Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 127: Jay Cullen and Berke Bates

(+) Yeah! (+)

MenuWars posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TADxFoNshs


Hmmm... not sure how I feel about this. I do abhor the woman sticking her fingers right in his face constantly, if he's a white supremacist sure bollocks to him, but he gave me the impression he was just someone who had family ties to the confederacy, which while not a great thing in itself doesn't mean him paying his respects should be met with being called a terrorist.

Idk... it feels off to me.

He explicitly says at the end that "they need to know that my ancestors didn't fight for slavery or oppression."

Which is a lie.

Really though that cop at the end is even worse
---

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/farright-news-site-breitbart-mistakes-exarsenal-star-lukas-podolski-for-jetski-gangster-a3615766.html
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Really though that cop at the end is even worse

Yeah, holy crap.

LordoftheMorons posted...

"We know that many protestors were Soros funded and we also know that Donald Trump is not a racist."

It's just like the drone episode of South Park

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth! Our drone flew! The battery was drained! The SD card was erased! Butters was the only other person who had access to it! Butters can't use the drone without my supervision! So where does that leave us, Randy??"

Points.
---

transcience posted...

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/farright-news-site-breitbart-mistakes-exarsenal-star-lukas-podolski-for-jetski-gangster-a3615766.html

Bannon already back hard at work!

"You guys weren't smearing people enough while I was gone!
---

CNN has an interview with Kasich where he says he's not planning on trying to primary Trump in 2020 because he expects Trump "to learn and grow from the errors he's made."

Ha!

For what it's worth, I buy that he's not planning...yet. I think everyone in the GOP is just trying to hold it together to see what message voters send in 2018 first.

If that message is bad for them, then it's full speed ahead
---

Jakyl25 posted...

CNN has an interview with Kasich where he says he's not planning on trying to primary Trump in 2020 because he expects Trump "to learn and grow from the errors he's made."

Ha!

For what it's worth, I buy that he's not planning...yet. I think everyone in the GOP is just trying to hold it together to see what message voters send in 2018 first.

If that message is bad for them, then it's full speed ahead

He's 100% going to primary him
---

Trump is not going to run.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/seanmcelwee/status/899056806084972546

Yeah

This wasn't clear to me that the pie-chart is from that cover article. Are they from the same article for sure?
---

The rally in Phoenix is officially classified as a campaign rally!
---

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/899230635839172608

Wow.

GOP strategist says that after Trump's weak condemnation of white supremacy, his support among base went UP:

https://t.co/1mbsEaKrxc https://t.co/PeGshL0pVS
---

HaRRicH posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/seanmcelwee/status/899056806084972546

Yeah

This wasn't clear to me that the pie-chart is from that cover article. Are they from the same article for sure?

It's not. It's from the ADL, juxtaposed with the NR cover to make a point
---

Corrik posted...

Trump is not going to run.

he's already running
---

Corrik posted...

Trump is not going to run.

Because he'd be impeached? I don't see him volunteering to not run.
---

HaRRicH posted...

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/899230635839172608

Wow.

GOP strategist says that after Trump's weak condemnation of white supremacy, his support among base went UP:

https://t.co/1mbsEaKrxc https://t.co/PeGshL0pVS

I wonder how they distinguish "his base" from
others.

By who they voted for?
---

Well, look at this. One of my brother's friends on Facebook called me a racist and said some shit about white privilege because I said that attacking people results in an escalating cycle of violence, borne out by some asshole murdering that woman in Charlottesville.

I'd like to know, are you ok with people becoming physically violent because of political speech, no matter how abhorrent?

charmander6000 posted...

Corrik posted...

Trump is not going to run.

Because he'd be impeached? I don't see him volunteering to not run.

He will say he has accomplished what he wanted or say that it is too corrupt to accomplish what is needed. Either way he will bail out and not run.

Don't be surprised by it when it happens.
---

When that political speech is about murdering races of people, yes.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

When that political speech is about murdering races of people, yes.

Hm. Things are only going to get worse, then.

Uglyface2 posted...

