A Twitter friend of mine in the C’ville area reports that these assholes intend to go to C’ville before going on to Washington, DC.
If anyone is attacked, injured or killed (like the last big disaster) the leaders and organizers and “speechifiers” should be formally charged with incitement to violence.
How about instead of silly music, play “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and see if they get that message.
Look at what’s left of your post when I quote it. It boils down to saying “nuh-uh!” and blaming someone else (wolfpup) for your own lack of knowledge or research on a term you used (hate speech). You still pretend that “hate speech” means “censor anything I don’t like.” That’s as stupid as thinking that about defamation (e.g. libel, slander) means "censor anything I don’t like.)
All you did was tell me that you can’t form a counterargument to anything I said. If I were you, I’d reassess who looks like what.
Brilliant. Antifa is what they WANT. They would like nothing better than masked people attacking them. However, mockery is what the deserve.
Right, but it only takes a few Antifas to allow the alt-reich’s narrative of oppression to continue. And all of them will never agree to stay away. Then the people who advocate ignoring them will tut-tut the rest of America and say “why didn’t we just ignore them? Maybe that will work.” even though it had already been tried. It’s like the theory of ignoring trolls that never works - just a few feeders will allow anti-troll zealots to say “why does EVERYONE here keep feeding the trolls” when it is actually only a few.
I thought these guys were too busy screwing each other’s wives and mothers to organize another march. Oh well…
None of the concepts under discussion define themselves exactly. However rejection of the concept of prohibited ‘hate speech’, as US courts have under the first amendment, doesn’t mean people can say anything in any context. Inciting violence is illegal in the US, but has been interpreted to require a direct call for violence against particular people in a context where the result will be immediate and there’s no room or time for competing ideas to be expressed and considered.
The concept can’t just be that violence tends to result when Group X demonstrates publicly. That would mean anti-Group X activists could just show up at Group X rallies, make sure there’s violence, and thus shut Group X up. That’s not workable and not the system anywhere. I think Canada’s system is misguided, should never be adopted in the US, but in fairness that’s not what it is.
A ‘hate speech’ system is not about preventing incitement to violence which is already prohibited in the US. It’s about banning speech that’s democratically (in the context of democracies) decided to have no redeeming value. People in favor of that concept should not obfuscate it by claiming it’s all about incitement to violence, then twisting and stretching the definition of ‘incitement’. They should just admit it’s about banning nearly universally disagreed with opinions on sensitive topics for the good of society as a whole as they see it. That’s what it is. I disagree with that concept, I think the slippery slope problem is just too big.
Each other’s wives and their own mothers.
ISWYDT.
Oh, and fuck a bunch of nazis.
This is a whole lot of words in no way rebutting what was said. Human trafficking is immensely more an issue for people of color than white people, although not exclusively. To take a pitting against white supremacists and make it all BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WHITE WOMENS is offensive and I say that as a white woman. Here, in this country which is the one we’re currently discussing, white women continue to benefit from privilege and speaking loudly to quiet minority voices instead of amplifying them.
Whataboutism is a political cancer that is giving me a twitchy eye.
Operation American Spring 2.0, Maybe Well get three digit numbers this time!
Canada didn’t have hate speech laws in the 60’s afaik. They were introduced in the 80’s. Not that MLK would have run afoul of them anyway.
This was said by Jasmine:
In case you still need to hear this reiterated, the part of my reply you quoted was not addressing the thread opening post but Jasmine’s broad-brushed statement, which wasn’t discussing white supremacists at all - unless you want to argue that “white people” equals “white supremacists”. Do you?
The one part of my post that was actually addressing the thread opener and the group that incited this pitting, you chose to leave out when you quoted me.
All about it? The discrimination against Russsians in Latvia, a multitude of minorities in Russia, Bosnia and Serbia are all examples about “white women”? You complained about “a whole lot of words” and all you saw being mentioned were white women? Then I haven’t used enough words. You want to read more examples of Civil Rights violations suffered by people regardless of their “race”?
Yet, ironically, I will reply specifically to one claim within the quote mentioned above that deals with, oh well, white women (as you describe them): “white women continue to benefit from privilege”.
