The limits of free speech

[Aetherous]

1 minute ago, dawei said:

Not to derail this but your passion for the topic can't be ignored... where does it come from, at its root?  An early life experience or just an adult look at the issue?

 

I am very curious why this issue is so important to you... and i think this topic is important to discuss.

 

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.

[dawei]

Just now, Aetherous said:

 

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.

 

It's good... I served too... in Marine Reserves and Air Force... 

 

Passion is good.  I wanted to know the push behind the cause a little bit.  Get past the thread rhetoric to know the background.

 

This is a time of year, or since a new presidency, where feelings and opinions are expressed more strongly...  It is all good. 

[dawei]

And another point... you are articulating your point and passion in a very fair and non-attacking way.  I like the topic and if we can keep it from being personal, this is exactly why this area was created.   To discuss challenging topics with a level head... but we'll butt heads at times.   Great topic.

[Aetherous]

43 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

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

 

 

 

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.

[Marblehead]

Hatred is such an evil thing, no matter who holds it in their heart.

 

Too much hatred in the USA today.  Most of it without just cause.  Sad.

 

But, as Zarathustra said, we are responsible for all our thoughts, words, and deeds.

 

But then, all a herd needs is one shepherd.  Doesn't matter where they are going as long as they have a leader.

 

[Aetherous]

Leaked chat logs of the organization of the Charlottesville rally.

http://www.unicornriot.ninja/?p=18284

[Aetherous]

Some second thoughts regarding the First Amendment...

Okay so maybe it's not inciting violence to organize a rally, in which you know there will be violent counterprotesters, and (they key point here) where you consciously take steps to encourage their violence. Maybe... At least Brandenburg v Ohio doesn't address this particular situation as far as I'm aware...

But another part of the First Amendment is that US citizens have a right to "peaceably assemble". They do not have a right to assemble when it disturbs the public peace.

Perhaps the solution for white supremacist rallies is that if they're inherently not peaceful gatherings (by this I'm not referring to the fact that white supremacy is inherently violent...but I'm using "inherent" here to mean rallies where actual violence is sure to take place), then they can be declared unlawful assemblies and ended right away.

The one unfortunate point - this could happen even if the only violent side was a group like Antifa. In which case, we could ask, "Does anyone truly have a right to peaceably assemble, if our peaceful assembly is disturbed by others and stopped?"

Edited August 24, 2017 by Aetherous

[Hancock]

There's morality to think about. Is it right or wrong to hate another group based on your opinions of their skin color or background. The answer is obvious to most everyone.

 

Only those who secretly dance that line inside themselves argue for free speech and the right to peacefully protest for some inherently racist group.

 

Black Lives Matter is because some people are tired of being victimized and speak up about it. White cops being prejudice isn't a new issue, Confederate artifacts being props for racist and signs for racism isn't a new issue. They are only in the spotlight because now people are being caught on camera being racist. Only now are people actually giving a damn and doing something about it because they see it on a tv or vid or livestream. It's a call for dignity and equality in our country, our towns, cities, places people of color reside. Most of the hate and trashing is done in fact by whites, it's true. So it is whAt it is.

 

We have freedom of speech in this country but for anyone to defend open racism, and take the side of a white supremacist group and their right to freely speak, that's just because inside they probably are racist too. An no I'm not talking bout American soldiers of all colors an creeds who put their lives on the line for all of us. They do it so we can be equal and live freely or at least thats what I hear from everyone of them I talk to. Hell even the racist soldier once told me "I fought with n@22 by my side, in that moment we wasn't black or white, we were soldiers fighting for our country." 

I asked why he was racist, an he said, "cause none of them n$'3' really care what we do for them." I told him outright, ".there's lots of people of all colours who didn't care." 

He called me an asshole and bought me a drink, I'm cultivating so I didn't drink but I didn't want to be rude so I told.him I'd buy an got myself what I wanted. Either way he said I was right. Then we got to talking bout different things bout how race is a moral issue more than a rights issue, but that people want to blame others for their lack of happiness so one tries to put another down and another tries to gain power over the other. The race war is already here, but it's not black vs white. It's human vs racist.

[Brian]

1 hour ago, Aetherous said:

Some second thoughts regarding the First Amendment...

Okay so maybe it's not inciting violence to organize a rally, in which you know there will be violent counterprotesters, and (they key point here) where you consciously take steps to encourage their violence. Maybe... At least Brandenburg v Ohio doesn't address this particular situation as far as I'm aware...

