Alt-right neo-nazis assault counter protesters

[Binary_fiction]

1 hour ago, CaptainYesterday said:

Okay, this got a bit messy.

 

As far as I know, the mayor pulled the permit, but a judge reinstated it because the mayor unlawfully pulled it.

 

There is no evidence that the driver was a false flag.

 

That said, I the "one person does not represent a group" ideal applies to these people as well.  The driver is responsible for the murders, not anyone else.

 

Your definition of "make" in this case is wrong legally, and I think morally as well.  Legally, no one but the driver is responsible for his actions (unless evidence of a conspiracy is found).  There is no similar definitive answer for the moral side, you are free to feel that others are reaponsible for indirectly influencing him.  But under that same argument, Obama is responsible for BLM riots and violence, and John Oliver is responsible for Antifa riots and violence.

 

You have far more insidious ideas in Canada.  A nation wide assault on free speech is far greater of a concern than the 0.0001% of Americans who are Nazis.

Assault on free speech? The idea that people need to burn the Jews is not what I call free speech... Even if you want to defend that it is.

 

also did you pull that number out of thin air or is it an actual fact?

[Kelpie]

1 hour ago, CaptainYesterday said:

 

Your definition of "make" in this case is wrong legally, and I think morally as well.  Legally, no one but the driver is responsible for his actions (unless evidence of a conspiracy is found).  There is no similar definitive answer for the moral side, you are free to feel that others are reaponsible for indirectly influencing him.  But under that same argument, Obama is responsible for BLM riots and violence, and John Oliver is responsible for Antifa riots 

it's not legally wrong in Germany.

but my question still stands: do you think Hitler was innocent?

[JessiBird]

2 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said:

You have far more insidious ideas in Canada.  A nation wide assault on free speech is far greater of a concern than the 0.0001% of Americans who are Nazis.

Wait. First off, we don't have a nationwide assault on free speech. We simply believe that if someone says something that harms another, that's wrong. And that's our belief. You can have your own, but calling our belief insidious just because it differs from yours is also wrong.

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[JessiBird]

3 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

Saying things is not harm.  The Candaian government arrests comedians over making jokes and passes laws that compells speech.  I believe things like that are wrong.

 

Why don't you tell that to the Candian person who denigrated America and Americans first?  You do realize my statement was a response to someone, right?

I'm sorry, but saying things is harm. That's why these forums have rules, that's why people choose pronouns they like, that's why cyberbullying is still bullying and harmful. At least, that's how I see it.

 

And yes, I recognize that you responded to someone. From what I read, they just didn't want to go to the US and hoped extremist ideals that are surfacing in the US don't come to Canada. Maybe I missed something, but pointing out there are bad people in other countries seems fine to me.

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[JessiBird]

3 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

But that's exactly what I'm doing.  You're disagreeing with yourself here.

You weren't. You were just attacking someone else for their views. Views that are not harmful to anyone.

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[Kelpie]

36 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

Germany has a lot of ironic fascist laws in an effort to prevent fascism and should not he used as a measure of anything regarding free speech.

 

No, but the fact that you think Hitler's role in directly ordering people to do things is in any way similar to this issue is very telling.

At least Germany learned from it's mistakes.

 

So you agree that words CAN cause things. Cool!

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[Binary_fiction]

C-16 is to prevent discrimination on workplaces and acknowledge gender identities. While I agree with you that the whole comedian issue (if you're referring to Mike ward, he wasn't arrested but sued) is a bit over the edge, it's still a human right tribunal that took down the judgement. I'm a big fan of the guy so I found it sad that he got penalized over all this and i agree that freedom of speech is important. However, preventing discrimination based on gender identities is important imo.

 

Now for your 6000 people registered, that's like the hells angels... you get a small amount of legitimate members and everyone else is an illegal or anonymous one. Sorry to tell you this but you have more than 6000 people in the whole country that's a nazi. You are delusional if you think that this is an accurate number for the amount of people in your country.

