Charlottesville VA - WTF???

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Are you saying that the right to freedom of speech and public gathering should be absolute without any restrictions? Should it be legal for neo-Nazis to carry rifles, wave swastika flags, and chant anti-Semitic slogans while marching in front of a synagogue so long as they never physically harm anyone or explicitly call for violence? Or do the Jews peacefully worshiping inside have a right to not be terrorized that supersedes the free speech rights of the Nazis? If the latter, should the government therefore enforce limited, reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and public gathering to protect the victims of hate groups?

What limits should be placed on free expression is a reasonable question of public policy in a liberal democracy. It's not utterly crazy to think that the USA, with its very few exceptions and permission for nazi rallies provided that they aren't directly intimidating anyone, has set the line properly. It's equally not crazy to think that Canada has set the line properly by making it illegal to publicly promote hatred against an identifiable group in a manner that is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. I waffle on that.

On another note, if you needed another reason to be mad at Nazis, here you go; they seem to have ruined a perfectly good haircut.

https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/colorad...163146326.html

Sigh... file it next to the Charlie Chaplin moustache and the name "Adolf".

[Coach]

To be fair, didn't the Nazis do that haircut first?

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

We agree here (what's happening, Cliff and I agree, the dark times are here). I'm not trying to legitimise the methods of antifa, they're not a group anyone should advocate for, but there is a very dangerous and/or ignorant thread of conversation happening where people are loosely equating them with nazism. Their "evil" is not remotely comparable, and to compare the two in any way is either a negative misrepresentation of antifa, which is forgoveable, or a positive misrepresentation of nazism, which is not.

One can and should be able to talk about antifa without saying they're comparable to nazis. But again, people who do compare the two (by either suggesting their value is similar, or their evil is within striking range of one another) should be met with a high degree of suspicion and either condemnation or education. It's important that when condemning antifa, people don't use Nazi comparisons. If you understand what antifa is and still make those (even loose) comparisons, it treads dangerously close to a very forgiving view of nazis.

In the end the issue isn't about being too harsh on antifa, it's about accidentally being too gentle on nazism. It's unforgivable.

I think almost everyone is pretty much agreeing. The difference is you and one side is focused on the slippery slope of putting everyone in the same basket where as others focus on the slippery slope of justifying violence for political reasons.

I'm much more skewed to the second group. If we can condone violence to stop nazi rallies then can other groups justify it for religious reasons? Today, most people in North America would say no, but over a generation or two that could blur if other political reasons justify violence.

Calagry had had these demonstrations in the past right? And from what I could read, a small group would stand half a block away and simply protest the rally with signs. 48 hours later it's over and everyone forgot it happened. There is no several dozen page thread with what a tragedy it is, or comparing this to 30's Germany. It just ended and everyone moved on. That is what would have happened here.

That's not to say there is not a problem. The US has real race issues, and white people dont own a monopoly on racism I might add, but the growing justification that people can pile into the back of a wagon with their pitchfork to go get the witches concerns me.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by MattyC

To be fair, didn't the Nazis do that haircut first?

I have no idea, but I thought they just appropriated it... A while back my barber suggested I should change my haircut to that, which I didn't, but I didn't actually realize until later what it was associated with. So. Bullet dodged there.

[Coach]

I don't there's as much condoning it as there is recognizing it as a reality of protest. There will always be extremes of groups. Does the existence of violent factions of the Black Panther party nullify the civil rights movement? Looking back I would agree it probably ultimately hurts the cause to participate it violence, but you can also understand that people can take only so many shoves before they feel the only remaining response is to shove back.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I have no idea, but I thought they just appropriated it... A while back my barber suggested I should change my haircut to that, which I didn't, but I didn't actually realize until later what it was associated with. So. Bullet dodged there.

It's a pretty popular haircut today. But it also was among Nazi soldiers. It's just not as recognizable as a half mustache.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Are you saying that the right to freedom of speech and public gathering should be absolute without any restrictions?

Free speech ends where it incites violence.

When the Nazis Came to Skokie: Freedom for Speech We Hate

The debate was clear-cut: American Nazis claimed the right of free speech while their Jewish "targets" claimed the right to live without intimidation. The town, arguing that the march would assault the sensibilities of its citizens and spark violence, managed to win a court injunction against the marchers. In response, the American Civil Liberties Union took the case and successfully defended the Nazis' right to free speech.

Skokie attorneys argued that for Holocaust survivors, seeing the swastika was like being physically attacked. The state Supreme Court rejected that argument, ruling that display of the swastika is a symbolic form of free speech entitled to First Amendment protections and determined that the swastika itself did not constitute "fighting words." Its ruling allowed the National Socialist Party of America to march.

The New York Times looks at how the issue and the ACLU are under fire again.

After Backing Alt-Right in Charlottesville, A.C.L.U. Wrestles With Its Role

[oldschoolcalgary]

Not sure why anyone would have an issue with antifa counter protesting white nationalists/supremacists/nazis?

