Washington & Jefferson Statue Get Pulled Down

[WayNeacTia]

That doesn't sound like a good idea.

This is America, we take freedom seriously.

Unless it against someone who doesn't play how the U.S. wants to play.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Fine. I concede that not all hate speech incites violence. Although I'd argue that just means we have a bad definition of hate speech. Just like how we can label spyware and whatnot as "non-hardware destroying malware", we can label hate speech as either "inciting violence" or not.

I don't support censoring hate speech, but remember: they're starting the purge.

And what if the next morning you heard that a black man was lynched after someone read the post?

People take jokes seriously all the time, let's just allow inciting violence and just punish the lyncher.

Nuremburg Trials, 1945
Nazi Official: Your honor, it's not MY fault, I was just joking! I didn't think the SS would actually gas them! Punish them not me! I only INCITED the violence, I didn't actually DO it.

[Northern Davincia]

How does hate speech incite violence?

If I said something like "Kill those damned niggers and hang 'em" (not that I would), that sounds pretty damn violent to me.

That is a command to commit violence, which is not the entirety of hate speech. If I said "Despite being 13% of the population..." it may qualify as hate speech without being violent.

[West Leas Oros 2]

That doesn't sound like a good idea.

This is America, we take freedom seriously.

What about the freedom to not get murdered by a hateful mob? The mob is certainly infringing on my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Northern Davincia]

This is America, we take freedom seriously.

What about the freedom to not get murdered by a hateful mob? The mob is certainly infringing on my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Carry a gun.

[West Leas Oros 2]

If I said something like "Kill those damned niggers and hang 'em" (not that I would), that sounds pretty damn violent to me.

That is a command to commit violence, which is not the entirety of hate speech. If I said "Despite being 13% of the population..." it may qualify as hate speech without being violent.

Okay, fine. That would be more permissible. I'd hope nobody take it seriously, and that the opinion be condemned, but I wouldn't illegalize it.

[Northern Davincia]

That is a command to commit violence, which is not the entirety of hate speech. If I said "Despite being 13% of the population..." it may qualify as hate speech without being violent.

Okay, fine. That would be more permissible. I'd hope nobody take it seriously, and that the opinion be condemned, but I wouldn't illegalize it.

Indeed, but that is where hate speech laws fail. They always reach beyond their starting intent.

[West Leas Oros 2]

What about the freedom to not get murdered by a hateful mob? The mob is certainly infringing on my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Carry a gun.

My gun against all theirs? Not likely. Don't get me wrong, that's a good idea, but being armed isn't always enough.

[WayNeacTia]

What about the freedom to not get murdered by a hateful mob? The mob is certainly infringing on my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Carry a gun.

So the mob can take it away from you and shoot you with it? Brilliant.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Okay, fine. That would be more permissible. I'd hope nobody take it seriously, and that the opinion be condemned, but I wouldn't illegalize it.

Indeed, but that is where hate speech laws fail. They always reach beyond their starting intent.

I wouldn't deny that, but that doesn't mean that such laws are wrong by principle.

[Northern Davincia]

Carry a gun.

So the mob can take it away from you and shoot you with it? Brilliant.

How fast is your trigger finger?

Indeed, but that is where hate speech laws fail. They always reach beyond their starting intent.

I wouldn't deny that, but that doesn't mean that such laws are wrong by principle.

On principle, no. In execution, yes.

[The Emerald Legion]

This is America, we take freedom seriously.

Unless it's the freedom of racial minorities and LGBT people, then we do our best to screw them over however we can

Not particularly, no. We actually tend to defend their freedoms far more ardently than the general populations.

[Kowani]

Until you can pull some evidence of hate speech causing tangible harm on a societal level, this point is moot.

Good to know the Holocaust isn't at thing in your world.

I think it was very clear that we were talking about hate speech directed at white people.

I dunno? Maybe? It’s unlikely, sure, but it’s technically possible-

No. There wouldn't have been. The story would have been "White male attacks police officers and was shot and killed". That would have been the end of it. But because he was black, it was a media sensation. Nobody seems to take into account, he did use quite a bit of force to resist those police officers and one of them was tasered by the suspect. Should they have shot him? No. But not because he was black.

Actually, his being black probably did play a role.

Hmm? Would the Wendy's still have been burned down?
Who gives a fuck about a Wendy’s?

I would think it is relevant. The business was innocent in this matter, yet protesters decided to burn it down. How many people are now out of work because of that? Same can be said for Target in Minneapolis. What the fuck did they do wrong?[/quote]
That target refused to see things that would’ve helped people deal with tear gas.
Not “refused to stock”, just “we won’t sell.”
Fuck that.

Would the officers have been fired almost immediately? Or charged with felony murder?

They’re police officers, so no. The only reason they did this time was because there’s a national reckoning going on about policing.

Really? So this never happened then? I don't recall any reckoning of the police going on at that time. [/quote]
I wonder why a pool ice officer lying about shooting an unarmed guy in the back was fired.

No…? It would’ve been seen as police brutality, but it wouldn’t fit into the overarching historical pattern of police disproportionately killing and arresting black people.

