Blame on both sides

Status
Not open for further replies.
Screeeech said:
[..] What are people's thoughts on this? is there truly blame on both sides - if so why?
Click to expand...

Because both sides contain significant quantities of violent bigots.

Or - should the rights of neo nazis/racists/kkk/etc be respected just as much as liberals?
Click to expand...

They're much the same thing now. Liberalism has been thoroughly corrupted and destroyed by authoritarian bigots who are more fascist than many self-declared fascists. Liberals are now amongst the most illiberal people on Earth. Using the word "liberal" to described, well, liberalism, is like using a swastika as a symbol of good luck and general niceness. Sure, that's technically what it means but in most of the world extremists have corrupted it too much for it to be used that way.

Stalin, Hitler...same basic ideas, slightly different excuses, same results.
 
KNiVES said:
All posters who say both sides are genuinely as bad as each other needs an urgent lesson in history IMMEDIATELY. It wasn't the left who enslaved the blacks or killed six million jews.
Click to expand...

They enslaved "the blacks" and killed tens of millions of people for being the "wrong" ethnicity, religion, level of education or just because some left-wing extremist thought they might not be absolutely obedient or just to steal their stuff or just because mass murder was a means of increasing and holding power through terror.

So if you're using that sort of thing as a measure, left is far worse than right.

You need an urgent lession in history IMMEDIATELY. Actual history, not propaganda.
 
IronWarrior said:
Now that where I have to disagree. I believe in freedom of speech and I believe in the American version of that. I believe everyone can say anything they want as long they not inciting violence against an other group or anything else that would break laws or harm a person. I think you understand what I mean.
Click to expand...

Hades said:
It was a lawful demonstration that may well have been a peaceful one if it weren't for certain elements trying to close down free speech (not that I agree with the neo Nazis but I do agree with free speech).
Click to expand...

Well I for one much prefer the UK's freedom of speech laws. Hate speech is illegal here.

Would your really want an equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church shouting out obscenities as our military personnel are put to rest because 'Freedom of speech'??

IronWarrior said:
Just so there is no confusion, my political view point is center.
Click to expand...

Judging by what i've seen in many of your posts, this is not the case at all.
 
Given there is evidence of multiple attempts by extreme left activists to bait the right wing groups into violence at these events in Virginia I think it fair to say in this specific case both sides are equally to blame.
 
VincentHanna said:
Well I for one much prefer the UK's freedom of speech laws. Hate speech is illegal here.

Would your really want an equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church shouting out obscenities as our military personnel are put to rest because 'Freedom of speech'??

Judging by what i've seen in many of your posts, this is not the case at all.
Click to expand...

I don't approve of our current system, it's too strict. People getting arrested for making a post on twitter or someplace on the internet. The Westboro Baptist Church might be the worst people in the entire world, but am still going to defend their right to be ass-hats. Just as I will defend your right to call them whatever you want. I will draw the line when it comes to wanting to harm the other side with physical violence.

My view has always been center, I appreciate values and aspects from both the left and right. You must have balance which how the UK and other westen countries are right now, our governments are always in the middle allowing just as much freedom for everyone to enjoy while restricting enough not to do harm.
 
VincentHanna said:
Well I for one much prefer the UK's freedom of speech laws. Hate speech is illegal here.

Would your really want an equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church shouting out obscenities as our military personnel are put to rest because 'Freedom of speech'??



Judging by what i've seen in many of your posts, this is not the case at all.
Click to expand...

The huge problem is defining what hate speech is. Sure it's banned. But what is termed hate speech and who defines it? The term can be changed and corrupted over time to suit an agenda. It's a slippery slope.

It's similar to people calling for "punch a Nazi". That's all well and good but over time a "Nazi" gradually becomes anyone far right. Then anyone on the right. Then anyone who disagrees with the person calling for people to be punched even if they aren't that right wing.

Freedom of speech has to be protected for all of us, even if it means we hear what we don't like.
 
The arguments for freedom of speech (as in, the government won't touch you if you just say things) quickly lose their most fervent supporters as soon as it means people have to support the right for people like Abu Hamza to say whatever they like. If you're fine with that then that's cool - it's really the only proper way to apply such laws, it's just that there's a lot of people who have different views on free speech depending on who is attempting to use it.
 
