Defending Hateful Speech Is Unpleasant But Essential, Even When Violence Is The End Result

from the theater-for-fire-shouters dept

A weekend full of ugliness has resulted in the predictable: calls for the government to step in and do something about "hate speech." For some reason, a bunch of people decided the removal of a statue commemorating the loser of the First American Civil War was something they simply couldn't abide with, even though the "history" they were seeking to "preserve" generally celebrates the last holdouts against the abolishment of slavery.

It's not as though they were seeking to preserve history a government might feel like erasing. No one involved in the protest of the Robert E. Lee statue removal sought to build the US equivalent of the Holocaust Museum and needed the stone homage to serve an appropriate place of dishonor among the rest of the relics. This devolved into violence -- first hand-to-hand altercations, but later involving a vehicle driven directly into a crowd of counter-protesters, resulting in multiple injuries and one death.

While the president issued a tepid "hate and violence are bad" statement, people all over the internet were taking this as an indication free speech in this country has gone too far. (His second statement, delivered two days later, was much better.) Predictably, those attacking entities like the ACLU (which defended the white nationalist assemblage's right to hold a protest of the statue's removal) were mainly interested in shutting down speech they didn't like, while somehow preserving the sort of the speech they did like.

Glenn Greenwald has a long post at The Intercept detailing the misguided attacks on the ACLU as a result of its defense of the white nationalist protesters. As he points out, the left -- despite its reputation for tolerance of all races, creeds, colors, and sexes -- is a frequent supporter of government regulation of speech. Many on the left still cling to the mistaken belief the government has already outlawed "hate speech," when it has done nothing of the sort.

Those on the right would like to see the ACLU kicked out of Constitutional discussions as well. Greenwald notes the ACLU has been similarly attacked for such things as arguing for due process rights for accused terrorists.

The problem is: rights are rights. Those availing themselves of Constitutional rights usually aren't sympathetic protagonists. But it's the worst of the worst that need defending. No one starts throwing around stupid legislation when tepid, middle-of-the-road statements are made. No one fires off bogus lawsuits when unoffensive statements are delivered.

Many on both sides -- right and left -- find this concept hard to grasp. Some people believe there's a legal bright line between speech and hate speech, when in most cases, it's just a subjective measurement of how much these people empathize with the disputed statements. Hypocrisy abounds. Unfortunately, hypocrisy isn't limited to the rank-and-file. Legislators are able to at least threaten serious damage to the First Amendment by writing and sponsoring bills targeting the "worst of the worst." But most are written so broadly and badly, they can't survive a constitutional challenge.

Even our president partakes in the speech hypocrisy. He has threatened to open up libel laws and refers to any source of info he doesn't like as "fake news." But he still enjoys the First Amendment protections he's reluctant to extend to his opponents, even as he extols police brutality or encourages supporters to attack protesters.

That the worst speech needs the most defending isn't news to anyone here at Techdirt. This point has been made repeatedly. But every time something like what happened in Charlottesville happens, the point needs to be driven home again.

Some believe the curbing of speech would somehow prevent violence. But words and actions are two different things. We have plenty of laws in place to deal with assault and vehicular homicide. What we don't need is more laws regulating speech in response to criminal activity. Certainly some of the people making the nastiest statements are also perpetrators of violence. But laws that criminalize speech extend culpability from doing to simply thinking.

There's a huge gap between defending someone's right to speak and defending what they're saying. As some people need to be constantly reminded, free speech is not speech without consequences. Ignorant, nasty, brutish statements deserve the criticism they receive. What they shouldn't be met with is calls for the government to step in and tell everyone what sort of speech is permitted. Those protesting the statue's removal had every right to be heard, no matter how ridiculous their arguments and beliefs.

It also should be clear (but often isn't) that defending someone's First Amendment rights isn't the same thing as defending their actions. It's not even something as minimal as complicity. The ACLU stepping up to defend the white nationalist's right to assemble doesn't not make them an enabler of the violence that followed. That violence was the end result was possibly to be expected, but allowing the government to selectively revoke certain citizens' rights as a precaution isn't really the path we want to go down.

Finally, there's one more point to consider when calling for the curtailment of free speech for the "worst of the worst:" it is utterly ineffective, even if it "works." Here's Greenwald:

How can anyone believe that neo-Nazism or white supremacy will disappear in the U.S., or even be weakened, if it’s forcibly suppressed by the state? Is it not glaringly apparent that the exact opposite will happen: by turning them into free speech martyrs, you will do nothing but strengthen them and make them more sympathetic?

The last thing anyone needs is for the worst of worst to become cause celebres because of their odious viewpoints. No one should be in a hurry to make it more difficult to easily recognize small-minded, hateful people. Their ignorance should always be on display. Burying them just makes them more dangerous and more apt to resort to violent means to make their points.


Reader Comments

The First Word

Tim, thank you so much for this post. Since Charlottesville, I've been having so much trouble trying to put words to the feelings I've had about how yes, we still need to protect free speech, even when shit like this happens.

The people who respond to speech with violence are terrible. They're damaging their cause by implicitly stating that they have no counter argument to the idea they are in opposition too. If it just turned into a fist fight, I would have said, "that's what happens when you punch people, they hit back."

However, hitting people with cars is not the same as hitting them with fists. Killing someone who just wants to hurt you into silence is not an appropriate response. This is far worse, as instead of meeting your opposition with equal inverse force (e.g., retaliatory punches) you have then upped the ante. This is the worst thing you can do to someone who has already shown that they're willing to escalate violence. At that point, the end result is who's willing to go too far first. Not somewhere I want to be.

In an episode of Stuff you Should Know, "How Dictators Work" they discussed that historically, the entities that were resisted hardest ended up getting more credibility, and thus, more power. While I think that anybody who wants to tote White Nationalist or White Separatism or Nazism or racism or any of these other flawed ideologies, I would treat them like I would a toddler throwing a tantrum: don't reward the negative behavior with attention. Treat it like a threat, and it becomes a threat; treat it like a group of idiots with misguided ideas, then it'll just remain that.

The best cure for stupid is education, not shame or violence. Combat ideas with ideas. If things get violent, GTFO. And always remember: no matter what side of the aisle you're on, your group is made up of a bunch of individual people. Some are basically good people (albeit, with bad ideas), so don't confuse the ideas with the human who claims to have them.
—aethercowboy

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    TechDescartes (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 7:53am

    Charlotte?

    But every time something like what happened in Charlotte happens, the point needs to be driven home again.

    Charlotte...sville.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:26am

      Re: Charlotte?

      Man. Apparently Cushing thinks all those southern cities are the same. Fixed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:37am

        Re: Re: Charlotte?

        Sherman burned all of them, right? Basically the same.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          TechDescartes (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:49pm

          Re: Re: Re: Charlotte?

          Sherman burned all of them, right? Basically the same.

          No, Sherman marched from Atlanta to Savannah, burning a wide swath of Georgia. He then passed north through South Carolina and North Carolina on his way to Richmond, Virginia, passing well east of the tiny town of Charlotte.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 8:28am

    Uh-oh

    Brace yourselves, a bad "Masnick censors my posts" trollstorm is coming!

    Just in case let's leave it here with emphasis:

    "What they shouldn't be met with is calls for *****the government***** to step in and tell everyone what sort of speech is permitted."

    God bless ACLU for their excellent work in the middle of all this bs. Let's see if the 1st survives the current political climate and polarization in the US.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Shane Roach (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:16am

      Re: Uh-oh

      I will tell you what is interesting. Some of my posts go straight through, and others get held for moderation.

      So far, the two held for moderation had to do with banking.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Shane Roach (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:50am

        Re: Re: Uh-oh

        Aaaah

        TechDirt apparently blacklisted the usual contraction for Foreign Exchange...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 1:18am

          Re: Re: Re: Uh-oh

          I dunno, it may also have been your shouting "ANTIFA!" every 10 words like a lunatic in between your repetition of idiotic right wing conspiracy theories.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 1:09am

        Re: Re: Uh-oh

        "Some of my posts go straight through, and others get held for moderation."

        Happens to everyone occasionally. The trick is to accept that there's a spam filter and honest posts will eventually get through, not to start raving like a lunatic about a conspiracy like some out usual geniuses.

        For what it's worth, the things I usually find trigger it more often - not being logged into an account, posting several things in quick succession (on one article or in several tabs) or posting multiple links.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:04am

    here is how it will go down

    the racist left will remove everything that the racist right has on display.

    after a certain amount of time, the racist right is going to say... where is your proof? where are the landmarks and history that any of what you claim happened?

    History is written by the victors.

    Are they seeking a return to slavery by destroying the history that warns us about it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:09pm

      Re: here is how it will go down

      "Are they seeking a return to slavery?

      Yes. That is when america was great apparently

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:59pm

      Re: here is how it will go down

      "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

      Kinda hard to learn from it when so many people want it removed...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:20pm

        Re: Re: here is how it will go down

        Statues celebrating the Confederacy and those who fought for it do not deserve a place in the public square. The Confederacy seceded from, and lost a way against, the United States in an effort to preserve the institution of slavery. If the Germans can rid their country of statues and monuments that celebrated the Nazis, Americans can certainly rid their country of statues and monuments that celebrate traitorous racists who lost a war with the United States.

        Put them in museums. Put them in a trash heap. I don’t much care where they go, so long as they are gone from the public eye. We don’t need public momnuments celebrating the Confederacy to teach our children why those traitors seceded from and fought a losing war with the United States.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 2:30pm

          Re: Re: Re: here is how it will go down

          That's dangerously simplistic and naive.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 4:37pm

          Re: Re: Re: here is how it will go down

          "I don’t much care where they go, so long as they are gone from the public eye."

          Funny, this is how human trafficking works too. Things not in the public eye are ripe for abuse and largely ignored. Constant vigilance is the key, not sweeping historical facts you find uncomfortable under the rug.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 5:51pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: here is how it will go down

            We should make statues of every criminal, and place them at every street corner. If we don't, how will anyone remember that people rape, murder and steal?
            Cast in bronze, in heroic poses and devoid of context. It's the only way to stop us from repeating the mistakes of the past.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 5:54pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: here is how it will go down

            Statues and monuments to the Confederacy celebrate the cause for which that group of traitors seceded, fought a war, and died over: the preservation of the right to own an entire group of people as slaves based on skin color. The descendants of those slaves should not have to walk around in public under the shadow of a monument that, in all practical terms, celebrates the enslavement of their ancestors.

            Germany destroyed Nazi symbols and monuments after World War II. The US should do the same for Confederate monuments. The Confederacy does not deserve public monuments of celebration; it deserves to become a lesson in a history class, preferably about the evils of racism and slavery.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 6:12pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: here is how it will go down

            " Things not in the public eye are ripe for abuse and largely ignore"

            Human trafficking != statues

            I do not care if someone abuses the statues while they are hidden form the public eye. Your constant vigilance protecting statues from abuse is commendable but unnecessary.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 9:13pm

          Re: Re: Re: here is how it will go down

          The germans did not remove every memorial to soldiers and generals who fought under Nazi rule. Many of them remain in parks and public spaces, though usually in quieter and understated areas.

          It's important to honor and respect the bravery of people willing to fight for their homes, their country, and even the set of ideals they choose, even if you disagree with those ideals or that country. There's a lot of complicated lessons that can be learned from the Civil War above and beyond "slavery is bad". It's a shame that some people want to make that the end all be all of the history lesson.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 1:38am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: here is how it will go down

            It's important to honor and respect the bravery of people willing to fight for their homes, their country, and even the set of ideals they choose, even if you disagree with those ideals or that country.

            People who feel that way about the Confederacy can already go do that.

            They have graveyards for the traitors, don’t they?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JMT (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 5:49pm

        Re: Re: here is how it will go down

        If the only way you can learn the history of slavery and the Civil War is through statues in parks that celebrate the men who led the deservedly losing side then you're probably too stupid to learn anything.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    jilocasin, 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:10am

    Just like a horse shoe

    As was demonstrated last weekend, common sense is horse shoe shaped. Both the 'alt-right' and the 'anti-fata' have more in common than they are willing to admit. Both groups are extremists, espousing a 'if you aren't with us, you're against us' mentality. Both more than willing to use violence in support of their respective causes.

    It's unfortunate that most of the coverage of last weekend's carnage seems to gloss over the mess from the left. If the coverage was more accurate perhaps more people would start to see where extremism is leading us. As it is, it's too easy to fall into the trap of;

    'Hate speech == violence' ==> 'Hate speech should be banned'

    • Speech should never be banned (especially by the government).
    • It's never O.K. to react to speech with violence, regardless of whether or not you happen to agree with it.
    • Violence is already illegal. Prosecute it (regardless of whether or not you agree with the perpetrator).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:11pm

      Re: Just like a horse shoe

      Not including WWII, how many have died at the hands of those protesting white supremacy?

      Both sides are equally bad - yeah right.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        jilocasin, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:25pm

        Re: Re: Just like a horse shoe

        Truth be told, I couldn't say, not that it matters for this discussion. The fact that other white supremacists killed a number of people in the past doesn't justify another group of people killing white supremacists now.

        Both groups believe that their way is the only way. Both groups believe that violence is an acceptable way to deal with speech they don't like.

        Yep, looks pretty much the same from where I'm sitting.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Richard (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:10pm

          Re: Re: Re: Just like a horse shoe

          I find it ironic that when Trump used the predictable "condemn violence on all sides" many of the people who called him out for it are exactly the same people who don't hesitate to use that line themselves whenever one of their favoured groups does something wrong.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 6:15pm

          Re: Re: Re: Just like a horse shoe

          " doesn't justify another group of people killing white supremacists now."

          .. and what white supremist died? I must have missed that news item, guess I was watching the fake news huh.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:12am

    "Doesn't not"

    The ACLU stepping up to defend the white nationalist's right to assemble doesn't not make them an enabler of the violence that followed.

    That wording is confusing and possibly a mistake.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:19am

    Tsk, tsk... you're doing it wrong, again. You're attempting to use reason regarding matters anybody else only ever reacts to with knee-jerk emotive lash-outs (mostly just "gubmint should forbid anything I disapprove of"). There's no force in the Universe that could change that any time soon. It's all shouting into the wind...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:19am

    Some believe the curbing of speech would somehow prevent violence.

    That is like clamping down pressure relief valves, it stops the noise for a while, but things are much worse when the system finally explodes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Shane Roach (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:20am

    Your insistence on taking the far left view on history and culture and trying to attach it to a more free market view of economics is not working.

    ANTIFA is the problem here. There is video of ANTIFA attacking the car that ended up hitting ANTIFA rioters.

    ANTIFA is the problem. ANTIFA is the problem. ANTIFA is the problem. ANTIFA is the problem.

    So what a few hundred people got a piece of paper to demonstrate about something you don't like? So what?

    There's absolutely no sense tearing down these statues. To the people who like them they represent the reintegration of the south into the rest of the USA, and it is YOU that has the problem with THEM, not the other way around.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:25am

      Re:

      "ANTIFA is the problem here. There is video of ANTIFA attacking the car that ended up hitting ANTIFA rioters."

      So ANTIFA successfully provoked them into going overboard in retribution is a defense?

      At the end of the day they still murdered someone over a paltry rock. Sure I do not hold ANTIFA blameless here but this article is fairly spot on.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:17am

        Re: Re:

        Me thinks you doth protest too much sir. Maybe someone will translate that into 'Murican Engrish so you can understand what I just said.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Baron von Robber, 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:31am

      Re:

      You forgot to link said video.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:38am

        Re: Re:

        It's out there, you just have to look for it. See, over there! Behind that rock. Yeah keep looking over there, I'll be here if you need me. Allegedly.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Baron von Robber, 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:52am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Oh here it is ya lazy Nazi. He rams into the crowd with nobody hitting his car.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoxiLH2mh-w
          And here is the video of peeps hitting his car after he ran some peeps over.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHUXV6sdiBo

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:58am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            That's what I figured that guy's video 'evidence' was. There's a lot of their ilk calling it a false flag and just parroting what they see others describe, even if it's fantasy.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Shane Roach (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:18am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Keep looking. There is video of his car being hit before he guns the motor to escape.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Baron von Robber, 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:34am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              After he has run people over. Do you understand the concept that time runs in one direction?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                stderric (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 2:36pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                He lives in a rotating Godel universe. Charlottesville is in a closed time-loop in which people hit his car, he drives into a crowd, and then they hit his car again... and he drives into a crowd again.

