YouTube Briefly Nukes Video Of Nazi Symbol Destruction For Violating Hate Speech Rules
from the everyone-go-crazy-all-at-once dept
Things have gone slightly crazy in the wake of the Charlottesville protests. What started as speech and ended in violence has prompted a number of reactions, many of them terrible. The president took three swings at addressing the situation: one bad, one a bit better, and one that erased the "better" statement completely when Trump decided to go off-script and engage in a bunch of whataboutism.
Other reactions haven't been much better. After defending the white nationalists' right to protest the removal of Confederacy-related statues, the ACLU decided it would no longer protect the First Amendment rights of those exercising their Second Amendment rights. It didn't state it quite as bluntly, but basically said if it detected some "intent" to harm counter-protesters, the ACLU wasn't interested in defending gun-owning citizens' right to assemble.
Over on the internet, things got weird. Third-party service providers suddenly began dumping white nationalist/Nazi-related websites and forums, setting a rather dangerous precedent for themselves. While some may view the moves as long overdue, the moment a platform starts engaging in arbitrary determinations about speech is the same moment government officials and entities start seeing wiggle room for further speech-policing demands.
Meanwhile, platforms' decisions about acceptable speech are still being made as badly as ever. Rob Beschizza of Boing Boing points out YouTube (temporarily) took down a video of the US military destroying Nazi symbols for "violating" its policy on "hate speech."
The video has since been restored, but it's just another example of how this sort of moderation tends to be more of a threat to free speech than an effective deterrent of "hate speech." To begin with, "hate speech" in the US is a term granted to the eye of the beholder. It's not a legal term of art and there's nothing in our laws or Constitution that forbid hateful speech. Attempts to police "hate speech" with algorithms results in spectacularly stupid "decisions." Attempts to police this using human moderators seldom fares better, resulting in innocuous content being removed while truly vile speech remains where everyone can see it.
It's understandable so many different entities are doing everything they can to combat hate in the wake of the Charlottesville protests, but the rush to do something means a lot of it will be done badly and will only target current Villains of the Week. It's something that should be done cautiously, carefully, and with an eye on restricting as little speech as possible. Instead, we're getting rubber banding of both artificial and human intelligence as everyone suddenly pitches in simultaneously. Maybe things will calm down in a few weeks, but the tensions brought to the surface by the Charlottesville protest suggest it's going to be a long time before the nation returns to anything resembling "normal."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: charlottesville, hate speech
Companies: youtube
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Then they came for the racists, and for everyone who wasn't racist but who spoke up for them--they called them racists too. And so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the homophobes, and for everyone who wasn't homophobic but who spoke up for them--they called them homophobes too. And so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the Nazis, and for everyone who wasn't a Nazi but who spoke up for them--they called them Nazis too.
Maybe I should speak up now, before they find a reason to come for me and call me something even worse?
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
First Amendment > Second Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Amendment > Second Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: First Amendment > Second Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: First Amendment > Second Amendment?
In May 1967 two dozen Black Panther Party members walked into the California Statehouse carrying rifles to protest a gun-control bill, prompting then-Gov. Ronald Reagan to comment, "There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons."
Of course if they were white, the NRA and today's alt-right would hail them as heroes.
And if Reagan were a Democrat, they'd launch a jihad against him for that comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Amendment > Second Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: First Amendment > Second Amendment?
I don't even know how to respond to you without my post being flagged as abusive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: First Amendment > Second Amendment?
Me personally I think they are all equally important. I can't think of any single amendment that I could point to and then grudgingly admit I could do without.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: First Amendment > Second Amendment?
Me personally I think they are all equally important. I can't think of any single amendment that I could point to and then grudgingly admit I could do without.
The interstate commerce clause, on the other hand, could use some revising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: First Amendment > Second Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Amendment > Second Amendment?
Make no mistake. The attitude you're displaying now is the reason our Bill of Rights is in the state it's in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just don't be surprised when groups who value their Second Amendment rights treat your First Amendment rights equally flippantly.
That would be a surprise, since currently in the US your First Amendment rights are treated far more flippantly.
