[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.2458[Last 50 Posts]

File: 1569643638637.png (249.17 KB, 675x683, 675:683, 1456910454539.png) ImgOps Google

(Continuing the conversation started at >>>/pony/987947 here in /townhall/ at moderator request.)

>>>/pony/987971
>the oldest trick in the nazi apologist book is to pit the onus on those reacting to the nazi and paint them as the real problem.
I'm not saying that Nazis are fine.  I think Naziism is a terrible ideology.  But two wrongs don't make a right.  And freedom of thought and speech is very important.  Just because people hold bad beliefs don't give anyone the right to physically attack them.  I'm honestly confused at how anyone could think otherwise.

 No.2459

File: 1569643794327.png (496.16 KB, 857x929, 857:929, gleam.png) ImgOps Google

Depends, are they advocating Fascism type of Nazi, or the advocating of genocide Nazi

 No.2460

If you really believe "two wrongs don't make a right" is a good counter argument, honestly it seems pointless to bother. Clearly, we have opposite views. The only thing i agree with is the sentiment that i honestly can't understand why you'd think this

 No.2461

Exile.  And not social exile where they just kinda feel bad, but actually round up all the nazis and just put them somewhere else where they can't hurt anyone, but can live happily in their white ethnostate.

 No.2462

Quick reminder that direct calls for violence are in violation of rules. No one's broken any rules yet here, but let's keep that in mind for this thread in particular. You can think violence is a way to "deal" with Nazis, but explicitly calling for that violence or speaking aggressively about your desire to harm anyone isn't acceptable.

I trust things can stay civil here.

 No.2464

File: 1569645272851.jpg (186.32 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, 1454600249367.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2459
>are they advocating Fascism type of Nazi, or the advocating of genocide Nazi
For me, it wouldn't make a difference.  But, considering how this came up, let's say the fascism type of Nazi with a sizeable dose of racism too, but no genocide.

>>2460
>i honestly can't understand why you'd think this
I don't believe that initiating unlawful violence is a good thing, even against neo-Nazis.

>>2461
I wouldn't use force against them, but if they would voluntarily self-exile to their own ethnostate (which seems like it might actually be likely), it might be a good solution.  It would be sorta like a penal colony in practice.  Let them fester in their own little shithole of a country.

 No.2465

>>2462

If you can quote where anyone incited direct, personal violence towards any poster, i'd be happy to see it

 No.2466

>>2464

The problem is there currently isn't an ethnostate for them to emigrate to.  We could try to create one somewhere and give some voluntary packages to people who signed up to leave.  I wonder how many nazis would take up the offer.

 No.2467

>>2465

I literally just said that hasn't happened yet.

 No.2468

>>2467

Right, because people know the rules. The conversation already got moved, the rules are being adhered.. what is problem. Because the calling for violence thing is quite clearly directed to only one person here.

 No.2469

>>2458
>What are acceptable ways of dealing with people who voice Nazi beliefs?
Words and arguments. Mockery also helps, but, as a general rule, if you drive people underground they radicalize. Still, that works okay for the more mentally ill or just plain zealous types, who you want to show to be undesirable.

Violent attacks are unacceptable. You shouldn't violate people's rights, regardless of how reprehensible we see their views. Otherwise, you'd get commies chucked from helicopters.

 No.2470

>>2465
Nobody's done that fortunately. But, the suggestion that it would be deserved, sadly, has.
>>>/pony/987947
>>2461
Kind of like this idea as a voluntary option. If they'd actually get left alone, of course. I'd apply the same standard for communists.
Let them run their own wacky little enclaves away from the rest of us, I say.

Maybe when we've got the space age going, we can start seeing that as a real option. Right now, there's some limitation on land, and therefor possible creation of nations.

 No.2471

>>2468

Please only make posts that contribute to the conversation from here. And assuming the intentions of other posters' posts on /townhall/, even mods, is not in the spirit of the board.

This will be the last post I make here about this. Any further derailing from either you or myself will be a violation of Rule 1 on /townhall/.

 No.2473

>>2458
Because of the rules on this site, not enough people are familiar with Mint Horse and what he thinks. Trust me, whenever you think you've heard the worst thing he thinks, he comes back with even more heinous things. I think because of this fact we run the risk of his views being normalized. After all, if he's not openly being a Nazi and people think he's not so bad, they may become more willing to accept others with his beliefs. I mean, someone on this board who claims not to be a racist was still OK enough with racism to date Mint Horse. Think about that.

As for how to "deal" with Nazis, I don't think violence is the right answer. It should only be used in self-defense. However, I don't think their ideology should be tolerated, or allowed to be spread.

 No.2474

>>2461
While this sounds like a nice idea, there's nothing stopping Naziland from amassing more and more power until they have enough to declare war on another place. Taking over other places is kind of what Nazis are all about.

 No.2475

>>2474

I'm not sure who told you that, but there are varying branches of Nazism and I'm pretty sure most branches advocate "staying in your own country and doing your own thing", not global domination

 No.2476

>>2475
>I'm not sure who told you that

My high school history class? I seem to remember them mentioning Nazis doing a lot of fighting and trying to conquer stuff between 1939 and 1945.

 No.2477

>>2476

I think your class wasn't as comprehensive as it needed to be, but that's normal for High School. There are some gaps going on in your perception of the ideology

 No.2478

>>2477
I think that's an unfair assumption to make based on two forum posts.

Please elaborate what you think I'm mistaken about. Nazis successfully attacked and invaded countries during WWII, and attempted to do the same to more.

My point was that putting Nazis in their own country might seem like a good idea, but there's always a chance they will try to attack and invade other countries like they did in the past.

 No.2479

>>2476
To be fair, as I understand it, the bulk of that was reclaiming old lost territory from prior to WWI, wasn't it?
And then it was a matter of having to attack their enemies, as I understood.

But maybe my recollection was faulty.

 No.2480

>>2479
But France wasn't part of Germany before WWI.

 No.2481

>>2480
Sure, they were just one of the primary major threats, the guys that actively fucked them after WWI with all sorts of nonsense, and as I understanded, declared war on them.

I mean, seems sensible to me to want to knock out a major enemy that really messed you up last time, especially when they're a major world power.

Better example might've been Poland. Though I think that was partly the reclamation bit.

 No.2482

>>2481
Ok, well how does any of that NOT apply to comment in >>2474? They will go after places that they feels are threats to their conquest, like France was to Germany's.

I think a theoretical Nazi country attaining enough power to attack other places, justified by a sense of it "belonging" to them because they once occupied it would be a real threat.

