29
   

Rising fascism in the US

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2017 12:22 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

A quick google search shows that over the past nine years there were 115 right wing terror attacks, and 63 Islamic terror attacks. So you are right... about 70% of terror attacks are committed by right wing extremists. I am sure that the number of deaths is equally lopsided.

So what?


We're not even talking about right-wing vs. Islamic, we're talking about right-wing vs. left-wing. How many left-wing terror attacks over the last 9 years? A paltry few, when compared to right-wing ones. Less than 10% of the right-wing total. For you to claim equivalence is a ******* joke, there is no equivalence. What more, there is no dedicated left-wing movement that's anywhere CLOSE to the right-wing White Supremacist, Neo-Nazi, Secessionist, Islamist and radical Christianist movements. I feel like you're taking a piss at us by even trying to make these comparisons.

Let's also keep in mind that Islamic extremism IS right-wing extremism. The 9/11 attackers were extremely right-wing, so was the Pulse nightclub shooter, the shooters in California a few years back. Very conservative people. You can't ignore that because it's convenient for you to do so.

Nearly every person who has been killed in an act of terrorism, in my entire life, here in America, was done so because a right-winger decided to do so.

Quote:
I will say to you the same thing I say to people who use Islamophobia to justify taking away rights. The chance of you, or your family, or anyone you know being targeted by terrorists is minuscule.

It doesn't justify giving up our rights as people in a modern democracy.


I don't disagree with that at all, but nobody is asking you or anyone else to give up your rights. Let's talk about 'free speech.' You have no Constitutional right not to be heckled down, or to have your voice heard in any given location. The 1st amendment does not guarantee you or anyone that right. It only says the GOVERNMENT cannot restrict that right. If enough of your fellow citizens want you to not be heard - you're not gonna be. That's not a question of your civil rights.

Cycloptichorn
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2017 12:25 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Setanta brings up the Oklahoma City bombing for the same reason that Rudy Guilliani brings up 9/11. It is a bogus argument. Extremism does not justify extremism.




Both are right wing extremist organizations. Why do you insist on false arguments?
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2017 12:29 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
And "fight" speech is NOT protected 1st amendment speech! PERIOD!

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/15/16144058/charlottesville-free-speech
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2017 12:34 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You are missing the point. Whether you use your overblown fear of terrorist attacks to shut down mosques or to shut down free-speech on campus is irrelevant. Either way you are trampling on rights.

There are Americans right now who are using the 9/11 attacks, as well as other attacks here and abroad, to suggest that Muslims must be stopped. They are saying that mosques should be watched, that Muslim speakers should be prevented from speaking and that Muslims in general should be feared.

There is no argument You are making the exact same argument. Accept you are using right wing attacks instead of 9/11. In reality... both right wing terrorist attacks, and Muslim terrorist attacks are numerically minuscule.

You say that Muslim extremists are right wing extremists... this is a silly argument, but fine. Are you in favor of shutting down mosques then as well as conservative political rallies?

This is about partisanship rather than about principle. If you can see why one half of this argument is bogus but not the other... then you stumbled upon the problem.
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2017 12:36 pm
@maxdancona,
You are missing the point with strawman arguments!
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2017 12:39 pm
@BillW,
Quote:
And "fight" speech is NOT protected 1st amendment speech! PERIOD!


Give me an example of "fight" speech. The Supreme Court has defended pretty offensive speech over and over again. We can talk about specifics if you want. We have the internet... so give me an example of what you are talking about.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2017 12:43 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

You are missing the point. Whether you use your overblown fear of terrorist attacks to shut down mosques or to shut down free-speech on campus is irrelevant. Either way you are trampling on rights.


It's not 'fear of terror attacks' that is shutting down right-wingers speaking on campus, nor is it trampling on anyone's rights when that happens. If you think it is, then prove it: point to the specific right that's being trampled on when a group of citizens protests and shuts down a speech.

I will agree with you that it's distasteful, and I hate to see it. But it's not illegal nor is it unconstitutional for it to happen.

Quote:
There are Americans right now who are using the 9/11 attacks, as well as other attacks here and abroad, to suggest that Muslims must be stopped. They are saying that mosques should be watched, that Muslim speakers should be prevented from speaking and that Muslims in general should be feared.

There is no argument You are making the exact same argument. Accept you are using right wing attacks instead of 9/11. In reality... both right wing terrorist attacks, and Muslim terrorist attacks are numerically minuscule.


I am making no such argument, I have no idea where you're getting this from. But you are correct that there is a large right-wing movement to do exactly that.

Quote:
You say that Muslim extremists are right wing extremists... this is a silly argument, but fine. Are you in favor of shutting down mosques then as well as conservative political rallies?


Well, it's a fact that Muslim extremists are right-wing extremists. I have no idea why you think otherwise. Their complaints about America are that we aren't Conservative and religious enough. That's as right-wing as it gets.

I'm not in favor of shutting down mosques OR 'Conservative' political rallies, personally. I'm no fan of Nazis or white supremacists, though, and if our citizenry doesn't want to tolerate them in their cities, I understand why they occasionally take matters into their own hands.

Quote:
This is about partisanship rather than about principle. If you can see why one half of this argument is bogus but not the other... then you stumbled upon the problem.


This is a lazy 'equivalence' argument on your part that isn't supported by the facts. You're positing that the Anti-Fascist movement in this country represents a similar threat to the right-wingers they are against. From a data point of view, you're completely wrong, and from a rhetorical point of view, you're also wrong.

