Former President Trump Thread

figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
PatrThom said:
And so you are taking "being a Nazi" as not being a condition of their birth? That it is always a choice made by the individual?
Click to expand...
REALLY? FUCKING REALLY? No, no one is born with a Nazi flag in their hand that they can't drop. No one is born such that the only words that can come out of their mouths are "Jews will not replace us". No one is born in such a circumstance that they have to promote the ideology of the Nazi party.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

figmentPez said:
REALLY? FUCKING REALLY? No, no one is born with a Nazi flag in their hand that they can't drop. No one is born such that the only words that can come out of their mouths are "Jews will not replace us". No one is born in such a circumstance that they have to promote the ideology of the Nazi party.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know the adage: Nobody is born racist. But people are born into racist households, racist communities, racist regimes, etc., and the idea of being able to enshrine any group of people in some kind of list of "It's always okay to shit on these people" strikes me as...dangerous. I've said before that adding individual people to such a list is one thing, but what you suggest sounds like it could lead to things like that cartoon where Daffy gets repeatedly shot because Bugs sneaks fake rabbit ears on him.

--Patrick
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

PatrThom said:
Not all Nazis.
Click to expand...
That's why war crimes tribunals charged them by name rather than by swastika. If every single one of them was charged, it would still be on an individual basis. Even Nazi hunters in post-WWII had to know who they were looking for.

But the responses you're getting may be pointless because you're probably trying to say something that sounds completely different from what you're actually saying. Again.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

Look, I understand what he's trying to say. People attributing certain points of view to people making an argument are too locked in a bubble, sometimes.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Zero Esc said:
the responses you're getting may be pointless because you're probably trying to say something that sounds completely different from what you're actually saying. Again.
Click to expand...
Yes. Add people to lists, not A People.
i.e., I support adding Bob to a list because he was seen in public preaching hate, beating up homeless people, etc. I do NOT support automatically adding Bob to a list because the rest of his family preaches hate, or because he is from a brown country, or a Southern county, or because he's a witch, or because he's otherwise "different," etc.

--Patrick
 
Last edited:
Just Me

Just Me

Bubble181 said:
Meanwhile, there's a neonazi manifestation in Berlin commemorating the 30th anniversary of Hess' death. A few hundred nazi sympathizers, with about a thousand policemen surrounding them to keep them safe from the four different countermanifestations (you know, one communist, one green, one normal left, one centrist). Quote the senator responsible: "Oh, I'd have loved to ban the manifestation. However, the right of free speech also applies to losers and fools. They are subject to some strict rules and regulations, and otherwise, they're free to spout their nonsense".
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info, Bubble!
I'm not up to date with everything going on here, what with having bought a house and being knee-deep in renovations since june, but reading about Nazis being told what they are brightens up my stressgul days mightily!

Btw, from Berlin newspaper articles I read that the responsible senator used the word 'Arschlöcher' (assholes) where your quote pataphrased 'losers and fools'. :)

https://www.rbb-online.de/politik/b...s-spandau-linksextreme-gegendemonstratio.html
 
Sara_2814

Sara_2814

PatrThom said:
Yes, I know the adage: Nobody is born racist. But people are born into racist households, racist communities, racist regimes, etc., and the idea of being able to enshrine any group of people in some kind of list of "It's always okay to shit on these people" strikes me as...dangerous. I've said before that adding individual people to such a list is one thing, but what you suggest sounds like it could lead to things like that cartoon where Daffy gets repeatedly shot because Bugs sneaks fake rabbit ears on him.

--Patrick
Click to expand...
Pez didn't say anything about shitting on people. He's talking about considering Nazi rhetoric and symbols (given their history) as inherently being an advocation of violence against particular groups of people, and therefore should not be protected speech. How is that shitting on people?
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
PatrThom said:
Yes, I know the adage: Nobody is born racist. But people are born into racist households, racist communities, racist regimes, etc., and the idea of being able to enshrine any group of people in some kind of list of "It's always okay to shit on these people" strikes me as...dangerous. I've said before that adding individual people to such a list is one thing, but what you suggest sounds like it could lead to things like that cartoon where Daffy gets repeatedly shot because Bugs sneaks fake rabbit ears on him.
Click to expand...
When did I say "it's okay to shit on Nazis"? All I've advocated is that genocide and the associated Nazi flag not be considered valid political statements. People can think that shit, they can say they believe in that shit, but they should not be protected in their right to promote it at political rallies/forums. People can still draw Joe Cool, but they can't take out full color two-page spreads in magazines anymore. WHY? Because advertising cigarettes isn't protected speech. That hasn't somehow made it "okay to shit on smokers" or even "okay to shit on cigarette manufacturers".

I fail to see how genocide can be considered a valid political position, deserving of protection.
 
jwhouk

jwhouk

The First Amendment, as I found out during my Constitutional History classes in college, does not protect "inciting speech."

You cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and expect to be protected by your First Amendment rights to free speech.

Similarly, any group that is yelling hate speech - whether it is the "GOD HATES FAGS" of Westboro Baptist or Nazis yelling "KILL THE JEWS" - cannot rightfully expect that their speech, in certain circumstances, is protected by the First Amendment.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Sara_2814 said:
Pez didn't say anything about shitting on people.
Click to expand...
figmentPez said:
When did I say "it's okay to shit on Nazis"?
Click to expand...
I stand corrected.
I saw this as saying, "It's ok to vilify them. They're Nazis, they deserve it."

