Nazis and the upper limit of free speech

[EKnight]

Therein lies the proverbial rub...I don't think Nazis should have the right to exist, much less gather publicly to protest. And, lest the Nazis feel like I am discriminating solely against them, I really do hold the same beliefs for other forms of evil. For example:

If an organization of pedophiles wants to have a rally & preach about how bad-tickling kiddies is their God-given right... No dice.
If a social club of animal abusers wants to march down Main Street with signs that read "Punch a Pooch for Jesus"... Nope!
If a congregation of toxic waste dumpers want to pull up a soapbox on some local college campus and rail about how their right to poison the Earth is protected by the 17th-and-a-half ammendment... Sorry, I'm not having any of it.

Evil is evil and should be stopped. In an exceedingly gray world, this is one of the true black and white anchors.

Honest question here, given your list: how do you view Executive Order 9066? As a hypothetical (and I would argue not particularly far-fetched, given some of Trump's extreme ideas), what if similar legislation was enacted today? Would you be as vocal in denouncing our government?

[pondwater]

Sick burn, dude.  You really put me in my place.

I find it intriguing that you are using such a passive voice when it comes to the issue of weapons at political rallies.  Aren't you, like, wildly in favor of that particular action freedom?  Or just not when leftists are doing it too?

Ain't no fun when the rabbit got the gun.

Sure, I'm in favor of firearms in general. After all, it is our right. Everyone legally eligible at least. What I'm not in favor of is armed people starting violent physical confrontations. Twist that how you will.

[pondwater]

You should let other folks borrow that infallible crystal ball you're caressing...though since there is zero chance of me having great grandchildren, perhaps your view of the future isn't quite as locked in as you think.

Obviously, I don't know if you even have children because I don't know you personally. However, since you're being purposefully obtuse in order to "have a comeback". I'll rephrase my point. You'll never see the day where these groups don't exist.

You're part of the problem because:

1) You don't recognize that evil is evil

I've already called all involved idiots and retards. I support neither of them.

2) You only seem to be distancing yourself from one of the groups

See previous answer.

and a bonus one...

3) With your sample size being well over 1,000 posts on this board, I recognized you as part of the problem long-long before this thread ever got started. 

If we posted a poll asking the members of this site "Which TDMMC member is most likely to be a closet white supremacist?" You would be the prohibitive favorite.  If you don't recognize that, then your mirror is nowhere near as clear as that crystal ball you're using.

What else would a majority of self identified liberals call me. Like I said earlier. You're nobody. An annonomous internet person spouting your opinions, just like everyone else here. So now tell me, why should I care what you or any other "nobody" thinks of me?

[Spider-Dan]

Honest question here, given your list: how do you view Executive Order 9066? As a hypothetical (and I would argue not particularly far-fetched, given some of Trump's extreme ideas), what if similar legislation was enacted today? Would you be as vocal in denouncing our government?

To save everyone else the trouble of googling, Executive Order 9066 was the order given to send Japanese citizens to internment camps in WW2.  And I can't speak for Sunstroke, but there is a world of difference between sanctioning people for their terrible beliefs, and sanctioning them because of their bloodline.  The latter is an example of racism; the former is an example of fighting racism.

[Spider-Dan]

Sure, I'm in favor of firearms in general. After all, it is our right. Everyone legally eligible at least. What I'm not in favor of is armed people starting violent physical confrontations. Twist that how you will.

So then:

- people have the right to march in protest, no matter how hateful their opinions are
- people have the right to be armed while protesting

So what's the problem?  Although I don't see why you are apparently on board with the concept of a permit to exercise your 1st Amendment rights of assembly and free speech, both sides had permits.  So why you are criticizing many sides and not just the side that drove a car into a crowd of pedestrians?

I don't really understand what your problem with antifa is at all (other than the fact that they are leftists).  As a 2nd Amendment supporter, you should be celebrating their choice to arm themselves at rallies.  So for you to call "all involved idiots and retards" (especially for future rallies)  because one armed side are Nazis and the other armed side... are liberals, that makes it seem like you think Nazis and Democrats are equally worthy of criticism.

[pondwater]

So then:

- people have the right to march in protest, no matter how hateful their opinions are
- people have the right to be armed while protesting

So what's the problem?  Although I don't see why you are apparently on board with the concept of a permit to exercise your 1st Amendment rights of assembly and free speech, both sides had permits.  So why you are criticizing many sides and not just the side that drove a car into a crowd of pedestrians?