                Poor Kurt, first he leaves Austria to get away from Nazi's, and now they're using his ideas to create alt-reality.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              That One Guy (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 3:37pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Hitchens razor: That which has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

              If you're going to claim that there is video evidence of something it's on you to present the video, not dump the task on other people and tell them to keep looking until they find the video you are talking about.

              Baron found two videos. They showed something other than what you claimed. The proper response at this point is for you to present your video evidence so people can review it, not tell him to 'Keep looking'.

              Refusal to do so can and should be taken to mean that you either don't have or don't want to present the video you're talking about, and as such your claims can be dismissed out of hand until such time as you present it.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 1:11am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Keep looking"

              You know, conversations like this usually go better when the person trying to demand others look at a specific piece of evidence can be bothered to link to it himself, rather than insist everyone else does their own searches.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Toom1275 (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 6:08am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Linking evidence of one's own usually goes better when one actually has supporting evidence in the first place.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 6:46am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Indeed.

                  In my experience, anyone who tells others to search for the evidence to back up the claim they're making themselves is lying to begin with. Shane isn't changing that trend, it seems.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Shane Roach, 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:38am

        Re: Re:

        No I did not forget. I don't care, because I know how you people will react anyhow, and if you cared about the truth at all you would already be backing down ANTIFA.

        It will certainly come out in the media's good time. Right now they are busy setting up this narrative that anyone who does not vote Democrat is a racist, and avoiding the fact that foreign exchange markets are at fault for much of our economic misery, and that we need to close the border.

        Banks

        Do NOT

        Want the border closed.

        And it has nothing to do with racism. They LIKE enslaving people by abusing complex international ForEx markets to play shell games with money. They don't like being held accountable.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:42am

          Re: Re: Re:

          You are correct about our reactions. We tend to point and laugh at unhinged lunatics blaming all of their problems, real and perceived on "THEM."

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Baron von Robber, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:20pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Is this what it's like to OD on Alex Jones Desiccated Chicken Bone Broth?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:28pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          you people?
          - yes, we are all the same
          - we're actually all the same person!

          "Right now they are busy setting up this narrative that anyone who does not vote Democrat is a racist,"
          - LOL, sure they are

          "foreign exchange markets are at fault for much of our economic misery"
          - This is new one, please explain how this works. Possibly you meant to type the IMF?

          Are you they guy who tried to blow up a bank recently?

          If you close the border, how will you get your new Iphone?

          Possibly you do not understand that the government uses racism to control the unwashed masses.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            stderric (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 2:46pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            If you close the border, how will you get your new Iphone?

            Chinese ships will be equipped with massive trebuchets that will heave cargo containers into port from two miles out. Stuff from Mexico will be passed through the wall via openings like the ones in prison cell doors that are used for food trays.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:39am

      Re:

      Who did ANTIFA kill with a car?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Teamchaos (profile), 17 Aug 2017 @ 1:39pm

        Re: Re:

        Can anyone make the case that if Antifa hadn't shown up or if the police had actually done their job and separated the demonstrators from the illegally assembled counter protesters, that violence would have still occurred. The death was tragic but it was entirely avoidable - I blame the city and the cops.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:13am

      Re:

      "There is video of ANTIFA attacking the car that ended up hitting ANTIFA rioters."

      Yeah, this is the alt-right bullshit argument. The video doesn't show that. The video shows the driver driving towards the crowd on a pedestrian street (look up the history of that area, the city has designated it as a pedestrian old downtown area where cars are only allowed to cross through on side streets and pedestrians have the right of way). That also wasn't the only way to get out of that area. He chose to go down that street. He chose to accelerate towards the crowd.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:20pm

      Re:

      You seem to have some info or background into this event, perhaps you could enlighten me because I am curious ... why did the guy purchase what looks to be a new vehicle and then crash same into a bunch of people? If you were setting out to do this, wouldn't you get a junker ... well I suppose a sane person would anyways.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:02pm

      Re:

      We should not resort to violence in the face of political disagreements. But White supremacists and Neo-Nazis do not deserve to have their positions validated by “debate” and “polite consideration”, nor do they deserve to have their hatred go unchallenged or ignored. Violence is not the answer—but sometimes, you have to deal with some stubborn son of a bitch who thinks it is. In a moment like that, calling someone an asshole is not going to protect anybody.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:06pm

        Re: Re:

        So a couple of hundred assholes from around the entire US gather and you think that should be answered by what was to happen?

        Look at them, laugh at them and walk away. Otherwise, re-write the Constitution.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:15pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Ignoring them does not make them go away. It makes them feel as if no one actually opposes their beliefs and their mission. The only true method of dealing with such assholes is to denounce them and their hateful rhetoric—loudly, in public, and preferably to their faces.

          And no, I do not think that what they were marching for should be answered by violence. Then again, I do not think they should have shown up in the dead of night with torches and in the light of day with semi-automatic rifles.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:24pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Other reports had the number at 200 "Nazi's". This should be international news? You are not going to keep people from being racist, so ignore their thoughts, their chants and be comfortable in the fact that our Constitution restricts racist actions.

            Point of fact, the guys that showed up with semi-automatic rifles were probably militia folks there to keep the peace, not support Nazi's. Reports said they did more to break up fights than the cops did.

            That is a big problem for me if it is true.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 6:24pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Point of fact, the guys that showed up with semi-automatic rifles were probably militia folks there to keep the peace"

              Ohhh - so that's why they do that ... to protect the peace.

              Well, the police were not doing it - so I guess (shrug)

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 2:21pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            My momma always told me that I should ignore a bully, and eventually he'll get bored and realize he's not gonna get a rise out of me and go away.

            Now I know the truth. If someone ignores a bully, they're telling the bully that they approve of the bullying and that it is acceptable and in fact encouraged.

            I'm ashamed of my momma for taking the side of all those bullies.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 4:48pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              You are right, bullies must be confronted and not ignored, but a group of protestors is hardly equatable to a group of bullies.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 6:10pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                The ideology of White supremacists and Neo-Nazis is rooted in hatred; their endgame, whether they admit it or not, is the genocide of any group of people deemed “undesirable”. Any failure to confront that ideology—to ignore it as if it will just go away—is a success for those assholes, because it leads them to believe that their ideology is worthy of public expression and debate.

                Just look at the sitting president of the United States and how he dealt with this. Rather than expressly condemning White supremacists and Neo-Nazis in the wake of Charlottesville, he said “many sides” were to blame. Two days later—and under extreme pressure—he finally delivered an explicit yet half-hearted condemnation of the far-right hatemongers. Earlier this afternoon, he walked that condemnation back and blamed “both sides” for the violence in Charlottesville. This sequence of events has allowed White supremacists and Neo-Nazis to believe that the so-called “leader of the free world” is either sympathetic to or a direct supporter of their racist, hateful, genocidal ideology.

                When we refuse to condemn these people at every turn, we give them the opportunity to thrive. When we refuse to chase these people out of polite society, we give them the idea that their ideas are worth of public debate. If you have to hem and haw about whether these hateful assholes deserve anything short of a full-throated, yelling-in-their-faces condemnation of what they stand for and an order to get the fuck out of a given community, you have already given them exactly what they want: your complicity in their hate.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 6:59am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Agreed, but when AntiFa riots (and has done so many, many places) that is different, unless you believe that white supremacists should be identified and killed. There is a difference between condemning this group and showing up wearing protective equipment and carrying weapons and attacking people.

                  Happened at Berkley, happens at recent G8 meetings, probably happened here.

                  There is a problem on both sides, but pointing that out can lead to being called a racist. People attacked the ACLU for this, which is wrong.

                  I believe that most of this hype is being generated and promoted by people that really don't care about race. I think it is being used for political purposes to further their agenda.

                  200 racists from around the country showed up, that becomes international news? However regretful, 1 person died. It is a crisis? It got the issue of war with N. Korea off the front pages?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 7:15am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "200 racists from around the country showed up, that becomes international news?"

                    Yep. People get very uncomfortable when large groups of Nazis start congregating in public, especially when things do actually turn violent. It might have had nothing on the Nuremberg rallies, but it does have resonance around most of the developed world, for good reason.

                    "However regretful, 1 person died"

                    Lots of important international events start with the death of one person.

                    "It got the issue of war with N. Korea off the front pages?"

                    Well, it stopped the orange moron from antagonising the issue with his idiotic tweets, so you could argue that it's done a hell of a lot more good than keeping the Korea issue at the front of everyone's mind would have done.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 8:29am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Good point on the orange moron Paul. But what is really important? Is all the coverage just political fodder? Now are people focused on this instead of what is really going on? Have we taken our eye off the ball?

                      Shouldn't international relations be our focus? Shouldn't police brutality be our focus? Shouldn't healthcare coverage be our focus?

                      It is all just political folly, by all sides. Do you really think a Nazi from California really cares about some statue in Virginia? The Nazi leaders were overjoyed that this is receiving as much attention as it is. They are a very small group with no influence, now, more people are interested in them. They are gaining in power.

                      So if it doesn't make things better, is it helpful?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        PaulT (profile), 17 Aug 2017 @ 2:05am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "Shouldn't international relations be our focus? Shouldn't police brutality be our focus? Shouldn't healthcare coverage be our focus?"

                        Yes, and many other issues aside. Some issue always comes to the forefront, and it's not always the most important. But, that doesn't mean nothing is being done regarding the other issues at hand.

                        By the way, it's interesting that you mention police brutality there. On the first night, one of the common themes I saw in comments was people noting how little police presence there was compared to similar gatherings with large non-white populations. How much they were able to get away with, while similar protests may have barely got started before the batons came out. It does feed into the issue, even if indirectly.

                        "Do you really think a Nazi from California really cares about some statue in Virginia?"

                        Maybe, maybe not. But, enough people cared to get a notable gathering of such people together, and that becomes notable to people who otherwise would not have noticed them. If it were only locals who felt directly affected, it may not have mattered. But, hundreds of these scum coming from all over the country? That's news.

                        "They are a very small group with no influence, now, more people are interested in them. They are gaining in power."

                        But, are they really? Attention does not imply support, necessarily. I'm sure there's a few people who actually support them and are now willing to join their ranks. But, there's also a lot of people who didn't realise that actual Nazis were in their country and are now willing to do something to oppose them. The attention does not just go one way.

                        Then, there's the wider issue. Trump's total fumbling of the response to this has made some people very uncomfortable. There have been a few diehard Trump supporters who are questioning him for the first time, others who have knowingly defended bad actions from him who are finally unable to come up with defence.

                        Whether that translates into action and a positive move forward for the country, it's too early to say. But, it is more important and with more implications than you're stating.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    James Burkhardt (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:33am

    I Agree we shouldn't attack the ACLU for supporting the right to assemble. However, a few notes i got from an interview i listened to with the governor of virginia-

    1) the state wasn't trying to restrict their speech, it was trying to establish ground rules that served specific, documented concerns.

    2) the first was location. The downtown location of the rally was considered dangerous. there were concerns about the ability to disperse unruly crowds and what would happen if unruly crowds were dispersed, which were, in hindsight completely justified. That said, ignoring that...

    3) The state looked to restrict the carrying of poles by protesters for fear they would be used as weapons....which were again totally justified when they were.

    I'm not exactly sure how a bunch of whites brandishing guns and torches directly calling for the deaths of blacks and jews was a peaceful protest and not an incitement to violence, but it might have been less of a powder keg in a more open space like the park the state wanted the rally moved to and the protestors lacked the weapons and symbols of violence they carried.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      bob, 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:30am

      Re:

      You forgot to mention that the alt-right protestors had also obtained permits to do their protest.

      Their rhetoric is disturbing but if people would have ignored them it would have resulted in a few lines in a newspaper stating hate groups protested instead of the media attention it got now.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:46am

        Re: Re:

        no no no, we have to first get out there and escalate the situation and THEN we can get all pissy about everything!

        the MORE you desire to silence someone, the MORE worried about YOUR platform I become as well.

        right now all I see are too evil groups looking to achieve political dominance, let them destroy each other and focus their energies away from the rest of us.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:34pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes, that might work up until someone does something stupid - which is inevitable even when the opposition does not show up.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 2:37pm

        Re: Re:

        I'm not sure how that applies. I was discussing the ACLUs efforts to get the alt-right protesters permits without the restrictions placed upon the protest by the state. They had a permit before the ACLU stepped in. It just moved the protest to the open park where crowd control could have been more effective and banned weapons being carried by the protestors intending to call for the deaths of people of the wrong colors and faiths. My notes were intended to highlight that I am concerned with the details of their stance, not the entire stance.

        I know, I know, nuance is lost on the internet.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:11pm

      Re:

      I saw quite a few reports that the police and national guard really didn't do all that much.

      Why were they not in between the two groups, keeping them apart?

      Seems the same thing pretty much happened at Berkley.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Shane Roach (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:35am

    As is very typical of leftists, the point is purposefully side stepped.

    ANTIFA bussed in from all over the nation in direct response to a PEACEFUL protest, INCITED riot, and ended up giving leftists like you all fodder to once again pretend the main problem is not ANTIFA.

    ANTIFA riots EVERYWHERE. ANTIFA causes property damage to innocent people. ANTIFA has no right tossing "a paltry rock" at anyone.

    ANTIFA is the problem. ANTIFA is the problem. ANTIFA is the problem. ANTIFA is the problem.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:42am

      Re:

      ANTIFA bussed in from all over the nation in direct response to a PEACEFUL protest, INCITED riot, and ended up giving leftists like you all fodder to once again pretend the main problem is not ANTIFA. Didn't you hear one of the alt-righters who lost his job for attending was working in Berkeley, California? Gosh, it's like people from all over the country were present on both sides.

      But of course, all you care about is blaming the other sides and ignoring any culpability that might tarnish your side. You know whataboutism like that was pioneered by real leftists, mister Roachovich?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:47am

      Re:

      "to a PEACEFUL protest"

      Torch bearing, nazi saluting protesters armed as if they were off to fight a small war. We all know they were there itching to start a fight, because that's exactly what they want so that they can then lie and claim they were attacked first and cry 'victim'.

      "ANTIFA bussed in from all over the nation"

      Counter protesters have a right to assemble, and they did basically the exact same thing the nazis did, so your point is...?

      "ANTIFA is the problem. ANTIFA is the problem. ANTIFA is the problem. ANTIFA is the problem."

      Trivia question: the guy who mowed down protesters, which side was he on again? Here's a hint: he was a known nazi sympathizer.

      It's interesting how you seem to like using Hitlerian tactics in your arguments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Unanimous Cow Herd (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 5:04pm

        Re: Re:

        You're laughably intellectually dishonest if you ignore the past YEAR of violent tactics by Antifa against FREE SPEECH rallies and Trump supporter rallies. Antifa IS to blame and will remain so until they change their tactics to peaceful ones. I'll make no excuses for running someone over, but the level of violence is not the issue.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      jilocasin, 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:47am

      Re: (I thought that's what all the shields were for.)

      Unfortunately the 'alt-right' fell for it. There wouldn't have been a riot, if they reacted peacefully to the provocation of the left. There definitely wouldn't have been the outpouring of anti-right hate if someone spousing 'alt-right' values hadn't gone off the rails and killed someone.

      As for the provocation of the ANTIFA;

      I thought that's what all the shields were for...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:37pm

        Re: Re: (I thought that's what all the shields were for.)

        Stopping someone from injuring others is hate?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          jilocasin, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:51pm

          Re: Re: Re: (I thought that's what all the shields were for.)

          Huh?

          If the 'alt-right' responded peacefully using their shields to protect themselves from the rock & other thrown provocations of the 'alt-left' then perhaps no one would have gotten killed. Then there wouldn't have been the knee jerk reaction of people feeling the need to pour hate and condemnation on the 'alt-right'. The reporting would have been Berkley all over again. 'Alt-left' burning and destroying things.

