The unmentioned Charlottesville thugs

[kevm14]

Still going on Charlottesville

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpzKZmD ... qK&index=1

[Adam]

Related. Surprising source.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jillianyork/si ... nazi-purge

[kevm14]

This article was good until:

I’m not so worried about companies censoring Nazis, but I am worried about the implications it has for everyone else. I’m worried about the unelected bros of Silicon Valley being the judge and jury, and thinking that mere censorship solves the problem. I’m worried that, just like Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince woke up one morning and decided he’d had enough of the Daily Stormer, some other CEO might wake up and do the same for Black Lives Matter or antifa. I’m worried that we’re not thinking about this problem holistically.

Antifa and BLM are both garbage groups.

[Adam]

Now you're starting to sound like all those groups you hate.

They said one thing I don't like so I need to dismiss all their statements as invalid.

Let me modify the article quote again and see how you feel about it

I am worried about the implications [censorship] has for everyone else. I’m worried about the unelected bros of Silicon Valley being the judge and jury, and thinking that mere censorship solves the problem. I’m worried that, just like Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince woke up one morning and decided he’d had enough of the Daily Stormer, some other CEO might wake up and do the same for Ben Shapiro or Thomas Sowell. I’m worried that we’re not thinking about this problem holistically.

[kevm14]

Now you're starting to sound like all those groups you hate.

They said one thing I don't like so I need to dismiss all their statements as invalid.

That's not exactly what happened. What actually happened was the writer was making a great point about free speech but then just still had to get their leftist bias in the article. The vibe I got was "hey, we all agree Nazis are bad, but what if this starts happening to legitimate activities like Antifa or BLM?" It just weakens the argument. Those activities are not legitimate. As Ben Shapiro mentions, all of those are bad. And if someone is trying to justify Antifa by saying "hey look, these guys are better than neo-Nazi scum so they get a pass" then that is a REALLY shitty argument. And a very low bar.

But here's the thing. Neo-nazis and white supremacists ARE bullshit, too! And Antifa and BLM are not just a bunch of peaceful protesters trying to rid us from this evil (as if Nazis are about to take over the country - give me a goddamn break! And if they were, we have police and military - we don't need some asshole anarchists in the street to "help"). That's a total misrepresentation of what's happening. Someone standing at a rally holding a #BLM poster is not necessarily a member of what the BLM group is, just like someone who holds a sign saying they don't like neo-nazis are NOT necessarily Antifa. In fact, most likely, they are not. Antifa is a specifically violent and anarchist organization that the media is trying to validate by saying they are somehow helping. The left/media is also trying to make the argument that ANYONE on the right is basically a neo-nazi white supremacist and it's disgusting. They are idiots though because all it does is solidify people on the right! I don't think I can say BLM is a specifically violent group but it certainly has elements of that (like the idea of shooting police, and this is seen as some kind of good thing). They also are causing greater racism.

I think the right needs to completely divorce and rid itself of the "alt-right" crap (they are trying). And I think the left needs to completely rid itself of all of its groups (social justice warriors, BLM, Antifa, whatever). EXCEPT - most are not doing that and many are actually justifying it. This is a huge problem and a distinction between the way the left and right are handling their extremist elements.

To be honest, I think this country actually got MORE racist after 8 years of Obama telling everyone that they are racist and should still feel bad about slavery or whatever his message was. Thomas Sowell has a lot to say about that.

Let me modify the article quote again and see how you feel about it

I am worried about the implications [censorship] has for everyone else. I’m worried about the unelected bros of Silicon Valley being the judge and jury, and thinking that mere censorship solves the problem. I’m worried that, just like Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince woke up one morning and decided he’d had enough of the Daily Stormer, some other CEO might wake up and do the same for Ben Shapiro or Thomas Sowell. I’m worried that we’re not thinking about this problem holistically.

What she should have said was that she was worried about censorship for everyone, without getting her own little views in the middle of the article. She wouldn't have used antifa or BLM if she thought those movements were bad since she was contrasting those groups censorship (bad) with neo-Nazi censorship (good, as stated at the beginning).

[kevm14]

There are others who will fight to the death for your right to be a hateful Nazi, although I’m not one of them.

It has been often said that this was actually one of the original tenets of liberalism. It seems to me that what that has morphed into is "ban speech that offends me." Or "ban speech that does not align with my political views." If anyone makes these arguments explicitly or implicitly, they are just plain wrong and don't understand how this country is supposed to work.

[kevm14]

I'm not a lawyer but I don't believe the courts really recognize the idea of "hate speech." Hate speech is speech and unless it is being specifically provocative in terms of calling for violence, it is legal and should be protected. Even if you disagree. Protected means I give a speech about my political views, and those views don't involve the mass incineration of a specific race (just to be random). If someone attacks me for my free speech, they committed a crime and the police protect me. Correct me if I am wrong but that is how it is supposed to work.

Yeah I think I am right:

This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good law in the United States. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.

[kevm14]

The comments in that article are just the worst ever. It is so bad. Fuck the media. They are amplifying these problems!

EDIT: Maybe it's not as bad as I thought. While some of the comments are shocking, the votes seem to be in the correct direction...I guess what's something.

[kevm14]

This one is not garbage:

But one funny thing about this issue is the left and right basically switched sides in the space of a decade or so. I seem to recall liberals fretting about media consolidation, worrying dissenting views might be suppressed. Meanwhile conservatives and libertarians were arguing that newspapers, TV channels, etc, should be run however the owners saw fit.

Today, right-wingers are whining about having their speech censored by private entities. And liberals are out there celebrating the fact that corporations can boot people off their platforms for essentially any reason. Funny.

[kevm14]

I would associate this kind of nonsense with the Social Justice Warriors, if I had to pick a group.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2017/0 ... ent-dodge/

Read the whole thing. The idea that Dodge is now required to publicly disavow violence when one of their cars was used as a murder instrument is so ridiculous. The insinuation is, if you DON'T disavow, you must implicitly approve or even condone. Which is false logic but that's where the culture is going here.

“The proper response for FCA in this situation is no response at all. ”

So much this. This needs to be the approach to almost all use of excessive communications, namely through social media. Companies and politicians should sometimes say something, but eventually it becomes an expectation or entitlement to the wider media, so it’s like a treadmill you can never leave.

The key is to ignore it, which is what I hope FCA will do. Ignore neo-Nazis baiting you to their little picnic, ignore reactionary SJWs baiting you with their endless protectionism. This new media era has really messed with people’s heads and made it much, much harder to differentiate the important from the LOUD.