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

[realibrad]

What? Did I become annoying?

No. You just stopped providing me anything.

 

[SP33Demon]

I was the one that established the distinction to try and head off this very situation. Moonie was the one that first brought up Nazis and Speech.

"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."

Dank seems to think that its obvious, but I wanted to state it to make it clear, so I said speech will not lead to Nazis as it is only a tool. That tool can work both ways. Jhhnn then jumped in trying to argue against something I never said. I tried multiple times to say that Speech can be used for good and bad, but it matters not.

The original context was that. Before Moonie, Nazis and Speech were not the topic.

All you need to know is that the real nazi's (the alt-left) wants to censor your freedom of speech just as they are starting to do in Germany (netz.dg law). Anyone who embraces nazi-ism is sick in the head since they were extreme socialists and I have no idea why people would embrace such a losing mentality over something that can actually improve our lives (like capitalism).

 

[fskimospy]

All you need to know is that the real nazi's (the alt-left) wants to censor your freedom of speech just as they are starting to do in Germany (netz.dg law). Anyone who embraces nazi-ism is sick in the head since they were extreme socialists and I have no idea why people would embrace such a losing mentality over something that can actually improve our lives (like capitalism).

If the real Nazis are on the left then why is it that all the neo-Nazi organizations in the US support Trump? Are you more of an expert on Nazism than actual Nazis?

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm actually upset the judge awarded him $5. Seems like it sets a bad precedent for more of this in the future with even bigger payouts.

Agreed. She should appeal in order to avoid the bad precedent, but probably won't because of the cost of doing so. Fortunately a lower court decision has no value as precedent, except perhaps to encourage others to sue for similar reasons.

These "anti-dueling laws" are essentially a codification of the "fighting words" doctrine, which says that words which create a clear and present danger of violence are an exception to the first amendment. But the standard is strict. Shouting "kick the sh1t out the Nazi bastard!" would qualify. Telling him to f-off and calling him a crybaby absolutely would not. The judge's ruling was clearly unconstitutional.

 

[realibrad]

All you need to know is that the real nazi's (the alt-left) wants to censor your freedom of speech just as they are starting to do in Germany (netz.dg law). Anyone who embraces nazi-ism is sick in the head since they were extreme socialists and I have no idea why people would embrace such a losing mentality over something that can actually improve our lives (like capitalism).

The Real Nazis are anyone that wants to promote Nazi ideas. The Left and Right both have them. Far more acts are done on the Right, but the Left is picking up a lot of the same tools used. The Right is more than willing to put god into the gov.

I also dont buy that supporting Trump means youre a nazi either.

 

[Jhhnn]

If the real Nazis are on the left then why is it that all the neo-Nazi organizations in the US support Trump? Are you more of an expert on Nazism than actual Nazis?

That bot is malfunctioning. He'll be pulled & another will replace him shortly.

 

[Jhhnn]

The Real Nazis are anyone that wants to promote Nazi ideas. The Left and Right both have them. Far more acts are done on the Right, but the Left is picking up a lot of the same tools used. The Right is more than willing to put god into the gov.

I also dont buy that supporting Trump means youre a nazi either.

Mmmm... Both sides!

 

[realibrad]

Mmmm... Both sides!

Yes, both sides have shitty people. Also, did you miss the part where I said...


Far more acts are done on the Right,

 

[ch33zw1z]

To say speech creates something is to say all speech no matter what is said creates Nazis. If you are saying that and meaning that specific speech can then I'm on board.

That's not accurate at all. You're adding words into the statement when you include the word all.

Fact: speech creates Nazis. That doesn't say all speech, or that speech can't create other things. Or that speech alone is the sole creator of Nazis.

So if I'm understanding you, you don't think all speech leads to Nazism, just specific speech like promoting hate. Is that right?

Of course, this all or nothing thing is childish. You can start to refine what speech creates what if that's what you want to do.

Speech involving promotion of Nazis idealogy presented to those who maintain a disposition, or predilection (thanks Moonie) wrt to those ideals would be sympathetic and potentially become a part of that group.

 

[realibrad]

That's not accurate at all. You're adding words into the statement when you include the word all.

Fact: speech creates Nazis. That doesn't say all speech, or that speech can't create other things. Or that speech alone is the sole creator of Nazis.

If I say black people kill others, does that mean all black people, or just the few that kill people? In our society, when you say a noun and do not indicate that its limited, its assumed to mean all. You can say it was assumed, but when I tried to say that not all speech leads to Nazism, I was told no. If I try to say its only some types of speech, and I am told no, what should that indicate the person is saying?

Of course, this all or nothing thing is childish. You can start to refine what speech creates what if that's what you want to do.

Speech involving promotion of Nazis ideology presented to those who maintain a disposition, or predilection (thanks Moonie) wrt to those ideals would be sympathetic and potentially become a part of that group.

Agreed with one thing to add, which is that some people are ignorant and will accept things that are told to them. Children are a perfect example of this which is why indoctrination of them is so easy.

