Question about free speech

Started by Beorning, December 28, 2020, 03:56:58 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fox Lokison

I've addressed more of this in the white supremacy thread, but this coup was just a part of a long history of excusing violence. We can all sit here - myself included - and wax philosophical if we want, but at the end of the day, sometimes we have to throw away grand means and morals we hold dear, to deal with the reality at hand. I believe the freedom to speak is sacrosanct. I believe the freedom to share information, especially digitally, is as well. Yet both of those things I uphold are used to further enable and grow movements that kill people. If I am more interested in preserving a right rather than people's lives, the only people who are going to be left alive or in power are the ones that used those rights to harm, banish or kill everyone else. And then, there's nothing between me and them, and no amount of my crowing about rights will change that.

There's a reason the paradox of tolerance exists. If you tolerate intolerance, it will, inevitably, eradicate the tolerant. Giving everyone their own podium, their own mic to speak into, inevitably leads to people with bad motives and intent to eradicate others getting their hands on those. Our values are nothing when people like that use them to commit atrocities, and we allow them because of our morals.

Free speech is predicated on the idea that it is for everyone, and there is an even playing field, where everyone is following the rules. There isn't, and they aren't, and I personally believe we all enable this to continue if we stand behind values rather than people.
       

Regina Minx

Quote from: Regina Minx on January 10, 2021, 07:26:02 AM
Can you provide a reference to this to California and DC code? I was unable to independently confirm this.

I never heard back from Saria on this, but just to elaborate a bit more. Some states do offer employment protection based on political affiliation, but that's not the context under which the remarks came up, which was the right of businesses to refuse service. It would not and could not come up in the context of refusing service barring against a protected class because it would invoke 1st Amendment free association issues.

If I'm running a tech consulting firm, there is no requirement that I take David Duke's business. The local Irish pub is free to refuse service to Unionists. "Republican Pollsters & PR R Us" is not obligated to accept AOC as a client. And if a liberal coffee shop owner wants to hang a sign on the window to reserve the right to refuse service to Trump supporters, they are allowed to do so.

Remiel

Quote from: Regina Minx on January 12, 2021, 08:10:22 AM
I never heard back from Saria on this, but just to elaborate a bit more. Some states do offer employment protection based on political affiliation, but that's not the context under which the remarks came up, which was the right of businesses to refuse service. It would not and could not come up in the context of refusing service barring against a protected class because it would invoke 1st Amendment free association issues.

If I'm running a tech consulting firm, there is no requirement that I take David Duke's business. The local Irish pub is free to refuse service to Unionists. "Republican Pollsters & PR R Us" is not obligated to accept AOC as a client. And if a liberal coffee shop owner wants to hang a sign on the window to reserve the right to refuse service to Trump supporters, they are allowed to do so.

This got me curious, so I did a quick Google search on "right to refuse service law".  I found this article  and  this one.

Cross-referencing, it looks like you cannot, in any state, refuse service due to any of the following:


  • race
  • color
  • religion
  • sex
  • national origin
  • disability

While some states have enacted laws making it illegal to refuse service because of:


  • sexual orientation
  • gender identity
  • political affiliation

In California, you cannot discriminate against someone if they're dressed in an unconventional way.

Which brings us back to Regina's examples.  From the LegalZoom article:

QuoteIf there’s an anti-discrimination law, does that mean that a business can never refuse service to a member of a group that is protected from discrimination?

The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.

To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress.

Second, you must apply your policy to everyone. For example, you can’t turn away a black person who’s not wearing a tie and then let in a tieless white man. You also can’t have a policy that sounds like it applies to everyone but really just excludes one particular group of people. So, for example, a policy against wearing headscarves in a restaurant would probably be discriminatory against Muslims.

A couple of recent court cases illustrate the fine line between discrimination and a justifiable refusal of service. In each case, a Colorado baker was sued for violating discrimination laws.

In the first case, the baker refused service to a customer who wanted her to bake a cake with anti-gay Bible verses on it. The customer argued that he was discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. But the court ruled that this was not discrimination because the baker had a consistent policy of refusing to create cakes that used derogatory language or imagery.

In the second case, a baker refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, saying that it violated his religious beliefs. The court held the baker liable, saying that his reason was just a pretext for discriminating against gays.

From the sound of things, it sounds like if "Republican Pollsters & PR R Us" is located in DC, it might get into hot water if it refuses AOC on the grounds of political affiliation.  Ditto with the liberal coffee shop owners.  Unless they made a case that serving the Trump supporters in question would be creating a health and safety issue for their other customers.

Just my speculation.