In fact, the Second Amendment has become a wonderful red herring for your Government; make a feint towards that, and in the ensuing brouhaha, they can bring in more restrictions on your First Amendment and other rights, without you noticing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just don't be surprised when groups who value their Second Amendment rights treat your First Amendment rights equally flippantly.
Really? There's not (yet) a waiting period or background check required for speech, and you're even allowed to do it in NYC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Amendment > Second Amendment?
When they came to take away the 2nd, well
When they came to take away the 3rd, well.
When they came to take away the 4th, well..
When they came to take away the 5th, well...
etc..
Don't complain when it eventually affects you personally because by then it's way too late to complain.
Defend the whole kit and kaboodle.. zealously!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: First Amendment > Second Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When Trump is gone. Not before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem is that there are human beings who believe that other human beings are lesser human beings than they themselves are, based upon little more than the amount of melanin in that other human being's skin.
It's bananas.
Getting Trump out of the White House would probably do no harm ... but if it puts Pence in his place, we might all be wishing to have Trump back before too long. Trump is at least ineffective, whereas Pence actually scares me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I keep hearing about such people but have yet to meet one personally, that I know of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
then you don't get out much...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Examples?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://youtu.be/RC-Cqkq6zWc
But of course racism and sexism towards white cis males is perfectly justified since everyone knows they're responsible for every single evil act ever committed.
Evidently, TD is now an Alt-left hate site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And that's to point out that you regressives, a term coined by classical liberals, that you far left ideolouges are no different from the far right, if not worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My view is that the only good Nazi is a dead Nazi. They are a disgrace.
That doesn't make Antifa good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm curious. Where/how did you get the above from the post to which you relied?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's his opponents who are the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That being said, Trump is a disaster. He is a fucking idiot that can't put together coherent speeches and when he talks off the top of his head, he sounds like a complete idiot that doesn't know how to talk to people, to influence them.
A lot of his policies would actually be good if he wasn't such an idiot in trying to explain them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, let's see now - pretty much all dems and recently many repubs and many more independents.
So, in a "democracy" we see a post on TD that says that the minority opinions should take precedence because it is held by the president ... regardless of the wishes and desires of a large majority of the population.
Ok, interesting proposition. Where is your data, analysis and conclusions supported by logical rational? You do not have any? Color me surprised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Who is against him? Progressives as well as Democrats and Republicans.
Yeah, he is an idiot, but the people are tired of politicians. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. Since the President can do very little, is it any surprise that Congress won't get rid of the ACA (even though they campaigned on the issue for 8 fucking years?
Everyone knows Congress is bought and paid for, and people are sick of it.
Do you think all this bullshit about Charlottesville is about racism? Where was the outcry to tear down the statues when Obama was president? Were the statues just put up when Trump came into office?
People are tired of being flat out lied to by politicians and the media. That is why Trump was elected.
Is it any wonder that everyone in Washington hates him?
Yeah, I know he is a douchbag, but that is besides the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let us call things by their name, even if they are being committed by a privileged group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How dare you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moderation needs the equivalent of that bendy bit of pipe under the sink. If the wrong thing gets flushed away, it can be recovered. But it tends to fill with dreck. Or the alt-right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After 8 years of uncivil discourse on a president, now everyone is supposed to be jumping for joy about the current occupant? Just because he is there? What joy? Oh? He isn't addressing the issues? What issues? Taxes, defense, safety? Oh, they are pushing for a constitutional crisis, 26 States want to limit your rights, what rights are they going after? Whose agenda are the minority pushing? Remember free speech, a " free" press, association? Guilds? Majority rule? States rights? Religious freedom? Pick and choose, which ones you are willing to lose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Passing on hate speech as a public service
I'd much rather those on the daily stormer be heard and allowed to prove themselves to be racists and their speech countered, than to make them be silent in their corner and only have us THINK bad things about them without proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, there are tiny fringes. People who resort to violence and punch Nazis, vs. the "good neo-Nazis" Trump assures us exists. But for the most part your claim is a deliberate reversal of reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Those tiny fringes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just like the fringes on the other side. Since you mention universities, that would include universities that ban College Democrats organizations because Democrats can't possibly be Christian - and that make attending rallies by Republican leaders mandatory for students. Accusations of favoritism by professors apply there too.