I don't really understand what your problem with antifa is at all (other than the fact that they are leftists).  As a 2nd Amendment supporter, you should be celebrating their choice to arm themselves at rallies.  So for you to call "all involved idiots and retards" (especially for future rallies)  because one armed side are Nazis and the other armed side... are liberals, that makes it seem like you think Nazis and Democrats are equally worthy of criticism.

I'm not sure what kind of puzzle your trying to weave. However, you seemed to avoid the most important part that said:

What I'm not in favor of is armed people starting violent physical confrontations. Twist that how you will.

Like I predicted, you are trying to twist and deflect like usual.

[Spider-Dan]

To revisit your earlier statement:

Maybe it's just me, but the last place I want go is a protest where there are people with guns whom I dislike and disagree with. Unless of course I wanted a violent confrontation. Anyone with any common sense doesn't put themselves into these situations.

Why does it matter (to you) if the people there have guns?  Either the presence of guns escalates the likelihood of violence, or it doesn't.

If it does, guns should not be allowed at political rallies.
If it doesn't, how does it mean you "want a violent confrontation" by attending?

The normal pro-gun talking points - i.e. adding more guns to the situation makes everyone safer -  are in direct conflict with what you are describing here as common sense: adding more guns greatly increases the potential for violence.

I personally agree with the latter, but from your perspective as a person who supports exercising the 1st and 2nd Amendment at the same time, I don't understand what your problem is.  I believe the logically consistent argument from your position should be that if there weren't as many guns at Charlottesville, everything would have been much worse.

[pondwater]

To revisit your earlier statement:
Why does it matter (to you) if the people there have guns?  Either the presence of guns escalates the likelihood of violence, or it doesn't.

If it does, guns should not be allowed at political rallies.
If it doesn't, how does it mean you "want a violent confrontation" by attending?

The normal pro-gun talking points - i.e. adding more guns to the situation makes everyone safer -  are in direct conflict with what you are describing here as common sense: adding more guns greatly increases the potential for violence.

I personally agree with the latter, but from your perspective as a person who supports exercising the 1st and 2nd Amendment at the same time, I don't understand what your problem is.  I believe the logically consistent argument from your position should be that if there weren't as many guns at Charlottesville, everything would have been much worse.

My argument has nothing to do with firearms specifically. It has to do with violence. In normal average everyday life people don't follow other people around confronting them. But that's what Antifa does, they physically confront people. But I guess you know nothing about that, huh?

[Spider-Dan]

In normal average everyday life people don't follow other people around confronting them. But that's what Antifa does, they physically confront people.

Are you saying that Antifa is simply roaming around assaulting people out of the blue?  Obviously, that should be denounced, and the perpetrators should be found and prosecuted.

But the entire premise behind legally arming oneself is self-defense, and you've repeatedly reaffirmed the importance of free speech for even the most hateful ideas.  So if Antifa is following white nationalists around and shouting mean things at them, that sounds exactly like they are simply exercising their constitutional right to free speech.  And if they do so while armed, that sounds even more constitutional.

If Antifa ends up needing to defend themselves with arms they are bearing after freely speaking their opinion to political opponents, seems to me that from your perspective, we are Letting Freedom Ring.  This should be your idea of the system working as intended.

P.S. For the record, Boston banned weapons when issuing permits for the right-wing rally today.  So I may be wrong: regardless of the objections of the NRA crowd, common sense may prevail.

[pondwater]

Are you saying that Antifa is simply roaming around assaulting people out of the blue?  Obviously, that should be denounced, and the perpetrators should be found and prosecuted.

But the entire premise behind legally arming oneself is self-defense, and you've repeatedly reaffirmed the importance of free speech for even the most hateful ideas.  So if Antifa is following white nationalists around and shouting mean things at them, that sounds exactly like they are simply exercising their constitutional right to free speech.  And if they do so while armed, that sounds even more constitutional.

I'll deal with this part of your post. There are several video examples of Antifa assaulting people. As there are several video examples of the opposite side doing the same. In light of that, members of both sides should be denounced, and the perpetrators should be found and prosecuted. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when these two groups are in close proximity that there will be violence. The members of both groups certainly know this. Therefore, when one group chooses to follow the other group around to the same location knowing that there will be a violent confrontation beforehand. Then yes, they bear a greater extent of the blame. Just because you don't like the KKK, Nazis, or whatever, doesn't give you the right to create violence. And vice versa.

