Race issues: Privileges, Relations, Racism and other related stuff

[Serovectra]

Originally Posted by MCAL

https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/sta...35275095146496
https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/898899752833732608

A little pro tip for all the right wing nut jobs out there. If you need to fake something to make a point, then you probably never had a point to begin with.

Why do people use images(fake ones no less) when it can be so easily proven with youtube videos. It's always been a mystery to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QXaaGF6F3M

Not Boston, but recent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=9qKCl9NL1Cg

Antifa are a bunch of anarchist thugs. They destroy public and private property, they hurt people, and they turn peaceful protests into violent ones. The masks they wear are not just for show. They're to keep from being singled out as an individual and to keep from being identified by police. Because most of what they do is illegal.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by Serovectra

Antifa are a bunch of anarchist thugs. They destroy public and private property, they hurt people, and they turn peaceful protests into violent ones. The masks they wear are not just for show. They're to keep from being singled out as an individual and to keep from being identified by police. Because most of what they do is illegal.

I can't comment on the antifa actions at Charlottesville because I haven't researched them enough yet. But there is some misleading information here.

Acts of violence reported by left-wing extremist have indeed unfortunately been on the rise. 2016 has been the first year since mid-eighties that right-wing extremism did not dominate murder statistics. Yet the numbers don't compare. According to a report by the Anti-Defamation League over the last decade at least 372 people have been victims of domestic extremism in the United States. Of these 74% were done by people located in the alt-right, 24% by Islamic terrorists and 2% by left-wing extremists. This does not excuse the violent actions by antifa and/or similar groups but it should be noted that the alt-right has been far more organized and far more likely to commit violent acts than left-wing extremists.

And while you did not specifically mention the protesters in Charlottesville, let's not make the mistake of calling them peaceful. There were no peaceful bystanders who just wanted to protest the taking down of a statue. You do not end up at a nazi rally chanting homophobic slurs, carrying torches and waving confederate flags by accident. They very clearly came looking for a fight - and they got it. Again I do not support the use of violence to get your opinion across, but if you're instigating a violent rally then can't portray yourself as a victim when you get what you wanted.

[RichardFromMarple]

Originally Posted by Key Board

The question is, what did Trump have a problem with?

1) Bannon's statement on how North Korea "got us" (sign of weakness to Trump)
2) Bannon explicitly calling White Nationalist clowns. (sign of betrayal to Trump. Apparently Bannon leans more to being Civic nationalist than Ethno nationalist like Trump)
3) Bannon not being photogenic and image matters a lot to Trump

Boasting about being the man behind Trump's election win too many times seems to be the main reason.

[Serovectra]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

I can't comment on the antifa actions at Charlottesville because I haven't researched them enough yet. But there is some misleading information here.

Acts of violence reported by left-wing extremist have indeed unfortunately been on the rise. 2016 has been the first year since mid-eighties that right-wing extremism did not dominate murder statistics. Yet the numbers don't compare. According to a report by the Anti-Defamation League over the last decade at least 372 people have been victims of domestic extremism in the United States. Of these 74% were done by people located in the alt-right, 24% by Islamic terrorists and 2% by left-wing extremists. This does not excuse the violent actions by antifa and/or similar groups but it should be noted that the alt-right has been far more organized and far more likely to commit violent acts than left-wing extremists.

This isn't left-wing vs. right-wing. Antifa is a very small subset of the left that get violent wherever they go. The twitter post was trying to make it sound like they're decent people, which just isn't true. I also never mentioned murder. Also those numbers seem highly skewed or they simply don't consider antifa to be a branch of the left. Nearly every day Antifa is wrecking havok at some rally or protest. They do wear masks, they're good at not getting caught.

And while you did not specifically mention the protesters in Charlottesville, let's not make the mistake of calling them peaceful. There were no peaceful bystanders who just wanted to protest the taking down of a statue. You do not end up at a nazi rally chanting homophobic slurs, carrying torches and waving confederate flags by accident. They very clearly came looking for a fight - and they got it. Again I do not support the use of violence to get your opinion across, but if you're instigating a violent rally then can't portray yourself as a victim when you get what you wanted.

In that instance, neither side was peaceful, but the ones who simply came to chant hateful rhetoric or the ones who simply came to protest against the removal of the statue-- were not breaking any laws. It's tough for Europeans to cope with just how free speech works in the United States, but it is what it is.

[MCAL]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilver...j0K#.sly481eNE

Just saying for a movement that's supposedly all about violence, there is a great need to fake things about them. I wonder why that is?

[Serovectra]

Originally Posted by MCAL

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilver...j0K#.sly481eNE

Just saying for a movement that's supposedly all about violence, there is a great need to fake things about them. I wonder why that is?

