[QUOTE=FlyWf;51586979]The guy in the backpack wasn't his comrade...

I think the guy with the big-ass backpack is blocking the view of puncher's partner. The puncher seems to freak out when he gets grabbed but then notices who's doing the grabbing.

This is worth figuring out as it gives an excuse for watching some Meme Magic.







holy ****

Of course that is certainly not the case.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I have witnessed many classic liberal types abandon their principles because of Trump, both from personal relations and also from many forums that are normally left-leaning but sane, such as Slashdot.

I would certainly not be considered as a liberal, but there are some liberal principles and ideas that I do agree with and I did have a fair bit of respect for the classic liberal/center left/blue dog types. That respect is fading rather quickly now.

Yes, many so-called liberals do not understand this principle at all. Many do though.

https://www.aclu.org/about/aclu-history
Not mentioned in the article, but something I read somewhere else, is that they lost somewhere close to half of their membership at the time over that decision. They have rebounded quite nicely though, and continue to be a force for liberalism and the education of everyone on the value of free speech. Also not mentioned is the march never happened, apparently the Nazi's chickened out in the end.

So on the list of classic liberal leftists we've got Voltaire, who of course wasn't actually talking about violent-at-its-core neo-Nazi groups, but had a neat quote about unfavourable speech.

Any more?

Literally nobody here is arguing that it should be illegal to be a Nazi or publish Nazi ideas or that it should be legal to punch a Nazi for reasons other than self defense, nor is anyone going to get all mad if the puncher is arrested and charged with battery.

The current Liberal definition of free speech is, "You are free to say whatever you like as long as I agree with it".

Love that the crowd who defended Cliven Bundy et al. are now all like "whoa whoa WHOA we have laws and a constitution in this country sir!" when a goddamn nazi gets laid out by a private citizen though

I would like to see where the people in this thread who think punching nazis is such a horrible affront to free speech fall on Trayvon Martin. I'm sure most of them still get a smile thinking of a black youth being shot in "self defense"

Ffs, grow up.

To add a different twist but within context of this thread, some of this remained me of the time Christopher Hitchens and some of buddies were beaten up by some Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party (SSNP) thugs in Beirut. Hitchens had defaced one of their signs with a strong verbal expression of displeasure. I think Hitchens considered them a Fascist Party (their website ssnp)*. They took offense and he was hit and kicked, along with some of his companions. He mentioned this incident in an essay, I can't recall the name. Website explaining all this below:

huffingtonpost Christopher-Hitchens-beat

Thought some my have an interest in this mild altercation and its meaning.

* I did a quick look at the SSNP link, it seems all nationalist rhetoric. Chez can verify and/or delete link if objectionable material is found, anti-Semitism etc......

Off the top of my head I would set the over/under at 4. I won't name them.

More important is at what point are what number of people susceptible to getting on board with some atrocity agenda or its precursor efforts? The assault on immigrants could be used by people like Bannon as a way to establish protocols and loyalties for later efforts restricting the rights of other classes of people.

That's how a fascist government can initially operate, with a legal encroachment into categorizing and restricting people of certain peoples. So some police chief decides to do what Trump says and conduct violent immigration raids instead of doing as the mayor of his sanctuary city instructs. What then? What then if the police rank and file decides to side with their chief? Who is going to do what at that point? Are you going to disperse the police force and suffer the consequences of that? Fascist projects can creep in through conservative institutions like police units.

Ultimately the numbers and the still strong memory of what fascism leads to will lead to the destruction of mobilized fascists, probably before they do too much damage. However, if they do make inroads it will be tempting for closet racists to test the waters and see what they can get away with. My advice to them is don't do that. You could wind up with worse than a punch to the face and you will ultimately not be successful.

If you're going to go with a largely empirical definition (which is fine) then I would like to see some mention of thought control/propaganda, corporatism, and notions of social Darwinism which are rampant in fascist thought. But most any definition you use will find ample in common with Trump.

Trump is not a mystery. He is certainly a proto fascist. But he doesn't have the support to implement a Bannon agenda. What's really happened is that people are unhappy with what the establishment represents. Trump has masqueraded as anti-establishment and, along with some other reactionary movements around the world, has taken advantage of a rejection of the status quo before better alternatives than right-wing populism could be organized.