Regina Minx

Quote from: Remiel on January 12, 2021, 09:18:48 AM
From the sound of things, it sounds like if "Republican Pollsters & PR R Us" is located in DC, it might get into hot water if it refuses AOC on the grounds of political affiliation.  Ditto with the liberal coffee shop owners.  Unless they made a case that serving the Trump supporters in question would be creating a health and safety issue for their other customers.

Just my speculation.

But remember that time a Virginia restaurant refused service to Sarah Huckabee Sanders?

Quote“Unless you are a member of a protected class, you don’t have rights in a court of law if you are asked to leave a restaurant,'' says Reginald Shuford, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. "Your only recourse may be the court of public opinion."

Remiel

Well, it sounds to me like that would fall under the jurisdiction of Virginia state, which I assume does not have the provision against discrimination by political affiliation that, say, D.C. does.

Regina Minx

Quote from: Remiel on January 12, 2021, 10:45:20 AM
Well, it sounds to me like that would fall under the jurisdiction of Virginia state, which I assume does not have the provision against discrimination by political affiliation that, say, D.C. does.

I wasn't able to find any DC law protecting political affiliation in anything but employment. Do you have a link to a DC city code or statute? Because I really would like to know if I'm wrong about this.

Remiel

Hmmm.  Will try to see what I can dig up.  I do have faith in your researching skills, so if you weren't able to find one, perhaps I made an incorrect assumption.

Saria

Quote from: Regina Minx on January 10, 2021, 07:26:02 AM
Can you provide a reference to this to California and DC code? I was unable to independently confirm this.

Sure, DC was easy: https://ohr.dc.gov/protectedtraits Number 12 on the list.

California… not so easy. I found labour codes 1101 and 1102. Those are specific to employment, but it’s a start at least. If you dig around you can find plenty of legal experts saying California doesn’t allow refusal of service based on political affiliation, too.
Saria is no longer on Elliquiy, and no longer available for games

Saria

Quote from: Andol on January 10, 2021, 10:36:56 AM
So I assume your cool with it going the other way as well, aka refusing to serve anyone associated with the Democratic Party. Once you start laying down those kinds of idea to bite one side in the ass. It can always be turned around the other who used it in the first place.

Yup. Totally cool with that.

However, you can try flipping the table like that… but it doesn’t really work, because it’s not the same thing. I’m talking about refusing service to people who have aided and abetted a dangerous, racist, sexist, criminal idiot like Trump for years, leading up to a literal fascist insurrection at the Capitol. Yeah, if I had a business in the US, I would happily announce, very publicly, that I won’t serve traitors or their cowardly enablers. And if anyone dared challenge me on that, I will cheerfuly state publicly that I am limiting my business’s clientele to non-fascists. I am perfectly fine with my business being judged by that; I have no problem whatsoever with being boycotted by fascists and their supporters.

But the flip side isn’t the same situation. Let’s say you refuse to service Democratic Party people. What, exactly, would be your justification for that be? Is it going to be as good a reason as mine? Is it going to be something you’d be willing to stand behind, and even risk your business on?

And don’t forget… I’m not just going to sit back and stay quiet. I’m your competitor. If you try refusing to servce Democrats, I am definitely going to play that up for my own benefit. I am going to tell everyone that I don’t serve fascists and traitors… but you serve only fascists and traitors. What are you going to say then? I mean, at that point you’re pretty much doing my marketing for me!

So, yup. Don’t really have a problem with the possibility of this being “turned around” on me. That’s how you know you’re on the right side.
Saria is no longer on Elliquiy, and no longer available for games

Andol

Quote from: Saria on January 14, 2021, 04:00:17 PM
Yup. Totally cool with that.

However, you can try flipping the table like that… but it doesn’t really work, because it’s not the same thing. I’m talking about refusing service to people who have aided and abetted a dangerous, racist, sexist, criminal idiot like Trump for years, leading up to a literal fascist insurrection at the Capitol. Yeah, if I had a business in the US, I would happily announce, very publicly, that I won’t serve traitors or their cowardly enablers. And if anyone dared challenge me on that, I will cheerfuly state publicly that I am limiting my business’s clientele to non-fascists. I am perfectly fine with my business being judged by that; I have no problem whatsoever with being boycotted by fascists and their supporters.

But the flip side isn’t the same situation. Let’s say you refuse to service Democratic Party people. What, exactly, would be your justification for that be? Is it going to be as good a reason as mine? Is it going to be something you’d be willing to stand behind, and even risk your business on?