          I'm not saying that the 'alt-right' doesn't need a bit of condemnation, they do. So does the 'alt-left'. They are both groups of violent bigots. Martin Luther King Jr. would be spinning in his grave thinking about how far from non-violent protest the 'alt-left' has fallen.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:19pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: (I thought that's what all the shields were for.)

            Bullshit. They didn't just bring shields. They went looking for trouble and they found it. And they killed someone. And sadly this won't be the last time. So yeah this isn't a both sides are equally bad false equivalence kinda deal.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              jilocasin, 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:47pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (I thought that's what all the shields were for.)

              No, sadly they didn't. If you read what I wrote, I said that they should have used their shields and reacted peacefully to the provocations of the 'alt-left'.

              They went to protest and get their message out. After the 'alt-left' has shown they are more than happy to attack people who don't agree with their values (Seriously, Yiannopoulos?) you can see where they are coming from. You can't honestly say that the 'alt-left' was sitting around singing Kumbaya and putting flowers in the barrels of 'alt-right' rifles when they were attacked are you?

              The 'alt-left' went there looking for a fight, the 'alt-right' went there prepared for a fight. Guess what? There was a fight. When two groups fight in the mud, neither comes out looking clean.

              Other than the person with the car (and yes he was an 'alt-right' supporter), it doesn't look like anyone else was killed. If the 'alt-right' protesters were packing serious firepower, they seem to have exhibited remarkable restraint.

              So yeah, this is a both sides are equally bad kind of thing.

              https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2017/08/RTS1BJPN/lead_960.jpg

              https://cdn.theatlant ic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2017/08/RTS1BJU6_1/lead_960.jpg

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 2:19pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (I thought that's what all the shields were for.)

                Tell that to the dead girl.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Thad, 15 Aug 2017 @ 3:03pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (I thought that's what all the shields were for.)

                Other than the person with the car (and yes he was an 'alt-right' supporter), it doesn't look like anyone else was killed. [...] So yeah, this is a both sides are equally bad kind of thing.

                You don't seem to understand what "equally" means.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:31pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: (I thought that's what all the shields were for.)

            "If the 'alt-right' responded peacefully using their shields to protect themselves from the rock & other thrown provocations of the 'alt-left' then perhaps no one would have gotten killed."

            The car the nazi sympathizer was driving appeared to mow the protesters down from BEHIND. It wasn't as if people were killed in the clash; the person who died was attacked in a cowardly ambush by a nazi.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:32pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: (I thought that's what all the shields were for.)

            "If the 'alt-right' responded peacefully using their shields to protect themselves from the rock & other thrown provocations of the 'alt-left' then perhaps no one would have gotten killed."

            The car the nazi sympathizer was driving appeared to mow the protesters down from BEHIND. It wasn't as if people were killed in the clash; the person who died was attacked in a cowardly ambush by a nazi. Get your facts straight.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Thad, 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:37pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: (I thought that's what all the shields were for.)

            I think there's some pretty gross false equivalence to pulling the "both sides do it" argument when one side is in favor of wiping out ethnic minorities and the other side is against it.

            And I think you're mischaracterizing Dr. King. While it's true that he advocated passive resistance and condemned violence, he also showed sympathy to people who lashed out violently to an oppressive environment. I think he'd certainly advocate against any kind of violent escalation, but it bothers me when people use the name of a dead man (who isn't around to argue) to condemn whatever political group they don't agree with.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              jilocasin, 15 Aug 2017 @ 2:00pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (I thought that's what all the shields were for.)

              I don't think I'm mischaracterizing Dr. King at all. There's a difference between showing sympathy to people who lash out violently in defense as opposed to attacking people who you disagree with. He might forgive the former while condemning that latter.

              Neither side should do it. The 'alt-left' is just more hypocritical about it.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 2:21pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (I thought that's what all the shields were for.)

                Yeah, it's almost af if they are against the extermination of people slightly different than them. But yeah but side are equally bad.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 2:38pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (I thought that's what all the shields were for.)

                  no one was exterminating anyone at the protest. at least not until rocks started flying. BTW a rock is considered a deadly weapon.

                  What should the cops do with BLM and "Pigs in a blanket. Fry em like bacon!" or how about "What do we want? Dead Cops. When do we want them? Now!"

                  Should the cops be justified in retaliating or even voicing their discontent.. even tho, as you say, they are both bad?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 3:24pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (I thought that's what all the shields were for.)

                    Wow way to double up on the false equivalence wagon there bro.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Thad, 15 Aug 2017 @ 3:11pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (I thought that's what all the shields were for.)

                Here's what Dr. King had to say about riots and the Black Power movement:

                "And I contend that the cry of 'black power' is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro," King said. "I think that we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And, what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years."

                Source: What Martin Luther King Jr Really Thought About Riots, Lily Rothman, Time Magazine, 2015, quoting a 1966 interview with Mike Wallace on CBS

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 2:58am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (I thought that's what all the shields were for.)

              And how easily they can change their minds. Its the north side of the politial spectrum back in the day that convinced persons travelling west by train it was neccessary to kill all the buffalo in order to starve the natives.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Thad, 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:10am

      Re:

      Man, you "party of personal responsibility" guys sure are good at finding reasons why a murder is the fault of everybody else besides the murderer.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:54am

        Re: Re:

        Agree, he sounds like a leftist.

        "guns not people are responsible for gun violence so lets outlaw guns"

        ha ha ha!!

        its funny how your logic changes to fit the situation Thad. But you are right, I notice the same problem with those on the right as being the same as those on the left.

        My shit don't stink.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:38pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Sounds like they are all humans, some of them are more hypocritical than others.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 1:27am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "guns not people are responsible for gun violence so lets outlaw guns"

          Actually, I think it's more like "hmmm, every other country in the civilised world doesn't have anything like the problems we have, the major difference being access to guns. Maybe we should do something about that?". Half the time they don't even talk about restricting guns other than to say that maybe it's not a good idea to allow unrestricted access to known nutcases. But, gun fetishists won't even entertain the discussion that their toys might be put in a toy box.

          I do notice that some types have to miscategorise, distort and grossly simplify the actual words of people they don't agree with in order to come up with a counterargument. A shame, if your country could take some time out between murdering each other you might get something positive done.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 3:04am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            And when some extremist shows up in some restaurant shooting everyone in there just throw your fork at them. That will really scare them.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 3:46am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The chances of that happening are so small that I will take the chance that I'm not able to shoot them at a moment's notice (or, more likely, shoot other innocent people in the crossfire).

              But, I have to ask - that's your justification? You're so pants-wittingly scared whenever you leave the house that you have to be armed and able to kill someone at a moment's notice, even though you're much more likely to die in a road accident on the way to the restaurant? What a miserable life to lead.

              Honestly, I'd be more scared of being accidentally shot by a coward like you than I would be of any attack by extremists. Indeed, it's statistically more likely to happen. That's why I live my life free of fear, far away from gun fetishists and scared children like you.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2017 @ 1:23pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "Honestly, I'd be more scared of being accidentally shot by a coward like you than I would be of any attack by extremists. Indeed, it's statistically more likely to happen."

                You obviously have never lived in Chicago.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 2:27pm

        Re: Re:

        "Personal responsibility" means what it says. *Personal* responsibility. A murderer is a murderer. Other people are not responsible for murder because they share some of the same odious political views as a murderer. This isn't rocket science.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 6:32pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Interesting point ... a group of people yelling and being violent but they are not responsible in any way for encouraging someone to do something really stupid.

          They were just there to stop the removal of a statue ... yeah right.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:18am

      Re:

      Cry moar.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:32am

      Re:

      ANTIFA is the problem.

      Sounds like the guys playing "army man" who showed up with long rifles, sticks, bats, pepper spray, shields, and a car who got spooked by a bunch of "snowflakes" are the real problem.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:06pm

      Re:

      The White supremacist who committed an act of domestic terrorism and killed a woman came from Ohio.

      Hell, a majority of the members of that hateful conglomeration of White supremacists and Neo-Nazis were neither from Charlottesville in particular or Virginia in general.

      Why do they get a pass for bringing in people from out-of-state, but AntiFa gets raked over the coals for allegedly doing the same thing?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 8:33am

      Re:

      ANTIFA is bad, yes. So are Nazi's. The driver who killed the girl was from Ohio. The jerk outed on Twitter was from CA. Another outed jerk was from North Dakota.

      Maybe if we could have a protest with only just Nazi's and ANTIFA and a bomb went off, that wouldn't be a bad thing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Christenson, 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:45am

    Pro Tips

    There are, and should be, significant questions about how and why police handled this protest quite differently than they have other protests even within Charlottesville.

    There also *has* to be a better way to deal with the complicated history. There's no denying that the statue was erected in 1924 to opress in front of a crowd wearing white hoods next to the courthouse. Maybe its time we did something about the huge disparities emanating from that courthouse by decriminalizing drugs.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:57am

      Re: Pro Tips

      what a leap from racism to drugs! regardless of the statues intentions, it now serves as proof that it was defeated. Better to leave it there as a reminder of humanity's racist past least we repeat it.

      the drugs are a different issue with peoples desire to over regulate every stinking thing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    aethercowboy (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:46am

    Tim, thank you so much for this post. Since Charlottesville, I've been having so much trouble trying to put words to the feelings I've had about how yes, we still need to protect free speech, even when shit like this happens.

    The people who respond to speech with violence are terrible. They're damaging their cause by implicitly stating that they have no counter argument to the idea they are in opposition too. If it just turned into a fist fight, I would have said, "that's what happens when you punch people, they hit back."

    However, hitting people with cars is not the same as hitting them with fists. Killing someone who just wants to hurt you into silence is not an appropriate response. This is far worse, as instead of meeting your opposition with equal inverse force (e.g., retaliatory punches) you have then upped the ante. This is the worst thing you can do to someone who has already shown that they're willing to escalate violence. At that point, the end result is who's willing to go too far first. Not somewhere I want to be.

    In an episode of Stuff you Should Know, "How Dictators Work" they discussed that historically, the entities that were resisted hardest ended up getting more credibility, and thus, more power. While I think that anybody who wants to tote White Nationalist or White Separatism or Nazism or racism or any of these other flawed ideologies, I would treat them like I would a toddler throwing a tantrum: don't reward the negative behavior with attention. Treat it like a threat, and it becomes a threat; treat it like a group of idiots with misguided ideas, then it'll just remain that.

    The best cure for stupid is education, not shame or violence. Combat ideas with ideas. If things get violent, GTFO. And always remember: no matter what side of the aisle you're on, your group is made up of a bunch of individual people. Some are basically good people (albeit, with bad ideas), so don't confuse the ideas with the human who claims to have them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:53am

      Re:

      Totally agreed.

      What we saw was a display of extremism by both sides. Of course the white supremacists side ideas are very flawed, twisted and generally wrong but the episode showed how you can be an extremist idiot even if you are right.

      I'm amused when people engage discussions about left and right as if there weren't abuses on one or another. Same with religions. Anything will be wrong and harmful if taken to the extreme, fundamentalist level.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:00am

      Re:

      Not defending the actions, but if reports are true that the car was surrounded by protesters banging on the car, that will be the defense. If its true and can be proven, probably will win. If this is the case, will the government go after the protesters for causing the death and not the driver?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Shane Roach (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:09am

        Re: Re:

        Believe it or not, you have a right to defend your property, and fear for life and property is one of the several mitigating circumstances for personal violence that ends up hurting or killing someone.

        This is the issue. ANTIFA causes this CONSTANTLY, and yet no one stands up to THEM.

        NO ONE of any CONSEQUENCE supports the KKK or any of these neo Nazi groups. The problem is the DNC SUPPORTS ANTIFA.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:43pm

        Re: Re:

        Was the car surrounded by protesters banging upon it .....
        before or after it plowed into a crowd?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Huh?, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:48pm

      Re:

      "Killing someone who just wants to hurt you into silence is not an appropriate response" -- WHAT?

      Killing is never an appropriate response to ANYTHING, but hurting me into silences IS AN ATTEMPT TO KILL ME, since once my jaw heals, I will again speak.

      What the heck are you saying!?! Violence is okay as long as some subjective threshold you set for your side of the argument isn't crossed!?!

      It is interesting to see someone actually espouse this. Of course this is PRECISELY the argument the supremacist nut jobs are making -- you're endangering my way of thinking so I can use violence to quash your way of thinking.

      I cannot believe the justification of violence of any kind here! There weren't two 'sides' of this. There was one mob of thugs who didn't have any sense of personal accountability or control. This notion that you can use violence to enforce your ideology is horrific and is what threatens the very fabric of this nation. Not alt-right, not alt-left, violent thuggery from every side.

      You have no credibility to claim an aversion to violence if you actually and truly believe a right exists to "hurt someone into silence".

      Shameful.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        aethercowboy (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:11pm

        Re: Re:

        I'm sorry I was not more clear. I had thought the context would be enough to convey my opinion.

        The heck that I am saying is this: it's wrong to escalate the situation. It's wrong to use violence to respond to ideas. It's wrong to use deadly force to respond to non-life threatening violence.

        I'm pretty sure I didn't say what you're accusing me of having said (I'll re-read it to make sure I didn't accidentally leave out a word or something, but what you're accusing me of was very, very, very far from my intent). I definitely don't condone violence, and especially don't condone escalation of the situation.

        What I was trying to say is this: If A punches B because B believes C, that gives no right to B to kill A. I believe that B has a right to retaliate in kind (even if I think it's wrong), but think the better course of action is to be the bigger person and let them have their baby-tantrum (provided it does not endanger anybody). Basically, I think the best action is to take the least violent approach to mitigate the situation.

        Heck, I'm a proponent of turning the other cheek, but I know how hard it is when you've been punched in the face.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Shane Roach (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 6:17pm

      Re:

      Seriously?

      This is the featured response. People have a right to hurt you to make you shut up, and you are not allowed to use tools at your disposal to prevent them from hurting you?

      You have no right to hurt anyone at all. And if you go to hurt people, they have a right to kill you in self defense.

      That happens to be the LAW.

      There is no reciprocal force limitation. The instant you feel your life is in danger, you have the right to resist up and including deadly force with whatever comes to hand. People do not have to "fight fair" when you threaten their lives.

      You people are evil. And the funny thing is I have seen headway made against things like the open internet because people will back the big ISP's since they find Federal regulation of the internet scary JUST BECAUSE THEY ASSOCIATE IT WITH YOU.

      So congratulations. Your entire website is one big gigantic waste of time.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 6:38pm

        Re: Re:

        You respond to one post and then make a blanket statement about everyone here - wtf?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        aethercowboy (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 5:15am

        Re: Re:

        Shane,

        While I knew exactly (more or less) what I meant when I wrote it, it seems that you and at least one other user don't see what I'm trying to say. Whether that's because I didn't do a clear enough job of explaining my position, or because you (and at least one other person) aren't reading for context, I'm not sure. But allow me to clarify (if my follow up comment did not clarify enough).

        I never said people have the right to hurt anybody to shut them up. If you would read the entire comment, you'd (hopefully) see that's what I'm trying to say. In fact, I said that people who try to hurt people to shut them up are, and I quote myself above, "savages."

        Yes, I agree, the law is written in a way such that if you're the first one to throw a punch, you're assaulting. If you're the recipient of the assault, you have the right, under the law, to defend yourself. But if you use lethal force to respond to non-lethal force, you're going to have a hard time defending that in court, both the federal and moral.

        If I were in a situation that threatened my life, or the life of my family, I would do what I could to get out of the situation. Any reasonable person would. But I wouldn't go above and beyond that. If someone threw a rock at me, I would not drive my car over them. That's just absurd. I'd remove myself from the situation, because I'd rather live another day than leverage my right to use up to an including lethal action and further endanger my own life.

        I don't speak for the site. I don't speak for anybody other than me (and while I don't appreciate people speaking for me, I understand that the nature of internet conversation leaves so much up to individual interpretation). Allow me to state in as clear of words as I may, so there remains absolutely no confusion of the matter:

        IF YOU PUNCH SOMEONE BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH THEM, YOU ARE A LOUSY HUMAN BEING.

