I have defended myself when threatened with violence several times. The police got involved. I don’t have a criminal record.
5 Likes
[quote=“g_wat, post:80, topic:102666”]
No. This whole thing started off with Mindysan33 posting the gif of the guy getting punched, and following up by saying that this was acceptable treatment, because he’s a fascist and sometimes violence is the correct answer. I disagreed with that.
[/quote]You are correct that she posted a gif, and you responded by saying violence isn’t a solution. She said sometimes it is, and you said that Spencer wasn’t an “imminent threat” and that violence of any form goes against his right for free speech. It was then pointed out that ethnic cleansing and fascism regularly call for violence, and since Spencer is a well-known fascist advocating for a white-only country there are many people that feel he is an imminent threat as his political leanings have gained huge ground over the past few years. To that you replied that all speech is equal and that any violence is censorship and wrong.
What I am explaining is that no one stepped on Spencer’s right to free speech, and you are cagey on your ethical/moral compass surrounding freedom of expression. You are still being super cagey and not defending your point at all besides “all speech is the same” and “all violence is equally abhorrent.” And that’s me pulling the insinuation from your posts because you actually have not made a stance at all, you’ve just claimed the moral high ground and claimed the BBS community would censor you.
6 Likes
Obligatory wevegotabadassoverhere.jpg.
When you were threatened, were those people threatening you by giving an interview, and not talking to you at all? If not, your point is irrelevant.
How can you possibly justify that? Advocating violence in response to speech is in fact stepping on the right to free speech. Have you heard of chilling effect? How is violence in response to speech different, other than it’s other citizens performing or threatening violence rather than the government arresting you? They both serve to limit speech.
I don’t know how you can say I’m being cagey. I think I’ve been very plain in that all speech is equal - if you feel the need to resort to violence because of words, you basically have the impulse control of a second grader. Sticks and stones, and all that.
No.
You said
I pointed out that it wasn’t
As for the
I didn’t choose those situations. I ignored a fascists threats once before, when i was more live and let live towards everyone. I still get headaches and have PTSD from the resulting attack over ten years later.
I’m not going to risk it again. If I can’t avoid them then I will fight them. I don’t want to but I want to be seriously injured or killed even less.
7 Likes
OK. We will try again.
Freedom of speech refers to the right to free speech, as in a government will not step in and audit speech for any other reason but breaking up a fight or preventing an immediate hazard. Richard Spencer has not had his rights to free speech impacted no matter how much he lies, no matter how racist he is, and no matter what he says in general - and when violence was used against him it was breaking the law in doing so.
Freedom of expression is how individuals put forward their thoughts and feelings in the world. It’s more of a philosophy than an institution, because trying to create a level playing field for all speech makes no practical sense whatsoever. For instance, both the subject of this article and the incident inciting a punch from a protester involve a lying, manipulative, propagandist being elevated to a higher platform for the end result of better corporate profits. Spencer expressed his freely given views to a camera that is free to publish any content it wants, and he got punched once for it - which is also a form of an expressed view freely given.
Now for what we are trying to actually discuss here:
[quote=“g_wat, post:65, topic:102666, full:true”]
You don’t get to pick and choose. Free speech applies to everyone or no one. Saying “but this is different” is a slippery slope, and one that too many people are willing to go down, it seems.
[/quote]This is what I was asking about. This post has absolutely nothing to do with the right to free speech whatsoever. That right is on the side of criminalizing violence of all forms against speech, and no one here said the laws should be changed - just that some time it is worth breaking that law.
So what I asked for clarification on your views about where the muddy water begins. Spencer openly advocates for people limiting their knowledge to what gets his message across, and advocates for white straight-edge educated men using media platforms to make it look like everyone is lying to people and to bring people to their (for profit) propoganda - directly abusing the “right way” to speak to people in order to create a political movement that legally bans all people of color from public office and possibly even then country. Part of that is an effort to soften his image on camera and spread his message in the background at first - typical of movements like his. So how far can someone use wealthy donations and “the right way” go before they go too far? Do you have a limit if they simply manage to take over a town or county? If they gain a majority share of the GOP?
At what point to you does non-violent oppression deserve anything but being talked back to? At what scale of financing does it require before “all speech is free” becomes a platitude?
6 Likes
Historically, fascism represents a much steeper slippery slope to actual pogroms, so yeah, I actually can pick and choose what’s acceptable.
As I said, the naive will be used as much as the willing to promote fascism.
7 Likes
I also think that people ignore that the major waves of ethnic cleansing/acts of genocide started with talk. All of them. People talked about or around it first, and then, when the time was right, they acted and had others act. Given the very tense nature of the world today, words have weight and we should employ them carefully.
7 Likes
Literally no one is stopping Alex Jones or Richard Spencer from speaking. They certainly haven’t been banned. Hell, Spencer has much more free speech than I do, because he’s relatively affluent, has thousands of fans/followers of the twitters and FB, and has in recent months gotten plenty of media attention. He’s said his piece. Some anti-fascist black bloc dude punching isn’t infringing on his free speech rights. The government banning him from speaking publicly would be, but that isn’t what is happening. Spence said hateful, dangerous things, spencer got punched. He can man up and get on with his life.
8 Likes
No. Please go back and read. He advocates for ethnic cleansing, meaning violence against others.
7 Likes
8 Likes
Precisely. And to that I’ll add this:
https://www.amazon.com/war-started-Maksimir-newpapers-1987-1991/dp/8682827107
Both started with words, language, control of mass media by one group at the expense of others. There is no way around this fact. And both of these happened since the end of the Cold War, within most of our lived experiences. It shows how little we learned from history.
9 Likes
I saw one of the Newtown parents asking Alex
Jones on twitter if today’s shooting was a false flag, and it made me go to see what Alex Jones has been up to. Pretty typical stuff, blaming Democrats for literally anything, selling snake oil, trying to incite civil war, and then I saw something interesting:
I’m guessing he doesn’t come across great in this interview. His video link is literally him exhaggeratedly acting the part of a turned on woman by grunting and snorting for like two minutes, with “she didn’t like me and I don’t like her” and “she looks like a robot” and a few other jabs mixed in.
2 Likes
First, don’t watch the video unless you want to be angry.
Second, he claims this recording is unedited but it’s very obviously heavily edited.
Third, this is a move to A) make sure the interview makes it to air and B) that he comes across at the one talking straight. This is why you don’t promote propagandists.
3 Likes
Fuck Alex Jones in every possible direction, including time.
2 Likes
The arrow of time is very unforgiving
4 Likes
As long as Alex Jones keeps insisting that the children at Sandy Hook Elementary didn’t exist and were actors hired by Obama, and nobody died that day, he should be given no air time.
Pertinent info: What Bullets Do to a Body.
4 Likes
Watched a Philip DeFranco video recently where he covers this a bit and Alex Jones adamantly says that he never said it was a hoax, that he was merely playing devil’s advocate that it was a possibility and that some political manipulation was going on behind the scenes. And cue many many videos and audio of Alex Jones explicitly saying that it’s a hoax, it never happened, it’s all a lie.
Fuck that guy
2 Likes
He was Just Asking Questions, aka JAQing off, amirite?
3 Likes
I heard him in an interview say that he knew the security detail of some politician (I want to say Rudy Giuliani) being interviewed at Fox News (he was calling it Faux News back then, pre-Obamapocalypse) wanted him dead for the truth he was saying about 9/11. I mean, they walked up to him and shook his hands. And then… they looked him directly in the eyes and grabbed his hand with both hands while shaking and said “Big fans” in that voice. You know, that voice.
