Unite the Right Racist Scum

[Richard_Parker]

New ACLU policy. Whatever makes octopus mad is good. Working on it…

[wonky]

@octopus

Let’s say for sake of argument after you post reasonable statement someone says “shut your mouth Nazi bitch.” What would that add? Do you think that those words even in the Pit are going to make the overall board a better place? What do they accomplish?

Just out of curiosity, do you think calling someone a retard is somehow better than calling them a Nazi bitch? You insult people a lot, then cry you are being insulted…

… oh my god. I just realized I’m talking to Trump.

By the way, do you have an answer for the question about whether free speech is destroyed if ISIS can’t march? It’s not a research question; it’s a philosophical one. Brush off those synapses and shine! Try to overcome my obvious illiteracy through sheer willpower!

[octopus]

@jsgoddess

Just out of curiosity, do you think calling someone a retard is somehow better than calling them a Nazi bitch? You insult people a lot, then cry you are being insulted…

… oh my god. I just realized I’m talking to Trump.

By the way, do you have an answer for the question about whether free speech is destroyed if ISIS can’t march? It’s not a research question; it’s a philosophical one. Brush off those synapses and shine! Try to overcome my obvious illiteracy through sheer willpower!

Is calling someone a retard better than a Nazi bitch? Well when one is accurate and the other isn’t. I don’t start by calling people a retard. I call people a retard after I’m called a Nazi for saying Nazis have the right to speak. One is true the other is not.

So yes it’s better.

I thought about the ISIS thing. Are the people banned from marching because they aren’t allowed in the US or are we banning the idea that these people are marching for? I think we have the right to enforce our borders. But citizens who want to march carrying an ISIS flag and saying death to whatever ISIS doesn’t like I think is protected and should be protected.

[BlankSlate]

Octopus, mighty white defender of the downtrodden neo-Nazi? Or is it just dickhead signalling?

[wonky]

@octopus

I thought about the ISIS thing. Are the people banned from marching because they aren’t allowed in the US or are we banning the idea that these people are marching for? I think we have the right to enforce our borders. But citizens who want to march carrying an ISIS flag and saying death to whatever ISIS doesn’t like I think is protected and should be protected.

Not the question. If ISIS weren’t allowed to march, or if there were a group that wasn’t allowed to march, would free speech be destroyed?

[Spice_Weasel]

@octopus

I thought about the ISIS thing. Are the people banned from marching because they aren’t allowed in the US or are we banning the idea that these people are marching for? I think we have the right to enforce our borders. But citizens who want to march carrying an ISIS flag and saying death to whatever ISIS doesn’t like I think is protected and should be protected.

I agree that free speech is an important value, but I do have to wonder at what point it stretches its intended purpose. Let’s imagine for the sake of argument that we get to the point that every Nazi rally in the country results in some Nazis killing some anti-racist activists. (Or vice-versa… people are dying, is what I’m saying.) At what point does this ‘‘freedom of speech’’ concept break down, when it will obviously result in violence?

To put it another way, how can you know that someone’s intent is ‘‘peaceful’’ until after the violence has already occurred? What do we do when people are effectively using these flashpoints to massacre people like sitting ducks? Can we call those groups terrorists and stop them from gathering for the purposes of doing violence? Or is that basically the definition of war? Is that how wars begin?

Because that’s what I’m seeing in places like Charlottesville. I’m seeing people who show up with the intent to do violence against opponents who will retaliate with violence. I’m seeing people who go to these events because they want to make war.

I’m curious if we have any historical or legal precedent in that regard.

[wonky]

@Richard_Parker

New ACLU policy. Whatever makes octopus mad is good. Working on it…

I think he’d lose his shit if he saw one of their tweets today about Charlottesville. But then he’d call them illiterate and hurt their feelings, and I want to protect them from that atrocity.

[octopus]

@jsgoddess

I think he’d lose his shit if he saw one of their tweets today about Charlottesville. But then he’d call them illiterate and hurt their feelings, and I want to protect them from that atrocity.

Show me the tweet.

[Richard_Parker]

ACLU of CA:

Our country’s greatest strengths are the diversity of its people and the principles of equal dignity and inclusion that unite us all. There are troubling events planned in our state in the coming weeks. This is an incredibly painful and difficult time for millions of Californians. For those who are wondering where we stand — the ACLU of California fully supports the freedom of speech and expression, as well as the freedom to peacefully assemble. We review each request for help on a case-by-case basis, but take the clear position that the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence. If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution. The First Amendment should never be used as a shield or sword to justify violence.

