Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 125: Her Name Is Heather Heyer.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Dark Young Link posted...

You've implied that I'm comparable to a nazi at least twice, I fail to see how that's not a grave insult.

i'm glad you take it as an insult because it's certainly not a flattering statement. but it's also a truthful one because your rhetoric is either the same or dangerously close. when you say:

"I critiqued them and I analyzed them. I've came to the conclusion that their beliefs are incompatible with humanity as a whole."

"Every single member of that side is part of the riot, every single person should be held responsible... Not a single innocent person exists on their side. Not a single one."

call for the arrest of all of them, and now also include that you're in favor of murder or attempted murder ("my boot on their neck"), yes.

that does sound a LOT like what a Nazi would say talking about the Jews.
you have other options in between "emotional" and "dead." you have the option to think, to be rational, to be an actual human being and be reasonable, look into what options exist, and channel your anger in productive ways. not any of that.
---

Wanglicious posted...

what is Skokie.
welcome to free speech.

Have there been any court cases establishing the right to armed assembly? I couldn't find anything definitive with my two minutes of googling. Obviously you separately have the right to bear arms and the right to assemble, but for the latter the government can impose restrictions (needing a permit etc); it seems feasible to me that they might also be able to constitutionally prevent the nazis from assembling an armed mob.
---

Man you're a dick. It's not comparable at all, you're comparing sweeping generalisations of race. To targeted anger against hateful ideology.

On one side you have, all people of x regardless of belief, status or intent are bad and must die.

On the other side you have people of y have called for my murder and I will not stand for it.

They're entirely incomparable.

Like if DYL had come in and said man fuck you white guys, I'm gonna kill you before you kill me. Your point would have truth to it.

But he didn't he said Nazi. There isn't a Nazi alive that doesn't want the majority of us dead, you know why? They're fucking Nazis.

You're being so obtuse as to be literally dense.
---

Wanglicious posted...

that does sound a LOT like what a Nazi would say talking about the Jews.

But it's not a Nazi talking about Jews, it's a person talking about Nazis. That's the point.

If someone beats up an unrepentant child rapist in prison, is that technically out of line? Yes. He posed no threat to you. But why feel sorry for them?
---

I feel like Wang thinks people believe Nazis are bad because they have ideas that don't work and they want to kill people, full stop.

It's WHY those ideas exist and WHY they want to kill people that makes them the most deplorable
---

Wanglicious posted...

i'm glad you take it as an insult because it's certainly not a flattering statement.

Wanglicious posted...

i'm not insulting you

Truly, my patience is legendary.

And feel free to disprove either of those statements.

"Their beliefs are incompatible with humanity as a whole." Please argue how Nazism is compatible with humanity.

"Not a single innocent person exists on their side." Please tell me how someone who could knowingly call themselves a Nazi could be called an innocent man or woman.

Yes, I want terrorists arrested. That's what Nazis are. And no that boot comment wasn't advocating attempted murder(Again, I don't start fights).


Also you misunderstood what I said Wang.

When I said "I'm either emotional or dead".

I meant I even care about things, sometimes too much. Or I don't care at all. The alternative to me caring, is for me to care about nothing. To be dead inside. There are times where I literally don't feel alive, and I don't want to feel that again. So I decide to care.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I don't hate them because they're violent. "The monster I hate" is killing people because of their race. I would not be doing that (and hopefully not killing anyone at all)

so if it's not race, but belief, it's okay?
just wanting to know where the line is.

MenuWars posted...

There is no rhetoric though wang, I'm not saying all the right are bad, I'm saying Nazis are bad, there's a clear distinction and it doesn't imply culpability to unaffiliated factions. You're being intentionally obtuse by trying to turn that into a slippery slope argument, again you're wrong.

we agree nazis are bad but we aren't really saying about things being good or bad.
we're talking about when it's okay to put your boot to a person's neck. you said:

"Like their ideology is ethnic cleansing, therefore if you are of the ethnicity they want dead, you have every reason to fear them and every reason to kill them first in all honesty."

so... when is it okay to do that?
because you just gave an explicit clause where killing them first is okay.

"slippery slope" isn't really much of a slope, there's plenty on the left and right who have already been called the wrong term. there's no slope when you're already there, people are stupid, not nuanced, when it comes to emotional issues and fear.