Basically the neo liberals have been in power. They are have become corrupt and have failed, and the right wing was cohesive enough to take advantage and gain traction. Subsumed in the right's gains is a lot of blanket dissatisfaction with neo-liberalism which has next to nothing to do with the rhetorical or actual Trump agenda- an "any port in a storm" sort of decision. Trump won by gaining Bernie supporters in the midwest, not by summoning sleeping racists to the polls. So while fascists will make some inroads no doubt, they would have to be 10x as insane as they seem to be to think they have the power to initiate some kind of war for their agenda. They don't AINEC.

But that's the problem you see. You immediately delegitimize poster's opinions by saying something like that without any proof. As you won't name them the suspicion falls on anyone on that particular side of the argument.

It's the same thing that many on the left do to suppress or trivialize points of view that they don't agree with. " Oh, you're a racist ( factual or not) so your opinion doesn't count". It's just another form of fascism really.

Imo, I would seriously doubt whether there is even one person posting ITT that thinks (as you asserted) that white people are the only people that should exist.

I literally on the last page got a warning for offering opinions on other posters, stop trying to bait Deuces into getting banned

There are "no angel" posts by Broadway and wil in this forum. They can't even ****ing bring themselves to say a bad thing about a nazi, though.

Shift the *actual nazi* into Osama Bin Laden or something and they'd have zero problem punching him.

There is really no such thing as proof even possible for that. It's just an inference in which I have, let's say, more than 50% confidence. When you see congruence across ideas with those people who are of that explicit opinion, it is only prudent to then consider the possibility that the congruence extends further. This is especially so when the congruent opinions are outside the margins of mainstream thinking or rare for the non-indoctrinated to hold. And of course this is all considered in the context of voluntary censorship and the masking of one's true opinion.

For example let's say there was no "proof" that Trump is a racist. But Trump has this idea, as he really does, to end birthright citizenship. This idea has origins and strong popularity in the white supremacist movement. Does the adoption of this idea prove Trump is a racist? Of course not. But it strongly suggests he takes cues from the white supremacist movement. If that's true, then how far does it go? Like, what level of evidence would you give Trump's adoption of that idea to his being a white supremacist analogous to evidence that you cheated on your wife/girlfriend?
a) lipstick on the cheek?
b) you smell like non-wife/gf perfume?
c) your sheets smell like non-wife/gf perfume?
d) "you are not the father" of illegitimate child?
e) "you are the father" of illegitimate child?

And say Trump shares other ideas/memes only popular with white nationalists? He can share any number of these without "proof" of his being a white nationalist. At the same time, at some point it becomes ridiculous to deny the obvious even in the absence of proof.

"Proof" is not the standard when labeling a racist.

That's a naive opinion in this day and age. The anonymity of the internet continually reminds us of how people really feel, and their are many people who express racist opinions along with less explicitly racist opinions used to further their agenda.

Don't insult my intelligence by telling me, in a severe, authentic, and unshakeable Scottish accent that you lived your whole live in Charleston, South Carolina. Don't tell me you didn't eat the missing cookies when you have cookie crumbs all over your face and streaks of chocolate across your hands. Don't you get what I am saying? You roll around with white supremacists, pick up their arguments, expressions, and memes, and then protest that you are one of them. What do you think you are accomplishing with these types of absurd denials?

You're welcome to do if you wish but not in content threads please.

All hope is not lost. The neocons faded away over time. The same can happen with these nutjobs.

Hopefully.

Yeah I get what you are saying fine.

You are making another unfounded assumption. That (incorrect) assumption is that I am a racist/white supremacist because I decided to comment in a thread about a Nazi getting sucker punched. Because I didn't agree with him (or anyone for that matter) getting sucker punched that makes me a white supremacist.

Kind of proved my point really.

Trump and brexit are very hard to stomach. You may expect too much of people.

Our liberal values are being sorely tested and many will weaken. Sadly I expect it to get a lot worse but the worst isn't illiberal opposition to trump - not even close.

That wasn't my intention.

I don't think there are any rules except what works.

I'm not really into beating up neo-nazis because at this stage it would be counter-productive. But yeah, they wouldn't have any compunction about doing the same thing to others so I wouldn't judge any one else for kicking the **** out of them.

Plus we got Kieth Olberman manning The Resistance.

What is the issue, chez? I'm elaborating on when it is correct to label someone a racist with evidence other than a direct admission. That is a topic of this thread and a hot topic of this forum for years. Exactly what is your problem with what I am saying there?