        That being said:

        IF YOU KILL SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY THREW A ROCK AT YOU, YOU ARE ALSO A LOUSY HUMAN BEING.

        My end point in my original comment is one that I think we should all realize, and I hope you can agree it's far from evil (and it applies in protests, riots, and internet comments): we're all people, we're all individuals, and (unless there's more advanced AIs than I realize) we're all human beings with feeling and opinions and well, mostly good inclinations (albeit, some of us have bad motivators).

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          aethercowboy (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 5:40am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Hmm. Guess I didn't say "savages". "Terrible," rather. Still, the point is the same.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 2:29pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          If I believed you were putting my life or my family's life (especially my family) at risk, I would go above and beyond getting out of the situation if the only way to get out of the situation was to run you over or blow your head off.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 12:35pm

      Re:

      There is a fair bit of analysis of that hitting people with cars thing that is being ignored in the Left media.

      The guy in the car didn't decide to ram into a crowd because he hated their opinions -- or at least, that only played a minor role. Going by the physical evidence, he mostly decided to drive through a crowd because that crowd had surrounded his car and was attacking it with weapons, apparently in an attempt to gain access to him physically.

      The crowd was hitting his car with hammers, breaking the windows, and preventing him from escaping from the attack. A reasonable person would assume that the violence would not end if he exited his car or remained in place, which creates a reasonable belief that he was in direct danger of death if he stayed put or attempted to flee on foot.

      At that point, use of a deadly force defense (the car) to prevent his own murder is a perfectly lawful act and arguably a moral one.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 2:26pm

        Re: Re:

        When was the last time you heard of a guy pulled out of his car and beaten?

        Oh, you mean outside of Rodney King, and beaten by cops?

        Good video of a guy in NYC driving a Range Rover being harassed by a bunch of dicks on motorcycles, they surrounded his car and broke a window. He then drove over a biker to escape.

        I don't think he was ever charged, he said he feared for his and his families life.

        Pretty sure this douchbag will use the same defense. It may be true and he may not be convicted, but he is still a douchbag.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2017 @ 2:19pm

        Re: Re:

        Again, you're blatantly lying about events that that you've already been shown video proof of. Nobody surrounded his car, not a single window was broken until AFTER he intentionally charged forward unprovoked into the crowd. The beating on the vehicle only took place in the few seconds between crashing forward into his victims, and switching gears to reverse away. Beating on the car of some shitbag who just intentionally committed violent murder right in front of them is not an unreasonable response for the protesters to take. It's the protesters, not the terrorist, that acted in self-defense here, by attempting to neutralize the attacker's deadly weapon before it could be used again.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 17 Aug 2017 @ 3:52pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Whoops. The "you've already been shown" part of my comment was because I'd confused you for Mr. Cockroach, who told the same lie you did, higher up in the comments.

          However, links to videos thoroughly eviscerating the false claim that the terrorist was merely acting purely in self-defense have already been present in the comments for more than a day. It's on you for ignoring them and for pushing a false narrative.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:55am

    If you show up for a fight, don't be surprised if you get hit. That goes for both sides.

    This should be a very easy thing to deal with, but we, as Americans, seem to fuck it up.

    The Declaration of Independence states that "All men are created equal". Folks, in terms of race, that is all you need to know. Recognize that and no one has problems.

    You are a redneck that wants to preserve the white race, you have every right to believe that, but don't believe that you have a right to infringe on anyone else's rights. Words do not equate to actions, say what you want, but act on it and be responsible for your actions under the fullest extent of the law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    FM Hilton, 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:59am

    Free speech costs

    I knew this would turn against the ACLU-they're famous for defending the indefensible, against the worst odds. They're right to do it, because the Constitution says they are.

    Then some jerk will say that the indefensible doesn't need to be defended at all.

    In no time at all, there's no speech at all for anyone.

    Which isn't a good plan, either.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Norahc, 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:09am

    "...mainly interested in shutting down speech they didn't like, while somehow preserving the sort of the speech they did like."

    Welcome to the tyranny of the vocal.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Shane Roach (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:21am

    I tried for the third time to post a simple response concerning banking. I tell you what. I will post it to your Facebook page.

    There is some VERY weird moderation software going on in the background here.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:25am

      Re:

      Maybe because this article has nothing to do about banking?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:28am

        Re: Re:

        Posts go to moderation for reasons I have yet to determine, but it appears to be a key phrase.

        Perhaps the term "border security"?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 1:34am

      Re:

      "I tried for the third time to post a simple response concerning banking"

      That really wasn't what you've been posting, unless there's 3 posts that are still in the spam queue at the time I'm writing this.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Shane Roach (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:26am

    Is Federal Reserve the magic phrase that gets you kicked to moderation?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Joe Dirt, 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:33am

    This whole thing is a symptom of a so-called "press" that has stopped reporting and started proselytizing. They have been bought and paid for by those who would subjugate the world. Gone are the days of real journalism, and come have the days of propaganda warfare.

    Now, in all honesty, propaganda has been around for a long time. But not until recently, have we had the power to speak to so many with so little effort or cost.

    The internet has brought a power that none had truly understood until very recently. Sure, we all knew about the power to share information, and the power to market to a larger audience. But the power to overthrow governments and spread so much disinformation that no one even knows what the truth is anymore?

    With Google and Facebook increasingly tailoring our searches and fine-tuning or circles of information and sources, is it any wonder that we only here like-minded ideas, resulting in confirmation bias to the point of violence? You need go no further than Reddit to see that the solution to hearing things you don't like is to ban them, ostracize them, and ultimately just make them go away and never return. It isn't an acceptable solution to just ignore them or engage them in debate to maybe even sway them to your point of view. NO... let's just vilify and shame them into submission. Of course it hasn't occurred to anyone that, just like outlawing alcohol or drugs, you just force them underground where you can't see what they are doing anymore. Which option seems less dangerous?

    You can argue that it is a private medium and as such it is their right, but has no one ever heard of practice makes perfect? Allow people to shut down ideas and speech they disagree with and it becomes expected that it can happen anywhere at any time. For the children, of course.

    The plain truth is that most people do not believe any of the things these hate-filled people are espousing, but the 24-hour news cycle can't report that. It doesn't sell ad space and there's a lot of space to fill with dozens of networks vying for those ad dollars.

    We The People need to wake up and realize that nothing we see or hear on TV or on the internet is really what it seems. They are half-truths at best.

    Those in power have a destination in mind and they will do all in their power to ensure we reach it. First by gentle coaxing, then more forceful prodding, and finally by force.

    The forceful solution isn't that far off now.

    Orwell wasn't a novelist, he was a prophet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      bob, 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:45am

      Re:

      So which half of your post is true?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Joe Dirt, 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:51am

        Re: Re:

        The truthful part.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:59am

          Re: Re: Re:

          well obviously!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Joe Dirt, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:18pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I'm not a religious man by even the loosest definition, but I think this has some bearing, both then, and still today.

            Then He spoke many things to them in parables, saying: “Behold, a sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and the birds came and devoured them. Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth. But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them. But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
            And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?”
            He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:
            ‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
            and seeing you will see and not perceive;
            for the hearts of this people have grown dull.
            Their ears are hard of hearing,
            and their eyes they have closed,
            ...'

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              bob, 17 Aug 2017 @ 11:20am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I can quote from the Bible too.

              "And Jesus wept" after reading your original post due to how poorly it was written.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2017 @ 3:32pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                That is an insightful response... please tell me more... you seem so wise and knowledgeable.

                Can I write you with questions about how to live my life and prosper?

                On second thought I was wrong... Orwell wasn't the Prophet... YOU ARE!

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Richard (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 2:15pm

      Re:

      The internet has brought a power that none had truly understood until very recently. Sure, we all knew about the power to share information, and the power to market to a larger audience. But the power to overthrow governments and spread so much disinformation that no one even knows what the truth is anymore?

      Arguably what has happened is that the power to spread disinformation is no longer the monopoly of a smallgroup of press barons.

      I watched the right wing press in the UK (mostly but not entirely Murdoch owned) keep Thatcher in power for a decade against the will of the people.

      More recently May was nearly undermined by the internet wne she thought she had a sure fire Thatcher style landslide.

      When you say "no one knows what the truth is" what you actually mean is that no one can agree on which lie to believe anymore. We never knew the truth.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Shane Roach (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:43am

    Is "The Fed" the magic word?

    The End

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Shane Roach (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:44am

    The Fed and border?

    The End

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Shane Roach (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:46am

    Border control is not racism.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:47pm

      Re:

      The devil is in the implementation.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 1:36am

      Re:

      As a concept? No. In implementation, only targeted at a particular race and misapplied to actual US citizens (as per a story that was featured here a couple of days ago)? Absolutely.

      I know people like you get confused by things like context, nuance and complex facts, but the real world does use them to operate.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Shane Roach (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:47am

    Foreign Exchange market abuse is not a civil right.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Shane Roach (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:49am

    Since the TechDirt website censors anything to do with banking apparently, I will post this here:

    TORCH BEARING! - peaceful and legal.

    GUN TOTING! - peaceful and legal.

    Antifa activists went there to provoke violence. You blame the victims because you percieve the victims as easy targets, making you a coward and a liar.

    Closing the border has nothing to do with racism. Closing the border is necessary to get control over inequalities evolving out of foreign exchange market abuses of our fiat currency, four and a half decades now in arrears in backing their paper with anything of real value.

    You and your socialist ilk have come to use the private banks as an extension of the government through the symbiotic relationship formed at the Federal Reserve. You use fake money as a tool for central planning, and you don't like that it will have to be reformed when your access to cheap foreign slave labor is cut off.

    So you pay thugs. Like you always have.

    To destroy the innocent and enslave them to your will.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      icon
      Shane Roach (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:52am

      Re:

      FYI, TechDirt apparently blacklists the usual contraction for "foreign exchange". Possibly because it is attached to a lot of nefarious email advertising.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Thad, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:35pm

        Re: Re:

        I don't know why Techdirt blocked your posts, but I'll tell you why I'm blocking them from here on in: because you just posted six of them in a row.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 2:04am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Techdirt is in the fight for their very existence. Maybe not wise to dis b a n k s at this time or even muention them. Just guessing.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2017 @ 11:22am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Changing your posting name won't stop people from knowing it's you.

            By the way the word banks have nothing to do with you being blocks.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 1:39am

        Re: Re:

        "FYI, TechDirt apparently blacklists the usual contraction for "foreign exchange""

        Forex.

        I bet this doesn't get blocked.

        Maybe it's other words, your raving and ranting, you repeated complaining about words that have nothing to do with the conversation and your moronic conspiracy theories that are getting you caught in a spam queue?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:30pm

      Re:

      Do you happen to spell your name in all capitals with a red pen?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:45pm

      Re:

      Perhaps you were blocked because you whine like a bitch about being blocked.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:49pm

      Re:

      The TD community is not the same thing nor an extension of the Illuminati for which you blame all your problems upon.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Baron von Robber, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:59pm

      Re:

      Tiki torch bearing...pffft hahahaha!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:08pm

      Re:

      Antifa activists went there to provoke violence.

      So did the White supremacists and Neo-Nazis who showed up first.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 6:06pm

      Re:

      "GUN TOTING! - peaceful and legal."

      You don't carry an assault rifle (NOT a 'sporting' rifle) with multiple magazines and wear camo and body armor when you want a peaceful situation. At the very least you're trying to aggressively intimidate people you know won't be armed and armored anywhere near the same way. I'm sure they were also well aware they outgunned the police. Peaceful my ass.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 6:26pm

        Re: Re:

        "You don't carry an assault rifle (NOT a 'sporting' rifle) with multiple magazines"
        I doubt anyone there but law enforcement had true assault rifles...considering the definition of those pertains to rifles that fore more than one bullet per trigger squeeze. But hey, go ahead and intentionally try to mislead the people with your agenda based definitions so that you can continue to try and convince people that discrimination based upon appearances is okay. Rifles today, and maybe people tomorrow?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          JMT (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 9:42pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "I doubt anyone there but law enforcement had true assault rifles..."

          Well by your definition even the police don’t have assault rifles (pretty sure theirs are also semi-auto), and by multiple accounts they had even less than that, and held back because they felt at a disadvantage.

          "...considering the definition of those pertains to rifles that fore more than one bullet per trigger squeeze."

          Is that formalized somewhere? Codified in law maybe? I don’t see why a civilian semi-auto version of a weapon originally designed for military use can't be called an assault rifle. I don’t think it's an inflammatory label, it seems quite accurate. They weren't designed for hunting or target shooting and then up-spec'd for the military. They were designed to kill people and then had the full-auto functionality removed for sale to civilians. But if the term offends you so much, what exactly should we be calling them?

          "But hey, go ahead and intentionally try to mislead the people with your agenda based definitions so that you can continue to try and convince people that discrimination based upon appearances is okay. Rifles today, and maybe people tomorrow?"

          Wow, apparently I'm on a far slipperier slope than I ever realized, and also have immense powers of persuasion... Who exactly am I misleading here? Anybody who's seen the photos can make their own judgement about the type of weapons being carried and how effective/dangerous/bad-ass they really are. Even if the guns and armor were really just plastic fakes, they were carried and worn for a purpose. I've stated my opinion on what I believe the purpose was, I invite you to do the same.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            stderric (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 7:35am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I don’t see why a civilian semi-auto version of a weapon originally designed for military use can't be called an assault rifle.

            Unless it fires more than one round per trigger-squeeze, the Geneva Convention classifies it as a Friendship Comfy-Tube.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        bob, 17 Aug 2017 @ 11:26am

        Re: Re:

        Still perfectly legal to carry a gun in public. Granted if you do others become more nervous because it isn't normal behavior.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:06pm

    Shane, your posts are kind of fucking up the comments section of what could be a good conversation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Pronounce (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:10pm

    Ever Notice How Divisions are Divisive?

    I sure have.

    Cultures much older than the one in the U.S. has been dealing with this for a very long time. Take Africa for instance. For many thousands of years Africa was broken into tribes. A tribe "owned" its land, and it's culture was distinctive. Europeans showed up and shook up the whole place by assigning weird and arbitrary boundaries to the land and giving power to one tribe over another.

    Well now it seems that some of those of European dissent living in the U.S. have decided that the tribe (race identity) is a good way to fight for their right to the scarce resources of the land in which they live.

    Hmmm, if one ponders this long enough it is easy to see where this leads.

    But let's not highlight that a race is behaving in a tribal manner without noting that the other race has done so for millions of years.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2017 @ 11:30am

      Re: Ever Notice How Divisions are Divisive?

      Yeah the Europeans with their messed up attitudes towards others really did screw up a lot of indigenous people. Don't forget non-Africans also started in tribes too. So I think your argument is crap.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:17pm

    Who cares about the past? These dickheads want to march around a statue, let them, look at them, laugh and go on your way. Turning this into a media circus is exactly what they want.

    How many pro Nazi's showed up? How long did they travel for that march? How few of them were there?

    So we want to make a big deal about a small gathering of dickheads? What have we come to?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gwiz (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:08pm

      Re:

      Who cares about the past?

       

      Ummm, me.

      "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -George Santayana  

       

      Although, I do agree with the rest of your comment about not making a big deal about a small gathering of dickheads and turning it into the media circus they want.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 2:13am

      Re:

      Consider what happened in Kent Ohio 47 years ago.. did the national guard show up in Charlettesville? Its pretty amazing if the Police actually refrained from shooting some violent instigators, isn't it?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:22pm

    So one article said that "Hundreds" of white nationalists showed up in Charlottesville to protest.

    And it is now international news? What a fucking joke.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:04pm

    The key and only important take-away...

    is that Google has effectively censored this "Stormcloud" or whatever by denying it domain registration. Techdirt will ignore that, or assert that it's "good"; a corporation is private and therefore has the POWER over persons to censor viewpoints. Without due process nor appeal. That trend will continue, it's too heady for anyone to resist. We're off down the slippery slope to real censorship. -- And NO, I'm not upset by THAT censorship as such (because the specific is outside common law), but be sure that Google will use this "good" to implement the "bad" to eventually outlaw all "rightist" opposition. That's been the plan of The Rich for decades to centuries now.