Just dumb people who don't realize there is enough real evidence to incriminate them already. But lets be frank here, if I had a dime for every time someone posted a story about being attacked by some right-wing nut jobs--and then later finding out it was fake-- i'd have enough for a nice dinner and a movie right now. Look no further than "occupy democrats" on facebook. Constant lies.

For instance, this guy went the extra mile to lie:
http://www.snopes.com/trump-supporte...in-california/

[Blueknight78]

Originally Posted by Serovectra

Just dumb people who don't realize there is enough real evidence to incriminate them already. But lets be frank here, if I had a dime for every time someone posted a story about being attacked by some right-wing nut jobs--and then later finding out it was fake-- i'd have enough for a nice dinner and a movie right now. Look no further than "occupy democrats" on facebook. Constant lies.

For instance, this guy went the extra mile to lie:
http://www.snopes.com/trump-supporte...in-california/

basically your claim is alt right + just dumb random peoples making faking statments.
alt left + extreme dangerous peoples lying and does ravock

really your logic is awesome, this means which only the other side is dangerous and the right side is just "dumb peoples" which we don't need to care and we must only focus attack the other side because they are the big and extreme danger.

using your "logic" then i can also claim which that things are "random dumbs", which we must not pay attention and focus on other side because they are the extremists and that peoples are just some dumb guys and "we don't need fake proofs" when we have real proofs.

for me both sides are bad aslong both sides are using violence and espread hate and intolerance.

while i agree which white supremacists, nazi, ad kkk must be or "caged" or in extreme cases killed, this don't means which we must ignore the other side too and all the "extreme" peoples on the other side must also be dealt with the same threatment, for me in the moment you stop to act rational and goes full violence and destruction you stop being a "human" and loose any rights and only diservers the worst, don't matter if black, white, asian, male, woman, gay, lesbian, whatever, evil is evil and must be dealt no matter, color, birthplace, gender, sexual preference, they are just a "cancer" which must be stopped before it get worst.

[Serovectra]

Originally Posted by Blueknight78

basically your claim is alt right + just dumb random peoples making faking statments.
alt left + extreme dangerous peoples lying and does ravock

really your logic is awesome, this means which only the other side is dangerous and the right side is just "dumb peoples" which we don't need to care and we must only focus attack the other side because they are the big and extreme danger.

No, he is borderline condoning Antifa by making it seem like every illegal action they are accused of is faked. I merely pointed out that Antifa is a group of criminal thugs, and nothing they do should be commended. My other point was fake articles are posted about both sides all the time, not only one side.

Neo-Nazis are no doubt rotten, but some of you do a real good job at ignoring the rotten apples of your party.

[Blueknight78]

Originally Posted by Serovectra

No, he is borderline condoning Antifa by making it seem like every illegal action they are accused of is faked. I merely pointed out that Antifa is a group of criminal thugs, and nothing they do should be commended. My other point was fake articles are posted about both sides all the time, not only one side.

Neo-Nazis are no doubt rotten, but some of you do a real good job at ignoring the rotten apples of your party.

like i told in my previous pots, both sides can be dangereous and need "control" and the laws have a proper deal with them, intolerance, hate, discrimination and all that craps are bad and need to be get riddle off, while is important "freedom speech" this don't means which you are free to spread all that craps and freedom is important until a limit, or like normally i liked to say and hear, your freedom end when the other people freedom start and the world can be a awesome place as long we get riddle of that "monsters" no matter, race, religion, gender, birthplace, social status, skin color, language, whaver what make us different from each other, the diferences are important to make us unique and special not to make us hate and attach each other.

that is why i feel USA must really start to "rewrite they "old laws", because while in the past where you have much less peoples and problem to deal they where fine, now they not and all that hate and destruction must be proper adressed and aslong ambiguous laws like the first amendment still not proper updated, that things gonna still happen and peoples will gonna feel free to do that things.

[MCAL]

That not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the reason they do this is because their criticisms of Anti Fascists are greatly exaggerated and hardly reflective of people who hate Nazis. Otherwise why make stuff up if they have a good argument over them in the first place.

https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/853420420686643200
https://twitter.com/2dAmMuslim/statu...95499109203968

And honestly, not to belabor the point, but when the other side is like this, it really isn't a surprise someone would get violent.


https://twitter.com/Marcus4America/s...97623437225984
Now this is just sad... I mean SAD!

https://thinkprogress.org/falwell-jr...-97d247c35b1f/
Does any Trump sycophant actually listen to themselves speak?

[Slayerx]

Originally Posted by Toukairin

Give this person a free discount on cookies for one year.

