the biden crime bill

[Sunseeker]

Pretty sure that's the case, especially when there's an extensive wikipedia article detailing all or most of his positions.

But you know, it's easier to be intellectually lazy and handwave everything.

Probably. I'm just left scratching my head as to what an "executive position" is and how it's different than a "legislative position".

[JohnBrown1917]

I always get told I'm clueless about Bernie's platforms... that include EXECUTIVE positions and NOT legislative, but when challenged to tell me what they are, people tell me I'm clueless, that I should go research it myself, etc. Funny how Bernie Bros themselves never really know what those executive positions are.

Ah, the ol' bernie bro smear, took a while for it to show up.

MLK jr was right about white moderates.

[PosPosPos]

Probably. I'm just left scratching my head as to what an "executive position" is and how it's different than a "legislative position".

I am pretty sure if I were to ask him what did Biden or other presidential candidates do that was so special that Bernie didn't do was such a travesty by his own standards, I would get silence or more hairsplitting.

[Grapemask]

Beyond the pale. People are NEVER "things", not even the dudes that killed themselves in 9/11, not even the dudes that ordered and carried the nuking of Japan... twice... not even those that purged 6 million Jews... not even Stalin, not even Hitler.

Humans remain human. There are bad, good, evil humans, mediocre and average humans. We have good laws in place to protect society from the evil ones, the best laws in all human history.

Even the people that society decides to execute, like mass murderers, are STILL HUMAN, and still protected under the law. This is why many of us are against the death penalty, and against needless suffering during executions - because we understand the human condition, and the importance of human rights.

This should be ELEMENTARY, and at the base of any civilized person. It should not require further explanations.

Don't, ever, dehumanize groups pf people.

PS: you realize there's more 4chan than /pol/? There's leftypol too, and a crazy amount of other boards.

You just put each and every one of them into the "non-human" category, ready for the purge.

Talk about hatred...

Yep. I do hate them. They're not people. You enable them all over this forum yourself in a way that would make MLK'S letter from a Birmingham jail sigh loudly, and I'm a little torn on your personhood and whether or not you're actually an alt-right troll given the particulars you post, but for now I'm letting it slide.

If they'd like to be people, there's a process for that. They just have to fill out a form and show normal human thought and normal human rationalizations. That doesn't mean they have to think the things I do; there are plenty of people on the right I disagree with but that also qualify as people. But "people" who look at places like T_D or 4chan and think, "hey, that's a place of facts and reason," they're clearly missing something important.

Now, this doesn't mean I think we should shoot them into space or put them against a wall. I don't think my cats or my dog are people, but I'd argue that a person that hurts a dog warrants a harsher sentence than someone that hurts a person. But I also wouldn't trust dogs to have responsibility or make decisions that affect other people.

[Reaper0329]

Yep. I do hate them. They're not people. You enable them all over this forum yourself in a way that would make MLK'S letter from a Birmingham jail sigh loudly, and I'm a little torn on your personhood and whether or not you're actually an alt-right troll given the particulars you post, but for now I'm letting it slide.

Not to fight CryotriX's battles for him, as he's got that covered, but you're talking about a guy who staunchly hates corporations and is fairly anti-capitalist, just from a "from memory" of him. That guy, the alt-right troll?

Hell, I have a better claim to that title.

[PosPosPos]

Not to fight CryotriX's battles for him, as he's got that covered, but you're talking about a guy who staunchly hates corporations and is fairly anti-capitalist, just from a "from memory" of him. That guy, the alt-right troll?

Hell, I have a better claim to that title.

And yet he seems completely incapable of disavowing known crony capitalists, or at least wannabes. You know, like Trump.

Doesn't help that he's also constantly found in various threads apologizing for other alt-righters.

[NED funded]

Not to fight CryotriX's battles for him, as he's got that covered, but you're talking about a guy who staunchly hates corporations and is fairly anti-capitalist, just from a "from memory" of him. That guy, the alt-right troll?

Hell, I have a better claim to that title.

Alt-right people aren't in favor of capitalism nowadays because they can't use it to justify their racism anymore and corporations in the US are de-platforming them.

Its all about the free speech and shit.

[Reaper0329]

And yet he has seems completely incapable of disavowing known crony capitalists, or at least wannabes. You know, like Trump.

Doesn't help that he's also constantly found in various threads apologizing for other alt-righters.

So because one thinks people ought to be able to say what they wish, that's apologizing? One doesn't have to agree with the speech in question in affirming that the speaker has the right to it.

Alt-right people aren't in favor of capitalism nowadays because they can't use it to justify their racism anymore and corporations in the US are de-platforming them.

Its all about the free speech and shit.

I typically think of rabid anti-capitalism as a far left point, but perhaps that's just me. Seizing the means of production and all that jazz doesn't invoke imagery of white robes or Cousin Bubba livin' off the grid from the gub'mint.

[PosPosPos]

So because one thinks people ought to be able to say what they wish, that's apologizing? One doesn't have to agree with the speech in question in affirming that the speaker has the right to it.