MenuWars posted...

I'm all for devil's advocate but you'd soon change your tune if you had a bunch of them gathered around your neighbourhood calling for your head.

again:
if it's me, specifically? yeah, that'd be a crime and something i'd be concerned over, sure.
if it's against a group that i'm in? no. i would not.

Dark Young Link posted...

Actually, you know what?

Let's play ball.

Let's say that, yes. Yes we all decided to go out there and butcher the Nazis without remorse.
(And let us assume that we don't kill anyone innocent by mistake.)

What would you say to that?

What would you do about that?

How long would you mourn for those who advocated genocide?

Hypothetically, of course.

that you're all terrible people, i want nothing to do with you, and i hope you spend the rest of your lives in jail. any counter movement that springs up as a direct result of your actions is something you'll have to deal with behind bars, realizing just how badly you fucked up for letting your emotions take over, and i'll be on the other side pissed at you for having to clean up your mess.

hypothetically.
---

Wanglicious posted...

so if it's not race, but belief, it's okay?
just wanting to know where the line is.

No, not belief. Threats. Clearly we disagree on what is a threat.
---

I'm thinking of a scene from a Ben Stiller movie. The movie in question is about metaphorical forest weather. You've gone there Wang and you should not have done.
---

Well there you have it.


Wang believes that it would be oh so awful if the Nazis were killed.
Because we know how much they value life.

But hey, if I end up hanging from a tree then maybe I'll get your thoughts and prayers?

Then we'll all look back at this topic and laugh.

Well not "we" exactly.
---

Like, if someone wants to walk around believing blacks should be subjugated back into slavery, but he never does anything to attempt to turn that idea into action, then I would have no need to fight that person. That's where the line is.

I view Nazis assembling and marching and declaring their intent to kill Jews as a threat to people worth physically fighting.
---

Wanglicious posted...

any counter movement that springs up as a direct result of your actions is something you'll have to deal with behind bars,

Why isn't this true for the Nazis?
---

XD

Thank you Menu, I needed SOMETHING to make me laugh!

Goodnight!
---

Hey now, let's not be advocating vigilante justice

Murder is unacceptable regardless of how good or bad a person the victim was.
---

Vigilante justice doesn't have to be murder

And it would only be necessary if the authorities themselves condone the Nazi assembly
---

I'm not condoning vigilante justice I'm condoning being proactive about your own safety.

There's a big difference between ideological hatred and well... pretty much anything tbh. It's not something you can leave alone, we've seen what happens when we do. The comparison Wang was making was ridiculous.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Have there been any court cases establishing the right to armed assembly? I couldn't find anything definitive with my two minutes of googling. Obviously you separately have the right to bear arms and the right to assemble, but for the latter the government can impose restrictions (needing a permit etc); it seems feasible to me that they might also be able to constitutionally prevent the nazis from assembling an armed mob.

this is something that likely varies state by state but i'd assume all of them have provisions that could allow this, though. no state really WANTS Skokie so yeah, i do believe they could limit 'em. if they can't, it's not too hard for a state to establish provisions that would limit them. certainly not a federal law in the way, like hell anyone can make an armed assembly here in NY.


MenuWars posted...

It's not comparable at all,

It's. The. Same. Argument.
if your swapping out key words makes you sound like a Nazi, maybe your belief and argument needs re-evaluation because your argument is what they used, possibly with the mentality they had, and you both believe that you're right. you have to be better than that.

Jakyl25 posted...

But it's not a Nazi talking about Jews, it's a person talking about Nazis. That's the point.

If someone beats up an unrepentant child rapist in prison, is that technically out of line? Yes. He posed no threat to you. But why feel sorry for them?

personally i wouldn't feel very bad for him. may even think "good," depending on the case.
but i'd also know that's me being evil and know that if i want to improve, i have to push that aside and be against the person who did that to him as that's the right thing to do.

good example though.
Dark Young Link posted...

And feel free to disprove either of those statements.

but i'm not agreeing or disagreeing with them, i'm judging the morality behind your argument, not the contents of it. i'm pointing out the similarities for you to see them, in black and white.