As for "Tiny fringes like quite a few dems who celebrate Nazi punching?", yes, that fringe exists too. As opposed to the Republican mainstream. There's no Democratic or liberal equivalent of Trump routinely calling for violence at his rallies. Or for Republicans bringing Ted Nugent - who routinely made threats of violence against Hillary and Obama - to the 2013 State of the Union Address and to rallies for Presidential candidates like Rick Perry and Mike Huckabee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Interesting fact, Notre Dame brought in the head of planned parenthood to speak, impressive considering Catholics (as an institution) are pretty much against abortion).
Berkley (the so called birth of free speech) wouldn't have conservative speakers that were invited by students allowed on campus.
Funny, a Missouri state senator wrote that "Trump should be assassinated." She doesn't plan on stepping down.
Personally, I agree with Brad Pitt. The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi.
But you can't argue with facts, if you speak about conservative issues, you will be labeled a Nazi.
What people choose to ignore is that many people that voted for Trump didn't support him, but wouldn't vote for Hillary. Many people that didn't vote at all was because they wouldn't vote for Trump but didn't want to vote for Hillary. If you don't believe that, ask the people that have Bernie stickers on their cars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps you are talking out yer ass here, but just in case, do you have any data in support of your wildly general and all encompassing claim?
I would suspect that you might be correct if your statement had qualifications or some limiting factors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once a university becomes a mandatory campaign stop for Presidential candidates - openly backing one party over the other and over Christian principles - there's little difference. Any separation of church and state is gone. That "private" entity has a greater role in setting public policy than most public universities.
Again, wrong when either side does it, and thankfully rare. (And they played right into Ann Coulter's hands. She tried that in Canada. Announced a speaking tour of Canadian universities, dared everyone to ban her, spouted her usual racist BS in her speeches. Then when it was clear that she wasn't going to be banned, she cancelled a show herself and declared it a ban.)
Do you really want to go there? It was a big deal only because it was a Democrat. Several Democrats in Congress have called for her resignation. Meanwhile Trumps comments about Hillary include gems like:
"If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know."
Trump, Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry all had no problems associating with Ted Nugent despite his assassination comments about Obama and Hillary. Other Republicans brought him to the State of the Union address in the House chamber.
When you talk about today's alt-right-dominated Republican party, their cheerful association with the alt-right and neo-Nazis are the elephant in the room. Eventually Republicans will tell them "No, you are not Republicans. You are not even conservatives." But it obviously won't happen during this administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“I distinguish it from white supremacy because the people who were involved [in the white nationalism movement] were more intellectual,” said Swain, a graduate of Yale Law School. “They were not espousing racial violence or using epithets, but they had grievances. They felt that white people’s rights were being trampled on and no one was speaking up or listening to their grievances.”
Swain said the white nationalism movement took off — long before Trump took office — because whites were being marginalized and disenfranchised after decades of affirmative action and other government programs designed to benefit minorities.
Adding to the disgruntlement is the constant browbeating by academia and the media — which are 97% liberal — calling ALL white people racist and claiming they have no right to complain about anything because they have “white privilege.” Look around you: There are plenty of poor, underprivileged whites.
Written by Professor Dr. Carol Swain of Vanderbilt University and a Harvard Law School grad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I blame Trump for *legitimizing* white nationalism, by accepting its support and failing to clearly condemn it (and, at least arguably, even espousing some of its views - albeit in less blatant and aggressive forms).
Taking an extreme, fringe viewpoint and making it seem acceptable and mainstream is an act worthy of either praise or condemnation all on its own, depending on what you think of the viewpoint in question.
White nationalism, et cetera, aren't all the way there - but they're a hell of a lot closer than they were this time last year, and a hell of a lot closer than they would be likely to be if Trump hadn't won the electoral college.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Going there" [was Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:]
Mr Strong: I perceive that your comment #23 in chronological view was posted at 9:09am yesterday.