And don’t forget… I’m not just going to sit back and stay quiet. I’m your competitor. If you try refusing to servce Democrats, I am definitely going to play that up for my own benefit. I am going to tell everyone that I don’t serve fascists and traitors… but you serve only fascists and traitors. What are you going to say then? I mean, at that point you’re pretty much doing my marketing for me!

So, yup. Don’t really have a problem with the possibility of this being “turned around” on me. That’s how you know you’re on the right side.

You do understand if you do what you say, your competitors are going to see that you are banning people just because they voted for Republican's. Guess what they will do... play that up for their own benefit. This is especially due to the fact that common sense shows that to ban a large voter base from your business because of the actions of however many idiots where at the capital then you can do that.   

The meme "Get Woke Go Broke" wasn't made in a vacuum given that such business choices based on politics... instead of just making money and selling a product are horrible ideas. I would say the same thing about my own put forth thing as well.   




Fox Lokison

Quote from: Saria on January 14, 2021, 04:00:17 PM
Yup. Totally cool with that.

However, you can try flipping the table like that… but it doesn’t really work, because it’s not the same thing. I’m talking about refusing service to people who have aided and abetted a dangerous, racist, sexist, criminal idiot like Trump for years, leading up to a literal fascist insurrection at the Capitol. Yeah, if I had a business in the US, I would happily announce, very publicly, that I won’t serve traitors or their cowardly enablers. And if anyone dared challenge me on that, I will cheerfuly state publicly that I am limiting my business’s clientele to non-fascists. I am perfectly fine with my business being judged by that; I have no problem whatsoever with being boycotted by fascists and their supporters.

But the flip side isn’t the same situation. Let’s say you refuse to service Democratic Party people. What, exactly, would be your justification for that be? Is it going to be as good a reason as mine? Is it going to be something you’d be willing to stand behind, and even risk your business on?

And don’t forget… I’m not just going to sit back and stay quiet. I’m your competitor. If you try refusing to servce Democrats, I am definitely going to play that up for my own benefit. I am going to tell everyone that I don’t serve fascists and traitors… but you serve only fascists and traitors. What are you going to say then? I mean, at that point you’re pretty much doing my marketing for me!

So, yup. Don’t really have a problem with the possibility of this being “turned around” on me. That’s how you know you’re on the right side.

As much as I do agree with you - ie, they ARE fascists and traitors - the bit about "what would your justification be" only works if you think what the left does is good.

We have a local official in my state, a selectman, who made the paper today. On her private social media (not her official/political one) she made some horrific statements, including slurs against Caitlyn Jenner and Kamala Harris. When her... I suppose "constituents" or "citizens", selectmen are a New England thing, they're voted in to run matters for towns... When people in her town signed a petition saying that they didn't want her on the board anymore because of her comments, she dismissed it as a BLM attempt to remove her from office, and also blamed Marxists and even the Chinese Communist Party. Though her town is majority white, with only 0.6% of the population being African American - and less than 2% of the entire state is - she was convinced that she, a town official, was under attack by BLM, because they have a local organization that she opposes.

The petition was public record, as were all the names. And BLM had nothing to do with it.

I bring this up because this is the kind of justification you are going to get. These are their deeply held beliefs. That BLM, socialism, all that, those movements are nothing more than fronts to harm or replace them. They believe in a war, and that they are under attack. When you talk about whether or not they will stand by their beliefs and stake their business on it, the answer is "fuck yes". They'd stake everything on it. They have. They continue to. Because the belief is that the alternative is their eradication.

You talk about aiding and abetting, and again, you're right, it's not the same thing at all, but in their minds, BLM, antifascist movements, socialists, and just about anyone on the left these days is trying to utterly destroy America and American values.

So I get your point, but the flip side is the same situation. We, without a doubt, believe that the people who stormed the capital, and the politicians who enabled them, and the party who enabled those politicians, are an immediate threat to American society and the American people. And we'd stand behind that. But so will they, behind the belief that the left is the danger.

They feel exactly as strongly about this, and about their righteousness, as you do.
       

Fox Lokison

Here is an article about the selectman that isn't behind a paywall, couldn't get my actual local paper sadly. Figured I should link my sources, tho. She's got an interesting mindset for sure.

Slight vent; "While some residents pushed selectmen to take a vote that Barnes violated the town’s code of ethics, the board said the code was non-binding." The code of ethics for the office of selectman is nonbinding. Just... let that one sink in, because I've been steaming about it all day.
       

Saria

Quote from: Andol on January 14, 2021, 04:45:13 PM
You do understand if you do what you say, your competitors are going to see that you are banning people just because they voted for Republican's.

Why would I not understand that? It’s literally what I said I was doing.