 No.2483

>>2482
Places that already declared war on them and have severely injured and frankly outright cheated and betrayed them, yes.
I feel that's quite a ways different from some random created Nazi special place where they can do what they want far away from everyone else.
For one thing, they wouldn't have the centuries of political struggles and grevances Germany had.
They also wouldn't be German, which, frankly, given their history and current actions I'd say is probably the greater contributor anyway.

> "belonging" to them because they once occupied it would be a real threat.
It wouldn't've ever belonged to them, so I'd disagree.

 No.2484

>>2478

There's technically a chance, but there were a lot of factors that led to WW2 that wouldn't necessarily be there, like the rampant poverty caused by WW1's war reparations.  War's a lot more dangerous these days, too, and generally looked down upon as having too high a price to attempt, which is a steep difference from how glorified it was even just 100 years ago.

And finally, and perhaps most importantly, if they were their own country and formally declared war, it would be a lot easier to fight them than it is right now.  Violence would absolutely be justified and almost no one in the world would disagree with destroying their entire military.  All the cards would be on the table.

 No.2485

File: 1569666119926.jpg (359.68 KB, 595x935, 7:11, kyouko-pokemon.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2474
How many people do think would immigrate to Nazi state?  I'd guess much less than 100,000, maybe not even 10,000.  I don't think we would need to worry about them invading anybody.  But maybe we need worry about a (North Korea)-type situation and prevent them from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.

>>2473
> Trust me, whenever you think you've heard the worst thing he thinks, he comes back with even more heinous things.
I am well aware of Mint's beliefs from his posts on /ef/.

> I mean, someone on this board who claims not to be a racist was still OK enough with racism to date Mint Horse.
That is really unfair and underhanded.  Associating closely with people or even dating them doesn't mean that you're okay with all their beliefs.  And people as young as Mint are still malleable and can change their beliefs over time with good influences.

>However, I don't think their ideology should be tolerated, or allowed to be spread.
How would you try to stop their ideology from spreading?  Personally, I think the best ways would be better education (and particularly inculcating critical thinking skills that would be helpful in resisting unsound arguments in favor of Naziism) and to strengthen the social safety net, with a focus on the demographics most at risk for accepting Nazi beliefs.  (I'm pretty sure that most modern-day Nazis are low socioeconomic status.)

 No.2486

File: 1569666672048.jpg (312.06 KB, 1200x1800, 2:3, e.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2458

You deal with it the same way you deal with everything else in life. Ask yourself: "Is this semblance within my power to control?" If yes, then do what you will. If no, then do not think any further of it.

Applied to OP's situation, - OP does not give enough detail for me to say in what manner I would hypothetically apply the rule, as he writes in generalities.

What does it mean to "deal" with "Nazis beliefs" other than to simply apply the rule?

 No.2487

File: 1569669249893.png (240.5 KB, 640x640, 1:1, cheerilee_by_giantmosquito….png) ImgOps Google

>>2479
>>2480
>>2481
>>2482
Germany attacked Poland.  France and Great Britain joined in Poland's defense, by themselves declaring war on Germany.  This early part of the war was mostly a standoff in the West, prior to Germany declaring war on Netherlands and Belgium almost a year later, thereby allowing access through the Ardennes and bypassing the Maginot Line.
>>2480
Alsace-Lorraine was part of Germany before WWI.

 No.2488

>>2486
I'd agree with that, basically.  Posters who spout Nazi ideas on social media tend to have a pretty short half-life, generally no need for you to get involved.

I guess implicit in that is a feeling modern Nazi-ism is a politically irrelevant fringe, not something I need to defend myself against.

 No.2489

>>2483
>They also wouldn't be German...

Are you suggesting German people are more prone to conquest because of their culture? Genetically? I don't quite understand what you are saying here.

>>2487
>>2483

We are getting way off topic. Whether or not Germany was "justified" in their conquests in WWII is a discussion for another place and another time. My original point still stands, removing the historical context. Hypothetical Naziland could still try to conquer other places, given enough time to amass power.

>>2484
>if they were their own country and formally declared war, it would be a lot easier to fight them than it is right now.

That's... a pretty good point! But it still means many lives would be lost in the conflict. It also depends on the country they attack, and if it could amass a big enough army of non-white soldiers.

 No.2490

>>2485
>How many people do think would immigrate to Nazi state?  I'd guess much less than 100,000, maybe not even 10,000.
Hard to say. Because we are dealing with a person's inner thoughts, which often differ from their outward actions. And there are people who are in denial about their own racism, but would agree with mission of a hypothetical Nazi country and consider moving there. Let's look at the things we can measure. But the KKK alone has an estimated between 5000 and 8000 members. One study showed that 5.64% of white Americans have views consistent with the alt-right's worldview. (https://www.vox.com/2018/8/10/17670992/study-white-americans-alt-right-racism-white-nationalists) That's millions of Americans. Not to mention over 62 million people voted for Donald Trump in the last election, the majority of them white. 58% of all white people who voted voted for Trump. Meaning at least that many people are OK with the same kind of racist rhetoric used by white supremacists. And this is just America, I'm sure white Supremacists from Europe and other regions would want to move there too. So it's my opinion that 10,000 is a very low estimate.

>>Associating closely with people or even dating them doesn't mean that you're okay with all their beliefs.
I doesn't mean you agree with them, but it does mean you're OK with them. Think about it this way. A religious person and an atheist can date each other, even though they don't believe the same things. But the atheist has to be Ok with religious people existing for that to happen. They have to be OK with the idea of someone being religious. otherwise the whole point of their relationship is for them to try and "change" or "fix" the other person for something they don't think is a fault. Which isn't healthy, but that's getting into relationship advice and not discussing Nazis. But very few people are going to believe "My boyfriend is a Nazi, but I'm not. I'm just trying to fix him." as a valid excuse. Myself included. If I were white, I would not date a white supremacist for those reasons. I don't support it and I don't think it's an OK thing to be. And my act of dating them and accepting them into my life would be a tacit endorsement of their beliefs.

>>And people as young as Mint are still malleable
Mint is an adult. Not to mention, he wasn't born into racism, or so he claims. He sought it out in high school because he agreed with it. It's a choice he has made, not something he was indoctrinated into as a child. And it's very difficult to talk someone out of something they chose for themselves.

>>How would you try to stop their ideology from spreading?
Those are both good ideas, although I'm not sure how much poverty contributes to racism. But I support that idea in other contexts anyway. But I think another solution for this is exposure. Exposure to other people and other cultures. I think white supremacists views are only able to spread so long as people are ignorant of what other people are actually like. It makes them easier to dehumanize and discriminate against. We would need to deal with the ingrained self-segregation and gentrification problems in the US, which is a tall order.