But another part of the First Amendment is that US citizens have a right to "peaceably assemble". They do not have a right to assemble when it disturbs the public peace.

Perhaps the solution for white supremacist rallies is that if they're inherently not peaceful gatherings, then they can be declared unlawful assemblies and ended right away.

The one unfortunate point - this could happen even if the only violent side was a group like Antifa. In which case, we could ask, "Does anyone truly have a right to peaceably assemble, if our peaceful assembly is disturbed by others and stopped?"

Here's something to consider...

 

For decades, two of the "flagship" supremacy groups -- the KKK and the Nazis -- have been dressing up in full regalia and marching through cities and towns with virtually no fanfare and, being sacks of shit not withstanding, virtually no violence in the public square.

 

For fewer decades (unless you count "pre-war" activity by some quite similar groups and then it dates back to slightly after the hay day of the Klan), the so-called "Black Block" organizations (of which Antifa and associated groups like the Redneck Rebels are properly counted) have also been assembling, and they find violent confrontation around every corner.  When they have protestors to "counter," those are their primary focus.  When they don't, they target capitalism or the police or cousin groups (like the way they turned on BLM this week).

 

Now, which faction seeks attention and which seeks blood in the streets?

Edited August 24, 2017 by Brian

[Aetherous]

34 minutes ago, Hancock said:

Only those who secretly dance that line inside themselves argue for free speech and the right to peacefully protest for some inherently racist group.

 

I wouldn't go that far, because perhaps there are some people who truly believe in the concept of literally all ideas being uncensored...or other people who believe it sets a precedent for taking away types of speech that should truly be free.

Or at least I'm gullible enough to truly believe these things about people, and not immediately assume they're closet racists.

But it's absolutely a case where people playing devil's advocate and supporting the white supremacist side are following the letter of the law, while betraying the spirit.

This is a great quote someone shared with me today:

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H. L. Mencken

[Hancock]

4 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

I wouldn't go that far, because perhaps there are some people who truly believe in the concept of literally all ideas being uncensored...or other people who believe it sets a precedent for taking away types of speech that should truly be free.

Or at least I'm gullible enough to truly believe these things about people, and not immediately assume they're closet racists.

But it's absolutely a case where people playing devil's advocate and supporting the white supremacist side are following the letter of the law, while betraying the spirit.

This is a great quote someone shared with me today:

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H. L. Mencken

You might not go that far because you don't see it for what it is.

 

There's no assumption, people play devils advocate know they're on the wrong side by saying it's devils advocate and are openly trying to manipulate the view point of others by getting them to connect so see it from the other side. As an empAth I view other sides all the time. 

When I say people defending hate groups freedom of speech is cause of racism, subconsciously or consciously, it's not an assumption an observation of countless people.

 

I don't count you gullible, I count you idealistic. You probably haven't experienced this stuff but hAve good ideAs on what it might be. It's like the difference between masturbation and actual sex. Masturbation feels good an buildup sex in our minds, but when we have seen, that's the real deal. Might not be as good as we thought during masturbating but its the reality.

 That being said, it takes idealism to go forward but idealism tempered with realism. That's what changes things from the way they were to the way they can be.

 

assuming someone is assuming something then judging their assumptions, is hypocritical. Most people don't reveals it though because they're caught up in their idea of things. As a friend, I point this out to you Aetherous, I know you feel you mean well but it on my makes it worse by adding to the legitimacy of the "devils side".

 

I'm not high minded and don't know lots of quotes but I know that I'm pointing this out to help, not attack, to plant a seed for true equality and fulfillment of what you said the spirit. 

 

So I know on this board I need to say I'm not attacking you, so there's no misunderstanding.

 

[MooNiNite]

On 8/14/2017 at 3:07 PM, Aetherous said:

I am absolutely advocating that truly racist speech not be allowed on American soil..

How do you quantify "truly racist"? 

for example if science tells us that African Americans have zero Neanderthal genes. .. is that racist?

Or do you define racist as not only division by race but also by negativity ? Because that makes a difference.

If I say Africans are less healthy than Asians is that racist? Even if you take multiple sample populations and graph their health conditions? 

 

What about people that target people in the Nepal and restore their vision? They are targeting a race and healing their eye sight, is that racist? 

 

 

[MooNiNite]

100,000 people get their eye sight back.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/14/world/asia/nepal-eye-doctor/index.html

[Aetherous]

32 minutes ago, Brian said:

Here's something to consider...