Wrong. It would have shown the systemic racism of black people against white people as well. It goes both ways. But as you said "White privilege (yes, I know the name choice is terrible) doesn’t mean “your life isn’t hard.” It just means your skin color isn’t the cause of your problems". Pretty sure Mr. Brooks wasn't shot because he was black. I am more inclined to believe he was shot because he resisted and used the officers own weapons against them. I agree it was wrong to shoot him, but he wasn't shot because he was black.

The blackness most likely was a factor. The “resisting arrest” part was most likely the overriding factor, but in the blackness seems to be-according to most of the research-a factor in general act of shooting.

[WayNeacTia]

Good to know the Holocaust isn't at thing in your world.

I think it was very clear that we were talking about hate speech directed at white people.

So Jewish people aren't white now? William Shatner, and Leonard Nimoy would be disappointed to hear that. As for the rest of your arguments? Keep pulling shit out of your ass. All you seem to want to present is a single case study on anything. It is pretty clear your mind is made up, so I see no further reasons to argue you.

[The Emerald Legion]

Actually, his being black probably did play a role.

According to a report written by committee chaired a lifelong member of the democratic party, former worker for the ACLU, and just all around identity politics adherent.

This is the fundemental issue with you and people like you. You demand 'science' and offer us quackery as proof. No, we don't have to spend millions of dollars paying democrats for a piece of paper we're not going to get anyway because they don't want us contaminating their tidy little racket.

[Kowani]

I think it was very clear that we were talking about hate speech directed at white people.

So Jewish people aren't white now?

Go ask Hitler that.
Or hell, most of American history-

William Shatner, and Leonard Nimoy would be disappointed to hear that. As for the rest of your arguments? Keep pulling shit out of your ass. All you seem to want to present is a single case study on anything. It is pretty clear your mind is made up, so I see no further reasons to argue you.

Shrug

Actually, his being black probably did play a role.

According to a report written by committee chaired a lifelong member of the democratic party, former worker for the ACLU, and just all around identity politics adherent.

This is the fundemental issue with you and people like you. You demand 'science' and offer us quackery as proof. No, we don't have to spend millions of dollars paying democrats for a piece of paper we're not going to get anyway because they don't want us contaminating their tidy little racket.

Okay, the committee is bipartisan.
And again, trying to poison the well when you can’t actually disprove any of the findings.

[The Cazistan]

This is all so tiresome
people take political stability for granted too often

[The Emerald Legion]

Okay, the committee is bipartisan.
And again, trying to poison the well when you can’t actually disprove any of the findings.

One republican does not make a bipartisan committee. It makes tokenism so you can claim bipartisan to those not paying attention.

And again, their findings are irrelevant. This isn't science, it's politics hidden in a labcoat.

[Northern Davincia]

That target refused to see things that would’ve helped people deal with tear gas.
Not “refused to stock”, just “we won’t sell.”
Fuck that.

They have a right not to sell, and it's still not justification for arson.

[The Emerald Legion]

So Jewish people aren't white now?

Go ask Hitler that.
Or hell, most of American history-

William Shatner, and Leonard Nimoy would be disappointed to hear that. As for the rest of your arguments? Keep pulling shit out of your ass. All you seem to want to present is a single case study on anything. It is pretty clear your mind is made up, so I see no further reasons to argue you.

Shrug

According to a report written by committee chaired a lifelong member of the democratic party, former worker for the ACLU, and just all around identity politics adherent.

This is the fundemental issue with you and people like you. You demand 'science' and offer us quackery as proof. No, we don't have to spend millions of dollars paying democrats for a piece of paper we're not going to get anyway because they don't want us contaminating their tidy little racket.

Okay, the committee is bipartisan.
And again, trying to poison the well when you can’t actually disprove any of the findings.

I mean. Hitler, despite what you may think, was not a white supremacist. White supremacy is kind of a uniquely American thing.

[Kowani]

Okay, the committee is bipartisan.
And again, trying to poison the well when you can’t actually disprove any of the findings.

One republican does not make a bipartisan committee. It makes tokenism so you can claim bipartisan to those not paying attention.

2 republicans and an independent.

And again, their findings are irrelevant. This isn't science, it's politics hidden in a labcoat.

…It is science, and there’s a decent amount of statistical analysis, but that would require that you read the report.

That target refused to see things that would’ve helped people deal with tear gas.
Not “refused to stock”, just “we won’t sell.”
Fuck that.

They have a right not to sell, and it's still not justification for arson.

Seems pretty justified to me.

[Northern Davincia]

Seems pretty justified to me.

Your standard for committing violence is awfully low.

[Kowani]

Seems pretty justified to me.

Your standard for committing violence is awfully low.

You support Pinochet lmao

[Ifreann]

Washington had a very complex relationship with the indigenous tribes, especially the Iroquois (as well as the Cherokee) and Algonquians. It's not really fair to assert that he set out to wipe them out.

That can be said of most of the Founders. History is often too complicated to simply revere or demonize it's actors. Except Hitler and the Nazis, and probably the other fascists as well. Fuck them.

History is too complicated to simply revere Washington, so instead name parts of the country after him and build monuments to him everywhere and build a five hundred foot obelisk in his memory. Nuance!

[Northern Davincia]

Your standard for committing violence is awfully low.

You support Pinochet lmao

Is tu quoque relevant?