Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 168

Thread: Free speech under siege

  1. #1
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,055

    Default Free speech under siege

    Free speech and expression is under attack, people on this forum have called for the banning of both Nazi symbolism and the Hammer and Sickle.
    What is the justification for this, how far do you think it should go and where does it end?
    If carrying a Nazi flag is considered an act of violence, how about a Che Guevara T shirt?

  2. #2
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    Carrying a Nazi flag can be easily defined at an act of hate. Hate speech isn't free speech...

  3. #3

    Default

    Did we really need to start a new thread for your angry old white dude whataboutism? Upset nobody took your Soviet-propaganda-inspired bait?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  4. #4

    Default

    Criminal Code of Canada

    Note: enacted in 1985, more than 30 years ago.

    Public incitement of hatred
    http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...ction-319.html
    Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)


    319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of


    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or


    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.


    Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred


    (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of


    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or


    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.


    Marginal noteefences


    (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)


    (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;


    (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;


    (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or


    (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.


    Marginal note:Forfeiture


    (4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.


    Marginal note:Exemption from seizure of communication facilities


    (5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.


    Marginal note:Consent


    (6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.


    Marginal noteefinitions


    (7) In this section,


    communicating includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; (communiquer)


    identifiable group has the same meaning as in section 318; (groupe identifiable)


    public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied; (endroit public)


    statements includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations. (déclarations)


    R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 319; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 203; 2004, c. 14, s. 2.
    Previous Version
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  5. #5
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,726

    Default

    I personally am NOT in favor of banning particular symbols or sayings. I take more of an "American" *gasp* view of the right to free speech than a "Canadian" view of the right of "free expression". We don't have free speech in Canada, and there's an important distinction between the two.

    As an example, I think that the Germans have gone too far in how they've restricted aspects of Nazism. But I can also totally understand why the Germans may have gone a little too far in that direction, given where they were coming from. And I had a real problem with the whole MacLean's/Steyn/Islam/Human rights tribunal controversy from awhile back. You can read about that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...n%27s_magazine

    However, most of the problems with the tribunals went away when Section 13 was repealed several years afterward. Prior to that, the tribunals were being used to silence what should have been protected speech. Steyn may have been a jerk and intentionally writing to offend, but that shouldn't be illegal in our country.

    edit: forgot link: http://nationalpost.com/news/politic...0-0f5ff593c5d4
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 16-08-2017 at 03:46 PM.

  6. #6
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,055

    Default

    PRT, law is always open to interpretation, the question is how do you define what is to be illegal? If a Nazi flag " incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty....." which is the definition of hate speech, does not a Che T Shirt do the same.

  7. #7
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,055

    Default

    Noodle, I started a new thread in the hope of intelligent debate, as the other threads have devolved into chaos. Hopefully there is still room on this forum for a real exchange of thought.
    Either make an intelligent point or comment somewhere else.

  8. #8
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,726

    Default

    Che's background and mythology are a whole lot more complicated than that of the Nazi party. Che did some reprehensible things, but he was also fighting against reprehensible people and regimes. The Nazis busied themselves with exterminating entire populations that had no ability to fight back. Wee bit of a difference between the two. If you're looking for a better analogy, then use Stalin or Mao. Still some complication and nuance with them, but a lot less than with Guevera.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    Noodle, I started a new thread in the hope of intelligent debate, as the other threads have devolved into chaos. Hopefully there is still room on this forum for a real exchange of thought.
    Either make an intelligent point or comment somewhere else.
    Nah, I save intelligent points for actual threads with actual content, not a regressive, illiberal attempt to excuse fascism through the use of false equivalencies in a transparent scheme lifted from the Soviet Union. You'll get sass & derision, which is all you're worth.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    I personally am NOT in favor of banning particular symbols or sayings. I take more of an "American" *gasp* view of the right to free speech than a "Canadian" view of the right of "free expression".
    I agree with you here. A functioning society needs to let people communicate their ideas freely in order for people to know what the political "climate" is. Laws can always control what people say, but can never control what people THINK. Freedom of speech (and to a lesser extent, freedom of expression) allows everyone to know what others are thinking.

    Opponents of free speech seem to ignore the fact that any censorship they advocate for can be turned around and used against them. Censorship of speech (or free expression) is dangerous.

  11. #11
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,055

    Default

    My personal opinion is that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let the Nazis and Commies march and demonstrate. Then we can take their pictures and publicize who they are. Expose them and their idiocy for everyone to see.
    As soon as there is any violence from either side, arrest them and throw the book at them.

