|StanleyPain - 2017-10-21 |
"Oh, but let Spencer speak and have his ideas countered with other ideas."
Pretty sure those ideas have already been soundly "countered" with other, better ideas. And guns. And bombs. And planes. And aircraft carriers. And time. And better people. And survivors dancing on the graves on people who shared those ideas.
But..umm...something something free speech.
"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
- Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1.
"Dass ihr [die Freiheit der Meinung] uns gegeben habt, das ist ja ein Beweis dafür, wie dumm ihr seid." - Goebbels, 1935
The idea that Muslims and Jews wouldn't immediately be the targets of censorship laws originally targeting white racists is actually more naive than the idea that you can beat people peaceful and peaceful people solve all their problems with their fists.
The authoritarian left is a racist fringe who want to use low hanging fruit as an excuse to go after the practitioners of various levant religions who have "problematic" holy texts. This and their Jim Crow style desire for segregation makes me wonder why it is again we don't just call them nazis as well.
No one thinks they're clever except them.
haha sure meme, yeah it's the left who're the real racists.
Man jail really broke you.
Weird that 'the left' are supposedly targeting 'levant religions' because I could have sworn it was liberals blowing up every country in the middle-east, sowing centuries of sectarian warfare, arming the mujahideen to fight 'communism', training the predecessors to IS etc etc
As for Jim-Crow segregation, again that was liberals who you seem to think are 'the left' because your brain is broken in a number of ways since your return.
It's this combined with the 4chan culture.
|Gmork - 2017-10-21 |
The joke is there is no paradox of intolerance. You draw the line at nazis.
"the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with."
The whole idea behind tolerance is that you're not really in a position to judge the ideas and behavior of those whose lives have taken a different path, by whatever reason or circumstance, than yours. Equating it to being merely skin color is missing the essence of what it's about.
If all this argument consisted of was the point that you should be free to judge people you've deemed as racist, I doubt you'd find quite as much opposition... But that's not what it's about. It's about a subset of liberals wanting to re-define the rights of EVERYONE so that they can punish the people they find objectionable, and it's about wanting to re-define laws to undermine the rule of law when they deem it necessary.
It's easy to judge these guys. They're shitty people, but more importantly, they broke an actual law designed to preserve public safety. They were arrested, and they'll wind up in jail for it for however long the actual law they broke dictates.
I agree it sucks that racist people get to use the first amendment to be openly shitty people, but it has to be that way to protect innocent people as well. You can't run around all time saying how corrupt and fucked up the government is (and it is), and then hand them the tools to throw you in fucking jail for saying that.
What happens twenty years from now when some republican president worse than Trump starts throwing dissidents in gulags because you didn't want to have to hear the shitty thoughts of shitty people who are going to keep on being shitty and walk among their communities skewing the institutions they work in according to their shitty ideologies, whether they can openly talk about them or not, anyway?
It's not about protecting THEM, it's about protecting anybody and everybody who has something to say that society wants to suppress. Societies are wrong about that shit CONSTANTLY.
Ask a historically oppressed minority.
I think it runs deeper than that. one of the reasons that this nazi crap dug its claws so deeply into a generation of young men is exactly BECAUSE society broadly considered naziism to be a closed book; We taught that nazis were bad, but didn't focus so much on the important factors of WHY nazis were bad. as such, a lot of kids were completely open to a bunch of jimmy neutron memes about IQ tests.
MN - someone who's got more free time will say more I'm sure, but you're confusing condemnation with prosecution. There is also the small matter of Brandenburg v. Ohio, and how likelihood of violence is a factor in Nazi gatherings and the like.
A lot of the most racist people I've met are liberals, because I live in New England. Upper middle class New England liberal racism is more passive aggressive than what you get in the south, but it's all over the place, trust me. People let the North of waaaay too easy.
Liberals are certainly no less likely to be racist. Con or Dem, both libs in the real sense.
The key thing Libs (particularly US Libs) do is 'defend the status quo' as they see it, this includes hollow symbolic stances like 'free speech' despite the numerous examples throughout their own recent/distant history where it's been shown to be far less than absolute in practice.
Libs go to this stuff because a cargo cult version of middleschool debate class is their level of discourse/understanding of civics/realpolitik.
"We've observed the forms, why won't [golden era] return?"