Well, look at this. One of my brother's friends on Facebook called me a racist and said some shit about white privilege because I said that attacking people results in an escalating cycle of violence, borne out by some asshole murdering that woman in Charlottesville.

I'd like to know, are you ok with people becoming physically violent because of political speech, no matter how abhorrent?

This typically is what happens. Everyone is labeled. See half a dozen people peddling that 100 racists were rallying in boston and 40000 members of the "Resistance" met them in force on facebook.
---

Corrik posted...

charmander6000 posted...

Corrik posted...

Trump is not going to run.

Because he'd be impeached? I don't see him volunteering to not run.

He will say he has accomplished what he wanted or say that it is too corrupt to accomplish what is needed. Either way he will bail out and not run.

Don't be surprised by it when it happens.

Trump LOVES running

and again

he already IS running



because it's the only thing he wanted to do in the first place, not be president
---

Uglyface2 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

When that political speech is about murdering races of people, yes.

Hm. Things are only going to get worse, then.

Not necessarily

Only if they decide to keep explicitly having white supremacist rallies and cities keep letting them.

Look at Boston. Rally for abhorrent, but not genocidal views. Heavily counter-protested. Much, much more peaceful.
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

Corrik posted...

charmander6000 posted...

Corrik posted...

Trump is not going to run.

Because he'd be impeached? I don't see him volunteering to not run.

He will say he has accomplished what he wanted or say that it is too corrupt to accomplish what is needed. Either way he will bail out and not run.

Don't be surprised by it when it happens.

Trump LOVES running

and again

he already IS running



because it's the only thing he wanted to do in the first place, not be president

He will know full well before the time if he can win or not. He will not run once he realizes he will not win.
---

Corrik posted...

This typically is what happens. Everyone is labeled. See half a dozen people peddling that 100 racists were rallying in boston and 40000 members of the "Resistance" met them in force on facebook.

How would you describe it?
---

Corrik posted...

CelesMyUserName posted...

Corrik posted...

charmander6000 posted...

Corrik posted...

Trump is not going to run.

Because he'd be impeached? I don't see him volunteering to not run.

He will say he has accomplished what he wanted or say that it is too corrupt to accomplish what is needed. Either way he will bail out and not run.

Don't be surprised by it when it happens.

Trump LOVES running

and again

he already IS running



because it's the only thing he wanted to do in the first place, not be president

He will know full well before the time if he can win or not. He will not run once he realizes he will not win.

hahahahahahahahahahaahahyabahsahagahzagbkdfhvajfbh
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

This typically is what happens. Everyone is labeled. See half a dozen people peddling that 100 racists were rallying in boston and 40000 members of the "Resistance" met them in force on facebook.

How would you describe it?

Since when was the rally by racists? I am under the impression they worked hard to disavow any connection at all beforehand?

I didn't see many photos of openly racist things at that rally.
---

Well if he's running against a Democrat, doesn't matter the odds, he can win
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Uglyface2 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

When that political speech is about murdering races of people, yes.

Hm. Things are only going to get worse, then.

Not necessarily

Only if they decide to keep explicitly having white supremacist rallies and cities keep letting them.

Look at Boston. Rally for abhorrent, but not genocidal views. Heavily counter-protested. Much, much more peaceful.

The First Amendment is still in place, which means people with terrible ideas are still allowed to express them publicly. It doesn't protect violence. People are now espousing violence to counter speech they don't agree with. It's been escalated once already. It won't get better.

Jakyl25 posted...

Well if he's running against a Democrat, doesn't matter the odds, he can win

I won't vote for him again unless a huge turnaround happens on his promises for the economy during the rest of his term. Even then, it might take a really appauling democratic option.

Come out slugging saying you are going to eliminate all jobs that require coal. That's surely a good way to my vote. = /
---

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

This typically is what happens. Everyone is labeled. See half a dozen people peddling that 100 racists were rallying in boston and 40000 members of the "Resistance" met them in force on facebook.

How would you describe it?

Since when was the rally by racists? I am under the impression they worked hard to disavow any connection at all beforehand?