My point is this, I said that saying speech leads to Nazism was a generalization and that it would be more accurate to say that speech is a tool that can be used to indoctrinate people. I was told no, which sure seemed to imply that they were saying that all speech. I explained why I thought that was wrong, and people continued to say I was wrong.

 

[ch33zw1z]

If I say black people kill others, does that mean all black people, or just the few that kill people? In our society, when you say a noun and do not indicate that its limited, its assumed to mean all. You can say it was assumed, but when I tried to say that not all speech leads to Nazism, I was told no. If I try to say its only some types of speech, and I am told no, what should that indicate the person is saying?

Stop assuming, if you said that I would not automatically assume you mean all. That's childish, like how children see the world as good/bad, right/good

It's what leads to easy stereotypes, hate, racism, and all the fun stuff that comes with adults who are still children.

Agreed with one thing to add, which is that some people are ignorant and will accept things that are told to them. Children are a perfect example of this which is why indoctrination of them is so easy.

You're being very generous using "some"

 

[Younigue]

So when I say that Speech is a tool, and that speech does not cause Nazis, but Nazis use speech to spread their ideas, and then someone disagrees with me, what are they disagreeing with? You say its obvious, but when I state the obvious and I am told that is wrong, then it appears they are disagreeing with the obvious no?

realibrad, you find yourself in far too many conversations that you want to dissect the other person's words. Or you make a comment that isn't fully fleshed out when you make it but then try to stand behind it regardless of what you have to add to your point to still make your original point relevant or correct. It's a method often used by persistent salesmen and people who struggle to admit that they're not only wrong but rarely ever wrong. Sometimes? You can just admit you didn't fully think out your comment especially if you've done all you can to prove the rightness of your simpler/original point. You'll survive, promise. No one here is telling you that you are entirely wrong but they are telling you speech is likely the biggest influencer of most ideology. You know that's true... Give ground, You'll be ok. ... I've also noticed most have acknowledged what you are saying as a factor in creating racists. Your horse is dead, let the poor thing be.

 

[realibrad]

realibrad, you find yourself in far too many conversations that you want to dissect the other person's words. Or you make a comment that isn't fully fleshed out when you make it but then try to stand behind it regardless of what you have to add to your point to still make your original point relevant or correct. It's a method often used by persistent salesmen and people who struggle to admit that they're not only wrong but rarely ever wrong. Sometimes? You can just admit you didn't fully think out your comment especially if you've done all you can to prove the rightness of your simpler/original point. You'll survive, promise. No one here is telling you that you are entirely wrong but they are telling you such is likely the biggest influencer of most ideology. You know that's true... Give ground, You'll be ok. ... I've also noticed must have acknowledged what you are saying as a factor in creating racists. Your horse is dead, let the poor thing be.

Tell me what specifically I go wrong and if it makes sense, I will admit to it. I have admitted to multiple things on this forum that I got wrong. The most recent one was about the earth's core cooling before the sun expanded and consumed it.

 

[Younigue]

If I say black people kill others, does that mean all black people, or just the few that kill people? In our society, when you say a noun and do not indicate that its limited, its assumed to mean all. You can say it was assumed, but when I tried to say that not all speech leads to Nazism, I was told no. If I try to say its only some types of speech, and I am told no, what should that indicate the person is saying?



Agreed with one thing to add, which is that some people are ignorant and will accept things that are told to them. Children are a perfect example of this which is why indoctrination of them is so easy.

My point is this, I said that saying speech leads to Nazism was a generalization and that it would be more accurate to say that speech is a tool that can be used to indoctrinate people. I was told no, which sure seemed to imply that they were saying that all speech. I explained why I thought that was wrong, and people continued to say I was wrong.

That's not exactly what you said. I disagree with your assessment that it's not about free speech to the guy. He wants it but doesn't want the chick to have it. In fact it's pretty important to him because he wants to use it to create racism in people around him susceptible to his words but not to those who would tell him to fu*k off using their free words in response.

I'm gonna go ahead and say freedom of speech is all he cares about when he's selling his racist point of view. You must agree?

 

[Younigue]

Tell me what specifically I go wrong and if it makes sense, I will admit to it. I have admitted to multiple things on this forum that I got wrong. The most recent one was about the earth's core cooling before the sun expanded and consumed it.

That the guy didn't actually care about freedom of speech. What he doesn't want to care about is the freedom of speech for anyone who disagrees with him or is (rightfully) mean to him. Well, he cares... Cares enough to take someone to court to strip it away from them.

 

[realibrad]

That's not exactly what you said. I disagree with your assessment that it's not about free speech to the guy. He wants it but doesn't want the chick to have it. In fact it's pretty important to him because he wants to use it to create racism in people around him susceptible to his words but not to those who would tell him to fu*k off using their free words in response.

I'm gonna go ahead and say freedom of speech is all he cares about when he's selling his racist point of view. You must agree?

