Should QAnon be labeled as a terrorist organization?

[beanman12345]

I made this years ago for people like you that seem to be misinformed about free speech. Let me know if it helps you:

If only we were dealing with said person just being ignorant...

[Slant]

If only we were dealing with said person just being ignorant...

Legal things are complicated sometimes. It's not for everyone to wrap their head around these concepts. Especially when you get into a heated discussion it's difficult to take a step back and evaluate the whole situation and not just one side. I'm guilty of this myself, I am sure.

[Endus]

Yep, exactly this.

And as Endus and I have argued for years on here on and off, getting the Government to "platform you", ie. force a private entity to tolerate you, is in itself a violating of the private entity, in this case Twitter or Reddit, I'm presuming? Both of these sites are private entities having private citizen CEOs that determine the direction the companies and their websites are going. Any infringement on their decisions from the Government is an automatic breach of THEIR first amendment rights, that supercede your first amendment right to speak on their sites, because frankly, it's their sites.

Your freedom ends where you infringe upon other people's freedoms. And this is where people like Krakan go wrong. They have a simplistic view of a situation and only see it from one side. They think freedom means unlimited freedom and don't see that in most cases your freedom is being pushed against by someone else's freedom. This is how a society works. This is normal. And questioning this system is questioning the entire legal basis for modern societies in the West.

And before anyone comes up with some willfully ignorant "but I don't agree that corporations should be people" codswallop, to argue they're only attacking the rights of corporations, not real people, it's a false distinction.

Corporate personhood is nothing but a legal convenience. It means the company itself can be signatory to contracts and the like, rather than requiring the signatures of a controlling interest of shareholders on literally every single contract. Imagine running a publicly-traded cell phone company where you sign up any client, you need to get the signatures of better than 50% of all voting shareholders before their service contract can be approved. That's ridiculous.

It does not provide corporations any distinct rights or freedoms that would not be held by those owners. It holds those same rights on behalf of those owners. So all removing corporate personhood would do to this argument is shift the issue from the rights of the corporation, to the rights of those owners. Who are "real people". And their rights matter as much as anyone's.

If you're raising the specter of corporate personhood in this kind of debate, you're either engaging in bad faith, or literally do not understand basic concepts enough to have any kind of opinion in the first place, and you should be embarrassed you even opened your mouth.

[Specialka]

Western democracies have the same concept. They call it differently, but the idea of protecting your opinion and your ability to voice that opinion is not limited to the US.

Btw, this is where people start thinking that Americans are drowning in their own exceptionalism. We talk about first amendments so Americans can follow the discussion, but we might as well be talking about the German Recht auf freie Entfaltung seiner Persönlichkeit or in France Article 11: "La libre communication des pensées et des opinions est un des droits les plus précieux de l'homme".

You're not unique.

- - - Updated - - -



We don't. We generally followed your basic concepts, because they were and are good concepts. Our constitutions may be more modern with everything fleshed out a bit more, but you got the basics right and so we are all essentially arguing the same topic, with minor variations.

That is the thing though. Europeans have added nuances to these concepts, because they understand you can't have those things "pure" as it leads as some stupid things you can see in the USA.

[Machismo]

That is the thing though. Europeans have added nuances to these concepts, because they understand you can't have those things "pure" as it leads as some stupid things you can see in the USA.

And Europeans don't support freedom of speech as much as Americans do.

[Sole-Warrior]

They are not a "terrorist organization", they have some loony ideas, but they have never perpetuated acts of terrorism. And no, the capitol riot was not an act of terrorism just because QAnon had a lot to do with it. It was a riot that involved looting and trespassing like literally any other riot. There's nothing special about the capitol riot other than it's location.

QAnon emerged as a result of the repressive and discriminatory environment right libertarians and conservatives face and polarization in America, combined with echo chambers which dismiss reasonable right-libertarian and conservative voices. But they are by no means a terror group. There is nothing unique about Qanon. It's just a weird ideology followed by people who aren't very responsive to fact based arguments.

[Slant]

That is the thing though. Europeans have added nuances to these concepts, because they understand you can't have those things "pure" as it leads as some stupid things you can see in the USA.

The US have nuances, too. They're called Supreme Court precedents. Any attempt to discredit the US legal system in this context is going to be futile with me, rest assured. I've had too many discussions and debates with people from over there to even attempt to argue that there are fundamental differences between the European legal systems and the US legal system.

