Trump

[Skism]

You posted a video of a bunch of people chanting blood and soil Charlottesville- but remember what they where protesting? The removal of Confederate monuments I believe

You evidently haven't seen this video. Whatever else you care to take from that video, I think it's pretty clear that the march was at best using that statue as an excuse for the gathering - it was not the focus of their protest. I think I only ever heard it referred to once. Oh, and I challenge you to interpret "Jews will not replace us" as anything but racist.

Remember the left has made it so if you disagree with them you are an evil racist so people have migrated to the extreme:

I'm not a fan of the current hyperpartisan extreme left/extreme right "anything you do I can do better" attitudes, but seriously, don't try to argue that the extreme left is the cause of the extreme right - far right activism has been around in the US for a very long time. Far left? Nowhere near so long. Regardless, I will not defend the actions and attitudes of either of them, if it comes to violence or hate speech. And both are culpable there. Incidentally, when it comes to Charlottesville, while I can understand why some felt both sides were to blame, and my preference would have been to just let the "statue" protesters blow off some steam in a vacuum without the satisfaction of the reaction that it seems to me they were both hoping for and expecting, Trump needed to criticise them and only them in no uncertain terms - they were the only ones preaching hatred and bigotry there, and that is a surefire way to violence, regardless of who might have actually started it.

Now the right has always felt pretty marginalized in recent times but thats another whole several levels

Ha ha ha ha. Haaaaahahahaha. Oh, man that's a ripper. The right has felt marginalised recently? Seriously? You're a resident of the UK, right? How many years of Tory (right wing, conservative) government have you had, in recent times? I'd argue that the US paranoia of anything smacking of socialism means that the US have not had anything like a leftist government in pretty much forever. There are exactly two governments in developed nations that I'm aware of that could be described as perhaps leftist, and that's in Canada and New Zealand (Canada was the only one until a couple of weeks ago.) There has been a notable shift to the right in all policy in most governments, from austerity measures to immigration restriction. Brexit. Trump. If anything the shift just becomes faster. God, I could write a book about it.

I assure you. If you think the right have felt marginalised in recent times, the left have felt marginalised for a hell of a lot longer.

Nope. I will stand by what I posted. The 1st Amendment applies to every person and every group. It's all or nothing.

I'll agree with you that it does. However, as RM has posted, the first amendment is not a "I can express anything I want, and there's nothing you can do about it" clause. And there will be groups, like the KKK, for whom the first amendment doesn't give them a license to speak. And that's not a breach of the first amendment.

First, I think you misunderstood the way the race in the US work. Sander was knocked out during the primary, and the electorate has little to do with it. He did get a lot of support from the Democratic base, and at one point considered to be a threat to Hilary, the Democrat leadership torpedo his candidacy hardcore to maintain this 'veil of unity' within the party. Backfired quite spectacularly.

I've got a pretty good handle on how your elections work, thanks. I've been watching them long enough now. I was talking about Sanders' support before he was knocked out. He had plenty, witness the Clinton campaign concern about him, and if working class America knew what was best for them, he would have had more, and Trump would have had less.

Secondly, this is America talking about here, and we are a lot less open to socialism than say ... Europe. I am not saying that he is, but Sander looks like a communist in the eyes of quite a few American. In fact, the second reason the Democrat toperdo his candidacy beside the first being they want to have "the first woman" ticket was because they believe he's too far to the left to be marketable to the general electorate. We want change sure, but it's about 50-100 years too early for us to want someone like him.

Yes, I'm also familiar with The US' paranoia (lets call it what it is) about socialism. But a little more worldly knowledge on the part of those Americans would allow them to see that socialism =/= communism, and that taking some socialist policies is not going to slide them into some sort of communistic hell on earth.

Thirdly, and this is the reason why people like me do not support Sander here: his promise is nice, in fact, too nice that it sounds empty and hollow because when you sit down and think, you know it is little more than fantasy. For example his promise for "free education". I have no problem with free education, if we have it it would be mint, but I also know any candidate who promise free education is either lying through their teeth, or delusional or devoid of reality, none is a good trait for a president. It may sound pleasant to the ear, but Sander's campaign message for me sound little different than the false paradise promise by Communism.

Now that's sad, because I've benefited from free education. I assure you that it is actually possible to have a government which provides it. Unfortunately, my country has since dispensed with that, in the US driven neo-liberal "everything must run as a business" ideology. Bah.

I think the simplest and most direct way I can answer you is this:

Have you seen the film 5th element?

