Nazis and the upper limit of free speech

[CF DolFan]

If you agree that they are not equal, then why are you representing this position of "We can't criticize Nazis unless we also criticize liberal protesters"?

I never said that. Also ... no one is out there "fighting" Nazis because they murdered a bunch of Jews. Lastly you might want to look up the word "literal". There is a huge difference between the white trash American movement want to bes and the National Socialists that killed millions of Jews.

Seriously  ... is there really anyone defending them? No there isn't.

Bottom line is that if Trump is to blame for the Nazi's of Charlottesville then Obama is to blame for the BLM rioting and destruction of numerous cities and all of the Muslims terrorist who attack Americans because he reused to call them terrorists or Muslim extremists. Sounds stupid when you take the biasness out of it doesn't it? Each individual is responsible for their own actions.

[Spider-Dan]

Bottom line is that if Trump is to blame for the Nazi's of Charlottesville then Obama is to blame for the BLM rioting and destruction of numerous cities and all of the Muslims terrorist who attack Americans because he reused to call them terrorists or Muslim extremists.

And there you have it.

"If we attack the Nazis then we are blaming Trump, and we can't blame Trump unless we also blame Obama."  Literally party over country.

Russia or Democrats?  Russia.
Nazis or Democrats?  Nazis.
The important thing is beating the Democrats.

The problem you are running into is that you are unwilling to own your own position.  Let me explain:

You criticized Obama for not denouncing BLM, and for not saying the magic spell "radical Islamic terrorism."  But I agree with his actions in those scenarios, and I am willing to own those positions.  So you and I disagree on whether those actions are bad the first place.

Do we disagree on whether Nazis are bad?  Do we disagree on whether Nazis should be denounced?  If the answer to those questions is no, then why aren't Republicans simply denouncing Nazis, as something all reasonable Americans can agree on?  We can still disagree on BLM, and Obamacare, and tax cuts, and many other things... but we can agree that Nazis should be roundly denounced.

Instead, you are treating the condemnation of Nazis as some sort of partisan event.  You are insisting that liberal groups must ALSO be condemned if we are going to criticize Nazis.  Do you understand the implications of that position?

edit: I reconsidered the first half of my post as not productive to the discussion, but I didn't want to simply delete it.

[Phishfan]

In the party of Trump, Republicans can no longer simply say, "Nazis are terrible and we should reject them."  The most aggressive anti-Nazi position that is acceptable to Republicans in 2017 is, "Sure, Nazis are bad, but liberal protesters are also bad, so..."

This just isn't true and I think you know it. Plenty of Republicans have called out Trump and white supremacists. The RNC chairwoman has been very clear about their position, "We don't want your vote, we don't support you, we'll speak out against you,"

[Spider-Dan]

We disagree on whether the majority of rank-and-file Republicans consider that an "acceptable" position.  It seems to me that that's an outlier position, and that the "But what about the liberals?" point CF has made here is the one that has broader acceptance within the GOP.

For example, when Trump said that the federal judge from Indiana was unfit to preside over his case because of his Mexican ancestry, and Paul Ryan said that was the textbook definition of a racist statement, the majority of GOP voters either disagreed with Ryan's assessment or didn't care.  So in that case, I would say the "acceptable position" within the GOP was that it wasn't a racist statement.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

We disagree on whether the majority of rank-and-file Republicans consider that an "acceptable" position.  It seems to me that that's an outlier position, and that the "But what about the liberals?" point CF has made here is the one that has broader acceptance within the GOP.

For example, when Trump said that the federal judge from Indiana was unfit to preside over his case because of his Mexican ancestry, and Paul Ryan said that was the textbook definition of a racist statement, the majority of GOP voters either disagreed with Ryan's assessment or didn't care.  So in that case, I would say the "acceptable position" within the GOP was that it wasn't a racist statement.

Seems to me that most republicans actually agreed that Trumps statement was blantently racist.  But they were willing to overlook Trumps racism.

[Spider-Dan]

I think this Twitter thread mostly sums up my feelings about Trump.  I don't think he's actually a white nationalist, because that would involve a stable world view and real belief system.  I think Trump sees everything solely through the spectrum of Winning and Losing.