The problem is, all these methods only work in preventing future generations of racists. It does nothing to stop the racists that already exist. And i'm not sure there IS a solution to that problem. Racism is learned, it's taught. But once learned, it cannot be un-learned. Which is why I have such a hard stance against the spreading of racist rhetoric. The more people we prevent from being taught racism, the less racists there would be. In that sense, I suppose I treat it like a preventable, but untreatable disease. It's imperative we keep it from spreading as much as possible, and inoculate children against it.

 No.2491

File: 1569684686261.jpeg (26.57 KB, 210x240, 7:8, D737CAAF-78F0-43C7-A30A-F….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>2473
>I mean, someone on this board who claims not to be a racist was still OK enough with racism to date Mint Horse. Think about that.
>claims not to be racist
I don’t know where this is coming from, because in this context that’s a pretty nasty insinuation to put on someone. Please don’t suggest anything of her unless you’re sure of it, especially something that could hurt her, she’s already been ostracised by a few of her friends, she doesn’t need people spreading further insinuations about her.

In fact she’s actually went out of her way to help me not be racist. She’s the one who’s helping me be more polite and not focus on things like this. If anything she’s doing more to stop racism than you are by laying false insinuations against people.

Nothing against you, I just don’t want anyone to think that I’m influencing her, she is the one influencing me, for the better.

>>2490
>I doesn't mean you agree with them, but it does mean you're OK with them.
Are you really implying that everyone is “OK” with absolutely everything their partner does or thinks?

I’m vegan, but I’d be willing to date a non-vegan. I wouldn’t like or even be ok with the fact that they were non-vegan, and I’d try to convince them otherwise, but I may love that person for other reasons. I could see that past that if I loved that person enough, but that doesn’t mean I’d be in any way ok with that specific part of their life.

That’s exactly how my girlfriend feels about me. She isn’t happy or even ok with any of my political views, and as I’ve said before she been trying to help me with them, but she loves me for other reasons besides that.

 No.2492

>>2491
>that’s a pretty nasty insinuation to put on someone

I'm not insinuating. She told me directly that she was dating him. I'm not just spreading rumors, but I'm choosing to not directly say their name, even though I'm pretty sure they have already stated they were dating him publicly.

 No.2493

File: 1569685313409.png (92.59 KB, 313x284, 313:284, D0828FD7-8ABA-4A63-92EC-DB….png) ImgOps Google

>>2492
<claims not to be racist
I’m saying that you’re insinuating that she’s at best ok with my views, and at worst holds racist views herself. Neither are true.

 No.2494

>>2493
I don't feel like that's what I'm insinuating. I apologize if that's what it seems like.

I'm only claiming what I said directly. They told me they aren't a racist.

 No.2495

File: 1569685709678.png (203.85 KB, 800x800, 1:1, 2BC0BC81-BE5B-4E34-8302-71….png) ImgOps Google

>>2494
Fair enough.

As I said.
>Nothing against you, I just don’t want anyone to think that I’m influencing her, she is the one influencing me, for the better.

I’m not going after you, I just don’t to cause her any more grief, and you worded things in a way that some could see as you calling her racist or saying that she’s ok with my racist views. I’m not saying that was your intention, I personally don’t think it was, but she’s already dealt with a few people claiming this, so I wouldn’t want to let anything like this be.

 No.2496

>>2495
I believe her when she claims she's not a racist, however I do believe that in order to date a racist, you are being more OK with racism than I am comfortable with.

I am very much against racism being normalized, for the reasons I outlined in >>2490


You mention she has lost friends. I am one of them

 No.2497

File: 1569687077848.png (269.02 KB, 750x681, 250:227, E90C993D-8611-4FC4-9896-D8….png) ImgOps Google

>>2496
>I do believe that in order to date a racist, you are being more OK with racism than I am comfortable with.
That’s more understandable. Although I think you misjudge me in terms of how racist I am. For example you’ve called me a White Supremacist in the past, which simply isn’t true. And I would have absolutely no problem with having non-White friends.

There are different degrees of racism, you can’t assume that all racists (even those who will openly call themselves so) are at the furthest end of that extreme.

>You mention she has lost friends. I am one of them
She told me about that, and I’m pretty sure I know who you are.

Can I ask you a question? Did you leave the site because of me? If so is there anything I can do to accommodate you?

Recently I’ve been trying to not talk about race, and I think I’ve eliminated 90% of the problem, but if you posted I’d have only more encouragement to not talk about the subject. And if you don’t want to talk to me I could just completely ignore your posts, or potentially not even post in your threads.

I don’t want to drive people away, so if there’s anything I can do to accommodate you just say.

 No.2498

>>2497
>Although I think you misjudge me in terms of how racist I am.

I don't think I have. I have had private conversations with you about this before. I don't think it's inaccurate to call you a white supremacist because you believe white people are superior to other races and you wish to have a white ethnostate. Having non-white friends does not change this.

>>She told me about that, and I’m pretty sure I know who you are.

As I admitted to be non-white in >>2490 and there are few non-white posters on this site, you can probably venture a guess.

>>Did you leave the site because of me?

I haven't left the site. I'm still posting here. My abscense fron /pony/ is another matter, and not one I want to discuss right now. But it was not motivated by you. You are, however, the reason I ended my friendship with the person in question.

>>Recently I’ve been trying to not talk about race, and I think I’ve eliminated 90% of the problem

I don't agree. You still believe those things, even if you don't talk about it. A racist is still a racist when he's having breakfast, even if his mouth is full of food.

In fact, I feel like you avoiding those topics is a BAD thing. Because it means most people do not see how henious your views actually are. It helps to normalize those views, which was the point of me bringing up the person dating you to begin with. This person, who told me they were not racist, is now OK enough with your racism to date you. That is a bad thing in my view. The fact that racists get to hide among us.

The only thing you could do to accommodate me is to stop believing white people are superior to other races and stop refusing to listen when people criticize your views. But I don't believe you are willing to do that.

 No.2499

>>2489
>Are you suggesting German people are more prone to conquest because of their culture? Genetically? I don't quite understand what you are saying here.
Culture. They seem to have a strong desire to order the world. That's just my opinion, though.
It seems to me like Germans really just want to make everything follow a nice orderly plan of their making.

