GTX0 Announcements | RoadmapFeedbackHelp | SandboxNewest Posts | Replies | Hottest
NIFE UpdatesRoadmapRequests | HelpDiscuss Game Worlds


Politics & Religion


World events, politics and whatever (especially whatever)
WARNING: Posts may contain offensive content and red wine
09/11/2001 WE REMEMBER

"Fear is the foundation of most governments." - John Adams

"My family is more important than my party." - Zell Miller


This one's for pacman.

The organization declares that speech it doesn’t like can ‘inflict serious harms’ and ‘impede progress.’


The American Civil Liberties Union has explicitly endorsed the view that free speech can harm “marginalized” groups by undermining their civil rights. “Speech that denigrates such groups can inflict serious harms and is intended to and often will impede progress toward equality,” the ACLU declares in new guidelines governing case selection and “Conflicts Between Competing Values or Priorities.”

This is presented as an explanation rather than a change of policy, and free-speech advocates know the ACLU has already lost its zeal for vigorously defending the speech it hates. ACLU leaders previously avoided acknowledging that retreat, however, in the apparent hope of preserving its reputation as the nation’s premier champion of the First Amendment.

But traditional free-speech values do not appeal to the ACLU’s increasingly partisan progressive constituency—especially after the 2017 white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville. The Virginia ACLU affiliate rightly represented the rally’s organizers when the city attempted to deny them a permit to assemble. Responding to intense post-Charlottesville criticism, last year the ACLU reconsidered its obligation to represent white-supremacist protesters.

The 2018 guidelines claim that “the ACLU is committed to defending speech rights without regard to whether the views expressed are consistent with or opposed to the ACLU’s core values, priorities and goals.” But directly contradicting that assertion, they also cite as a reason to decline taking a free-speech case “the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values.”

In selecting speech cases to defend, the ACLU will now balance the “impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression.” Factors like the potential effect of the speech on “marginalized communities” and even on “the ACLU’s credibility” could militate against taking a case. Fundraising and communications officials helped formulate the new guidelines.

One half of this balancing test is familiar. The “impact of suppressing speech”—the precedents that suppression might establish, the constitutional principles at stake—is a traditional factor in case selection. But, traditionally, the ACLU has not formally weighed the content of speech and its consistency with ACLU values in deciding whether to defend it.

Tension between competing values isn’t new to the ACLU. Given its decades-old commitment to defending civil rights and liberties, the organization has long navigated conflicts between equality rights and freedoms of religion, speech and association. The guidelines assert that “no civil liberties or civil rights value should automatically be privileged over any other.” But it’s clear that free speech has become second among equals. Where is the comparable set of guidelines explaining when the ACLU should decline to defend gay-rights claims that infringe on religious liberty or women’s-rights cases that infringe on due process?

The speech-case guidelines reflect a demotion of free speech in the ACLU’s hierarchy of values. Their vague references to the “serious harm” to “marginalized” people occasioned by speech can easily include the presumed psychological effects of racist or otherwise hateful speech, which is constitutionally protected but contrary to ACLU values. Faced with perceived conflicts between freedom of speech and “progress toward equality,” the ACLU is likely to choose equality. If the Supreme Court adopted the ACLU’s balancing test, it would greatly expand government power to restrict speech.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), for example, the ACLU defended the First Amendment rights of a Ku Klux Klan leader prosecuted for addressing a small rally and calling for “revengence” against blacks and Jews. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Clarence Brandenburg’s conviction, narrowly defining incitement to violence as speech both intended and likely to cause imminent illegal action. Brandenburg made an essential distinction between advocacy and action, which progressives who equate hate speech with actual discrimination or violence seek to erase.

The ACLU would be hard pressed to take Brandenburg’s case today, given its new guidelines. The organization hasn’t yet endorsed a ban on hate speech, or a broader definition of incitement. The guidelines affirm that “speakers have a right to advocate violence.” But even if Brandenburg managed to pass the new balancing test for speech cases, some participants at his rally were armed, and, according to the guidelines, “the ACLU generally will not represent protesters who seek to march while armed.”

