Man calling for “peaceful ethnic cleansing” gets attacked

[Wells]

But it's not. You were the one who drew the line in the sand. Why do you get to make the rule? Couldn't someone else draw a different line? If you support people taking matters into their own hands, what stops someone else from attacking you, or for that matter, my family on the street because of perceived injustice?

If those nazis gain power, you have paved their way to do the same to you. Are you okay with that?




Personally, if I felt this guy belonged to a dangerous group and I sincerely thought that he might do something to encourage that ethnic cleansing or become the next Dylan Roof and wasn't just shooting his mouth off, I would be making sure that https://tips.fbi.gov/ his group was thoroughly investigated and shut down for good, hopefully with lengthy prison sentences.

Punching people like that just supports the notion that other people can do the same to you, and it certainly isn't going to stop domestic or foreign terrorism.

Just so we're clear here, you're trying to draw a moral equivalence between "ethnic cleansing is good" and "ethnic cleansing should be fought".

[Exeris]

Just so we're clear here, you're trying to draw a moral equivalence between "ethnic cleansing is good" and "ethnic cleansing should be fought".

I'm not sure but I read it as don't take the law in your own hands, we aren't qualified to. And he shows some concern with the issues that follows it I think.

[gyrados]

im confused peaceful ethnic cleansing dafuq?

[The Casualty]

Just so we're clear here, you're trying to draw a moral equivalence between "ethnic cleansing is good" and "ethnic cleansing should be fought".

No. I am saying that if you open the floodgate for people to enact their own version of street justice, I can't get behind it because everyone has their own version of what is acceptable and I don't like where that leads.

If you are okay with hitting him for his words, it stands to reason that you must be okay for him and others to do the same to you for your words.

You go on and on about "due process" in many of your previous posts in other threads, but you make an exception here. Why?

Laws get thrown out the window because...? If you say something bad enough that Wells personally finds heinous it's worth getting attacked for? Again I ask, why do you - some random person - get to be the arbiter? Do you not see how scary that is if we allow just anyone to just mete out their own personal justice?

[Wells]

If you are okay with hitting him for his words, it stands to reason that you must be okay for him and others to do the same to you for your words.

Again, only if you rely on dumb equivalencies between fascist nazism and "hey we just disagree on tax policy". I've gone all over this before in this thread.

[psyquest]

I'm going to say the same thing about antifa members that turn up dead because they are stupid enough to start fights with the armed side of the political spectrum.

I dont know what antifa crap means nor what armed side is. Mind you I live in Europe where we dont let people have guns and thus crazies dont go on shooting people.

Anyone calling for ethnic cleansing deserves being slapped. We have lost enough people during ww2 and out of respect, gratitude and history's sake we are going to let new idiots carry on the same shit.

and if you are for ethnic cleansing of any sort, then say so plainly.

[The Casualty]

Do something to encourage ethnic cleansing..
Like saying we should have ethnic cleansing?

Exactly. I even gave you the link to leave a tip with the FBI. If you know something that can stop him from enacting his ethnic cleansing, I sincerely - and I really do mean this - encourage you to fill out that form and help the process to stop people from getting hurt.

They can shut him down much more efficiently than you can, and can probably nab a lot of other folks who might be planning similarly as well.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, only if you rely on dumb equivalencies between fascist nazism and "hey we just disagree on tax policy". I've gone all over this before in this thread.

Its dumb to you, but then again, you get to make the rules. Again, I ask why? Why do you - personally - get to decide what is a legitimate form of thought and what deserves to get punished by violence.

[Arachnofiend]

Look, I agree with you, that punching actual nazis in the face is a good deed. But this asshole hasn't murdered anyone yet. He's just an asshole saying that he WANTS to murder people.

And while that's a horrible message to spread, its his democratic right to spread it.

If you wanna fight his rhetoric, combat it with rhetoric of your own. Fight fire (words) with fire (words). You don't fight fire (words) with nuclear fire (Physical attacks).

So long as the asshole limits his racism to verbal gibberish, assaulting him is wrong, and goes against everything that democracy stands for.

You know they tried that the first time the Nazis came around

In response to the chill, moderate rhetoric, the Nazis annexed Czechoslovakia

[Wells]

To recap, again, fascism is especially dangerous because its explicitly illiberal. You talk about free speech and letting ideas be heard, but fascism doesn't operate by those rules and treating them like just another ideology only serves to give them more cover.

As for rule of law, yes, people who assault fascists should face due legal consequences. What's right and what should be legal aren't always the same.

- - - Updated - - -

Its dumb to you, but then again, you get to make the rules. Again, I ask why? Why do you - personally - get to decide what is a legitimate form of thought and what deserves to get punished by violence.

This is such a meme-y philosophical argument. Everyone decides on what they believe to be moral. That's how morality works.