    So I say don't defend this particular, NOR let corporations became the arbiter of what speech is allowed: only common law is up to that level.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:10pm

      Re: The key and only important take-away...

      Google is not a government entity. It is legally allowed to refuse associating with a group of racist fuckwits.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:21pm

      Re: The key and only important take-away...

      Google is not the internet. If you don't like how they manage search results, there are plenty of other search engines out there for you to use.

      That said, it is a private entity and is allowed to moderate its search results however it sees fit. Much like how I'm completely within my rights to deny entry to anyone I choose within my own home.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:44pm

        Re: Re: The key and only important take-away...

        I re-read your post and am now wondering what Google has to do with this article and what the heck "Stormcloud" is or how it too is relevant to the article and discussion at hand.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          aethercowboy (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:48pm

          Re: Re: Re: The key and only important take-away...

          Stormcloud, a presumably racist web publication, wrote an article about the victim of the car incident. In response, GoDaddy, their host and registrar cancelled their hosting account for violating their TOS wrt hate speech. Stormcloud then went to Google Domains to transfer, but were declined on similar grounds.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:56pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: The key and only important take-away...

            Thanks! That clears up my confusion.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              aethercowboy (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 5:21am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The key and only important take-away...

              My bad, it was the Daily Storm, not Stormcloud. All these stormy things get jumbled up in the head when you don't care enough to follow them.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 1:22pm

      Re: The key and only important take-away...

      Christ blue give it a rest for one day with the SovCit bullshit.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 2:45pm

    In the end, it won't matter

    The monuments -- most of which, by the way, were erected during the Jim Crow era and NOT immediately following the Civil War -- WILL come down. The good citizens of Durham tore one of theirs down last night. The rest will follow, either in the same way or in other ways.

    This is long overdue. We don't commemorate traitors, and every single Confederate soldier was one. They betrayed the Constitution. They sought to kill American troops. They don't deserve monuments and we will see that they have none.

    And for those idiots who whine about their precious southern heritage -- you know, the heritage of slavery and treason, of terrorism and lynchings: maybe you should read more. Robert E. Lee didn't think there should be any monuments either.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      The Logician, 15 Aug 2017 @ 4:46pm

      Re: In the end, it won't matter

      So the, you are in favor of forgetting history and its lessons and removing all reminders of our mistakes that we might make them anew? A highly illogical position. While slavery is unethical, the right of any state to secede from the union should they feel that the union has lost its way and become the tyranny it was once created to oppose is not and should not be forgotten. That right remains still within every state's constitution. This country was founded through rebellion. Your position implies, then, that everyone who fights a rebellion for any reason is always wrong to do so, which is a position that itself is incorrect and nonsensical. I would advise you to retract it, lest you make yourself appear even more foolish than you already have.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 6:14pm

        Re: Re: In the end, it won't matter

        Germany destroyed Nazi monuments and symbology after World War II, and people have not forgotten about the true horrors of the Third Reich.

        The US has monuments to slaveowning racist traitors scattered across the South, and people still think the Confederacy is something worth celebrating despite that group losing the Civil War.

        If anything, those monuments do more to distort the history we should be teaching our children than they do to preserve it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 6:22pm

          Re: Re: Re: In the end, it won't matter

          Pretty much every founder of the US is a racist traitor in some form of fashion. That's what the whole 3/5 compromise was about.

          And yet people continue to flee TO the US FROM the places they were born.

          hmmmmm

          Your problem is you have no conception of your own failings. All failings belong to the other side in your view.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 6:36pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: In the end, it won't matter

            Better get that bulb checked out. Your projection is a bit dim.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 15 Aug 2017 @ 6:39pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: In the end, it won't matter

            Yes, our Founding Fathers were flawed men. They owned slaves, oppressed women, and allowed the genocide of the native population—for starters. Any recounting of the history of this country should take account of their deeds, both good and evil, and let the listener judge them accordingly.

            By the same token, we must consider the Confederacy with the same kind of honest reckoning. The Confederacy seceded from the United States so it could preserve the right to own Black people as property based on the color of their skin. Every leader of the Confederacy, both civilian and military, went to war with the United States for that cause—and they lost that war.

            The Founding Fathers laid the groundwork for the laws and principles which govern our country. They deserve credit and celebration, not deification, for their role in creating this country. By contrast, the Confederacy split this country in two over the right to treat certain people as property and ultimately lost a war it started over that cause. That does not deserve celebration—only condemnation from the history books and museums that teach the honest story of the Confederacy.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 6:55pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the end, it won't matter

              Thank you for that.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                The Logician, 16 Aug 2017 @ 7:29am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the end, it won't matter

                So you would not agree with a state seceding today in protest of the nation's many abuses? What the Civil War truly did was cow the states into submission to the central government,when according to the Constitution, the central government was to be smaller and answer to the states. It was never intended to become the bureaucratic behemoth it is today.The Civil War was the last time the states truly stood up to the central government. Is that ability truly something that should have been lost? And what happens when the powerful decide they no longer wish monuments and exhibits of beliefs you share to be seen?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 Aug 2017 @ 6:59am

                  Let them secede.

                  Hey, if a state wants to secede from the United States and become a nation-state within the landmass that encompasses the country, let them. I mean, sure, the people in that state will have to deal with their being cut off from every federal program in which they are enrolled—Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, SNAP, you get the drill—and the state government will have to come up with an entirely new way of dealing with the state-wide economy after the federal government cuts the state off from normal participation in the US economy and travel/shipping routes…but hey, at least they won’t have to deal with “Big Government”, right?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  bob, 17 Aug 2017 @ 11:37am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the end, it won't matter

                  If the state secede from the United States according to the established laws dictating that action then more power to them. The confederacy didn't follow the rules they just threw a fit like a child and tried to leave by force.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 3:21am

        Re: Re: In the end, it won't matter

        I believe someone going after moreu of America's freedom incited this demonstration in keeping in alignment with the kinder, gentler agenda that has been stripping away America's will to fight for our rights and not just our Constitutional rights, but our INALIENABLE RIGHTS to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 2:21am

      Re: In the end, it won't matter

      You can't deny the past. Many Americans' anceestors fought to the death for something they belived in. You can't ethically or morally deny their right to pay creedence to their next of kin no matter what the wind is blowing in today. No matter that they were beaten by the north.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 2:32am

        Re: Re: In the end, it won't matter

        Trying to patch up the parts of the past that today may seem extremely difficult to imagine and using political correctness to do it is more difficult to see as they seem to be erasing from America whatever they want. That is equally as distressing in my opinion.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 3:49am

        Re: Re: In the end, it won't matter

        And what of the descendants of slaves—why must they be forced to pay credence and respect to those who kept their ancestors in chains by looking upon a monument dedicated to the Confederacy?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 1:01pm

      Re: In the end, it won't matter

      I agree. Let's not stop there, let the book burnings begin!! /sarcasm

      By your reckoning, we need to tear down all monuments raised to FDR. He never criticized Henry Ford's anti-Semitic magazine and even rewarded Ford with the Jeep contract. FDR associated with and assisted a known hater of Jews. Let's tear down all of those FDR monuments!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 8:52pm

    Re: "First American Civil War"

    So you've decided that another is inevitable.

    We're all in Deep State if there's a Second American Civil War.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:27pm

      Re: Re: "First American Civil War"

      The war is absolutely fine, as long as it is a war of words. We should all condemn the violence and respond to words with words. Did you see the bit on Tucker Carlson about the BLM co-founder saying Hate Speech is not protected for the first amendment? Wow, that's just deeply wrong, speech is protected, even speech you don't agree with. Wars are OK, if they are wars of words. Words only. Word War 1, Word War 2, they're all fine. Send your flaming missiles and missives in every direction, if you can. The left is just so stupid it doesn't have the vocabulary or argument to win, so it resorts to violence. Catch up, you lefties, you idiot youngins.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 1:12am

        Re: Re: Re: "First American Civil War"

        Well if you're the best and brightest the right has all the left has nothing to worry about. Once your kids put you in a home they can just unplug your router and you can drool yourself to death for all the world cares.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 3:48am

          Re: Re: Re: Re: "First American Civil War"

          Don't push that commentor over to the right.. that person is straight out of a field of lillies or something is growing out of them cow patties!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    FM Hilton, 15 Aug 2017 @ 9:03pm

    And yet..

    Now that Donald Trump has told everyone that there were two wrong sides to the affair, we can now rest easy.

    We're all wrong, you see, but he's right to be a Neo-Nazi sympathizer because some of those people are nice.

    He's still waiting for evidence to prove that Neo-Nazis are bad people. He's not convinced of it, yet.

    Oh, and by the way-he's the POTUS. Nice moral quality he has shown us all, isn't it?

    Sure, Washington owned slaves. Now we have a leader who wants to bring back slavery...or at least Jim Crow.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:47pm

    Tolerating hate groups only emboldens them. All those centrists are only making things worse. You are either with the racists, or against the racists. There is no middle ground.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 11:11pm

      Re:

      Not American, right? We got over this a long time ago in America, with a few exceptions, of course, but we just ignore them. "Centrists are only making things worse". Right, ordinary people going to work and build a life for their family are only making things worse. Worse for you, maybe, and that's a good thing. Who needs idiots like you focusing on hate? Get a job. MAGA

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 12:32am

        Re: Re:

        Assume, for a moment, that you have a racist male White co-worker—the kind of racist who, if given the chance, will belt out hateful rhetoric without hesitation or irony. For the purposes of this thought experiment, this hypothetical man is named “Jimmy”.

        One day at work, you hear Jimmy say “nigger” while talking about the police. In that moment, you have three choices: ignore him and go about your day, report him to his supervisor, or directly confront him about his use of a racial slur. The second and third options provide direct consequences for his racist behavior; the first option does not.

        You choose to ignore Jimmy’s blatant racism and go about your day.

        The next day, you hear Jimmy say “nigger” again, and he does it more than once. You notice that several of your co-workers hear him this time. You again choose to ignore him, thinking someone else will report him or confront him about it. No one does, for whatever reason. You and everyone else go about your day.

        After a week, Jimmy feels emboldened enough by a lack of confrontation and consequences that he says “nigger” to the face of a Black co-worker. You still say nothing; everyone else does the same. But that Black co-worker of yours slugs Jimmy in the face. Both men are sent home—Jimmy for the day, his co-worker for good. You and everyone else go about your day, but with the image of Jimmy getting slugged for using a racial slur forefront in your mind.

        When he returns to work the next day, Jimmy seems unusually quiet compared to the past week—especially when he is in the presence of another Black co-worker.

        After another week passes, Jimmy says “nigger” within your earshot again. You now know that, if confronted about his language, he will likely back down from saying it again. You get those same three decisions from earlier placed in front of you: ignore him, report him, or confront him yourself.

        But before you can react, one of your co-workers—a White one this time—yells at Jimmy to shut up. He does just that. Everyone, including you, goes about the rest of the day without incident. The next day, Jimmy is back to being quiet.

        When you stay silent against racists and fearmongers—when you think ignoring them will somehow make them go away—you make them feel as if they have nothing to fear from being openly racist in front of you. Your silence is assumed complicity in their hatred. After all, if you really think what they are saying is wrong, you would say so.

        The bigots and racists will continue to win so long as they feel as if their rhetoric, ideas, and actions deserve a place in the public sphere. All who oppose the ideas that people like Jimmy stand for must declare their opposition without hesitation. Ignoring them will not stop them; showing them that they are alone in their beliefs will.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 12:51am

          Re: Re: Re:

          OK, but what if he was black, and said the same things, and the same things happened, same lesson? Why can black people use certain words and white people can't? Why are you so sensitive about something so trivial anyway. The whole story you weave sounds disgustingly personal, and romanticizes violence and conflict. Violence is bad. Words are words. Pussy.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 1:28am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            If you’ll notice, I did not “romanticize” violence. In my hypothetical, the only man to throw a punch was sent home from his job for good—i.e., fired—for doing so.

            As for “romanticizing” conflict: You say this as if we should all attempt to avoid conflict no matter what. But we cannot do that, not even hypothetically. We will all encounter a conflict, physical or otherwise, at some point in our lives. Learning how to deal with that conflict in a healthy way is a much better option for us than ignoring it and hoping it goes away.

            And as for the issue of who can say what words and when, I will let The Weekly Sift’s article on the subject speak for me.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 1:51am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Well, you did justify bullying, right, and enforcing your will on others, and controlling speech at the expense of freedom, and cowardice and stupidity associated with ascribing such deep meaning to playground words, right? Do you need a safe space?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 2:06am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                bullying

                Jimmy was the only bully in this narrative, as he was the one who subjected his co-workers to hostile racist language without regard for what they thought. The co-worker who punched him and the co-worker who shouted him down were reacting to his provocations. Actions have consequences, even for bullies.

                enforcing your will on others

                The co-workers who confronted Jimmy did not “enforce their will” on him. He could have still said racist statements and slung around racial slurs. What stopped him was not some sort of “enforcement of will” by his co-workers, but Jimmy’s own realization that he was becoming an outcast. He stopped being a loud-and-proud racist at work; nothing stops him from being one in private with friends who believe as he does.

                controlling speech at the expense of freedom

                Jimmy is never legally stopped from speaking his racist rhetoric. He can do it all he wants without being arrested. But the First Amendment does not protect him from other people confronting him over his use of racial slurs, nor would it protect him from being fired if his employer believed that using such language was creating a hostile work environment. Again: Actions have consequences.

                cowardice and stupidity associated with ascribing such deep meaning to playground words

                “Nigger” is a racial slur with a centuries-old history of being used by racists and slaveowners to dehumanize an entire group of people based on the color of their skin. I have no idea how you can equate it to “playground words”; I do not want to know why you would even try.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 2:10am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  This is politically correct crapola, and you are a politically correct crappie. Nigger is a word that black people can use unrestricted when referencing other black people. That is, black people are not hurt by black people saying it, but they are hurt by white people saying it. This is racism, you idiot. When you condemn me not for what I say but for the color of my skin, you are a racist. You. Are. A. Racist.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 2:20am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    A racial slur with a detailed history of being used to dehumanize Black people so enslaving and torturing them would go over easier is unavailable for you to use as a consequence-free insult. And you are angry about that. You are angry that you cannot go up to a Black person and call them a “nigger” as if you are just slinging around playground banter.

                    That, uh…that sounds pretty damn racist to me.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 2:26am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Funny, that. I'm angry? I'm laughing at you, racist. I'm enjoying it, really. Justify your history of abuse, why not ask for reparations for all your imaginary ills? How about I give up my wealth and give it to you to say I'm sorry, does that fit into your racist agenda? Need some special treatment that no one else gets because of your history of abuse at the hands of white people? Hello? You're Canadian, right, let me explain something to you. We don't like racists in the US. We're busy making it great. None of us Americans are so easily hurt by words, that's just crapoola, as I mentioned previously. But thank you for playing, you're a poster child of repressed rage and racism for all to see, you have a long and storied history. Stay in Canada.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 2:38am

                        LOLwut.

                        Justify your history of abuse, why not ask for reparations for all your imaginary ills?

                        I am a White guy, so I do not need reparations…

                        How about I give up my wealth and give it to you to say I'm sorry, does that fit into your racist agenda?

                        …but hey, if you really want me to have it, who am I to argue?

                        You're Canadian

                        I am an American, having been born and raised in North Carolina.

                        We don't like racists in the US.

                        And yet here you are, all but arguing that you should be allowed to use a well-known racial slur without consequence. That sounds like something a racist would do.

                        None of us Americans are so easily hurt by words

                        Shiva Ayyadurai’s multi-million-dollar lawsuit against Techdirt says otherwise.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 2:41am

                          Re: LOLwut.

                          If you want to compare the two, OK. I fully believe it is possible to sue someone for calling you a nigger. Have it, that's our society. Punching them for saying it makes you a criminal, you belong in jail. Intimidating them is also wrong and illegal. Taking them to court is fine. Your story is disturbing, really, it has the heart of a mob mentality of "enforcers", it's so totalitarian and evil. Sick, really.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 2:52am

                            Re: Re: LOLwut.