All this is the ACLU’s prerogative. Organizations are entitled to revise their values and missions. But they ought to do so openly. The ACLU leadership had apparently hoped to keep its new guidelines secret, even from ACLU members. They’re contained in an internal document deceptively marked, in all caps, “confidential attorney client work product.” I’m told it was distributed to select ACLU officials and board members, who were instructed not to share it. According to my source, the leadership is now investigating the “leak” of its new case-selection guidelines. President Trump might sympathize.

Ms. Kaminer, a former ACLU board member, is author of “Worst Instincts: Cowardice, Conformity and the ACLU” (2009).

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-expression-1529533065
The article links to the leaked ACLU document. It is perhaps worth taking them at their own words, if only to verify that Kaminer isn't trying to put a spin on anything. To that end:

"The impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression:Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed, depending on factors such as the (present and historical) context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur. At the same time, not defending such speech from official suppression may also have harmful impacts, depending on the breadth or viewpoint-based character of the suppression, the precedent that allowing suppression might create for the rights of other speakers, and the impact on the credibility of the ACLU as a staunch and principled defender of free speech. Many of these impacts will be difficult if not impossible to measure, and none of them should be dispositive. But as an organization equally committed to free speech and equality, we should make every effort to consider the consequences of our actions, for constitutional law, for the community in which the speech will occur, and for the speaker and others whose speech might be suppressed in the future."

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf?mod=article_inline
What's notable here is how progressive the ACLU sounds even when talking to its own people. The term "white supremacy", or some derivation thereof, is found four times. Evidently they are not interested in giving examples of any other kinds of speech that may not warrant a defense. "Equality" appears ten times, and always in the unmistakable cadence that informs the reader that we're not talking about "equality before the law" so much as "equality of outcome". "Racial justice", not to be confused with social justice, gets seven mentions by my count, with at least one in reference to the ACLU's Racial Justice Project. In forwarding "racial justice" and combating "inequality", the ACLU concerns itself with, among other things, that most sinister of all buzzwords: "implicit bias". "Reproductive freedom" is acknowledged multiple times, while firearms only come up as part of a reminder that the ACLU is not interested in defending armed speech. If for whatever reason you don't think it's conspicuous that the ACLU would not consider the right to bear arms as foundational to their mission then you may well be of the political persuasion to conclude that they are precisely as dispassionate and nonpartisan as they claim. The rest of us, however, will reasonably come to the conclusion that the ACLU may only defend our rights after they "mitigate any harm to [the] mission" by "Denouncing the views in press statements, op-eds, social media, and other available fora."

I don't envy the tightrope that the ACLU finds itself balancing on, and I wouldn't try to deny the value of the work that they've done over the years. But if the ACLU, in its modern quest to advance nationalized health care, the enfranchisement of "undocumented immigrants", abortion, and whatever the "LGBT" political movement (not to mention the acronym) has metastasized into next, is going to wring their hands over speech that may have a "harmful impact" on "marginalized communities" then it is time to start worrying that that they may be compromised. Time will tell.

“There cannot be greater rudeness than to interrupt another in the current of his discourse.” - John Locke
settingsOptions
There are 47 Replies

maybe the nazi fucks in charlottesville shouldn't have murdered someone. i can't blame the ACLU for not wanting to support or defend murderers

Edited June 21st by poptart!
poptart!
 

The overall problem here is that modern american politics has become divisive as hell. It's literally always been divisive (it *is* politics after all) but not to such an extent that you have liberty on one side and justice for all on the other, at least not for a long while.

This white supremacist thing is some red scare level bullshit, where the first amendment just falls apart under increasingly vocal social justice. Or maybe the war on drugs is a better example. Freedom of expression has taken a backseat to preserving the moral fabric, and that's true here as well.

One thing I take issue with its the ACLU's failure to denounce protecting the speech of far-left radicals, despite them literally falling under the same definitions . These are groups that support the wholesale slaughter of the bourgeoisie, who are literally minority groups that are being marginalized and having violence-speech directed towards. Much like with white supremacism, history supports the view that such speech can turn into actual violence.



Posted June 21st by Xhin
Xhin
 

maybe the nazi fucks in charlottesville shouldn't have murdered someone. i can't blame the ACLU for not wanting to support or defend murderers

"They" are not murderers. James Fields is a murderer. While Charlottesville may have been a playground for competing visions of tribalism, merely accented by the tiki torches and face masks, the remainder of us must still contend with a society and a criminal justice system that holds individuals accountable for their actions alone.

