• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Racial Tension in the U.S.

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Where should the thread go from here?

  • Racial Tension in the U.S.

    Votes: 16 51.6%
  • Extremist Views on the U.S.

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • Mending Years of Racial Stereotypes.

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • Protest Culture.

    Votes: 1 3.2%
  • Racist Idiots in the News.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 10 32.3%

  • Total voters
    31
Yea that's called ad homimem and poisoning the well and it has nothing to do with the actual content. It shouldn't make its way into any legitimate discussion.

You still haven't explained exactly why you have a problem with this. More people are liberal in America. Why shouldn't those polled be slightly more liberal? What issue do you specifically have with this other than the source?

I have a problem that this article is framed in a way that "the left hates free speech" when those polled in the article comprise all sides of the spectrum. I also have a problem that it was posted by someone trying to use it to talk about ANTIFA, which is almost completely irrelevant to the article itself.

Again, shit source taking leaps and bounds to make a point using a legitimate source of data in an extremely misleading way.

I know you're not really on either side of the spectrum, but I find it hilarious that the people who would use that article to support something are also often the first to scream "fake news" actual legitimate media sources.
 
Dude. They're reporting the findings of a survey. Why is Breitbart's "credibility" even remotely relevant? Breitbart isn't the source of this information. They're reporting information from another source.

If breitbart posts a story about there being a hurricane in Florida this past weekend are you going to be all "nope! Didn't happen!"?

Breitbart used this information to support a point worse than a first semester freshman would have.
 
Breitbart used this information to support a point worse than a first semester freshman would have.
"In the wake of violent protests from Charlottesville to Berkeley, more than half, a full 53 percent of California’s Democratic voters, believe we have gone too far in allowing those demonstrations."

The freedom to assemble is part of the 1st amendment. They don't think this right should apply to a certain group, showing that they don't actually support the right. It really isn't this massive leap that you're trying to say it is.
 
But it wasn't just Antifa. They actively courted/supported BLM, right? Did you see disavowal of things like "Pigs in a blanket/fry 'em like bacon", which was in an avowedly BLM rally? Or demands by the media that the Democrat candidate do so?

There were plenty of other offensive signs, etc, at BLM rallies, some feminist rallies, the usual support from shady people like Al Sharon, and Democrats weren't asked to disavow that. No matter what some BLM marchers said or did, the Democrats were terrified of criticizing them even slightly. People rushed a stage and took microphones by force, prevented speakers from speaking, and they said nothing. Even though those actions were committed in the name of a group those politicians actively courted and supported by name.

Anyway, I'm not trying to convince anyone of that double standard. Just trying to raise the issue for people to think about and judge on their own, and perhaps increase awareness when it happens in the future.

I disagree that BLM is comparable to Antifa or the alt-right in how extreme its agenda is. For example, according to a recent poll a majority of independents and about a quarter of republicans "mostly agree" with BLM. Individuals within the movement have done bad things, but the ideology of the group as a whole is not extreme.
 
Dude. They're reporting the findings of a survey.

No, they're plainly stating that half of California democrats oppose free speech, which is not what the survey is asking.

Why is Breitbart's "credibility" even remotely relevant? Breitbart isn't the source of this information. They're reporting information from another source.

No, they're lying about the information from another source.

Like, if you want to say it isn't a credible source then find the actual source of the information.

If breitbart posts a story about there being a hurricane in Florida this past weekend are you going to be all "nope! Didn't happen!"?

Like, if I ask someone:

"Has America has gone too far in allowing white nationalist groups to hold public demonstrations?"

And they respond "yes," it doesn't mean they're opposed to free speech.
 
No, they're plainly stating that half of California democrats oppose free speech, which is not what the survey is asking.



No, they're lying about the information from another source.



Like, if I ask someone:

"Has America has gone too far in allowing white nationalist groups to hold public demonstrations?"

And they respond "yes," it doesn't mean they're opposed to free speech.
Yes, it certainly does. White nationalists have the right to free speech. By saying that you don't think they should be allowed to hold public demonstrations you're saying you do not support their right to free speech. If you want to take away free speech from certain groups because you don't like what they're doing then you don't support free speech.
 
Dude. They're reporting the findings of a survey. Why is Breitbart's "credibility" even remotely relevant? Breitbart isn't the source of this information. They're reporting information from another source. Like, if you want to say it isn't a credible source then find the actual source of the information.