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[The Joker]

Its fucking amazing, everyone's got their head up their asses arguing over identity politics. Add a little violence and someone getting killed into the mix and everyone's in shock and wanting more blood. People don't know what they hell they're arguing about. Its all just emotion. Those white nationalists at the rally just seem like frustrated people who hate the cards they've been dealt in life, and the left does the same. I think this distracts people from their personal problems, and deeper, more pragmatic issues with the government/society that pertains to their quality of life such as economic issues. 

[Binary_fiction]

17 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

My issue with C-16 is that some people said "doesn't this compel us to speak using whatever pronouns someone wants?" and the answer was basically "Nah, probably not.  I mean, we'll just add gender idenity to this list of protected classes and sort it out later.  Trust us *wink*."

 

I just don't think that's good enough.  I don't think that casual dismissal of a potential violation of free speech is good.  Not being able to fire someone because they are trans?  Fine, I'm on board.  Being legally compelled to use whatever pronouns they want?  I don't agree with that.

 

They campaigned for months and only managed to assemble 1,000 people. Compare this to the Women's March being able to assemble 1 million.

 

Sure, there are more than 6,000, but it's not an epidemic.  It's not a reason to refuse to travel to a place.

It is a reason good enough for me when people actively defend their actions, even if they don't associate with the movements.

 

as for the idea of c-16, not respecting people's pronoun is a form of discrimination. Your freedom to be transphobic is not a freedom. It would be the same as sexual harassment or racism in the workplace. Still not tolerated and I don't see how hard it is to respect someone's pronoun. Done unintentional, granted, done on purpose, I'm sorry but that's another story.

[Yatogami]

Violence and words should not, and never be the same. That is how you end up in an Orwellian/Authoritarian society. 

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[The Joker]

3 hours ago, Binary_fiction said:

It is a reason good enough for me when people actively defend their actions, even if they don't associate with the movements.

 

as for the idea of c-16, not respecting people's pronoun is a form of discrimination. Your freedom to be transphobic is not a freedom. It would be the same as sexual harassment or racism in the workplace. Still not tolerated and I don't see how hard it is to respect someone's pronoun. Done unintentional, granted, done on purpose, I'm sorry but that's another story.

On the contrary, I am completely free to not give a damn about someone else's sexual orientation or personal identity. Now I can't harass that person endlessly about it (and I wouldn't anyway since I just don't give a damn), but I really don't have to give a fuck about their feelings. People who are under the impression that the world has to respect how they feel are misguided weaklings who just can't face up to reality.

[Binary_fiction]

3 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

I haven't seen anyone defend their actions.  At best I've seen people who also didn't want the statue moved, but you can't make that leap, that "statue should stay = Nazi = terrorist" leap just isn't fair.

 

Also, supporting their right to protest isn't supporting their ideas.

 

I just don't agree, which is why I was critical in the first place.  Purpousefully misgendering someone is mean, but it shouldn't be illegal.  It should be up to the workplace to punish those people, not the government.

It was made the government's job because industries are the one being aimed at by the law along side individuals. You can't ask the industry to regulate themselves if they know there won't be any incentive for them if they don't respect the law.

 

as for your desire to defend their right to protest, you should note the irony of fighting to defend the opinion of someone who wants to destroy anything that have a different opinion. The nazi movement's mentality is that they want a uniform similar population who does not derive from their ideology. It's fascism and as much as you want to protect their right to protest, it's also promoting their ideology to allow them to go on further in their own mindset. A mindset that the world fought to eradicate.

[Binary_fiction]

4 minutes ago, The Joker said:

On the contrary, I am completely free to not give a damn about someone else's sexual orientation or personal identity. Now I can't harass that person endlessly about it (and I wouldn't anyway since I just don't give a damn), but I really don't have to give a fuck about their feelings. People who are under the impression that the world has to respect how they feel are misguided weaklings who just can't face up to reality.

What a great and privilege response you made... I will not gratify you with an answer tho because you really want to upset more than debate.

[The Joker]

3 hours ago, Binary_fiction said:

What a great and privilege response you made... I will not gratify you with an answer tho because you really want to upset more than debate.

