Karmamatterz » Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:29 am wrote:You use contemporary neoliberal capitalist talking points to enable platforms for proponents of ethnic cleansing and the oppression of free speech and free bodies. That enablement makes you center-right at best. Apologists for genocide should be denied platforming and actively removed from public spaces, by the public. When this is impossible they should be opposed by necessary means. Rational states don't negotiate with terror.
Incorrect, I do not seek to enable platforms for those who seek ethnic cleansing or genocide. I believe based on our rights of free speech that anybody can pretty much say what they want and have any platform they want. Obviously we still have the consequences for yelling fire in a theater. Either we live in a nation state that practices free speech or we don't. Once you start having some speech being banned because it's extremely distasteful you go down the slippery slope of gradually curbing free speech. False logic to call me an apologist for genocide. You're simply wrong.
I said your political approach enables apologetics for genocide. That's not quite the same. If you were actually doing apologetics for genocide you'd have been banned ages ago.
Being permitted to have speech even in public space isn't the same as being entitled to a platform. This is not in the Constitution anyway. Not that we're magically bound to some ancient document that Americans have a weird fetish for. We've already made changes to the document because of obvious flaws in its design, it is silly to assume that we can't change it whenever we want.
I mentioned in some other thread about how there seems to be quite a bit of apologizing for the Marxist/Communists in their efforts to wipe out cultures and ethnic groups. Using your logic those "apologists" should then be shut down. Picking and choosing which fascists or murderers are allowed a platform and which aren't is an interesting practice, one which leads to massive cognitive dissonance.
Yes, all active proponents of genocide, under whatever dogwhistle cloaks shouldn't be given an opportunity to speak to anyone other than a court room.
You're also talking about tank communism attempting to revise history on the internet I think, which isn't the type of speech I'm talking about. I'm talking about current groups with active plans for future genocide. This is actually already mostly illegal, several white nationalist and neonazi groups have been officially terrorists for some time. That's because groups with genocide as stated goals pretty much start any group meeting at the edge of criminal conspiracy, which isn't protected speech.
This constant drumbeat to label someone who disagrees on RI a Nazi, apologist for genocide etc... is so rampant it's no wonder others have left the board, or just lurk now and then scratching their heads with eye rolls.
If people don't want to be associated with neonazi or other alt-right (itself a neonazi term) groups then they should avoid the appearance of trying to make safe spaces for murderous ideological warfare. I didn't say that your logic was enabling racism because I disagree with it. I disagree with it because it enables racist platforms.
The current climate in our country clamors for the rights of this and that, it's a huge list. But when it comes down to possibly the most important right we have, free speech, there are some who apparently believe it's appropriate for me but not for thee. This so called "democracy" we live in (America) is a messy place. It's a place where we're supposed to be able to speak freely without worry of being persecuted. But we do have some protection for speech and other certain rights. There is NOTHING wrong with a private venue not renting space to Kluckers, Nazis, communists, fascists, gays, straights, etc....if they don't want to. Private venues are not necessarily public spaces open for all to use. But when it comes to the public domain where generally most things are allowed then all voices should be allowed. Doesn't mean you have to like it. Words don't kill, actions do. Obviously we have laws against actions that cause harm to others.
Indeed we have such laws but they're unevenly enforced. BLM who are actually protesting racism are actively targeted by the same policemen that Spencer's documents list as "friendly" forces in the fight for expanding racism.
As far as words not killing anyone:
Try explaining that to Roman Polanski. You're probably going to have to do it twice. (that's how many times his family was murdered by someone talking)
....
I probably don't share your views on private property, or "rights", but it's interesting and it makes me wonder:
Do you think Nazis, like card carrying members should be unbanned from RI ?
Why or why not?
Banning certain speech only drives it underground where it festers in the dark. Letting the clowns speak openly only exposes them for their idiotic, hateful, fear mongering messages. It's better to have open dialogue and use messaging that promotes unity, cooperation, negotiation and working together than simply shutting down others. Continually harping on the differences of others does not bring people together. Finding common ground does. Repressing even the most hateful groups does not make those people less determined.
Think of a bratty child seeking attention and acting out. Do you engage with them or ignore them?
Depends. If my daughter was being snotty because Mom cut off the Halloween candy, as a gluttony-sympathist I would probably try to remain officially neutral while passive aggressively agitating and organizing against suppression of glutton rights. If she was using a bullhorn to advocate for the future ethnostate and its inherently implied oppression and genocide of her neighbors I would probably consider spanking to be within the realm of possibility.
Which is to say that your comparison is ridiculous.
Abuse of lopsided "rights" and it's quiet enablement by temporary political allies (in bad faith) once allowed a group that started with about 200 members to acquire enough power and public approval/apathy that they could start a conflict that directly resulted in around 500,000 deaths for each one of them.
All criminal conspiracy starts as words.