  12. #12
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    I personally am NOT in favor of banning particular symbols or sayings. I take more of an "American" *gasp* view of the right to free speech than a "Canadian" view of the right of "free expression".
    I agree with you here. A functioning society needs to let people communicate their ideas freely in order for people to know what the political "climate" is. Laws can always control what people say, but can never control what people THINK. Freedom of speech (and to a lesser extent, freedom of expression) allows everyone to know what others are thinking.

    Opponents of free speech seem to ignore the fact that any censorship they advocate for can be turned around and used against them. Censorship of speech (or free expression) is dangerous.
    this - while chanting slogans including "jews will not replace us" and "blood and soil" - is neither freedom of speech nor freedom of expression and to confuse it with or defend it as being either of those things is nothing short of dangerous:





    what is portrayed here is evil.
    Last edited by kcantor; 16-08-2017 at 06:45 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  13. #13

    Default

    "Blood and Soil"
    (German: Blut und Boden)




    "jews will not replace us"




    No further comment needed
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 16-08-2017 at 06:19 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    My personal opinion is that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let the Nazis and Commies march and demonstrate. Then we can take their pictures and publicize who they are. Expose them and their idiocy for everyone to see.
    As soon as there is any violence from either side, arrest them and throw the book at them.
    It worked so well in Germany in the 1930's, didn't it? Maybe we shouldn't try repeat the stupidity of the past.

  15. #15
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,055

    Default

    This is hardly Germany in the 30's, come off it. These are entirely different circumstances and to compare societies then and now is ludicrous.
    There is a tiny minority on both the left and right who are radical extremists, they will never hold power or influence beyond their immediate circle. The rest of the people are smarter than that.
    They are getting publicity because of the depth of modern media. If the local news in Charlottesville did a hour long "faces in the crowd" TV special and just showed a gallery of people at the march it would be the most watched show of the year and it would be the end of Nazi rallies.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    they will never hold power or influence beyond their immediate circle.
    then explain steve bannon and brietbart and their role in the current administration.

  17. #17
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by d_d View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    they will never hold power or influence beyond their immediate circle.
    then explain steve bannon and brietbart and their role in the current administration.

    Breitbart's position would be 'dead' wouldn't it?

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    I personally am NOT in favor of banning particular symbols or sayings. I take more of an "American" *gasp* view of the right to free speech than a "Canadian" view of the right of "free expression".
    I agree with you here. A functioning society needs to let people communicate their ideas freely in order for people to know what the political "climate" is. Laws can always control what people say, but can never control what people THINK. Freedom of speech (and to a lesser extent, freedom of expression) allows everyone to know what others are thinking.

    Opponents of free speech seem to ignore the fact that any censorship they advocate for can be turned around and used against them. Censorship of speech (or free expression) is dangerous.
    this - while chanting slogans including "jews will not replace us" and "blood and soil" - is neither freedom of speech nor freedom of expression and to confuse it with or defend it as being either of those things is nothing short of dangerous:

    ...

    what is portrayed here is evil.
    Evil it likely is, but is it more evil to ban it? Banning protests / public speech, no matter how despicable, is a very dangerous precedent - its typically the first thing a totalitarian government does, be it Cuba, or North Korea, or Nazi Germany. Today it might be a racist chant, tomorrow it might be an "unacceptable" political opinion.

    One thing I think have to be careful about, is that not everyone in the South who idolizes the confederacy idolizes slavery. If you watch Dukes of Hazard with its confederate flag, the symbolism was about Southern Pride and independence, not about fighting for slavery. A lot of the confederate monuments were built around the time that confederate soldiers were dieing from old age - families wanted to remember the sacrifice that was made, regardless of the moral justification or otherwise for the cause. I think Trump realizes that, but he takes it too far. Its not a simple issue, some of the same independence feelings in Quebec or even Alberta are muddled in with a pretty horrible history regarding the ownership of slaves.

    This was an era of generational change during which Civil War veterans, dying of old age, were venerated by their children and grandchildren, experts told us.

    "Organizations like the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans came into being," said Charles S. Bullock, III, a professor of public and international affairs at the University of Georgia. "Civil War veterans were honored in parades. There is a Confederate Memorial Day which pre-dates the National Memorial Day."

    But as a victorious North fixed its gaze on a prosperous future, the American South was mired in poverty that would persist for generations. The monuments were a way to look back to an idealized past.

    "Tributes to the Confederacy — placing statues, naming streets and other public facilities — were part of the Lost Cause ideology that focused on an idyllic era of stately mansions, beautiful women and gallant Confederate officers," Bullock said.

    But the monuments also implicitly symbolized slavery and white violence, the experts said.

