And protesting his intolerant speech is also an acceptable form of speech. There is no one right way.
A Double Standard?
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Was there violence at the U Florida speech?
__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...
X
Favorite Movies
INCOMING
X
Favorite Movies
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.
All that said, it was just a joke, since the last couple of threads you'd started were obviously about very controversial topics.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
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.
All that said, it was just a joke, since the last couple of threads you'd started were obviously about very controversial topics.
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.
X
Favorite Movies
I hardly find that using violence as an end to justify the cause is missing the forest for the trees. It's all like right out of Lenin's playbook. Heard of him?
There are other ways to deal wit issues. Acceptable ways. Destruction of property and beating up and killing people are certainly not acceptable.
You don't like the speaker or what he stands for, just ignore him. Don't show up and have him talk to an empty room. That is acceptable.
The more violence you use and the louder you protest, the more attention he gets. Why can't you just choose the Gandhi way?
There are other ways to deal wit issues. Acceptable ways. Destruction of property and beating up and killing people are certainly not acceptable.
You don't like the speaker or what he stands for, just ignore him. Don't show up and have him talk to an empty room. That is acceptable.
The more violence you use and the louder you protest, the more attention he gets. Why can't you just choose the Gandhi way?
__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
X
Favorite Movies
This is why.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
This is why.
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.
X
Favorite Movies
The Paradox of Tolerance is that a society cannot be infinitely tolerant without ultimately opening itself to destruction from the intolerant. The much wider parameters you've given here (that something merely has to be "rooted in...intolerance") don't merely apply to actions that may bring down society, but to merely intolerant words, as well.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
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.
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.
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.
X
Favorite Movies
I find it hypocritical that those same people that so vehemently fought for the right of football players to kneel during the national anthem, citing the First Amendment, also vehemently fought to prevent a Neo-Nazi from speaking at the University of Florida, characterizing his speech as hate speech.
What to me is a great paradox is that Florida declared a state of emergency so that they could assemble enough police officers to protect the speaker and prevent violence from the protesters.
What to me is a great paradox is that Florida declared a state of emergency so that they could assemble enough police officers to protect the speaker and prevent violence from the protesters.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
They are not even human beings as far as I'm concerned.
__________________
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.
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.
X
User Lists
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.
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.
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.
X
Favorite Movies
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.
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.”
“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.”
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
What I find fascinating is the 4 groups in the front lines of current events in this country: Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Neo-Nazis and KKK all share 2 common traits:
They are anti government
They use violence as a means to an end.
They are anti government
They use violence as a means to an end.
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
“There's no place to hide, When you're lit from the inside” Roisin Murphy
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.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
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:
1) It's important that the government be allowed to prohibit speech it deems hateful.
2) The Trump Administration will abuse its power and cannot be trusted to enforce things fairly.
Pick one.
2) The Trump Administration will abuse its power and cannot be trusted to enforce things fairly.
Pick one.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
|