(08-18-2017 02:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 01:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 01:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 01:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Second -- Lad, since we know that you consider the punching of nazis a far better moral plane than their admittedly transmitting a vile message, where in the Lad-Universe *is* the line for protected speech that doesnt warrant a baseball bat to the face? Obviously there is some 'line' *north* of "Kikes arent welcome" and "Get out n-ggers", but obviously well south of a Mother Theresa kumbaya message, so I would really be interested in *where* this line exists for you? And also, why the left is so adamant about such a content-based moral line?

And while you are drawing that vileness line, please indicate on which side of the line you would put comments like, "What do we want? Dead cops. When to we want them? Now."

Those individuals are on the same side as the Nazis and white supremacists.

And I know where you're going with that. There was a reason I specifically talked about what the GROUPS advocate for, and not what individuals within the group say or do. Almost any group will have a few bad apples, and because of that, what the group actually stands for can be very important.

I would say that I would draw the vileness line at a point where people are advocating violence against, persecution against, or denigrating others because of features they have no control over (race, sex, sexuality, etc.). However, I'm not trying to draw a line in the sand.

But yet you have.

Is this a proper logical relationship for your viewpoint, Lad:
Punch to the face == punch to the face.
Punch to the face < Punch to the face with additional subjective 'mean talk'

In other words punch to the face by a 'bad guy who may have at one point in the past said something that might be mean to somebody, somewhere' overrides punch to the afce. Got it. Awesome objective standard you have going there. (told you that line was coming...)

Quote:Tanq and others keep trying to make this a black and white issue, a clear right and wrong issue where you are on one side or the other. Like most things there is a gradient. Heck, I EXPLICITLY stated that when comparing Antifa to Nazis, one is LESS worse. I don't get how someone could argue against that. That Antifa, as we know them, are exactly equal to Nazis and white supremacists.

Where have I made this a "black and white issue", especially with a "clear right and a clear wrong"? Please do tell. If it isnt clear enough, I see wrong all over the fing place here. Please don't mischaracterize me as indicating *anything* about Charlottesville as anything anywhere near the general vicinity of right. Not specifically meaning to be a dick, but to be honest I've just about had it with the *constant* mischaracterization of my statements.

I've expressed to you that I respect you, but stating that I feel there is a "clear right and a clear wrong" is just dead fing wrong. Please state explicitly where I have stated there is "a clear right and [] wrong" with either side's conduct or speech here.

The difference between us is that you seemingly comfortable a subjective 'mean speech' morality exception to violent acts. And I am definitely not.

Yes, I'm comfortable with this not being a clear right and wrong situation and allowing for gray, where I am more comfortable with something because of its context. If it comes down to it and you asked me if I thought someone sucker punching a person who was quietly standing on the corner was just as bad as someone sucker punching someone verbally assaulting someone for being Jewish, then yeah, I am more comfortable with the latter. That doesn't mean I think it is right, but yeah, I'm more comfortable with that.

So if you aren't comfortable with that subjectivity, how is that not being in a camp where there is a clear right and wrong?

Also, am I mischaracterizing your opinion by stating that you hold the Antifa and the white supremacists with the exact same disdain? If that's not the case, then my bad, but it seemed like you were equating them as equally immoral previously.

(08-18-2017 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 02:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'd put the Ferguson marches and the slaying of the Dallas police officers into that same category. I try to apply the same standard across the board.

To the bold - what group are you putting those people in? Your answer will greatly affect my response.

I'd put them into the group of people who were committing mayhem in Ferguson and who created a situation in which five Dallas police officers were shot and killed, just as the Charlottesville white supremacists belonged to a group that created a situation in which one person was run over by a car and killed.

What is the significance of the group anyway? I mean, what is a group if not the sum of its members?

(08-18-2017 02:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 02:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'd put the Ferguson marches and the slaying of the Dallas police officers into that same category. I try to apply the same standard across the board.

To the bold - what group are you putting those people in? Your answer will greatly affect my response.

I'd put them into the group of people who were committing mayhem in Ferguson and who created a situation in which five Dallas police officers were shot and killed, just as the Charlottesville white supremacists belonged to a group that created a situation in which one person was run over by a car and killed.

What is the significance of the group anyway? I mean, what is a group if not the sum of its members?

The significance of the group is because a lot of the Charlottesville protestors were part of analogized KKK and neo-Nazi groups, and those groups collectively have stated missions. And those missions that do not stray far from (or explicitly condone) committing violence against others.

The people you are reference, as far as I am aware, were not part of organized groups advocating violence. They were either parts of mobs or lone-wolf type actors that don't have organizations advocating for a cause. Had the person who ran down the counter-protesters done so in association with say, an anti-abortion or libertarian rally, there would not be a direct connection to an organized group that condones violence as a means to an end. That's why I am willing to lump him in with the neo-Nazi groups where as the Dallas shooter, as far as I am aware, was not part of a group that had a stated mission of killing cops - he was just a sick dude.

(08-18-2017 02:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 02:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 02:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'd put the Ferguson marches and the slaying of the Dallas police officers into that same category. I try to apply the same standard across the board.