If the speech is limited to him and not her, then its not freedom of speech now is it? Thus, what he wants is not freedom of speech, what he wants is the ability to say what he wants, and not anyone else. That is not freedom, that is power over others. This is a prime example of what fascism looks like.

 

[Moonbeam]

No. You just stopped providing me anything.

Why would I provide more. I provided you with everything you needed, why speech is vital to Nazis. We will all sleep better tonight, I think, knowing you are no longer delusional in your belief that Nazis indeed are actually very much interested, if lopsidedly, in free speech.

I wrote this several hours ago and failed to post it. Seems to relate to your last post here.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, both sides have shitty people. Also, did you miss the part where I said...


Far more acts are done on the Right,

That's not what you said. You said that both the left & the right have people who promote Nazi ideas when Nazi ideas are strictly in the realm of the Right.

The notion that what passes for Left in American politics is authoritarian is bullshit. The dictatorship of the proletariat fell out of fashion in the 60's.

 

[realibrad]

That's not what you said. You said that both the left & the right have people who promote Nazi ideas when Nazi ideas are strictly in the realm of the Right.

The notion that what passes for Left in American politics is authoritarian is bullshit. The dictatorship of the proletariat fell out of fashion in the 60's.

Lol guy, look at the post. It's right friggin there.

 

[Moonbeam]

If the speech is limited to him and not her, then its not freedom of speech now is it? Thus, what he wants is not freedom of speech, what he wants is the ability to say what he wants, and not anyone else. That is not freedom, that is power over others. This is a prime example of what fascism looks like.

Perhaps now that we have established that in the area of propaganda and the desire to allow only for the expression of one’s personal form of it as a factor defining and thus a characteristic of authoritarians, we can finally move on to the point I originally made, that when you understand what motivates Nazis you will see why speech is important to them. They seek to speak as a means to power, the power to insult and offend, to create an atmosphere of frea and intimidation and violence as an external expression of the inner horror they have experienced, to hurt others like they were hurt as children.

You do not understand or see this because you will not allow yourself to feel this truth within yourself. This inability to know what you feel will blind you to everything that matters and send you off chasing windmills.

A Nazis a person who has surrendered to hate and manifests that surrender in action. His only avenue of self affirmation is to seek revenge by manifesting and expressing his self contempt externally. He heeds your hate to feel alive. And because you can’t see this phenomenon within your self, you will comply with his wishes and feed him the hate he desires. In this way do vacuum cleaners suck on vacuum cleaners and keep the game of madness alive.

 

[Moonbeam]

That's not what you said. You said that both the left & the right have people who promote Nazi ideas when Nazi ideas are strictly in the realm of the Right.

The notion that what passes for Left in American politics is authoritarian is bullshit. The dictatorship of the proletariat fell out of fashion in the 60's.

The arrogance that the right is stupid has not gone away and is growing. Arrogance is a form of contempt, and contempt has a way of justifying any means. It wasn’t the main point here I don’t think but it’s worth remembering.

 

[Younigue]

If the speech is limited to him and not her, then its not freedom of speech now is it? Thus, what he wants is not freedom of speech, what he wants is the ability to say what he wants, and not anyone else. That is not freedom, that is power over others. This is a prime example of what fascism looks like.

I would bet good money he wouldn't feel that it was fair if someone sued him for saying what he wants, when he wants to and how he wants to. I'm guessing he relies pretty heavily on his freedom/right to do so.

However, we have arrived to the point in the conversation where I bow out. Seriously, you have more stamina in beating a dead horse than I do. I won't applaud your efforts but I do acknowledge your skill, it's... interminable and relentless.

 

[realibrad]

I would bet good money he wouldn't feel that it was fair if someone sued him for saying what he wants, when he wants to and how he wants to. I'm guessing he relies pretty heavily on his freedom/right to do so.

However, we have arrived to the point in the conversation where I bow out. Seriously, you have more stamina in beating a dead horse than I do. I won't applaud your efforts but I do acknowledge your skill, it's... interminable and relentless.

We have different goals. You use this forum to vent, I use it for enjoyment.

 

[Younigue]

We have different goals. You use this forum to vent, I use it for enjoyment.

LOL! You are one stuck kind of mister.

Why do you find enjoyment in being tedious? I think you believe you have mad debating skills but I assure you your efforts are tedious and disingenuous. My observations are that no one particularly enjoys their interactions with you on a stimulating/Invigorating debate level. Is that what you believe you are experiencing while engaged? Hmmm, anyone care to weigh in? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe they thoroughly enjoy your techniques and will give you credit for being thought provoking and genuinely well thought out in your approach?

 

[Jhhnn]

LOL! You are one stuck kind of mister.

Why do you find enjoyment in being tedious? I think you believe you have mad debating skills but I assure you your efforts are tedious and disingenuous. My observations are that no one particularly enjoys their interactions with you on a stimulating/Invigorating debate level. Is that what you believe you are experiencing while engaged? Hmmm, anyone care to weigh in? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe they thoroughly enjoy your techniques and will give you credit for being thought provoking and genuinely well thought out in your approach?

He quibbles in circles.