>My original point still stands, removing the historical context. Hypothetical Naziland could still try to conquer other places, given enough time to amass power.
It could, however I do not believe usage of actions done by prior regimes following WWI as was suggested in >>2476 is valid as reasons to say it's any more likely than the UK or Canada declaring war if they amass enough power.
The claim given in >>2474
>"Taking over other places is kind of what Nazis are all about."
Is one I don't have sufficient basis to agree with, and your argument seemed to be based on prior regimes. So, I don't think the "point still stands" either.

 No.2500

>>2490
>Not to mention over 62 million people voted for Donald Trump in the last election, the majority of them white.
Voting for Donald Trump doesn't make you racist, alt right, or supportive of nazis. Nor do I agree there was any "racist rhetoric" involved.

>But once learned, it cannot be un-learned.
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes
And I've personally talked to enough people to know that's not the case, besides.
I think you might have a bit of a nihilistic view here.

 No.2501

>>2499
I don't know many German people so I can't comment, but I'm usually against applying stereotypes to too wide a group of people.

> your argument seemed to be based on prior regimes

Well, there is also the fact that hypothetical Naziland would also have a unifying worldview, based on the perceived inferiority of other people. I feel like that would be a recipe for wanting to subjugate other nations.

 No.2502

>>2501
I'm not really sure I believe that, given wide sweeping generalizations made of other groups and peoples, including trump supporters.

>Well, there is also the fact that hypothetical Naziland would also have a unifying worldview, based on the inferiority of other people. I feel like that would be a recipe for wanting to subjugate other nations.
It could. Depends quite heavily on which brand of naziism they follow. As I understand it, most of them are more in to keeping everyone separate, in their own nations. Not a desire to subjugate.
Most I could see occurring is a potential savior complex, wherein they invade to "save" people from their intermingling ways. But, that still seems rather unlikely to me.
Especially when we consider the probable size of these guys, and of course the doubtless world-wide distrust and dislike for the guys.

 No.2503

>>2492
The nasty insinuation would be suggesting they're okay with racism.

Would you be insulted if I suggested you're okay with racism? I certainly would.

 No.2504

>>2494
>I don't feel like that's what I'm insinuating.
I feel like you are insinuating it.  Why else would you write "who claims to not be a racist" instead of just "who isn't a racist"?  If a person said "I am not a vegetarian", would you say that said person "is a vegetarian" or merely "claims to be vegetarian"?  Why are you saying "claims" if not to throw doubt?

 No.2505

>>2504
And even if not, in that regard, it still leaves the claim that they're "OK with racism".

I do not believe that being amiable to racists means you're "OK with racism". I'm friendly with a lot of people I disagree pretty strongly with. Some of them are on this website, for that matter. Doesn't mean I'm OK with their beliefs, but, I don't have to be at their throats all the time.

 No.2506

>>2503
Them dating a racist already insinuates that, does it not? I would not date a racist (if that were possible) for that (among many other) reasons.

>>2500
That's debatable, and beyond the scope of this thread. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump)

>>Daryl Davis

I've heard of this man, and if he was actually able to do what the articles claim, that is a very grand and rare feat. But I'd be interested to see some interviews with the people he's helped leave the Klan to see if they actually have left their racist views behind. Not outright denying they have, just skeptical.

>>2504
>Why else would you write "who claims to not be a racist" instead of just "who isn't a racist"?

I can't know their inner thoughts, only what they told me.  Being a vegetarian is more verifiable. If you  never see them eating meat, then you have no reason to doubt their claim. Racism is different because you can't observe a person's inner thoughts.

 No.2507

>>2505
This is a vast canyon between being amiable with someone and entering a romantic relationship with them.

 No.2508

>>2506
>Them dating a racist already insinuates that, does it not? I would not date a racist (if that were possible) for that (among many other) reasons.
Perhaps by your opinion. Should I then say that you are OK with racism, because you post on a website that a racist uses?

>That's debatable, and beyond the scope of this thread.
If it's debatable, then I'd request you didn't make incredibly insulting insinuations about people who voted for the guy.
You clearly recognize, given your statement here, that it is not a guaranteed one-way-or-the-other item, so why assume instantly that anyone who voted for Trump is a bad guy?

Should I just start calling you racist for whatever you say? Should I make sweeping generalizations about stances you are for, claiming people who believe those are just bigoted racists, who'd probably support nazis?

>>2507
If anything, that should benefit my point.
If I can be friendly to people who are racist, then I imagine it would be far easier to put such items aside when it comes to love.

 No.2509

>>2506
>Being a vegetarian is more verifiable. If you  never see them eating meat, then you have no reason to doubt their claim.
How would you realistically verify that someone who you only know as a poster on the Internet doesn't eat meat?  In reality it would be no more verifiable than a claim that they aren't racist.  In fact, it would be less verifiable, because racism might slip into their posts and be detectable that way.

 No.2510

File: 1569689755702.png (38.06 KB, 326x285, 326:285, 7C5EBD78-9D89-43F8-8DAF-E1….png) ImgOps Google

>>2498
>you believe white people are superior to other races
I believe that East-Asians are equal to, if not superior than White people. So if anything I’m a East-Asian Supremacist.

>This person, who told me they were not racist, is now OK enough with your racism to date you.
>That is a bad thing in my view.
I personally think it’s pretty absurd to end a friendship with someone just based on who they date, but if that’s what you want I’m fine with that. I’d just rather didn’t go around talking about my girlfriend in any way that could insinuate that she holds racist view or is ok with mine. You don’t know what she thinks and you don’t know what we talk about in private, so please don’t try and guess.

I’m telling you right now that she is no more ok with racism than she was before she dated me, and that she’s went well out of her way to try to convert me into a non-racist. So please don’t claim that she’s “OK” with my racism, because she isn’t.

>The fact that racists get to hide among us.
You yourself said that racism is virtually incurable, so I suppose I should judged as a racist for life, no matter how much I try to change and accommodate people? That kind thinking is what pushes people further into extremism, that’s the kind of thing that alienates people on both sides.

If you hold such a rigid black and white view on things you’re going to find that many people in the grey area are going to be pushed further into the extremes.

>>2507
Didn’t you used to be extremely homophobic? If someone who was my friend entered a relationship with you at that time would it be fair for me or another gay man to insinuate that you’re girlfriend is “OK enough” with homophobia to date homophobes?

I suppose we should also isolate you from society because of your homophobic views?

 No.2511

>>2508
> Should I then say that you are OK with racism, because you post on a website that a racist uses?

No? Because I don't support his views, and in all honesty, I question whether or not he should be allowed to post here often. But if he follows the rules and does not say anything racist on the site, then I don't really have the impetus to seek his removal. But that does not mean I support his views.

But being in the same space as a racist and showing them the minimum required amount of respect is, again, a vast canyon away from being romantically involved with them.