Quote from: Andol on January 14, 2021, 04:45:13 PM
Guess what they will do... play that up for their own benefit. This is especially due to the fact that common sense shows that to ban a large voter base from your business because of the actions of however many idiots where at the capital then you can do that.

That deafening silence you’re hearing in reply is the sound of the complete lack of fucks I give.

You also seem to be completely missing the point I’m trying to make. The “idiots at the Capitol” are not some group that is separate and distinct from “Republican Party supporters”. They are one and the same.

I knew this was going to happen even as the events of Jan 6 were unfolding: The narrative is shifting to isolate the insurgents from the Republican Party. We’re being fed stories of the “good” Republican lawmakers and party hacks who didn’t completely kowtow to the fascist surge… who showed, often, the bare minimum of human decency and integrity, often only after years of being completely obsequious toadies. The years of ass-kissing to Trump and his inner circle are being quietly forgotten. ZOMG! 10 whole Republicans voted to impeach Trump! Wow! That headline was all over the place. 10! But… what about the other 200? And, what about the Senate?

No, Trump, “Trumpism”, and all the related bullshit up to and including the seditious and traitorous incitement that led to the Jan 6 attack are not some disconnected phenomenon only peripherally associated with the Republican Party. They are all one and the same thing.

The mob that attacked Congress literally walked directly from a rally led by Trump and several other Republican officials to the scene of the insurrection attempt. How is that line not abundantly clear in everyone’s mind? All that stupidity, intolerance, and violence came directly from a Republican rally.

And for anyone trying the bullshit game of saying “well, Trump is not akshually the whole Republican Party, he’s actually just a fringe element that the real Party insiders hate”: First I point to how the impeachment proceedings are going (and how they went last time)—awful lot of support there from a Party that supposedly just wants Trump gone, hm? Then I point out that that violent riot to suppress the democratic will of the people? Yeah. That wasn’t even the first one the Republican Party has incited in the last few election cycles. At least this time they didn’t have to pay the rioters.

Since it seemed to slip by you the first time I spelled this out, let me try stating it even more clearly:

  • At this point, if you support the Republican Party, you support fascism.
  • If you support the Republican Party, you support white supremacy.
  • If you support the Republican Party, you support various and sundry bigotries: transphobia, racism, islamophobia, xenophobia, etc. etc..
  • If you support the Republican Party, you oppose democracy.
And don’t try to weasel out of it by saying: “But Saria, I don’t support white supremacy! I just like the Republican Party because of my ekonomik ankziety!” No, fuck that. The mask has slipped. If it wasn’t clear before how terrible the Republican Party is (and yea gods, for fuck’s sake, how was it not clear before?!?), it cannot be denied now. There comes a point where it doesn’t matter what “good” (if any) an organization is doing; when their evil deeds are so bad, and so pervasive, and so intrinsic to the organization, that it is impossible for anyone with a functioning moral conscience to still associate with it. If you sent donations to the KKK just because you really like the tea biscuits they send you as thanks, then no matter how much you strenuously deny you’re racist, you can’t seriously object when people make that connection.

So if you still support the Republican Party, even after the rot festering in its core has been laid so stunningly bare, I want nothing to do with you. I will happily refuse service to anyone who will not take a principled stand against fascism and white supremacy. I will gleefully boot from my property anyone who wants to undermine democracy. And I will not hide or shy from that position; I will put it on the front of the store in big, shiny letters.

And if you want to “counter” my stand by denying Democratic Party supporters service… please, do try. Oh, please, please, do try! I will happily label you and your business fascist enablers… and unlike you, I will have the facts on my side to back it up.

(And if you think people don’t care about facts, that’s fine too. You can have the ignoramus demographic. I really won’t miss them.)

Quote from: Andol on January 14, 2021, 04:45:13 PM
The meme "Get Woke Go Broke" wasn't made in a vacuum given that such business choices based on politics... instead of just making money and selling a product are horrible ideas. I would say the same thing about my own put forth thing as well.

Oh, please, that meme is so much bullshit. Typical demagoguery: repeat a lie often enough, and confidently enough, and you can convince fools that it’s true.

Spoiler alert: it’s not true. Oh, I know that right-wing media loves to cite the same handful of high-profile failures over and over again, but, couple things:

  • Most failures are the result of insincere or half-assed attempts to go woke. Some of the more infamous attempts are actually laughable; like who can forget the white model solving racism with a Pepsi—hey, maybe Breonna Taylor wouldn’t have been shot if the cops were properly hydrated! But there are plenty of less extreme cases where the company’s show of wokeness just doesn’t measure up. People are not amused when a company starts yammering on about #MeToo while their board has no women on it, or while their CEO or other major figures are facing harassment allegations.