To the bold - what group are you putting those people in? Your answer will greatly affect my response.

I'd put them into the group of people who were committing mayhem in Ferguson and who created a situation in which five Dallas police officers were shot and killed, just as the Charlottesville white supremacists belonged to a group that created a situation in which one person was run over by a car and killed.
What is the significance of the group anyway? I mean, what is a group if not the sum of its members?

The significance of the group is because a lot of the Charlottesville protestors were part of analogized KKK and neo-Nazi groups, and those groups collectively have stated missions. And those missions that do not stray far from (or explicitly condone) committing violence against others.
The people you are reference, as far as I am aware, were not part of organized groups advocating violence. They were either parts of mobs or lone-wolf type actors that don't have organizations advocating for a cause. Had the person who ran down the counter-protesters done so in association with say, an anti-abortion or libertarian rally, there would not be a direct connection to an organized group that condones violence as a means to an end. That's why I am willing to lump him in with the neo-Nazi groups where as the Dallas shooter, as far as I am aware, was not part of a group that had a stated mission of killing cops - he was just a sick dude.

OK, so if they're not part of a group then it didn't happen? Just being sarcastic there, I know that's not what you really mean. But there are 5 former Dallas police officers who are just as dead as one Heather Heyer. And you can do all the hairsplitting you want to in order to differentiate the two, but at the end of the day, both sides have problems that are very similar.

The is a fringe group of white supremacists that advocate and conduct violence, with possible connections to Nazis and fascists. There is another fringe group of largely Marxists and socialists that advocate and conduct violence, with obvious connection to communists and socialists. The left wants to connect the former to the conservatives, despite the fact that the two really don't fit together. For one thing, the economic philosophy of fascism is much closer to modern left that right. At the same time, the left is not willing to allow the socialist/communist fringe to be connected to themselves.

You asked earlier how to get the other side to engage in reasonable discussion about the problem that they allegedly have. The way is to admit the problem that your side has.

I'll start. I'm perfectly willing to agree that white supremacists are terrible and need to be made to go away. So how do you respond?

(08-18-2017 02:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 02:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 01:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 01:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 01:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Second -- Lad, since we know that you consider the punching of nazis a far better moral plane than their admittedly transmitting a vile message, where in the Lad-Universe *is* the line for protected speech that doesnt warrant a baseball bat to the face? Obviously there is some 'line' *north* of "Kikes arent welcome" and "Get out n-ggers", but obviously well south of a Mother Theresa kumbaya message, so I would really be interested in *where* this line exists for you? And also, why the left is so adamant about such a content-based moral line?

And while you are drawing that vileness line, please indicate on which side of the line you would put comments like, "What do we want? Dead cops. When to we want them? Now."

Those individuals are on the same side as the Nazis and white supremacists.

And I know where you're going with that. There was a reason I specifically talked about what the GROUPS advocate for, and not what individuals within the group say or do. Almost any group will have a few bad apples, and because of that, what the group actually stands for can be very important.

I would say that I would draw the vileness line at a point where people are advocating violence against, persecution against, or denigrating others because of features they have no control over (race, sex, sexuality, etc.). However, I'm not trying to draw a line in the sand.

But yet you have.

Is this a proper logical relationship for your viewpoint, Lad:
Punch to the face == punch to the face.
Punch to the face < Punch to the face with additional subjective 'mean talk'

In other words punch to the face by a 'bad guy who may have at one point in the past said something that might be mean to somebody, somewhere' overrides punch to the afce. Got it. Awesome objective standard you have going there. (told you that line was coming...)

Quote:Tanq and others keep trying to make this a black and white issue, a clear right and wrong issue where you are on one side or the other. Like most things there is a gradient. Heck, I EXPLICITLY stated that when comparing Antifa to Nazis, one is LESS worse. I don't get how someone could argue against that. That Antifa, as we know them, are exactly equal to Nazis and white supremacists.

Where have I made this a "black and white issue", especially with a "clear right and a clear wrong"? Please do tell. If it isnt clear enough, I see wrong all over the fing place here. Please don't mischaracterize me as indicating *anything* about Charlottesville as anything anywhere near the general vicinity of right. Not specifically meaning to be a dick, but to be honest I've just about had it with the *constant* mischaracterization of my statements.

I've expressed to you that I respect you, but stating that I feel there is a "clear right and a clear wrong" is just dead fing wrong. Please state explicitly where I have stated there is "a clear right and [] wrong" with either side's conduct or speech here.

The difference between us is that you seemingly comfortable a subjective 'mean speech' morality exception to violent acts. And I am definitely not.

Yes, I'm comfortable with this not being a clear right and wrong situation and allowing for gray, where I am more comfortable with something because of its context. If it comes down to it and you asked me if I thought someone sucker punching a person who was quietly standing on the corner was just as bad as someone sucker punching someone verbally assaulting someone for being Jewish, then yeah, I am more comfortable with the latter. That doesn't mean I think it is right, but yeah, I'm more comfortable with that.