>If it's debatable, then I'd request you didn't make incredibly insulting insinuations about people who voted for the guy.

it is debatable because there are people who believe that his views and rhetoric ARE racist. If everyone believed he was not, then there would be no debate. I mentioned this because your claim that he is not racist is contested.

>then I imagine it would be far easier to put such items aside when it comes to love.

I don't think I agree. Like I mentioned, I would not date a racist (if that were possible) because I do not support racism in and of itself. I do not support the idea of anyone being racist, and that is separate from any one specific example of a racist.

>>2509
Then I think I would still us "they claim" when discussing their vegetarianism. To be as accurate as possible.

 No.2512

>>2510
> so I suppose I should judged as a racist for life, no matter how much I try to change and accommodate people? That kind thinking is what pushes people further into extremism, that’s the kind of thing that alienates people on both sides.
This, this so much.
You know what people who are shunned, kicked out, and generally treated like trash do?
They talk to whoever will talk to them. Usually, those people are a fair ways worse.

Guess what happens when the only people who'll be friendly to you and talk to you are the people who either agree or are worse than you.

 No.2513

>>2511
>No? Because I don't support his views, and in all honesty
Guess what: He's just established, several times, his girlfriend doesn't support those racist views, either.
As I am understanding it, they're actively trying to convince him not to hold those views.
So what's the problem, here? Rules for you, but not anyone else? Two sets of standards, one for you, and one for people who aren't you?

>But being in the same space as a racist and showing them the minimum required amount of respect is, again, a vast canyon away from being romantically involved with them.
Yeah. Like I said, there's a lot more reason to love someone. Love is, after all, a very emotional thing.
Being polite to some random guy on the internet and loving someone aren't the same thing, no. You've got a lot more reason to love someone, than you do to just be polite to them.

>it is debatable because there are people who believe that his views and rhetoric ARE racist.
And there are people who believe his views and rhetoric AREN'T racist.
So we're at the bare bones status quo, here.
>If everyone believed he was not, then there would be no debate. I mentioned this because your claim that he is not racist is contested.
And your claim that he was is contested. Your claim that all the people who support him are racist would-be nazi supporters is contested, as well. It's not something you should throw around so loosely.

As I said, I'm sure you wouldn't like it if I went around saying people who support your ideas are biggoted, when you do not think those things are so. So, why should I be extending that modicum of respect, when you evidently do not desire to, yourself?

>Like I mentioned, I would not date a racist (if that were possible) because I do not support racism in and of itself.
Then I think you've got a very close-minded view of love and dating.
It's not binary.
Love is far more emotional than that.

 No.2514

>>2510
>I believe that East-Asians are equal to, if not superior than White people

That... doesn't negate what I said. I said "You believe white people are superior to other races". Not ALL races. Arguing over whether or not you are a "white supremacist" is a pointless semantic argument. You believe whites are superior to most other races, and you desire an ethnostate. You are a racist, and this is undeniable.

>>I personally think it’s pretty absurd to end a friendship with someone just based on who they date

I don't. I don't want to have someone with connections to racism in my personal life, and moreover, I feel like their choice to date a racist means they are more comfortable with racism than I am comfortable with. That is, at all.  

>>You don’t know what she thinks

Which is why the phrase "they claim" is so important. It was what I was told they think, but I have no way of knowing for sure.

>>I’m telling you right now that she is no more ok with racism than she was before she dated me

And I hope it remains that way. But there is a danger that it will not, and that factored in to my choice to end our friendship.

>> so I suppose I should judged as a racist for life, no matter how much I try to change and accommodate people?

You didn't try very hard when you and I spoke in private about it. So much so you left me psychologically shook for a good while. And like I said, vowing to not speak about racism in public isn't "changing" if you still hold those views.

>>Didn’t you used to be extremely homophobic

That wasn't my choice. I had that instilled in my by my parents, much of it without my knowledge that it was harmful. When I found out it was harmful, I worked to change those views. Because I DON'T think gay people are bad, or less deserving of happiness. That's the difference. You still think white people are superior to some other races.

 No.2515

>>2514
>Which is why the phrase "they claim" is so important. It was what I was told they think, but I have no way of knowing for sure.
...But you evidently know 'for sure' enough to say outright that they're "OK with racism", apparently.

 No.2516

>>2506
>I can't know their inner thoughts, only what they told me.
If someone wrote "Adventurous Cockatiel claims to not be racist", wouldn't you feel an insinuation that you actually are a racist?

 No.2517

>>2516
Don't forget to also follow it up immediately with "was still OK enough with racism".

 No.2518

>>2513
Well, I wasn't saying "every person who voted for Trump is actually a racist". I  was simply pointing out, that 62 million people were OK with voting for someone (considered by many) TO be a racist, and for someone using (what is considered by many) to be racist rhetoric. I was using it to illustrate that it is not just my opinion. I believe that it is a wide-spread enough belief that there were many people in this nation who voted for Trump AND believed he was a racist and/or uses racist rhetoric.

>Love is, after all, a very emotional thing.

I'm not sure how relevant that is. I would not date someone who held views I found repugnant. Why would anyone else?

 No.2519

>>2490
>But once learned, [racism] cannot be un-learned.
That is just false.  In the 1970s, lots of whites were racist and specifically avoid living near blacks.  Nowadays, most of those same are no longer racist.

 No.2520

>>2516
Assuming it were possible for me to be one, I guess that could be one interpretation of that. Or it could be that they are just trying to not make assumptions on my inner thoughts. I suppose it depends on the context.

>>2517
>>2515
Well, I feel like dating a racist means one is OK with racism existing. Just as dating a Christian means someone is OK with Christianity exist. Otherwise the relationship is based on one person trying to "fix" or "cure" the other person for something they don't see as a fault. Which is rather unhealthy.

>>2519
That depends heavily on what is and isn't considered "racist". 100 years ago, using the N word wasn't "racist". 70 years ago, not being willing to use the same water fountain as a black person wasn't "racist". What is and isn't racist is an ever-changing and evolving thing as more problematic behaviors and ideals get called out and exposed.

But I think the core belief, that whites are superior to some other races, once instilled in a person, cannot be removed.

 No.2521

>>2490
>Not to mention over 62 million people voted for Donald Trump in the last election, the majority of them white. 58% of all white people who voted voted for Trump. Meaning at least that many people are OK with the same kind of racist rhetoric used by white supremacists.
Now that's just false.  I certainly was not okay with Trump's racially charged rhetoric.  But I was even less okay with Hillary's policy platform.  And I didn't want her to appoint Supreme Court justices who might eviscerate the Second Amendment.  That is why I voted for Trump.