  • The failures that right-wingers usually highlight were failing before their attempt at wokeness. The most famous example is Gillette, which supposedly made an ad condemning toxic masculinity and then lost billions. But that’s not what really happened. What really happened is that Gillette lost billions and then made an ad about toxic masculinity. If you read financial news rather than right-wing bullshit, you’d see that Proctor & Gamble (who own Gillette) were planning on writing off a huge loss on Gillette for years before the ad in question.※ And, in fact, after the backlash, Gillette doubled down on wokeness by featuring trans men in their ads.

  • When I hear “get woke, go broke” it’s most often in a context where some long-running media series has done something unthinkable like making a woman or person of colour (or, *gasp*, a woman of colour) the lead. But again, aside from some high-profile failures like Ghostbusters, the vast majority of “woke” updates to old franchises do incredibly well. The highest-grossing (in North America, where wokeness presumably matters most) Avengers movie was Avengers: Endgame, naturally… but a close second: Black Panther. And right after the 4 team-up movies: Captain Marvel. Yeah, Captain Marvel beat every Iron Man film, every Captain America film, and every Spider-man film. And if you’re a DC fan (can’t imagine why), Wonder Woman blows everything else out of the water. “Get woke, go broke” my fat brown ass.

  • If you listen to actual advertising and marketing experts, rather than right-wing meme peddlers, you will be told that going woke is one of the best things you can do. Even without reading their opinions, it should be obvious that going woke is a generally winning strategy from the fact that so many companies keep trying it.
※ (Another interesting aside about the Gillette thing that really hammers home how much bullshit “get woke, go broke” is: The reason Proctor & Gamble chose that year—the same year the toxic masculinity ad came out—for its big write-off of Gillette is because the previous year they had posted profits so good it sent the shares to record highs. They had been planning to write off Gillette for around five years at that point, so doing it in a year when they made good profits was a great way to soften the blow. Ah, but why did they do so well the year before the Gillette ad? What did they do that was so groundbreaking? Probably several things… but most famously, they released the Emmy-winning ad “The Talk”. So… is this a case of “get woke, go… to record-breaking stock prices, multiple awards, and widespread critical acclaim”?)

So you’ll pardon me for choosing not to listen to idiot right-wing memery, and go with what the experts suggest instead.

Quote from: Fox Lokison on January 14, 2021, 05:17:24 PM
As much as I do agree with you - ie, they ARE fascists and traitors - the bit about "what would your justification be" only works if you think what the left does is good.

I sometimes forget just how far gone US politics is. Imagine, being considered “the left” merely for opposing the Republican Party. That would be laughable if it didn’t make me cry.

Quote from: Fox Lokison on January 14, 2021, 05:17:24 PM
I bring this up because this is the kind of justification you are going to get. These are their deeply held beliefs. That BLM, socialism, all that, those movements are nothing more than fronts to harm or replace them. They believe in a war, and that they are under attack. When you talk about whether or not they will stand by their beliefs and stake their business on it, the answer is "fuck yes". They'd stake everything on it. They have. They continue to. Because the belief is that the alternative is their eradication.

I’m not clear on the point you’re trying to make. I’m going to assume you don’t think I’m a moron, and you realize that I know full well that many of these idiots truly believe the nonsense. So that leaves me wondering why you think I care.

I don’t say that to be flippant or dismissive. I’m making a very serious point here. Why do you think it should matter how deeply held the belief is?

You’re telling me that they’ll stake everything—even their own potential eradication—on their belief? Well, so the fuck what? No, very seriously: so… the fuck… what?

I see nothing in that point that suggests I should be any less serious in my own efforts to fight their ignorant, hateful, and—yes—goddamn fucking stupid ideology.

They’re willing to put everything on the line for their idiot beliefs? 🤷🏾‍♀️ I’m still going to fight them. I’m still going to fight every fascist, every white supremacist, every transphobe, every racist, every bigot, and I’m still going to fight them with every fibre of my being.

And if you tell me they’re going to fight to the last breath, they’re going to fight tooth and claw with every weapon they can muster, they’re going to fight until they die… I’ll just shrug and say: then they’ll die. Because I am not going to back down. I am not going to let the fascists win. I am not going to let the bigots win. And I have both history and the future on my side—a quick look back will show you that fascists don’t generally have a winning track record, and a look at the young people coming up will show you that things are looking a whole lot worse for fascists in years to come. So I will win, eventually. If they won’t surrender, if they’ll keep fighting to the death… 🤷🏾‍♀️. I don’t want to eradicate them (just their beliefs)… but if they won’t quit until they’re eradicated, well, I am never going to quit, so they’ll be eradicated.

