NationStates

Proctopeo wrote:They're closer to street thugs than terrorists, but major community leaders probably should be on some watchlist, though this is assuming their activities haven't already put them on a couple.

Leftists in the US? Of course they're on a watchlist.

Proctopeo wrote:They're closer to street thugs than terrorists, but major community leaders probably should be on some watchlist, though this is assuming their activities haven't already put them on a couple.

Doesn't sound anything special from what police already to. This bill is just a stunt to invoke Antifa as Commie Mutant Trairors everyone is supposed to be terrified of when they're not laughing at them as weak helpless soyboys.

Ifreann wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:They're closer to street thugs than terrorists, but major community leaders probably should be on some watchlist, though this is assuming their activities haven't already put them on a couple.

Leftists in the US? Of course they're on a watchlist.

The times of the Red Scare and HUAC are (for now) over, so you'd probably have to make some ripples in the water to get an eye on you.

Proctopeo wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Leftists in the US? Of course they're on a watchlist.

The times of the Red Scare and HUAC are (for now) over, so you'd probably have to make some ripples in the water to get an eye on you.

America's still pretty terrified of the left.

Hirota wrote:

Gormwood wrote:I don't know what country you live in, but in the United Syayes "copper" is accepted as a slang for police.

I'm British, the country that invented the slang word in common usage before the United Syayes [sic] was a country. As interesting as that little sidebar is, I'm still waiting for evidence though.

There you go again being smug and baity.

Mea culpa. I'll try and do better and limt my smug mockery to protect your feelings in the future. But alas, my little character failings are not the topic at hand.

cmon man the t key is right next to the y key, that's below the belt.

Kubra wrote:

Hirota wrote:I'm British, the country that invented the slang word in common usage before the United Syayes [sic] was a country. As interesting as that little sidebar is, I'm still waiting for evidence though.

Mea culpa. I'll try and do better and limt my smug mockery to protect your feelings in the future. But alas, my little character failings are not the topic at hand.

cmon man the t key is right next to the y key, that's below the belt.

DAMMIT I DID IT AGAIN. My smug mockery is out of control!

And you've ruined it now, Gorm could have had a nice easy win pointing out a missing "i" in my post and now you've ruined it for them.

Grenartia wrote:As an antifascist (as all truly moral and ethical people should be), this is simply a transparent attempt to eliminate political opposition. First its us, tomorrow it will be the rest of you.

Also, how the fuck can antifa be a "terrorist organization" when its not even a fucking organization?

It is not an attempt to eliminate political opposition. It is an attempt to reduce domestic terrorism.

Even if antifa isn't an "organization", it can still be considered terrorists.

Vassenor wrote:

Risottia wrote:Exactly, what tells you that there are no leftist policies or veterans?

Anyway, lovely. "I'm anti-supremacist BUT STILL" .

Also what makes veterans inherently requiring of respect?

Veterans protect our nation from enemies. They risk dying and never seeing their families again so that we would be free. World War II veterans fought Nazi Germany to prevent Hitler from expanding his totalitarian, murderous government to the rest of the world.

Veterans should be respected.

Strahcoin wrote:

Grenartia wrote:As an antifascist (as all truly moral and ethical people should be), this is simply a transparent attempt to eliminate political opposition. First its us, tomorrow it will be the rest of you.

Also, how the fuck can antifa be a "terrorist organization" when its not even a fucking organization?

It is not an attempt to eliminate political opposition. It is an attempt to reduce domestic terrorism.

Even if antifa isn't an "organization", it can still be considered terrorists.

Vassenor wrote:
Also what makes veterans inherently requiring of respect?

Veterans protect our nation from enemies. They risk dying and never seeing their families again so that we would be free. World War II veterans fought Nazi Germany to prevent Hitler from expanding his totalitarian, murderous government to the rest of the world.

Veterans should be respected.

You don't see how labelling something as nebulous as "Antifa" a domestic terrorist group can be abused to suppress dissent?