In it there is a dark planetoid that represents evil, they try firing at it to try to destroy it.

But it does not work everything they fire is absorbed and it makes it grow larger

And it is the priest who says you cannot destroy evil with evil

all you can do is develop the opposite principle.

Fighting fascists with antifascists just results in them becoming the new fascists,

Censoring racists does not work - they will find the flaw and make it their own.

Why do you think Gandalf did not take the ring?

Because then he would be the new Sauron

Free speech restrictions don't work you just become the new dictatorship slowly and by entropy.

[felter]

Free speech restrictions don't work you just become the new dictatorship slowly and by entropy.

This one single line just shows you have no idea what you are talking about. I stay in Scotland, which is part of the UK, we are not and are no where near becoming a dictatorship. Yet we have free speech restrictions and they work as in hate groups get banned all the time, and people are jailed for things they say.

This is a German forum and has already been pointed out earlier in this thread we have have to abide by restrictions that Germany have in certain speech and they also are not becoming a dictatorship and they have had these restrictions in place for a very long time.

You need to go and do some research on this subject before going any further. Especially as you are using a foreign forum that has free speech restrictions that you also have to abide by just like the rest of us.

[eladan]

One thing people should note that by its nature, a law like Freedom of Speech is always controversial. Think about it, if we live in a perfect world where everyone agree with each others then Freedom of speech would be redundant. Put it this way: it's the type of law that is meant to piss someone off, because it grants other the right of saying things you don't like.

I'm fine with someone pissing me off. And if that's as far as it goes, any speech like that I'm perfectly comfortable defending. But it seems clear to me that there is a line that cannot be crossed, even in the US. Consider someone standing on a soapbox telling anyone who cared to listen to kill all <x>. I doubt that will be given a pass by the judiciary.

I agree that freedom of speech is something worth fighting for, and I'm particularly uncomfortable that it isn't enshrined in our constitution (nor any sort of bill of rights type of document, for that matter) but there is a point where it becomes counterproductive to defend it. The trick is determining where that point is, and defending against any movement to restrict speech on this side of it.

Most democracies are doing quite alright without a US style first amendment no restrictions at all on any speech, instead believing as I stated above that there is a line that shouldn't be crossed.

[BugMeister]

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/230160 ... being-with

- I reckon..

[Masterbagger]

Free speech restrictions don't work you just become the new dictatorship slowly and by entropy.

This one single line just shows you have no idea what you are talking about. I stay in Scotland, which is part of the UK, we are not and are no where near becoming a dictatorship. Yet we have free speech restrictions and they work as in hate groups get banned all the time, and people are jailed for things they say.

This is a German forum and has already been pointed out earlier in this thread we have have to abide by restrictions that Germany have in certain speech and they also are not becoming a dictatorship and they have had these restrictions in place for a very long time.

You need to go and do some research on this subject before going any further. Especially as you are using a foreign forum that has free speech restrictions that you also have to abide by just like the rest of us.

Maybe Germany is not the best example for why governments can be trusted to censor speech.

[Usenko]

Maybe Germany is not the best example for why governments can be trusted to censor speech.

I dunno, one fascist dictatorship and people just won't forgive you.

Seriously? The current German government system has been stable since 1946. They're not exactly on the brink of collapse like the Weimar republic was. In fact, the very reverse - it's now a vibrant, active democracy.

[BugMeister]

- you are not free to rewrite history..
- lying is not justifiable simply on the grounds that you feel you are free to do so..

[Ketraar]

Maybe Germany is not the best example for why governments can be trusted to censor speech.

So you are suggesting that we should keep refering to the past when assessing countries, or is it just portion of it? If the later only convenient bits or any parts and who defines which parts are relevant?

As an example, would assassinating an elected President of another country count as something to take into account when defining which countries should be looked at for democracy standards?

MFG

Ketraar

[Masterbagger]

Maybe Germany is not the best example for why governments can be trusted to censor speech.

So you are suggesting that we should keep refering to the past when assessing countries, or is it just portion of it? If the later only convenient bits or any parts and who defines which parts are relevant?

As an example, would assassinating an elected President of another country count as something to take into account when defining which countries should be looked at for democracy standards?

MFG

Ketraar

We've got people clubbing each other with sticks over statues of men who died in our civil war. Everything that was in the past can be dug up and used again if enough suckers can have their hurt feelings manipulated.