But frankly, I think you’re massively over-estimating the commitment these people have to their stupidity. Oh, yes, I am well aware that they talk a good game about how they’re willing to put their lives on the line for their fascist beliefs. But… putting their talk aside… have you not been watching the way these douchebags actually behave? There are a handful of actual, serious warrior types among them, and then there are quite a few more prepper or gun-lover types who fancy themselves warriors (but are decidedly not, though still very dangerous)… but the vast majority of them are just incoherently angry racist losers. Don’t underestimate the power of sustained mockery to shame people in to backing away from conspiracy bullshit. Arguably the only reason most of the QAnon-related conspiracy crap has any real traction is because it had so much support (right-wing talk radio, right-wing internet “news”, and so on) for so long, and no-one really took it seriously enough to challenge it until way too late. If we really pressed people for their fascist, racist, and conspiracy beliefs, most people will back away from them (or at least shut up and hide them). Shame is a powerful (de)motivator. The fact that it’s so effective is why powerful assholes are so terrified of “cancel culture”.

Another thing to keep in mind is that fascism is generally a cult of personality. Fascists need a charismatic authoritarian to rally behind. You take that asshole out, and the fascists skitter back into the shadows, for a while at least. They’re all blowhards while they have a big man to hide behind… take that away so they’re exposed and vulnerable, and most will collapse into gibbering losers (just look at what’s happening now). Yes, another dictator will eventually rise, and the fascists will once again crawl out of their sewers in support, but that’s the nature of the game. The fight for rights and freedoms never ends.

Quote from: Fox Lokison on January 14, 2021, 05:17:24 PM
You talk about aiding and abetting, and again, you're right, it's not the same thing at all, but in their minds, BLM, antifascist movements, socialists, and just about anyone on the left these days is trying to utterly destroy America and American values.

So I get your point, but the flip side is the same situation. We, without a doubt, believe that the people who stormed the capital, and the politicians who enabled them, and the party who enabled those politicians, are an immediate threat to American society and the American people. And we'd stand behind that. But so will they, behind the belief that the left is the danger.

They feel exactly as strongly about this, and about their righteousness, as you do.

Again, I really don’t see what point you’re trying to make. Of course there are superficial similarities between my commitment to anti-fascism, and their commitment to fascism. But the fact that we’re both committed doesn’t make us equal in any sense. Honestly, it’s such an American thing to think that all sincerely-held beliefs are equal, as if the sincerity of a belief or the willingness to fight for it is the primary measure of a belief’s respectability.

The bottom line is: They’re wrong.

And no, I know you want to say “but they’ll say that about you, too”. Yes, they will… but they’ll still be wrong. And neither the sincerity nor the strength of their belief matters, nor does the fact that they’ll ape everything I say like a slow-witted kid playing the “copy” game in hopes that it’s just as effective when turned back on me. But this is not simply a game of two sides saying the other is wrong; one side literally is wrong, and the other is not. I know this will violently clash with the American way of thinking but: Reality matters.

Bill Gates is not putting microchips in COVID-19 vaccines to mark us for some eschatological purpose.

There is no cabal of Satan-worshipping leftists who rape children in secret, underground tunnels and then drink their adrenal secretions for eternal youth.

Donald Trump did not win the election.

And not only is it not unwise, strategically-unsound, or risky to take a stand for those facts—even in the face of die-hard believers—to not do so is foolish, cowardly, dangerous, and outright immoral.

America is in the mess it’s in right now because too few Americans have the strength to stand up to bullshit they know is wrong and evil, and it’s not all cowardice. So many are so economically and socially repressed by decades of backwards policies and crushing debt and no chance of escaping the cycle of poverty and failing health because they can’t afford basic health care and perpetual fear of terrorists and mass shootings and on and on… I can’t really blame them for feeling defeated and helpless. But this fight still has to be fought.