Someday, rules of responsibility will have to stand on a higher position that the First Amendment. The Constitution is not the fucking Bible (which has its own flaws as well), and should never be taken too literally when society keeps on evolving its mentalities.

The constitution is MEANT to be taken literally. All laws in the country are supposed to exist within the bounds of the constitution. Its actually one of the ways that we not only protect the people's freedoms but also guard against corruption. The only way someone could convert the US into a fascist dictatorship is if they dismantle the constitution first... Allowing exceptions to the constitution is a slippery slope as every exception becomes a legal precedent for MORE exceptions. If you can make an exception based on the claim that a certain form of speech is bad for society, then lawmakers could use that same logic for not just the first amendment but every amendment of the constitution. This can lead to all kinds of movements that could be used to erode freedoms and increase corruption using the "good for society" as an excuse to get rid of anything lawmakers don't like. Heck Trump has already floated around the idea of targeting the press over government leaks

If there is an issue with any part of the constitution then the constitution is supposed to be AMENDED, not disregarded. There actually does exist a legal process to edit and change the constitution to adapt to the changing times. Unlike with regular laws which can change on the whims of the simple majority, editing the constitution requires a super majority level of support to ensure that the changes are indeed needed. We can't have constitutional law effected by nothing more than congress switching from one party to another.

[Serovectra]

Originally Posted by MCAL

https://twitter.com/Marcus4America/s...97623437225984
Now this is just sad... I mean SAD!

Remember what I just said about both parties posting false information...well thank you for carrying the point home.

Hillsboro road doesn't exist in Phoenix, AZ. The map is from Virginia: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/15....1549/-77.7164

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by Serovectra

This isn't left-wing vs. right-wing. Antifa is a very small subset of the left that get violent wherever they go. The twitter post was trying to make it sound like they're decent people, which just isn't true. I also never mentioned murder. Also those numbers seem highly skewed or they simply don't consider antifa to be a branch of the left. Nearly every day Antifa is wrecking havok at some rally or protest. They do wear masks, they're good at not getting caught.

All I'm saying is that Antifa, despite being a violent extremist group, is not equivalent to violent alt-right groups, whether morally nor numerically. It's already showing in your statement that they're wrecking havoc 'nearly every day' which is pure hyperbole. You're trying to portray them as two sides of the same violent coin but they're really not. Also if you're not agreeing with the numbers, you may present reputable counter-statistics. I did provide my sources whereas you didn't.

Originally Posted by Serovectra

In that instance, neither side was peaceful, but the ones who simply came to chant hateful rhetoric or the ones who simply came to protest against the removal of the statue-- were not breaking any laws. It's tough for Europeans to cope with just how free speech works in the United States, but it is what it is.

You can remove the 'or', they came to do both. Free speech only prevents government restrictions on speech, by no means is it a free pass for everything. There are also exceptions like inciting imminent lawless actions or fighting words and offensive speech. Chanting homophobia, racism, white supremacist slogans, etc. which that group provenly did, may very well fall into both of these categories. Assuming that you're American, there is a certain irony in an European explaining an American his own free speech laws.

[Serovectra]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

All I'm saying is that Antifa, despite being a violent extremist group, is not equivalent to violent alt-right groups, whether morally nor numerically. It's already showing in your statement that they're wrecking havoc 'nearly every day' which is pure hyperbole. You're trying to portray them as two sides of the same violent coin but they're really not. Also if you're not agreeing with the numbers, you may present reputable counter-statistics. I did provide my sources whereas you didn't.

I judge people on their individual actions. I'd take a non-violent alt-right over a violent Antifa any day. The same applies in reverse. I'm sure those statistics are true, but what exactly do they consider "violent left and right extremism" because hitting people with bats or burning cars must not not qualify. Otherwise the numbers would be far greater than those statistics let on. If the statistics refer specifically to instances where the perpetrator had the intention of killing people, then the statistics do make sense. But that would only factor the extreme cases while ignoring all of the other violent instances. And there are far more ways to be violent then trying to kill someone.

You can remove the 'or', they came to do both. Free speech only prevents government restrictions on speech, by no means is it a free pass for everything. There are also exceptions like inciting imminent lawless actions or fighting words and offensive speech. Chanting homophobia, racism, white supremacist slogans, etc. which that group provenly did, may very well fall into both of these categories. Assuming that you're American, there is a certain irony in an European explaining an American his own free speech laws.