The ACLU, if it is worth anything at all, is aware that individual rights trump everything else. If it prioritizes the perceived feelings of a "community" over the rights of individuals to freely associate and express themselves then, well, that's one way to squander a one hundred year legacy.

Edited June 21st by Famov
Famov

james fields wasn't the only autistic supremacist to get violent at that rally.

i guess don't necessarily disagree with your overall point (i take back my "i don't blame the ACLU for not wanting to defend them" comment), but i do still have some feelings of schadenfreude at the dumbfucks biting the hand that fed them.

Posted June 21st by poptart!
poptart!
 

One thing I take issue with its the ACLU's failure to denounce protecting the speech of far-left radicals, despite them literally falling under the same definitions.

The horseshoe is real, after all. Unfortunately we don't know what the ACLU thinks of the methods of Window Breakers Anonymous because they can't be bothered to express an opinion one way or another. If Black Lives Matter marches down the street advocating violence against law enforcement, is this something the ACLU is interested in denouncing on social media? It seems unlikely. But they want everyone to know how much they oppose white supremacy. That one is so important that in their own internal document they fail to mention even one other type of speech that they don't want to be associated with. The ACLU was actually pressured to disassociate from the Women's March over their relationship with Louis "Satanic Jew" Farrakhan. They did no such thing.

Edited June 21st by Famov
Famov

I’m guessing some ACLU members are hesitant to defend certain groups at this point due to possible accusations of endorsing violence or even lawsuits of some sort. Hopefully they don’t actually *do* anything to undermine anyone’s free speech or other civil rights. Of course, the other thing is, neo-Nazis and white supremacists often intentionally flirt with the line between free expression and actual violence/threats.

Posted June 21st by pacman
pacman
 

I'm sure the ACLJ (American Center for Law & Justice) would be more than happy to defend like minded conservative organizations like Nazis and Supremacist.

Edited June 22nd by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Just Wiki’d the ACLJ and saw it was run by Pat Robertson LOL

Posted June 22nd by pacman
pacman
 

The right to organize a white ethnostate by expelling the black people who are only here because of us on land we stole from brown people is not a civil liberty. The only liberties being discussed here are the liberties you're taking with the term.

Posted June 22nd by Pink Peruvian Flying Bear
Pink Peruvian Flying Bear

The right to organize a white ethnostate by expelling the black people who are only here because of us on land we stole from brown people is not a civil liberty. The only liberties being discussed here are the liberties you're taking with the term.



I honestly don't know what you're talking about. The discussion is about the first amendment and the ACLU's evolving commitment to that objective. Indeed, they say as much in the document I've linked to. As Ms. Kaminer notes in the article, the ACLU has not historically cared about the content of the beliefs of those seeking to freely associate, speak their mind, protest, and so on. If it does now then that is a significant shift in policy. If, as she continues to argue, the judiciary were to take a similar approach to speech it would greatly curb our liberties. And, as I've made a point of arguing, it is indicative of their obvious partisan bend that there are varieties of equally repugnant speech that does not seem to concern them. Hypothetical white ethnostates and the vicious, stunted men that dream of them are really beside the point.

Edited June 22nd by Famov
Famov

Not sure of its touched upon but I'm sure tje main driving force behind this is money. The number of donations the ACLU received shot up by 100 percent last I checked. It is bad for business if they move to defend the dribble of neo Nazis.

I don't like it. But it is nice to see right wingers recognixe all the good the ACLU has done.

Posted June 22nd by S.o h.
S.o h.
 

It seems to me only that the ACLU recognizes the paradox of tolerance. The Charlottesville mob follows an ideology which, historically, has revised history as it has seen fit, burned valuable scientific literature, and stamped out free speech via organized campaigns of violence, persecution and threats against loved ones. For a free-speech organization to expend resources to defend Nazis is counter to its purpose and as absurd as hens defending the rights of foxes.