So you think that sociopathic behavior (acting in a destructive manner without feeling) is somehow better than driven behavior? That is quite the distinction. To me, both actions (and motivations) are so far negative morality (not amorality) that any distinction is pretty much meaningless. But you see a major enough moral distinction to differentiate.

Quote:So if you aren't comfortable with that subjectivity, how is that not being in a camp where there is a clear right and wrong?

In the interim I edited my screed posted above. The problem with subjectivity at near minus infinite morality is, to me, stupid. I stated in a concurrent edit to the post you responded to

Quote:And that’s why this issue is so fundamentally and toxically stupid. Fine, antifa isn’t as bad as the KKK and the nazi shitbags. Who cares? Since when is being an iota less bad than the Klan and nazi shitbags such a fing major moral accomplishment? This is like comparing the 'who is better' between Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. But apparently in good-think land, that distinction of shitlordliness is of major 'moral' concern, especially when appraising 'blame'.

And to some ignorant people (sorry for the lapse into Hillaryism and tying them to you by implication, which is NOT intended) it serves as a crutch so that they 'feel better' about an equally shitlord action by 'their side'. And has been used in that manner for many hundreds of years.

Quote:Also, am I mischaracterizing your opinion by stating that you hold the Antifa and the white supremacists with the exact same disdain? If that's not the case, then my bad, but it seemed like you were equating them as equally immoral previously.

I do hold them in equivalent blame. In particular, I hold 'saying mean things' as an equivalent bad as 'trying to shut down protected speech by use of force'. Even for people saying 'mean things'.

I hold them equally wrong in motivations and in actions. But somehow that got transposed to I have a "clear right and a clear wrong".

For what follows, please note I am *not* trying to piss you off or thwack you, this is my subjective belief in what you have stated. If that gets you upset, my apologies in advance, that is NOT my intent. We are talking raw, harsh **** here, though.

I dont find your ideals 'wrong' -- I find them disturbingly flimsy for a good number of reasons. I also find them disturbingly ill-defined, which buttresses the preceding sentence. While I find them thus, they *are* your beliefs. They don't overtly harm anyone. So while I dont agree with them, I cannot say they are fundamentally 'wrong'. You have a fundamental right to a subjective belief, and a fundamental right to express that.

I interpreted your statement as I thought relating to the sides in Ch'tsville I had a "clear right and a clear wrong" when I find both sides equally contemptible. Trust me, most say that about me at this point, including some others on this board. But, you have your right to your opinion. I think that that opinion could be shown to be lacking in depth, and if misused, downright dangerous. And some of the return comments to me on this board (and other venues) show that inherent weakness, since I am ostensibly a Nazi-lover to a great many ignorant ***** at this point due to this viewpoint.

But stating that I dont think your belief is a terribly robust system is not saying 'you are wrong and I am right.'

If you can show me an objective reason how and why a subjective based viewpoint-based morality scale is so much inherently better than an action based viewpoint, I'm all ears. In fact here is the beginning of the hypothetical to use.

Bad Actor A yells "N-gger loving k-kes all deserve to be stripped of their clothes and paraded around like the fing dogs they are where they can join their f-ggot brothers in the gutter." (does that take into account all your groups?) (btw I will leave off the violence issue, as it takes a decent ear to understand that the Brandenburg incitement to violence exception is something I support, while the non-Brandenburg violent talk is not, fair enough)

Bad Actor B yells at Bad Actor A "F-ck your shitbag brain asshat"

Bad Actor A and Bad Actor B each hit each other in the side with baseball bat. How exactly is Bad Actor B's hitting Bad Actor A significantly worse than Bad Actor A hitting Bad Actor B?

I will note that I used 'significantly', and note that in Ct'ville each side not just *tried* to use deadly force, but *did* use deadly force. So the difference between A trying to kill B and B trying to kill A *must* be significant if you can distinguish a difference in the moral planes of what amounts to be at least assault with intent to cause great bodily harm, if not attempted murder (maybe both).

If there isnt a significant difference, it follows that your distinguishing one attempted murder against another attempted murder as a different moral plane is a red herring.

And if believe in such a significant difference between the acts (because of belief), then you must subscribe to worse punishment for A as opposed to B, do you not?

In a mathematical sense :
Crime = punishment
Crime + mean words = punishment + x

When you back out, you are left essentially with

mean words = x punishment

If all you are going to say that it is because Bad Actor A is 'worse person' or 'thinks mean thoughts' you are actually advocating thought crime in the barest form.

Since your 'mean words' is a fairly highly subjective (and utterly fing meaningless in the end) test, and highly subject to change 'because of that loophole', you *have* to fundamentally believe not just that

mean words = x punishment, but also that

utterly fing meaningless standard = x punishment.


So tell my why uttering "N-gger loving k-kes all deserve to be stripped of their clothes and paraded around like the fing dogs they are where they can join their f-ggot brothers in the gutter" deserves 'extra' punishment, since it in your world makes a significant difference between one attempted murder and another?