Vassenor wrote:

Strahcoin wrote:It is not an attempt to eliminate political opposition. It is an attempt to reduce domestic terrorism.

Even if antifa isn't an "organization", it can still be considered terrorists.


Veterans protect our nation from enemies. They risk dying and never seeing their families again so that we would be free. World War II veterans fought Nazi Germany to prevent Hitler from expanding his totalitarian, murderous government to the rest of the world.

Veterans should be respected.

You don't see how labelling something as nebulous as "Antifa" a domestic terrorist group can be abused to suppress dissent?

No chance at all Trump supporters in government will hand out Antifa labels like Oprah.

Cossack Khanate wrote:Disclaimer: I only read the OP

Frankly, antifa is turning into a domestic terrorist organization. There is nothing political behind this. Whether you are conservative or liberal, hell even if you are anti-fascist or fascist, you can agree that antifa has gone too far too many times in the past, and has disrespected the keepers of the peace.

Unless you are fine with the use of violence to achieve leftist change, then there is no way you can support Antifa’s actions.

Agreed.

Vassenor wrote:

Cossack Khanate wrote:Disclaimer: I only read the OP

Frankly, antifa is turning into a domestic terrorist organization. There is nothing political behind this. Whether you are conservative or liberal, hell even if you are anti-fascist or fascist, you can agree that antifa has gone too far too many times in the past, and has disrespected the keepers of the peace.

Unless you are fine with the use of violence to achieve leftist change, then there is no way you can support Antifa’s actions.

Remember, throwing milkshakes at people is the worst terrorism possible.

It's rude, disrespectful, and unwarranted. Anyone with common sense knows this.

Gormwood wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
You don't see how labelling something as nebulous as "Antifa" a domestic terrorist group can be abused to suppress dissent?

No chance at all Trump supporters in government will hand out Antifa labels like Oprah.

Wouldn't that be ironic?

Strahcoin wrote:

Grenartia wrote:As an antifascist (as all truly moral and ethical people should be), this is simply a transparent attempt to eliminate political opposition. First its us, tomorrow it will be the rest of you.

Also, how the fuck can antifa be a "terrorist organization" when its not even a fucking organization?

It is not an attempt to eliminate political opposition. It is an attempt to reduce domestic terrorism.

Even if antifa isn't an "organization", it can still be considered terrorists.

You just admitted that it's not an organisation. So how exactly are you going to consider it terrorists?

Strahcoin wrote:

Cossack Khanate wrote:Disclaimer: I only read the OP

Frankly, antifa is turning into a domestic terrorist organization. There is nothing political behind this. Whether you are conservative or liberal, hell even if you are anti-fascist or fascist, you can agree that antifa has gone too far too many times in the past, and has disrespected the keepers of the peace.

Unless you are fine with the use of violence to achieve leftist change, then there is no way you can support Antifa’s actions.

Agreed.

Vassenor wrote:
Remember, throwing milkshakes at people is the worst terrorism possible.

It's rude, disrespectful, and unwarranted. Anyone with common sense knows this.

Rude and disrespectful, sure. Unwarranted, not necessarily.

Vassenor wrote:

Strahcoin wrote:It is not an attempt to eliminate political opposition. It is an attempt to reduce domestic terrorism.

Even if antifa isn't an "organization", it can still be considered terrorists.


Veterans protect our nation from enemies. They risk dying and never seeing their families again so that we would be free. World War II veterans fought Nazi Germany to prevent Hitler from expanding his totalitarian, murderous government to the rest of the world.

Veterans should be respected.

You don't see how labelling something as nebulous as "Antifa" a domestic terrorist group can be abused to suppress dissent?

This idea among the left that Trump actually plans on instituting a dictatorship which suppresses dissent and rules with an iron hand is the rough equivalent of the rightist idea that Obama was personally going to go to the house of every gun owner and force them to attend a coke fueled gay sex orgy to celebrate the birth of Karl Marx.

Galloism wrote:

Israeli Commonwealth wrote:Yeah. Here is my belief...
If you don't like the best country on Earth, the United States of America, then fucking leave faggot.