That said, I personally wouldn't have a problem with a bunch of people flying a Nazi flag and yelling, "We're inherently better than everyone else," but I would have a problem with, "...so everyone who isn't us deserves to be put to death."

...but I think I've already demonstrated that my idiosyncratic belief system can be downright frustrating to others, no matter how publicly-minded I may demonstrate myself to be.

--Patrick
 
Last edited:
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
PatrThom said:
That said, I personally wouldn't have a problem with a bunch of people flying a Nazi flag and yelling, "We're inherently better than everyone else," but I would have a problem with, "...so everyone who isn't us deserves to be put to death."
Click to expand...
Flying the Nazi flag implies the latter, the same way that aiming a loaded gun at a person implies violence.
 
Denbrought

Denbrought

Since I see the conversation is now arriving at the "fire in a crowded theater" station, here's some good and relevant reading, for any interested.

Popehat: Three Generations of a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship Are Enough
People tend to cite the "fire in a crowded theater" quote for two reasons, both bolstered by Holmes' fame. First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute. Saying it is not an apt or persuasive argument for the proposition that some particular speech is unprotected, any more than saying "well, some speech is protected by the First Amendment" is a persuasive argument to the contrary. Second, people tend to cite Holmes to imply that there is some undisclosed legal authority showing that the speech they are criticizing is not protected by the First Amendment. This is dishonest at worst and unconvincing at best. If you have a pertinent case showing that particular speech falls outside the First Amendment, you don't have to rely on a 90-year-old rhetorical flourish to support your argument.

(..) Holmes' quote is the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech. (..) This post is about putting the Holmes quote in context, and explaining why it adds nothing to a First Amendment debate.
Click to expand...
Popehat: How To Spot And Critique Censorship Tropes In The Media's Coverage Of Free Speech Controversies (not quoting from this one, it's a few bullet-points of tropes--most of which have been trotted out in the last few pages).
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
jwhouk said:
Similarly, any group that is yelling hate speech - whether it is the "GOD HATES FAGS" of Westboro Baptist or Nazis yelling "KILL THE JEWS" - cannot rightfully expect that their speech, in certain circumstances, is protected by the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled that such hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. Brandenburg v. Ohio

IANAL, but my understanding of that is that it's okay to say "we hate these people" and possibly even "these people should be shot", but not to say "shoot these people now". I'm not sure if it's legal to say "this is our plan to shoot these innocent people" or "we are going to form a mob to shoot these innocent people, come join us", but I'm wondering just why it's necessary to protect those statements as free speech. I can easily see why "I hate ____" needs to be protected. I can see why "they will face a reckoning" should be considered protected speech. I fail to see why "this is our plan to kill innocent people" should be protected, simply because it's not about a specific time, or specific individuals.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

figmentPez said:
Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled that such hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. Brandenburg v. Ohio

IANAL, but my understanding of that is that it's okay to say "we hate these people" and possibly even "these people should be shot", but not to say "shoot these people now". I'm not sure if it's legal to say "this is our plan to shoot these innocent people" or "we are going to form a mob to shoot these innocent people, come join us", but I'm wondering just why it's necessary to protect those statements as free speech. I can easily see why "I hate ____" needs to be protected. I can see why "they will face a reckoning" should be considered protected speech. I fail to see why "this is our plan to kill innocent people" should be protected, simply because it's not about a specific time, or specific individuals.
Click to expand...
Basically, the reason the advocacy of violence is protected is to allow the citizenry the ability to freely speak in exaggeration and to allow affected groups to communicate their displeasure in an open, honest means.

"They aught to be shot" is (usually) understood to be a statement of displeasure. "We/You should shoot them" is a call to violence. "We're going to make it legal to shoot them" is just a statement of policy, as horrific as it is. However, what -I- don't understand is why "We're going to legally and systemically slaughter your race and all who support you" isn't an inciting statement when used in the context of Nazis, whom we know DO want to do that and have (almost) successfully done to international shame, especially when said statements are aimed at groups they have targeted in the past and continue to harm.

But of course we know the REAL reason it's allowed to go on: at least some in power agree with it and won't punish their own.
 
Denbrought

Denbrought

DarkAudit said:
Wouldn't there come a tipping point where the Secret Service can say, "we can't protect you, so you can't go."?
Click to expand...
That's not how that works, AFAIK. It's the SS' job to work around the President's schedule and needs, not the other way around. They would warn the President of the degradation in service quality (and suggest mitigation options, like additional funding from Congress or staying at the WH and getting a VR golf setup) and try their best to keep him safe.
 
DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Denbrought said:
That's not how that works, AFAIK. It's the SS' job to work around the President's schedule and needs, not the other way around. They would warn the President of the degradation in service quality (and suggest mitigation options, like additional funding from Congress or staying at the WH and getting a VR golf setup) and try their best to keep him safe.
Click to expand...
Well, darn. It would have been funny as hell if they could have kept him away from his golf courses. What we need now is some government lawyers to declare that going to Mar-A-Lago is in violation of campaign finance laws. :troll:
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

I wish I could say he was uniquely stupid, but I had to be the element school teacher at my office of grown adults today. "Don't stare at the sun." "You've had the glasses for a while, it's her turn." :facepalm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top