Here is an added boost: such a standard does exist in sentencing for hate crimes. I personally do not support it. But it is in existence. And, to be blunt, I have *never* heard a reasonable argument for it? Emotive ones because saying "N-gger loving k-kes all deserve to be stripped of their clothes and paraded around like the fing dogs they are where they can join their f-ggot brothers in the gutter" is in fact a really vile thing to say, all the time. But if that is the case, are we letting emotions about 'bad things' (again a highly subjective, and probably useless standard, not to mention easily changed at a whim) run amok in what should be an objective setting?

Starkly speaking, that is precisely why the First Amendment does *not* have a 'hate speech' exception, either literally or in *any* of the decisions interpreting it since 1781. And yes, this is also why you can name a rock band (all asians) as "the Slants" and why the Redskins will get their trademark back.

(08-18-2017 04:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 02:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 02:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 02:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'd put the Ferguson marches and the slaying of the Dallas police officers into that same category. I try to apply the same standard across the board.

To the bold - what group are you putting those people in? Your answer will greatly affect my response.

I'd put them into the group of people who were committing mayhem in Ferguson and who created a situation in which five Dallas police officers were shot and killed, just as the Charlottesville white supremacists belonged to a group that created a situation in which one person was run over by a car and killed.
What is the significance of the group anyway? I mean, what is a group if not the sum of its members?

The significance of the group is because a lot of the Charlottesville protestors were part of analogized KKK and neo-Nazi groups, and those groups collectively have stated missions. And those missions that do not stray far from (or explicitly condone) committing violence against others.
The people you are reference, as far as I am aware, were not part of organized groups advocating violence. They were either parts of mobs or lone-wolf type actors that don't have organizations advocating for a cause. Had the person who ran down the counter-protesters done so in association with say, an anti-abortion or libertarian rally, there would not be a direct connection to an organized group that condones violence as a means to an end. That's why I am willing to lump him in with the neo-Nazi groups where as the Dallas shooter, as far as I am aware, was not part of a group that had a stated mission of killing cops - he was just a sick dude.

OK, so if they're not part of a group then it didn't happen? Just being sarcastic there, I know that's not what you really mean. But there are 5 former Dallas police officers who are just as dead as one Heather Heyer. And you can do all the hairsplitting you want to in order to differentiate the two, but at the end of the day, both sides have problems that are very similar.

The is a fringe group of white supremacists that advocate and conduct violence, with possible connections to Nazis and fascists. There is another fringe group of largely Marxists and socialists that advocate and conduct violence, with obvious connection to communists and socialists. The left wants to connect the former to the conservatives, despite the fact that the two really don't fit together. For one thing, the economic philosophy of fascism is much closer to modern left that right. At the same time, the left is not willing to allow the socialist/communist fringe to be connected to themselves.

You asked earlier how to get the other side to engage in reasonable discussion about the problem that they allegedly have. The way is to admit the problem that your side has.

I'll start. I'm perfectly willing to agree that white supremacists are terrible and need to be made to go away. So how do you respond?

And you'll see that I advocated for detaching these people from EITHER side:

Quote: I think what is even more important would be for both sides to not view either as part of their side. I think that is what leads to people defending/attacking them.

I don't think I've said anything about the white supremacists in Charlottesvile being a part of the Republican party or conservatives. I have talked about how they are associated with Trump and how they have very clearly, stated that he has emboldened them. In fact, Republican lawmakers as a whole have handled this situation fantastically and have generally come out very strongly against the hate-mongers in Charlottesville and avoided the dilution of that message by trying to compare the white supremacists to Antifa.

But you are missing my point with the groups. The reason I come back to organized groups (keyword: organized) is that they publicly advocate for their position and often go out and recruit new members. That to me is more concerning because it has the ability to spread a malignancy more than a one-off riot or a crazed gun-man. That's why I am more concerned with a group that has stated goals of violence, being prejudice, and reclaiming what they feel they have lost, because all indications point towards them wanting to spread their behavior. Did you happen to watch that Vice video I posted? If you didn't, you should.

(08-18-2017 04:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 04:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 02:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 02:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To the bold - what group are you putting those people in? Your answer will greatly affect my response.

I'd put them into the group of people who were committing mayhem in Ferguson and who created a situation in which five Dallas police officers were shot and killed, just as the Charlottesville white supremacists belonged to a group that created a situation in which one person was run over by a car and killed.
What is the significance of the group anyway? I mean, what is a group if not the sum of its members?

The significance of the group is because a lot of the Charlottesville protestors were part of analogized KKK and neo-Nazi groups, and those groups collectively have stated missions. And those missions that do not stray far from (or explicitly condone) committing violence against others.
The people you are reference, as far as I am aware, were not part of organized groups advocating violence. They were either parts of mobs or lone-wolf type actors that don't have organizations advocating for a cause. Had the person who ran down the counter-protesters done so in association with say, an anti-abortion or libertarian rally, there would not be a direct connection to an organized group that condones violence as a means to an end. That's why I am willing to lump him in with the neo-Nazi groups where as the Dallas shooter, as far as I am aware, was not part of a group that had a stated mission of killing cops - he was just a sick dude.

