the line for "what is controversial" or "what is offensive" can get pushed further and further when it impacts policy like that and you end up with more SJW-like mock offense in other arenas. No easy answer.

 

[Baroque]

simply for thinking and saying something you disagree with.

Is that really all they're doing? "saying" something only I simply disagree with? Decades of social progress and lawmaking disagrees

It's not flawed, it makes perfect sense.

Anybody who thinks the alt-right must be suppressed by the state in order to avoid a second coming of the Fourth Reich is more hysterical and paranoid than people who hide in bunkers surrounded by guns waiting for the end of the world.

This is where the McCarthyism connection comes in. They believed fellow-travelers must be suppressed by the state, lest Communism rise and take over America.

no one said the entire alt-right you threw that in yourself. Never said McCarthyism is what we need. Jesus people,

said:
"violence was not justified"
"the left had the moral high ground vs racism"
recently added:
"the gov should step in in violent cases like this to protect people"

You can spend all day defending the racists if you want though

 

[CiG]

Is that really all they're doing? "saying" something only I simply disagree with? Decades of social progress and lawmaking disagrees

Yes, that's what they're doing. Sure, would they like to be able to do more than that? Of course. What's your point?

no one said the entire alt-right you threw that in yourself. Never said McCarthyism is what we need. Jesus people,

said:
"violence was not justified"
"the left had the moral high ground vs racism"
recently added:
"the gov should step in in violent cases like this to protect people"

You can spend all day defending the racists if you want though

Nice try, but I am not defending the racists, simply disagreeing with your authoritarian approach to their constitutional rights.

You've not been very clear, you seem to be goalpost shifting a lot right now, are you saying the state should get involved when the alt-right (yes I'm lumping them all in, because everyone there seems to be part of the alternative to paleo-cons, neocons and mainstream right-wingers) physically attacks people? Because nobody would disagree with that.

What you seem to be saying is that these racists should be dealt with by the state for thinking and saying racist stuff.

Perhaps be more clear.

 

[Dak]

One side is guilty of violence and shit beliefs. The other side is guilty of just violence. They're not the same.

This widely held shit opinion is why this whole discussion always becomes pointless, and why the "alt right" is growing in response. Don't know why I bothered dipping into this.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Again, your logic is flawed, since white supremacists are even more authoritarian. There has to exist some baseline/minimal authority the military or police to protect freedoms.

Sure, and that authority should come in when bad ideas become violent actions, not before.

no one said the entire alt-right you threw that in yourself. Never said McCarthyism is what we need. Jesus people,

said:
"violence was not justified"
"the left had the moral high ground vs racism"
recently added:
"the gov should step in in violent cases like this to protect people"

You can spend all day defending the racists if you want though

The government stepped in days before the rally even started by arbitrarily deciding to cancel their reservation until the ACLU turned that around.

 

[Baroque]

you seem to be goalpost shifting a lot right now, are you saying the state should get involved when the alt-right (yes I'm lumping them all in,

I'm pretty much over this convo, spoke my mind already, but lol at the accusation of goalpost shifting. Who brought in all these other topics of communism, McCarthyism, and now the entire alt-right (so i can't single out racists), it's seriously lols. Let's turn it into an argument about everything at once so he can't win, instead of what he actually said about white supremacists having the moral low ground. Was it uncomfortable to talk about white racists so you had to switch the goalposts? Just be honest and say how you really feel here lol.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'm pretty much over this convo, spoke my mind already, but lol at the accusation of goalpost shifting. Who brought in all these other topics of communism, McCarthyism, and now the entire alt-right (so i can't single out racists), it's seriously lols. Let's turn it into an argument about everything at once so he can't win, instead of what he actually said about white supremacists having the moral low ground. Was it uncomfortable to talk about white racists so you had to switch the goalposts? Just be honest and say how you really feel here lol.

Again, you're pretending to be retarded. I never seriously accused you of being a communist, in fact even if you're going to be literal to the point of stupidity, then you should see that I implied you *should* support McCarthyism (which, in case you weren't aware, is anti-communist). You're picking racism as an arbitrary boogeyman when plenty of non-racial, yet inherently violent, ideologies exist and are allowed to be publicly extolled.