Observant observers will note that the dates coincide with last year’s “Unite The Right” Rally in Charlottesville as well as with the day that Heather Heyers was killed by James Fields (and many others were injured, of course).
I don’t have any thoughts to share right now concerning Mr. Kessler and his friends that wouldn’t be considered vile and way out of line for a civilized person to have, let alone express. But my blood boils when I read/hear things like this:
Yeah, see, this guy somehow thinks he’s the aggrieved party here.
:eek:
Rebuttal:
Mr. Kessler’s myopia leads him to disagree, of course.
I would very much like for this to be the last White Power/Racist rally in America for quite some time. I would like for this to happen so much, that I might find it difficult to criticize whatever methods were employed to ensure that outcome. I’d like to see 100,000 or more show up to protest the 400 Nazis and remind them that Americans hate Nazis (particularly Illinois Nazis, I should point out) so much that Americans actually stopped everything and went to war so we could legally kill Nazis.
The Park Service will likely issue the permit; do counter-protest groups need one or can they just show up? What if it’s not actually a group, just 100,000 like-minded people all independently deciding to head down to Lafayette Park on those two days to yell at Nazis?
Well, as a white person, my right to call minorities racial slurs and treat other races as less than human without repercussion has been severely degraded. Maybe that’s what the Rally is for?
“Why can’t I say ‘nigger’ when black rappers can? It’s raaaaaciiiist!”
I will admit to some prejudice though, I would probably hire a non-white person preferably to a nazi, I’m a product of my time though and set in my ways. We must look to the younger generation to ensure racial purity.
The EU countries have mostly pretty good track records when it comes to civil rights (though Hungary has fallen off the wagon recently), and yet we have a serious problem with human trafficking from Eastern Europe - “white” girls sold into prostitution and labour “agreements” that are difficult to distinguish from slavery in practice (no matter that it doesn’t exist legally).
Latvia discriminates its Russian minority also in law. Russia discriminates non-Russians in, well, far too many ways to address them in a single post.
Bosnia and Serbia are no innocents either.
“White” people face civil rights abuses whereever those are common; and, of course, lets not forget that more than half of all white people are women – and they have plenty to say about their struggle for equal rights.
Having said that, Snowboarder Bo’s conclusion sounds fine to me.
Not really; these people are just the classic Useful Idiots complaining about the* wrong* things. There’s plenty of white people who are abused or oppressed for one reason or the other; it’s just not the fault of the blacks, or Jews, or Hispanics, or any of the other groups neo-Nazis like this blame. It’s the fault of people like Trump and the Republicans, the very groups such racists support (thus the “Useful” part of “Useful Idiots”).
Which is just like the original version. Weimar Germany had plenty of real problems; but it wasn’t the fault of the Jews or the imaginary “November criminals” like the Nazis claimed.
In Lafayette Park, you say? I wonder what would happen if 100,000 random citizens of DC decided to have a picnic in Lafayette Park and got there really early? So that there wasn’t room for the Nazis to rally.
The sad part is how often I hear just that from these kinds of people. They just don’t seem to get that there’s a world of difference between “-er” (pejorative/slur) and “-a” (neutral or term of endearment). On the latter, I do have issue with other black people who fault white people for using the “hard a” version. I have white friends who use it, including to refer to me, and that’s fine. To me it’s no different than “bro”, “homie”, etc. Context is key.
That’s not really how such fraught language works. You can decide what it means for you, but you can’t determine what it means for others when it comes from you. Like it or not, the world is a complex place, and with such fraught language, the race of the users of words with such a terrible history associated with racism and oppression can strongly affect how its usage is perceived by others.
That interpretation is debatable at best. “Hireling” probably refers to the mercenaries that England employed. “Slave” refers to the impressed British sailors. This language was also used in the Revolutionary war.
Anyway, Fuck the nazis. That said, is it better to confront a movement that is expected to draw no more than 400 people from across the country, or should they be ignored and deprived of the attention they desperately crave? If there’s a lot of people going to the counter-protest, I’ll probably join them, though.
Is this associated with that wuss motherfucker that was talking all that shit for the cameras before the rally, then turned into a cry baby asshole later when he found out the cops wanted to speak with him? What became of that douchebag?
While I’m here, fuck that asshole, fuck pampered ass kahki nazis, I hope the rally is struck by an earthquake and all of those fucksticks have their spines snapped falling into the earth and then get buried in a torrent of tiki torches, flags, stones and mud.
Then the spot is spat upon.
Y’know, it’s a funny thing, but I’ve never found a particular need to call anyone a “nigger” (or “nigga”), and my life has been impacted not at all by the social unacceptability of using either of those words. I wonder why that might be?
I have this to say to Tracye Redd: Get the fuck off my side, you moron.
There is no legal definition of “hate speech” in American law, and that’s how it should be. “Hate speech” is a deliberately nebulous concept, something which is used to silence opposition, and it should never be defined in American law. Therefore, what she said is, one, legally incoherent, but, more to the point, two, indicative that she doesn’t like our strong free speech protections. And to that I say, do you think the establishment wouldn’t have banned Martin Luther King’s speeches as hate speech if they had the chance? Why do you think you have the right to speak the way you do? Do you think censorship can’t be used aganst good ideas as well as bad?
Yes, the idiots put people’s lives in danger. That isn’t because of their speech, it’s because of their actions.
But he explicitly says its just about promoting white people, nothing against people who aren’t white! Accusing them of racism is wrong. That’s just tearing down without building up, it so negative! This is a positive celebration of white, like Sound of Music but with swastikas!
Canada has hate speech laws. They are carefully crafted as a balance between the best interests of a peaceful society and the constitutionally enshrined right of free speech. Martin Luther King wasn’t banned in Canada. He was in Toronto in 1967 without a problem, giving one of the famous Massey Lectures to great acclaim. Dangerous neo-Nazis have, however, been banned from Canada, or subsequently deported.
Admittedly the hate speech laws weren’t enacted until (I believe) the 1980s, but that isn’t the point. The point is that absolutism in law because you don’t trust the government or don’t trust the courts is rarely beneficial, mainly because it doesn’t work anyway. In the 1950s during the Red Scare you could get arrested and jailed in many US states for being a supporter of communism, not to mention, at a minimum, having your life ruined. Look up McCarthyism, the Communist Control Act of 1954, or these things, which had no problem coming into force despite the much-vaunted First Amendment:
In addition to the Federal laws and responding to the worries of the local opinion, several states enacted anti-Communist statutes.
By 1952, several states had enacted statutes against criminal anarchy, criminal syndicalism and sedition, banned from public employment or even from receiving public aid Communists and “subversives,” asked for loyalty oaths from public servants, and severily restricted or even banned the Communist party; in addition, six states, among them California[40] (see California Senate Factfinding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities) had equivalents to the HUAC.[41]
Some of these states had very severe, or even extreme, laws against Communism. In 1950, Michigan enacted life imprisonment for subversive propaganda; the following year, Tennessee enacted death penalty for advocating the violent overthrow of the government.[41] Death penalty for membership of the Communist party was discussed in Texas by Governor Allan Shivers, who described it as “worse than murder.”[42][43]
Municipalities and counties also enacted anti-Communist ordinances: Los Angeles banned any Communist or “Muscovite model of police-state dictatorship” from owning any arm and Birmingham, Alabama and Jacksonville, Florida banned any Communist from being within the city’s limits.