Now, in civilized discourse, it's a legitimate tactic to bait your interlocutors. Then to query those interlocutors: Do they truly desire to pick up that bait?
Of course, you should not really concern yourself whether any others whiff some unsavory scent—
New cologne?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sometimes the use of physical force is necessary and morally defensible. I imagine "Nazi punching" may fall into that category.
Violence is not always physical.
The rest of that is the usual disingenuous attacks on universities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You left out "evolutionist punching".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You left out "evolutionist punching".
Wow, talk about false equivalencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They're both equally guilty of genocide and thus neither of them should ever be supported.
The only thing I'll support is their constitutional rights and nothing more.
And no, violence is not words, violence is always physical and the people displaying most of the violence are the far left Gulags like antifa (anti-first amendment), BAMN, and the Alt-left totalitarian progressives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I'm pretty certain you would like to see your entire political opposition and anyone who doesn't submit to your Marxist beliefs thrown into The GULAGS...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I could not find it in the comments, perhaps you are clairvoyant ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Trump is 100% right when he called out both sides.
The mere fact that people don't understand that is pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Really? You call Antifa freedom fighting egalitarians? Hahaha, you are a wack job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Choose
You cannot have both....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Choose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Choose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Choose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Choose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Choose
"That is not what Net Neutrality means."
is indeed correct.
You simply do not understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Choose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Against drilling with arms
A few days ago, the LA Times republished an old, historical pamphlet from the ACLU: In 1934, this ACLU pamphlet asked, “Shall We Defend Free Speech for Nazis in America?”
The pamphlet is short, only four pages, and well worth reading today.
One portion, from p.4, deserves highlighting in this context:
Perhaps there's a slight difference between merely assembling with arms and actually drilling with them. If so, the difference is surely very slight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Against drilling with arms
Why can't we, the majority, agree that violence by any group is bad, free speech is everyone's constitutional right, and the rule of law is critical to our society? Is that so radical a proposal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Against drilling with arms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Against drilling with arms
Politics is the art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich by promising to protect each from the other. Peddling fear of some other group is the easy way to do it when you don't have actual leadership ability. Blacks, "feminazis", terrorists, gays, trans people, whatever's available. Peddle fear and hate.
Remember Ted Nugent? The racist, pedophile, draft dodging, illegal hunting, fear mongering chickenhawk of a talentless has-been musician? Who kept making headlines with threats of violence against Obama and Hillary? With wingnutty claims of persecution? (April 2012: "If Barack Obama becomes the President again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.")
So really, no different than the Nazis and KKK in Charlottesville. (Nugent: "Donald Trump is as close to Ted Nugent as you are going to get in politics.")
At the at the Feb 2013 State of the Union address, Republicans made a show of bringing Ted Nugent. And hailed him for being a patriot and upholding American values.
That's where the Republican Party was BEFORE Trump.
So yeah, that's a radical proposal. Trump's calls for violence at Trump rallies weren't just about injecting a little enthusiasm into a placid and contemplative group of people. Demagoguery and fear mongering work. It got Ted Nugent into the State of the Union address, and it got Trump into the White House.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Against drilling with arms
Maybe staying on topic is a radical proposal...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Against drilling with arms
Sorry it went over your head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Against drilling with arms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Against drilling with arms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Against drilling with arms
Please explain your reasoning which resulted in the above response.
Do you consider a statement of fact to be hate?
Do you hate that someone would bring up particular facts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Against drilling with arms
"The racist, pedophile, draft dodging, illegal hunting, fear mongering chickenhawk of a talentless has-been musician?"
Now, if you *don't" think that is hateful, I don't know what would qualify. Oh, and it was a long response too.
Do you consider your questions before you ask them?
Do you hate people who do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Against drilling with arms
Admittedly, I may have gone too far with "talentless." That's mere opinion, and I apologize for it.
The other bits, well, his actions speak for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Against drilling with arms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Against drilling with arms
"Do you consider a statement of fact to be hate?