Posted June 23rd by Pink Peruvian Flying Bear
Pink Peruvian Flying Bear

Communists have done all that and more. And the ACLU has only ever defended the rights of these "Nazis". There's no paradox here. To suggest that white supremacist speech ought to be considered differently under the law is the height of hypocrisy, and contrary to the spirit of our most fundamental laws. There's nothing novel about my stance on this, and there's a wealth of precedent for it in the courts, with many of these decisions having been reached due to the work of the ACLU. To further suggest that the varieties of human wreckage found at Charlottesville represents a dynamic of hens and wolves gives entirely too much weight to people that will never matter. How does someone even arrive at that perspective? The American experiment with survive these outbursts of extremism, and it will likely accomplish this without compromising its values. If the ACLU does so in the process then that is an incredible shame. S.O.H. is probably right about their motivation anyway. It's not about principle so much as it is about money, which makes sense given that the only principled option for the ACLU is to defend all speech.

If you think it is reasonable for the ACLU to not defend all political speech, then presumably you also think that certain types of political speech ought to be limited under the law. Is that true? That would be a dangerous place to plant your flag, though not all that surprising if the colors are red and black.

Edited June 23rd by Famov
Famov

I think Pink is trying to say that these various groups are attempting to redefine and expand what constitutes “speech” and “expression” in the first place, including violence and threats. Right wingers are known for taking liberties with the definition of “speech” (see also: Citizens United) while undermining the rights of those they dislike and disagree with.

Posted June 23rd by pacman
pacman
 

"Communists have done all that and more."

this is such a non sequitur. call me up when the tankies hold a "unite the left" rally and drive a car into a group of counterprotesters, thanks. the U.S. has always flirted with white supremacy. communism, not so much. tankies are a nonissue, but we've had alt right scum like bannon, gorka and stephen miller in the white house.

Posted June 23rd by poptart!
poptart!
 

He called it a "paradox of tolerance", so I'm not so sure that's what he was getting at. And while I'd agree that violence and (a relatively narrow definition of) threats are not protected speech, this is not a uniquely right wing problem by any stretch of the imagination. Do speech protections extend to left wing protesters blocking off access to public roads? I definitely do not think so, and the law seems to agree. Do speech protections account for turning your site into a toxic dump, as per the Keystone pipeline protests? Evidently they do, but I'd be inclined to argue otherwise all the same. Do speech protections apply to a Black Lives Matter march when they advocate for, but do not explicitly threaten, violence against cops? Yes. White supremacist rhetoric is likewise afforded similar protections.

Free expression also acknowledges the right to have a bad haircut, play neo nazi dress-up, and carry a tiki torch. It even allows you to have a bad haircut, wear a face mask like a coward, and counter protest in hopes of provoking an incident at an event that would have otherwise gone totally unnoticed and unremarked upon in the media. What is it with extremists having bad hair anyway? Regardless, if we go by their own words it is the opinions of the white supremacists that make the ACLU squeamish. And that is where the leftward swing of the organization seems to be replacing the original mission.

And besides, Citizens United was a speech issue.

Edited June 23rd by Famov
Famov

this is such a non sequitur. call me up when the tankies hold a "unite the left" rally and drive a car into a group of counterprotesters, thanks. the U.S. has always flirted with white supremacy. communism, not so much. tankies are a nonissue, but we've had alt right scum like bannon, gorka and stephen miller in the white house.

You're the one with the non sequitur. Pink talked about what the historical ideology of Nazism has done, and likewise I that's what I was refering to with Communism. The Soviet Union. Mao's China. Cambodia. Cuba. Vietnam. Venezuela. All examples of Communism doing all of the things he attributed to historical Nazism.

And again, James Fields drove a car into a crowd of protesters. One guy. This is not difficult to understand.

Posted June 23rd by Famov
Famov

"and counter protest in hopes of provoking an incident at an event that would have otherwise gone totally unnoticed and unremarked upon in the media."

did you just blame heather heyer for being murdered

Posted June 23rd by poptart!
poptart!
 

No. Obviously.

Posted June 23rd by Famov
Famov

"You're the one with the non sequitur. Pink talked about what the historical ideology of Nazism has done, and likewise I that's what I was refering to with Communism. The Soviet Union. Mao's China. Cambodia. Cuba. Vietnam. Venezuela. All examples of Communism doing all of the things he attributed to historical Nazism."

cool, again, call me when tankies are an actual problem in the U.S.