"Nazis are incompatible with humanity as a whole, not a single innocent person exists on their side"
"The Jews are incompatible with humanity as a whole, not a single innocent person exists on their side"

the argument is the same. you changed who the target is but the argument is the same. you feel as justified, righteous, and correct in your claim as they do. that's why i said it's a terrifying viewpoint.

and okay, if you don't start the fight there's no problem. you obviously have a right to defend yourself. but please don't confuse what "defend yourself" means. if i misunderstood that, okay, my bad. but if you're initiating the fight, that's not self defense and everything else holds true.

Jakyl25 posted...

I feel like Wang thinks people believe Nazis are bad because they have ideas that don't work and they want to kill people, full stop.

It's WHY those ideas exist and WHY they want to kill people that makes them the most deplorable

no, i believe most find nazis to be bad because they didn't just commit genocide, they did it to the point where it was incredibly malicious and evil. it's not that they've ideas "that don't work," it's that they promoted different beliefs that are incredibly harmful and inhumane. the belief itself is wrong. the "Why" question you've proposed is just a justification to this harmful belief. it is always wrong, full stop.
---

"But if you punch someone after they finished killing your mother that's just as evil as punching a handicapped child"
---

no, i believe most find nazis to be bad because they didn't just commit genocide, they did it to the point where it was incredibly malicious and evil.

Um....

Wat??

What is this sentence.

What is this trying to say????

Wat

The

Fuck
---

Wanglicious posted...

"Nazis are incompatible with humanity as a whole, not a single innocent person exists on their side"
"The Jews are incompatible with humanity as a whole, not a single innocent person exists on their side"

the argument is the same. you changed who the target is but the argument is the same. you feel as justified, righteous, and correct in your claim as they do. that's why i said it's a terrifying viewpoint.

"Serial killers are incompatible with humanity as a whole, not a single innocent person exists on their side."

Sometimes swapping out words can make a sentence true!

Nazis are different than Jews, for many reasons.
---

redrocket_pub posted...

no, i believe most find nazis to be bad because they didn't just commit genocide, they did it to the point where it was incredibly malicious and evil.

Um....

Wat??

What is this sentence.

What is this trying to say????

Wat

The

Fuck

....yeah I didn't really process that at first

WTF? Some genocides are less evil than others I guess
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Wanglicious posted...

"Nazis are incompatible with humanity as a whole, not a single innocent person exists on their side"
"The Jews are incompatible with humanity as a whole, not a single innocent person exists on their side"

the argument is the same. you changed who the target is but the argument is the same. you feel as justified, righteous, and correct in your claim as they do. that's why i said it's a terrifying viewpoint.

"Serial killers are incompatible with humanity as a whole, not a single innocent person exists on their side."

Sometimes swapping out words can make a sentence true!

Nazis are different than Jews, for many reasons.

For one thing not all Jews share the same ideological principals. Something Wang seems to forget about Nazis.
---

Wanglicious posted...

beliefs that are incredibly harmful

Also these are some incredibly interesting words to hear Wang say after all this talk about the weight of "just words"
---

Wanglicious posted...

personally i wouldn't feel very bad for him. may even think "good," depending on the case.
but i'd also know that's me being evil and know that if i want to improve, i have to push that aside and be against the person who did that to him as that's the right thing to do.

This is getting into personal belief, but I don't agree that purging yourself of gut emotions is a virtue. They're part of who we are. The important thing is to understand what they are and how to keep them in perspective.

You can simultaneously agree that the attacker should be reprimanded while also feeling satisfied that the unrepentant child rapist got a small measure of pain dealt to him. We are complex enough as beings to handle that.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

Wang believes that it would be oh so awful if the Nazis were killed.
Because we know how much they value life.

it's never about them valuing life. just because they don't value life does not mean you have to. that's something you do yourself, on your own.

like... okay. maybe it'll be clearer with a different example - Norway.
literally #1 in happiness, incredibly high value on life. so much so that their prison system is heavily focused on rehabilitation, a system that explicitly needs you to value the life of murderers, rapists, and even serial killers. most famously, one who murdered almost 80 people got 21 years, the max. though some were upset that's the most he could get, most accept it, under the belief that they have to value life. they have to put value in the person who goes to jail.

now that's a hard concept and one i'm nowhere close to it but i think it's fairly respectable and believe striving in that direction is the right thing. tying this back to nazis, yeah. i would have to put value in their lives too, even if they don't value yours, mine, or their own. being "incompatible with humanity" cannot work in this system, the underlying premise of rehabilitation is that everyone is compatible.

does this help at all in understanding that your ideas here are harmful?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

In a different twist on this subject, I wonder if there are any legal types irked by the part of Trump's conference where he's like

"Call him a terrorist, call him a murderer, whatever gets the quickest conviction."

