Frelga wrote:What about the rights of Muslim Jihadists?
I can't speak for CG, but I support their rights under the law. Including their rights to freedom of religion, their rights to political speech, their rights to a fair trial if accused of an offence, and any other civil and political rights they may have. As I said upthread, there is an extremist pro-IS Muslim preacher in my suburb. If I saw him, I wouldn't punch him.
On that note, I found this video interesting - former white supremicists talk about how to de-radicalise people. Admittedly there's only two, and a bigger sample size would have been better:
Frelga wrote:What about the rights of Muslim Jihadists?
Yes, even their right top speak must be protected. As I said, I'm a fanatic for the 1st Amendment.
As long as they aren't saying "go out and hit that particular target", as long as the worst they do is indirect or passive advocating violence, then even that is protected.
I don't have to agree with speech to protect it.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams
A strict adherence to principles is admirable when done at personal risk. When it's no skin off your nose and puts others in danger, it's the opposite of admirable.
Anyway. The proposed rally in San Francisco was canceled amid fears for the safety of protesters. The rally in Berkeley tomorrow was denied permit (because the organizers provided no plans for toilets and first aid stations, and submitted a photo of themselves in disguise) but may go ahead anyway, under a weaselly name of anti-Marxism rally. Because THAT is the problem we all face in our lives.
I hope no one will be hurt. I also hope that following Boston and the Bay Area, it will be clear that the Nazis are still a small group of bullies who will not be tolerated. I am perfectly fine with them exercising their free speech rights in their Internet lairs.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Frelga, had a Freudian slip moment there where my brain reversed the vowels on 'lairs'...
Hope the march is peaceful, and no one gets hurt...
And I bloody well hope they get arrested if they show up carrying automatic weapons!!
When the night has been too lonely, and the road has been too long,
And you think that love is only for the lucky and the strong,
Just remember in the winter far beneath the bitter snows,
Lies the seed, that with the sun's love, in the spring becomes The Rose.
Frelga wrote:A strict adherence to principles is admirable when done at personal risk. When it's no skin off your nose and puts others in danger, it's the opposite of admirable.
Since I am neither Fascist nor Antifa but am pro free speech, I don't know where you think I fit on your spectrum. Is protecting the free speech of Fascists only admirable if you are a Jew? Is protecting the free speech of Antifa only admirable if you believe in free speech?
Frelga wrote:Anyway. The proposed rally in San Francisco was canceled amid fears for the safety of protesters. The rally in Berkeley tomorrow was denied permit (because the organizers provided no plans for toilets and first aid stations, and submitted a photo of themselves in disguise) but may go ahead anyway, under a weaselly name of anti-Marxism rally. Because THAT is the problem we all face in our lives.
I heard about that one. Even the SPLC says that those particular groups aren't hate groups, and the SPLC has a vested interest in artificially inflating the hate count. So if they say they aren't a hate group you can be pretty sure they aren't. There are many false positives, few false negatives, in the SPLC list.
Frelga wrote:I hope no one will be hurt. I also hope that following Boston and the Bay Area, it will be clear that the Nazis are still a small group of bullies who will not be tolerated. I am perfectly fine with them exercising their free speech rights in their Internet lairs.
Boston wasn't connected to Charlottesville either.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams
Racial Supremacy is one of the weakest arguments out there. If a person can find no better argument against it than to attack the person who holds that belief, it is a confession of severe inadequacy. Moreover such a person is in NO position to decide what speech should be permissible or forbidden as that person has no concept of speech in the first place. I shouldn't have to say this because I detest this particular argument as well, but it is also a very unpopular argument, so being unable to counter it in any way other than violence (or the violence by proxy of government) is just so pathetic it beggars description.
But if someone still feels violence is appropriate, that opens the flood gates to violence as appropriate by other sides. When violence replaces intelligence, it is not the best argument that works but the most brutal person who wins. Based on the marksmanship at the Republican Baseball Practice, it isn't Antifa who have the skills at violence. If I was a college kid from a middle class background LARPing as a revolutionary with Antifa, I would not want my opponents to feel they have a right to use violence because I would know I would get my ass kicked, if I'm lucky. Yvette Felarca and Eric Clanton are lucky that that the response to their unprovoked violence is legal instead of returning violence for violence. Especially Yvette Felarca. She is a tiny woman assaulting big guys because she knows they know it isn't right to hit a woman (sorry for those who believe in equality but guys still generally think that). One day someone will say "Whatever, this **** wants equality, I'll give her equality."
Finally, for those who seek violence by proxy by the state. It is a sword that can cut both ways. Really it can. Remember, all three branches of the federal government are Republican, as well as ... what is it now ... I know it is a majority, but I forget if it is 2/3 or 3/4, but that many states are majority Republican. Those advocating for shutting down political hate speech, it is the Republicans that are going to get that power if the request is granted. It is Republicans who will be making the decision "now that we have this power, what shall we call hate speech so that it can be shut down." Censorship (like all other government powers) cuts both ways, and can and WILL be used by political opponents and not just political allies.