"And again, James Fields drove a car into a crowd of protesters. One guy. This is not difficult to understand)"

the assaults and the dipshit shooting at counterprotesters are often overlooked because of this terrorist

Posted June 23rd by poptart!
poptart!
 

"No. Obviously."

so she was just there to "provoke an incident." it's the counterprotesters' fault if the neo-nazi snowflakes can't handle criticism and get violent?

Edited June 23rd by poptart!
poptart!
 

communism, not so much


when it comes to the u.s. government sure. The u.s. people though have attempted to flirt with communism a handful of times in the 20th. Century.

my only issue with famovs comments is that he is putting the "communism" that we've seen in the 20th Century under the same monolithic block. That is not only wrong but extremely naive. The communist ideology practiced under Mao and Stalin is extremely different from one another. Shoot the ideology practiced by those two countries would be completely shunned by the authors of the communist manifesto.

Posted June 23rd by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

"The u.s. people though have attempted to flirt with communism a handful of times in the 20th. Century."

communism is not even close to being as popular in the U.S. as white supremacy and never has been. iirc, most real leftism was stamped out in the U.S. after that weird lonely anarchist shot president mckinley.

"Shoot the ideology practiced by those two countries would be completely shunned by the authors of the communist manifesto."

this argument always sounds like bullshit to me. even communists in 2018, people who should know better with so much access to information, will apologize for stalin, mao and even the DPRK. i'm not sure why nearly every commie has to act like a shitstain. show me one who doesn't make "kulaks deserved worse" jokes and maybe i'll believe you

Edited June 23rd by poptart!
poptart!
 

And besides, Citizens United was a speech issue.

Fine, let your country continue on its downward spiral of corruption and personal greed. Big money controlling our politics is, quite literally, quasi-fascism, and it will destroy our economy and society completely if people like you keep making excuses for it.


Posted June 23rd by pacman
pacman
 

I agree and disagree. Communism was popular to a degree in this country. Especially in California. Currently it has the potential to be popular if this nations government refuses to address the needs and wants of the people. (Healthcare, education, better pay, etc)

Posted June 23rd by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

Also Famov you are missing the part where many white supremacist and neo-Nazi “peaceful” demonstrations end up being not so peaceful, as was the case with Charlottesville.

Posted June 23rd by pacman
pacman
 

"Currently it has the potential to be popular if this nations government refuses to address the needs and wants of the people. (Healthcare, education, better pay, etc)"

yeah, look at /r/fullcommunism. famov will probably be giving me that call sooner than later.

Posted June 23rd by poptart!
poptart!
 

so she was just there to "provoke an incident." it's the counterprotesters' fault if the neo-nazi snowflakes can't handle criticism and get violent?

Sorry Cathy Newman, but I will only take responsibility for saying things that I've said. I said that Antifa was at Charlottesville to provoke the white supremacists. That is the point of a counter protest: to be provocative to the protesters. That does not mean that Heather Heyer shares responsibility for for her own murder. The things I say are really not all that scandalous.

communism is not even close to being as popular in the U.S. as white supremacy

I'm not sure. Leftists have all but totally arrested the liberal arts at our universities. Socialism polls very well with millennials. The center left ubiquity of the mainstream media has only recent shown cracks in the armor due to not even remotely representing a huge segment of middle America. The only reason talk radio, Fox News, and finally new media were able to come in and find an audience is because hardly anyone to the right of Don Lemon had any kind of voice on television. Not that the center left are Communists, of course. But to the extent that the left-right dichotomy is useful at all (for anything more than taking sides in a manufactured conflict) it is fair to say that they have the culture.

Fine, let your country continue on its downward spiral of corruption and personal greed. Big money controlling our politics is, quite literally, quasi-fascism, and it will destroy our economy and society completely if people like you keep making excuses for it.

Yes, of course, freedom is slavery. This is a gross oversimplification of the state of campaign finance in this country... so I'll respond in kind. They were still able to move all the money they wanted before Citizens United. They just had to do it differently, and according to a series of arcane rules that can only be justified if we accept your view that large corporations can subvert the will of the American people by tricking them into voting against their own interests. If nothing else you should be relieved that it didn't work for Hillary Clinton.