[Ketraar]

You are, as per usual, cherry picking stuff out of context and applying double standard to them in a desperate attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

Germany IS the best example about free speech EXACTLY due to their past. In the sense that, DESPITE their history they managed to shape their society to uphold standards that go against it.

Your country seems stuck in a loop of social issues and has yet to find a way to move past them. Be it racial, social or gender related, the US makes a whole lot of noise about how things should be ELSEWHERE in the world, but has a hard time looking in the mirror.

You can try justifying being a racist, bigot, or any other socially condemned attribute you like, but the reality is, you cant. Societies as a whole define what is acceptable and what is not and YOUR country was among the first to set those standards, it just made them without informing the/some people, which is why you still have debates about climate change, wasting everyone's time in the process.

You can have all the free speech you want, but it wont exclude you being called out on your bs.

MFG

Ketraar

[Skism]

Maybe Germany is not the best example for why governments can be trusted to censor speech.

I dunno, one fascist dictatorship and people just won't forgive you.

Seriously? The current German government system has been stable since 1946. They're not exactly on the brink of collapse like the Weimar republic was. In fact, the very reverse - it's now a vibrant, active democracy.

They at least 2 major problems that I can see the first is the Migrant crisis:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/20/germa ... migration/

Which caused a whole bunch of problems but their legal system simply cannot cope seems to be the primary one.

The second problem is The AFD

(wiki page)

the AFD is has supporters and members who have extreme nationalist and antisemitic tendencies as well as Neo nazism

Björn Höcke, one of the founders of AfD,[134][135][136][137] gave a speech in Dresden in January 2017, in which, referring to the Holocaust memorial in Berlin, he stated that "we Germans are the only people in the world who have planted a memorial of shame in the heart of their capital"[138] and suggested that Germans "need to make a 180 degree change in their politics of commemoration."[139]

There are also people in the AFD who call the holocaust the 'cult of shame' cant find the quote right now

So you see the AFD has a nazi problem

they have right now 94 seats of 701 in the German government

to compare 650/7.4 = 88 Rounded

The British parliament has 650 Minsters for parliament. so in order for comparison it would need to have 88 seats occupied by a group that had significant ties to Narzism


I mean it is the equivalent of the BNP (British National party) getting 88 seats which is a scenario that has never happened or even for that matter been a real possibility. They had ONE seat at their height!

Part of the problem is that they can't criticize immigration easily from what I can see - meaning you end up with conservatives mixed with Nazis


And by the way the idea that Trump or the conservative party of Britain is a fascist by comparison is ridiculous

In the USA and Britain you simply don't get this problem to anything like the same level

And I personally suspect censorship is part
of it: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/dat ... mmigration

This article claimed Germany had less of a problem with Immigration than Britain

but then three years later AFD who are primarily an anti Immigration party comes to a significant chunk of power - might I suggest there is under reporting going on there?

[Skism]

You are, as per usual, cherry picking stuff out of context and applying double standard to them in a desperate attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

Germany IS the best example about free speech EXACTLY due to their past. In the sense that, DESPITE their history they managed to shape their society to uphold standards that go against it.

Your country seems stuck in a loop of social issues and has yet to find a way to move past them. Be it racial, social or gender related, the US makes a whole lot of noise about how things should be ELSEWHERE in the world, but has a hard time looking in the mirror.

You can try justifying being a racist, bigot, or any other socially condemned attribute you like, but the reality is, you cant. Societies as a whole define what is acceptable and what is not and YOUR country was among the first to set those standards, it just made them without informing the/some people, which is why you still have debates about climate change, wasting everyone's time in the process.

You can have all the free speech you want, but it wont exclude you being called out on your bs.

MFG

Ketraar

See my previous post for an answer to your first assertion

Also I do not see how calling people "racist bigot or any other socially acceptable attribute you like" is contributing to the discussion as is calling Masterbagger's posts 'bs'

Especially since you are a mod.

[The Q]

I think this is the perfect time for a reminder of what free speech means:


https://xkcd.com/1357/

[Ketraar]

Especially since you are a mod.

Are you attempting to limit my freedom of speech?

The irony is strong with this one... thanks for proving my point.

I'm not really surprised though and knew this would not lead anywhere, but I had to give it a try, just for the sake of it.

MFG

Ketraar

[RegisterMe]

https://xkcd.com/1357/

Worth repeating, many, many, many times.

[Nanook]

One other thing worth repeating: let's not let this discussion get personal or there will be consequences. 'Free Speech' on this forum does not include getting personal with other posters. Keep it civil or don't post.