If Antifa ends up needing to defend themselves with arms they are bearing after freely speaking their opinion to political opponents, seems to me that from your perspective, we are Letting Freedom Ring.  This should be your idea of the system working as intended.

P.S. For the record, Boston banned weapons when issuing permits for the right-wing rally today.  So I may be wrong: regardless of the objections of the NRA crowd, common sense may prevail.

Off topic incoherent rambling attempt to spin, twist, and deflect the thread. Shit man, you started this thread. You of all people should know this thread is about Nazis and the upper limit of free speech. Not, Antifa and the upper limit of arming themselves. If you want to discuss the 2nd amendment instead of the 1st amendment please start a new thread. Those are two entirely different things.

[Spider-Dan]

However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when these two groups are in close proximity that there will be violence.

And yet you still argue in favor of them both being armed.

You of all people should know this thread is about Nazis and the upper limit of free speech. Not, Antifa and the upper limit of arming themselves. If you want to discuss the 2nd amendment instead of the 1st amendment please start a new thread. Those are two entirely different things.

The question of whether or not people may assemble and speak hateful things while being armed is as relevant to the 1st Amendment as it is to the 2nd.  I have no interest in discussing whether Nazis, KKK, Antifa, or any other political groups arm themselves at their homes (and neither do you), which means a strictly-2nd-Amendment discussion of those groups would be pointless as there is nothing to discuss.

[pondwater]

And yet you still argue in favor of them both being armed.
The question of whether or not people may assemble and speak hateful things while being armed is as relevant to the 1st Amendment as it is to the 2nd.  I have no interest in discussing whether Nazis, KKK, Antifa, or any other political groups arm themselves at their homes (and neither do you), which means a strictly-2nd-Amendment discussion of those groups would be pointless as there is nothing to discuss.

Again, you're cherry picking my post to further your agenda. The problem is not people exercising their 2nd amendment right. The problem is that there is one group following another group with the goal of causing a violent conflict. If you cannot see that then you are blind.

[Cathal]

pondwater, would you say the Neo-Nazis are evil? Would you say those protesting against Neo-Nazis are evil? Which group would you call idiots/retards (per your earlier posts)?

[pondwater]

pondwater, would you say the Neo-Nazis are evil? Would you say those protesting against Neo-Nazis are evil? Which group would you call idiots/retards (per your earlier posts)?

I don't agree with the KKK, Nazis, or any other racist group. Yes, they are bad. However, they have the right to believe what they choose to believe. If someone is within their legal rights and not breaking any laws, they should be left alone. If they want to be a racist, that's their decision, not mine. Likewise, if they break the law, throw the book at them.

Furthermore, I also don't agree with groups (Antifa, BLM, and the like) purposely creating violent confrontations just because they don't like what someone else is legally doing. They don't have the right to assault people or get physical with another group of people because they have a different belief system, yes that includes racists and Nazis too. That is against the law. And since they know that there will be a violent confrontation, they are also to blame.

And for the people that can't read or refuse to comprehend what I'm saying. They are both idiots and fucktards. I don't endorse any of them. I don't like any of them and it would be better if none of them existed. But unfortunately they do exist and they will all be here for a long long time and that's not going to change anytime soon. So therefore, if they aren't smart enough to steer clear of each other, then fuck them all. Let them bash each other's brains out and make the world a better place. But let's be clear on one thing. You can't go to start a fight and then complain when someone gets hurt. And that's exactly what happened, hypocrisy at its finest.

[Spider-Dan]

Furthermore, I also don't agree with groups (Antifa, BLM, and the like) purposely creating violent confrontations just because they don't like what someone else is legally doing.

To be clear, the actions that those groups are undertaking to purposely create violent confrontations are:

1) using their 1st Amendment rights by making adversarial free speech (something that is "within their legal rights and not breaking any laws"), while
2) using their 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms in self-defense

So in other words, when armed Nazis march down the street shouting "Jews will not replace us" and "One people, one nation, end immigration," they are not purposely creating violent confrontations (especially not from Jews or immigrants).  But when armed Antifa shouts back at the Nazis, well, Antifa is just looking to start a fight.  So the Nazis are just "exercising their protected right of free speech," while Antifa is "intentionally provoking violence."  OK.

If you want to know why many on the right are being accused of being soft on Nazis, it's this kind of "I don't agree with what they say, but I defend their right to say it... except for what these liberals want to say, whose rights I will NOT defend" rhetoric that is the cause.