No, its not to upset. I'm simply stating what I think. It just so happens that it will upset people.

[Binary_fiction]

4 minutes ago, The Joker said:

No, its not to upset. I'm simply stating what I think. It just so happens that it will upset people.

You see there's a sarcasm about you saying "I don't give a shot about what others think" but wanting them to respect your opinion so I guess we are at a standstill here.

[The Joker]

3 hours ago, Binary_fiction said:

You see there's a sarcasm about you saying "I don't give a shot about what others think" but wanting them to respect your opinion so I guess we are at a standstill here.

It ultimately doesn't matter whether people respect me or not. Hell, in real life I'm just another person, and I get respect sometimes and sometimes not. It doesn't matter. What I was making a statement about earlier was how annoying people are when they feel entitled to respect from others. In my experience, the world doesn't give a shit about an individual, let alone their feelings. That's why I consider such people weak, because they cannot use their own strength to validate themselves. They need someone else, who really doesn't matter to begin with to validate them.

 

What's worse, these needs people have spill over into what this whole thread is about. They get people active, they get them seeking out egregious problems in their lives. They get them wanting a fight for the sake of fighting. Its irrational and immature.

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[Binary_fiction]

9 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

That's always been the sardonic beauty of free speech, though.

 

Their views are fascist, yes, but I again disagree that supporting their right to protest (which has been defended by the Supreme Court) is "promoting their ideology."

 

The whole point of free speech is to create an unbiased framework that no one ideology could use to oppress another.  Free speech is indifferent to thr content it protects so you know it's always impartial and fair.  This election alone should prove why we need free speech; do you really want to give the government the power to repress speech knowing that people like Donald Trump can win elections?

I don't but I'm also a firm believer that opinions that are harmful or incite hatred are not to be promoted or even defended. Then again I guess that's what differ between our opinion. It might also be that my opinion is biased by the idea that my people almost got exterminated by the nazi and I bear an hatred for them that goes beyond reason... Maybe if anyone was put in front of the gratification of the genocide of your own population they would think differently but I can still admit my bias towards removing such threat is important to me.

 

Regardless, I believe that c-16 is a legitimate bill and made to protect people and while it's not perfect, it fills its promises. After passing that bill, they even erected the trans flag at the parlement and I was happy to see that we are finally making step forwards. To each their own interpretation tho.

[Knight of Cydonia]

 

3 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

I just don't agree, which is why I was critical in the first place.  Purpousefully misgendering someone is mean, but it shouldn't be illegal.  It should be up to the workplace to punish those people, not the government.

I was initially very against C-16 for the same reason you are, but after some thinking I don't think that C-16 is as severe as that. It added "gender identity and expression" as a protected class to the Canadian Human Rights Act and Criminal Code - which already include things like race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, and disability among others. So you can't refuse housing or services to someone based on their gender identity, nor incite hatred or promote genocide, but expressing a differing opinion or purposefully misgendering is still allowed.

 

For instance the Canadian Bar Association's assessment of the bill says the following: "Recently, the debate has turned to whether the amendments will force individuals to embrace concepts, even use pronouns, which they find objectionable. This is a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crimes legislation." ... "The amendment to the CHRA will not compel the speech of private citizens." etc, and they draw on what the Supreme Court of Canada have explained for clarification.

 

3 minutes ago, Binary_fiction said:

I don't but I'm also a firm believer that opinions that are harmful or incite hatred are not to be promoted or even defended. Then again I guess that's what differ between our opinion.

Who's to say who's opinion is "right" and who's is "wrong" though? The law should not decide that. I believe free speech should be unbiased. Like I fully disagree with what the Westboro Baptist Church says about gay people, but I will defend their right to have their opinions (and hey, in their perspective they think they're the good guys and are trying to help gay people). I also support these white supremacist's right to protest, even though our views could not be more at odds. What I don't support is calls for and acts of violence.