*rending of garments, gnashing of teeth, blaming of minorities/SJWs*
The US understanding of speech rights is mired in a woeful lack of education, and as such we get viking metal LARP guy in his thirties who thinks his stint reading reddit/kiwifarms/4chan arguments gives him such a fantastic understanding of the subject material that he goes to bat for nazis every.
time the subject comes up, all while unironically believing himself not to be a nazi sympathiser.
Never mind that practically every other western democracy functions without such an absolutist view, no only America is perfect and good and it always works 100% throughout all of time.
These Libs are SQWs as Cena Mark correctly identified them.
The Weimar Republic was a perfect example of how libshit democracy SQW-ism cannot contain fascism. A force that seeks to use the rights granted thereof to undermine and ultimately destroy such a society.
Libs fall for this because the nazis 'appear to observe the forms' and thus those who see the threat for what it really is are pilloried for 'not observing the forms' and we end up with 'both-sides' and free speech merry-go-rounds while the nazis are -already- racking up an actual bodycount.
Yes, Bawbag. I too have invented a narrative which describes the motives and thinking of a substantial portion of the populace.
They are dumbo doody-heads, and they are dumb!
Boy, am I ever smart!
Show your working.
I don't think fascism is rising because it's forbidden fruit, but rather because young white males are blaming their struggles on minorities, women, and immigrants as opposed to broad economic forces that have moved their factories overseas and automated so many other jobs. They've been told that it's tougher being a white male than anyother group because of quotas and affirmative action (I've heard many adults around me say this when I was growing up). They find themselves struggling, and then start to believe white priveledge is a lie because they can't afford a mcmansion and a Benz, unaware that most minorities are struggling even more.
You can be as racist as you like, just don’t act surprised when you’re shunned by society. Own up to the consequences of your expressed opinions like a grown-up or tacitly admit to the world that not merely are you a racist, but also cowardly about your bullshit brain queefs.
Neo Nazis tend to recruit disillusioned poor white males. The poor in America in general are overlooked. Democrats tend to want to ignore poor whites. It's easy for them to court the minority votes because it's socially acceptable (and racist on the part of the media) to always associate being poor with being black or Hispanic. Being Hispanic, I can vouch that I almost never see much representation of the Hispanic community as successful businessmen, doctors, professionals of any kind.
The problem is that America lives in a fiction where most people want to believe things that are true about race, some of those are negative stereotypes and others are trickier. When you say all Asians do well in school so they don't need as much attention from schools, that's putting an abnormal pressure on Asian students who might really need some extra attention. Hispanic students are often overlooked because they are looked at future cheap labor. Why bother helping them if they are just going to end up doing manual labor no matter what, right? With white supremacists, the myth is that they are all told white means you will succeed one day. I think most poor children growing up in the US today are a bit more disillusioned than previous generations. Neo Nazis are telling poor white guys that they deserve something, though. It isn't society telling them they deserve more. It's this Neo Nazi ideology that says other races came in and shoved you out of the way. Now you're going to wind up a minority. They are told Hispanics want to take over and that blacks and Hispanics want to replace whites. If they're poor, that's telling them that they want to hear, that they are somehow special and that getting rid of us will mean opportunity for them that would otherwise not exist if it weren't for us. It's filling up a void. It's a bunch of instant answers for desperate, stupid people who get sucked into a complete illusion.
I'm afraid of this movement but I get how it happens, and it's not because they are naturally evil. The Neo Nazi movement is smart. They are dressing up and they aren't wearing robes in public or Nazi regalia so much as trying to look as normal as possible. They want to be seen as saviors. That's more insidious than outward aggression. They want the left to come after them so they can martyr themselves. That's why I'm against Antifa. They are giving their enemies exactly what they want.
At least until Charlottesville. They really set themselves back there, and revealed themselves to be just like the skinheads only now they wear MAGA hats and white polos.
"Liberals are certainly no less likely to be racist."
Well there is too much racism in liberal / progressive circles, to be sure; I still haven't forgotten the hostile reaction to Netroots Nation. But I do think liberals are less racist overall; if nothing else they don't typically approve of hate groups, and don't feel the existential dread of losing their privilege when demographics finally swing against them. (Then you've got the Jeremy Christians whom you can define into or out of progressive circles, depending on which better proves whatever point you're trying to make.)
