Now I know what’s been nagging at me about the thread title.
There’s a memory/broadcast announcer’s test that I learned as a child and have never forgotten*, which goes something like this**:
One hen
Two ducks
Three squawking geese
Four Limerick oysters
Five corpulent porpoises
Six pair of Don Alverzo’s tweezers
Seven thousand Macedonians in full battle array
Eight brass monkeys from the ancient sacred crypts of Egypt
Nine apathetic, sympathetic, diabetic old men on roller skates, with a marked propensity towards
indolence and sloth
Ten lyrical, spherical, diabolical denizens of the deep who hall stall around the corner of the quo of
the quay of the quivery*
To which we can now add:
Two hundred idiotic ACLU staffers
*my other great achivement in this realm is being able to recite Jabberwocky from memory.
**there are numerous variations.
So says the guy that comes to threads like this one ignoring that the nazis used more than just hate speech. Also a guy that ignores that the fascists hindered the speech of the ones opossed to them.
Nope I hit the Bulls eye. You do ignore key items to make your points sound reasonable when they are not.
From the report of the NYT that the OP linked about:
The point I made stands, and you indeed are ignoring why the dissenters of the ACLU made the letter. IMHO the defense of the Nazis and racists should continue, I do think that the ACLU should also remind their clients that there are limits to their defense once violence enters the picture.
The day an intelligent layman with a strong interest in civil liberties issues cannot opine about it but should leave it to the (tiny minority of the population who could legitimately claim to be) experts, is a sad day and one that kind of misses the whole point IMO.
And yes, my confidence is high. Did you listen to the podcast? If you are right, then the people the NYT interviewed, including one of the signees and multiple people who are highly placed within the ACLU, completely misunderstood or misrepresented what the letter said. I rather doubt that. But it’s possible. I will give it about a 3% chance.
I guess I’m more of an extremist than Jeffrey Douglas then. I think (to turn it around to perhaps better illustrate) a BLM activist should have every right to say very clearly so news cameras can hear, “Watch this: I’m gonna get that Nazi piece of shit over there to throw the first punch so I can lay him out.” Then he walks over, tells the guy with the swastika armband, “You know your pasty white sister is dying to get reamed out by my big black cock.” Then Swastika Boy throws the punch as predicted, and our hero from BLM dodges the blow and fires back with a haymaker that leaves the Nazi unconscious, bloody, and missing several teeth. That should be absolutely legal IMO.
So it makes sense to you for the courts to spend time and resources parsing whether “I’d tap that ass” or “Give it to me, baby” crosses the line where “she deserves to be raped” resides? What about “she doesn’t deserve to be raped” followed by a wink? Jesus, think about what you’re proposing. Just the logistics should tell you you’re on the wrong path, even if your ethical weathervane is that broken.
Maybe a teensy bit. But mostly not, because guns are physical objects, products, that are extremely dangerous (physically). We don’t allow people to buy grenades, howitzers, or surface-to-air missiles. So there is no real absolutist Second Amendment position, except for a truly insane one that is perhaps held by a vanishingly small number of kooky militia types. And if you banned all guns, but had robust protection of speech and assembly, the people who oppose the gun ban could agitate to change the law back. If you are allowed to ban speech, then…not so much. Any entrenched policy or regime can protect that entrenchment.
If you agree that the need is greater, then certainly feel free to donate more.
But even a dime donation to the ACLU from conservatives would accomplish more than just continuing to sit on their lazy asses and tsk-tsk about how some liberals are “destroying” civil liberties while they don’t do jack-shit to support civil liberties themselves.
Hate speech =/= “being an offensive prick”. There’s no hypocrisy there. I’ll be a hypocrite when I start calling for all white people to be sent back to Eurasia, or Christians to be kicked out of my country, or men to be raped for daring to speak up about something.
Of course, only an idiot couldn’t tell the difference, like the kind of idiot who gangbangs cactuses without protection…off you go.
I am pro-ACLU in theory. But damn, they are a bunch of annoying gits. I made the mistake of joining when I lived in Albuquerque from 1990-91. Fuck me! I was then inundated with a constant stream of mailings begging for more money. I finally ditched them when I moved to Hawaii the first time and didn’t tell them. They may still be flooding my old mailbox with requests!
I don’t see a logistical problem here -
just re-allocate those resources currently being spent on prosecuting minorities disproportionately for harmless drug crimes, defending cops who murder unarmed teenagers, prosecuting harmless environmental activists, and trying to take away reproductive rights from women. It would not surprise me at all if there’s an overwhelming saving for the public fiscus.
Considering the shitstain who thinks I’m demented, I don’t give a fuck. You’re a dumb, partisan, assholish, Neanderthal son of a bitch, I wear opprobrium from you and your loutish clique as a badge of pride.
You’re acting fucking demented. Right now you remind me of Der Trihs on a bad day, except less capable of actually arguing your point. You’re like a cross between his formless rage and elucidator’s semi-incoherent ramblings (which are inoffensive and rather charming as they are right now, don’t get me wrong, but combined with hyperpartisan anger, it’s like pouring water on a gremlin).