What's new
By:

Charlottesville

Harambe said:
Yes. As much as I hate it, because people are stubborn, it will always eventually fall to violence at one point or another.

Which message(note; not group of people) do you think promotes more violence?
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that it doesn't have to lead to violence. We shouldn't promote it. We don't need to accept it.

There's no simple way to answer your question, it's nuanced. Have the people saying they lost their country actually lost it? Have the people saying they're not getting a fair shake actually getting g a fair shake? In this case, it's obviously the getting the country back message, but that doesn't mean it would be every time.
 
Stoked said:
The line I would draw is when they move past marching and protesting and start "coming" for people. It doesn't have to be me. They have the right to voice their vile, ugly and disgusting opinions.

Also, again this rag tag group of idiots and bigots is not even remotely comparable to WWII Germany. But I see the point you are trying to make.
Click to expand...

There is a reason we don't let the government regulate or police speach, and it is in the end a good thing for the government not to. That being said do not confuse your or my role as individuals with that of the government.
 
Last edited:
JustTheTip said:
I'm just saying that it doesn't have to lead to violence. We shouldn't promote it. We don't need to accept it.

There's no simple way to answer your question, it's nuanced. Have the people saying they lost their country actually lost it? Have the people saying they're not getting a fair shake actually getting g a fair shake? In this case, it's obviously the getting the country back message, but that doesn't mean it would be every time.
Click to expand...

Your tolerance of speech by those who's ideology resulted in the extermination of 6 million people is not only gross and disgusting, but troubling.
 
♪alt13 said:
There is a reason we don'tlet the regulate or police speach, and it is in the end a good thing for the government not to. That being said do not confuse your or my role as individuals with that of the government.
Click to expand...

I'm not. Protest them all day every day. Absolutely. But I oppose using violence to stop speech we don't like. And I don't like their speech, at all.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
Your tolerance of speech by those who's ideology resulted in the extermination of 6 million people is not only gross and disgusting, but troubling.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. I find their speech vile, offensive and disgusting. But I absolutely support free speech. Even when used to give voice to things I find abominable.

But I also find troubling the call to silence speech that we don't like. Who is the judge of what should be silenced?

Support for free speech and agreement with everything said are two wildly different things.
 
JustTheTip said:
See? You want to give an opinion, but you have no desire to discuss.

Why? Your attitude helps nothing. If everybody thought like you, and unfortunately most do, we'd have a huge divide...and we're heading that way.
Click to expand...
Why should I have a discussion with you? What's the point? We never end in resolution or understanding. We just go back and forth and back and forth and I quite frankly i don't have the time to waste.

Hell, I don't even know what we are duscussing/arguing. Neither of us think this and hilter are the same thing. We both think these people have the right to protest.

I simply saw people saying that violence isn't the answer and that ignoring these people will make them go away. I think those are certainly possible.

I simply offered another possibility..... that sometimes violence is the answer and does work and is necessary. Sometimes ignoring a problem makes the problem bigger, bolder, and more problematic.

What is the answer in this instance? I have no idea and never claimed to. Simply offered a different idea to the whole violence doesn't work, non violence does work idea.

And really, I'm very busy at work and shouldn't even be on my phone and don't have time for any more of this discussion so I'm done for now. Hopefully that is acceptable to you. If not, sorry but I'm not responding anymore.
 
Last edited:
fishonjazz said:
I simply saw people saying that violence isn't the answer and that ignoring these people will make them go away. I think those are certainly possible.

I simply offered another possibility..... that sometimes violence is the answer and does work and is necessary. Sometimes ignoring a problem makes the problem bigger, bolder, and more problematic.
Click to expand...

That is more or less my job description, sometimes violence is necessary, sometimes people will not stop until challenged with force. I'm employed to use violence when negotiation and reason has failed, to make a public space both safe for the people who work there and members of the public who are using the amenity. We have upwards of 7000 violent incidents a year, sometimes using force is for the good of the community.
 
Stoked said:
I strongly disagree. I find their speech vile, offensive and disgusting. But I absolutely support free speech. Even when used to give voice to things I find abominable.

But I also find troubling the call to silence speech that we don't like. Who is the judge of what should be silenced?

Support for free speech and agreement with everything said are two wildly different things.
Click to expand...

I understand how you;re trying to process this within the law. Good on you, but I find it cowardly. Sorry to offend, I know I am, but I have to. My conscience does not allow for even the tiniest acceptance of this type of speech, after all we've been through. I will not tolerate it, I will not allow it to victimize me or anyone else, and I will fight (non-violently) those who try to carve out any piece of society for these mongrels.
 
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Where will you draw the line?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top