 No.2522

>>2521
Well this thread isn't for debating the 2016 election. Let's keep the topic on Nazis.

 No.2523

>>2518
>
>>2490
>How many people do think would immigrate to Nazi state?  I'd guess much less than 100,000, maybe not even 10,000.
>"Hard to say. Because we are dealing with a person's inner thoughts, which often differ from their outward actions. And there are people who are in denial about their own racism, but would agree with mission of a hypothetical Nazi country and consider moving there. Let's look at the things we can measure. But the KKK alone has an estimated between 5000 and 8000 members. One study showed that 5.64% of white Americans have views consistent with the alt-right's worldview. (https://www.vox.com/2018/8/10/17670992/study-white-americans-alt-right-racism-white-nationalists) That's millions of Americans. Not to mention over 62 million people voted for Donald Trump in the last election, the majority of them white. 58% of all white people who voted voted for Trump. Meaning at least that many people are OK with the same kind of racist rhetoric used by white supremacists. And this is just America, I'm sure white Supremacists from Europe and other regions would want to move there too. So it's my opinion that 10,000 is a very low estimate."

It is quite evident from your post, the context was specifically in regards to who would end up moving to an ethnic-identitarian hypothetical Nazi nation.

This is quite clearly different from "simply pointing out" that 62 million people voted for a guy considered by his political enemies to be racist, and who has been claimed to have used racist rhetoric by his political enemies.
> I was using it to illustrate that it is not just my opinion.
Would contradict the prior claim of it being "debatable".
>I believe that it is a wide-spread enough belief that there were many people in this nation who voted for Trump AND believed he was a racist and/or uses racist rhetoric.
And I believe that, if we're okay with using the statements and claims of political enemies, there's plenty of people who stand for your ideas AND people who believe those ideas are bigotted or racist.
So I take it I'd be perfectly okay generalizing about those beliefs, and saying people who hold those are racist and bigoted, right?

What you've done here is conflated the numbers of people who voted for the guy with the numbers of people who thought what he said was racist, as though those are one in the same.
They are quite clearly not. This is an idea specifically propagated by his political enemies. Which is why you always end up with trump supporters calling anyone who spreads such claims either dishonest, lying, misrepresenting, or whathaveyou, actively debating the claims made.
As I've of course done whenever you've made the generalized statements. Just like this one here.

>I'm not sure how relevant that is. I would not date someone who held views I found repugnant. Why would anyone else?
There's more to love than just views.
If you don't get that, I guess you just don't have any experience in love, I'm afraid.
I don't know how I could convince you on this matter without some kind of experience to build off of, and explain.
Love goes far deeper than just political positions and ideology.

 No.2524

Naziism seems to be a religion of manufactured authority. Besides the racism and a determination to always be fighting on multiple fronts I have a very hard time nailing down what Nazis believed in. Economic and political theory seems completely absent and there doesn't seem to be any unifying philosophy of any depth. As a whole the movement seems to have been nothing but a lot of symbols desperately thrown together without any attempt to reconcile what they represented.

The modern followers don't seem too bothered by the lack of substance. It's mostly about it being the most well published genocide in Europe. The whole thing baffles me but out of respect I'll hold my tongue on the more biting assessments.

 No.2525

>>2522
Right. Would be inconvenient for you if you had to address that particular hypocrisy and unjust generalized insulting statements.

Best stick to things that're totally relevant to the thread, like how loving someone despite their flaws like bigotry means you're "OK with racism".
Because that's totally on the "acceptable ways to deal with nazis" front, isn't it? Condemning people tangibly related to bigots and all.

 No.2526

>>2524
I think I'd agree by large. Seems to me, nazis don't really know, or perhaps I should say, aren't in agreement for what is naziism.

It's possible the original nazis weren't either.
Could've simply been the loose attempts to consolidate power and react to the problems and woes of a particular nation in a rather turbulent time.
Would explain a lot about some of the German mixups and confusion with a lot of the logistics, organization, and development. Sometimes it seemed as though the arms were trying to work the legs, and the legs the arms.

But I don't have the most extensive knowledge of the particulars involved in the history.

 No.2527

File: 1569692001510.gif (879.57 KB, 693x563, 693:563, lunac.gif) ImgOps Google

Let's move the topic away from debating whether someone is or is not racist for dating a racist. Keep things relevant to the thread OP, and remember that the people in question you're speaking about are other posters.

Rules regarding kindness and civility are more strictly enforced here, so I expect to see less accusing other users of racist beliefs or hurtful assumptions.

No further posts about this topic, stay focused on the OP.

 No.2528

>>2523
It's disingenuous to claim that ONLY Trump's political enemies find him to be a racist and/or using racist rhetoric. I'm not his political enemy, none of my family and friends are. It's a more wide-spread belief than that.  (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/us/politics/is-trump-racist.html)

>>Would contradict the prior claim of it being "debatable"

How? It's debatable because not all people believe one side over the other. But my opinion is shared with many other people.  


>What you've done here is conflated the numbers of people who voted for the guy with the numbers of people who thought what he said was racist, as though those are one in the same.

I'll admit it's possible there are people who voted for Trump who either 1) Do not believe the things he said are racist or 2) ignored his racist rhetoric for fear of a worse alternative as >>2521 claims.

But I still contest that there were people who voted for Trump who both thought his rhetoric was racist and agreed with it. And if you compare that to results of the poll I just linked that says that half of voters believe Trump is racist, then I'm saying that number is probably relatively high.

So with that admission out of the way, are we done discussing this topic?

>>If you don't get that, I guess you just don't have any experience in love, I'm afraid.

If you speak of romantic love, I've loved a lot, and I've been loved back once in my life. That time, we didn't oppose each other on anything as large our views on racism. The only thing that could compare is that she was Christian and I am Agnostic. But I did not oppose her belief in God.

>>2525
Just did. I feel like you forced my hand a little to talk about it when I didn't want to derail. But I admitted I was wrong.

 No.2529

>>2527
Aww dang it. I wasn't ignoring >>2527
I just hit submit before the page reloaded.

 No.2530

>>2520
>I guess that could be one interpretation of that.
I'm glad you've realized that.  I suggest, for future reference, that you try to avoid wording things in way that could be (mis)interpreted as an insinuation against someone's character.

 No.2531

File: 1569692223641.png (115.52 KB, 450x450, 1:1, CF882266-413E-4F4B-9972-E8….png) ImgOps Google

>>2514
>You believe whites are superior to most other races, and you desire an ethnostate. You are a racist, and this is undeniable.
Fair enough, I’ll accept that.