I didn't see many photos of openly racist things at that rally.

I didn't see photos of hardly anyone at the rally.

It was organized by "new right" white nationalists. Not Nazis, not KKK, just the type of racist that thinks America is for white people and we need to start enacting policies to limit the growth and acceptance of non-European cultures here.

These people are repugnant and I am willing to call them racists. I am not willing to fight them with violence though, unlike the Charlottesville group. They want their white nationalism to work through government pressure, not genocide.
---

Uglyface2 posted...

The First Amendment is still in place, which means people with terrible ideas are still allowed to express them publicly. It doesn't protect violence.

Nazi rhetoric is violence. It goes above and beyond general racism and into being an actionable threat just by its mere public utterance
---

Uglyface2 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Uglyface2 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

When that political speech is about murdering races of people, yes.

Hm. Things are only going to get worse, then.

Not necessarily

Only if they decide to keep explicitly having white supremacist rallies and cities keep letting them.

Look at Boston. Rally for abhorrent, but not genocidal views. Heavily counter-protested. Much, much more peaceful.

The First Amendment is still in place, which means people with terrible ideas are still allowed to express them publicly. It doesn't protect violence. People are now espousing violence to counter speech they don't agree with. It's been escalated once already. It won't get better.

I agree mostly but there is limits.

Saying to kill people is crossing a line. Saying you will kill people is across the line.

These need to be taken seriously as threats. Same as when Kentucky fans threaten to kill a ref cuz they think he made a bad call, if a Nazi says to kill blacks, if a BLM activist says to kill cops, if a celebrity says to kill the President, or if an Antifa say to kill Nazis.


None of these are any different. These are all real threats.

You have the right to say what you think. If you are a Nazi, you have the right to say you think all of the Jewish population should be removed from the country. If you are a BLM member you have the right to say you think the police are corrupt and should no longer operate.


You do not have the right to try and forcibly remove the Jewish person from their home, harrass them, vandalize their property or threaten to kill them.

You do not have the right to attack cops, shoot them, or so on.

That is the difference. Violence is never justified unless in self defense or in military situations.

Trying to justify violence is a stepping stone to a larger conflict that should never happen.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Uglyface2 posted...

The First Amendment is still in place, which means people with terrible ideas are still allowed to express them publicly. It doesn't protect violence.

Nazi rhetoric is violence. It goes above and beyond general racism and into being an actionable threat just by its mere public utterance

No, it's not, and I hate you for making me defend Nazis. Until somebody starts making specific threats like, "We need to bomb the XYZ Building," or, "We need to kill Jane Smith," it doesn't reach the level of actionable.

But let's take your argument and pretend you're right. Does that call for vigilante tactics? Shouldn't these counter-protesters call for the police? And if not, then why are they the only movement that's allowed to be violent?

Uglyface2 posted...

Shouldn't these counter-protesters call for the police?

Sure, ideally

But the police were there and refused to act.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Uglyface2 posted...

Shouldn't these counter-protesters call for the police?

Sure, ideally

But the police were there and refused to act.

1. It wasn't actionable.

2. Does that mean they should be allowed to become vigilantes?

Uglyface2 posted...

No, it's not, and I hate you for making me defend Nazis.

Then don't defend Nazis maybe?

Uglyface2 posted...

Until somebody starts making specific threats like, "We need to bomb the XYZ Building," or, "We need to kill Jane Smith," it doesn't reach the level of actionable.

Marching with torches and guns chanting about exterminating Jews is actionable. Just because they can't actually kill ALL Jews doesn't mean that the local Jews shouldn't feel threatened.

Similarly, stalking around a public synagogue with guns and swastikas during worship, as some were doing, is also an actionable threat IMO.
---

Uglyface2 posted...

2. Does that mean they should be allowed to become vigilantes?

Legally, maybe not.

Morally, yes, in this very specific instance.
---

https://twitter.com/jessicahuseman/status/899297885916991488

OTHER
---

Ugly, do you not realize that the death and injuries from the car in Charlottesville was the direct result of the WORDS of the protestors? That was literally actions resulting from their voice. Not to be a fucking nerd here, "words that kill".