I have people calling me a fascist simple because I am a fanatic for free speech. Yes, apparently now free speech is a fascist value. This is my problem with Antifa, not anti-Fascism but the small subgroup that is Antifa. They believe in censorship, violence, and EVERYONE who disagrees with them is a "fascist."
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:But if someone still feels violence is appropriate, that opens the flood gates to violence as appropriate by other sides. When violence replaces intelligence, it is not the best argument that works but the most brutal person who wins. Based on the marksmanship at the Republican Baseball Practice, it isn't Antifa who have the skills at violence. If I was a college kid from a middle class background LARPing as a revolutionary with Antifa, I would not want my opponents to feel they have a right to use violence because I would know I would get my ass kicked, if I'm lucky. Yvette Felarca and Eric Clanton are lucky that that the response to their unprovoked violence is legal instead of returning violence for violence. Especially Yvette Felarca. She is a tiny woman assaulting big guys because she knows they know it isn't right to hit a woman (sorry for those who believe in equality but guys still generally think that). One day someone will say "Whatever, this **** wants equality, I'll give her equality."
A quote from the second article she linked to. I'm not crazy about the labeling but what it says is true:
"Violent Marxists are evil. Violent fascists are evil. If we can’t understand both of those basic truths simultaneously, then we have truly lost our way."
When the night has been too lonely, and the road has been too long,
And you think that love is only for the lucky and the strong,
Just remember in the winter far beneath the bitter snows,
Lies the seed, that with the sun's love, in the spring becomes The Rose.
I don't have time for typing tonight, so have a link with a more accurate description of what went down in my backyard. Or why I only ever go to local news outlets and reporters on the ground for breaking developments, not national or opinion-centric sites.
Here's the aerial view, off "Official Alt-Left" twitter
DIQ9jcrUEAAByrg[1].jpg (81.02 KiB) Viewed 11025 times
The smaller circle labeled antifa is mostly the Black Bloc, AKA the reason we can't have nice things. They call themselves anarchists, although I don't think that word means what they think it means (unlike the Nazis who mean exactly what it says on the package). They have been blamed for turning previously peaceful protests into a riot. In that light, they were remarkably restrained this Sunday, compared to their usual standards.
In total, there were thirteen arrests, per BPD, at least four for trying to smuggle prohibited items into the rally area, such as face covering. Two were from out of state, and I assume that at least the Oregonian was with the right-wing rally. Six people were injured, two severely enough to be taken to the hospital. Not a single broken window. There was a total of about four thousand people at the rally.
I believe one of those injured was Joey Gibson, who brought his freak show to some of the most liberal cities in the country in hopes of inciting a riot and feeding the "the left is the bad as the right" myth. He probably isn't eligible for a punch under the Nazi rule, and yes, they really shouldn't have assaulted him, but at least he has taken definitive steps to bring it upon himself.
Unlike Heather Heyer.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
That's a VERY interesting article you linked to! Leaves me with mixed feelings about the Antifa. I didn't know they were so well organized!
When the night has been too lonely, and the road has been too long,
And you think that love is only for the lucky and the strong,
Just remember in the winter far beneath the bitter snows,
Lies the seed, that with the sun's love, in the spring becomes The Rose.
At Lewis and Clark Law School, Oregon, a speech by critic of feminism Christina Hoff Sommers was disrupted and shut down by protestors enraged that a “known Fascist” had been given a platform on their campus.
At King’s College, London, Antifa managed to shut down a planned debate between Ayn Rand Society President Yaron Brook and Youtube provocateur Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad).
Antifa had less success shutting down a lecture by conservative Canadian academic Jordan Peterson at Queen’s University, Ontario, but they did smash a few windows trying to gain entry to the hall and create enough noise it was hard for the attendees to hear.
In short, once you accept that it’s acceptable to use violence to deny platforms to Fascist, then once a group of people agree that someone has Fascist views it becomes acceptable for to use violence to de-platform them. Or, as this NYT editorial puts it, We’re all Fascists now.
I might repost it again later but it was very hard for me to even get up the courage to post it in the first place. The last time I posted something on this topic I was privately attacked, extremely heatedly, for what I wrote, and in the end it was too stressful for me to contemplate getting attacked like that again. The worst is that I did later receive a heartfelt apology from the attacker who found that they misread my words, but the shock and trauma of a blindside attack has apparently stuck with me to the point where it is suppressing my voice.
Which is, by itself, an interesting topic to explore. A lot of dissent gets suppressed by disproportionate violence because it is an easy way to oppress people with less power. This is something that people with the privilege of having never experienced violence ( verbal, physical, etc ) or abuse ( again, verbal, physical, etc ) or oppression often don't understand about victims. I think we've all heard opinions like "Why did they stay with them?" "Why didn't they say something?" "I would never have put up with that." and so on. Until you're in the situation you just don't know how people react to it, and your most compassionate reaction would be to truly listen to the voices of the victims or the oppressed and to value what they say as truth, not run it through your own prism of privilege and dismiss it because it doesn't match your views and experiences.
Griffy, I read your post before it disappeared, and I thought it was an excellent, thoughtful post, as usual for you. I can't imagine why anyone would attack you for what you wrote, either in that post, or in any previous post that you made. It is disappointing to learn that that happened.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