>I feel like their choice to date a racist means they are more comfortable with racism than I am comfortable with.
I honestly think that most people are more comfortable with racists than you are. I don’t think I’ve ever met someone as opposed to racists as you. Take that as a compliment if you like.

>Which is why the phrase "they claim" is so important. It was what I was told they think, but I have no way of knowing for sure.
Yeah, but you shouldn’t even insinuate something like that unless you know for sure, or at least have a decent amount of evidence to back up your claim.

Hypocritically if someone told me that you were dating someone who is a pedo would you be ok with me saying that said person “claims not to be a pedo”? No, because it obviously throws doubt into a situation where no doubt should exist. No one should doubt that my girlfriend isn’t a racist, because you nor anyone else has any evidence whatsoever to prove the contrary.

Know you know why I don’t like you saying that my girlfriend “claims to not be racist,” you’re spreading doubt about something of which you have no evidence for, and it just so happens that something could lose her more friends.

>You didn't try very hard when you and I spoke in private about it.
I’m not going to bring up anything I said to you in private on site, but maybe you should read back through those logs. I was very empathetic with you.

And my girlfriend has told me exactly what you said about me to her, so don’t pull the sympathy card.

>You still think
That’s irrelevant to my question. I was asking about you at the time when you were homophobic. And I don’t think you get free pass because you’re parents were homophobic. If my parents were racist you’d still be saying the exact same thing about me and my girlfriend.

Sorry I had to go.

 No.2532

>>2520
>70 years ago, not being willing to use the same water fountain as a black person wasn't "racist".
Please explain how that doesn't satisfy the definition of "racism".

 No.2533

File: 1569692430343.gif (461.1 KB, 261x252, 29:28, lunas.gif) ImgOps Google

I understand some ponies were writing big posts before my mod post showed up. So, to be clear: Past this post, right here, no more talk of the ethicality or moral implications of dating a racist. And I expect less assumptions levied at fellow posters.

 No.2534

>>2533
Could we make a thread on that topic on it's own?

 No.2535

File: 1569692499460.png (38.06 KB, 326x285, 326:285, 9753E00E-3FB3-467B-A181-B1….png) ImgOps Google

>>2534
I’d be fine with that, if it could clear up some misunderstandings.

 No.2536

>>2534
>>2535

Assuming that not one more single post in this particular thread is about that topic, then yes. But please refrain from naming specific posters in your arguments unless you're directly debating with them, and try to avoid unfair accusations of beliefs, we all share a home.

 No.2537

>>2527
Is there any particular rule against making massive, sweeping, incredibly insulting generalizations about people who support or just voted for particular parties, movements, or candidates?
I would've thought this'd fall under Rule 1, myself. Or perhaps some of the stuff under 2.
>>2528
I would absolutely call you his political enemy. It seems pretty clear by what you say and do, after all. I'm kind of surprised you'd deny this label. I mean, you sure as hell aren't some Trump supporter, and I don't think you'd call yourself neutral.

In any case; I do believe that, if not all, at the very least, a near total majority of those calling him "racist" or claiming he uses "racist rhetoric" are political enemies, not allies or supporter of Trump as seemed to be implied by the post you made.

>How? It's debatable because not all people believe one side over the other. But my opinion is shared with many other people.  
And my opinion is shared by many people.
Thus, trying to act as though it's "fact" on your particular end, isn't right.

>I'll admit it's possible there are people who voted for Trump who either 1) Do not believe the things he said are racist or 2) ignored his racist rhetoric for fear of a worse alternative as >>2521 claims.
Yeah, no shit. I'm someone who did that. Are you seriously telling me that after all the countless times I specifically told you as much, it's only "possible"?
I'm evidence of that.
Or are you assuming I'm a liar?

>But I still contest that there were people who voted for Trump who both thought his rhetoric was racist and agreed with it
Sure.
But you specifically stated in your post >>2490
>"Meaning at least that many people are OK with the same kind of racist rhetoric used by white supremacists. "
At least referring specifically to the 62 million people who voted for Trump.
So I'm afraid this is just you moving the goalposts.

> And if you compare that to results of the poll I just linked that says that half of voters believe Trump is racist, then I'm saying that number is probably relatively high.
Again, you instantly assume that the people who believe he is racist are the same people who are voting for him.
They are not.
And, frankly, I'm not quite sure how much I'd trust that poll. I certainly never got asked.
It's a bit of a standard for all polls, honestly. It's why I never put much stock in them.

>So with that admission out of the way, are we done discussing this topic?
Considering how many times you pull this stuff, I'm not sure.
I'd love to drop it. But, frankly, this seems to be an incredibly common occurrence with you.
And yet for some reason you never seem to learn that particular lesson. Not all Trump supporters are, believe Trump is, or are OK with racism.

 No.2541

>>2520
>But I think the core belief, that whites are superior to some other races, once instilled in a person, cannot be removed.
What precisely do you mean by "superior"?  If you mean some objective measure, it seems that one way of removing the belief would be to demonstrate that it is false.

>>2528
> I'm not his political enemy, none of my family and friends are.
How many of said family and friends are Republicans?

 No.2556

>>2532
>Please explain how that doesn't satisfy the definition of "racism".

It does. But it was something accepted by wider society that white people at the time saw nothing wrong with. That's what I ultimately mean with this analogy.

Things considered by white people and society at large as being acceptable ways of thinking and acting in regards to racial relations are constantly evolving. As more problematic ideals and actions are called out. In this case, I am calling the things NOT considered by white people and society at large as being acceptable ways of thinking and acting in regards to racial relations "racism". It doesn't always directly match the textbook definition of "racism", but what other word should I use to describe that?

 No.2561

So to get things back on track:

>>2485 asked me How I would keep Nazi ideology from spreading. He suggested >>2485
> Personally, I think the best ways would be better education (and particularly inculcating critical thinking skills that would be helpful in resisting unsound arguments in favor of Naziism) and to strengthen the social safety net, with a focus on the demographics most at risk for accepting Nazi beliefs.  (I'm pretty sure that most modern-day Nazis are low socioeconomic status.)

Both things I agree with. In >>2490
I added that Those are both good ideas, although I'm not sure how much poverty contributes to racism. But I support that idea in other contexts anyway. But I think another solution for this is exposure. Exposure to other people and other cultures. I think white supremacists views are only able to spread so long as people are ignorant of what other people are actually like. It makes them easier to dehumanize and discriminate against. We would need to deal with the ingrained self-segregation and gentrification problems in the US, which is a tall order.