OK, so if they're not part of a group then it didn't happen? Just being sarcastic there, I know that's not what you really mean. But there are 5 former Dallas police officers who are just as dead as one Heather Heyer. And you can do all the hairsplitting you want to in order to differentiate the two, but at the end of the day, both sides have problems that are very similar.

The is a fringe group of white supremacists that advocate and conduct violence, with possible connections to Nazis and fascists. There is another fringe group of largely Marxists and socialists that advocate and conduct violence, with obvious connection to communists and socialists. The left wants to connect the former to the conservatives, despite the fact that the two really don't fit together. For one thing, the economic philosophy of fascism is much closer to modern left that right. At the same time, the left is not willing to allow the socialist/communist fringe to be connected to themselves.

You asked earlier how to get the other side to engage in reasonable discussion about the problem that they allegedly have. The way is to admit the problem that your side has.

I'll start. I'm perfectly willing to agree that white supremacists are terrible and need to be made to go away. So how do you respond?

And you'll see that I advocated for detaching these people from EITHER side:

Quote: I think what is even more important would be for both sides to not view either as part of their side. I think that is what leads to people defending/attacking them.

I don't think I've said anything about the white supremacists in Charlottesvile being a part of the Republican party or conservatives. I have talked about how they are associated with Trump and how they have very clearly, stated that he has emboldened them. In fact, Republican lawmakers as a whole have handled this situation fantastically and have generally come out very strongly against the hate-mongers in Charlottesville and avoided the dilution of that message by trying to compare the white supremacists to Antifa.

But you are missing my point with the groups. The reason I come back to organized groups (keyword: organized) is that they publicly advocate for their position and often go out and recruit new members. That to me is more concerning because it has the ability to spread a malignancy more than a one-off riot or a crazed gun-man. That's why I am more concerned with a group that has stated goals of violence, being prejudice, and reclaiming what they feel they have lost, because all indications point towards them wanting to spread their behavior. Did you happen to watch that Vice video I posted? If you didn't, you should.

So the major difference is that nazis are organized, but the antifa isnt (by your constructed definition)? or is it because the antifa 'doesnt recruit'? or is their (continued) suppression of opposing speech not 'public' enough or 'advocating' enough?

(08-18-2017 05:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 04:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 04:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 02:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 02:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'd put them into the group of people who were committing mayhem in Ferguson and who created a situation in which five Dallas police officers were shot and killed, just as the Charlottesville white supremacists belonged to a group that created a situation in which one person was run over by a car and killed.
What is the significance of the group anyway? I mean, what is a group if not the sum of its members?

The significance of the group is because a lot of the Charlottesville protestors were part of analogized KKK and neo-Nazi groups, and those groups collectively have stated missions. And those missions that do not stray far from (or explicitly condone) committing violence against others.
The people you are reference, as far as I am aware, were not part of organized groups advocating violence. They were either parts of mobs or lone-wolf type actors that don't have organizations advocating for a cause. Had the person who ran down the counter-protesters done so in association with say, an anti-abortion or libertarian rally, there would not be a direct connection to an organized group that condones violence as a means to an end. That's why I am willing to lump him in with the neo-Nazi groups where as the Dallas shooter, as far as I am aware, was not part of a group that had a stated mission of killing cops - he was just a sick dude.

OK, so if they're not part of a group then it didn't happen? Just being sarcastic there, I know that's not what you really mean. But there are 5 former Dallas police officers who are just as dead as one Heather Heyer. And you can do all the hairsplitting you want to in order to differentiate the two, but at the end of the day, both sides have problems that are very similar.

The is a fringe group of white supremacists that advocate and conduct violence, with possible connections to Nazis and fascists. There is another fringe group of largely Marxists and socialists that advocate and conduct violence, with obvious connection to communists and socialists. The left wants to connect the former to the conservatives, despite the fact that the two really don't fit together. For one thing, the economic philosophy of fascism is much closer to modern left that right. At the same time, the left is not willing to allow the socialist/communist fringe to be connected to themselves.

You asked earlier how to get the other side to engage in reasonable discussion about the problem that they allegedly have. The way is to admit the problem that your side has.

I'll start. I'm perfectly willing to agree that white supremacists are terrible and need to be made to go away. So how do you respond?

And you'll see that I advocated for detaching these people from EITHER side:

Quote: I think what is even more important would be for both sides to not view either as part of their side. I think that is what leads to people defending/attacking them.

I don't think I've said anything about the white supremacists in Charlottesvile being a part of the Republican party or conservatives. I have talked about how they are associated with Trump and how they have very clearly, stated that he has emboldened them. In fact, Republican lawmakers as a whole have handled this situation fantastically and have generally come out very strongly against the hate-mongers in Charlottesville and avoided the dilution of that message by trying to compare the white supremacists to Antifa.

But you are missing my point with the groups. The reason I come back to organized groups (keyword: organized) is that they publicly advocate for their position and often go out and recruit new members. That to me is more concerning because it has the ability to spread a malignancy more than a one-off riot or a crazed gun-man. That's why I am more concerned with a group that has stated goals of violence, being prejudice, and reclaiming what they feel they have lost, because all indications point towards them wanting to spread their behavior. Did you happen to watch that Vice video I posted? If you didn't, you should.