Not everyone at the rally came for the same purpose, that's a gross generalization of the rally. To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with 'hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. You can chant the most vile things and it is still protected by the first amendment. What isn't protected is face-to-face insults with an intention of starting a fight, but this isn't limited to hate-speech. It's not Ironic when I already know the exceptions. They were simply not broken at the rally.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by Serovectra

I judge people on their individual actions. I'd take a non-violent alt-right over a violent Antifa any day. The same applies in reverse. I'm sure those statistics are true, but what exactly do they consider "violent left and right extremism" because hitting people with bats or burning cars must not not qualify. Otherwise the numbers would be far greater than those statistics let on. If the statistics refer specifically to instances where the perpetrator had the intention of killing people, then the statistics do make sense. But that would only factor the extreme cases while ignoring all of the other violent instances. And there are far more ways to be violent then trying to kill someone.

What the statistics refer to is literally written in the report I linked. Violent left and right are exactly what their names say. If we look at general hate crimes on a national level then there are the FBI numbers from 2015. There are 1745 incidents against blacks compared to the 613 anti-white incidents in the race/ethnicity/ancestry category. 664 anti-Jewish incidents compared to the second largest group in anti-Islamic incidents (257). Not all states report their crime statistics but trends are visible nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Serovectra

Not everyone at the rally came for the same purpose, that's a gross generalization of the rally. To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with 'hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. You can chant the most vile things and it is still protected by the first amendment. What isn't protected is face-to-face insults with an intention of starting a fight, but this isn't limited to hate-speech. It's not Ironic when I already know the exceptions. They were simply not broken at the rally.

There were a handful of peaceful protesters who weren't carrying nazi flags or chanting white supremacist slogans, I'm sure. They were vastly outmatched by those who were though. Furthermore it can be validly argued that hate speech has the intent of intimidation, inciting a fight and/or placing the victim in risk of bodily harm or death. If a court rules this to be the case then it is not protected. Whether it is face-to-face is only a secondary factor. The exceptions are narrow but they're wider than you're stating. The irony still stands when you're adding arbitrary constrictions out of the blue.

[Akito Kinomoto]

The only thing that isn't protected is libel, slander (which are notoriously hard to prove for good reason), and direct threats of violence. You can insult me all you want and I won't give a shit, because once your insults are exhausted, you've got nothing

[Archon_Wing]

I would consider harassment a form of violence as well.

There is a diffrence between me going down to Castro and going "God hates fags" and me actually going down there and heckling people, telling individuals that they are sinners. Despite the lack of violent threats , one is never allowed one of these but going down there either way and expecting to come out unscathed, well....

Alternatively, go to Oakland and go march through telling black people to go back to Africa. If you think this is worth discussing that you should not get hurt and I should symphasize to you towards what will happen, please do so asap.

So apparently , this group, Vanguard America, has been leaving anti-semitic flyers at synagogues. Classy bunch. But, nah, bro, I just wanted to protest the government. The fact that there were all these neo nazis there that organized the whole thing is just pure coincidence.

Oh, and some common sense here, antianything always encompaases a broader group than pro by nature. Christian fundementalists and athiests may oppose islamofascism for entirely diffrent reasons and it is stupid to even associate them together. On the other hand, fascists have much more in common with each other. Check out the US and the SU in Ww2

In other words, anti fascism, may encompass conservative Republicans and Communists; why you would hold one group in control of the other's actions is beyond me.

Thus all this focus on whether antifa is bad or not is merely a deflection. I actually don't give a fuck about them. "both sides" are NOT equal. One is fascists, and the other is literally everyone else.

[Ithekro]

Expecting to get attacked because of your own word and where you spout them is not violence, and the act of violence would be what is inflicted upon you. This has been the tactic of the Westboro Church for a decade or so. Say or post something that could provoke a response in a place that could provoke a response. Sue if violence happens. Collect monies from lawsuit. Because their First Amendment Rights are protected regardless of how stupid or dangerous their words are.

[MCAL]

https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/...04486268485632

Some good news...

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

I would consider harassment a form of violence as well.

There is a diffrence between me going down to Castro and going "God hates fags" and me actually going down there and heckling people, telling individuals that they are sinners. Despite the lack of violent threats , one is never allowed one of these but going down there either way and expecting to come out unscathed, well....

Alternatively, go to Oakland and go march through telling black people to go back to Africa. If you think this is worth discussing that you should not get hurt and I should symphasize to you towards what will happen, please do so asap.

Harassment is also covered, but that's generally a one-on-one affair as opposed to the KKK marching through a black neighborhood which the ACLU defended so long as they remained peaceful. And don't set the precedent for non-self defensive violence since the action obscures the motive. This doesn't mean non-violent retaliatory action isn't allowed; don't crowd in with a neo-Nazi rally publicly and future employers won't happen to catch someone pulling your pants down. Nor am I engaging in false equivalence, though do please pinpoint where you seem to imply I do so I can clarify for feature perusals (change "most" to "most, but not all" and all that)

I'm not open-minded to the point my brain would fall out, though we may both know someone who finds that sentiment rather arrogant