Also Famov you are missing the part where many white supremacist and neo-Nazi “peaceful” demonstrations end up being not so peaceful, as was the case with Charlottesville.

I am prepared to match you example for example of right wing versus left wing violence from a modern protest setting. Or at least I think I can. I haven't actually tried before but I assume it can be done relatively easily. It is telling that there is only one murder, and almost as if this is all getting blown out of proportion.

Posted June 23rd by Famov
Famov

Heather Heyer was a communist taking part in an unlawful riot. The cops said all gatherings were unlawful, and the right followed the law and left the park. The Fields incident came an hour after the dispersal.

Not to mention Fields car was being chased admittedly by armed communists.

Posted June 24th by #85
#85

again, you're going to get your teeth kicked in some day, you piece of shit, and you're going to deserve it. gfys

Posted June 24th by poptart!
poptart!
 

The truth doesn't fit your narrative.



Posted June 24th by #85
#85

That's funny based on your birther comments.

Posted June 24th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

"The truth doesn't fit your narrative"

no, you're just a dumb waste of a cumshot trying to justify a murder

Posted June 24th by poptart!
poptart!
 

If you are in a car, and your being chased by part of an armed mob, and you take a wrong turn down a road where an unlawful riot is taking place you have two choices

Continue

Allow yourself to be overtaken by the mob

If you notice he went straight down the middle (minimum casualties) and hit the break light, but continued.

If anyone is to blame, its the communists.

Edited June 25th by #85
#85

@Famov

Considering this is an issue where you take a fairly bold stance, I refuse to believe you’re naive enough to think money in politics merely buys voter persuasion. I’m talking about PACs and corporations buying influence from politicians directly - and that IS exactly what they are doing despite the denial of those engaged in this behavior. As well as lobbyists and industry execs buying influence and then taking over a legislative spot once the term of the person whose influence they were buying is up (see also: revolving door). I could go on and on, and I’m confident you are already arguing against me in your head. Maybe I will start a thread on the subject if I have time.

And the concept of money being speech is a separate and much more ridiculous issue.



@85,

You’ve admitted you are fundamentally anti free expression anyway, so why the fuck should anyone here listen to anything you have to say on the issue?

Posted June 25th by pacman
pacman
 

You’ve admitted you are fundamentally anti free expression anyway, so why the fuck should anyone here listen to anything you have to say on the issue?

Non sequitur, ad hominem.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument

Posted June 25th by #85
#85

Not trying to make any sort of logical case. No one cares what hypocritical Nazis have to say on free expression. That’s all I’m saying here.

Posted June 25th by pacman
pacman
 

No one is talking about free expression but you, the James Fields case was the subject.

Posted June 25th by #85
#85

No one is talking about free expression but you, the James Fields case was the subject.

THE GODDAMN THREAD HAS “Free Expression” IN THE TITLE YOU NITWIT.

Also no one wants to engage with you on this because you exposed yourself as dishonest on the free speech issue just like Richard Spencer. Why would anyone have a discussion with someone who isn’t being honest about what they really believe?

Posted June 25th by pacman
pacman
 

For reference, this is almost certainly what Pink is referring to with the "paradox of tolerance".



Rationales don't get flimsier than this. If ever you want to scare people into surrendering their liberties, just argue that the consequence of ignoring their fundamentally bad ideas will potentially or necessarily be Nazism.

Posted June 25th by Famov
Famov

tolerance is a spook

Posted June 25th by poptart!
poptart!
 

If ever you want to scare people into surrendering their liberties, just argue that the consequence of ignoring their fundamentally bad ideas will potentially or necessarily be Nazism.

Or just do another 9/11. Few things have defined the modern destruction of personal liberty more.


Posted June 26th by pacman
pacman
 

tolerance is a spook

Tolerance doesn't mean you have to like someone. It doesn't mean you have to listen to them and it doesn't mean that you have to treat them with respect. Respect is earned, after all. Within a legal context, given that we're talking about the ACLU, it means that we have to tolerate the rights of others to speak their mind. The comic I linked to says that "Any movement that preaches intolerance and persecution must be outside the law". Merely "preaching" particular beliefs is to be "outside the law" according to this person. That is what's dangerous.