Now of course, I think we are all in agreement that the police have the right guy and that he's guilty.

But from a procedural level, is that out of line for a President to say? Sounds like he already tried him.

Article on this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/trump-comments-james-fields-created-legal-headache-article-1.3414847
---

I'm pretty glad I blocked Wang at this point when he's literally arguing "oh those silly Nazis won't hurt anyone now."
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Article on this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/trump-comments-james-fields-created-legal-headache-article-1.3414847

(Though if this summary of the relevant Supreme Court case is accurate, I don't really think the cases are comparable: http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring01/Woell/Sheppard.html)
---

Jakyl25 posted...

"Serial killers are incompatible with humanity as a whole, not a single innocent person exists on their side."

let it be known i gave my example of Anders Behring Breivik without even seeing this and fully appreciate making it look not as out of place!

redrocket_pub posted...

What is this sentence.

What is this trying to say????

Jakyl25 posted...

WTF? Some genocides are less evil than others I guess

well... yes? some genocides CAN be less evil. one tribe committing genocide on another tribe is bad, a dictator committing genocide on his own people is worse. neither is ever good but they're on different scales. the level of malice Hitler had in his was way beyond most others. lemme break it down, though i'll warn you in advance that the analysis is really depressing and a terrible thing to sleep to:

if Hitler's goal was to simply kill the Jews, that's all he needed to do. but that wasn't quite right, the Jews weren't simply murdered, they were brought into slave camps. if having them be free labor so that your country can thrive was the goal, there would've been no reason to murder them. after all, that's another worker you've just gotten rid of and when dealing with the labor necessary in a world war, you need as many hands that you can get. for all intents and purposes, killing them hurts you and your cause.

that's a different kind of evil, even by genocide standards. there's no gain in killing them, it adds to the costs and decreases your productivity. they continued doing this as the war went on, finding different ways to kill them. landfills weren't enough, gas chambers weren't enough, this continued throughout the entire war. they needed space for bodies, new technologies to dispose the bodies quicker, all while fighting a losing war.

that's a very different kind of evil than just "genocide." you can argue that an attack on your own people is worse, it's different aspects of evil being applied there, but the full analysis isn't something that's really gotten into. it's usually left at "genocide of six million Jews," not "slave labor during a war while committing genocide that limited your capabilities to fight and win a war." but i do believe that some of the latter is kind of felt in your gut, just not really something you wrap your head around to understanding what that feeling was.
---

>_>
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Wanglicious posted...

personally i wouldn't feel very bad for him. may even think "good," depending on the case.
but i'd also know that's me being evil and know that if i want to improve, i have to push that aside and be against the person who did that to him as that's the right thing to do.

This is getting into personal belief, but I don't agree that purging yourself of gut emotions is a virtue. They're part of who we are. The important thing is to understand what they are and how to keep them in perspective.

You can simultaneously agree that the attacker should be reprimanded while also feeling satisfied that the unrepentant child rapist got a small measure of pain dealt to him. We are complex enough as beings to handle that.

oh i'm not saying it should be purged. by all means, it's important to understand the evil parts inside of you if you want to be a better person. that's a part of you too and it's a part you should accept, however you need to actively reject it from being what you should be. it's not just that the attacker should be reprimanded - it's that i have to agree that the attacker did something morally wrong, that it's not just legal.
---

you guys are still going at this huh
---

Guess Trump wasn't a fan of today's WaPo:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/897763049226084352
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Guess Trump wasn't a fan of today's WaPo:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/897763049226084352

So, uh, what's the plan then, Donnie?
---

Summary: Wang refuses to believe that the subject of a sentence can completely change the meaning and morality of it.

"Nazis should be driven out of society" has a much better meaning than "Jews should be driven out of society"

One is a hate group that will destroy society if left unchecked, and the other is a racial/religious group that has as much right to be here as anyone.