Do you hate that someone would bring up particular facts?"
No but that's not all fact bro..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Against drilling with arms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Against drilling with arms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Against drilling with arms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Against drilling with arms
Yes.
(I just looked up an old post about the times Georgia senator David Perdue and Kansas House Speaker Mike O’Neal did it. They didn't "wish" for his death; they publicly "prayed" for this death. That way they're still good Christians for doing it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compassing the death of the King [was Re: Re: Re: Against drilling with arms]
Mr Justice Douglas, concurring in Watts v United States (1969) traced out a smattering of the history behind prosecutions for imagining the demise of the chief executive:
(Citations omitted; first ellipsis in source.)
Someone incapable of quite strictly distinguishing bodies of men “drilling with arms” compared against individuals “compassing the death of the King” quite possibly needs their head examined. I say this with all due respect, Mr Strong: You certainly ought to be able to make the distinction — should it suit you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Compassing the death of the King [was Re: Re: Re: Against drilling with arms]
You really ought to take your own advice.
Nugent (and Georgia senator David Perdue and Kansas House Speaker Mike O’Neal and Presidential candidate Donald Trump) did more than "imagine" or "predict" the death of the President and Hillary Clinton. He openly called for it.
There's an old quote that should be added to your citations:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Compassing the death of the King [was Re: Re: Re: Against drilling with arms]
Did they now?
Mr Justice Brennan's opinion for the court in Speiser v Randall (1958) is instructive:
Justice Brennan's next sentence, where the high court demands the use of “sensitive tools” to separate “legitimate from illegitimate speech” has been so often repeated that it now stands as a beacon.
Justice Brennan finishes that paragraph with:
In more informal discourse, as we engage in here, freed from the strict confines of a trial court —or even a grand jury proceeding— you yourself may feel the force of your personal conviction to be clearly adequate to sustain your burden of pursuasion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Compassing the death of the King [was Re: Re: Re: Against drilling with arms]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Compassing the death of the King [was Re: Re: Re: Against drilling with arms]
Mr Strong claims that one or more individuals “openly called for” the death of the (former) president. He says that's “no different than the Nazis and KKK in Charlottesville.” But in Charlottesville, as you might recall, there was an actual murder.
Further drawing from the context of Watts v United States, Mr Strong appears to imply that such a “call” for the death of the president is punishable as a crime.
If he's going to charge a speech crime, he has a burden to carry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then they came for the racists, and for everyone who wasn't racist but who spoke up for them--they called them racists too. And so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the homophobes, and for everyone who wasn't homophobic but who spoke up for them--they called them homophobes too. And so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the Nazis, and for everyone who wasn't a Nazi but who spoke up for them--they called them Nazis too.
Maybe I should speak up now, before they find a reason to come for me and call me something even worse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One of these is not like the others - can you find it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just sayin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you are a conservative, you are a Nazi. If you support stronger immigration laws, you are a Nazi. If you believe that Muslim governments don't treat gays well, you are a Nazi. If you don't agree with everything that BLM does, you are a Nazi.
If you are white, you are a Nazi. If you are a white male, you are Nazi as well as being sexist. If you believe that affirmative action is wrong (and in fact a form of racism) you are a Nazi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nazis hate... well, everyone except other Nazis
Antifa hate everyone who doesn't agree with everything they say or believe in.
Both use violence to further their agendas.
Neither of them represent most of America, and it's a shame they get so much attention from the rest of us. Nothing in the 1st Amendment says you have to *LISTEN* to idiots using their free speech rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While the other wants to exterminate all of their political opposition which also includes all races:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They're two different brands of polylogism.
They both hate capitalism, they both hate Jews for different reasons, they're all race baiters, and they all think they're morally superior and hate anyone that doesn't think like them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's not a martyr complex when that stuff actually happens.
I've seen BLM supporters go "He's white! BEAT HIS ASS!"
Antifa has stated "My heroes are those who kill cops"
As someone pointed out on Techdirt awhile ago, if Antifa isn't reigned in soon, the very fascism that they're supposedly fighting will happen due to their actions.