The US does things in a slightly different, more roundabout way, you could argue, but the bottom line is the same. Free speech in the US is basically what free speech is in most European nations. The "nuances" you mention are things like Germany flat out abolishing any nazi ideological symbology and prohibiting the mere downplaying of the holocaust. A sensible measure some might say, because when the constitution was written, it was a big concern that the larger population may not have realised/may ignore the extent of the atrocities committed.

But that is outside of this context and largely irrelevant for this discussion. I think Endus is from Canada and he makes more sense in these things than some Americans posting on the topic. I'm guessing he is trained in the Canadian legal system, but he can still argue from a point of authority, because - even without me verifying this - I'm fairly certain Canada has a similar passage in their constitution guaranteeing the right to express yourself freely.

[Machismo]

They are not a "terrorist organization", they have some loony ideas, but they have never perpetuated acts of terrorism. And no, the capitol riot was not an act of terrorism just because QAnon had a lot to do with it. It was a riot that involved looting and trespassing like literally any other riot. There's nothing special about the capitol riot other than it's location.

Comet Pizza and the Capitol Building would like to have a word with you.

There's nothing libertarian about being anti-immigrant. There's nothing libertarian about wanting the government to control social media companies. There's nothing libertarian about supporting fascist shitbags like Trump. We get that you don't understand this, but it should still be repeated for clarification.

[Endus]

That is the thing though. Europeans have added nuances to these concepts, because they understand you can't have those things "pure" as it leads as some stupid things you can see in the USA.

Purity doesn't even apply to these concepts in the first place. It's a horseshit straw man invented to try and justify attacking these rights.

Any universally-held right necessarily runs up against and is limited by the rights of others. My right to life does not mean I can have you killed to harvest a vital organ for transplant, because that would breach your right to life.

It's a concept that's so fucking obvious that it's honestly just irritating when people pretend they can't grasp it.

[Slant]

And Europeans don't support freedom of speech as much as Americans do.

Yes, we do. Just the same amount, generally. The idea that European nations don't support freedom of speech (as much) is a myth Americans tell each other to make themselves feel better. I might argue that our (more modern) constitutions offer more freedom in that we don't have to jump through hoops to protect the written word or body performance. But ultimately, speech is free in either countries. How much? As much as reasonably possible without fucking other people up. So yes, there is a limit to free speech in the criminal codes of many countries, mostly connected to incitement and uhh, whatever you calll it when you suggest to someone to kill someone else and stuff like that...

No offense.

[beanman12345]

Legal things are complicated sometimes. It's not for everyone to wrap their head around these concepts. Especially when you get into a heated discussion it's difficult to take a step back and evaluate the whole situation and not just one side. I'm guilty of this myself, I am sure.

I don't disagree, but the assumption is the argument is in good faith too. I've never seen that from said poster.

[Slant]

I don't disagree, but the assumption is the argument is in good faith too. I've never seen that from said poster.

Well, I've been on an enforced leave for a while, so no idea who he is. I tend to give people I don't remember the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise I wouldn't be posting here to begin with.

[Specialka]

Purity doesn't even apply to these concepts in the first place. It's a horseshit straw man invented to try and justify attacking these rights.

Any universally-held right necessarily runs up against and is limited by the rights of others. My right to life does not mean I can have you killed to harvest a vital organ for transplant, because that would breach your right to life.

It's a concept that's so fucking obvious that it's honestly just irritating when people pretend they can't grasp it.

Here come Endus again who can't have a civil conversation without insulting or belitting those who do not think as he does.

[Felya]

Let's just call them the free folk and not get hung up details.

How about we call them ‘brain worms’ instead? Since we don’t need to be hung on details...

[Slant]

Here come Endus again who can't have a civil conversation without insulting or belitting those who do not think as he does.

You mean those that are just wrong and still try to argue against their own legal system in a manner that costs Endus time to explain, without any pay, and then they still ignore what he said? Those kinds of people? Yeah, I'm not sure they need your protection. What we're talking about is not (!) a matter of opinion. It's a legal reality. You're not talking about political streams here, you're talking about constitutional, fundamental values. They are not up for debate in the sense that you're thinking of until Congress decides to abolish the US constitution (and replace it with something else, I would suppose).

[Felya]

The underlying social problems that cause people to have this much anger penned up won't go away if you remove QAnon from the equation. If it's not QAnon, it's another militant branch of the whole Anonymous movement.

This isn’t true at all... it’s why your example is anonymous, which has fuck all to do with conspiracy theorist.