Because guess what?

YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN ONE OF THESE SCENARIOS.

And I hope to whatever is good out there that you choose to drive Nazis out of society.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Guess Trump wasn't a fan of today's WaPo:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/897763049226084352

So, uh, what's the plan then, Donnie?

The plan is obviously JOBS!
---

KamikazePotato posted...

very flagrant use of false equivalence.

You can at least @ him
---

Taking on Amazon isn't the smartest idea.
---

regarding the muffin/cantwell connection - not only did muffin donate money to cantwell, he said cantwell's blog was "the closest thing he'd ever seen to his own DWMF blog" and he actually HUNG OUT with cantwell. in fairness to muffin, i think he doesn't care that much for cantwell anymore since he openly self-identified as a fascist, but back in his "anarchist" days the stuff he said was batshit crazy too (he said the elliot rodger killings were "liberalism's fault," for instance).

also, according to muffin cantwell is actually a pretty normal guy IRL and online he just pretends he's a total asshole to get views and clicks. that's not an excuse for anything but i guess it's nice to know he doesn't ACTUALLY have the most sickening opinions you can think of. he just PRETENDS he does!
---

down with Amazon they still havne't shipped my Sonic Mania CE
---

TheRock1525 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Guess Trump wasn't a fan of today's WaPo:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/897763049226084352

So, uh, what's the plan then, Donnie?

Dude he tweeted the plan soon after
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/897799882802704385
---

Kasich going in on Trump:

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/john-kasich-on-trump-and-charlottesville-pathetic-isn-t-it-1025756227732

I look forward to the inevitable tweet storm about this!
---

Wanglicious posted...

the underlying premise of rehabilitation is that everyone is compatible.

Not sure I agree

I agree that the underlying premise values all life and forces us to be willing to give everyone the chance and opportunity to reform

I don't think it undermines the concept of rehabilitation to admit that a select small percentage will turn out to be incapable of reform.

All minds are not created equal
---

opens page


wait what happened to Wang who used to vehemently make semantic arguments over people throwing around the word 'nazi' because a 'nazi' is a very specific thing and it's super important we don't call people nazis unless they really really are one
---

Well in this debate it's presupposed that we are talking about whatever amount of people are actual Nazis
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

In a different twist on this subject, I wonder if there are any legal types irked by the part of Trump's conference where he's like

"Call him a terrorist, call him a murderer, whatever gets the quickest conviction."

Now of course, I think we are all in agreement that the police have the right guy and that he's guilty.

But from a procedural level, is that out of line for a President to say? Sounds like he already tried him.

Article on this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/trump-comments-james-fields-created-legal-headache-article-1.3414847

Thanks for this! This is EXACTLY what I was worried about.

I doubt it will lead to the killer being let go because they are unable to try him now, but someone please tell Trump to shut his fool mouth about this so he doesn't keep making things worse

I recognize that is a TALL ORDER
---

lol
---

Jakyl25 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

By the way, @SmartMuffin, don't you regularly listen to this Cantwell guy? In this video he's literally arguing that Heather Heyer's murder was justified.

He's DONATED MONEY to Cantwell

lol MAYBE it's time to consider taking down the photo I took with him on FB when I met him in person and bought him a beer?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

In a different twist on this subject, I wonder if there are any legal types irked by the part of Trump's conference where he's like

"Call him a terrorist, call him a murderer, whatever gets the quickest conviction."

Now of course, I think we are all in agreement that the police have the right guy and that he's guilty.

But from a procedural level, is that out of line for a President to say? Sounds like he already tried him.

Article on this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/trump-comments-james-fields-created-legal-headache-article-1.3414847

Thanks for this! This is EXACTLY what I was worried about.

I doubt it will lead to the killer being let go because they are unable to try him now, but someone please tell Trump to shut his fool mouth about this so he doesn't keep making things worse

I recognize that is a TALL ORDER

I wouldn't surprised if someone on his team recognized this legal conundrum and told him he could help the killer out by calling him a killer.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Kasich going in on Trump:

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/john-kasich-on-trump-and-charlottesville-pathetic-isn-t-it-1025756227732

I look forward to the inevitable tweet storm about this!

Holy shit, this rant is a moderate conservative wet dream
---