Discussion Greatest Crime in American History

[fskimospy]

Baw you seem to be reaching for a gotcha on the word "all" which is a shallow arguement. If you think there aren’t people very liberally using the term "Nazi" you’re lying to yourself or have your eyes closed. When the protesters were out defending statues there were a group of neo Nazis that participated in (one that I know of) a protest and the more left leaning posters grabbed it and assigned to anyone who protested the statues. It became an out, an easy way to jump into an arguement without anything to say. Much the same as a right wing poster might drop the Antifa name into a conversation as a way to paint the left in a negative light even if they have nothing at all to do with Antifa. You’re gotcha is empty, don't be that guy.

People defending monuments to people who fought for white supremacy and race based mass enslavement have a good bit more in common with Nazis than the average leftist does with antifa.

It appears that white southerners still haven’t fully come to grips with the moral horror the confederacy represented.

 

[UglyCasanova]

People defending monuments to people who fought for white supremacy and race based mass enslavement have a good bit more in common with Nazis than the average leftist does with antifa.

No they don’t. You love to think so because it reinforces your ideology but that’s such an empty statement. Antifa wants to silence free speech which seems to be a common movement among progressives, should that line drawn mean blanket statement about the left being Antifa are accurate? I don’t think so, but same logic.

 

[fskimospy]

No they don’t. You love to think so because it reinforces your ideology but that’s such an empty statement. Antifa wants to silence free speech which seems to be a common movement among progressives, should that line drawn mean blanket statement about the left being Antifa are accurate? I don’t think so, but same logic.

You need to learn more about this topic, the desire to silence speech they don’t like transcends political ideology. Polls show that conservatives for example often want to silence Muslim advocacy.

And yes, people defending monuments to race based enslavement have more in common with Nazis. After all, that was sort of their thing. The confederacy was the closest thing America ever got to Nazism and the South has never admitted it because accepting reality is too shameful.

 

[UglyCasanova]

You need to learn more about this topic, the desire to silence speech they don’t like transcends political ideology. Polls show that conservatives for example often want to silence Muslim advocacy.

Do I get to use the lame "both sides" comeback? Seems to be what I’m attacked with every time I make the arguement that something is an issue on both sides of the spectrum. Yes the right has it’s own issues with free speech. No doubt about it. That doesn’t excuse the push from the left or the commonality it shares with Antifa regarding it. And it certainly seems to be the more prevelant agrresor of the issue at the moment, although people on the right attacking James Gunn for instance is pretty damning too.

 

[fskimospy]

Do I get to use the lame "both sides" comeback? Seems to be what I’m attacked with every time I make the arguement that something is an issue on both sides of the spectrum. Yes the right has it’s own issues with free speech. No doubt about it. That doesn’t excuse the push from the left or the commonality it shares with Antifa regarding it. And it certainly seems to be the more prevelant agrresor of the issue at the moment, although people on the right attacking James Gunn for instance is pretty damning too.

The complaint about both sides is one of false equivalence. In this case the equivalence is real. I’m not aware of any evidence that liberals are more likely to want to silence speech than conservatives, like I said from the empirical evidence I have seen it is just a desire to silence it about different topics.

 

[Jhhnn]

No they don’t. You love to think so because it reinforces your ideology but that’s such an empty statement. Antifa wants to silence free speech which seems to be a common movement among progressives, should that line drawn mean blanket statement about the left being Antifa are accurate? I don’t think so, but same logic.

Yeh, white supremacists luvs themselves some free speech, that's for sure. There was a whole lot of it for black people during the Jim Crow era, their version of the good old days.

 

[UglyCasanova]

The complaint of both sides is a deflection because someone doesn’t want to admit their shit stinks too. "Well they do it more" is a lame fallback.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeh, white supremacists luvs themselves some free speech, that's for sure. There was a whole lot of it for black people during the Jim Crow era, their version of the good old days.

I always find it amusing how the ‘free speech’ advocates on the right also seem to be fine with Colin Kaepernick being blackballed as well as having the government intervene to force media companies to rebroadcast their speech.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Yeh, white supremacists luvs themselves some free speech, that's for sure. There was a whole lot of it for black people during the Jim Crow era, their version of the good old days.

People who are against the removal of statues aren’t all white supremicists. Large brush you’re painting with baw. I’m not defending anyone who claims to be a white supremicist, frick em they’re scum. But blanket statements like that are lazy.

 

[fskimospy]

The complaint of both sides is a deflection because someone doesn’t want to admit their shit stinks too. "Well they do it more" is a lame fallback.

I do agree that ‘bothsides’ is often a deflection, but what you’re doing here is basically #bothsides-ing again.

It absolutely matters who does it more. It would be insane to think otherwise. If I rob one bank and you rob 100 we are both bank robbers but treating us the same would be the height of stupidity.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I always find it amusing how the ‘free speech’ advocates on the right also seem to be fine with Colin Kaepernick being blackballed as well as having the government intervene to force media companies to rebroadcast their speech.

I’m not. The fiasci over standing was stupid. I don’t fault the NFL owners because he was doing it on heir clock and representing the company in a way that was harmful to their public image and ultimately revenue. But the hicks throwing a fit about it yeah I agree were against free speech, one of those being the president.

 

[Jhhnn]

The complaint of both sides is a deflection because someone doesn’t want to admit their shit stinks too. "Well they do it more" is a lame fallback.

You invoked bothsiderism when you introduced Antifa to the conversation, all of which is duh-version from Putin's obvious & ongoing support of Trump & the GOP.

