https://www.google.com/amp/reason.co...elony-riot/amp

And they do have specific laws tailored to their types of groups. Nazis and other hate groups can't shout certain words during physical altercations unless they wanna risk being charged with a hate crime.

Also, look at Europe. The censorship laws there didn't grow the far right. The homogeneous nature of Europe and a group of outsider's (Muslims) culture not meshing right away is what is occurring.

That's not the type of backfire Clovis is arguing about given the context of the discussion.

I feel like the only thing that will satisfy you is a trump essay starting with, "Webster's dictionary defines 'subhuman' as..."

They could blame greedy rich people. It makes me feel better. And it's often correct.

Agreed, but it's not easy.

Physical fights are not first amendment issues.

I think it is the type of backfiring we are taking about. If you demand a perfect example when you are starting from an imperfect analogy the bar is too high.

Politicians who were encouraging protests after the inauguration were being threatened with inciting charges. Even if those did not come to pass, it quelled the activity. Further many were calling for those charges to be placed. The argument against creating further exceptions for free speech is that it will not only be used in the spirit it is created. This is not a complex or new argument. It does not lend or imply merit to the protected speech.

If what everyone here is saying is the first amendment is flawed and it is reasonable to outlaw hate speech in the form it is currently protected as an exception, how in the hell does that happen and what does it look like? I mean, we can't even keep breitbart employees from getting security clearances but you see value in the effort to get this change to a pillar of the constitution changed in this climate?

Anyone: Give me the happy path for this idea being implemented. Stop hate speech without creating gaping holes for those (currently in power by the ****ing way) on the other side to use it as a weapon.

This is the Clovis bat-signal for more hand-wringing about disparagement of the Lucro-American community.

You shouldn't conflate dropping the n-word during a fight and physical assault as one thing. If a Nazi punches someone while keeping his mouth shut there's assault charges, if it is racially motivated and evidenced by language it can be elevated to a hate crime. So, yeah, it kinda has something to do with how laws and an absolutist view of freedom speech don't always align themselves.

Your kinda missing the point of the backfire bit. It isn't about the laws being turned around on the other side. It's about whether they incidentally benefit Nazis and other hate groups such as making them look sympathetic.

It's seriously bizzare being mocked for hand wringing and virtue signaling in a thread filled with progressives. You do know that's the standard insult of the right against all of us.

Just like you caring about minorities and racial injustice is not hand-wringing or virtue-signalling (as would certainly be the charge if a trumpkin were in here), but an honest attempt to engage in political discourse, have you considered my concerns over tone and methods of political discourse might be the same?

Here's the conclusion I drew. If society is an ant colony, some of us are programmed to be more empathetic, logical, thoughtful worker ants. Some are programmed to be the soldier ants. To a soldier ant they look for threats. They want to bite. If they are not actually soldiers or law enforcement or whatever, they still sympathize with that mentality.

Both of the dudes I got to admit there was racism have severe victim mentalities. That exists on the left also, but the unique thing about these guys is they don't want better for themselves and others....they are just as happy, or even happier with WORSE for others, even if it means a little worse for them. It is fascinating. It is unreasonable. It is hard to understand which makes it tough for people who can't relate to it accept it is real, but it is real as can be and it is immune to logic.

It's absolutley the former and not at all the latter.

Hey Clovis,

It is possible to make moral judgments. It's funny because conservatives are often accusing liberals of moral relativity, but the truth is liberals just have a much more informed morality. It gets kinda wonky with their celebrity figures, I admit, but not wanting to extend the same behavior to racists, bigots, and Nazis that should be afforded legitimately oppressed minority groups is a totally valid point of view.

How to avoid legal problems with this viewpoint is certainly worth discussing, it does not all qualify as hand-wringing. Nonetheless, the people who make this point are usually being disingenuous and it generally comes out the more they talk.

Here's the conclusion I drew. If society is an ant colony, some of us are programmed to be more empathetic, logical, thoughtful worker ants. Some are programmed to be the soldier ants. To a soldier ant they look for threats. They want to bite. If they are not actually soldiers or law enforcement or whatever, they still identify with that fighting spirit.

Both of the dudes I got to admit there was racism have severe victim mentalities. That exists on the left also, but the unique thing about these guys is they don't want better for themselves and others....they are just as happy, or even happier with WORSE for others, even if it means a little worse for them. It is fascinating. It is unreasonable. It is hard to understand which makes it tough for people who can't relate to it accept it is real, but it is real as can be and it is immune to logic.

Unfortunately, there is pretty much insurmountable data that people are happier if they are relatively rich than if they are absolutely rich. The poorest CEO takes a hit to his self-worth that gets picked up by the guy who owns the biggest house in the poor neighborhood. It's grotesque, and also probably human nature.

That and a kazoo. He thought dog-whistles were whistles that dogs use.

Okay, so pinpoint a problem with holocaust denial laws in Europe being turned on people who support those laws.

How in the hell do you not see how these are directly related?

so in the past few days trump is trying to kill a lot of poor people out of spite, and is lying about Iran, which could lead to nuclear war down the line

aight

I don't know what "hand-wringing" means to you, but I use it to dismiss content, not tone. Fretting about people criticising the rich - fretting, in short, over a class-based critique of Western society - is something I have no problem mocking. I agree that 'virtue-signaling' is basically a dead letter as far as political charges go, but you can start crying about that when it's a charge I've laid at you.

Have I said something to suggest I am being disingenuous?

I'm not. I honestly think tactics matter and because our side is right and they are wrong, it's up to us to model the world we want and not accept the one the alt-right is going for. We just don't win fighting fire with fire.

This is why greedy rich people have been rebranded as "job creators" to distract from what they actually are.

I don't at all. My point is that we are talking about the first amendment and what it protects. yelling slurs in the commission of a crime is not considered protected speech. It is an important distinction for this conversation.

This is why it's important. What you are describing is not protected under freedom of speech. It is an entirely different argument and does not get us to the starting point of this one. Yes, freedom of speech is not absolute. Never had been. That is not confusing. What we are taking about now is changing actual 1st amendment protected rights based on a whole cloth new distinction.
my mistake. The slippery slope is my argument and I'd love to hear your answer to it, but in so far as this definition of backfiring, it's not the most dsngerous unintended consequence but it is valid if not that important. More than sympathetic, it would give them a platform in the legal system--during a battle that they would likely win--increasing their reach and visibility exponentially. I don't know how to weigh the cost benefit between that and stopping the rallies, and don't pretend to, but admitting it exists is not defending them.

Please look up the word "equivalent" before using it again in a sentence.

The most common claim I've faced is that Trump does things that the left spins to be racist but they really aren't because [insert racist reasons here].

The mental gymnastics I've seen some of my family members go through to support this man is unbelievable. Instead of shifting their own support, they choose to perceive him in a way that absolves themselves of any guilt. They're living their lives based on bold-faced lies that they tell themselves are true.

It's so depressing to see people do this to themselves.

What's his specific beef with Iran? I mean he's cool with brown countries that let him build his towers there but there's something about Iran specifically that pisses him off. I wonder what it is.