[Skism]

Especially since you are a mod.

Are you attempting to limit my freedom of speech?

The irony is strong with this one... thanks for proving my point.

I'm not really surprised though and knew this would not lead anywhere, but I had to give it a try, just for the sake of it.

MFG

Ketraar

WARNING ALCOHOL FUELED


Well you were pretty much insulting another forum poster with not just part of your post ....but all of it normally you just get side comments alongside what may or may not have been a legitimate post.

You know rule 1 and all that....

I also noticed you made no attempt to answer that stats and links I posted eariler....

One other thing worth repeating: let's not let this discussion get personal or there will be consequences. 'Free Speech' on this forum does not include getting personal with other posters. Keep it civil or don't post.

quite.

Anyway change of subject....

Ill try and pick a reply to me I missed to me that is not TOO inflammatory that may be quite difficult give me a MINUTE

Least offensive reply to me found (that was arguing against me at least)

A quick check and here's what I found out, for starters those marches had nothing to do with the antifa group, they were being organised by a group called Refuse Fascism. This leads me to believing that the post you linked to is a fake news story, another reason I came to this conclusion was who was making the claim, as Trumpers and fascists are not known for telling the Truth.There is no link to the story anywhere apart from there or any place that has not taken the story from there or some other nefarious outlet of scumyness. The statement is also trying to make out that these protests were supposed to be violent, while Refuse Fascism organise no-violent protests.

I'm unclear exactly what this disagreement is about, I mean Skism's original post is a very obvious fake right? I assumed it was meant as a joke.
Whilst that one was extremely obvious and arguably quite funny, there is a much broader movement of people opposed to Antifa's ideology making vast amounts of fake material in order to construct their strawmen.
Seriously there are multiple snopes like websites solely dedicated to outing this stuff.

They have been protesting against Donald Trump (I mean seriously have you not heard their previous slogans "No Trump no KKK no Fascist USA" ) which is complete nonsense but thats bye the bye

What about that is complete nonsense exactly?
- Trump, the KKK and fascism are all perfectly valid things to be opposed to.
- They all also undeniably exist in the USA.
- They are also all explicitly linked to one another, unidirectionally at least. Both the KKK and various other US based (self-defined) fascist groups have openly expressed their support for both Trump himself and his stance on immigration. In the other direction Mr Trump has not openly supported these groups but has been repeatedly extremely slow to condemn them.

The only part of that statement that could perhaps be interpreted as "nonsense" is that the USA is (or is likely to become) a fascist state. If that is your objection then I'd suggest you misunderstand Antifa's position, which is entirely positioned around the idea that the rise of a Fascist state is best prevented long LONG before it takes control. That is is best fought at the stage when it's all just as a few nutters marching around waving flags. . . . . . in other words the stage you might be at right now.

The below is a quote from Hitler (its authenticity is disputed however, it's thought to have been said off the record) that Antifa often take as defining their position:

"Only one thing could have stopped our movement - if our adversaries had understood its principle from the first day and smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement."

Well Im glad you have a sense of humor that does not involve having other posters banned that engender me to at least respect you,

However I do not believe that the original post from Citizens for Trump is fake - I posted reasons for that waaaay back not finding it right now.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/07/an ... e-dud.html

On Wednesday, the one year anniversary of Trump’s election victory, Refuse Fascism is planning to collectively “scream at the sky helplessly.”

Right then Slogan "No TRUMP NO KKK NO FASCIST USA!"

Its completely false in every sense.

To top it all the KKK is not Fascist and was not at the time of major operation, The USA was and is a Democracy and the KKK operated in the USA

Racism=/ Fascism Fascism/= to Racism

It is and was most certainly Racist it is (It WAS largely defunct but has now been brought back from the brink...)

Trump is not a member of the KKK so thats not synonymous

Trump is not a fascist so the no 'fascist USA is false'

And lastly Trump was democratically elected - you are not getting rid of him!

At this rate he will be reelected in 2020 or another right wing candidate who he supports will.

You quoted Adolf Hitler and how he should have been stopped earlier.

So I will quote Winston Churchill or Huey Long

When Fascism comes to America, it will (be in the name of/come under the guise of/be called) anti-Fascism!"

"The Fascists of the future will be anti-Fascists"

[Ketraar]

Well you were pretty much insulting another forum poster with not just part of your post ....but all of it normally you just get side comments alongside what may or may not have been a legitimate post.