The two sides of this “debate” are not equal. I say the fascists are the immediate threat, the fascists say “the left” is the immediate threat… and they’re wrong. This is an objective fact, measured easily by the number of deaths on each side (or a dozen other different ways). How many people have “the left” beaten to death? Shot down at protests? Run down with their cars? These are not rhetorical questions. Reality matters. The fact that they refuse to acknowledge it means only that we are therefore justified in ignoring their opinions, and pushing ahead with what we know—due to our connection to reality—is correct. We don’t need to worry about the concerns of fascists and racists; we never really did. This is the big lie that centrist media and Democrats would have us believe—that we have some obligation to consider the concerns of fascists and racists—but we don’t. Fuck ’em. And fuck everyone who supports them. To hell with faux “civility”, let’s just call them what they are—fascists and racists—and let’s deal with them accordingly.
Saria is no longer on Elliquiy, and no longer available for games

Fox Lokison

I don't have a point there, Saria. They're just some observations from living in Trump country and being in the alt right. Personally, I agree with your sentiments, which is why I didnt offer a cohesive argument against them. Just what I've noticed, throughout my life, and how it might interact with your suggestion.

I dont think this thread is the place for me to espouse my beliefs on fascism in America, so I'll keep those to myself, lol.

By all means, let us deny fascists and traitors service. Let us go further than that. My family survived Nazi Germany by such a narrow margin, and we lost kin to the Nazi party. I have no problem repeating the stance of my ancestors and fighting fascism to my own demise.

My observation was simply about force of will and strongly held beliefs on the other side as well.
       

HannibalBarca

There is no absolute free speech.  Absolute freedom is small-a anarchy; i.e., where anyone can do anything they want, up to and including murder...but even calling that absolute freedom is contradictory.  If you have the absolute freedom to kill or steal, then the person you kill or still now has lost their absolute freedom to be alive and keep their own property.  There's a reason the Declaration of Independence listed Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness as inviolable rights of human beings (it didn't say these were only for U.S. citizens, by the way).

As for Republicans who didn't participate in the attempted insurrection at the Capitol, but continue to stand by Trump?  The English language has a perfect word for them:  collaborator.

Collaborator (noun):
1.  a person who works jointly on an activity or project; an associate.
2.  a person who cooperates traitorously with an enemy; a defector.


Following my syllogisms:

1. Trump has attempted to overthrow the rightful government of the United States (through claiming election fraud and inciting a riot and insurrection).
2.  Attempting to overthrow the lawful government of the Unites States is seditious.

Therefore, Trump is seditious and a traitor to the United States.

1.  Refusing to impeach and convict a known traitor President is aiding said President.
2.  Evidence is being revealed that multiple Republican Congresspeople and Senators (among other Trump supporters in government) knew of the Trump plot to incite an insurrection on January 6th.

Therefore, those Congresspeople and Senators who knew of the insurrection plans and refuse to impeach and convict Trump are collaborators at the least, and seditious traitors at most.


I could go further and state that those who elected and support Trump and his collaborators are willing participants in that collaboration and sedition, but much like the U.S. Civil War and World War 2, you can't round up tens of millions of citizens and throw them in prison for, at the least, standing by and doing nothing while their leaders tried to burn their nation and the world down.  You can, however, thoroughly ridicule, revile, and discredit both them and their aberrant worldview.
“Those who lack drama in their
lives strive to invent it.”   ― Terry Masters
"It is only when we place hurdles too high to jump
before our characters, that they learn how to fly."  --  Me
Owed/current posts
Sigs by Ritsu

Andol

Quote from: HannibalBarca on January 31, 2021, 02:32:02 PM
I could go further and state that those who elected and support Trump and his collaborators are willing participants in that collaboration and sedition, but much like the U.S. Civil War and World War 2, you can't round up tens of millions of citizens and throw them in prison for, at the least, standing by and doing nothing while their leaders tried to burn their nation and the world down.  You can, however, thoroughly ridicule, revile, and discredit both them and their aberrant worldview.

So let me get this straight... you are saying that those who voted for Trump, should be sent to a gulag because of their choice at the ballot box? I want to be clear on what your meaning is before I take it out of context?




Regina Minx

Quote from: Andol on February 01, 2021, 03:09:49 AM
So let me get this straight... you are saying that those who voted for Trump, should be sent to a gulag because of their choice at the ballot box? I want to be clear on what your meaning is before I take it out of context?

Perhaps you could start by not strawmanning HB. He literally said that those who supported Trump should be ridiculed, reviled, and discredited. It takes a special amount of willful misreading to go to "send them to gulag."

Fox Lokison

Quote from: Andol on February 01, 2021, 03:09:49 AM
So let me get this straight... you are saying that those who voted for Trump, should be sent to a gulag because of their choice at the ballot box? I want to be clear on what your meaning is before I take it out of context?

HB literally said "but much like the U.S. Civil War and World War 2, you can't round up tens of millions of citizens and throw them in prison for, at the least, standing by and doing nothing while their leaders tried to burn their nation and the world down."

This is definitely a special bit of willful misreading here, and not the first.
       