Does it 'work'? Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't... however, if one feels passionately that they need to oppose fascism... not sure why anyone cares to be honest.

there was a HUGE rally in Boston yesterday...with minimal violence from either side...

For those arguing that antifa's modus operandi is to force their value system on others through violence, did antifa not bother showing up then?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

I think almost everyone is pretty much agreeing. The difference is you and one side is focused on the slippery slope of putting everyone in the same basket where as others focus on the slippery slope of justifying violence for political reasons.

The first side has nothing to do with a slippery slope analogy. It's pointing out a categorisation that is ignorant with the potential to be dangerous to a very high degree. It's not an "what might happen in the future" situation, it's a "the thing that people are saying? right now? it's bad, stop saying it."

Slippery slopes are always stupid, and they essentially defy human history because they're rarely noticeable and always rely on the acceptance of society at large. Antifa has existed for almost 100 years, and religious groups have used violence to incite change for 1000s of years before that. There are more examples of religious violence today than violence carried out by Antifa. In fact, there are more examples of violence from any single hate group than there are of Antifa. What influence, exactly, are you worried that a far left militant group is going to have? Because it seems that their actions pale in comparison to the many many many other examples of political and ideological motivated acts of violence in the US and abroad happening right now. Their acts of violence are dwarfed by severity and number by every other measurable.

I'm not saying don't think violence is wrong, I'm saying pointing to Antifa as dangerous because they're a potential catalyst for religious and ideological violence that already outranks them by a shockingly high degree is impossible to understand. It is literally a non-point.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

Not sure why anyone would have an issue with antifa counter protesting white nationalists/supremacists/nazis?

I haven't seen anyone here say they have an issue with antifa counter protesting. Counter-protests are one of the best ways of keeping those kooks marginalized - contrasting 70 pasty losers marching around with 3,000 people of all stripes showing solidarity for pluralism. What people have an issue with is antifa initiating violence. If you show up to a public gathering with masks and weapons, you're ultimately up to no good.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

On another note, if you needed another reason to be mad at Nazis, here you go; they seem to have ruined a perfectly good haircut.

https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/colorad...163146326.html

The people who answered affirmative to the question "is it okay to punch a Nazi?" a few months ago have to take some responsibility for this kind of thing. Once you legitimize political violence, you're going to see more of these violent acts in public. Dude I stabbed wasn't really a Nazi? Well he looked like one - honest mistake.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The first side has nothing to do with a slippery slope analogy. It's pointing out a categorisation that is ignorant with the potential to be dangerous to a very high degree. It's not an "what might happen in the future" situation, it's a "the thing that people are saying? right now? it's bad, stop saying it."

Slippery slopes are always stupid, and they essentially defy human history because they're rarely noticeable and always rely on the acceptance of society at large. Antifa has existed for almost 100 years, and religious groups have used violence to incite change for 1000s of years before that. There are more examples of religious violence today than violence carried out by Antifa. In fact, there are more examples of violence from any single hate group than there are of Antifa. What influence, exactly, are you worried that a far left militant group is going to have? Because it seems that their actions pale in comparison to the many many many other examples of political and ideological motivated acts of violence in the US and abroad happening right now. Their acts of violence are dwarfed by severity and number by every other measurable.

I'm not saying don't think violence is wrong, I'm saying pointing to Antifa as dangerous because they're a potential catalyst for religious and ideological violence that already outranks them by a shockingly high degree is impossible to understand. It is literally a non-point.

Ok. Exactly what catagorization?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Ok. Exactly what catagorization?

As I said, that Antifa and Nazis are even remotely categorically similar, to the point that it would be logical to mention them both in the same breath:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

In this case you have to debate the ethical view that AntiFa and Neo-Nazi's crave confrontational violence. So yes to me both sides aren't exactly Moral in that sense.

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Then we wouldn't have to rely on a communist anarchist group with only a slightly better history of violence than Nazis to be the neutral arbiters of law and order.

Originally Posted by RichKlit

Just because they are the lesser of 2 evils in this instance does not legitimize them.

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

We need anitifa about as much as we need nazis. They just prefer a different brand of totalitarianism.

Comments like these are, at the most generous interpretation, sort of accidentally ignorant sounding and flippant. At the worst interpretation, they're Nazi apologists. That's area nobody in their right mind wants to tread close to and I don't believe anyone of these posts intentionally does that, but the main issue is that this distinction is left to interpretation.

Antifa = morally right intentions that anyone in a modern liberal society can relate to (racism, bigotry, hate = bad) with methods few in that same society can relate to or morally condone (violence, suppression of free speech)

Nazi = morally wrong intentions and methodology that literally no even debatably good person in their right mind can relate to.

There's no slippery slope here.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Free speech ends where it incites violence.

When the Nazis Came to Skokie: Freedom for Speech We Hate





The New York Times looks at how the issue and the ACLU are under fire again.

