• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Proof that "Very fine people" are really just whiny snowflakes

I want you all to shed a tear for the horrific verbal abuse one of the organizers of the Charlottesville unite the right rally had to endure and was required to bring legal action for.
Some choice quotes from the article:

Kessler sued Donna Gasapo for $500 because she said things like “Fuck you, asshole,” and called Kessler a “crybaby.” Gasapo never denied saying the words, but her attorney argued that what she said was protected under the First Amendment. Kessler said that her words were in violation of Virginia’s anti-dueling laws.

“This is an opportunity to bring civility back to our community,” Kessler insisted in his lawsuit, while also making thinly veiled threats of violence. “There was a chance that I could respond violently and I don’t want that to happen.”

https://gizmodo.com/judge-awards-5-to-free-speech-rally-organizer-because-1827280858

These brave white patriots are all about the First Amendment and respecting the rights of those who disagree with them. /s
 
If I were the judge in that case, I'd not only shoot down the claim, I'd make Kessler pay the court costs and see if I could fine him for wasting the court's time. Even the people conservatives would most eagerly label as snowflakes (they're not) have a thicker skin than this guy does.
 
Lol. That made me smile. Virginia’s anti-dueling laws...

I built the image in my head of an ANTIFA guy going up to the Racist guy and slapping him with a white glove and the Racist guy saying "SIR!!!!"
 
I do love how they simultaneously rant about how much they hate political correctness and then complain about how people are too mean to them.

Its the same group that thinks its religion is under attack, and then tries to push their religion onto everyone while trying to limit all other religions. Its expected.
 
Its the same group that thinks its religion is under attack, and then tries to push their religion onto everyone while trying to limit all other religions. Its expected.

Yes, it’s a manifestation of tribalism. They aren’t concerned with freedom of speech, they are concerned with freedom of THEIR speech.
 
Yes, it’s a manifestation of tribalism. They aren’t concerned with freedom of speech, they are concerned with freedom of THEIR speech.

Eh, its even deeper. Its about doing what they want and finding ways to justify why its good to do so. Speech is unimportant.
 
These brave white patriots are all about the First Amendment and respecting the rights of those who disagree with them. /s

There is a difference between disagreeing with someone, and heading out to the street to get in their face and physically shut down their right to free speech. Such confrontations do lead the violence.
 
There is a difference between disagreeing with someone, and heading out to the street to get in their face and physically shut down their right to free speech. Such confrontations do lead the violence.

Yeah, no. Your freedom of speech doesn't also come with freedom from my speech.

Please note we're discussing speech here not physical attacks. The lawsuit in question was because the person speaking was offended at the words used by someone countering his speech.
 
Yeah, no. Your freedom of speech doesn't also come with freedom from my speech.

Please note we're discussing speech here not physical attacks. The lawsuit in question was because the person speaking was offended at the words used by someone countering his speech.

There are... fine details, intricacies in how a confrontation like those can go down. Each case being different. Such as going into places and harassing others, getting up in their faces and yelling point blank. That sort of threat can be responded to by force. And force can, always, ultimately end up as deadly force.

I don't know the details of this case, but I am quite curious as to how protestors and counter protestors are supposed to be managed. Free speech is not the right to attack or harass others. Yet such confrontations can end up as such.
 
It's important, it's a stepping stone toward getting there.

You misunderstand. Spy said they were concerned with THEIR freedom of speech to which I disagreed with. I said that they are concerned with justifying their actions, and in that sense, speech is among one of many things. You could take away speech and they would still find ways to justify their actions. Thus, speech to them is not important.
 
You misunderstand. Spy said they were concerned with THEIR freedom of speech to which I disagreed with. I said that they are concerned with justifying their actions, and in that sense, speech is among one of many things. You could take away speech and they would still find ways to justify their actions. Thus, speech to them is not important.
What causes people to be Nazis? I think if you look to why you will see that speech is important to them even more than justifying their actions. Their actions have no justification.
 
What causes people to be Nazis? I think if you look to why you will see that speech is important to them even more than justifying their actions. Their actions have no justification.

Speech does not turn people into Nazis. Speech is a tool, but there are many tools out there. As for their actions having no justification, that is wrong. Morally its wrong, and, the original German belief is not backed by science, but, there are ways that people can contort themselves to believe things that are untrue. That is a much longer and very different discussion.

Speech does not cause Nazis. Speech is not an ideal to uphold beyond it being a tool that they want to have, but, prevent others from having.
 
Speech does not turn people into Nazis. Speech is a tool, but there are many tools out there. As for their actions having no justification, that is wrong. Morally its wrong, and, the original German belief is not backed by science, but, there are ways that people can contort themselves to believe things that are untrue. That is a much longer and very different discussion.