Posted June 27th by Famov
Famov

originally i wasn't going to respond to this, but i don't want to let the blatant lie stand, so no one is actually convinced by this bullshit:

"If you are in a car, and your being chased by part of an armed mob, and you take a wrong turn down a road where an unlawful riot is taking place you have two choices"

if you watch the video, you can clearly see the "armed mob" rush in from the sides after he plows full speed into the crowd. they also get there too soon to have been chasing the car beforehand; they're clearly responding to the murder attempt. you can even see them coming from the sidewalk to the left.

but ya, no, okay, ya boi stopped, watched, backed up, and then sped up to "escape," sure.

i can't wait for your pissy-pants nazi buddy to get what he deserves

Fields could face the death penalty in Aug. 12 hate crimes case https://www.dailyprogress.com/racialstrife/unite_the_right/fields-facing-federal-charges-in-death-of-heather-heyer/article_66d993a0-7a27-11e8-bc35-d3ef980792b8.html

Edited June 28th by poptart!
poptart!
 

There is no lie, buddy. The man is on tape admitting he chased fields down the street with a rifle.

Shockingly enough, he is a professor.
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/leftist-professor-chased-charlotesville-driver-rifle-attacks-big-league-cameraman-video/


Fields will walk on appeal after he gets his joke sentence from the Communist occupied city.

Posted June 28th by #85
#85

yeahhh, that would support your narrative if it had just been the facebook post, but in the video he mentions that fields drove around the block four times (shows his intent to kill), "waved him off" on the fourth pass, and fields drove into the crowd on the fifth pass.

(there were also armed nazis at this rally letting off actual "warning shots" - i didn't see any leftists pissing their pants and driving into crowds over it)

your propaganda source is also peddling misinformation:

"Car that hit those people drove right by us 3 mins after. Was beat all to fuck. Big rectangular square holes in rear windshield in addition to all the damage you see done to it in the photos,” the eyewitness said.

“I’ve heard he was attacked at another intersection just a few minutes before he ran over those folks. I didn’t see anyone hitting the rear windshield when you watch the videos of him hauling ass out of the street. I suspect they fucked up his car as he was leaving and he lost his mind and did that. No excuse but just context,” the eyewitness said."


his bumper gets fucked up from hitting another car, and as for the "rectangular holes" in the back windshield, you can literally see them do that in the video after he rams into the crowd. i don't blame them for attacking the car after the attack - it's a shame they didn't take him out and tear the nazi fuck to pieces, honestly. and he obviously wasn't running from them before they even attacked his car, jesus fuck. the dishonesty of this is astounding.

and don't even try to tell me you're arguing about this to "spread the truth" or "get justice for an 'innocent' man" or any of that horseshit. i saw the little gears start turning in your brain trying to find an excuse right after it happened.

you're absolutely lying if you watched all of the videos and came to the conclusion that he was "running away" before the attack. but, you know, i don't care about you, just people who might read your bullshit without watchin the videos and believe you. we already know that there's something fundamentally wrong with you (to the point where you'll try to blame heather herself for dying because of her weight). there's no convincing you.

that being said, just in case there is an actual human with warm blood somewhere in there, think about this: you're so fucking brainwashed and lost in your echo chamber that you're trying to justify a murder and defend a murderer. you're not a good person. if you think you are, you have a lot of self reflection to do. you should take a break from the echo chamber for awhile and chill out. maybe with some time away from the nazi propaganda designed to make you rage, you'll realize what a shitstain you're acting like right now.

feel free to respond, but i'm not going to read it or reply to you anymore. you've seen the videos and you know that i'm right. i'm not going to argue with a liar.

Edited June 28th by poptart!
poptart!
 

The left continues to dismiss facts. I dont care if you read this or not. You dismissed all the evidence, including the words spoken by Dixon himself for your anti white witch hunt.

Its reasonable that a out of towner would get lost, especially considering several roads were blocked off.

He did nothing wrong.

Edited June 28th by #85
#85
Reply to: The ACLU Retreats From Free Expression

Enter your message here


Site Rules | Complaints Process | Register Complaint Facebook Page
GTX0 © 2009-2017 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on