 

For decades, two of the "flagship" supremacy groups -- the KKK and the Nazis -- have been dressing up in full regalia and marching through cities and towns with virtually no fanfare.

 

For fewer decades (unless you count "pre-war" activity by some quite similar groups and then it dates back to slightly after the hay day of the Klan), the so-called "Black Block" organizations (of which Antifa and associated groups like the Redneck Rebels are properly counted) have also been assembling, and they find violent confrontation around every corner.  When they have protestors to "counter," those are their primary focus.  When they don't, they target capitalism or the police or cousin groups (like the way they turned on BLM this week).

 

Now, which faction seeks attention and which seeks blood in the streets?

 

Obviously the second group is the one that seeks blood in the streets...but the reason why there was no fanfare for the first group in the past? There wasn't as big of a problem as there is today, this year. Is the problem as substantial as seeking blood in the streets? They are geared toward destruction through a much more powerful means: ideas.

The pen is mightier than the sword.

I haven't been writing so much about Antifa et al, at least in the past two weeks, because I don't take them that seriously. They need to be labeled as a terrorist organization (why doesn't that happen?), but they could be stopped by simply enforcing the law (why doesn't that happen?). Their legs are so puny due to being malnourished vegans...not something that's a red flag to me, personally.

Ideas, however, can't be stopped.

By the way, maybe this sounds like thought policing...it's not. I don't know how to prevent ideas from spreading...and declaring a white supremacist rally as an unlawful assembly doesn't stop the spread of their ideology. It probably only helps spread it.

Actually, I think most people aren't strong enough thinkers on their own, and many can end up falling for half truths...especially when they're packaged neatly as hilarious memes, and as a vibrant inclusive movement. There are other factors to consider, such as why people end up joining crazy cults, etc.

It's not that being aware of ideas is harmful, it's that certain people can't handle being exposed to certain ones, to half truths...and one possible remedy is exposing them to even more options - the other half of the truth.

It'd be great if good people were dedicated to thinking the way that the Alt-Right has thought. It's that "4d chess" concept...think ahead. Know what drives people. Know how to spread a concept, and have it go viral. Brand yourself. Instead of only nefarious people doing these things, evil geniuses, it'd be great if we had some good geniuses.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Aetherous

[MooNiNite]

These donation centers are target specific races of people and donating funds to heal the blind.

Is that truley racist? 

 

I mean after-all you are that God of who is allowed to say what, remember? 

[MooNiNite]

If their is a small town in Africa that doesnt want any other outsiders besides Africans to live there because they are not technologically advanced to treat the illnesses that we may have. Is that racist? Do you want them all to die? Or are you going to force them to assimilate to modern life style and then force outsiders into their territory? IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY LOL. 

[Aetherous]

2 minutes ago, MooNiNite said:

How do you quantify "truly racist"? 

for example if science tells us that African Americans have zero Neanderthal genes. .. is that racist?

Or do you define racist as not only division by race but also by negativity ? Because that makes a difference.

If I say Africans are less healthy than Asians is that racist? Even if you take multiple sample populations and graph their health conditions? 

 

What about people that target people in the Nepal and restore their vision? They are targeting a race and healing their eye sight, is that racist? 

 

This is not hard to discern...and is not at all necessary to parse.

But I will. Yes, it has to have a negative connotation to be racism. If it's factual, using scientific research to declare something negative about a certain race, then what is the purpose behind looking into that research, talking about it, etc? If it's to promote a bias against another race, then it's racist. If it's because you're a scientist who is researching lineages of human beings or something, or an epidemiologist studying how diseases work in different races, it's not.

Isn't this answer obvious to you already?

[Hancock]

17 minutes ago, Brian said:

Here's something to consider...

 

For decades, two of the "flagship" supremacy groups -- the KKK and the Nazis -- have been dressing up in full regalia and marching through cities and towns with virtually no fanfare.

 

For fewer decades (unless you count "pre-war" activity by some quite similar groups and then it dates back to slightly after the hay day of the Klan), the so-called "Black Block" organizations (of which Antifa and associated groups like the Redneck Rebels are properly counted) have also been assembling, and they find violent confrontation arounid every corner.  When they have protestors to "counter," those are their primary focus.  When they don't, they target capitalism or the police or cousin groups (like the way they turned on BLM this week).

 

Now, which faction seeks attention and which seeks blood in the streets?

