Racial Tension in the U.S.

[The Human Q-Tip]

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.

These incidents don't involve just one individual going off the reservation, and detractors searching Facebook or whatever to say "hey, this guy says he's with BLM."

These are groups of marchers, marching under the BLM banner, making these statements. And if you're going to state your public support for a specific, named movement that you know is decentralised, then it is perfectly fair to ask you to clarify what you support, and what you don't.

The reason they don't disavow things like "pigs in a blanket", while reiterating their support for the overall movement, is that they don't want to alienate even their more radical supporters.

It's why Democrats so meekly accept the rudeness and indignity of people physical charging a stage and grabbing microphones. That is rude, uncivilized behavior we all know deserves to be condemned. It's an issue that is right in front of those pols, involves them personally, and is obviously something they would be expected to address directly.

But they don't. They accept meekly, and then don't even get asked blindingly obvious questions about whether they support people doing such things. Why? Because they don't want to risk offending a powerful voting block.

 

[AZ_]

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. 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.

Conflating BLM and white supremecy or Nazi's is asinine, and I don't need to pretend you don't know that.


If BLM were marching for the extermination of white people, and aimed to create a black ethno-state, they'd rightfully have restrictions on their rights to assemble and promote that message.

ISIS is not free to freely assemble and promote their message in the United States. You believe they should? Regardless of whether or not they plan to action their speech in the form of mass murder?

 

[David.]

Conflating BLM to white supremecy or nazi's is asinine, and I don't need to pretend you don't know that.


If BLM were marching for the extermination of white people, and aimed to create a black ethno-state, they'd rightfully have restrictions on their rights to assemble and promote that message.

ISIS is not free to freely assemble and promote their message in the United States. You believe they should? Regardless of whether or not they plan to action their speech in the form of mass murder?

I literally cant talk to you I have to slow down so much. I'm using your retarded argument against you, not comparing them. I'm showing you how stupid what you're saying is by using a group you support and your flimsy logic so you can understand that you're wrong. Reread it and think.


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?

I'll repeat this, and I honestly don't care about your answer so just think about it if you'd like.

You got perma noped by me and q in the same hour. Good luck

 

[Nathan S]

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.

I don't see how white nationalism could possibly be nonviolent. That just seems like a pure oxymoron. What am I missing?

 

[AZ_]

I literally cant talk to you I have to slow down so much.

For someone who acts so morally outraged to personal attacks, you have truly difficult time mustering the courage to not indulge in them yourself.

I haven't gotten personal with me, in spite of the fact you simply refuse to answer my questions with regards to La Raza.

I'm using your retarded argument against you, not comparing them. I'm showing you how stupid what you're saying is by using a group you support and your flimsy logic so you can understand that you're wrong. Reread it and think.

Oh look, another personal attack. Don't take a second to think about the differences between the two groups, or what their aims are.

Just attack and hide.

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?

Non-violent white supremecists and Nazi's?

What does that entail, the ones who don't think we should exterminate minorities from this country?

Guess we'll have to call them something else.

I'll repeat this, and I honestly don't care about your answer so just think about it if you'd like.

You got perma noped by me and q in the same hour. Good luck

Okay, Dave.

 

[AZ_]

Can anyone else explain what a non-violent white supremacist is?

 

[OptimusPrime]

I don't see how white nationalism could possibly be nonviolent. That just seems like a pure oxymoron. What am I missing?

You don't think a white nationalist could go through everyday life without physically attacking someone? I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet at least some of them do.

This whole thread is ridiculous now. There is no such thing as rights. People don't have any fucking idea what the word means. Freedom of speech is fine for some, but not for others. Now, we just need the government to step in and determine who is allowed the privilege of having this freedom and who isn't.

Apparently, that's what rights are. Privileges that you may or may not have depending on the graciousness of those ruling you. American as apple pie.

 

[David.]

You don't think a white nationalist could go through everyday life without physically attacking someone? I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet at least some of them do.

This whole thread is ridiculous now. There is no such thing as rights. People don't have any fucking idea what the word means. Freedom of speech is fine for some, but not for others. Now, we just need the government to step in and determine who is allowed the privilege of having this freedom and who isn't.