The problem is, all these methods only work in preventing future generations of racists. It does nothing to stop the racists that already exist. And i'm not sure there IS a solution to that problem. Racism is learned, it's taught. But once learned, it cannot be un-learned. Which is why I have such a hard stance against the spreading of racist rhetoric. The more people we prevent from being taught racism, the less racists there would be. In that sense, I suppose I treat it like a preventable, but untreatable disease. It's imperative we keep it from spreading as much as possible, and inoculate children against it.

 No.2567

>>2506
>In this case, I am calling the things NOT considered by white people and society at large as being acceptable ways of thinking and acting in regards to racial relations "racism". It doesn't always directly match the textbook definition of "racism", but what other word should I use to describe that?
I don't think there is a single word.  You can say "being more racist than socially acceptable".

 No.2571

>>2567
But what about the opposite? 100 years ago, using the N word was... considered less racist than was socially acceptable?

 No.2579

>>2571
>But what about the opposite?
What do you mean by "opposite"?  Someone who is anti-racist so such an extent that their anti-racism is socially unacceptable?

 No.2584

>>2458
>two wrongs don't make a right.
If fomenting violence against others is wrong, how is preventing same another wrong?

>And freedom of thought and speech is very important.  
Free Speech does not include hate speech in the US, defined by calling for violence against others.

>Just because people hold bad beliefs don't give anyone the right to physically attack them.
When people express those beliefs by actions committed against others, the right (in fact the duty) arises to protect the victims.

Chain, a lost pony despises anon posting (particularly by mandate) but presents here to discuss this issue with you because there is a distinct difference between accommodating freedoms of others, and allowing the right of others to be infringed.

My right to speak must always yield to another's right to live.

I wonder, OP, where you draw the line between freedom and violence.

 No.2587

>>2584
>Free Speech does not include hate speech in the US
Actually, the First Amendment does protect so-called hate speech.  See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).

>defined by calling for violence against others.
Abstract advocacy of illegal violence is protected speech.  Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if "such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".  Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

 No.2589

>>2579
No... I mean, like. What word would you use to describe the phenomenon of the N word being acceptable 100 years ago?  Because I was using wasn't "racist" with quotations around racist to show that while it does fit the textbook definition of racism, it was socially acceptable.

 No.2592

>>2584
>is preventing same another wrong?
Depends on the manner of preventing.  Illegally physically attacking someone is almost always per se wrong.  

>>2584
>When people express those beliefs by actions committed against others
This thread is just about people's thoughts and words.  If someone commits a physical act of violence against someone, then sometimes it would be appropriate to respond kinetically.

>>2584
>I wonder, OP, where you draw the line between freedom and violence.
Something like "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins".

 No.2593

>>2589
I'm not sure that that word was racist back then?  Did it always have the connotation it has today?

 No.2599

>>2593
Considering it was used to describe people you could buy as property, yeah I'd say it was racist back then.

It still fit the textbook definition of "racist" back then, it was just acceptable to use it by society.

 No.2601

>>2589
I guess I'd just say "socially acceptable racism".

 No.2616

>>2587
>Actually, the First Amendment does protect so-called hate speech.

No, i dont think any good law says any such thing.

Edit:  still Irrational Bee here or whatever my arthropod name was.


>>2592
>illegal attack is immoral per se

I can think of exceptions but you are dodging the question.

 No.2617

File: 1569722401155.png (251.67 KB, 546x600, 91:100, toshinou-kyouko-3.png) ImgOps Google

>>2616
>No, i dont think any good law says any such thing.
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul is still good law.

>>2592
> but you are dodging the question.
Well then I'm not sure what the question meant.  But I will say that use of force in self-defense or defense of others is only justified to prevent imminent violations.  You can't preemptively shoot someone today if you believe that he's going to try to kill someone in a week.

 No.2619

>>2617
> You can't preemptively shoot someone today if you believe that he's going to try to kill someone in a week

Thats not an example offered in good faith.

>still good law
If it says that speech fomenting violence is protected, then the headnote you are thinking of must be superceded.

Speech that can be construed as calls to commit specific violent acts of violence are an imminent threat to the described victims.

Look, i understand you think words do not end lives.  That is mistaken.  Words do end lives.  This is why some of them are not constitutionally protected, and should never be.

Examples:  Go kill X person or group.  Cut off X person's body parts.  Deprive that person of rights or life.

These examples sound a bit like Nazi beliefs.  And yes, a "belief" is a call to violence, e. g. I believe that all you people should go kill that person.

 No.2621

File: 1569725130242.jpg (19.05 KB, 600x501, 200:167, Butt.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2619
>Speech that can be construed as calls to commit specific violent acts of violence are an imminent threat to the described victims.
>
>Look, i understand you think words do not end lives.  That is mistaken.  Words do end lives.  This is why some of them are not constitutionally protected, and should never be.
>
>Examples:  Go kill X person or group.  Cut off X person's body parts.  Deprive that person of rights or life.
Incitement of imminent unlawful violence is punishable and unprotected, as I've said in >>2587.  Mint's talk about this supposed 'race war' that he believes is coming at some point decade(s) in the future is not about anything imminent.

 No.2630

>>2621
So we do not disagree.

However i personally know a survivor of the Holocaust who was taken to the camps at about Mint's age who is deeply concerned about the current political climate.

Believing it is coming did not help Dr Suess warn people about the nazis.  It wont help you avoid Mint's "race war" to disbelieve it.

One thing that's important to note, before most major globe-changing wars into which whole generations disappear:  most people complacently disbelieve its really coming.

Racist rhetoric brings war.  Thats its purpose.  While i do believe that Nazis must be allowed to preach hatred, what constutes "inciting violence" needs to be considered in this context.

 No.2632

>>2630
See, people give me a hard time when I say this stuff...

 No.2633

>>2527

I dont know if you care what i think anymore but i'm with you.  I dont think ending friendships over who you choose to be with's views is ok.  Im sorry that happened to you and i hope your friends come back.  Please try and forgive them.

-lp

 No.2634

>>2632

Well, i wasn't understanding your words accurately.  Especially when we get into the words of common law, its easy to fail to communicate.

And, people here like to hear absurd strawman extremeness so they can feel justified to ad hominem.  Dont take it personally.

 No.2739

I would just like to point out that telling other posters not to target specific people when Mint is the only one actively going out of his way to accompany posts with images of Lyra, specifically so that people can identify that they're his, is incredibly hypocritical

 No.2741

>>2739
Um, are are you saying that in response to something specific?  I'm having a hard time seeing how what you said fits in with the rest of this thread.  And what do you mean by "target"?  


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]