                            I fully believe it is possible to sue someone for calling you a nigger.

                            Could someone file such a lawsuit? Yes. Would it get very far in the courts? Not likely. Would such a lawsuit bring a lot of unwanted attention to the person being sued and, if they actually did say the word, prompt them to re-think ever saying it again? I suppose anything is possible.

                            Punching them for saying it makes you a criminal, you belong in jail.

                            Well, I am glad we cleared up whether assault is illegal. Not that it was ever in question, but still.

                            Intimidating them is also wrong and illegal.

                            “Wrong” is a moral judgment that depends wholly on the context. Illegal? Only if that intimidation comes with a threat of violence or harm. Intimidating someone with a threat of “I am never going to speak to you again if you keep saying that” is hardly an arrestable offense, and I seriously doubt anyone would call that “wrong”.

                            Your story is disturbing, really, it has the heart of a mob mentality of "enforcers", it's so totalitarian and evil.

                            Gee, it is almost as if communities of people have a right to decide who they will or will not associate with, what behavior they will and will not tolerate from members of that community, and what behavior is so intolerable that it results in someone getting kicked out of that community. Imagine that.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 2:56am

                              Re: Re: Re: LOLwut.

                              "What behavior they will or will not tolerate"?

                              Really? Share that with us, Stephen, spell it out, please. Exactly what will you tolerate or not tolerate?

                              1. You're white, can you say nigger (did you break your own rule?)

                              2. Are the other words that are forbidden for certain people to use certain ways?

                              3. Are only black people part of your toleration standards, or do you have different standards for different races?

                              4. Do you subdivide within the races or across races?

                              Just spell it out for us, Stephen, exactly what do you tolerate and not tolerate?

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 3:41am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: LOLwut.

                                I can say the word “nigger” all I want. Nothing can legally stop me from doing so. But my usage of the word here has a specific context: I have been referencing the word, not talking about Black people. If I were to use the word as an insult, I would, could, and should rightly be called a racist. I have no business using that word outside of this one specific context.

                                Generally, slurs that have histories of being used by a majority portion of the population to dehumanize or denigrate minority populations are considered “offensive”. A straight person is likely to be called out for using the word “faggot”, but a gay person less so. But even those minority populations have discussions and debates about whether trying to reclaim slurs is the right thing to do—for example, the LGBT community and “queer”.

                                I do not tolerate racist language, save for supposed racial slurs against White people such as myself. A Black man calling me a “cracker” is not, and never will be, anywhere near the equivalent of me calling that Black man a “nigger”.

                                And when I talk about race in America, I try to follow a set of racial language guidelines created by a blogger known only as Abagond. I find those guidelines useful enough to adopt as part of my personal “style guide” for discussions such as this.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                  identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 3:55am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LOLwut.

                                  Wow, Stephen, that's great. So, I can call you a nigger, you can call me a nigger, that's fine right? Nigger. A black person can call me a nigger, but I cannot call a black person a nigger. Who made that rule exactly, you? Or you Abagond guy? I don't like that rule, it looks racist to me. Racist. In your story, you intimidated the racist-male co-worker into silence, and you condoned the intimidation. That's just illegal, immoral, and un-American, which I think you are, too. Here in the US we have laws, and courts to settle these kinds of things. Abagond does not rule American society, he only seems to rule the small cult of Pirates called Techdirt (and probably Google).

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 4:02am

                                    Oh lord.

                                    Doing your intentionally-obtuse “stream of consciousness” act does not make you look good here. Neither does your apparent joy in repeatedly using a racial slur as an actual insult.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                      identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 4:12am

                                      Re: Oh lord.

                                      Gosh, you are hard to understand. Clear this up for me, say I'm (white/black/brown/yellow/red male/female/other) and someone different than me calls me a nigger. And then I say "Well, everybody is somebody's nigger". Is that racist, in your racist lexicon of acceptable speech, or is it OK, and why?

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • icon
                                        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 4:20am

                                        Re: Re: Oh lord.

                                        You are way too eager to find an excuse for using a racial slur as an insult. That is, in pretty much any context, the behavior of a racist.

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                          identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 4:25am

                                          Re: Re: Re: Oh lord.

                                          No answer from you. No answer several times. No coherent argument. You spout Clear racism, distinguishing the value, meaning, appropriateness and acceptability of my words based on my skin color. You are a racist. I am not. Goodbye, Racist.

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • identicon
                                          Baron von Robber, 16 Aug 2017 @ 6:59am

                                          Re: Re: Re: Oh lord.

                                          My new Internet Hero! Stephen, you are a person to model after. Well done sir. :)

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 1:16am

        Re: Re:

        Yeah you're really making America great by posting dumb shit on the internet. That'll show dem durn forigners!


        To the poster above, sorry about him. He's got an odd number of chromosomes and this is all he's got going for him in life.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 3:39am

      Re:

      When did people in America lose the right to be racist? I thought it was a freedom protected by the constitution. I'm not a racist, but believe in individual freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. I know there are laws against denying equality in many areas of life, but when did an individual lose the right to like or dislike someone for personal reasons, whatever they might be?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 3:48am

        Re: Re:

        Once again, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It also means that the government cannot shut you down, not that other private citizens have to tolerate you.

        Why people who whine about the constitution cannot understand what it actually says is always a real mystery.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 4:14am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Its more a matter of personal liberty that is not constitutional, but an inalienable right.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 4:29am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Well, good thing nobody's stopping you from proclaiming yourself as a racist then! But, everyone else has the right to react to your racist ass after you've done so.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 5:04am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Well, you've really twisted his words into something he didn't say at all, kind of typical for you leftist Google Globalists. Label, blame, point your figure, call someone a racist, add a sexual component. You're pathetic, as always. He was speaking to the right to think. Do we have the right to think as we please? Are their consequences for thinking, you totalitarian idiot?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 5:28am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "you leftist Google Globalists"

                Oh dear, has your paranoid fantasy been telling you that I work for Google again? Time to take your medication. It's OK, the real world is a lot less scary when you decide to visit.

                "point your figure"

                It's called a finger, and I did no such thing.

                "call someone a racist"

                I did no such thing.

                "add a sexual component"

                If you think there was anything sexual about my comment, you might have something repressed that you might wish to deal with. Perhaps this unhealthy repression is the root of your mental issues?

                "Are their consequences for thinking, you totalitarian idiot?"

                No, only for action. You can think in racist terms all you want, but as soon as you put that into action there may be consequences. The people in question here took strong public action to announce themselves as racists, others are showing them the consequences of that action. If all they did was sit at home thinking racist thoughts, there would be no repercussions.

                Sorry, if you think it's "totalitarian" for your fellow citizens to react to your actions and not just passively roll over while you treat other races as lesser human beings, you have some serious problems.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 6:02am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Yes, you idiot, I expect you to "roll over" and follow the actual law, not your personal moralistic politically correct horseshit. I will think what I want, I will say what I want, and I will carry a concealed weapon to backup my right to do it. I'm American, check me out. MAGA

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 6:20am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    You are free to think and say whatever you want. By the same token, everyone else is free to think and say whatever they want about you.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 6:47am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Plus, if you negatively affect another person when you do those things, that other person has the right to react. Why he has such a problem with this concept is anyone's guess.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 6:41am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "Yes, you idiot, I expect you to "roll over" and follow the actual law"

                    The law says I don't have to tolerate your speech and can react to it, within certain boundaries.

                    Why are you trying to deny people the rights allowed them by law?

                    "I will think what I want, I will say what I want, and I will carry a concealed weapon to backup my right to do it."

                    Yes, you do seem like the kind of idiot who demands the ability to quickly kill people if your feelings are hurt. What a pathetic existence it must be to be this scared and unable to resolve issues without violence.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 6:46am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Hey, come on by sometime, we all get alone fine here. See those holes in the stop sign? That's where we blow off our steam. We don't kill people much, mostly just stop signs, sometimes random road signs. It's fun, really. We resolve issues all the time. Not so much with stupid foreigners, but hey, we'll give it a go. Bring some beer and your own gun.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 6:51am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "See those holes in the stop sign? That's where we blow off our steam."

                        So, you are a violent moron with no qualms about the costs of his actions. I guessed as much. I prefer to blow off steam in ways that don't damage public property or risk injury to others. Let me guess - you're the kind of fool who will do this then bitch about taxes when the repair bill comes in?

                        "Bring some beer and your own gun"

                        Sorry, you seem like the kind of person who can't hold his drink. I'll stick with the people I can chat about the world with over a nice pint without the need to resort to deadly violence.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 7:06am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Hey, to each his own. Stop signs aint expensive, and I told you we don't shoot people much, hardly at all, actually. Can't remember the last time. I think Jimmy shot his own foot once, not so bad, didn't need that toenail anyway. Grew back fine. No nail, of course. Want to bitch about taxes? Great, come on over. But bring your own gun, your own beer, and for you, I think you better pay an entrance fee. You're kind of a jerk.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 6:04am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Sorry, but he said nothing of the sort... you are trying way too hard to find fault where none lies. It is a discussion about the ability to have one's own opinion. Do you act on every thought or belief in your head or do you consider the consequences of them first?

                  If you have a certain belief and choose not act on it is it still wrong?

                  Actions speak... how does that go again?

                  You obviously believe you are better than someone who doesn't believe in the same things you do. Do you act on that belief? I believe you already have, and it shows how unenlightened you truly are. You denigrate others and virtue signal in an effort to find self worth and reassurance in your misguided belief that you are on the right side of an issue that has nothing to do with race and everything to do with inalienable personal responsibilities and personal liberties.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 6:39am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Thank you for understanding my question. I have nothing against anyone in regards to the color of skin. It is one of the most ridiculous things on earth. My point was when we have lost liberty we have lost everything.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 6:45am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "My point was when we have lost liberty we have lost everything."

                      Nobody's taking away your liberty. You just don't have the right to escape all consequences for your actions. You never have.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 10:25am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Speech is NOT action. Period. Belief is NOT action.

                        To imply that you have the right to respond with violence because someone hurt your feelings is the very reason for the events that transpired.

                        Just because one group spews idiotic tripe doesn't give another group the right to use violence. It takes 2 to play the game that was on display in Va.

                        lets read a little from Dr Ben Shapiro on this very subject shall we?

                        ... As spoiled, ignorant college students all across America consider ditching their exams but not their bongs to protest the supposed scourge of racism on campus, two terms have been repeated ad infinitum: “white privilege” and “microaggressions.”

                        These terms have become prominent at the university level because when you live in the most wealthy country in the history of mankind and have nothing better to do than play Xbox and vape -- and when that same country glorifies victims of all types – you must come up with something to complain about. And so students like Jonathan Butler, the Mizzou hunger striker and a child of unending privilege, complains about “white privilege.” Smith College idjit junior Raven Fowles-Witten, attending a privileged, tony establishment university, complains about “microaggressions in classrooms.”

                        What do these terms mean?

                        As I explained yesterday, “white privilege” is simply a term meaning “you’re a white person so shut the hell up.” Leftists suggest that anyone who is white carries advantages from skin color, particularly on campus, despite the fact that minority non-Jewish non-Asian students get into colleges with far lesser statistical scores. The only way to avoid charges of “white privilege” is to self-scourge sufficiently: like Indiana Jones in The Last Crusade, only the penitent man (or non-cisnormative human) shall pass. If you don’t believe in “white privilege,” that is merely another example of your “white privilege.”

                        Then there are “microaggressions.” Like “white privilege,” “microaggressions” live in the vague fantasy spaces of the leftist mind. Microaggressions and white privilege surround us, even if we’re not aware of them. Like The Force, they constitute an energy field created by all living things, surrounding us, separating us, tearing the galaxy apart.

                        To be more exact, “microaggressions,” according to social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff in The Atlantic, “are small actions or word choices that seem on their face to have no malicious intent but that are thought of as a kind of violence nonetheless.” So how do you know they’re malicious? You don’t. Your subjective interpretation of the comments is what counts. As overeducated moron Aaron Z. Lewis, 21, of Yale told The New York Times, “I don’t think it matters what my own personal experiences are with [racism on campus]. What matters is that we all need to have empathy for the experiences that people of color have even if we don’t have those experiences for ourselves…It really is hard to believe because we want to believe that we’re a postracial society, but it’s just not true.”

                        Now, the beautiful thing about microaggressions is the term itself: microaggressions. They aren’t “micro-offensive statements.” Or “micro-insults.” They’re tiny aggressions, almost physical in nature. Such aggressions, as with all aggressions, call for punishment. Calling a transgender female – a man who thinks he is a woman – “sir” is grounds for legal battery, according to the left, because it is simply too microaggressive. Words may not break our bones, but they justify sticks and stones. That’s why assistant professor Melissa Click of Mizzou felt justified in calling for some “muscle” to deal with a reporter who wanted to take pictures of hunger-striking students: “She said she felt threatened by [reporter Mark Schierbecker]…She said she felt that she and the students were being aggressed upon.” That's why black students at Mizzou said today that they wanted white students moved away from them so they could have a "safe space" -- "white privilege" itself, the status of whiteness, represents a "microaggression" in need of full-on racist rectification.

                        Like all fascists, the Pantywaist Fascists must claim that they are not the original aggressors. Like Vladimir Putin claiming that Ukraine instigated violence, or Hitler claiming that the needs of German ethnics in Czechoslovakia required annexation, today’s fascists now claim that non-events justify calling in the men with guns.

                        “White privilege,” in short, is an excuse to shut you up.

                        “Microaggression,” in short, is an excuse to arrest, jail, or hurt you.

                        Together, these two ideas represent an existential threat to Western thoughts and freedoms. Coming in the guise of sensitivity, they end with force. In America, tyranny won’t come via jackboot, at least not at the outset. It’ll come in Uggs.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 11:23am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Speech is NOT action. […] Belief is NOT action.

                          On the latter, you are correct; on the former, you are not.

                          If you believe a person should die—who that person is does not matter—holding that belief is not an action. You cannot be arrested for holding a belief or thinking a certain thought. We do not have magical mind-reading devices, after all.

                          But if you express that belief, in any way, you have committed an act. Saying the words out loud, writing them down in a notebook, painting them on a bathroom wall—all actions, all of which express a specific opinion. And anyone who sees or hears your expression in whatever form it takes is allowed to react however they wish.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                            identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 11:59am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            "And anyone who sees or hears your expression in whatever form it takes is allowed to react however they wish."

                            So by you writing this statement, am I allowed to be offended and commit an act of violence on you merely because I disagree? Do you really think believe that to be true?

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 12:05pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              Technically, yes, you are. But your actions will have consequences of their own.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 1:07pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                Technically, NO YOU ARE NOT. Please show me the law that allows me to hit you for being mean to me or expressing your opinion. You can't because there are none.

                                I can show you several for committing violence upon another person, however.

                                Believing that speech can be responded to with violence is something a 4-year-old would believe, not a mature thinking person. And for the record, I am not calling you a 4-year-old.

                                If you can't articulate your concerns over another's speech without violence, then you have no argument. What you have is an irrational emotion that you can't seem to control, resulting in lashing out. This is not a defensible action.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 1:40pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  The law does not prevent you from hitting me. Legally and technically, nothing can stop you from punching me in the nose for saying something with which you disagree. Unless you lack the ability to do so, you can totally hit me for saying, I’unno, “Shiva Ayyadurai did not invent email”.

                                  The law does, however, punish you for punching me in the nose. It describes an offense and provides a remedy for the victim of said offense, often in the form of imprisonment of the offender. You can hit me, but you cannot escape the consequences of your act.

                                  Knowing you can do something that has huge consequences attached and actually doing it are two different things.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                    identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 7:05pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    So you change the discussion from civil rights to something about Free Will? WTF?

                                    Being free to say whatever you like in no way violates anyone else's rights. This is a core point of the idea of freedom in the US. We have the following rights:
                                    the right of personal security (life),
                                    the right of personal liberty,
                                    the right of private property.
                                    As long as I don't infringe on your rights, I am free to do what I like. It's really that simple. Speech, in no way infringes on your rights. Violence, however very definitely infringes on mine.