Either way, people are pissed off and/or bored enough to set buildings on fire. Whatever the label is, don't get distracted from these fuckwits existing. With or without a label. QAnon just happened to be there. The Oklahoma bomber wasn't part of QAnon, yet he still fucked shit up for pretty much the same reason: US tolerance of bullshit under the guise of free speech. You guys will defend free speech to the death, the most extreme form of free speech, too. And when it backfires, you complain about the labels instead of wondering... did you maybe tolerate too much bullshit? Because people are actually believing all of the crazy they hear. They have no bullshit filter anymore.

I’m sorry, how is people being pissed off and board, a social issue? You suggesting they need to check their privilege?

As for antifa... you're right, it is reactionary. So why does every American news outlet think it's an organised group? I'm not questioning that Americans understand the concept of the words "anti-fascist". I'm questioning their belief that antifa is in any shape or form organised. It's not. 90% of the planet is antifa in that they are very much anti-fascistic. What sets the antifa movement apart is that they go to the street and demolish stuff to make their point. And of course within that movement you have violent groups like the black bloc in Germany that are very organised. But they do not make Antifa, just like QAnon does not make Anonymous.

Because you watch shit sources and then form an opinion as a result? “QAnon does not make Anonymous”... no shit... that’s a horrible example that makes absolutely no sense...

And... um, don't overplay that whole occult part. That's a curiousity but had zero impact on politics. You'd be smart to focus on the conspiracy theories and not go into some notion that Hitler tried to sell himself off as divine, which is not true in the sense that you think of it.

Yes, I need to be ignorant and forget history and logic, so I can pretend QAnon is at all relevant to Anonymous.

How about QAnon stop being all about the occult, then perhaps I will stop playing it... Do you even know what QAnon is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_Blavatsky

[Endus]

Here come Endus again who can't have a civil conversation without insulting or belitting those who do not think as he does.

I wasn't even speaking to you. You weren't making some claim of "pure free speech". You were arguing against that idea.

So why are you feigning offense?

This has fuck-all to do with people who "think like I do". It has to do with what words fundamentally mean, and how basic concepts actually work. My point was rooted in objective, determinable fact, not personal opinion.

And if it's just because I used some naughty words, I'm not a goddamned child, and you're not my guardian, so shove off with your attempt to tone police my use of language. Cussing ain't against site rules, and if it offends your sensibilities, you're free to find yourself a safe space somewhere else. Nobody's forcing you to be here.

[Slant]

This isn’t true at all... it’s why your example is anonymous, which has fuck all to do with conspiracy theorist.

I’m sorry, how is people being pissed off and board, a social issue? You suggesting they need to check their privilege?

Because you watch shit sources and then form an opinion as a result? “QAnon does not make Anonymous”... no shit... that’s a horrible example that makes absolutely no sense...

Yes, I need to be ignorant and forget history and logic, so I can pretend QAnon is at all relevant to Anonymous.

Ah, see. Now you understand the amount of astonishment whenever I see Americans talk about Antifa. Glad we're on the same page now.

As for "checking privilege" that's just American nonsense. I'm talking about kids being bored and playing pranks on a large scale. Half of the people storming the Capitol were chaos tourists. They don't give a shit about Trump or the political system. They were just there to see stuff burn. Or because it turned into a hobby of theirs to support Trump, much like other people support a football club. QAnon? Who gives a fuck... if you think a rando group of dipshits like QAnon is a terrorist group, you'll have a lot of these groups to ban in the US.

[Felya]

Ah, see. Now you understand the amount of astonishment whenever I see Americans talk about Antifa. Glad we're on the same page now.

No, I don’t see how your assertions are examples of American... anything... it’s generalizing hyperbole...

As for "checking privilege" that's just American nonsense. I'm talking about kids being bored and playing pranks on a large scale. Half of the people storming the Capitol were chaos tourists. They don't give a shit about Trump or the political system. They were just there to see stuff burn. Or because it turned into a hobby of theirs to support Trump, much like other people support a football club. QAnon? Who gives a fuck... if you think a rando group of dipshits like QAnon is a terrorist group, you'll have a lot of these groups to ban in the US.

So... how is checking their privilege, just bullshit? Why don’t they have jobs?

[Slant]

No, I don’t see how your assertions are examples of American... anything... it’s generalizing hyperbole...

So... how is checking their privilege, just bullshit? Why don’t they have jobs?

Dude, I don't even know what language you are speaking. Explain the phrase "checking their privilege" for someone who doesn't live in a crazy country. Does it bear relevance on what I said? If you removed QAnon from the picture, you'd still have the same assholes running around doing shady stuff. Trump is the core motivator here. Not QAnon. If you want to solve the problem, solve the social issues that motivate people to gobble up whatever vomit Trump is hurling at them. And many of them are - unashamedly for some reason - even on this forum.