(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.