Apparently, that's what rights are. Privileges that you may or may not have depending on the graciousness of those ruling you. American as apple pie.

Get your ass back in here, libertarian. People need truth.

 

[Nathan S]

You don't think a white nationalist could go through everyday life without physically attacking someone? I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet at least some of them do.

This whole thread is ridiculous now. There is no such thing as rights. People don't have any fucking idea what the word means. Freedom of speech is fine for some, but not for others. Now, we just need the government to step in and determine who is allowed the privilege of having this freedom and who isn't.

Apparently, that's what rights are. Privileges that you may or may not have depending on the graciousness of those ruling you. American as apple pie.

Uhh...right. So someone could march through town with a megaphone saying "Kill all the Jews!" but as long as they don't actually kill any Jews, you don't see a problem with that?

 

[MediumBaller]

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.



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



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.

If I said that I support freedom of the press, but then I said that people writing pieces critical of President Trump should be punished, would you think that I support the free press?

You can't claim to support a right if you want to pick and choose which groups should have said right and which shouldn't.

 

[AZ_]

You don't think a white nationalist could go through everyday life without physically attacking someone? I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet at least some of them do.

This whole thread is ridiculous now. There is no such thing as rights. People don't have any fucking idea what the word means. Freedom of speech is fine for some, but not for others. Now, we just need the government to step in and determine who is allowed the privilege of having this freedom and who isn't.

Apparently, that's what rights are. Privileges that you may or may not have depending on the graciousness of those ruling you. American as apple pie.

Then we need to call them something else, because white nationalism seems pretty clear about what the motive is.

Also, I don't think it's a huge leap to suggest that the freedom of speech for those wishing to cause physical harm or exterminate non-whites should be restricted as opposed to peoplewho want social justice with a few people who have become violent.


There have always been limits to this "right."

 

[OptimusPrime]

Get your ass back in here, libertarian. People need truth.

I'd love to, but I can only take so much of it these days. Everyone should know where I stand on these things by now. Did they initiate force on someone's person or property? Then deal with them. Did they not? Then they can say or do whatever the fuck they want. That includes the Nazis, BLM, ISIS, or whoever wants to run their mouths. Fuck, I don't really want to hear what any of them have to say. But that's fine. I don't have to listen to them.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Uhh...right. So someone could march through town with a megaphone saying "Kill all the Jews!" but as long as they don't actually kill any Jews, you don't see a problem with that?

What do you mean a problem? Would I think they are a piece of shit human being? Sure I would. Would I demand they to be locked up for stupid things that come out of their mouth? No, I wouldn't.

 

[AZ_]

If I said that I support freedom of the press, but then I said that people writing pieces critical of President Trump should be punished, would you think that I support the free press?

You can't claim to support a right if you want to pick and choose which groups should have said right and which shouldn't.

If you write on Breitbart that you plan to kill minorities to preserve and defend the white ethno-state, you do not have the freedom to escape prosecution given that you're making threats to a group of people.


I really don't see what is so hard about this.

 

[David.]

I don't see how white nationalism could possibly be nonviolent. That just seems like a pure oxymoron. What am I missing?

They don't have have the same beliefs. It's like saying " this is what Republicans believe."

For instance, Jared Taylor (and I'd say he's the leader of the movement which is why I keep referencing.. There isn't a single other rep that can articulate any sort of reasonable argument) thinks people should be free to discriminate as a right(shouldn't be forced to hire people you don't want to regardless of the reason, or forced to live with people you don't want to) but he doesn't want any violence or anything. He wants America to return to how it was before they started mass immigration and so fast that people weren't assimilating.

Like he legitimately condemns violence. You can tell when people are saying what they need to and what they believe. He thinks it's uncivilized.

A lot of Whyte nationalists advocate national protectionist policies, a lot don't. A lot hate jews, a lot don't. I haven't heard from any that want to take away rights of people based on their skin color. They just want a majority white country. That, I think, is the meat of their beliefs and is consistent across the board regardless of specific sects other beliefs