Cycloptichorn
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2017 12:44 pm
That's horsesh*t . . . I was not employing a tu quoque fallacy. I was not justifying violence from one side by referring to violence by the other. I was specifically addressing Max's silly, vague and unsubstantiated claim about leftist violence in the 70s. Mr. "I'm a Liberal," who fights the good fight for right-wing propaganda is also Mr. "Scientist" with appallingly fuzzy thinking when it comes to his claims.

All of the killing by so-called left-wing extremists in the 70s, even if you throw in the SLA, was a pittance compared to what McVeigh did in Oklahoma City.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2017 12:57 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
You're positing that the Anti-Fascist movement in this country represents a similar threat to the right-wingers they are against.


I am saying that the threat of right-wing terrorism (whether it is Islamic or otherwise) is pretty close to zero. I have made this point consistently; when people want to shut down mosques or political rallies my position is the same.

The real issue is free speech. We can agree to allow free speech to exist, whether it is in the form of mosques or political rallies, in spite of people to be shut down.

I am reacting to the idea that the US is under threat from Islamists or the Alt-Right.

I don't care at all about Antifa. They are rather silly thugs in my estimation. Neither them or the Neo-Nazis they play war with have any real impact on our country at large other than that they make great Facebook posts.




maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2017 12:58 pm
@Setanta,
You are right Setanta. But so what? You are making a point that is correct but irrelevant. Do you want a cookie?

Terrorist violence in the US doesn't justify attempt to restrict freedom of expression, nor are they a threat in any way to the nation as a whole. This is just partisan propaganda.



BillW
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2017 01:43 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
And "fight" speech is NOT protected 1st amendment speech! PERIOD!


Give me an example of "fight" speech. The Supreme Court has defended pretty offensive speech over and over again. We can talk about specifics if you want. We have the internet... so give me an example of what you are talking about.



Simple search, you are just to lazy - Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. No talk, I don't deal with White Supremacist!
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2017 01:55 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:

I am reacting to the idea that the US is under threat from Islamists or the Alt-Right.


Oh, I think that it's totally appropriate to say that the US is under threat from the Alt-Right. Not a terrorist threat, but a political one. AntiFa isn't worried about Terrorism from the right-wing nearly as much as they are the normalization of a society of assholes. Trump's election has displayed that the body of GOP voters in this country are far more dedicated to supporting an authoritarian strongman than to support any actual principles. So yeah, we are at a dangerous time in our society and it's entirely appropriate for citizens to be worried.

Cycloptichorn
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2017 02:03 pm
@maxdancona,
No, it's not irrelevant, it is a refutation of a bullsh*t claim you made. You don't like owning your own bullsh*t, though, do you. You can shove that cookie up the hole you pull your claims from.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2017 02:19 pm
@Setanta,
You aren't refuting anything Setanta. You are just blathering. I do enjoy it when you get like this. You amuse me.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2017 02:25 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
That doesn't make any sense Cyclo. The US is a democracy, if the voters choose the alt-right, then the alt-right wins. That is how democracy works. For an extremist group to use violence to "protect" us from the decision of voters is not acceptable. (I will repeat again that I think Antifa are a bunch of silly, and inconsequential thugs who will have no real impact on the US other than blog posts and a few headlines).

Trump won because millions of voters threw their support behind him. If you listen to the voters, a lot of their decision was a reaction to the politically correct left that they feel is going too far. If you don't listen to the voters... then it would be foolish to expect your side to win many elections.

I think the term "alt-right" is a political mistake. It has become a synonym for "deplorable", a term that I believe was the number one reason that Hillary lost the election. If you through too many Americans in the basket, it will backfire.

You win elections by presenting a good message to the American public at large. Antifa isn't helping.

I feel strongly that the country should be run by the people who win elections. Whether these people are "alt-right" or not is irrelevant. Do you disagree with this?

revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2017 02:32 pm
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Quote:
Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. [n2] There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention [p572] and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. [n3] These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words -- those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. [n4] It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2017 02:34 pm
@maxdancona,
You amuse the hell out of me when you make bullsh*t claims, which you can't support, and then you attempt to pretend that you lies and bullsh"t don't matter. You have about zero credibility at this site, which is appropriate.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2017 02:37 pm
@revelette1,
Quote:
those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.


I don't argue with this. Yelling at a police officer that he is a "fascist" while you are being arrested is one of the "well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech" that can be restricted. I probably wouldn't have voted for this decision if I were on the Supreme Court at the time, but this decision doesn't contradict anything I have said on this thread.


revelette1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2017 02:46 pm
@maxdancona,
The decision wasn't limited to police officers.

Moreover, most white supremacy rallies/speeches center around provocative "fighting words."
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2017 02:52 pm
@revelette1,
Have you looked at any other Supreme Court case involving Free Speech? I think you are falling into the trap of confirmation bias.

People here fixated on the one case that they agree with (where restrictions on free speech were found to be constitutional under "narrow circumstances") and seem to ignore all of the Supreme Court cases where offensive speech was protected. If you read the decision, you surely noted the point that the question of whether the content of the speech expressed ideas was part of it. If you want to see a case that is out of your confirmation bias, "Brandenburg v. Ohio" is the most striking example of protected speech that is quite offensive.

There has been many time where Free Speech was found to be protected even for "white supremacy rallies/speeches". It is interesting to look at all of these cases as a whole with an open mind... but this means stepping out of one's partisan bubble.

People here are putting partisanship over principle. The principle is that in a democracy conservatives have as many rights as liberals... and that Free Speech is an important part of that. If you only support Free Speech for people you agree with, then you don't really support Free Speech.

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/15/2017 at 01:46:44