That doesn't really fly when he agrees directly with alt-right talking points. And spouts them himself regularly.

Also, the promoting the freedom to hate speech is a well-known trait of alt-righters.

[Reaper0329]

That doesn't really fly when he agrees directly with alt-right talking points. And spouts them himself regularly.

Also, the promoting the freedom to hate speech is a well-known trait of alt-righters.

So where, legally, do they not have the freedom of speech to be total morons?

[PosPosPos]

So where, legally, do they not have the freedom of speech to be total morons?

Where it causes harm to others, encourages harm to others or threatens to cause harm to others.

Which is exactly what hate speech is.

[Reaper0329]

Where it causes harm to others, encourages harm to others or threatens to cause harm to others.

Which is exactly what hate speech is.

You didn't answer my question.

Where, in the law, does it state that they aren't allowed to? Barring the narrow exception in US case law that strips protection in cases where the speech is 1) designed to invoke imminent harm and 2) is likely to cause such harm? Bradenburg v. Ohio, for the case reference to that.

[PosPosPos]

You didn't answer my question.

Where, in the law, does it state that they aren't allowed to? Barring the narrow exception in US case law that strips protection in cases where the speech is 1) designed to invoke imminent harm and 2) is likely to cause such harm? Bradenburg v. Ohio, for the case reference to that.

Because it's not necessarily illegal, it means it must be right, is what you are saying here. I think it's pointless to argue with someone who wholly lacks a moral and ethical compass, who can't tell right from wrong without it being part of law.

Also, relevant comic.

P.S. Note I never once brought up legality...that was a red herring by you.

[Reaper0329]

Because it's not necessarily illegal, it means it must be right, is what you are saying here.

Also, relevant comic.

As long as they have a constitutionally protected right to speak, you don't have the grounds to silence them. You don't have to agree with them; I surely don't. But they have the right to speak. Silencing them because you disagree with their viewpoint is anathema to a democratic principles.

[PosPosPos]

As long as they have a constitutionally protected right to speak, you don't have the grounds to silence them. You don't have to agree with them; I surely don't. But they have the right to speak.

Yes, I do realize being Nazi is currently "constitutionally protected" in the US. That doesn't mean it's right, or they should exist.

Thankfully, I live in the bigger part of the developed world where it's not protected to be a Nazi. As it should rightfully be.

Silencing them because you disagree with their viewpoint is anathema to a democratic principles.

Which just distorts right and wrong - because if anything, not silencing these people who hate democracy, is anathema to democracy, thanks to the tolerance paradox.

[Elegiac]

As long as they have a constitutionally protected right to speak, you don't have the grounds to silence them. You don't have to agree with them; I surely don't. But they have the right to speak. Silencing them because you disagree with their viewpoint is anathema to a democratic principles.

Silencing them because giving them a platform erodes democratic principles, however, is not.

[Reaper0329]

Yes, I do realize being Nazi is currently "constitutionally protected" in the US. That doesn't mean it's right, or they should exist.

Thankfully, I live in the bigger part of the developed world where it's not protected to be a Nazi. As it should rightfully be.


Which is just plain wrong, because if anything, not silencing these people who hate democracy, is anathema to democracy, thanks to the tolerance paradox.

You can argue "should" all day long. It doesn't particularly interest me. I'm grateful my government doesn't decide what viewpoints are permissible to have.

Free exchange of ideas is one of the underpinnings of democracy, and I, for one, don't trust the government to arbitrate what is and isn't permissible. To silence a group is to disenfranchise them, which is directly counter to democracy. So no, I don't think it's an alt-right position to advocate for freedom of speech.

Silencing them because giving them a platform erodes democratic principles, however, is not.

Depends on what you mean by platform. YouTube, Facebook, whatever...all have the right to ban alt-right accounts at will, as they currently are, as far as I am aware. There is no protection for them on that front, as there is no governmental action (obviously). But I think there's a gulf of difference between a company saying "we don't want you here" and the government saying "you cannot say that."

[Elegiac]

Free exchange of ideas is one of the underpinnings of democracy, and I, for one, don't trust the government to arbitrate what is and isn't permissible. To silence a group is to disenfranchise them, which is directly counter to democracy. So no, I don't think it's an alt-right position to advocate for freedom of speech.

This viewpoint was formulated before ur-fascism became a thing. So, no.

[Reaper0329]

This viewpoint was formulated before ur-fascism became a thing. So, no.

I confess I had to look that term up. I had never heard it prior.

Providing I'm following correctly, out of Eco's fourteen points, does silencing them not run afoul of "Disagreement is Treason," "Obsession with a plot," and arguably "Fear of Difference?"

I appreciate the new term; it's an interesting read, and I will admit I see some mirrors. I'd read more in-depth if I weren't at work.

BTW, for you and Pos: we've gotten grossly off topic. Should we, perhaps, start a new thread?

[PosPosPos]

-usual alt-right talking points-

I mean, here's the problem with your lot - you think tolerance involves acceptance of intolerance and the intolerant. It is not.