So the major difference is that nazis are organized, but the antifa isnt (by your constructed definition)? or is it because the antifa 'doesnt recruit'? or is their (continued) suppression of opposing speech not 'public' enough or 'advocating' enough?

NOOOOOOOOOOO.

That conversation was about the riots and lone gunman Owl69 was talking about, and how I'm less concerned about those issues compared to the white supremacists because of how organized and intentional the white supremacists groups in Charlottesville seemed to be.

The Antifa do organize, but I am less concerned about them because of their stated goals which are not suppressing, harassing, marginalizing, etc. classes of people based up their skin color, sexual orientation, etc.

Look, I get that you are trying to find flaws in my logic and way of thinking, and you're right that I am likely not as morally rigid or idealistically set as you are. My thoughts and opinions do change, and sure, they are likely influenced by the team I identify with, the time of day, how emotionally connected I am to a situation, etc. I'm not ignorant to that. I also am not a judge - i'm just some dude on the internet.

I do try and morally ground myself to some things, one being that people deserve to not be discriminated against for something they cannot change (race, sex, etc.). I'm much less anchored to that idea when it is about something we can change (e.g. being a racist).

(08-18-2017 05:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  [quote='tanqtonic' pid='14513272' dateline='1503093926']

The Antifa do organize, but I am less concerned about them because of their stated goals which are not suppressing, harassing, marginalizing, etc. classes of people based up their skin color, sexual orientation, etc.

But they *are* all for (and participate heavily in) "suppressing, harassing, marginalizing, etc. classes of people based upon their" political viewpoints and, more importantly, the *audacity* to even *express* those viewpoints, no? How is that different from the loosey goosey escape word also provided (i.e. 'etc')?

Quote:Look, I get that you are trying to find flaws in my logic and way of thinking, and you're right that I am likely not as morally rigid or idealistically set as you are.

So I am a rigid somewhat ignorant ******* eh? You might (probably would) be surprised at my philosophical changes over time and over discussion.

I'm not trying to find flaws, I am more probing the boundaries of a belief that I really cannot get a grasp on. Socratic method is a very good and effective way to do that. Sorry to make you experience it.

But if that method produces an incongruity, I *will* ask why. I think that fair, is it not? And if my philosophy or belief produces such an incongruity from your stance, I would more than welcome it.

A good one to probe on my part is the freedom to associate; there are lines there that I cannot wholly make sound without coming to some pretty grotesque moral outcomes. But I invite the pointed questioning -- on more than one occasion a good point made that way (or a good fact served up) has caused a severe break with a past belief. I used to be heavily pro-death penalty -- now I am just as heavily anti-death penalty just as an example.

Quote:I do try and morally ground myself to some things, one being that people deserve to not be discriminated against for something they cannot change (race, sex, etc.).

That is a laudable set of anchors. Interestingly current events may change the entire framework (such as *what* exactly is 'race' and 'how' do we define that, or the real current one, *what* is one's sex?)

Quote:I'm much less anchored to that idea when it is about something we can change (e.g. being a racist).

I can't fault that rating. Talking the issue of the power of self-determination. Look, I'm not earnestly and dogmatically trying to 'change your opinion' -- that is yours. And as stated earlier, can't say that a subjective opinion is 'wrong' -- to do so would put me in the same camp as the Nazis, to be blunt. I certainly can't defend the right of Nazis to have free will, speech, expression, and to follow the ideology and thoughts that drive them, and at the same time label yours as 'wrong'. That would be laughably and simplistically hypocritical of me,

But, what you *might* take as "attacking your beliefs" as "lets explore some outer bounds and see where the **** it fails." By default you are providing not just a self-education and self-testing for that belief system, but are providing the same for others. And if the belief system fails the stress test, there is a positive, just as much as when the belief system survives the stress test.

(08-18-2017 01:55 PM)JSA Wrote:  Speaking his mind won Trump the election and speaking her mind cost Hillary.

This comes back to my "snowflakes" comment. The people I see complaining about "snowflakes" and political correctness [edit for clarity: online generally] are the same ones who are constantly posting memes about how horribly offensive what someone said or did is. Colin Kaepernick is the worst human being in the world for his silent peaceful protest and should be exiled from the country and/or beaten up. But counter-protestors against armed *Neo-effing-Nazis* are a threat to democracy. Hey, it's not like they are the dixie chicks criticizing the president. Or the American Library Association refusing to hand over private info to John Ashcroft. Those people are traitors and want the terrorists to win. </sarcasm>

Less sarcastically, there is a lot of irony in the Republicans and conservatives here getting their knickers in a twist about liberals being 'condescending' and 'insulting' to 'middle America'. Have any of you ever watched Fox News? Listened to right wing talk radio? If someone ever does an impartial content analysis study I would better every last cent of my life savings the right leaning side is at least as bad and probably much, much worse.