ACLU National

We agree with every word in the statement from our colleagues in California. The First Amendment absolutely does not protect white supremacists seeking to incite or engage in violence. We condemn the views of white supremacists, and fight against them every day. At the same time, we believe that even odious hate speech, with which we vehemently disagree, garners the protection of the First Amendment when expressed non-violently. We make decisions on whom we’ll represent and in what context on a case-by-case basis. The horrible events in Charlottesville last weekend will certainly inform those decisions going forward.

[Spice_Weasel]

I goddamn love the ACLU.

[octopus]

@Richard_Parker

ACLU of CA:

ACLU National

Ok. I don’t see anything to disagree with there.

[SteveG1]

@Lemur866

With his kind, it’s more that the lefties cannot, cannot, cannot be allowed to have a “win”. No matter what happens–including a murderous Nazi rally–you have to argue that it’s the left wing’s fault, because politics is a zero-sum game, and any win by the liberals is a loss for the conservatives.

It’s the same thing that motivated Trump. Trump isn’t any more racist than he should be. It’s just that everything has to be blamed on the other side, never mind that it puts him on the same side as the Klan and the Aryan Brotherhood.

I’m sure Octo doesn’t exactly enjoy defending Nazis, but he has no choice, they’re being attacked by liberals, and so he has to defend them, because liberals are always wrong.

Oh no, Trump really IS a racist and always has been. He and his daddy have been sued at least twice over it, regarding rentals that were only available to whites, in New York. Both times they “settled”. meaning they were guilty and wanted to cut their losses. And that was just the start.

[SteveG1]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

This is why I think “Punch a Nazi” is not okay. This kind of thing is what changed my mind. Because there are a disturbing number of people who can’t draw the line and say, “Okay, if we’re going to turn ‘Nazi’ into a grouping that we can abuse, dox, and punch, we need to be very clear on who is and who is not a Nazi.” I can’t trust you (or many other people) to draw the line between obnoxious jerks on the right and literal Nazis.

If the guy has a flag and is sieg heiling, it’s probably a pretty safe bet. If the guy attacked first, all bets are off. If his talk is incitement to violence (they love that shit), feed him to the police.

Doxxing? Take all the pictures you want. If he’s brave enough to strap on a gun and wave a Nazi flag and talk about “blood and soil” or killing “whoever”, he is brave enough to let everyone know. And I mean everyone.

[SteveG1]

@jsgoddess

He was trying to claim that attacks on his POV are attacks on the ACLU and the Supreme Court because he’s only saying the same things they have said.

Freedom of speech says we have the right and duty to call his bullshit out. We don’t NOT have to tolerate or respect it.

Attacks on bullshit are just that. The constitution and supreme court and the ACLU say we have the right to yell “That’s bullshit and you suck”.

The snowflake can deal with that.

[wonky]

@Spice_Weasel

I goddamn love the ACLU.

They do good work and they understand nuance. Both are important.

[SteveG1]

@jsgoddess

They do good work and they understand nuance. Both are important.

They understand the difference between free speech and threat/intimidation/incitement.

[octopus]

@SteveG1

They understand the difference between free speech and threat/intimidation/incitement.

Shame you don’t. And you actually advocated violence as well.

[wonky]

@SteveG1

They understand the difference between free speech and threat/intimidation/incitement.

They understand there is a difference. Where they draw the line won’t be the same place every other reasonable person would draw it.

[SteveG1]

@jsgoddess

They understand there is a difference. Where they draw the line won’t be the same place every other reasonable person would draw it.

But at least they understand there IS a line somewhere.

[Knowed_Out]

@octopus

Like I said keep up. You also conveniently left out the portion about the ACLU. Nice selective response.

ACLU History | American Civil Liberties Union

This was in 1977

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie - Wikipedia

I “conveniently” left out ACLU because that wasn’t the part of your statement I had objection to. When you said “Supreme Court,” you didn’t add “in a 1977 ruling” which is this:

If a state seeks to impose an injunction in violation of First Amendment rights, it must provide strict procedural safeguards, including immediate appellate review. Absent such review, a stay must be granted.

which basically means the Supremes went with a technicality 40 years ago. They’re saying the Chicago Authorities didn’t follow proper procedure when banning displays of swastikas. They didn’t give nazis carte blanche to march wherever they pleased without repercussion.