Ill say it, those white groups seek to remind and dominate black Americans. To maintain a subordination of them and provoke them, by antagonizing..they also genuinely believe they are better and celebrate that. It's messed up.

 

The subconscious white racist almost always tries to trivialize and put down the black side. Most blacks try to live life peacefully but still run into racism daily, brushing it aside as how things are.

5 minutes ago, MooNiNite said:

How do you quantify "truly racist"? 

for example if science tells us that African Americans have zero Neanderthal genes. .. is that racist?

Or do you define racist as not only division by race but also by negativity ? Because that makes a difference.

If I say Africans are less healthy than Asians is that racist? Even if you take multiple sample populations and graph their health conditions? 

 

What about people that target people in the Nepal and restore their vision? They are targeting a race and healing their eye sight, is that racist? 

 

 

Yes restoring people of only Nepal genetic background is racist. That's racism, treatment of people based on background for good or bad.

 

 

[Hancock]

11 hours ago, MooNiNite said:

If their is a small town in Africa that doesnt want any other outsiders besides Africans to live there because they are not technologically advanced to treat the illnesses that we may have. Is that racist? Do you want them all to die? Or are you going to force them to assimilate to modern life style and then force outsiders into their territory? IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY LOL. 

For them it is more than racism, it's protection from outsiders not just because of race it's also survival to prevent from being diseased. 

 

It's a form of racism and xenophobia as well as medical precautions.

 

The issue of racism is how it keeps people separated and retracts from the equality of dignity. Makes one lesser and the other higher.

 

I personally was raised by whites, spent time in the system as a foster child, spent time with biological Puerto Rican family. I've seen things from most every ugly angle an American has from wealthy to poverty to medium class because my weird life situations have put me to being all of those. 

Mansion,  nice home in suburbs, private schools, public schools, streets, the hood, the trailer park, etc been there done most of that. Seen from almost walks of life.

 

In the suburbs,I was told by other kids parents I was not to play with their children - no reason whatsoever other than being different skin wise.

 

In private school, I was treated all because of my parents however still if I did anything not "white" it was deemed improper.

 

In public school.and in daily life, people are attracted to me because of their idea of what type of black stereotype I am.

 

In one town I stayed in the police openly wear the confederate flag as part of their uniforms. It's been dangerous for me to step foot outside my door the last week or so. Every time I do,  policeman drives passed within 10 minutes.

I've a clean record, no outstanding tickets or anything but I've been tArgeted over people who were white and known to meth dealers. Etc 

 

This is the America we live in.

 

Someone once said I'm here playing victim, I'm clarifying that I'm showing example of the country we live in from Montana to Florida. These are t meant to garner pity but to show you to open your eyes to the truth. Just cause you don't see it or think it's not that bad because you don't go thru it. Man you just don't know.

Oh those are small things I posted btw. But have any of you lived thru that? 

 

Come on people. Saying racist deserve free speech is like saying rapist need a second  chance on the street. I say all life is precious, but somethings just need to be either locked away or eliminAted from the human species as a whole. 

Rapist take  lot from some person, not just physically but spiritually,mentally, emotionally. Blacks have been raped of their dignity and opportunity here and even now she. Something is said about it there's an argument.

 

Most of y'all are familiAr with the notion that if a foreign object injuries something, it has to be removed so it can be healed. That's what those racist protesters are fighting for, to keep the foreign objects in the Wound of a people who have been hurt.

 

 

I didn't mean to offend anyone with the rape comparison, I'm.emphasizing a point. An yes I know what I'm taking about on both rape and racism.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Hancock

[MooNiNite]

Racism is division based on race. The negative or positive nature is not apart of the word.

[MooNiNite]

29 minutes ago, Hancock said:

Yes restoring people of only Nepal genetic background is racist. That's racism, treatment of people based on background for good or bad.

 

Well they needed it the most. So it actually ended up helping hundreds of thousands of people.

[MooNiNite]

31 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

If it's factual, using scientific research to declare something negative about a certain race, then what is the purpose behind looking into that research, talking about it, etc? 

 

Because it can help prevent illness and disease. 

[Aetherous]

1 minute ago, MooNiNite said:

Because it can help prevent illness and disease. 

 

Is it currently mercury retrograde?

[MooNiNite]

.

Edited August 24, 2017 by MooNiNite

[MooNiNite]

.

Edited August 24, 2017 by MooNiNite