A Double Standard?

True! But there is a wrong way: violence. And failing to make this distinction is, frankly, a much bigger threat to society than whatever fringe hate group is getting headlines. As is so often the case, how we respond to the extremes of the culture is ultimately what dictates how much power they actually have.

INCOMING

Was there violence at the U Florida speech?

__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

Gees, and I thought you encouraged participation or was that just confined to reviews?

Well, I don't encourage participation for its own sake. I'm not just mindlessly happy that people are posting regardless of what they're posting.

All that said, it was just a joke, since the last couple of threads you'd started were obviously about very controversial topics.

Just trying to liven this place up a bit. Am a bit surprised at some response which is down right hate full, but I guess that goes with the territory.
Those that start crossing the line and get too personal, I'll just put on my ignore list, as well as those that post stupid and irrelevant comments.
I don't need to waste my time on them but individuals such as yourself, I don't mind disagreeing with from time to time, since there is always logic in your disagreement.
Open minded individuals I can agree to disagree with.
As for others, I wish there was a block button.

Enjoy your safe space

This is why.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I'm not really sure how this is an explanation. Please explain the underlying logic: if someone tries to commit murder...we have to ban or restrict the expression of any potentially motivating ideologies? Even if the system is successfully prosecuting them for their actions?

In a sense this link is a contradiction to the point you are trying to make.
Please understand that in no way do I condone their actions and I find their escalated response extreme, but their vehicle was struck first by a protester.
Had the protesters just sat there ( like Gandhi ) and not instigated a physical provocation, then those tragic consequences would never have happened.
Let's face it, most people and media feed on violence, so if we don't give it to them, they go away.
Imagine a rally, where no protesters show up and no one listens to a speech.
They parade themselves for a while and nothing happens. They walk away.
Now, it's on them to try different methods of attracting attention. Perhaps they resort to violence, but then the authorities can swiftly reply and take them out all together.

Also I read more about Popper's paradox of tolerance and it's more complicated than that. He said that for totalitarian ideas that they should never be censored but exposed openly and refuted by society. So neo-Nazis should indeed be allowed to express their views. Anyway, not allowing then would make then underground and leave then protected from mainstream society.

Yeah, because nothing tragic ever happened to Gandhi.

Seriously though, you have to think about what kind of message is sent to people by the occurrence of a neo-Nazi rally that receives no opposition whatsoever. Even if nobody were to show up even just to listen, the concept of an out-and-proud neo-Nazi being able to publicly expound upon his views without any sort of repercussions is liable to embolden others because of the idea that such an occurrence could be considered socially tolerable (if not necessarily acceptable). I can see why people would say that it's better to let them talk and make fools of themselves in the eyes of the public, but that's still dependent on the assumption that enough people are able to see through Nazi rhetoric. That's still a huge risk to take, especially now that they're presenting themselves as these suit-wearing intellectuals in order to take advantage of the presumption that only stupid, uneducated people are violent racists.

It is a double standard but I'm fine with it. I don't like the players kneeling but I think it should definitely be allowed as long as it's not against NFL rules. F**k the Nazis. I hate Nazis, especially Illinois Nazis. They are not even human beings as far as I'm concerned.

Interesting, because "X are not human beings" is a Nazi ideology.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

I understand your logic.
I try to look at history to have a better understanding of possible consequences of violence.
As Hitler and the SA started their ascent, they were met with a lot of violent opposition, mostly from the communists and anarchists. There was a lot of carnage and Hitler prevailed and even got rid of the very SA that helped him come to power( with his creation of the SS )
Of course, once he consolidated power, there was no silent protest.
Today, violent groups like ANTIFA only escalate the problems wit the Neo-Nazis and give them some claim to legitimacy, as the Nazis are initially victims of ANTIFA physical aggression, during rallies and protests, which then gives them an excuse to retaliate and claim self defense.
That's why it's better to let our legal system deal with them, when they cross the line.
The clashes with ANTIFA only increase their membership, which at the moment is insignificant and does not pose a major threat.
This comes from the FBI annual assessment of active anti-government groups within the United States.

Few posts here were nice reads and now I'm inspired to write something, but as this is mostly focused on USA I don't know what

So if this is a bit off topic forgive me but - Freedom of speech in USA and Europe is not the same, not even close, because in France you can be arrested and brought in front of a judge only for calling homosexuality an illness, or speaking in that manner. You can't speak about Nazis in a way above mentioned person did, you cannot say everything that comes to your mind, especially when talking about such topics as Nazism.

Just wanted to point out that difference in freedom of speech.

__________________
“By definition, you have to live until you die. Better to make that life as complete and enjoyable an experience as possible, in case death is shite, which I suspect it will be.”

1. It is not accurate to equate the 4 groups and it seems like that is exactly what some of the conservative media likes to do especially when it comes down to BLM and Antifa. Some of the BLM protesters have indeed engaged in some violent protest, but as an organization, that is not what their guiding principle is. It is not part of their agenda. They are a group with much narrower scope focusing primarily on anti-black violence and queer issues (which a lot of people are not aware at all).
Antifa on the other hand has confirmed that they will fight fascism with any means necessary. That includes violence. They also do not believe that hate speech is free speech. Also, their scope is a lot broader. They fight agains fascism which can include a wide range of people and groups and crosses the issue of race, gender, nationality etc.

Also, to clarify, the 2 groups above are not anti government per se and I would venture to say neither are KKK or Neo-nazis.

2. You seem to have omitted the most important part of the 4 groups which is what they are fight for. It makes a huge difference. The fact that you are grouping them all together is disturbing. I guess it boils down to if you think that violence is sometimes necessary? Were the atom bombs necessary? Did Hitler's reign reach the stage it did because people decided to ignore it and to just fight it by peaceful means for too long? Until it was too late and then they realized that you have to fight evil with evil which in turn gave birth to much more violent resistance groups that would make Antifa look like an MUN meeting? Hmmmm.....

3. The rise of radical groups is done in a parallel manner. If there was no rise in neo-nazis and KKK there would be no rise in antifa and other similar groups.

__________________
“There's no place to hide, When you're lit from the inside” Roisin Murphy

The entire concept of free speech is based in the idea that people can and will see through things like this. If you think they can't, and that you need to stop people from even hearing abhorrent ideas to protect them from themselves, then the concept is already doomed and you're just trying to manage the decline.

Addendum to the above, I posted this awhile ago in another thread and literally no one responded to it, but it applies here as well:

There is another point I would like to add, did any government use its power without abuse? Fairness is simply not part of politics, in my opinion. If I am arrested and some well-known politician, for same crime we would get different punishments.