Just a quick review of some conservative best sellers:

"Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism" Ann Coulter

"Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism" Sean Hannity

"Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government" Glenn Beck

"Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions" Michael Savage

"Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left" Dinesh D'Souza

And so on...

At least on the last selection by D'Souza, I will take it you are not very familiar with the familial ties of National Socialism and modern Progressivism.

D'Souzas book is a good primer, and I would suggest reading Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Socialism" as to a better researched version of that particular family tree.

Before you go ballistic (and to be honest some of the titles mentioned above deserve that), next time actually try to read them *before* you comment on how horrible they are. Just saying.

(08-17-2017 09:29 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  A few posts above we have JAAO unable to bring himself to state that even at 30 million Hillary was actually overstating the number of deplorables rather than understating it, and then engaging in a lot of self-important chin-stroking about whether he will deign to give a pass to people who voted differently than he did. Honestly, can you people even hear yourselves talk?

Just reading between the lines here, but I think you might not have liked my answer…

I’ll try again. I think it depends which question we are actually asking. If we are asking what percentage of Trump voters (in the general election) fall into at least one of the categories (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic) then Islamophobic and homophobic alone probably get us there. Look at the ticket. Pence is undeniably a sexist, and Trump is undeniably a misogynist. Pence is virulently homophobic. Trump has a long history of racism and racist actions/statements.

If we were to go by 2 out of 5, 3 out of 5, etc., the numbers would go down. But I’ll go directly to how you phrased it: “You think there are 30 million racist, evil bigots in this country?”

If to qualify someone has to 1)be a bigot, 2)include racism as part of that bigotry, and 3) be genuinely evil and beyond redemption, then no, probably not.

But as Edmund Burke may or may not have said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” That’s where my “chin-scratching” comes in. I won’t relist them here, but Trump did or said many things during the campaign and in his life before the campaign that I think are truly horrible. And every single person who voted for him had to decide that all of those things didn’t disqualify him, that all of those things were OK. I’m still struggling to digest that.

(08-21-2017 11:04 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 09:29 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  A few posts above we have JAAO unable to bring himself to state that even at 30 million Hillary was actually overstating the number of deplorables rather than understating it, and then engaging in a lot of self-important chin-stroking about whether he will deign to give a pass to people who voted differently than he did. Honestly, can you people even hear yourselves talk?

Just reading between the lines here, but I think you might not have liked my answer…

I’ll try again. I think it depends which question we are actually asking. If we are asking what percentage of Trump voters (in the general election) fall into at least one of the categories (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic) then Islamophobic and homophobic alone probably get us there. Look at the ticket. Pence is undeniably a sexist, and Trump is undeniably a misogynist. Pence is virulently homophobic. Trump has a long history of racism and racist actions/statements.

If we were to go by 2 out of 5, 3 out of 5, etc., the numbers would go down. But I’ll go directly to how you phrased it: “You think there are 30 million racist, evil bigots in this country?”

If to qualify someone has to 1)be a bigot, 2)include racism as part of that bigotry, and 3) be genuinely evil and beyond redemption, then no, probably not.

But as Edmund Burke may or may not have said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” That’s where my “chin-scratching” comes in. I won’t relist them here, but Trump did or said many things during the campaign and in his life before the campaign that I think are truly horrible. And every single person who voted for him had to decide that all of those things didn’t disqualify him, that all of those things were OK. I’m still struggling to digest that.

And now you'll hear about how this lost Hillary the election (which it did). But it also goes to show that people get uncomfortable when forced to look in the mirror and acknowledge that, even if their vote was against Hillary, it was for someone who advocated for grabbing women by the p*ssy and who has "good genes."

(08-21-2017 11:04 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think it depends which question we are actually asking. If we are asking what percentage of Trump voters (in the general election) fall into at least one of the categories (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic) then Islamophobic and homophobic alone probably get us there.

Quote:Pence is undeniably a sexist, and

Quote:Trump is undeniably a misogynist.

Quote:Pence is virulently homophobic.

Quote:Trump has a long history of racism and racist actions/statements.

Previously you made a long screed and a long historonic about the long listing about the "terrible" things that the right says, then you follow it up with the foregoing.

Lolz. Can you even see how hypocritical you come across, even in the span of two posts?

(08-21-2017 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-21-2017 11:04 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 09:29 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  A few posts above we have JAAO unable to bring himself to state that even at 30 million Hillary was actually overstating the number of deplorables rather than understating it, and then engaging in a lot of self-important chin-stroking about whether he will deign to give a pass to people who voted differently than he did. Honestly, can you people even hear yourselves talk?

Just reading between the lines here, but I think you might not have liked my answer…

I’ll try again. I think it depends which question we are actually asking. If we are asking what percentage of Trump voters (in the general election) fall into at least one of the categories (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic) then Islamophobic and homophobic alone probably get us there. Look at the ticket. Pence is undeniably a sexist, and Trump is undeniably a misogynist. Pence is virulently homophobic. Trump has a long history of racism and racist actions/statements.

If we were to go by 2 out of 5, 3 out of 5, etc., the numbers would go down. But I’ll go directly to how you phrased it: “You think there are 30 million racist, evil bigots in this country?”