Eh, I mean, free country. You can dislike it.

In fact, we (as a nation) have a time honored tradition of protest involving buying an American flag and burning it when we’re (again as a nation) are upset about something.

But that’s burning an inanimate object, not beating the carriers of it. Burning a flag harms no one. Beating a flag carrier harms someone.

While I agree that beating a flag carrier is worse than burning a flag, I still think it should be illegal.

The flag of the United States represents not the government, but the Constitution. The Constitution granted our freedom of speech, and people died for it. Burning the American flag essentially implies contempt for the freedom of speech. Of course, without the freedom of speech, flag burners could easily be arrested.

Therefore, burning the American flag is disrespectful and hypocritical to say the least. If someone doesn't like America, there's no reason why he/she can't emigrate.

Strahcoin wrote:

Galloism wrote:Eh, I mean, free country. You can dislike it.

In fact, we (as a nation) have a time honored tradition of protest involving buying an American flag and burning it when we’re (again as a nation) are upset about something.

But that’s burning an inanimate object, not beating the carriers of it. Burning a flag harms no one. Beating a flag carrier harms someone.

While I agree that beating a flag carrier is worse than burning a flag, I still think it should be illegal.

The flag of the United States represents not the government, but the Constitution. The Constitution granted our freedom of speech, and people died for it. Burning the American flag essentially implies contempt for the freedom of speech. Of course, without the freedom of speech, flag burners could easily be arrested.

Therefore, burning the American flag is disrespectful and hypocritical to say the least. If someone doesn't like America, there's no reason why he/she can't emigrate.

How does exercising the rights given by the constitution disrespect the constitution?

Estanglia wrote:

Strahcoin wrote:It is not an attempt to eliminate political opposition. It is an attempt to reduce domestic terrorism.

Even if antifa isn't an "organization", it can still be considered terrorists.

You just admitted that it's not an organisation. So how exactly are you going to consider it terrorists?

Strahcoin wrote:Agreed.


It's rude, disrespectful, and unwarranted. Anyone with common sense knows this.

Rude and disrespectful, sure. Unwarranted, not necessarily.

1. First of all, I was considering a hypothetical. I did not "admit" that antifa is not an organization. I said "even if". Second of all, not all terrorists belong to organizations. Lone terrorists exist, just as lone murderers or thieves exist.
2. The victim is often an innocent. If throwing a projectile at an innocent isn't unwarranted, nothing isn't.
(Not to mention the milkshake may ruin their clothing, or nobody made sure the victim wasn't lactose intolerant.)

Pacomia wrote:

Israeli Commonwealth wrote:Yeah. Here is my belief...
If you don't like the best country on Earth, the United States of America, then fucking leave faggot.

Best country on Earth is somewhat debatable. One thing making it not the best country on Earth is that you can still get beat up for carrying its flag.

Oh yeah, and the mass shootings.

Mass shootings exist in many other places.

"Hate speech" can result in jail time in other nations (such as Canada). Of course, since there's no official definition for "hate speech", people in social "democracies" could be arrested for saying things "minority groups" simply don't like (which, I suspect, includes burning flags representing their cultures).

And, of course, authoritarian nations will attempt to suppress all forms of dissent.

Vassenor wrote:

Israeli Commonwealth wrote:You misunderstand. Criticising is not hating per se. I fucking hated Obama, but I respected him as President. If you dont then no, leave.

What has Trump done to earn our respect?

• Reduced unemployment levels to record lows
• Defeated ISIS
• Lowered taxes
• Started building the wall and consequently protecting honest American citizens from illegal immigrants
• Did not attempt to appease the fake news media
• ...And more, all while donating nearly all of his salary from being president.

There's a list here, in case you're curious.

Strahcoin wrote:

Estanglia wrote:
You just admitted that it's not an organisation. So how exactly are you going to consider it terrorists?



Rude and disrespectful, sure. Unwarranted, not necessarily.

