Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Dude, I am ****ing done with your bullshit. Reported for supporting White Supremacy. Get the **** out of here.
Post where I condoned white supremacy.
You can be against smearing a nazi, without supporting a nazi. They are not mutually exclusive acts.
I say again, prove white supremacy organizations condone violence.
White nationalists are scumbags make no mistake. So are black nationalists. However, there is a difference between a white or black nationalist and someone who is simply a nationalist.
Myself and most Trump supporters are simply nationalists (that includes many black and hispanic Trump supporters as well) and so is Trump, himself.
Problem is that idiotic leftists are quick to call everyone who is the least bit patriotic a "white nationalist." They are simply nationalists.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnaeWhat were you banned for as Star? Remind me Meth...
White nationalists are scumbags make no.mistake. However, there is a difference between a white nationalist and someone who is simply q nationalist.Myself and most Trump supporters are simply nationalists (that includes many black and hispanic Trump supporters as well) and so is Trump, himself.
Problem is that idiotic leftists are quick to call everyone who is the least bit patriotic a "white nationalist." They are simply.nationalists.
Originally posted by snowdragon
Well in regards to this topic europe has exported both nazi and antifa to the usa.
...and both of those groups are equally bad despite how much lefties wanna treat Antifa as if they are all little Captain Americas lol.
They're far from it. Just as far from being CA as neo-nazis are.
CA is not a commie sympathizer anymore than he is a nazi sympathizer.
And before some smart ass says CA is not real, yeah, no shit he is not... but lefties love to use him when it suits their purpose.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
...and both of those groups are equally bad despite how much lefties wanna treat Antifa as if they are all little Captain Americas lol.They're far from it. Just as far from being CA as neo-nazis are.
CA is not a commie sympathizer anymore than he is a nazi sympathizer.
And before some smart ass says CA is not real, yeah, no shit he is not... but lefties love to use him when it suits their purpose.
Here's the thing:
Dave Chappelle's critics are talking about how his speech should be suppressed because of the possibility of inciting violence.
My position, is that all speech should be unrestricted. I'm willing to make some allowances for shouting "fire!" to incite a riot, but overall I feel it's a short step from suppressing speech for well intentioned reasons, to suppressing speech for political reasons.
Dave Chappelle should be allowed to say whatever he wants.
A racist should be allowed to say whatever they want.
Antifa should be allowed to say whatever they want.
The Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed to say whatever they want.
White Supremacist's are painted as these violent lunatic murderers, and that makes them easy to condone censorship on. But the fact is they rant like a racist uncle, but rarely are seen attacking people.
So.let them rant. And if they do attack someone, by all means throw the book at them.
But let it be for some act of VIOLENCE, and not a fear of INFLUENCEING VIOLENCE. (And I make a distinction between vague fears of influence, as opposed to outright telling or enabling people to commit acts of violence.)
People are responsible for what they do, period.
Originally posted by cdtm
Here's the thing:Dave Chappelle's critics are talking about how his speech should be suppressed because of the possibility of inciting violence.
My position, is that all speech should be unrestricted. I'm willing to make some allowances for shouting "fire!" to incite a riot, but overall I feel it's a short step from suppressing speech for well intentioned reasons, to suppressing speech for political reasons.
Dave Chappelle should be allowed to say whatever he wants.
A racist should be allowed to say whatever they want.
Antifa should be allowed to say whatever they want.
The Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed to say whatever they want.
White Supremacist's are painted as these violent lunatic murderers, and that makes them easy to condone censorship on. But the fact is they rant like a racist uncle, but rarely are seen attacking people.
So.let them rant. And if they do attack someone, by all means throw the book at them.
But let it be for some act of VIOLENCE, and not a fear of INFLUENCEING VIOLENCE. (And I make a distinction between vague fears of influence, as opposed to outright telling or enabling people to commit acts of violence.)
People are responsible for what they do, period.
Agreed. All speech (with a few rare exceptions like the one you mentioned about wrongly shouting fire in a crowded theater) must be protected equally if we value the first amendment.
If we give in to the freedom-hating left by labelling all kinds of speech we don't like as "hate speech" and use that as a justification for silencing or censoring people then the first amendment might as well not exist.
Originally posted by cdtm
Here's the thing:Dave Chappelle's critics are talking about how his speech should be suppressed because of the possibility of inciting violence.
My position, is that all speech should be unrestricted. I'm willing to make some allowances for shouting "fire!" to incite a riot, but overall I feel it's a short step from suppressing speech for well intentioned reasons, to suppressing speech for political reasons.
Dave Chappelle should be allowed to say whatever he wants.
A racist should be allowed to say whatever they want.
Antifa should be allowed to say whatever they want.
The Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed to say whatever they want.
White Supremacist's are painted as these violent lunatic murderers, and that makes them easy to condone censorship on. But the fact is they rant like a racist uncle, but rarely are seen attacking people.
So.let them rant. And if they do attack someone, by all means throw the book at them.
But let it be for some act of VIOLENCE, and not a fear of INFLUENCEING VIOLENCE. (And I make a distinction between vague fears of influence, as opposed to outright telling or enabling people to commit acts of violence.)
People are responsible for what they do, period.
You're shifting your goalposts again. You claimed neo nazis weren't violent. I gave 2 examples off the top of my head of Neo nazis being violent. You then claimed neo nazis don't condone that violence. I gave an example of a known neo nazi forum where neo nazis posted, condoning the violence. Then it shifted to having to be neo nazi leaders giving official statements condoning the violence. Now it's that they're not specifically inciting violence.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
You're shifting your goalposts again. You claimed neo nazis weren't violent. I gave 2 examples off the top of my head of Neo nazis being violent. You then claimed neo nazis don't condone that violence. I gave an example of a known neo nazi forum where neo nazis posted, condoning the violence. Then it shifted to having to be neo nazi leaders giving official statements condoning the violence. Now it's that they're not specifically inciting violence.
Nothing was shifted. You showed solo actors and painted with a broad brush.
Why not apply the same standard where Antifa student activists outright talk of punching people in the face?
Or is that "different"?
Originally posted by cdtm
Nothing was shifted. You showed solo actors and painted with a broad brush.Why not apply the same standard where Antifa student activists outright talk of punching people in the face?
Or is that "different"?
Is it? You tell me. You apparently think it both is and isn't the same.
You want right wing violence perpetrators to be treated as lone actors but Antifa members treated collectively. You apparently also want vehicular homicide to be treated the same as "talk of punching people in the face" despite supposedly wanting talk of violence to be protected speech so long as it isn't directly inciting someone else to commit violence.
We've also been here before. Remember when your logic dictated that Hitler would be found not guilty of genocide during the holocaust because he neither killed anyone directly nor specifically stated on the record for others to kill.