[Zeta333]

You do know that nazis dehumanize, and want to kill other races, disabled people, lgbt, etc. Their entire platform is dehumanization. The idea of genocide is terrible anyone who thinks it's should be up for debate is horrible. If someone is for ethnic cleansing. Then they lost their humanity a long time ago and should be seen for the inhuman filth as they are.

kindof like some religions.

[purebalance]

You know they tried that the first time the Nazis came around

In response to the chill, moderate rhetoric, the Nazis annexed Czechoslovakia

So you're basically saying "If I don't like what you say I need to physically harm you because you might do something." By that logic I guess I could and should go punch every BLM member since the majority of them cause property damage and advocate killing white people.

[BiggestNoob]

Glad promoting nazi ideology is against the law.

Glad to know 99% of people still don't know anything about the first amendment.

Go ahead, though. Punch someone because you disagree with what they're saying. I hope you like jail, probation, massive fiscal penalties, and legal discrimination in the job market.

So you're basically saying "If I don't like what you say I need to physically harm you because you might do something." By that logic I guess I could and should go punch every BLM member since the majority of them cause property damage and advocate killing white people.

And this is why the first amendment doesn't make reservation on speech save for the exceptions explicitly mentioned and those we've got precedent for. In general, the only one that is actually enforced, is calls to action. You can't tell people to attack someone, like all those people in BLM videos "BEAT HIS ASS" -- nope, that's illegal to say. You can be arrested for that alone.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...to-free-speech

This is the ultimate slippery slope because your enemies want to abuse such exceptions against you, so it's best not to make any.

[Arachnofiend]

So you're basically saying "If I don't like what you say I need to physically harm you because you might do something." By that logic I guess I could and should go punch every BLM member since the majority of them cause property damage and advocate killing white people.

If you say you like pineapples on pizza I will vehemently disagree with you, but in this case it's your right to be wrong.

If you say you think black people shouldn't be allowed to exist then you don't even have a right to a platform.

Let me clarify: Saying that I "disagree" with fascist ideology isn't quite accurate, because it frames fascism as a political opinion that can be argued for or against. There is no argument for fascism, and pretending there is one normalizes the rhetoric.

[Zeta333]

If you say you like pineapples on pizza I will vehemently disagree with you, but in this case it's your right to be wrong.

If you say you think black people shouldn't be allowed to exist then you don't even have a right to a platform.

Let me clarify: Saying that I "disagree" with fascist ideology isn't quite accurate, because it frames fascism as a political opinion that can be argued for or against. There is no argument for fascism, and pretending there is one normalizes the rhetoric.

why? You cant have free speech if its only things you want to hear. Free speech means it all. Otherwise you turn into exactly what your opposing. I dont agree with him, but as a country built on free speech its his right to be able to say what he wants.

[Wells]

why? You cant have free speech if its only things you want to hear. Free speech means it all. Otherwise you turn into exactly what your opposing. I dont agree with him, but as a country built on free speech its his right to be able to say what he wants.

You think that freedom of speech would survive under fascism?

[The Casualty]

This is such a meme-y philosophical argument. Everyone decides on what they believe to be moral. That's how morality works.

And that is such a non-answer. I never asked about what you believe to be moral, just what gives you the authority to impose it on others.

[Zeta333]

You think that freedom of speech would survive under fascism?

you think that physically assaulting people that have different views than you is any different than being fascist?

[Wells]

you think that physically assaulting people that have different views than you is any different than being fascist?

Yes, I think physically assault people calling for ethnic cleansing is different than ethnic cleansing. Not really a stumper there.

And that is such a non-answer. I never asked about what you believe to be moral, just what gives you the authority to impose it on others.

The question is either one of morality or law. I've already stated that I don't want a legal change. As for determining morality, everyone makes their own.

- - - Updated - - -

you think that physically assaulting people that have different views than you is any different than being fascist?

To elaborate on this further, protecting freedom of speech doesn't just mean respecting speech, it means stopping those who would remove that right from everyone else.

[Zeta333]

Yes, I think physically assault people calling for ethnic cleansing is different than ethnic cleansing. Not really a stumper there.


The question is either one of morality or law. I've already stated that I don't want a legal change. As for determining morality, everyone makes their own.

was he out ethnically cleansing ? no. we he doing anything but voicing his idiologys regardless of what they may be? no. So your advocating atacking people that dont share the same view as you and becoming what your attacking them for. You people dont seem to get what the term free speech means. Its not freedom to say somthing you approve of or you might support but then to try and shut them down when they have a difference of opinion than you. its freedom to speak anything they wish. He shouldnt be punished for airing his beliefs anymore than a local pastor should be for preaching about an imaginary god.

- - - Updated - - -

To elaborate on this further, protecting freedom of speech doesn't just mean respecting speech, it means stopping those who would remove that right from everyone else.

show me where he was removing someones right please.

[Deleted]

These people calling for violence are completely oblivious that that is exactly how wars start. "Fight fascism"