Either way, I don't think I'm mistaken that the ideal of tolerance and non-bigotry is a liberal ideal, even if liberals often do a poor job of living up to it. Exactly like how liberals will all tell you they believe women should be treated as equals to men, even though some of them are clearly blind to their own misogyny.
I should add that the Republican Party is pretty explicitly built on appealing to White America for White Americans; the racism there isn't a bug, it's a feature. Liberals can't even begin to out-racist that. Even 81% of evangelicals voted for Trump despite him being about as unreligious as a person can be, same as always, they voted for the most racist guy running for office. Must be ECONOMIC ANXIETY.
Unfortunately I can't share it out of respect for the wishes of the organization that was unfortunate enough to host it, but literally within the last 5 days I recorded over an hour of a liberal, civically engaged local business owner who was supposed to bespeaking on African American historical artifacts, literally, in so many words, telling a room full of middle aged black women (and a few of their children) that their experiences of racism literally did not happen, that there is no racial animus in policing in the USA and hasn't been in decades, and that the NAACP is "useless and has done nothing" because the chair of the local chapter didn't proactively contact him about something unrelated to the talk he had given for them recently, even though by his own admission
The only thing shocking about it was that he didn't know better than to be so flagrant, but it's a safe bet he was simply not self aware enough to even realize how racist he was being, just like he was completely surprised and defensive when there was pushback over him saying that the two black men who went to high school wth him in the 1960s were beloved by everyone and never experienced any racism at all.
This is a relatively extreme example, but as someone whose work brings me in contact with a lot of older, uppermiddle and upper class white liberals I see this kind of stuff play out in more veiled ways all the time. There are tons of racist-ass liberals.
And just because they aren't the MOST racist people in the public sphere right now doesn't mean they should get a full pass on it, if only because (unlike the people in this video, although even that's not a given*) they have so much potential to get better if they're engaged firmly but respectfully.
*I've said it before but I've personally known a very tolerant, civically engaged, left-leaning person who is literally a reformed nazi, was involved with nazi and white supremacist skinhead organizations for nearly a decade from his early teens to early 20s, and having gone through that path of reform and growth has amazing insights into the psychology of reactionary politics and racism. Interestingly enough, even though he was and continues to be an atheist, his reform was triggered by reading the Sermon on the Mount and having a very profound moment of clarity that would probably have been characterized as a conversion experience if he weren't an atheist. People are complex.
Liberals are certainly no less likely to be racist."
I don't agree with this at all, though. On an individual level sure, there are some liberals who are just as racist as any of their conservative counterparts but the idea that any given liberal is as likely to be racist* as any given conservative is pretty dubious if only because, as Bort correctly pointed out, contemporary Conservativism in the past 30-40 years has actively used the rhetoric of racism to build and mobilize its base, whereas in that same time frame Liberalism has used the rhetoric of post-racial "colorblindness" (which is itself inherently racist, but that's a whole other discussion and it isn't racist in the common vernacular sense that people are using it here).
*I mean racist in the "actively holds racist beliefs" sense, not in the "everyone born into European or North American society in the past 500-ish years - about how long ago the idea of "race" as we know it was invented - has been conditioned to view the world through the lens of race because it is one of the foundational principles of the society they grew in, and in that sense we are all racist and it's how you engage with your own conditioned racism that matters" sense.
It's like saying hockey fans and baseball fans are equally likely to hold season tickets to their local baseball team.
Not at all, it's that you guys still think of racism in terms of individual actions rather than the systemic/structural problem that it is in practice and that the 2 are somehow divisible.
As upholders of the racist status quo and carceral state, centrist dems do just as much in service of the racist/classist system as your common or garden repub screeching about foreigners taking jobs, they just have the veneer of civility to hide behind.
The dem side do a fine job of decrying the obvious situational racism, with symbolic gestures and protests that don't really do much in the way of change (raising awareness, vagina hats etc) but they do as poor a job of fixing the structural kind as any good ole boy, they're also opposed to the likes of BLM in much the same way Dems of the 60s/70s opposed the BPP and others.
The wars on non-white people never stop under dems, many of the wars were even started by them, Gitmo stayed open,, drones bombing random weddings in Pakistan, troops in Niger and wherever else so yeah I'm arguing that they are just as bad in practice (by any honest look at their record) even if their public face/marketing is nicer about it.