These Nazi protestors are causing actual harm and death.

Uglyface2 posted...

I hate you for making me defend Nazis.

No ones making you dude
---

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/899103094952407040

Good thread about being among the counter protestors
---

Uglyface2 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Uglyface2 posted...

The First Amendment is still in place, which means people with terrible ideas are still allowed to express them publicly. It doesn't protect violence.

Nazi rhetoric is violence. It goes above and beyond general racism and into being an actionable threat just by its mere public utterance

No, it's not, and I hate you for making me defend Nazis. Until somebody starts making specific threats like, "We need to bomb the XYZ Building," or, "We need to kill Jane Smith," it doesn't reach the level of actionable.

But let's take your argument and pretend you're right. Does that call for vigilante tactics? Shouldn't these counter-protesters call for the police? And if not, then why are they the only movement that's allowed to be violent?

This is just dangerous. The guy that ran people over with his car did it BECAUSE of those words.

Just sweeping them under the rug and referring to people like that as "crazies" is not helping anything.

And even the people that ARE crazy... Them being able to hear that rhetoric over and over is more likely to move them to action. Look at the guy that shot up that pizza joint because of Pizzagate. Do you think he would have done that if "Pizzagate" wasn't being spread around as if it was fact? Now consider that Nazis are spreading far, far worse.
---

I don't think it's necessarily the right tact to just say that he killed because of those words.

It's important to point out that he interpreted those words CORRECTLY. People have killed over words before who were reading them irrationally.

Also I still think it's important to not just call the words bad because they caused physical violence. The words themselves are violence.
---

Just a friendly reminder, but Ugly's take actually is well established case law at the SC level. When he says that the Nazi's speech isn't actionable, that is a FACT under current law. So police literally can't arrest anyone for "threats" until they meet the much more specific conditions he outlined (they still screwed up their response to the rally/counterprotest in general, but that's a separate issue). So for now, we need to be very upfront and honest that any calls for violence against white supremacists are expressly calls for vigilantism.
---

I'll accept that

My arguments are all moral

If I punch a Nazi, I accept my legal punishment with glee.
---

I thought the cop in the video had a point, the woman was clearly trying to do her best to goad the guy, I still don't know if he was there for racist beliefs or what, but he did show an amazing amount of restraint. I can respect that, if that woman had wanted peaceful protest she could've got out of his face like countless others had and done her thing.

Goading people and being petty and vindictive isn't a positive quality and only serves to escalate situations, so yeah... I also found her saying that Heyer's blood was on his hands was disgusting too.

It's just lashing out and being piss poor about it. Sure you're still better than a Nazi or White supremacist, but you're still a shitty person.
---

Ugly's also exactly right, see it's easy to look at it as black and white, nazis are bad, get rid of the nazis, but how do you know someone's a nazi and a bad person, just because they showed up to something you disagree with that's associated?

The Boston rally was, considerably different in tone than the Charlottesville one from all the coverage I've seen... and thinking you're above reproach for your actions leads to ruin, whether your intentions are pure or not.
---

The only time words has been a crime in the way you are describing it has been in the recent suicide case. But, that was moreso for taking advantage of an emotional unstable person, continually pressuring said person to suicide, not rendering aid or reporting the death.

Your comments have to be an explicit threat to be acted upon. And, I believe there are scenarios where this is definitely met and should be acted on.

However, saying words killed Heather Heyer is truly disgusting. A car driven by a white supremacist is what killed Heather.

Trying to justify violence against that faction and using her death as a pawn in that justification is just sad.
---

So what does the politics people think about humans acquiring eternal youth?

This is actually an important topic now with the ability to change our DNA at will coming in the near future.
---

pjbasis posted...

So what does the politics people think about humans acquiring eternal youth?

This is actually an important topic now with the ability to change our DNA at will coming in the near future.

While not dying would be pretty sweet, I worry about overpopulation.
---