Well I was not, if you care to re-read it, but I understand why you would think I was. Its called projection.

See I merely tried to make a point about how you cant have a double standard when.. well never frankly. Yes I sneaked in some salt in the attempt to catch an irony filled reply, such as yours, where people are willing to find excuses about how they demand that people are allowed to say pretty much anything, regardless of other peoples feelings, but then resort to point at rules and standards when their comfort zones or lack of argumentation is challenged. See I think you should practice what you preach, and recall that it always can go both ways.

I know you wont make much of this and will keep on keeping on, nevertheless it was a good, and frankly rather clever, attempt to trigger some reflection. I a hopeless optimist, oh well...

MFG

Ketraar

PS.: No Alcohol was harmed to produce this post. #alcoholhasfeelingstoo

[eladan]

Right then Slogan "No TRUMP NO KKK NO FASCIST USA!"

Its completely false in every sense.

To top it all the KKK is not Fascist and was not at the time of major operation, The USA was and is a Democracy and the KKK operated in the USA

Completely false? No. I'll agree that neither Trump nor KKK currently meet the definition of fascist, but there are warning signs there for all to see, and it is to address those warning signs that people are protesting.

Racism=/ Fascism Fascism/= to Racism

Correct, but racism is one of those warning signs I mentioned.

Trump is not a member of the KKK so thats not synonymous

Those protests aren't claiming that Trump is part of the KKK. It is claiming that both share elements which are fascist in nature.

So I will quote Winston Churchill or Huey Long

When Fascism comes to America, it will (be in the name of/come under the guise of/be called) anti-Fascism!"

"The Fascists of the future will be anti-Fascists"

Those are nice quotes, but they have little substance to back them. Read up a bit about Fascism. Fascism is typically defined as:

- far right (check, for both Trump and KKK and those who support either.)
- nationalistic (check, MAGA, border wall, anti immigration)
- populist (check)
- authoritarian (check)

I can almost hear the protest about that last one, but again, the warning signs are there. Trump's disdain for and attacks on, well, pretty much anyone who disagrees with him on anything, but particularly the media and the judiciary, which are extremely important institutions for holding governments to account in a democracy. You simply can't do that in a democracy without damaging it.

:EDIT: Incidentally, since you made a point about the US being a democracy, I'll risk Godwining the discussion by pointing out that Germany was a democracy before Hitler came to power.

[Mightysword]

I agree that freedom of speech is something worth fighting for, and I'm particularly uncomfortable that it isn't enshrined in our constitution (nor any sort of bill of rights type of document, for that matter) .

It's good that you understand it, but I have a feeling you are underestimating the difference that little detail make. If it is a privilege granted by the law, then it's easy for the law to take it away. For example, driving a car on the road is a privilege that you need to get a license for, screw up and either you don't get a license, or have it taken away, can't cry about it. But if it is not something granted by the law, then the law can not take it away.

The difference I'm referring to here is the freedom of speech is something enshrined in the constitution. Meaning it's considered to be a god-given right (the American's favorite way of saying it), and not one granted by the government. That's enough to be a big deal itself, but after living here for a while I realize that it's actually a much bigger deal than most people realize. In fact, I dare say unless you're an American, you probably will not realize the impact of the US's constitution.

It is a young nation. Most modern nations can trace back to the original founding much longer than that. On one hand, it means most have a richer and deeper culture, but on the other hand I don't think their point of origin is of any relevant in term of governance. Most have go through the up and down, have seen revolutions, have seen and go through different type of government, have seen different constitutions teared up and rewritten. How many countries can cite who were their founding fathers, and what was the original vision of the countries. Comparing that to America, 241 years may be a short time for a nation's history, but if you count the fact that it's also 241 years of continuity, it's ... rather impressive? It was formed as a Republic, and still is a Republic, and the current constitution is the first and only. What's more, because it's not that long, the "founding fathers" figures are still extremely relevant and not just a bulletin point in history, meaning the nations as a whole still hold them in great reverence, and the constitution is considered their vision of the nation. IMO it's better to treat the US's constitution as something equivalent of a Bibble or God Commandants rather than just a piece of written law, it has a sense of authenticity that I dare say no longer exist in most other nation's constitutions. And no, I'm not a religious person so that's just a figure of speech (inb4 someone make a side comment about how religion is bad )

tl;dr: it's hard as hell to get something enshrined in the constitution changed, many had tried, just as many had failed. That's the impression I have anyway, can just be talking right out of my arse though.