"As upholders of the racist status quo and carceral state, centrist dems do just as much in service of the racist/classist system as your common or garden repub screeching about foreigners taking jobs, they just have the veneer of civility to hide behind."
Hogwash. The big problem "centrist" Democrats have had is the difficulty of legislating racism away, when racists have figured out how to employ plausible deniability as a defense. It's easy enough to take companies to court for explicitly refusing to hire blacks, but today's crop of racists know to denounce the societal evil that is racism, hire one or two blacks, and then they're safe. How do you legislate against that? How do you prove racist intent?
Consider this diagram:
The diagram strives to differentiate between "overt / unacceptable" and "covert / acceptable" white supremacy, but you know what all the "covert / acceptable" stuff has in common? Plausible deniability. It's not that it's acceptable, so much as, it's impossible to prove. Like, Confederate flags: some people with Confederate flags might actually be telling the truth that they're just expressing pride in their home state and not espousing racism. I think most of them are lying, but in individual cases it's difficult to prove.
Dems will even defend that Hillary -literally had slaves- (https://twitter.com/i/moments/872315615486332929?lang=en) again I state that dems are no less likely to be racist, they just frown on overt displays of the dictionary definition racist variety because it doesn't observe their rules of acceptably bullshit civility.
As for legislating it away, the Dems have barely tried except on the rare occasion where public outcry demands either a neutered version of that or bloodshed (the civil rights movement).
Instead what they offer is white moderate incrementalism over centuries; which is inadequate in the extreme. The reason for this dragging of heels is obvious, they too benefit from a white supremacist system. Hell the elite dems make -millions- off of it, why would they fix that when all they have to do is invoke the ideas and their faithful will hail it as revolutionary.
Just like the Trump faithful, Dems are incapable of viewing their own tribe in this regard, because *points* that one over there is -always- worse.
"Dems will even defend that Hillary -literally had slaves"
That's true, if you twist the definition of "slave" like a balloon animal. What you are referring to is how prisoners were allowed to work at the governor's mansion IF THEY WANTED TO. That's the thing that most explicitly makes it NOT slavery: it was entirely voluntary. I'm not sure why prisoners would want to -- maybe privileges came with it, maybe they hoped to get the governor's ear -- but nobody was forced to do that if they didn't want to.
There are arguments and discussions to be had about the morality of prison labor, if you want to try being intellectually honest. But calling it "slavery", as Bernie's team did, was just a cynical effort to drum up outrage for short-term political advantage. Which incidentally only helped get Trump elected, so good job.
"As for legislating it away, the Dems have barely tried except on the rare occasion where public outcry demands either a neutered version of that or bloodshed (the civil rights movement)."
Oh fuck you. I gave you the example of the company that makes a token display of hiring blacks so that it can remain "mostly" racist; how would you legislate against that?
And you talk about the Civil Rights Act as if it were a half-hearted purely pragmatic effort. The Democratic leadership launched into the Civil Rights Act knowing that it would cost them the South for a good long time, still they did it. If the Democrats have trouble winning elections these days, it's because they gave up their power to pass the Civil Rights Act.
So, let's hear the Bawbag Totally Workable Plan To Legislate Racism Away. Go ahead, show us how it's done.
"That's true, if you twist the definition of "slave" like a balloon animal. What you are referring to is how prisoners were allowed to work at the governor's mansion IF THEY WANTED TO."
There's the Hillary fan claiming slavery isn't slavery because yeah 'meaningful consent' is -totally possible- when you're incarcerated.
QED my entire point.
It's fucking slavery. Prison Labour is slavery. The Clintons benefitted from prison labour, they had slaves.
This is exactly why dems will continue to lose. Oily snakey denial of any wrongdoing for eternity and "being marginally less cruel than the Reps" is not enough.
Never has been.
Again with you and "Bernie Bernie Bernie" it's constantly amazing to me how little democrats can accept that (aside from trump voters) they were and are ALSO mainly to blame for Trump winning.