I don’t doubt that many do; but just like Jasmine, you’re generalizing in a way that makes your statement untrue, because it would not be hard to point to “white” people who live in deep poverty and/or lack basic education and might have plenty of other reasons to be justified to call their lifes miserable - even in the USA.
If someone leads a hard life, is it somehow easier because the average sharing the same racial classification is better off than other people?
This is always a problem when you think of people in categories, and not look at them as individuals. You might be well-meaning, but you won’t do people justice - and, sadly, you repeat the mistake made by those you want to distance yourself from.
It is. But if you think my reply was a whataboutery, you might want to re-check the definition of a tu-quoque fallacy. No appeal to hypocracy was made, no relativization was expressed.
Over-generalizations are neither helpful nor true. They need to be challenged, no matter what political idea pushes them into a debate.
Then please go start your own thread, dude; stop shitting all over this one. Yes, you’re shitting in it. You brought up a completely unrelated topic that was only relevant because you ignored all context of the thread. I like you, but you were way off base with your first post in this thread; continuing the run around all the bases isn’t necessary or desired in any way by anyone but you.
You’re right, sorry for distracting from your point. If she wishes to continue the discussion, I’m fine with it but we should indeed do so elsewhere.
True. It is a deliberate trainwreck, designed to bullshit us away from the real question or discussion. And, the supposed “equivalence” is damn near never there anyway.
I think this is a great idea- but not just any picnic.
Make sure it’s a B.B.Q. A really big B.B.Q. !!!
( And we could have themed side-dish competitions, like " Slaw-ter on Tenth Avenue " )
You’re both wrong!
The hate speech provisions of the ‘‘Criminal Code’’ were came into force on June 11, 1970: ‘‘An Act to amend the Criminal Code’’, SC 1970, c. 39. (Can’t cite to an on-line version; my source is a pay-service.)
Not that it affected Dr King any. 
Derleth, I went back and dug out the Vigna case. As Wolfpup says, it’s a libel action. I was under the impression that you have libel laws in the US, but if I’m wrong about that, I’m sure you’ll correct me.
As well, the judgment makes it clear why the libel action succeeded. Levant was essentially saying that a lawyer, Vigna, made up an excuse for seeking an adjournment from a tribunal he was appearing before, because of a vague statement that there were things going on in his life that affected his mental state. At the libel action, it came out that what was happening was that Vigna had been threatened the previous night and some of Vigna’s colleauges were being followed about, raising issues about their personal security. Levant also said, erroneously, that Vigna never complied with his undertaking to the tribunal that he would provide a doctor’s certificate relating to his health, even a year later, and also that Vigna had lied to the tribunal. In fact, Vigna had provided the medical certificate to the tribunal within three days, and it confirmed his need for an adjournment.
I don’t know about libel law in your state, but in Canada, making false statements about the way a professional carries out his/her professional duties is a very serious matter. Alleging that a lawyer has lied to a tribunal or a court, in the course of appearing before that tribunal or court, is very serious and goes to the lawyer’s reputation. So too is an allegation that a lawyer has not complied with an undertaking to the tribunal or court. Lying to a tribunal or court, and breach of an undertaking, are both very serious professional allegations. If true, so be it. But if made falsely, with reckless disregard to the truth, then such statements have always potentially been the basis for a successful libel suit.
But that’s not the end of it. The defendant in a libel suit has defences. The Court here went very carefully went through all the normal defences relating to libel: fair comment, matter of public interest, due diligence, timely publication of an apology/retraction, and found that Levant had failed in every one. That’s why Levant was found civilly liable to Vigna for damages to his reputation as a lawyer.
Of course, your source article just substitutes mockery for any reasoned legal analysis, because it appears to like Levant’s views on free speech. But at these boards, we should be trying for reasoned debate, not mockery, as the basis to persuade.
Here’s a link to the judgment:
Vigna v Levant, 2010 ONSC 6308.
So, just out of curiousity: are you saying that in the US, if a person accuses a lawyer of lying to a court or tribunal, and of breaching professional standards, and the court found that as a fact the defendant made false statements, with reckless disregard to the truth, no libel action would lie?