It's not like Trump has renounced Russian efforts, either.

 

[fskimospy]

I’m not. The fiasci over standing was stupid. I don’t fault the NFL owners because he was doing it on heir clock and representing the company in a way that was harmful to their public image and ultimately revenue. But the hicks throwing a fit about it yeah I agree were against free speech, one of those being the president.

I agree, the NFL has no obligation to employ him and can fire him or not hire him based on anything he says. I just wish the people whining about how their free speech is oppressed by getting kicked off YouTube could understand that.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I agree, but the YouTube issue is a bit more murky because of its dominance as a platform of speech, same with Twitter and Facebook. Yes they are private companies but much in the same way the telecoms are. And Google and Microsoft. And Comcast and other ISP's. There’s a lot of question marks about what does it all mean and how to move forward. We’re wresting with it and I’d prefer to ere on the side of free speech. The NFL isn’t a platform of public speech the way YouTube is, so the arguement isn’t so clear.

 

[pmv]

I agree, but the YouTube issue is a bit more murky because of its dominance as a platform of speech, same with Twitter and Facebook. Yes they are private companies but much in the same way the telecoms are. And Google and Microsoft. And Comcast and other ISP's. There’s a lot of question marks about what does it all mean and how to move forward. We’re wresting with it and I’d prefer to ere on the side of free speech. The NFL isn’t a platform of public speech the way YouTube is, so the arguement isn’t so clear.

I think that's a fair point, personally. I don't know what follows from it though. To me it just highlights the complexity of 'free speech'' as a concept.

Though I think one could apply it to the NFL as well, as it's not just a private business it's an institution with a major place in US culture. Is it not also a kind of monopoly? Is there another national football league?

There's a difference between punishing a player for doing something on their employers time and for what they say or do outside work, though.

(Plus, I bet if one looked closely there are ways in which the NFL has had special treatment or unique accommodations by national, state, and city governments - assuming it's anything like other major sports organisation).

 

[pmv]

People who are against the removal of statues aren’t all white supremicists. Large brush you’re painting with baw. I’m not defending anyone who claims to be a white supremicist, frick em they’re scum. But blanket statements like that are lazy.

I think, functionally they are, even if they don't realise it themselves. The vast majority of those statues are political statements, supporting white supremacy.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Yeah they’ve had special treatment alright, taxpayers funneling millions if not billions into new stadiums and other incentives. Frick the NFL. But even given that they’re still private employers and the players are the face of their brand so they have every right to protect that.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree, but the YouTube issue is a bit more murky because of its dominance as a platform of speech, same with Twitter and Facebook. Yes they are private companies but much in the same way the telecoms are. And Google and Microsoft. And Comcast and other ISP's. There’s a lot of question marks about what does it all mean and how to move forward. We’re wresting with it and I’d prefer to ere on the side of free speech. The NFL isn’t a platform of public speech the way YouTube is, so the arguement isn’t so clear.

They are not private companies like the telecoms are. With the telecoms in many situations you have no choice but to use their service, unlike YouTube.

The situation is not murky, it is a bright line. YouTube has the absolute right to kick anyone they want off their service, the same as the NFL. If anything the NFL should have fewer free speech rights considering the large amount of public subsidies it gets.

This is the problem, conservatives want it both ways.

 

[brandonbull]

Yeh, that explains the massive Russian propaganda & disinformation campaign on Trump's behalf.

We do have evidence that the Dems created "Russian" propaganda during Roy Moore's election and given what we know about Clinton, the DNC, and high ranking DOJ officials, it seems that Roy Moore's election wasn't the first time "Russian" propaganda & disinformation was used.

 

[fskimospy]

We do have evidence that the Dems created "Russian" propaganda during Roy Moore's election and given what we know about Clinton, the DNC, and high ranking DOJ officials, it seems that Roy Moore's election wasn't the first time "Russian" propaganda & disinformation was used.

Do you understand the difference between Americans and Russians?

 

[hal2kilo]

hur bur der, you also literally typed what about.

No f'n kidding.

 

[UNCjigga]

We do have evidence that the Dems created "Russian" propaganda during Roy Moore's election and given what we know about Clinton, the DNC, and high ranking DOJ officials, it seems that Roy Moore's election wasn't the first time "Russian" propaganda & disinformation was used.

Zero evidence that Dems directed any of the Russian social media disinformation, and what was discovered was too small in scope to affect the outcome of the special election (based on targeted audience.) Most of the news coverage at the time was damaging enough...and Moore's fans didn't help matters with the robocall shenanigans.

But if you disagree and can back it up with facts, post away.

 

[Jhhnn]

We do have evidence that the Dems created "Russian" propaganda during Roy Moore's election and given what we know about Clinton, the DNC, and high ranking DOJ officials, it seems that Roy Moore's election wasn't the first time "Russian" propaganda & disinformation was used.

Not "Russians" but rather real Russians backed Trump with a brilliant, audacious & utterly devastating disinformation campaign. It was unprecedented in the annals of propaganda, a stunning achievement in the new realm of the internet & social media. It still has a profound effect on conservative headsets like your own.

Must have been for the MAGA, huh?

 

[JSt0rm]

We do have evidence that the Dems created "Russian" propaganda during Roy Moore's election and given what we know about Clinton, the DNC, and high ranking DOJ officials, it seems that Roy Moore's election wasn't the first time "Russian" propaganda & disinformation was used.

look how dumb you are