It was in fact the Dems who continued to push for Trump as a pied piper candidate, basically triple-dog-dared the Reps to go for it and still they WON because what did the Dems offer other than the candidate no one fucking wanted? (muh popular vote hurrrrdurrrrunnng)
But yeah, go blame Bernie because you can't say 'i'm mad that 'the blacks' didn't vote straight dem' openly like many of your fellow dems have been dogwhistling since last year.
Dems did that.
Dems who never admit any fault.
Dems who lionise a woman who had slaves (that they refuse to even see are slaves).
'legislate legislate legislate' ad nauseam.
As with all libs, you seem to think the broken white supremacist insitutions you all help to uphold are going to provide the answer, and yet you're not really affected when they don't because you have zero fucking skin in the game. Either way, it's 100% academic/symbolic for dem voters and their "chosen" elites.
Meaningful change cannot come from liberalism, the entire civil rights era was pushed by RADICALS, not the fucking limpdick dems who merely turned up and took the milquetoast stance and later the credit for civil rights change that was forced upon them by massive pressure.
But 'minorities' are all supposed to be sooo grateful they ditched the southern strategy? Fuck off, the entire idea that anyone owes the Dems anything other than eternal scorn over the piles of dead children they helped create is repulsive
That they belatedly took credit for civil rights wins is fucking typical of the dems despite their public records on how they voted from then to present day on brutally racist policies that still overwhelmingly target minorities or vote for more wars against -who-the-fuck-ever- they've decided is enemy #1 this week.
Dems are going to lose to worse than Trump, because none of you have learned fucking anything from this, just blame blame blame muh bernie bernie
lol, it'd be funny if it weren't so awfully, pathetically sad.
"literally had slaves"
You are literally full of shit.
"'legislate legislate legislate' ad nauseam."
You do understand that the government has some sort of mysterious connection to the laws we operate under, right? If they can't legislate racism away, then there's not much they can do.
Still waiting for you to give us the Sure-Fire Bawbag Plan To Fix Racism. Could it be that you're good at bitching, and like a great many angry simpletons all you know is that you're mad but you can't even begin to figure out how to improve things?
Prison Labour is slavery Bort, Clinton's governor's mansion used prison labour which is slavery, therefore they -had slaves- by any fair analysis.
"uhh they're not slaves because I've decided that there's such a thing as voluntary slav...service for incarcerated people"
Great job Bort, your Hillary cult brokenness now extends to defending the absolutely indefensible.
"Still waiting for you to give us the Sure-Fire Bawbag Plan To Fix Racism."
Start by ending the fucking racist policies -your favourites- the Clintons (and friends) put and kept in place that led and still lead to overwhelming incarceration rates of mostly young, black males. End the 'war on drugs' which is another great thing your idols did absolutely nothing to change.
The point that you missed in your tripping over your heavingly full 'i'm with Her' brand diaper is that the sacrosanct institutions you libshits uphold and approve of are so utterly mired in creating and maintaining institutional/systemic racism that they are not up to the task of remediating same.
As evidence: literally all of American history from a minority perspective.
Great fucking job proving my points though, you've devolved to defending slavery which is fine when Dems do it apparently lol because 'consent' is really tricky when the guy's in an orange jumpsuit 🙄🙄🙄🙄
"Start by ending the fucking racist policies -your favourites- the Clintons (and friends) put and kept in place"
Are you talking about the 1994 Crime Bill that your man-god Bernie voted for? You know, the Senator from a state with one of the highest black incarceration rates? Odd how your standards work.
Dishonest whataboutery and your continuing obsession with Bernie seems to have become your go to:
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-voted-for-1994 -crime-bill-to-support-assault-weapons-ban-violence-against-women- provisions/
How in the fuck does his adequately explained vote on one part of one policy (of the many they enacted) change the fact that the Clintons eagerly advocated for and brought these policies in and maintained them to create the largest number of Fed and State prisoners in history Bort?
How does this change the stain of their engaging in what even the 13th amendment describes as 'slavery/involuntary servitude'?
How does you -literally- trying to defend slavery not prove my earlier point that Dems are just as likely to be racist? lol 2016 completely broke you.
As for 'man god Bernie' I don't care for him much, he's only 'left' by your abysmal US standards; but you just keep on crying about him some more rather than ever accept that your de facto royal line of succession fucking sucked so hard that a sideshow act like Trump won.
|yogarfield - 2017-10-21 |
| Register or login To Post a Comment|