If breitbart posts a story about there being a hurricane in Florida this past weekend are you going to be all "nope! Didn't happen!"?
We've been having the same conversation for 8 months. People are either dumb or they don't want to get it.
 
Yes, it certainly does. White nationalists have the right to free speech. By saying that you don't think they should be allowed to hold public demonstrations you're saying you do not support their right to free speech. If you want to take away free speech from certain groups because you don't like what they're doing then you don't support free speech.
Right it's exposing lack of principle. They're showing how people will abdicate principle for subjectivity.

Anyone who actually supports free speech would respond with "they're allowed to say what they want. I disagree with it, but it's not like you can just take the rights away from people because you don't agree with them".

Then again, nazi accusation bla bla bla. In any event, you either support free speech or you do not.
 
Last edited:
Advocating for white nationalism is advocating for violence against people of color. Advocating for violence against people of color should be against the law. I don't understand how this is such a controversial stance.
 
Yes, it certainly does.

This is insane. Allowing Nazi's and white supremacists to march and physically assault people is counter productive to our society.

If people march in protest suggesting we exterminate white people, you'd RIGHTFULLY argue that they don't deserve the right to assemble and protest.

White nationalists have the right to free speech.

Peacefully. But you don't get to watch them intimidate and assault, then cry moral outrage when restrictions are placed on their freedom.

By saying that you don't think they should be allowed to hold public demonstrations you're saying you do not support their right to free speech. If you want to take away free speech from certain groups because you don't like what they're doing then you don't support free speech.

I support anyone's right to assemble peacefully.

I don't support the right to march with intent to intimidate and the physical harm brought upon other races and ethnicities.

You do.
 
We need to support the free speech of people assaulting others with the intent to take away their freedom?

This shouldn't be conundrum.


By saying there are no limits to what you can say freely, there should be no laws with regards to making terrorist threats, or bodily harm, etc.

It's a nonsensical position.
 
Advocating for white nationalism is advocating for violence against people of color. Advocating for violence against people of color should be against the law. I don't understand how this is such a controversial stance.
No it isn't.

Jared Taylor is a white nationalist and he came out very staunchly and said Dylan roof is an absolute fucktard and violence is only something an idiot would do.
 
We need to support the free speech of people assaulting others with the intent to take away their freedom?

This shouldn't be conundrum.


By saying there are no limits to what you can say freely, there should be no laws with regards to making terrorist threats, or bodily harm, etc.

It's a nonsensical position.
Speech isn't assault. Those who committed violence were arrested. Those are two vastly vastly different things. A demonstration doesn't necessitate assault.

Both of you and @Nathan S, I wrote a lengthy post detailing the differences in the beliefs of the alternative right people about a month ago. Again, we've been over this.
 
Speech isn't assault.

Burning people with tiki torches and assault is assault.

Nazi's and white supremecists have a propensity for doing this, and will continue to do so.

Do you know why?


It's because their aims are not peaceful. Thus, the hopes to exterminate minorities to create a white ethno-state means they should not be protected.

And guess what, if Antifa wants to march in support of killing cops or politicians, they're not protected either.
 
Burning people with tiki torches and assault is assault.

Nazi's and white supremecists have a propensity for doing this, and will continue to do so.

Do you know why?


It's because their aims are not peaceful. Thus, the hopes to exterminate minorities to create a white ethno-state means they should not be protected.

And guess what, if Antifa wants to march in support of killing cops or politicians, they're not protected either.
A tiki torch isn't assault.

The ones that committed assault again, are arrested because it's against the law. You don't arrest someone for speaking. Those aren't the same things.

BLM has committed violence. Some advocate special rights and some advocate bla bla bla against white people. You don't infringe on their ability to speak because some white white genocide and act like idiots. That's as silly as blaming all black people for crime. It's illogical.

They're allowed to say whatever the fuck they want. You're not a mind reader, you don't know who is going to commit violence so to propose policy over something that illogical would be ridiculous.

A thought is not an action. When someone takes action they have crossed the line. A vast vast majority of these people did not commit violence, so you propose to infringe on free speech as consequences to your subjectivity. You don't agree with them, so they don't get to speak.

So do you think the non violent ones get their rights? Or would you like to be honest and say no, you don't want people you disagree with to speak?
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top