Dis86 said:
And saying people should get a kicking because they hold certain views isn't hate speech?
That's precisely what we have in this thread.
Click to expand...

If a guy in a KKK costume, with a microphone, stands outside in public shouting how we should be killing blacks in record numbers, and he gets a kicking for it, is the person doing the kicking equally bad?
 
Screeeech said:
If a guy in a KKK costume, with a microphone, stands outside in public shouting how we should be killing blacks in record numbers, and he gets a kicking for it, is the person doing the kicking equally bad?
Click to expand...

Worse. One has abhorrent views, the other actions. I know which is easier to ignore.
 
Caged said:
The arguments for freedom of speech (as in, the government won't touch you if you just say things) quickly lose their most fervent supporters as soon as it means people have to support the right for people like Abu Hamza to say whatever they like. If you're fine with that then that's cool, it's just that there's a lot of people who have different views on free speech depending on who is attempting to use it.
Click to expand...
I hate what Abu Hamza said. But, apart from actual calls for violence, I agree with his right to say them because to not do so is the start of that slippery slope.
 
Caged said:
The arguments for freedom of speech (as in, the government won't touch you if you just say things) quickly lose their most fervent supporters as soon as it means people have to support the right for people like Abu Hamza to say whatever they like. If you're fine with that then that's cool - it's really the only proper way to apply such laws, it's just that there's a lot of people who have different views on free speech depending on who is attempting to use it.
Click to expand...

Well in the case of Abu Hamza, he was proper inciting others to rise up and join the jihad if I believe, might be wrong, but that's what I understood when he was in the news. That in my view would be crossing the line and thats when the law should be bought in to stop it since he is trying to get others to commit violence right.
 
IronWarrior said:
Well in the case of Abu Hamza, he was proper inciting others to rise up and join the jihad if I believe, might be wrong, but that's what I understood when he was in the news. That in my view would be crossing the line and thats when the law should be bought in to stop it since he is trying to get others to commit violence right.
Click to expand...

But then we get into the grey area of what is incitement, which is potentially just as grey as the 'hate speech' argument that was made. Is incitement explicitly telling people to go out and murder? Is "we pray for the day that all the non-believers are dead" incitement, or just distasteful? I think someone could work around an incitement law and still get their message across quite clearly to followers who can fill in the blanks.
 
VincentHanna said:
Well i'm sure our Grandfathers all fought and died for our freedom to defend modern day Nazis

Jeez
Click to expand...
The reasons for individual people fighting in WW1 and WW2 are complex and based on societies expectations of them rather than their individual desire to beat the Nazis (and the government was simply trying to protect our empire and their own position of power). That's quite evident because we allied ourselves with a nation which killed even more people that the Nazis did (Russia during the revolution).
 
Caged said:
But then we get into the grey area of what is incitement, which is potentially just as grey as the 'hate speech' argument that was made. Is incitement explicitly telling people to go out and murder? Is "we pray for the day that all the non-believers are dead" incitement, or just distasteful? I think someone could work around an incitement law and still get their message across quite clearly to followers who can fill in the blanks.
Click to expand...

I agree caged, that's the current problem the west is having right now. Where to draw the line? What is hate speech and who defines it?

Does everyone remember that guy who put bacon sandwiches outside a mosque? That guy was arrested, he was later found dead in prison.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-dead-prison-half-way-12-month-sentence.html

Other then the crime of wasting them yummy bacon sandwiches, doesn't anyone not think that arresting the idiot and sending him to prison was a little over the top? He was arrested for a "racially-motivated attack" which in detail, all he did was make some bacon sandwiches, put them at the front of the mosque and paint some naughty words on the wall.

If am wrong anywhere in the story, please correct me.
 
Dis86 said:
Worse. One has abhorrent views, the other actions. I know which is easier to ignore.
Click to expand...

But could it not be the case, that some views are so abhorrent and toxic to society at large, that to stand by and ignore them without taking action, could in the long run lead to far bigger problems?

People may claim, that the "alt-left" are equally as bad for being violent, but I'm not sure this is true - because they're not the ones openly calling out for the slaughter of black people.

Reminds me of that Einstein quote; the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom