Aetherous

Yes, that's most people. ... The alt-right now has an official manifesto, published just prior to Charlottesville. This past week was truly a "coming out" for this group.

Leaked chat logs of the organization of the Charlottesville rally. http://www.unicornriot.ninja/?p=18284

A recent poll does tend to show that your opinion is correct...something like 60% of Trump's base was in favor of his comments. To be clear, I don't hope for his failure. I voted for him and like him a lot...but it is my opinion that this was a biiiiiiig misstep. edit: Fangshi's post disappeared...so this might seem out of context.

The alt-right presented itself during the election simply as an alternative to the Republican party...basically a more youthful and fresh conservativism, which used funny memes to troll liberals, etc...when in truth, it was always a white supremacist movement, which was just using the fooled members for increased coverage. The problem is that some people are still fooled by the false message, rather than knowing what it actually is...and it leads to things like Trump essentially showing favoritism toward it (asking journalists, "Define alt-right", and then himself calling others "the alt-left". If he can define the alt-left, surely he can define the alt-right). Given what the movement actually is, his statement will potentially prove to be very detrimental to the Right, and his own re-election...so that's the problem.

Basic.

This was the last post on the previous page, and didn't want it to get lost in the mix. I'll put the video in the OP, too.

Just from serving in the military (which I know a few others here have done), having that love for America, love for peace...then seeing these things happen in our streets. I should probably dampen the passion a bit, to be honest. It's that time of year where it's easy to get fired up.

I encourage everyone to watch and see what the Unite the Right rally was...

Nope. But white supremacists are...the people who organized the Unite the Right rally are, and many of its attendees who identify as white separatist or whatever other name, are. I'm not up in the sky about what a terrorist is, either. Someone who is oppositional to the peace and the way of the life of this country.

Capable thinkers are able to directly address a point pragmatically, rather than be stuck in the clouds on an issue. "If we don't let the terrorists speak, then who can have free speech? Who decides? What group is next on the chopping block?" = ineffective thinking. "Terrorists aren't allowed to speak." = effective thinking.

It seems the logic aspect is running too high, at times overriding the higher wisdom of the heart (which could otherwise illuminate the logical aspect to an even greater functioning)...but your humanity is intact. Really not viewing you in a negative light, but you asked. Also, I will purposefully avoid answering the question about which groups you listed should be allowed to free speech. I think we're in a scenario now, with white supremacists, where it's very clear where to stand on the issue. Time to choose a side. Asking about other groups just seems to attempt to muddy the crystal clear waters. (although I do think some of BLM is black supremacist and are just as bad)

This seems to be textbook strawman, and really just detracts from the discussion at hand (which seems to be the point). But I'll give a crystal clear answer to the subject of thought policing: yes, we do need to police some thoughts (for instance, Islamic State terrorism type thoughts...also, white supremacist thoughts). No, it doesn't mean that all thoughts are subject to policing when we start to police some. Who is capable of judging fairly which ones? Anyone with logic and humanity functioning normally. Can we as a society trust any individual or group to this task? Not indefinitely.

Thanks for the clear answer...I can't agree at all. As the topic states, free speech has its limits (which courts and law enforcement decide...and others of us simply have opinions on). Some people think that giving unlimited free speech to everyone without discrimination is a virtue. I think lacking the faculty of discrimination is the opposite of a virtue! We'd be a wise country if we just put two and two together, and said, "Terrorist rallies aren't permitted, for obvious reasons".

If the Islamic State held a rally, would they get a permit in the US, so long as there were no explicit threats against individuals? If not, why not? Should they be allowed to?

Don't we already decide, as a society, that ISIS is dangerous? Who is the one that chose for us to think that? I realize that you like thought games...but to cut through the facade: you're arguing in favor of white supremacists. Why? Is this issue not clear enough for you to take a stance?

I agree with everything you said, Dawei. I just wonder...if someone's belief system is that America is for whites, and that all other races have to go...is a gathering of people who think the same thing not motivated toward violence and hate crimes? It seems like it is inherently violent and disruptive of the public's peace. Ralis did bring up a good point, though, that these gatherings are legally permitted, since there isn't an explicit threat. Still...are we stupid? Are we not able to read between the lines and see that these gatherings are an attempt at amassing power, in order to achieve the end in sight? They don't have to spell it out, for some of us.

There's a major disconnection in the communication between us, and that's not something I had anything to do with.

We already addressed that...truly weird that you're saying it again. By weird, I mean you're really coming off as a white supremacy apologist. Why else would you divert attention away from the issue at hand? BLM sucks, but it's not what's being discussed in regard to current events.

Not sure what you're talking about. What group?

A gathering for white supremacists, because they think they're gaining power in America. It was called "Unite the Right", not "Save the Statue". It wasn't about historical preservation. Come on. Let's think clearly, and be honest. The point of having free speech is so that reasonable speech isn't punished unjustly. It's up to the individual if they don't listen, etc. They have that freedom. By the way...I hope it's clear (and I know it probably wasn't) I'm not calling you a fool, as an attempt to be personally insulting...but am saying that people who try to pass off the event as being simply about a statue are either attempting to fool others, or are themselves fooled by the person who came up with that idea. In my view, anyone who is saying that is subtly attempting to promote the white supremacist agenda...they're trying to silence condemnation of the event with some weak excuse. Not fooled.

That's a front. Anyone who thinks this was solely about a statue is fooled.

How about you give an honest and simple answer now...do you have a preference for white supremacist groups over BLM? If not, then you shouldn't see any problem with how I posted. This thread is current events, and those events were a big white supremacist rally.

Yes, it is.

In that case, I'm wrong about racist rallies...they're protected so long as it's not a direct (and imminent and likely) threat against another race.