[Yatogami]

Hatred is unavoidable, and to pretend that it doesn't exist only creates more problems. Society must be structured with human nature in mind. People should be allowed to vent their hatred.  Repressing something, doesn't get rid of it. It is still very much there. Outlawing things is nothing but a band-aid on a fatal wound. 

[Binary_fiction]

19 minutes ago, Knight of Cydonia said:

 

I was initially very against C-16 for the same reason you are, but after some thinking I don't think that C-16 is as severe as that. It added "gender identity and expression" as a protected class to the Canadian Human Rights Act and Criminal Code - which already include things like race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, and disability among others. So you can't refuse housing or services to someone based on their gender identity, nor incite hatred or promote genocide, but expressing a differing opinion or purposefully misgendering is still allowed.

 

For instance the Canadian Bar Association's assessment of the bill says the following: "Recently, the debate has turned to whether the amendments will force individuals to embrace concepts, even use pronouns, which they find objectionable. This is a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crimes legislation." ... "The amendment to the CHRA will not compel the speech of private citizens." etc, and they draw on what the Supreme Court of Canada have explained for clarification.

 

Who's to say who's opinion is "right" and who's is "wrong" though? The law should not decide that. I believe free speech should be unbiased. Like I fully disagree with what the Westboro Baptist Church says about gay people, but I will defend their right to have their opinions (and hey, in their perspective they think they're the good guys and are trying to help gay people). I also support these white supremacist's right to protest, even though our views could not be more at odds. What I don't support is calls for and acts of violence.

But what when their right to protest is so hat they can invite violence like they did this week end? What possible justification could you bring for these people bringing full riot gear and rifles to a "peaceful" protest? Don't tell me that you bring an m4a1 to a rally for your own protection because I don't believe that. These people were equipped for a fight and they got it and someone die for it too.

 

protesting a right and promoting hatred is 2 thing but acknowledgement of a movement like that as a valid ideology represents the same thing as saying "terrorism is legit and we should protect it". If these people yelled "death to America" in unison, I'm pretty sure it would be a whole different story. There's war over terrorism and having a terrorist group in your own borders isn't any different. I remember Oklahoma and Timothy McVeigh and it took a long time to the American population to cal this terrorism. They even tried to pin it on a Muslim group at first and this a testament to how biased people can be towards an issue.

 

A terrorist group define itself in their actions and their abilities to inspire fear in a population. I don't think that this movement is too far off from that at the moment.

[Binary_fiction]

4 minutes ago, Yato said:

Hatred is unavoidable, and to pretend that it doesn't exist only creates more problems. Society must be structured with human nature in mind. People should be allowed to vent their hatred.  Repressing something, doesn't get rid of it. It is still very much there. Outlawing things is nothing but a band-aid on a fatal wound. 

Justifying behaviour by saying that it's in "human nature" really is a poor way to justify hatred. We are social animals and while anger is a human emotion, we are not uncontrollable baboons so I wouldn't be so quick to justify acts of hatred as mere "normal human emotions".

[JDP]

1 minute ago, Binary_fiction said:

But what when their right to protest is so hat they can invite violence like they did this week end? What possible justification could you bring for these people bringing full riot gear and rifles to a "peaceful" protest? Don't tell me that you bring an m4a1 to a rally for your own protection because I don't believe that. These people were equipped for a fight and they got it and someone die for it too.

 

protesting a right and promoting hatred is 2 thing but acknowledgement of a movement like that as a valid ideology represents the same thing as saying "terrorism is legit and we should protect it". If these people yelled "death to America" in unison, I'm pretty sure it would be a whole different story. There's war over terrorism and having a terrorist group in your own borders isn't any different. I remember Oklahoma and Timothy McVeigh and it took a long time to the American population to cal this terrorism. They even tried to pin it on a Muslim group at first and this a testament to how biased people can be towards an issue.

 

A terrorist group define itself in their actions and their abilities to inspire fear in a population. I don't think that this movement is too far off from that at the moment.

They would have been stupid not to defend themselves against their enemies. The radical left would just as soon repeal the First Amendment to keep the Nazis from appearing in public.

 

People like to rumble. There's nothing that can or should be done to prevent that.