Andol

Quote from: Fox Lokison on February 01, 2021, 07:23:43 AM
HB literally said "but much like the U.S. Civil War and World War 2, you can't round up tens of millions of citizens and throw them in prison for, at the least, standing by and doing nothing while their leaders tried to burn their nation and the world down."

This is definitely a special bit of willful misreading here, and not the first.

Well again that is why I asked before trying to make a point, because when I read the whole thing that was all I could make out of it especially since the words "could go further and state that those who elected" were used... and at that point... is when the red flags went up and I didn't read the fine print of the 'and' that comes after. So it seemed like a support of doing things to people who simply voted for the former President.

I realize now after reading it more than once that the 'and' wasn't part of a list, but talking about people who did both things... which is how I misinterpreted.




HannibalBarca

Yeah...not only is it physically impossible to round up tens of millions of people, even in this modern age, but revolting to even consider on a psychological level.  The Nazis tried their damnedest to genocide the Jewish population of Europe out of existence, and they didn't succeed...and that was well over six million human beings they murdered, and they had years and years to attempt it.  Look at how miserably Trump failed at imprisoning hundreds of thousands of immigrants (legal or not) in less than four years.

This doesn't go to say that the Q fanatics and MAGA cultists shouldn't be punished--just not in a legal or governmental sense.  Instead, it should be in a sense of social shaming.  Social pressure can be very effective, when applied for long periods of time.  It won't change everyone's mind, but it can prevent a significant number from enacting some of their more violent and despicable tendencies.  What is imperative, however, is that those who oppose them actually speak up.  Staying silent in the face of evil is tacitly approving of that evil.
“Those who lack drama in their
lives strive to invent it.”   ― Terry Masters
"It is only when we place hurdles too high to jump
before our characters, that they learn how to fly."  --  Me
Owed/current posts
Sigs by Ritsu

Andol

Quote from: HannibalBarca on February 02, 2021, 02:49:35 PM
This doesn't go to say that the Q fanatics and MAGA cultists shouldn't be punished--just not in a legal or governmental sense.  Instead, it should be in a sense of social shaming.  Social pressure can be very effective, when applied for long periods of time.  It won't change everyone's mind, but it can prevent a significant number from enacting some of their more violent and despicable tendencies.  What is imperative, however, is that those who oppose them actually speak up.  Staying silent in the face of evil is tacitly approving of that evil.

I have to admit I have never understood the whole 'Staying silent in the face of evil is tacitly approving of that evil' concept. At face value I always took it, anywhere I heard something similar, as saying that someone is bad for not getting involved in a situation to stop it, despite the own ability to actually deal with it, though that is just a personal view point I guess.

Sorry if I sounded a bit confusing... I wasn't sure of a good way to word the question and hope I didn't come off in a bad way.




Fox Lokison

Quote from: Andol on February 02, 2021, 04:46:28 PM
Sorry if I sounded a bit confusing... I wasn't sure of a good way to word the question and hope I didn't come off in a bad way.

I would suggest, next time, a thorough reading, Andol. As "send them to a gulag" is not exactly, in any way, shape, or form, a good faith reading of what HB said, and the only thing it achieves is stirring conflict. Particularly inflammatory language such as that is only ever going to create problems, not ease communication.
       

Andol

Quote from: Fox Lokison on February 02, 2021, 05:21:27 PM
I would suggest, next time, a thorough reading, Andol. As "send them to a gulag" is not exactly, in any way, shape, or form, a good faith reading of what HB said, and the only thing it achieves is stirring conflict. Particularly inflammatory language such as that is only ever going to create problems, not ease communication.

True I could have used less inflammatory language and for that I am sorry. As I said before my mistake while reading it had to do with the context of how a single 'and' was used in if it was being used as a list of different things or the description of one thing. If that makes any sense.




Cydaea

I would say law has no place in policing belief and even most forms of speech; rather that's more the responsibility of a social fabric to denounce beliefs that are reprehensible short of actions. On the other hand I don't have a good answer for the power of speech; I have a very 'liberal' nature that people should be able to say what they think, but I acknowledge the danger of allowing certain things to be peddled that would result in loss of liberty if they became popular, especially if those things are presented by someone in a position of power and can influence audiences simply by thinking and not requiring logic. As much as I think it says as much about the gullible to fall for senselessness, I have to concede it's easier to address at the problem causer than the people who end up believing it when it is too late for someone's reputation in a false claim or when the belief has enough traction to become reality and an oppression of its own. Social pushback can be wrong and what it does right can erode, leading to the problem when a population is more sensitive to extreme answers.

There isn't and never will be an easy answer to these things.
e!