Capitol Insurrection / rebellion thread

[Gabriel]

I don't fucking understand why you people keep arguing that the hard core Trump supporters who invaded the Capitol aren't Nazis.

Have you people ever fucking been to /pol/?

I have, frequently, and so have those who are now being charged. Wanna know what these people say when they are posting anonymously?

"Kill the Jews!"
"Kill the gays!"
"Sort of kill the latinos! Not the women, those we will rape"
"Kill the non-binary folk!"
"Kill all women who have premarital sex!"

They fly the confederate and nazi flags all the time, and openly admire Hitler. These are not people who need redemption.

[NoiseTank13]

is anyone watching the pompeo speech and Q&A

we're talking about wednesday night chili events wtf

[Pannonian]

They are criticizing them, because they are saying such things should be up to the government... not a private business. Our First Amendment specifically limits the government from doing such things, whereas private entities are free to do so.

I'lll take my First Amendment over their desire to limit free speech and freedom off expression.

What kind of desire do they have to limit free speech? What has the EU done? Can you provide any facts or links to censuring made by the EU? That sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory, or at least a belief not backed by facts.

And you're aware that also your government doesn't allow every kind of free speech? There are some red lines for speech even in the US.

[jonnysensible]

I don't fucking understand why you people keep arguing that the hard core Trump supporters who invaded the Capitol aren't Nazis.

Have you people ever fucking been to /pol/?

I have, frequently, and so have those who are now being charged. Wanna know what these people say when they are posting anonymously?

"Kill the Jews!"
"Kill the gays!"
"Sort of kill the latinos! Not the women, those we will rape"
"Kill the non-binary folk!"
"Kill all women who have premarital sex!"

They fly the confederate and nazi flags all the time, and openly admire Hitler. These are not people who need redemption.

its convenient that grandma waving the maga flag and hardcore nazis can be in the same crowd. 'its not serious look is just grandma on her opoids' whilst hardcore neonazis have plans to kill people and can move with the larger crowd saying 'we are all patriots here'.

[Rozz]

I don't fucking understand why you people keep arguing that the hard core Trump supporters who invaded the Capitol aren't Nazis.

Have you people ever fucking been to /pol/?

I have, frequently, and so have those who are now being charged. Wanna know what these people say when they are posting anonymously?

"Kill the Jews!"
"Kill the gays!"
"Sort of kill the latinos! Not the women, those we will rape"
"Kill the non-binary folk!"
"Kill all women who have premarital sex!"

They fly the confederate and nazi flags all the time, and openly admire Hitler. These are not people who need redemption.

"Reality for thee but not for me!" - A Goon

[Xarkan]

What kind of desire do they have to limit free speech? What has the EU done? Can you provide any facts or links to censuring made by the EU? That sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory, or at least a belief not backed by facts.

And you're aware that also your government doesn't allow every kind of free speech? There are some red lines for speech even in the US.

The EU has done nothing, individual countries in the EU has various laws or has performed various actions to prove they have various standards on free expression.

For example your freedom of expression in Germany would not include swastikas generally speaking (an example from another thread)

[Edge-]

https://www.stcroixrepublican.org/

Yo, check out the front page of the St. Croix Republican Party.

If you want peace, prepare for war.

Fuckin cosplay insurrectionists.

[Machismo]

How about neither of them be free to do so?

So, you think I should be able to come onto your property, shit on your floor, and yell racist things at your family, and you shouldn't be able to kick me out?

Is that really the argument you want to make?

- - - Updated - - -

What kind of desire do they have to limit free speech? What has the EU done? Can you provide any facts or links to censuring made by the EU? That sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory, or at least a belief not backed by facts.

And you're aware that also your government doesn't allow every kind of free speech? There are some red lines for speech even in the US.

They literally just spoke about it.

Twitter banning Trump is an exercise of free speech and free association. And look who just condemned it, and said that's up to the government...

Twitter deserves freedom fo speech and freedom of association, contrary to what France and Germany believe.

[Pannonian]

The EU has done nothing, individual countries in the EU has various laws or has performed various actions to prove they have various standards on free expression.

That i will agree with. Every country has different standards. Some are similar like:

Yelling "Fire" in a theater, inciting murder and violence.

My country has added "the jews are the root of all our problems", because we had some bad experiences with that, and thought it would be a good idea.

But that's not what @Machismo claimed. He claimed that the EU has limitations on free speech and that Merkel has a desire to limit free speech. So i'm asking for the facts why he thinks the EU as a whole has less freedom of speech, and why Merkel has a desire for censorship, because that sounds a bit too far fetched.

[docterfreeze]

So, you think I should be able to come onto your property, shit on your floor, and yell racist things at your family, and you shouldn't be able to kick me out?

The cops would be dragging you out for a list of crimes in that scenario.

[Machismo]

The cops would be dragging you out for a list of crimes in that scenario.

What crimes? Aren't I just exercising free speech?

Or, are you saying I don't get to have free speech on your property, without your permission?

[Pannonian]

So, you think I should be able to come onto your property, shit on your floor, and yell racist things at your family, and you shouldn't be able to kick me out?

Is that really the argument you want to make?