Hitler's rise to power was because of Antifa in Germany after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“It is true of course, that in Germany before 1933, and in Italy before 1922, communists and Nazis or Fascists clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties. They competed for the support of the same type of mind and reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic. But their practice showed how closely they are related. To both, the real enemy, the man with whom they had nothing in common and whom they could not hope to convince, is the liberal of the old type. While to the Nazi the communist, and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits who are made of the right timber, although they have listened to false prophets, they both know that there can be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom.”
― F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom
Violence from the far left is creating the monsters they claim to be opposed to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you even trying to make a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I detest both fascism and communism and where did I imply that I deny the Holocaust?
They both committed genocide and should equally be treated as shit ideologies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cry harder and admit you're incapable of refuting me. Kek!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pogo all you want, I'm not going to pulled off topic in some pathetic attempt to shut down my initial argument which you have made absolutely clear that you're incapable of refuting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Refute it.
Refute it.
Refute IT!
Stay the hell on topic you Alt-left scum bucket or gtfo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll post again what I posted you deceitful pill of human garbage:
“It is true of course, that in Germany before 1933, and in Italy before 1922, communists and Nazis or Fascists clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties. They competed for the support of the same type of mind and reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic. But their practice showed how closely they are related. To both, the real enemy, the man with whom they had nothing in common and whom they could not hope to convince, is the liberal of the old type. While to the Nazi the communist, and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits who are made of the right timber, although they have listened to false prophets, they both know that there can be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom.”
― F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom
Refute it.
Refute it.
Refute it.
The topic will never change until you refute it. Your manipulation ends with me and I refuse to let ideolouges like you manipulate the conversation any longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The far left is adamantly opposed to the state of Israel but cries Nazi sympathizer when dealing with their political opposition. While the right supports the state of Israel but cry about Hollywood and the media being Jewish supremacists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/08/24/stop-hes-not-white-reporter-says-his-race-saved-him-du ring-attack-at-black-lives-matter-protest/
BLM, Antifa, and BAMN all need to be thrown on to the official list of hate groups and terrorist organizations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"It's not a martyr complex when that stuff actually happens."
You're right, it would be a martyr complex if any of that stuff actually happened, no nobody other than may a fringe loony or two have made those claims. Stop making lame strawman arguments.
"I've seen BLM supporters go "He's white! BEAT HIS ASS!""
No you haven't. Maybe you read that someone said they heard someone say something dumb once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No there's actual videos all over YouTube of it, although the first one was of an Asian being attacked by BLM, there are many videos of BLM attacking every race including other blacks:
https://youtu.be/U-M-zu4B-4w
There's even recent videos of antifa attacking blm:
https://youtu.be/IKKBLnJU4kE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pro tip: If you wear Nazi regalia, carry a Nazi flag, espouse Nazi propoganda ... you are a Nazi.
Side Bar: Being conservative, believing in strong immigration control, do not like Muslim discrimination, disagree with BLM, are caucasian, are male, are sexist, do not like affirmative action ...........
----- none of these things makes you a Nazi.
Not sure how to best say this such that it can be understood, but I think it is you that is labeling yourself as a Nazi rather than everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
People should really be concerned with all the Nazi talk out there. It is really making light of what real Nazi's were and what they did.
Tolerance? How many progressives state they couldn't be friends or have a relationship with a conservative? Google it. Progressives are not a very tolerant bunch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many Bernie supports didn't vote at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Speech
I laugh at all this "Nazi AntiFa" crap. I have no wish to change anyone's mind, (and I may think some of you lack reasoning skills) I will however defend your right to speak WITHOUT Government interference with my Life. I will not defend you against another private citizen right to speak out against your views.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Speech
I agree with you whole heartedly about this.
Free speech is a moral value as well as a legal one. Americans are, by and large, a moral people. We believe in the sanctity of the open exchange of ideas, and defend the rights of everyone to express themselves.
