Nationalists call for ethnic purity at polish demonstration

[Klingsor]

Pay attention. I've clearly been laying the blame on those who initiate violence.

What about those who incite violence?

 

[malakos]

What about those who incite violence?

What about them? The SCOTUS has ruled that incitement to violence is not speech that is protected under the First Amendment. But mere offensive speech or "hate speech" cannot be qualified as incitement to violence.

 

[Klingsor]

What about them? The SCOTUS has ruled that incitement to violence is not speech that is protected under the First Amendment. But mere offensive speech or "hate speech" cannot be qualified as incitement to violence.

Legally, perhaps not. Practically, it's not that clear-cut.

 

[malakos]

Legally, perhaps not. Practically, it's not that clear-cut.

How do you mean?

 

[Klingsor]

How do you mean?

If I'm constantly spewing hateful rhetoric against a particular group, it should come as no surprise when others take my words as inspiration for their violent attacks. What else did I expect?

 

[malakos]

If I'm constantly spewing hateful rhetoric against a particular group, it should come as no surprise when others take my words as inspiration for their violent attacks. What else did I expect?

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. But that may or may not have been the intention of the individual or group spewing the rhetoric. Either way, it would be very difficult to make a case that that individual/group had intended to stir up violence if they never actually used any expressions suggesting it.

 

[Klingsor]

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. But that may or may not have been the intention of the individual or group spewing the rhetoric. Either way, it would be very difficult to make a case that that individual/group had intended to stir up violence if they never actually used any expressions suggesting it.

Yes, there's necessarily a high legal standard of proof--such that people can still do some pretty nefarious and harmful things without being convicted of a crime.

 

[phonehome]

Or if certain group "tells you ahead of time" that if you say or do a certain thing that they will not take kindly to it and you say fuck it and say/do what ever and are then all shocked that "they" did not like it and demonstrated that they did not.

Sort of like like if black people tell white people that if you show up in someplace like Harlem spewing the n word you are likley to get your ass beat or worse and you go ahead and do just that and are all surprised that you got your ass beat.

All during 2016 one of the constant themes we heard from the Trumpeteer's about why they liked him was some version of "he says those things we think but can not say" IE "it's not "politically correct" " things which they DID start to say after the election and if called on it those people started to say "well the President says those same things" IE "it's Ok now"

 

[malakos]

Or if certain group "tells you ahead of time" that if you say or do a certain thing that they will not take kindly to it and you say fuck it and say/do what ever and are then all shocked that "they" did not like it and demonstrated that they did not.

Sort of like like if black people tell white people that if you show up in someplace like Harlem spewing the n word you are likley to get your ass beat or worse and you go ahead and do just that and are all surprised that you got your ass beat.

I wouldn't be surprised. There's a nuance that we hadn't gotten to yet. Barring real threats of violence, I always lay the blame on those who initiate the violence. Blame is who is at moral fault, i.e. who acted against the way one is permitted to act. Responsibility, however, is more a matter of acting in a prudent and wise manner. Every person bears responsibility as such, and that expands beyond what is moral out to the bounds of what is practical and effective. If, for example, one went into the Islamic heart of Dearborn, Michigan and started yelling "Muhammad was a dirty goat f***er!", and subsequently got beat up, a piece of my reaction would be "you were asking for it dummy". But another part of my mind would know that such a reaction is never justified, no matter the offense content, if there is no threat of violence contained therein. In that sense, the one dishonoring Muhammad was partly responsible for what happened to him, but the only party to blame for it would be those who beat him up.

All during 2016 one of the constant themes we heard from the Trumpeteer's about why they liked him was some version of "he says those things we think but can not say" IE "it's not "politically correct" " things which they DID start to say after the election and if called on it those people started to say "well the President says those same things" IE "it's Ok now"

The thing was that it always was OK, on one level. On the level of promoting a culture of free speech, which we should because our Founders did even to the extent of an explicit protection in the Constitution, it should always be acceptable (politically) to utter offensive and even hateful speech, and good citizens should be trained to not be triggered by what does not truly threaten them.

Albeit, this is a different consideration from what is moral to say. If I were to start publicly preaching that the role of children is to serve the designs of their families and that therefore we should repeal child labor laws, I think we can agree that that would be an immoral position for me to take and promote. However, politically it would be acceptable for me to do this, and no one would have a right to intervene against my promotion of my point of view.

People who appreciated the PC breaking aspect of the Trump campaign were not suggesting that being unPC was formerly not OK and that Mr. Trump has made it OK again. What they were suggesting was that it was OK all along to buck political correctness, but that they had been culturally shamed, and in some cases obstructed by sub-governmental organizations in society, out of being allowed to be open about their views and speech. The truth is that the Left was winning the Culture Wars (maybe they still are, it's hard to tell at this point) for the past few decades and one of their agenda pieces they were pushing was the suppression of offensive speech. The "Trumpeteers" were right about the breaking of political correctness being a good thing, because it means we can return to a foundation on free speech and the First Amendment; we were in danger of going the way of much of the rest of the West where "hate speech" is to some extent banned.

 

[ronin001]

Or if certain group "tells you ahead of time" that if you say or do a certain thing that they will not take kindly to it and you say fuck it and say/do what ever and are then all shocked that "they" did not like it and demonstrated that they did not.

Sort of like like if black people tell white people that if you show up in someplace like Harlem spewing the n word you are likley to get your ass beat or worse and you go ahead and do just that and are all surprised that you got your ass beat.

All during 2016 one of the constant themes we heard from the Trumpeteer's about why they liked him was some version of "he says those things we think but can not say" IE "it's not "politically correct" " things which they DID start to say after the election and if called on it those people started to say "well the President says those same things" IE "it's Ok now"

Have you been to Harlem or the upper West Side on Manhattan lately ? You can walk / drive for for blocks and practically never see a person of color . If you count college kids and yuppies, Mid western relocates as one demographic, them make up about 30% of the population and steadily grow with each year.

 

[phonehome]

No I have not

I was just giving an example of what was/is someplace thought of as for lack of better term "a black neighborhood" by most people.

I guess i could have said "Detroit"

Think of that scene early on in "diehard with a vengence" where McClain gets left on the street across from Sam Jackson's fixit shop.

Some Roy Moore type goes to that type of environment and starts spewing the N word and then is all surprised when he gets his ass beat or worse.

 

[Tight_N_Juicy]

@malakos.. the recent school shooting here in NM would be a perfect example of someone who was using hate speech, then acted on the words he kept spewing from his mouth/typed with his fingers.

Just because some people use the term in a way you don't find valid doesn't mean hate speech doesn't exist/has no real meaning.

 

[ActionBuddy]

Oops... I was hoping this thread was about Polish exhibitionists, and their sausages.

 

[Klingsor]

Oops... I was hoping this thread was about Polish exhibitionists, and their sausages.

It still can be.