After Backing Alt-Right in Charlottesville, A.C.L.U. Wrestles With Its Role

Do you agree with the ACLU in this case? Should free speech protections extend to Nazis carrying rifles and waving swastika flags in front of a synagogue so long as they stop short of actually committing or inciting violence?

How is the above scenario any different than KKK members burning crosses in front of black churches or the homes of African Americans, an act the Supreme Court ruled in 2003 is not protected speech?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2003/04/0...s-burning.html

The Supreme Court upheld a Virginia statute yesterday that makes it illegal for Ku Klux Klansmen and others to burn crosses. The case was a difficult one, forcing the court to weigh the free-expression rights of those who burn crosses against the right of their victims not to be physically intimidated and threatened with harm.

I'm not an ACLU lawyer or Supreme Court justice, but those two scenarios seem identical to me other than the group being targeted. If anything, chanting Nazi slogans outside a synagogue while brandishing firearms is even more physically intimidating to the victims of the hatred than setting a cross on fire and running away.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

As I said, that Antifa and Nazis are even remotely categorically similar, to the point that it would be logical to mention them both in the same breath:

Comments like these are, at the most generous interpretation, sort of accidentally ignorant sounding and flippant. At the worst interpretation, they're Nazi apologists. That's area nobody in their right mind wants to tread close to and I don't believe anyone of these posts intentionally does that, but the main issue is that this distinction is left to interpretation.

Antifa = morally right intentions that anyone in a modern liberal society can relate to (racism, bigotry, hate = bad) with methods few in that same society can relate to or morally condone (violence, suppression of free speech)

Nazi = morally wrong intentions and methodology that literally no even debatably good person in their right mind can relate to.

There's no slippery slope here.

Ok that is what I thought. I think you need A fair amount of creative license to say that the four people you quoted think nazis and antifa are similar. Or that many people in the general public do. Rest assured. Nazis are worse.

When people start being creative with bending comments to suit an argument I can usually guess at why they are doing that, but harder in a chat to understand why you are doing that. So I don't know really what else to say but I'll try.

To say you don't agree with either side is not to say they are the same. Do people need to start every paragraph with that?

And to say there never such aging as slippery slopes is to say you can't look past the end of your nose. It's always important to think through longer term affects of your actions. What I think you just simply don't appreciate is that some people look at longer term cause and affect of rationalizing violence, being extremely important. And much more important than discussing if antifa is 17% or 562% better than nazis.

[Red Slinger]

I could be not understanding the point being made but it seems like some people are suggesting that there is never a time for violence. So, to clarify, is there ever a time where violence is justified besides immediate self-defence? If so, where is the line?

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I could be not understanding the point being made but it seems like some people are suggesting that there is never a time for violence. So, to clarify, is there ever a time where violence is justified besides immediate self-defence? If so, where is the line?

Presume you mean violence from the general public who in n way hold any kind of official responsibly around social order?

If so, besides defending yourself it's hard to think through many reasons to justify violence.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

And to say there never such aging as slippery slopes is to say you can't look past the end of your nose. It's always important to think through longer term affects of your actions. What I think you just simply don't appreciate is that some people look at longer term cause and affect of rationalizing violence, being extremely important. And much more important than discussing if antifa is 17% or 562% better than nazis.

There's no creative bending, it's comparing two things that can't be compared because their incomparable. One poster I quoted said that a group who pepper sprays Nazis had only a slightly better history of violence than a group that committed mass genocide. That's insane.

And I doubt you'll find many who agree with your assertion that it's not important to get facts straight and discuss things in a true way. I get that we're in the post-truth era, but it seems like poor form to spread misinformation or, in your case, call any highlighting of that misinformation unimportant. Stopping the spread of misinformation is at least equally important to bad prognosticating about future events.

It's not that things can't lead to future events, it's that most people who use the slippery slope end up at events that are not logical or remotely likely results on the present day action they're trying to warn against. You can do it better without a clunky and outright stupid slippery slope. I mean, you actually said political violence of antifa might lead to acceptable religious violence. Have you never read a history book?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

There's no creative bending, it's comparing two things that can't be compared because their incomparable. One poster I quoted said that a group who pepper sprays Nazis had only a slightly better history of violence than a group that committed mass genocide. That's insane.

And I doubt you'll find many who agree with your assertion that it's not important to get facts straight and discuss things in a true way. I get that we're in the post-truth era, but it seems like poor form to spread misinformation or, in your case, call any highlighting of that misinformation unimportant. Stopping the spread of misinformation is at least equally important to bad prognosticating about future events.

It's not that things can't lead to future events, it's that most people who use the slippery slope end up at events that are not logical or remotely likely results on the present day action they're trying to warn against. You can do it better without a clunky and outright stupid slippery slope. I mean, you actually said political violence of antifa might lead to acceptable religious violence. Have you never read a history book?

I think it should be obvious in the context of this thread who the term "nazis" refers to.

Tip: It's not the Third Reich ones. You're being sensationalist.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

How to be a human being 101.

Spoiler!