141–150 of 153 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So there's a million or so people that visited that website and they want to unmask all those people to attempt to find 200 alleged rioters? That sure sounds like an overreaching fishing expedition.
They already found 200+ alleged rioters. They're looking for the identities of the other 65,844,400.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sexual orientation is (or at least should be) protected so it cannot be used as the basis for discrimination, neither can race or religion. Being an inflammatory racist is not (and should not be) protected.
This a completely arbitrary exemption. Not in the US Constitution either.
Are you born a white-supremacist bigot? Sources point to no, as in, it's a choice.
I think that's the main distinction when it comes to discrimination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's also extremely pertinent that the warrant is being > executed against an organization exercising political > speech. Why? If you hurt me (many innocent people were hurt), but you do it because you feel "political", it's OK? Isn't the law supposed to be blind, or do political groups have a "get out of jail free" card?
The express purpose of Free Speech provisions is to prevent the government from persecuting citizens engaged in political speech that the government happens to dislike.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"No Nazis" is a perfectly fine side to draw the line on, in my book.
Everyone agrees with that. The problem is with the semantics of that statement i.e. who is a Nazi and who decides who is a Nazi? Anyone can call anyone a name and then ban them for being that. That doesn't mean the person in question actually is that thing. This is why instead of names we should use verifiable actions IMHO. Are you calling for acts of violence against people of another race y/n? Are you attacking and…
Nazis were a socialist workers party who preached a large and benevolent social welfare program
That must be the understatement of the year. You're either trying to rewrite history or are very uninformed. The Nazis conspired to overthrow the government long before they gained any widespread popularity, that's why Hitler rightly went to prison. The SA was roaming the streets, beating up and even killing Jews and political opponents. They were very dangerous and spread terror wherever they showed up.
Of course, socialists and social democrats would be offended to be called Nazis. They literally went to prisons and Concentration Camps because of their socialist views.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone agrees with that. The problem is with the semantics of that statement i.e. who is a Nazi and who decides who is a Nazi? Anyone can call anyone a name and then ban them for being that. That doesn't mean the person in question actually is that thing. This is why instead of names we should use verifiable actions IMHO. Are you calling for acts of violence against people of another race y/n? Are you attacking and…
This is nitpicking. If somebody shows a Hitler greeting and uses swastikas and other well-known derived symbols, then he is a Nazi. There is absolutely no problem spotting them or distinguishing them from nationalist conservatives. For a start, Nazis are not promoting representative democracy. Nazis were a socialist workers party who preached a large and benevolent social welfare program That must be the understateme…
I agree. I don't see where I was claiming anywhere that if someone openly proclaims to be something, we shouldn't take them at their word for it. My issue is mainly with people being labeled as something when they are not themselves claiming to be that thing.
> That must be the understatement of the year. You're either trying to rewrite history or are very uninformed.
I don't see how insulting me adds anything here. I got my undergraduate in German Studies and have lived in Germany my entire adult life. I suppose I could have been clearer in my statement in that the Nazi party was only in part built on the principles of a large social welfare state [1]. I thought that was clear since I also mentioned the very nationalistic [1] part of the Nazi party.
Anyway, I don't really know what you're claiming other than general agitation at a claim I didn't make. I pretty much agree with you.
1. https://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/25Points.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is nitpicking. If somebody shows a Hitler greeting and uses swastikas and other well-known derived symbols, then he is a Nazi. There is absolutely no problem spotting them or distinguishing them from nationalist conservatives. For a start, Nazis are not promoting representative democracy. Nazis were a socialist workers party who preached a large and benevolent social welfare program That must be the understateme…
> If somebody shows a Hitler greeting and uses swastikas and other well-known derived symbols, then he is a Nazi. I agree. I don't see where I was claiming anywhere that if someone openly proclaims to be something, we shouldn't take them at their word for it. My issue is mainly with people being labeled as something when they are not themselves claiming to be that thing. > That must be the understatement of the year.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Off the top of my head? Oklahoma City Dylann Roof The asshole who drove his car into a group of counterprotestors
A drop in the ocean compared to ISIS and even the IRA. A poor showing really in the global terrorist bodycount.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have a constitutional right to say whatever they want without punishment by the government. Thats where that right ends. The constitution has no power in the private sector, its an agreement from the government. If a dns provider doesn't want to take money from a hate group and support them by providing them with visibility, why should they be forced to? Its a private company. Now, if the US government was a dom…
>The constitution has no power in the private sector, its an agreement from the government. So going the libertarian route and shrinking government would remove protections. That doesn't seem quite right, because it was still the government that allowed the private sector to take over a duty of the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The constitution has no power in the private sector, its an agreement from the government. So going the libertarian route and shrinking government would remove protections. That doesn't seem quite right, because it was still the government that allowed the private sector to take over a duty of the government.
What duty? You think that domain registration is by default a duty of the government? The government has no real say over the internet - and the little it has should be removed. Thats like saying space travel or planetary colonization should be reliant on the approval of a government... its not their place to be in charge...
There isn't an approved list of what the government handles. Much of politics is disagreements in this. But it is still a point worth discussing, and saying that it cannot be the government's duty because it currently isn't a valid reason to stop discussion of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What duty? You think that domain registration is by default a duty of the government? The government has no real say over the internet - and the little it has should be removed. Thats like saying space travel or planetary colonization should be reliant on the approval of a government... its not their place to be in charge...
Or saying the mail system should be. There isn't an approved list of what the government handles. Much of politics is disagreements in this. But it is still a point worth discussing, and saying that it cannot be the government's duty because it currently isn't a valid reason to stop discussion of it.
You aren't talking about discussing it, you're already calling it a duty of the government that the government allowed to be taken over. The discussion is fine, just dont start it from a stance already...