I can agree up to point. The problem comes when we have to define what crosses the line. Its the primary problem I have with concepts like "hate speech" or "punching Nazis" is who defines those terms? Obviously, if a person says they want genocide, its a bit more clear cut. However, I've been accused of racism and promoting hate speech before for simply for raising criticism of BLM conduct during their riots in Missouri. Just this week, I made a comment that I disagree with political violence on both the left and right, and I was called a "Nazi sympathizer." Do I deserve to be silenced for dissenting opinion because someone attaches an inaccurate label to me? I am certainly no Nazi, and I'm not interested in anyone whom promotes ethnic states, but yet I was thrown into that pool because someone didn't like my opinion. Does a guy with a confederate flag shirt deserve to be punched? Does a guy flying a Blue Lives Matter flag deserve to have his home vandalized? Does a woman in a MAGA hat deserve to be assaulted? I'm generally libertarian, so don't agree with any of the ideas those symbols are associated with, but I don't want to see the people confronted by violent groups. And I definitely don't ever want their speech to be a prosecutable offense, which will be the ultimate goal of anti- free speech protests. If it just ended at shouting down offensive ideas, that is perfectly fine and acceptable, because every freedom comes with consequences, but that is not where this is going to end. We already know where this goes based on European and Canadian laws that are on the books. My biggest concerns in any political situation is violence and expansion of government authority, and we are headed towards both at an alarming rate.
His quote isn't even accurate. There is no obligation by anyone to even acknowledge other beliefs. I am perfectly within my rights to ignore people if I choose. The question here is are we required to tolerate beliefs or not. Do people have a right to shitty opinions or do shitty opinions warrant a physical response? Who decides which opinions are shitty enough?
The answer is of course no. Violence is not the answer. But that being said, I don't feel the least bit bad for people like this. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. I also suspect that people who do this kind of stuff usually do it to provoke a negative response. Then they try to act like victims when it happens. Which goes back to what I said about fighting words not being protected by the First Amendment.
Also, fun sort of related story. My grandfather liked keeping trophies from the Nazis he killed in WW2. His platoon killed some Nazi officers during the Battle of the Bulge, so he had a large silk headquarters swastika flag. Years later, when my uncles were small children, it was the Fourth of July and people in the community had flags out. My uncles found the flag in the attic and were too young to know what the swastika meant, so they hung it out front of their house. My grandfather saw what they had done and immediately took the flag down, poured gasoline on it, and set it on fire. He regretted destroying something of historical value, but also knew people would be angry and probably throw stuff at their house if they saw it. In the 1950s in rural Vermont it wasn't socially acceptable to be a Nazi or have Nazi shit on display. You'd get your ass kicked for it. Why do people think it's acceptable now?
In the 1950s, they would also beat your ass for being gay or black. Social conformity by force is not without its consequences either. Its not just the bad groups that get hurt, but also the out groups. I think there is a compromise somewhere in the middle of the two positions. I am in no way opposing people protesting and speaking out against white supremacist groups. My problem comes once people start using violence pre-emptively. On top of it all, I find communism just as offensive. In the 1950s, they would also beat your ass for being a commie as well. When the protesters are flying USSR flags, its lose-lose for everyone and I want no part of it. Its beyond me how communism has been passed off as socially acceptable and as a legitimate solution to any sort of problem other than "how to starve and kill millions of your fellow citizens." Both sides of these rallies are just the most awful groups in politics. One group thinks they are entitled to my blood, the other thinks they are entitled to my labor. Fuck all of them. Here is a truce. We get to punch Nazis and Commies. I justify it as self defense against collective ideologies.
The real world is about nuance. People support BLM because the end goal as agreeable. Peaceful neo-nazis with a permit are not as palatable. Should they be violently attacked? No. Is it an unexpected outcome? No. The alt-right needs to mind its surroundings and not whine about safe spaces while playing the victim. I thought 2016 was meant to put an end to the PC pussification of America. In the end it always boils down to: Life's not fair. Any argument on that expectation is flawed.
This is precisely the issue. People are operating on the assumption that the end goal justifies the means to get to it. It's easy to disagree with neo-Nazis because their means and goal are awful. It's much harder to express dissent from social justice groups, because we all want the same end goal, but the problem is the methodology is having the opposite affect. Acknowledging that failure brands you as against the cause, which is counter productive. I fully attribute the new rise of white nationalist movements as a mirror result of the methodology of social justice. When you fight prejudice with prejudice, you are only fanning the flames.
Nazis using social justice tactics to play the victim has got to be one of the more ridiculous things that I've seen.
Trump has blown through the budget for the Secret Service with his constant travel and large family: http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/21/politics/secret-service-donald-trump-family/index.html
Paul Manafort, long time Trump associate, Trump's presidential campaign manager, and lawyer for Trump's real estate dealings in the 1980s has been federally indicted. Still think Trump isn't going down? Manafort, Flynn, Stone, and Page are all compromised and are all closely tied to Trump either politically, financially, or both. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/politics/paul-manafort-indicted.html
Trump campaign aide pleads GUILTY to lying to the FBI about connections with Russia during Trump campaign. Yep...so much nothing happening. http://www.latimes.com/politics/was...ampaign-aide-george-1509374196-htmlstory.html
Yeah, but what are they going to get Trump on? Why won't he just pardon these people? If you're expecting a resignation due to public embarrassment, you're counting on the wrong guy lol.
No one other than hysterical MSNBC watching ultraliberals knows or cares about any of this dude. This is the left's version of Benghazi.
Papadapolous was previously confirmed in 2016 by Trump's own official spokesperson and Trump himself as one of the Trump campaign's primary foreign policy advisors. Now he's plead guilty of lying to the FBI about when he was actually in contact with Russia, which means it happened during Trump's campaign. He's probably one of the main keys to proving that Trump's campaign was colluding with a foreign power. The plea means that he's telling all to the FBI for a reduced sentence. So, really, this probably means Mueller already knows how to prove collusion. That's why they released it at the same time Trump is desperately tweeting NO COLLUSION.
Probably money laundering in real estate, among other things. That's what people don't get: Trump isn't off the hook even if he resigned the presidency. Plus, people other than Trump can be charged by NY too, which means pardons are off the table. That only applies to federal cases.