1. First of all, I was considering a hypothetical. I did not "admit" that antifa is not an organization. I said "even if". Second of all, not all terrorists belong to organizations. Lone terrorists exist, just as lone murderers or thieves exist.
2. The victim is often an innocent. If throwing a projectile at an innocent isn't unwarranted, nothing isn't.
(Not to mention the milkshake may ruin their clothing, or nobody made sure the victim wasn't lactose intolerant.)

1) My question still stands. Antifa isn't an organisation, at best it's a group of antifascist organisations. How exactly are you gonna label Antifa terrorists?
And if it's actually an organisation, prove it.

2) Hence the not necessarily. I wouldn't call it entirely unwarranted when a total jackass takes a milkshake to the face.

Strahcoin wrote:

Galloism wrote:Eh, I mean, free country. You can dislike it.

In fact, we (as a nation) have a time honored tradition of protest involving buying an American flag and burning it when we’re (again as a nation) are upset about something.

But that’s burning an inanimate object, not beating the carriers of it. Burning a flag harms no one. Beating a flag carrier harms someone.

While I agree that beating a flag carrier is worse than burning a flag, I still think it should be illegal.

The flag of the United States represents not the government, but the Constitution. The Constitution granted our freedom of speech, and people died for it. Burning the American flag essentially implies contempt for the freedom of speech. Of course, without the freedom of speech, flag burners could easily be arrested.

Therefore, burning the American flag is disrespectful and hypocritical to say the least. If someone doesn't like America, there's no reason why he/she can't emigrate.

Um, please explain how exercising freedom of speech implies contempt for freedom of speech.

Galloism wrote:

Strahcoin wrote:While I agree that beating a flag carrier is worse than burning a flag, I still think it should be illegal.

The flag of the United States represents not the government, but the Constitution. The Constitution granted our freedom of speech, and people died for it. Burning the American flag essentially implies contempt for the freedom of speech. Of course, without the freedom of speech, flag burners could easily be arrested.

Therefore, burning the American flag is disrespectful and hypocritical to say the least. If someone doesn't like America, there's no reason why he/she can't emigrate.

Um, please explain how exercising freedom of speech implies contempt for freedom of speech.

You can exercise your freedom of speech to directly express contempt for freedom of speech. Exercising it in such a way that implies such contempt is definitely possible.

Proctopeo wrote:

Galloism wrote:Um, please explain how exercising freedom of speech implies contempt for freedom of speech.

You can exercise your freedom of speech to directly express contempt for freedom of speech. Exercising it in such a way that implies such contempt is definitely possible.

I would argue that trying to dissuade people from exercising their rights in certain ways shows far more contempt for freedom of speech than flag burning.

Vassenor wrote:

Strahcoin wrote:It is not an attempt to eliminate political opposition. It is an attempt to reduce domestic terrorism.

Even if antifa isn't an "organization", it can still be considered terrorists.


Veterans protect our nation from enemies. They risk dying and never seeing their families again so that we would be free. World War II veterans fought Nazi Germany to prevent Hitler from expanding his totalitarian, murderous government to the rest of the world.

Veterans should be respected.

You don't see how labelling something as nebulous as "Antifa" a domestic terrorist group can be abused to suppress dissent?

No, I don't see how labeling a violent group that attempts to forcibly silence opposing views can be abused to suppress dissent.

Gormwood wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
You don't see how labelling something as nebulous as "Antifa" a domestic terrorist group can be abused to suppress dissent?

No chance at all Trump supporters in government will hand out Antifa labels like Oprah.

Well, Trump and the vast majority of his supporters (myself included) value the freedom of speech and oppose fascism...

Highever wrote:

Strahcoin wrote:While I agree that beating a flag carrier is worse than burning a flag, I still think it should be illegal.

The flag of the United States represents not the government, but the Constitution. The Constitution granted our freedom of speech, and people died for it. Burning the American flag essentially implies contempt for the freedom of speech. Of course, without the freedom of speech, flag burners could easily be arrested.