- - - Updated - - -



They literally just spoke about it.

Twitter banning Trump is an exercise of free speech and free association.

So because she doesn't agree with his ban she has a desire to limit free speech? That's a bit far fechted. I'd like to link you to an article from a german newspaper, because that makes it clearer.

What she argues about is that if someone is dangerous the government should handle this, and it shouldn't be left to private companies.

She is not so much talking about their freedom of association, but rather that if Trump is dangerous he should be censored by the government, and it shouldn't be on the whim of private entities.

And seriously, that's something every country does to a degree. Doesn't your country also imprison people for inciting violence and terror? Nothing else.


I get your viewpoint from the freedom of association, and i'm pretty sure she's not attacking that one, but more arguing that punishment shouldn't be left to the "virtual mob".

Oh, btw. i disagree with her, i just think you're reading something into her that she's not saying.

[Xarkan]

That i will agree with. Every country has different standards. Some are similar like:

Yelling "Fire" in a theater, inciting murder and violence.

My country has added "the jews are the root of all our problems", because we had some bad experiences with that, and thought it would be a good idea.

But that's not what @Machismo claimed. He claimed that the EU has limitations on free speech and that Merkel has a desire to limit free speech. So i'm asking for the facts why he thinks the EU as a whole has less freedom of speech, and why Merkel has a desire for censorship, because that sounds a bit too far fetched.

Considering he calls it freedom of speech and not freedom of expression i will assume he has not looked into EU positions on the topic (i could be wrong of course)

[docterfreeze]

What crimes? Aren't I just exercising free speech?

Or, are you saying I don't get tto have free speech on your property, without your permission?

Trespassing (or if in a business, indecent exposure) and vandalism.

[Machismo]

So because she doesn't agree with his ban she has a desire to limit free speech? That's a bit far fechted. I'd like to link you to an article from a german newspaper, because that makes it clearer.

What she argues about is that if someone is dangerous the government should handle this, and it shouldn't be left to private companies.

She is not so much talking about their freedom of association, but rather that if Trump is dangerous he should be censored by the government, and it shouldn't be on the whim of private entities.

And seriously, that's something every country does to a degree. Doesn't your country also imprison people for inciting violence and terror? Nothing else.


I get your viewpoint from the freedom of association, and i'm pretty sure she's not attacking that one, but more arguing that punishment shouldn't be left to the "virtual mob".

Oh, btw. i disagree with her, i just think you're reading something into her that she's not saying.

She literally says she wants the government to do it, and doesn't think that companies like Twitter should be able to exercise their free speech and freedom off association.

But, to take that out of the hands of a private entity, is to remove freedom of association. That's the point.

- - - Updated - - -

Trespassing (or if in a business, indecent exposure) and vandalism.

But, I'm just trying to use speech...

Wait until you figure it out...

SO, you should have no issue with a company kicking someone off their fucking property. But, since you do, you're being a hypocrite on the issue.

[docterfreeze]

But, I'm just trying to use speech...

Wait until you figure it out...

SO, you should have no issue with a company kicking someone off their fucking property. But, since you do, you're being a hypocrite on the issue.

poopie isn't speech

[Machismo]

poopie isn't speech

It's art... expression.

So, if that feces is the only limiting factor, then you should have no problem taking it out of the equation, and saying I can come over to your house, scream racist shit at your family, and you cannot kick me off your property.

Is that your stance?

[docterfreeze]

It's art... expression.

So, if that feces is the only limiting factor, then you should have no problem taking it out of the equation, and saying I can come over to your house, scream racist shit at your family, and you cannot kick me off your property.

Is that your stance?

Trespassing isn't speech

[Machismo]

Trespassing isn't speech

Why is it trespassing, because it's your property, and I'm not wanted?

Well, it's also Twitter's property, and Trump isn't wanted.

It's weird how you care about your property rights, but not Twitter's.

Checkmate.

[Pannonian]

She literally says she wants the government to do it, and doesn't think that companies like Twitter should be able to exercise their free speech and freedom off association.

But, to take that out of the hands of a private entity, is to remove freedom of association. That's the point.

- - - Updated - - -



But, I'm just trying to use speech...

Wait until you figure it out...

SO, you should have no issue with a company kicking someone off their fucking property. But, since you do, you're being a hypocrite on the issue.

Yeah, i get it, but please believe me, that the 1st amendment and freedom of association are not that big of a deal in the public perception here. We're quite aware of our rights, especially the freedom of speech, and we fight for a lot of them (and some of the imagined as well), but we don't have that kind of .. dogmatic ... approach to "1st amendment!!!!"

I even agree with you on principle, but i think you're reaching too far if you think her goal is to limit the freedom of expression of companies. I don't think she's actually thinking about it.

If you read her words in german i think it would be more clear, what she means is that IF someone should do it, it should be the government, not private entities without any control or public oversight.

Which of course runs contrary to freedom of association.

That's why i agree with you and think she is wrong. But to construct a desire to censor, seems a bit far fetched. Didn't you make a post a few hours ago where you told a european about how he doesn't know how the dc police feels and why local insight might be helpful? I feel we're now in a similar situation. I get your point, and you're right, but in this case you have to take the european discussion on the matter into context.