And we have guns. We are a moral people, with guns to back that up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Free Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Free Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free Speech
Unless the elite ruling class does not like what they are saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are not American, and don't understand America
That's just so wrong, and un-American. You're not American, right? I don't really care who you are, you seem rather well spoken, and I don't mean to offend you. But you are either not American, or missed something very basic in your civic education. Which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You are not American, and don't understand America
IMHO, we should all defend each other's right to speak, and we should condemn censorship, in any form. We should condemn violence. We should condemn white-supremacist violence, we should condemn anti-fa violence, and we should (actually) support their right to speak. Speak only, no violence. Speak away, this is America, right? Weak ideas never survive scrutiny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
American civics test
Imagine you are the ultimate authority for a day, and can shoot people with repercussion, anyone you feel like. But, in the following situations, you have to shoot one. Who do you shoot?
A skin-white supremacist ranting about his hatred of everyone, and Mike with a gun to his head to silence him, who do you shoot?
Mike ranting about patent or copyright law, and someone unknown to you with a gun to his head to silence him, who do you shoot?
A police man or woman in the middle of an altercation with someone unknown to you, who do you shoot?
I'm interested in your views, really, and I think it's relevant to this article.
My answers are Mike, unknown person, unknown person. Yeah, I get that I rigged this so I could shoot Mike, but it's only speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: American civics test
Stay tuned and find out more, including trailers and a sweepstakes!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: American civics test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
B: The unknown person, assuming I can't practically defuse the situation in a less extreme way. (But how do I know that this person is doing the gun-to-head thing for the purpose of silencing the speaker, if the person is unknown to me?)
C: Neither. I don't have enough information about the situation to decide that the use of deadly force is (even potentially) justified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Giving the benefit of the doubt to the police does not extend as far as using deadly force (myself! - not even just permitting the police to use it) against a person just because the police are in conflict with that person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But would you, by default, help subdue the unknown person and help the police prevail even without knowing the details of the conflict?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fact is that "the police" are not a monolithic entity. I know some police officers, and at my workplace, one of the groups for which I provide technical support is a police academy where new officers are trained; there's so much variation in the people I see in those roles, there's no way "the police" can all hold the same views or be equally complicit in any failings. (Although broad statistical observations can still be made and be accurate.)
The situation with regard to "the police" is a sufficiently complex one that only a lengthy, nuanced analysis has any meaningful likelihood of being accurate, beyond broad strokes. If you want a single, simple, brief statement, you're not going to get it.
That said, while I don't always agree with every particular statement made here at Techdirt on the subject (especially in comment threads), I do generally concur that the analysis of the situation which I see presented here is largely correct. (At most, it may be a bit too broad.)
And to answer your initial question: again, not enough information. Just looking at the people (police and otherwise), and seeing the context in which they are encountering one another (including various details which one wouldn't think to include in a description), would give me hints which would shape my reaction and thus my decision about what action to take.
That said: most of the time, I would stand by and let the police handle it, unless it looked like I could produce a better outcome by attempting to defuse the conflict entirely. The circumstances which would lead me to attempt to intervene on either side are relatively rare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: American civics test
Checkmate anon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: American civics test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: American civics test
Darwin Award 1: Attack the police (the LEOs, as you call them). This is stupid in the first order, the police are the ones that protect you from the criminals. If you can't figure that out, kinda on you, right? Darwin award for you.
Darwin Award 2: Attack the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump with electoral voters, impeachment threats, or calls for assassination. You deserve a special recognition for your losing ways in which you seem to want to persist. Another Darwin award for you.
Darwin Award 3: Attack the King of Thailand, for no reason at all. Thai people love their king, and usually are quite adept at Muay Thai or "the art of eight limbs". Are you nuts? Nothing to gain by this, and a lot to lose. Another Darwin award for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: American civics test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: American civics test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: American civics test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Martin Luther King, Jr.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are literally entire channels dedicated to generating compilation videos of far left violence and hatred on a weekly basis.
FYI, I'm a classical liberal and I don't remember switching from liberalism to totalitarian progressive socialism boardering communism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]