                                    If you can't admit the difference, then you are being deliberately obtuse.

                                    You enjoy you're day.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • icon
                                      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 7:55pm

                                      No duh.

                                      Speech, in no way infringes on your rights. Violence, however very definitely infringes on mine.

                                      Until the actual violent act takes place, your rights remain uninfringed. Someone can technically respond to harsh words or rhetoric with an act of violence even though such a response is the wrong thing to do. The reason most people do not respond with violence is the knowledge that committing violence will land them in jail.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                        identicon
                                        Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 11:56pm

                                        Re: No duh.

                                        What you fail to comprehend, Steve. T. Stone head, are societal norms, likely because you live your mother's basement and are not part of society. You're a Techdirt supremacist for all to see, ready to employ your trivial understanding of law to back up your uneducated point of view and inflict your will on others. Pathetic.

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • icon
                                          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 Aug 2017 @ 6:47am

                                          Re: Re: No duh.

                                          I understand the law: Punch somebody in the nose and you go to jail. But the law does not apply punishment until after the act has occured. So go ahead and punch my face if you think you can do the jail time for it.

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          PaulT (profile), 17 Aug 2017 @ 2:13am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          "Speech is NOT action. Period. Belief is NOT action."

                          No. But, I didn't say they were. However, shouting white power slogans at a gathering of Nazis IS action.

                          I'm not going to read your wall of text, quite frankly you're not worth the effort and quick skimming shows some idiotic buzzwords typically used by people who can't deal with the complexities of the real world. But, I will assume you're not addressing anything I've actually said, since you start by addressing something I did not say..

                          "To imply that you have the right to respond with violence because someone hurt your feelings is the very reason for the events that transpired."

                          Nazis gathered and ran over counterprotesters because I said that actions have consequences? What a strange fantasy world you live in. I'm glad I live in the real world instead.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 6:44am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "If you have a certain belief and choose not act on it is it still wrong?"

                    Of course not. Which is why I specifically said that it's action that's being judged and not thoughts.

                    Are you incapable of understanding what I clearly wrote, or do you need me to use simpler words?

                    "inalienable personal responsibilities and personal liberties"

                    None of which are violated by merely reacting to another's action.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 6:50am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Could you be any more condescending, or are you doing your level best?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 12:26pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Trust me, we’re doing our best levels of condescension here.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 11:50pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Spoken like the elite superior supremacist you are.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        PaulT (profile), 17 Aug 2017 @ 2:06am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Sorry, the more complex words seem to be confusing you, so I'm trying to come down to your level. I note you haven't addressed what I said, by the way, you only whined about the way I said it. Quite telling.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 4:01am

      Re:

      There's always middle ground.. and lots of it. There are a lot of reasons for prejudices in the world. Some good some bad and many that don't make no damn sense.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 7:07am

    Funny thing is, race relations in the US is probably better now than it has ever been in the past.

    Sure, cops kill people, violate rights, but I would imagine it was worse in the past. In the past, people were lynched, in Charlottesville, a statue was pulled down (or demanded to pulled in.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 8:13am

    "As some people need to be constantly reminded, free speech is not speech without consequences. Ignorant, nasty, brutish statements deserve the criticism they receive. What they shouldn't be met with is calls for the government to step in and tell everyone what sort of speech is permitted."


    By definition, freedom of speech is speech without consequences. Tim Cushing's statement I quoted above is a callback to a disturbing trend in social media in recent years - that freedom of speech is only a legal concept and that it isn't a societal value.

    This is wrongheaded and dangerous. It's tantamount to saying mob justice should be what decides what speech is acceptable in society. Because let's face it - there's plenty of legal and quasi-legal means of intimidation and coercion to intimidate others into silence.

    That's not freedom of speech. That's not neo-Nazis making their case and the public rejecting their hateful views on their demerits. It's outrage mongerers and moral authoritarians deciding the rules of the road for what speech can be spoken.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 9:13am

      Re:

      That's very well said. I hope you post more often.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 6:01pm

      Re:

      If your definition of 'freedom of speech' is along the lines of 'You can say what you want without any consequences' then we've never had it and never should, because that 'freedom' is entirely one-sided and is in fact 'protecting' the 'freedom' of one at the cost of the 'freedoms' of others.

      If you care to limit it to 'You can say what you want(barring extreme exceptions) without government consequences' then most people would probably be in agreement with that.

      If Person A says something that Person B considers stupid and/or offensive, Person B is not in any way infringing on A's free speech rights to call them out on it and/or decide that they want nothing to do with them(whether personally, as part of a group or financially). A is still free to speak, they just have to accept that doing so can have consequences socially.

      That the government can not and should not(again, barring extreme exceptions) be allowed to impose legal consequences for speech they don't like does not mean that society is or should be similarly constrained. To argue otherwise is basically saying that the person who speaks first has more rights than the people who might want to respond to them, that their right to speak and associate with who they will is more important that the rights of speech and association of those around them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2017 @ 12:44am

        Re: Re:

        If your definition of 'freedom of speech' is along the lines of 'You can say what you want without any consequences' then we've never had it and never should, because that 'freedom' is entirely one-sided and is in fact 'protecting' the 'freedom' of one at the cost of the 'freedoms' of others.

        I disagree on a fundamental level that one's freedom of speech costs others their freedoms. Substantiate your reasoning or this will be the extent of my answer to you on this point.

        If you care to limit it to 'You can say what you want(barring extreme exceptions) without government consequences' then most people would probably be in agreement with that.

        Yes, but limiting it to that invites mob justice to be the censors instead. And having been on the receiving end of mob justice, I can tell you there is no just outcome.

        If Person A says something that Person B considers stupid and/or offensive, Person B is not in any way infringing on A's free speech rights to call them out on it and/or decide that they want nothing to do with them(whether personally, as part of a group or financially). A is still free to speak, they just have to accept that doing so can have consequences socially.

        Sure, and that's fine. Where it's not fine is when person B responds by spooking your employer out of assigning you any more hours so you become unable to pay your rent. What's not fine is your children receiving death threats. What's not fine is your life's work and volunteer efforts being sabotaged by people who don't care that they targeted the wrong person. What's not fine is being SWATed or Firetrucked. What's not fine is having knives and dirty needles mailed to your home along with notes telling you to kill yourself.

        And this only covers ills on the individual level. Many more horrors have been enacted on the institutional level.

        I could go on but I'm sure you get my point by now.

        That the government can not and should not(again, barring extreme exceptions) be allowed to impose legal consequences for speech they don't like does not mean that society is or should be similarly constrained. To argue otherwise is basically saying that the person who speaks first has more rights than the people who might want to respond to them, that their right to speak and associate with who they will is more important that the rights of speech and association of those around them.

        You lost me there. How in the world does speaking first deprive the rights of those who might want to respond?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 17 Aug 2017 @ 2:46pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I disagree on a fundamental level that one's freedom of speech costs others their freedoms. Substantiate your reasoning or this will be the extent of my answer to you on this point.

          It would seem one or more of us is misreading the other then, so I'll try to clarify.

          When I noted that it was in response to the 'freedom of speech is speech without consequences' line, which I half disagree with.

          I agree that the government shouldn't be handing out penalties for the exercise of one's free speech(again, barring extreme cases), but so long as the response is reasonable I do think that members of the public should feel free to impose penalties of their own, like counter-arguments or disassociating themselves from a person/group in response to something they said.

          Free speech means you can say what you like, but saying that it's only free if there's no consequences read to me as though it was saying that the public shouldn't be allowed to respond in kind, which is what I meant when I said one person's rights were being given preferential treatment over another's. If that's not what you were saying however then feel free to clarify, as it's possible we're quibbling over terminology more than stances.

          Yes, but limiting it to that invites mob justice to be the censors instead. And having been on the receiving end of mob justice, I can tell you there is no just outcome.

          Limiting it to what? People have opinions, they differ at times, and sometimes a large number of people will have opinions that differ from another person's and respond. Mob justice does tend more towards 'mob' than 'justice' to be sure, but that doesn't really invalidate the idea of multiple people disagreeing with someone and making that known, and so long as they don't go overboard while it may suck to be on the receiving end that's just how it works sometimes.

          Sure, and that's fine. Where it's not fine is [...]

          And this only covers ills on the individual level. Many more horrors have been enacted on the institutional level.

          I could go on but I'm sure you get my point by now.

          And such actions I wouldn't support and would consider going over(or way over) the line of acceptable, as those go from responding to speech with counter arguments or even insults into threats and actions that can have very real, possibly deadly consequences. 'Unless there's imminent physical harm on the horizon response should generally be limited to speech and/or choice of association' seems like a fair standard, though given I just threw it together it could likely use some fine-tuning.

          You lost me there. How in the world does speaking first deprive the rights of those who might want to respond?

          As noted above speaking first doesn't, the idea(which could very well be a misread on my part) that speaking shouldn't have consequences does, as it would limit the free speech and association rights of those that might want to respond.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2017 @ 9:30pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            > I agree that the government shouldn't be handing out penalties for the exercise of one's free speech(again, barring extreme cases), but so long as the response is reasonable I do think that members of the public should feel free to impose penalties of their own, like counter-arguments or disassociating themselves from a person/group in response to something they said.
            > Free speech means you can say what you like, but saying that it's only free if there's no consequences read to me as though it was saying that the public shouldn't be allowed to respond in kind, which is what I meant when I said one person's rights were being given preferential treatment over another's. If that's not what you were saying however then feel free to clarify, as it's possible we're quibbling over terminology more than stances.

            Individual shunning I'm okay with. It's when those people get others to join them (or else...) to continue the attack that it goes from freedom of speech to mob justice with the intent of shutting down speech.

            Counterarguments as far as I'm concerned is counterspeech and falls under free speech. Where I draw the line (and where it goes to far too often these days) involves institutional censorship and career ruination, and "news" outlets doxing no-name civilians in hopes their readership will ruin the person's career, threaten their physical safety, and worse.

            This stuff happens with speech *far* more innocuous than white nationalism.

            > Limiting it to what? People have opinions, they differ at times, and sometimes a large number of people will have opinions that differ from another person's and respond. Mob justice does tend more towards 'mob' than 'justice' to be sure, but that doesn't really invalidate the idea of multiple people disagreeing with someone and making that known, and so long as they don't go overboard while it may suck to be on the receiving end that's just how it works sometimes.

            Because the mob isn't just people disagreeing (assuming any of them even read the damn thing they claim to disagree with or if they're using it as a blank canvas to paint their insecurities and hatred on top of). It's people who want to prevent you from speaking publicly again. People who want you to be hurt. Ruined. People who want to ensure your speech is met with crippling sanctions. This speech could be something as minor as a faux pas.

            >And such actions I wouldn't support and would consider going over(or way over) the line of acceptable, as those go from responding to speech with counter arguments or even insults into threats and actions that can have very real, possibly deadly consequences. 'Unless there's imminent physical harm on the horizon response should generally be limited to speech and/or choice of association' seems like a fair standard, though given I just threw it together it could likely use some fine-tuning.

            The original phrase I have a grievance with, that free speech is a concept that only applies to government not imposing legal sanctions for speech, has been an oft-repeated talking point by many of the same people who think it a moral and just reaction to speech they dislike being to intimidate you into silence, get you fired from your job, and/or go after any platform that allows your speech to remain visible on the Internet until your speech is gone (a.k.a. no platforming).

            I find those all noxious and repulsive responses to speech and oppose those just as much as I oppose government sanctions of speech.

            >And such actions I wouldn't support and would consider going over(or way over) the line of acceptable, as those go from responding to speech with counter arguments or even insults into threats and actions that can have very real, possibly deadly consequences. 'Unless there's imminent physical harm on the horizon response should generally be limited to speech and/or choice of association' seems like a fair standard, though given I just threw it together it could likely use some fine-tuning

            I don't consider a counter-argument or mockery to be a consequence. I consider attacks on employment, attacks against the Internet infrastructure that allows your speech to be seen by others, attacks on your safety, harassing your family members as a proxy to shame you into silence, glorified online rags compulsively shaming and doxing you for having the audacity to speak while having the wrong genitalia and/or skin color, stores stocking your goods taking them down after being threatened with sanctions from other suppliers, and more and more and more to all be consequences.

            Seems like our main disagreement is over definitions of words rather than substance of the underlying argument.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2017 @ 9:38am

    How do you feel about the engineer who was fired at Google for questioning the diversity policy in hiring at Google?

    There were talks of protests in cities where Google has offices.

    Here is a quote from the Pittsburgh mayor about possible protests

    “They do have a constitutional right. Speech, even hate speech, is protected under the First Amendment. You are not welcome here. We don’t want you here. We don’t believe in what you say. If you decide to come to Pittsburgh, don’t expect anyone here to be supportive of you. To anybody who is thinking of coming to Pittsburgh, stay home. We look at this very seriously. We take it as a public safety issue," Peduto said.

    So who decides what is hate speech? Yeah, Nazi's are a hateful group, but posting a document questioning a policy is now hate speech?

    Milo talking about how Muslim countries arrest or even kill gays is hate speech?

    Pointing out that affirmative action allows some races into med school based on lower MCAT scores, while Asians have to score much higher on their exams to get in is hate speech?

    Limiting immigration based on economic issues is hate speech?

    Gee, a lot of that sounds like political debate. Now everything gets linked in with Nazi's.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 11:32am

      Re:

      Funny thing: It matters not who labels certain speech as “hate speech”, nor why they do so. That speech is still legally protected by the First Amendment. A Neo-Nazi can literally chant “Jews will not replace us” durning a torchlit march in the dead of night and the government can do nothing about it.

      No one ever said, however, that the Neo-Nazi could not lose his job or face ostracision from his friends and family. The legal protections for his speech generally do not extend to the consequences of his speech.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2017 @ 12:08am

        Re: Re:

        That is such horseshit. Normal people are not offended by speech they don't like, they just don't listen to. They politely don't listen, and no one can make them. That's normal, Stephen, you elitist supremacist. You are no different than a skin head, talking about "consequences of his speech". You are actually a skin-head, right? You sure talk like one.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 Aug 2017 @ 7:12am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Normal people are not offended by speech they don't like

          Define “normal”.

          You are no different than a skin head, talking about "consequences of his speech".

          Skinheads talk more about curbstomping queer people and killing Jews more than they ever talk about the consequences for their hateful rhetoric.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2017 @ 6:25pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Normal people are not offended by speech they don't like, they just don't listen to.

          Shiva's lawsuits happened precisely because he chose to be offended by speech he didn't like instead of ignoring it.

          But you knew that already, Hamilton, because you and Shiva aren't normal.

          Bite me.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Bergman (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 12:42pm

    Lies, damn lies and (no) reputable statistics

    "even though the "history" they were seeking to "preserve" generally celebrates the last holdouts against the abolishment of slavery."

    This is a revisionist lie. Quite a few southerners knew that slavery could not compete with a modern industrialized power, and were attempting to abolish slavery in the process of moving to be such an industrialized nation.

    The northerners blocked them from doing so for economic reasons. Oh, sure, there were a lot of people down south who loved owning slaves, but there were quite a few northerners of that persuasion as well.

    The American Civil War was never primarily about slavery, the politicians just loved to pound on that pulpit as a justification for doing what they were planning to do all along. The 1860s equivalent of Make America Great Again.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Aug 2017 @ 1:47pm

      Re: Lies, damn lies and (no) reputable statistics

      The American Civil War was never primarily about slavery

      Thinking that does not make it true—especially since the evidence says otherwise.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2017 @ 12:09am

        Re: Re: Lies, damn lies and (no) reputable statistics

        Demonstrating your ignorance again, right, you Techdirt Supremacist. Rewriting history again, and arguing with your betters, right? Bergman actually has an education, you obviously do not.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 Aug 2017 @ 6:52am

          Re: Re: Re: Lies, damn lies and (no) reputable statistics

          For all the ignorance you believe I am saddled with, at least I can provide an argument with some form of evidence or facts to back it up. All you can apparently do is belt out grade-school namecalling that would get you booted out of 4chan.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 17 Aug 2017 @ 4:15am

    "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

    Has now become;

    "If I don't agree with what you have to say, I'll fight to the death to keep you from saying it."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 17 Aug 2017 @ 4:36am

      Re:

      Once again - it's the ACTION that's being fought against, not speech. It's the gathering of large groups of Nazis and the ensuing violence, not the fact that they were racist shitheads to begin with. Why is this so difficult to understand?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Rekrul, 19 Aug 2017 @ 7:09am

        Re: Re:

        Once again - it's the ACTION that's being fought against, not speech. It's the gathering of large groups of Nazis and the ensuing violence, not the fact that they were racist shitheads to begin with. Why is this so difficult to understand?