What going on is, he vaguely understands that His People clashed with Their People and His People are taking all the blame. To accept blame is weakness. So he instinctively avoids it, displacing or spreading blame.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

[CF DolFan]

Can't the opposite be said as well? The same people supporting Kaep for protesting disagree with protesters that have a view different from theirs. Neo Nazis are low life as far as I'm concerned but as long a they aren't breaking the law there is not much anyone can do. They had their permits to protest.

[Sunstroke]

Can't the opposite be said as well? The same people supporting Kaep for protesting disagree with protesters that have a view different from theirs. Neo Nazis are low life as far as I'm concerned but as long a they aren't breaking the law there is not much anyone can do. They had their permits to protest.

Dude...they are NAZIS. They aren't lowlifes...they are no-lifes.

I grant them as much right to assemble as I do for a pedophile organization...none whatsoever. There is no room in this country for that sort of evil.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Can't the opposite be said as well? The same people supporting Kaep for protesting disagree with protesters that have a view different from theirs. Neo Nazis are low life as far as I'm concerned but as long a they aren't breaking the law there is not much anyone can do. They had their permits to protest.

Yes.  I fall in the camp of people not the least bit offended by someone protesting the fact that when the police murder unarmed citizens there is rarely any punishment for said cops, while simultaneously being outraged by others protesting the end of slavery, the civil rights act, and the final solution not being completed.

[Spider-Dan]

Can't the opposite be said as well? The same people supporting Kaep for protesting disagree with protesters that have a view different from theirs. Neo Nazis are low life as far as I'm concerned but as long a they aren't breaking the law there is not much anyone can do.

There are actually several things people can do.

One is to unequivocally condemn Nazis and everything they stand for.
Another is not to downplay Nazis by likening them to people protesting over (perceived) civil rights violations.

[pondwater]

There are actually several things people can do.

One is to unequivocally condemn Nazis and everything they stand for.
Another is not to downplay Nazis by likening them to people protesting over (perceived) civil rights violations.

While you may not like them or what they stand for, nor do I. In this country they have the right to live their life as they choose. If they break the law and it can be proven that they are guilty, then throw the book at them. Otherwise, you condemning them isn't going to do anything. Evil people, racists, and Nazis aren't going anywhere, they'll be here long after your children's children are long dead and gone. People are who they are and rarely ever change once they reach a certain point. This whole discussion is silly to the extreme.

[Spider-Dan]

I have no intent nor desire to try to change the heart of a Nazi.
What I do intend to do is to loudly oppose them in every way I am legally able.  I didn't call for the Nazis (at least, the ones that didn't drive a car into a crowd of protesters) to be arrested, so platitudes on our sacred freedom of speech are inapplicable.  They should be free to speak, and others should be equally free to shout them down.  And if they want to exercise their freedom to bring weapons to political rallies, their opponents should be able to do the same.

[Spider-Dan]

The ACLU has announced that they will no longer defend hate groups seeking to march with firearms.

http://news.morningstar.com/all/market-watch/TDJNMW20170817800/aclu-wont-back-hate-groups-marching-with-guns.aspx

(There's a longer article at the Wall Street Journal, but it's behind a paywall.)

Like I said: armed Nazis marching through the streets are the point where we should be less concerned with free speech and more concerned with armed Nazis marching through the streets.

[pondwater]

The ACLU has announced that they will no longer defend hate groups seeking to march with firearms.

http://news.morningstar.com/all/market-watch/TDJNMW20170817800/aclu-wont-back-hate-groups-marching-with-guns.aspx

(There's a longer article at the Wall Street Journal, but it's behind a paywall.)

Like I said: armed Nazis marching through the streets are the point where we should be less concerned with free speech and more concerned with armed Nazis marching through the streets.

Is it illegal? If not, then there is nothing to do. You're complaining about someone exercising their rights. All you're doing is creating a violent confrontation and giving them the attention they want. But by all means, please proceed. I'll sit back and watch you idiots on TV beating and shooting each other. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Good luck.