Therefore, burning the American flag is disrespectful and hypocritical to say the least. If someone doesn't like America, there's no reason why he/she can't emigrate.

How does exercising the rights given by the constitution disrespect the constitution?

Galloism wrote:

Strahcoin wrote:While I agree that beating a flag carrier is worse than burning a flag, I still think it should be illegal.

The flag of the United States represents not the government, but the Constitution. The Constitution granted our freedom of speech, and people died for it. Burning the American flag essentially implies contempt for the freedom of speech. Of course, without the freedom of speech, flag burners could easily be arrested.

Therefore, burning the American flag is disrespectful and hypocritical to say the least. If someone doesn't like America, there's no reason why he/she can't emigrate.

Um, please explain how exercising freedom of speech implies contempt for freedom of speech.

I'll give you an analogy:

Supposes a parent decides to give his/her three children some more freedoms. He/she decides to remove the curfew previously set upon the children. The first child doesn't exercise this new freedom and instead stays home at late-night. The second child does exercise this new freedom, but thanks his/her parent for it. The third child exercises this new freedom, but continues to call the parent "restrictive" and "unreasonable", and the freedom "not enough". Assume that the parent has been reasonable in all other aspects.

The first child would be the American who doesn't criticize his/her government. These kinds are rare, for the government consistently fluctuates in ideology. There is no need to revoke his/her freedom.
The second child would be the America who criticizes his/her government, but not the Constitution's First Amendment. These kinds are more common, ranging from reasonable liberals to reasonable conservatives. Assuming the second child does not cause, inflict, or recieve harm with the new freedom, the parent should not revoke it.
The third child would be the flag-burner: directly using given freedoms to attack them. It wouldn't be unreasonable for the parent to re-institute the third child's curfew.

Highever wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:You can exercise your freedom of speech to directly express contempt for freedom of speech. Exercising it in such a way that implies such contempt is definitely possible.

I would argue that trying to dissuade people from exercising their rights in certain ways shows far more contempt for freedom of speech than flag burning.

Definitely, but there is something to be said that burning a flag shows contempt for the country that the flag represents, and its values. It shouldn't be banned, but depending on the values of the country, it can be a really important red flag about the person.

Strahcoin wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
You don't see how labelling something as nebulous as "Antifa" a domestic terrorist group can be abused to suppress dissent?

No, I don't see how labeling a violent group that attempts to forcibly silence opposing views can be abused to suppress dissent.

Gormwood wrote:No chance at all Trump supporters in government will hand out Antifa labels like Oprah.

Well, Trump and the vast majority of his supporters (myself included) value the freedom of speech and oppose fascism...

Highever wrote:How does exercising the rights given by the constitution disrespect the constitution?

Galloism wrote:Um, please explain how exercising freedom of speech implies contempt for freedom of speech.

I'll give you an analogy:

Supposes a parent decides to give his/her three children some more freedoms. He/she decides to remove the curfew previously set upon the children. The first child doesn't exercise this new freedom and instead stays home at late-night. The second child does exercise this new freedom, but thanks his/her parent for it. The third child exercises this new freedom, but continues to call the parent "restrictive" and "unreasonable", and the freedom "not enough". Assume that the parent has been reasonable in all other aspects.

The first child would be the American who doesn't criticize his/her government. These kinds are rare, for the government consistently fluctuates in ideology. There is no need to revoke his/her freedom.
The second child would be the America who criticizes his/her government, but not the Constitution's First Amendment. These kinds are more common, ranging from reasonable liberals to reasonable conservatives. Assuming the second child does not cause, inflict, or recieve harm with the new freedom, the parent should not revoke it.
The third child would be the flag-burner: directly using given freedoms to attack them. It wouldn't be unreasonable for the parent to re-institute the third child's curfew.

And how exactly does burning the flag cause or inflict harm from burning a flag beyond you not personally liking the sentiment? This basically sounds like "theres freedom of speech until I dont like what they're saying", and that is hardly freedom of speech.