        Because if people had their way, not only would the white supremacists not have been allowed to protest in the first place, they would be arrested and thrown in prison just for being racist.

        And I'll probably get labeled as racist for this, but what the hell...

        How much violence would have occurred if no counter protestors had shown up to confront the Nazis? Would they have just started attacking random people? Would James Fields Jr. have decided to just run someone over for the hell of it? You can say that anyone could have predicted that having a large number of racists staging a protest would end in violence, but you have to add the caveat that said violence would be the result of others showing up to push back and confront them. Without counter protestors to provoke them, it's just a bunch of people marching down the street looking silly.

        But no. You have a large number of white supremacists planning a protest (which was legal), and then you have another large group of people who think it's a good idea to go and confront the very people that they claim are violent and dangerous. It doesn't take a genius to see that such a plan won't end well.

        "Gee, I don't like the fact that a dangerous Grizzly bear is wandering around my back yard. I think I'll go out and wack it with a stick!"

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 21 Aug 2017 @ 9:32am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "How much violence would have occurred if no counter protestors had shown up to confront the Nazis"

          Possibly none. But, I believe we have plenty of historical evidence as to what happens when people are allowed to spread toxic hate unopposed. "They came of X, and I said nothing...".

          "Without counter protestors to provoke them, it's just a bunch of people marching down the street looking silly."

          To you. To others, it's "hey those guys seem to make sense and their symbology looks neat and I think I agree with them. I think I'll sign up!". IIRC, the Nazi group was growing after the previous night's publicity before the counter protesters turned up.

          That's the problem. I think evangelist churches look insanely stupid, but it's a massive industry. I would never turn up to an event, but people sign up every week for decades. How big do we need the Nazi following to get before we start protesting against them? Plus, remember we're looking at a fairly large group gathered from around the country. The message is apparently powerful enough to get people to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to join in already.

          It's a shame violence got involved, but to state "it would have been OK if only they were allowed to do what they did with zero opposition" is pretty ignorant of context and history.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 17 Aug 2017 @ 4:27am

    I understand that many people may find these monuments offensive, but they have stood there for decades. Have they been jumping off their pedestals and attacking people? Have people spontaneously combusted by seeing them? I don't understand the sudden push that they must all be removed IMMEDIATELY!!!

    The argument could also be made that they are important works of art, but then I guess art that offends people doesn't deserve any protection, right. Are these statues being destroyed or will they be placed in a museum somewhere? Probably that will "trigger" all the SJWs as well.

    And why is it that these same people screaming for the removable of these monuments aren't also trying to get Mt. Rushmore destroyed? Isn't having the giant faces of four white invaders carved into a mountain offensive to native Americans? Where's the outrage over that?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 17 Aug 2017 @ 4:45am

      Re:

      "I don't understand the sudden push that they must all be removed IMMEDIATELY!!!"

      If you're referring to the statues that have been the target of outrage since Charlottesville, there's your answer. They have been objectionable for a long time, many since before they were erected, but the fact that literal Nazis are so publicly interested in keeping them standing has made some feel the need for action. If they can't address the events there, they can at least address the nearby monuments.

      In short, a flashpoint event has occurred and some people who were begrudgingly accepting these statues in the name of peace and harmony now want them gone because actual Nazis are turning up in their name.

      "Isn't having the giant faces of four white invaders carved into a mountain offensive to native Americans? Where's the outrage over that?"

      Stupid false equivalence, you're better than that. The fact that people aren't going after every single target you can think of does not invalidate the objections against the ones they are.

      But, there's a slight difference between the founders of a nation that was established long after the invasion had occurred and monuments to people who literally fought against that country in order to retain the right to keep others as slaves. Statues that were often erected in direct support of the rise of the KKK and other racist movements. The situation differs depending on where and what we're referring to, but there's a huge difference in both the message and intent.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Rekrul, 17 Aug 2017 @ 11:20am

        Re: Re:

        If you're referring to the statues that have been the target of outrage since Charlottesville, there's your answer.

        No, I'm talking about statues that were targeted for removal before Charlottesville. The white supremacists were there to protest the fact that the monuments were already going to be removed. As others have been. As various groups have been demanding for a few months now. I could be remembering it wrong, but this current push seemed to start with the incident where the protestor tore down a confederate flag a while back. After that, people started screaming that all reminders of the confederacy must be destroyed.

        But, there's a slight difference between the founders of a nation that was established long after the invasion had occurred and monuments to people who literally fought against that country in order to retain the right to keep others as slaves. Statues that were often erected in direct support of the rise of the KKK and other racist movements.

        Were these statues ever rallying points for white supremacists before people started demanding that they be torn down? Were these statues really inspiring people to be more openly racist? And more importantly, does anyone think that tearing them down is somehow going to make people less racist?

        The way I see it, some people were offended by the statues, but the the white supremacists were mostly keeping to themselves, other than occasional clashes. Now that people have made an issue of getting rid of the statues (again, this was going on before Charlottesville), they've stirred up a hornet's nest. Once all the statues are gone, the racists are unlikely to smile and say it's better this way. More likely they'll be angrier than ever.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 18 Aug 2017 @ 1:47am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "I could be remembering it wrong, but this current push seemed to start with the incident where the protestor tore down a confederate flag a while back. After that, people started screaming that all reminders of the confederacy must be destroyed."

          A battle flag representing the states that literally tried to set up another country based on the fact that someone tried taking their slaves away has upset some people. Weird, isn't it?

          You can argue why this particular situation has come to a head, but let's be honest - to a lot of people these things have been highly offensive since they were first installed. If the people who suddenly feel they have to defend them are literal Nazis, that just strengthens the opposing argument.

          "Now that people have made an issue of getting rid of the statues (again, this was going on before Charlottesville), they've stirred up a hornet's nest. Once all the statues are gone, the racists are unlikely to smile and say it's better this way"

          Honestly, a lot of people lost their shit when a black man got into power, and now they feel empowered themselves because a white supremacist sympathiser is in the White House. The statue argument is a symptom, not a cause.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Rekrul, 19 Aug 2017 @ 7:29am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            A battle flag representing the states that literally tried to set up another country based on the fact that someone tried taking their slaves away has upset some people. Weird, isn't it?

            So you draw up a petition, get people's support and you pressure the government to do the right thing.

            Or you climb the pole, rip down the flag and declare that all symbols of the Confederacy must be destroyed NOW.

            Which one is more likely to incite protests and violence?

            You can argue why this particular situation has come to a head, but let's be honest - to a lot of people these things have been highly offensive since they were first installed. If the people who suddenly feel they have to defend them are literal Nazis, that just strengthens the opposing argument.

            The statues were already scheduled for removal. The people who wanted them removed had already won. Would an unopposed protest really have convinced the city to let them stay?

            Honestly, a lot of people lost their shit when a black man got into power, and now they feel empowered themselves because a white supremacist sympathiser is in the White House. The statue argument is a symptom, not a cause.

            In my opinion, it would have been much better to gradually remove the statues one at a time, and maybe relocate them to some kind of indoor exhibit out of the public's sight. That way the white supremacists aren't losing all their symbols all at once and they still exist, just not out in the open where people have to see them every day. They could even charge for admission which would raise money for the city and discourage people from going to see them. They could even turn it into an example of glorifying the wrong people.

            But this wouldn't satisfy the people who are demanding that all the statues be torn down immediately. They want change NOW damn it! And if it results in violence confrontations, and people getting hurt, well that's just the price we'll have to pay. On the bright side, a few more clashes like Charlottesville should help grease the way for some hate speech laws so we can finally lock up people just for being racist! Win-win!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 Aug 2017 @ 7:09am

      Re:

      A monument to the Founding Fathers celebrates their role in the creation of this country. Those flawed men laid the groundwork for the laws and principles which govern this country today.

      A monument to the Confederacy celebrates a group of traitors who seceded from the US to preserve the institution of slavery. They started a war over the right to buy, sell, and trade people as if they were property.

      If you see an absolute equivalence between the two and think one cannot be celebrated without the other, you have a lot more thinking to do.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Rekrul, 17 Aug 2017 @ 11:25am

        Re: Re:

        A monument to the Founding Fathers celebrates their role in the creation of this country. Those flawed men laid the groundwork for the laws and principles which govern this country today.

        Laws which are often used to screw over Native Americans. The simple fact is that all white men in this country are basically invaders who stole it from its rightful owners. That four men were a little better than the rest still doesn't make them right.

        Besides, didn't two of those guys own slaves, making Rushmore just as offensive as the statues of the people who tried to preserve slavery?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 Aug 2017 @ 2:16pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I agree that the history of the United States deserves a far more honest recounting. We all must reckon with the historical truth: The United States was founded by White colonists who stole land from and killed Native peoples, built a country on the backs of enslaved Black people, and created laws that centred around White supremacy.

          At the same time, public statuary exists to define a cultural mythology. A statue to Robert E. Lee does not exist to tell an unvarnished history of his life. It exists to mythologize Lee as a hero, a patriot, a proud soldier, etc. Confederacy statues mythologize a group of secessionist traitors who fought and lost a war with the rest of the United States over the right to preserve slavery—in other words, those statues celebrate them as heroes.

          Statuary dedicated to the Founding Fathers mythologizes those flawed, imperfect men as the heroic founders of our nation. Whatever their flaws and horrible deeds, they did still come together and forge a set of documents that became the foundation for our nation’s laws and principles. No, they did not free the slaves. No, they did not give equal rights to women. They did not get it perfect. But we still respect and mythologize their actions as the Founding Fathers because that mythology better defines what this country can hope to be.

          Which mythology would you prefer we celebrate: The founding of our country by a group of imperfect men in an imperfect time, or the betrayal of our country by a group of racist traitors who wanted to preserve slavery?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2017 @ 7:21am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Which mythology would you prefer we celebrate: The founding of our country by a group of imperfect men in an imperfect time, or the betrayal of our country by a group of racist traitors who wanted to preserve slavery?"

            Who gets to choose? What happens when someone you don't agree with is the one making the decisions? Your position seems very short sighted to me.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 19 Aug 2017 @ 7:32am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Who gets to choose?

              I…uh…you really want to choose between celebrating the founding of an imperfect nation by imperfect men and celebrating an attempt to preserve the institution of slavery?

              Really?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2017 @ 12:49pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I suggest you study a bit more history. Slavery was considered a "state right". It was a horrible thing, and I'm glad it was abolished, but in and of itself (arguably)not the reason the civil war started. The civil war was about state vrs federal power/rights. The southern states believed that the federal government did not have the right to tell them how to run their state and to dictate laws to them. Slavery was one of the issues, but it was NOT the cause.

                To some; those monuments don't represent "white power" or "slavery", they are there to remind us of the states responsibility to keep the federal government in check, and to remind us of what happens when we ignore humanity.

                Taking them down because you believe they are a "celebration" of slavery is just dumb. Short sighed and dumb.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 19 Aug 2017 @ 1:55pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  The civil war was about state vrs federal power/rights.

                  Yes, it was—specifically, it was about the Confederate states wanting to preserve the right of slavery. Damn near every statement on the matter by actual Confederate leaders says the secession and the war were about preserving slavery.

                  To some; those monuments don't represent "white power" or "slavery", they are there to remind us of the states responsibility to keep the federal government in check, and to remind us of what happens when we ignore humanity.

                  The Confederacy ignored the humanity of the people they decided were worth more as property than as people. The Confederacy seceded from, and fought a losing war with, the United States over the right to treat Black men as less than human based only on the color of their skin.

                  And by the way, those statues which you so lovingly want to preserve? Most of them went up in the first half of the 20th Century—well after the Civil War had ended; during the era of Dred Scott laws, the Klan’s biggest rise to prominence, and “separate but equal”; and certainly before the Civil Rights Movement went mainstream across the nation. Those statues were erected as a form of intimidation—a way of reminding Black Americans that in spite of being free and having some civil rights, White Americans were, and always would be, the ones in charge. After all, that was the cause for which the Confederacy fought.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2017 @ 1:20pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "And by the way, those statues which you so lovingly want to preserve?"

                    Are you an idiot? I think ALL monuments should be preserved, especially the ones that we don't like. They provoke thought and conversation and hopefully stand as a reminder of the mistakes we've made. You think tearing them down will make it all better? That these monuments somehow glorify hate? Tomb stones in Cali? Old Joe in Gainesville? You think a monument in memory of the confederate fallen is a symbol of slavery? What about monuments glorifying the mass murders of our Native Americans? Time to start cutting them down too?

                    I could make a list of monuments as long as my arm that offend me as a Native American. That does not mean we should form a mob and start pulling them down and spitting on them. They stand to provoke thought and debate and for us to remember our history and mistakes. I hope they stand forever.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2017 @ 6:54am

    How much of this is real and how much of this is just another way to try to get rid of Trump?

    200 Nazi's show up and it is international news? I think most of this is just hype to get rid of Trump.

    Yeah, I want to get rid of Trump too, but don't think that it is about "changing racism."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 Aug 2017 @ 7:05am

      Re:

      At least two hundred armed men and women marching into a US city under the banner of White supremacy and Nazism—and eventually causing the death of one woman—should be international news. When was the last time you heard about a gathering of White supremacists and Neo-Nazis that large marching within the US? Hell, when was the last time you heard about any such gathering, of any size, marching in broad daylight without the anonymizing comfort of Klan hoods?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2017 @ 1:35pm

        Re: Re:

        I seriously doubt they were all armed.

        So 200 out of how many? 300 million?

        Fuck you. Don't know, but probably at least 10 people were murdered in Chicago that weekend. Where is the protest for that? Today, some dickhead killed numerous people in Spain.

        Spare me your hysterics. So 200 retards showed up to a protest? We want to make a big deal about that? Is that a fucking national movement?

        More like a bowel movement.

        Its all just political folly to advance an agenda. No one gives a shit about the statues, no one gives a shit about Nazis. Well, may they do, but they were not at that protest, that is for sure.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 Aug 2017 @ 2:21pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          no one gives a shit about Nazis

          Judging by the overwhelming reaction to the marches they pulled in Charlottesville and the past five-and-a-half days of numerous individuals, businesses, corporations, and politicians doing everything they can to disavow any possible connections to Neo-Nazis and White supremacists? I would say people give a giant, nut-encrusted, smellier-than-a-skunk shit about Nazis.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Teamchaos (profile), 17 Aug 2017 @ 1:45pm

    It’s times like these that all Americans must do some soul searching. Diversity is hard, but as a recent article in the WSJ pointed out, it’s worth the effort. Diversity of opinion is perhaps even more difficult.

    Few in the media will note that the ACLU went to court to defend the neo-Nazi’s right to protest in Charlottesville. Even though the opinions expressed are repugnant to any rational human, these groups have the right to peacefully demonstrate. Unfortunately, there are violent groups in America who champion, not free speech, but ‘right’ speech and believe that any opinion they don’t agree with must be violently opposed.

    The Orwellian name for one of these groups is the Antifa or anti-fascist. These and other movements appear to have the support of many in the media, some politicians, and even some in the clergy.

    As Americans, we must stand against violent extremist groups on the left as well as those on the right. Those who seek to shutdown opposing opinions through violence must ALSO be denounced as anti-American hate groups.

    The path of intolerance, as demonstrated by these groups, will lead us to another civil war.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Thanks To Our Sponsors

The Techdirt Free Speech Edition
is a partnership with

with sponsorship from:

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.