Speech does not cause Nazis. Speech is not an ideal to uphold beyond it being a tool that they want to have, but, prevent others from having.

Gawd. All forms of media are forms of speech. It would be impossible for modern Nazis to be Nazis at all if it weren't for the preservation & expression of the ideas carried forward in various forms of media.
 
Speech does not turn people into Nazis. Speech is a tool, but there are many tools out there. As for their actions having no justification, that is wrong. Morally its wrong, and, the original German belief is not backed by science, but, there are ways that people can contort themselves to believe things that are untrue. That is a much longer and very different discussion.

Speech does not cause Nazis. Speech is not an ideal to uphold beyond it being a tool that they want to have, but, prevent others from having.
Let’s go back to my original suggestion that if you look at what causes Nazis, you will see why speech is important. This didn’t mean that speech causes Nazis, but that what causes Nazis makes speech important. I was trying to suggest that you would see the connection if you see the cause.

I can outline how I see this but my past experience with your opinions suggest to me you may resist it:

1. We all hate ourselves but handle it differently.

2. All hate of others is self hate.

3. Self hate has its origins in being put down as children creating shame and self loathing we could not consciously survive.

4. One way to handle that pain is to seek revenge by getting back at those who put us down by proving our abusers right.

5. The failure of many to find any comfort or support, those who had it really bad, turn from seeking love and support to seeking attention.

6. The desire for revenge and the seeking of negative attention creat the exibitionist bad boy or bad girl, those who gravitate to express themselves in ways stereotypically thought of as disgusting.

7. In this way, collections of negative attention seekers gravitate into various odious cults where how well they manifest bad behavior gives them purpose and a sense of worth.

8. The accolades thus engendered correlate with the offense given to the norms and standards of decency. This is done via both verbal and physical expression. They seek therefore to protect their speech because it is a major component of how they offend.
 
Gawd. All forms of media are forms of speech. It would be impossible for modern Nazis to be Nazis at all if it weren't for the preservation & expression of the ideas carried forward in various forms of media.

How is this a response to anything I said?
 
Damn, what a snowflake.
Sues her for telling him "fuck you" but later he calls her names. But of course, it was the alcohol's fault. Not his. 🙄

Not long after the rally, Kessler tweeted that Heyer was a “fat Communist pig” and called her death “payback time.” At first, Kessler claimed that his Twitter account was hacked, but then tacitly admitted that he sent the tweets, blaming it on Ambien, Xanax, and alcohol.

What a POS.
Kessler, a former contributor to the Daily Caller news site, said that his lawsuit was about civility, a pretty absurd claim for a guy who helped organize a rally where men were chanting things like “Jews will not replace us,” and giving Hitler salutes.

“This is an opportunity to bring civility back to our community,” Kessler insisted in his lawsuit, while also making thinly veiled threats of violence. “There was a chance that I could respond violently and I don’t want that to happen.”

WTF?^^^



Seems like the judge could have just told her to put it in a swear jar, on his bench.

the-daid-swear-jar-telling-my-kids-im-not-going-30777256.png
 
Let’s go back to my original suggestion that if you look at what causes Nazis, you will see why speech is important. This didn’t mean that speech causes Nazis, but that what causes Nazis makes speech important. I was trying to suggest that you would see the connection if you see the cause.

I can outline how I see this but my past experience with your opinions suggest to me you may resist it:

1. We all hate ourselves but handle it differently.

2. All hate of others is self hate.

3. Self hate has its origins in being put down as children creating shame and self loathing we could not consciously survive.

4. One way to handle that pain is to seek revenge by getting back at those who put us down by proving our abusers right.

5. The failure of many to find any comfort or support, those who had it really bad, turn from seeking love and support to seeking attention.

6. The desire for revenge and the seeking of negative attention creat the exibitionist bad boy or bad girl, those who gravitate to express themselves in ways stereotypically thought of as disgusting.

7. In this way, collections of negative attention seekers gravitate into various odious cults where how well they manifest bad behavior gives them purpose and a sense of worth.

8. The accolades thus engendered correlate with the offense given to the norms and standards of decency. This is done via both verbal and physical expression. They seek therefore to protect their speech because it is a major component of how they offend.

Self hate does not require Speech. If you believe self hate is what creates Nazis, then why are you talking about speech?
 
What a pathetic excuse for a human being. He should be in jail for attacking the 1st Amendment like this. The woman has free speech rights to say whatever she wants to him. He's just like the radical Islamists who sue people for criticizing their religion.
 
Back
Top