TakeYouToTasker

The Supreme Court just unanimously disagreed with you. Justice Breyer holding hands, and skipping down the street with Justice Alito. Justice Sotomayor snogging in a corner with Justice Thomas. Do you have any idea how bad your idea has to be to get unified support against it from the entire Supreme Court of the United States? Bad. Real bad. Perhaps the greatest achievement of our country's history was our encoding of protections against the infringements of the rights of people we disagree with, hate, or find dangerous. Our Founders, and even their modern counterparts on the Court, knew that government was not to be trusted with such a power, as such a power, the right to criminalize speech, could be weaponized at a later time against anyone. The same thing applies to the Second Amendment, which you are also quick to undo.

You're the one who wanted to have the conversation in a vacuum without referencing other statues or monuments. So yes, silly you.

But why? Who cares? What's the import or significance? Or do you think it might be helpful to this sort of conversation to have context?

Wouldn't stand up to judicial challenge. The Supremes weighed in on this in late June. Hate speech is protected speech, and given that the Constitution is the High Law of the Land, there is no law that can be passed to overrule it. Would require Constitutional Amendment.

Can anyone explain why keeping any statue up without referencing other monuments or equivalencies? But yeah, we should absolutely indulge you, because it's super brilliant to try to discuss the erecting and maintenance of statues and monuments in a vacuum without the context of why people erect and maintain statues and monuments. /golfclap

"People who have bad opinions shouldn't have any rights." Out of curiosity, who do you defer to define hate groups?

Imagined rights? What ideal or philosophy is it that you're referencing, I wonder, when you condemn the killing of those estimated 60-85 million people? What concept are you appealing to when you judge that act as "wrong"? As to fascists negating rights? You might be the least self-aware poster on this board, condemning fascism and historical fascist lack of respect for rights, while at the same time advocating for fascist action and the violation of the rights of others. Idiot.

Who the !@#$ told you it was OK to assault people for their ideas? On the one hand you have some !@#$ who has bad opinions (that Nazism is a good thing) but doesn't do anything to violate anyone's rights. On the other hand you have some !@#$ who has bad opinions (that it's good and right to physically assault someone else who has a bad opinion) and then goes about the business of violating someone else's rights. Person two is the much worse person.

Of course he's an intellectual coward. His logic is so much like a pretzel that he has mustard leaking from his ear.

I don't think you know how sentence structure or articulating ideas work.

You may also wish to ask him if he wears clothes.

"If you're being perfectly rational, Robert E. Lee was like Hitler." "Robert E. Lee statues symbolize nothing but slavery and treason." These are not things that a serious person with any understanding of history says. Again, your world view is exactly the problem.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/08/16/jackson-washington-park-protest-presidents-slave-owners/

And here's the rush to undo American jurisprudence by doing away with the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Just on time. Stop being part of the problem.

No, the view that our history needs to be sanitized, and that we should judge all men through the moral lens of 2017 neo-liberalism, and that anyone who disagrees is a bigot. You world views dictates that nearly every actor in human history, save Americans north of the Mason-Dixon Line roughly 160 years ago through now, was an irreparably immoral and evil person. It also dictates that the only thing that matters when viewing history, is if someone held slaves or not; and if they did, everything else about their lives is undone, no matter how great or how significant, because of the slavery. Your entire argument is nothing more than one massive Poisoning the Well logical fallacy. Finally, because you view is so un-nuanced, and completely dictatorial you make absolutely zero room for individuals who hold different view points, and rather than live and let live, you set out to subjugate them to yours; turning a blind eye toward at best, or make way for at worst, actual fascism, racism, and militant communist agitators. Yes, your world view is the problem.

Your view of history is so un-nuanced and revised by modern social mores that it's not even worth discussing this with you. You world view is the reason we are now standing were we are, and may refight the civil war.

Does that extend to other people, or is it only OK for people who say things which you personally find offensive?

I finally remembered that I needed to respond to this still. If hate speech isn't Constitutionally protected, you'll have to explain to me why the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed, just over a month ago, that hate speech absolutely is Constitutionally protected. Alito: "[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate. Kennedy: "A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an egregious form of content discrimination, which is presumptively unconstitutional. A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the governments benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society."

So it's OK to assault people for saying things you find offensive?

Wait... You're making Antifa analogous to the Allies? !@#$

Aliens.

I'm still not getting past the point where he says that saying things people really don't like justifies violence, and if they just hadn't said those things, they wouldn't have needed to be assaulted. I mean, your Honor, her skit was soooo short, and she was acting soooo slutty.

The Alt-Right isn't conservative. It's aligned with the European Right, which is a misnomer as it's a big government movement. The only difference is, they seek to weaponize big government in favor of nativists. They favor a big, activist state which works on their interests to the exclusion of minorities and immigrants.

I sincerely appreciate your willingness to engage on this.

Terrorism is acts of violence committed against a population in order that they pressure the existing power structure to change. Not all politically motivated violence is terrorism. And again, you don't have any enough information to even know that this was intentional, much less what the motivations of the driver were. At this point all you're doing is helping to push a narrative that is running independent of facts, and if it turns out that this was nothing more than a tragic accident, will have lent your voice to a mob seeking to crucify a man for crimes he didn't commit. Or is "hands up, don't shoot" that far out of sight for you?