If to qualify someone has to 1)be a bigot, 2)include racism as part of that bigotry, and 3) be genuinely evil and beyond redemption, then no, probably not.

But as Edmund Burke may or may not have said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” That’s where my “chin-scratching” comes in. I won’t relist them here, but Trump did or said many things during the campaign and in his life before the campaign that I think are truly horrible. And every single person who voted for him had to decide that all of those things didn’t disqualify him, that all of those things were OK. I’m still struggling to digest that.

And now you'll hear about how this lost Hillary the election (which it did). But it also goes to show that people get uncomfortable when forced to look in the mirror and acknowledge that, even if their vote was against Hillary, it was for someone who advocated for grabbing women by the p*ssy and who has "good genes."

Yep, and against somebody who doesnt seem to give a **** about keeping national security issues classified in support of her own Nixon-esque paranoia.

As many here have said what *great* choice offered by both parties.

(08-21-2017 11:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-21-2017 11:04 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think it depends which question we are actually asking. If we are asking what percentage of Trump voters (in the general election) fall into at least one of the categories (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic) then Islamophobic and homophobic alone probably get us there.

Quote:Pence is undeniably a sexist, and

Quote:Trump is undeniably a misogynist.

Quote:Pence is virulently homophobic.

Quote:Trump has a long history of racism and racist actions/statements.

Previously you made a long screed and a long historonic about the long listing about the "terrible" things that the right says, then you follow it up with the foregoing.

Lolz. Can you even see how hypocritical you come across, even in the span of two posts?

Two things. First, I'm not doing a generalization about "Republicans" or "Conservatives" or even "Trump voters", but two individuals. Second, there is abundant evidence on each of those assertions. Which one are you questioning?

(08-21-2017 01:33 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-21-2017 11:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-21-2017 11:04 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think it depends which question we are actually asking. If we are asking what percentage of Trump voters (in the general election) fall into at least one of the categories (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic) then Islamophobic and homophobic alone probably get us there.

Quote:Pence is undeniably a sexist, and

Quote:Trump is undeniably a misogynist.

Quote:Pence is virulently homophobic.

Quote:Trump has a long history of racism and racist actions/statements.

Previously you made a long screed and a long historonic about the long listing about the "terrible" things that the right says, then you follow it up with the foregoing.

Lolz. Can you even see how hypocritical you come across, even in the span of two posts?

Two things. First, I'm not doing a generalization about "Republicans" or "Conservatives" or even "Trump voters", but two individuals. Second, there is abundant evidence on each of those assertions. Which one are you questioning?

edited: not worth the fing bother. Have fun with your screeds Austin..... you should really seek out a competent physician for the knee-jerk that seems somewhat prevalent.

(08-21-2017 11:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-21-2017 11:04 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think it depends which question we are actually asking. If we are asking what percentage of Trump voters (in the general election) fall into at least one of the categories (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic) then Islamophobic and homophobic alone probably get us there.

Quote:Pence is undeniably a sexist, and

Quote:Trump is undeniably a misogynist.

Quote:Pence is virulently homophobic.

Quote:Trump has a long history of racism and racist actions/statements.

Previously you made a long screed and a long historonic about the long listing about the "terrible" things that the right says, then you follow it up with the foregoing.

Lolz. Can you even see how hypocritical you come across, even in the span of two posts?

The comment about Trump is true though. Trump is a misogynist. His actions and what he says indicate that unequivocally.

(08-21-2017 11:04 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  But as Edmund Burke may or may not have said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” That’s where my “chin-scratching” comes in. I won’t relist them here, but Trump did or said many things during the campaign and in his life before the campaign that I think are truly horrible. And every single person who voted for him had to decide that all of those things didn’t disqualify him, that all of those things were OK. I’m still struggling to digest that.

Every single person who voted for him had to decide, not whether those things disqualified him, but rather whether he was worse than Hillary. A lot of people decided that even with those things, he wasn't. I didn't go that way, I decided they were both disqualified in my mind, so my vote went elsewhere.

(08-21-2017 01:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-21-2017 01:33 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-21-2017 11:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-21-2017 11:04 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think it depends which question we are actually asking. If we are asking what percentage of Trump voters (in the general election) fall into at least one of the categories (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic) then Islamophobic and homophobic alone probably get us there.

Quote:Pence is undeniably a sexist, and

Quote:Trump is undeniably a misogynist.

Quote:Pence is virulently homophobic.

Quote:Trump has a long history of racism and racist actions/statements.

Previously you made a long screed and a long historonic about the long listing about the "terrible" things that the right says, then you follow it up with the foregoing.

Lolz. Can you even see how hypocritical you come across, even in the span of two posts?

Two things. First, I'm not doing a generalization about "Republicans" or "Conservatives" or even "Trump voters", but two individuals. Second, there is abundant evidence on each of those assertions. Which one are you questioning?

edited: not worth the fing bother. Have fun with your screeds Austin..... you should really seek out a competent physician for the knee-jerk that seems somewhat prevalent.

Fail.