    "On the surface, they were memorials to the Confederacy and their heroes," said Karen L. Cox, a professor of history at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte. "Yet, they were also built during a period of racial violence and strong beliefs about Anglo-Saxon (i.e. white) supremacy."

    "The fact that they were placed on the grounds of county and state courthouses was intentional," she added. "The message: white men are in charge."
    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...ce-civil-righ/
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-08-2017 at 08:26 AM.

  19. #19

    Default

    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Banning protests / public speech, no matter how despicable, is a very dangerous precedent - its typically the first thing a totalitarian government does, be it Cuba, or North Korea, or Nazi Germany. Today it might be a racist chant, tomorrow it might be an "unacceptable" political opinion.
    This is absolutely correct. Bans on speech can be turned around and abused at any time to arrest ANYBODY for speaking an "offensive" opinion, even you (no matter how sensible or righteous your opinion may be).

  21. #21

    Default

    Can't wait to see how moahunter rationalizes his anti-authoritarian, pro-free-speech arguments in this thread with his pro-authoritarian, anti-human-rights arguments from other threads.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  22. #22
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Banning protests / public speech, no matter how despicable, is a very dangerous precedent - its typically the first thing a totalitarian government does, be it Cuba, or North Korea, or Nazi Germany. Today it might be a racist chant, tomorrow it might be an "unacceptable" political opinion.
    This is absolutely correct. Bans on speech can be turned around and abused at any time to arrest ANYBODY for speaking an "offensive" opinion, even you (no matter how sensible or righteous your opinion may be).
    The countries we live in sacrificed millions of lives to suppress the exact thing you are advocating is protected by "free speech" because our culture does not agree with it.
    Radical islam bad, have to stop that, Nazi's gotta protect that though, freedom of speech and all

    Great line of thinking from you two.

  23. #23

    Default

    No, no, we need to let people promote genocide because what if we ban the incitement of genocide & then something happens that could only be solved through genocide? What then? Checkmate, alt-left libtards!
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    The countries we live in sacrificed millions of lives to suppress the exact thing you are advocating is protected by "free speech" because our culture does not agree with it.
    No, rules to protect free speech don't protect crimes, they protect people expressing their viewpoints. The idea that allowing a white supremacy rally is going to create more white supremacists is pretty stupid, if anything its going to create less of them because we can all see how few of them there are / how marginal in our society. Would you advocate that a pro-communist rally be banned, because communism has killed more people than fascism has? I don't think so, its all evil whether it be Alt-left or Alt -right, but its more evil to not allow debate on it.
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-08-2017 at 09:14 AM.

  25. #25
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    The countries we live in sacrificed millions of lives to suppress the exact thing you are advocating is protected by "free speech" because our culture does not agree with it.
    No, rules to protect free speech don't protect crimes, they protect people expressing their viewpoints. The idea that allowing a white supremacy rally is going to create more white supremacists is pretty stupid, if anything its going to create less of them because we can all see how few of them there are / how marginal in our society.
    Yea when the Nazi's in Germany started up their hate speech it got suppressed by those with opposing views. It really boiled over, good thing there was only World War I. Yea that's exactly how history went.

    Tell me more about how radical muslims need to be suppressed though.

    Tell me more.

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Tell me more about how radical muslims need to be suppressed though.
    I think views that result in the suppression of women are every bit as evil as views that result in the suppression of one race or another. There is a difference though between a public march, versus a ceremony to become a citizen of Canada, one is a right, the other is a privilege. A KKK hat isn't allowed in a citizenship ceremony, and a face mask to suppress / claim ownership of a woman shouldn't be either.
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-08-2017 at 09:20 AM.

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Banning protests / public speech, no matter how despicable, is a very dangerous precedent - its typically the first thing a totalitarian government does, be it Cuba, or North Korea, or Nazi Germany. Today it might be a racist chant, tomorrow it might be an "unacceptable" political opinion.
    This is absolutely correct. Bans on speech can be turned around and abused at any time to arrest ANYBODY for speaking an "offensive" opinion, even you (no matter how sensible or righteous your opinion may be).
    The countries we live in sacrificed millions of lives to suppress the exact thing you are advocating is protected by "free speech" because our culture does not agree with it.
    Radical islam bad, have to stop that, Nazi's gotta protect that though, freedom of speech and all

    Great line of thinking from you two.

    Not many times we'd agree on something (at least apparently) but good body of work in the thread. kudos. You've captured pretty much what I would have stated even though my family of origin was on the other side. The side that needed to be stopped.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Can't wait to see how moahunter rationalizes his anti-authoritarian, pro-free-speech arguments in this thread with his pro-authoritarian, anti-human-rights arguments from other threads.
    Its not like we even need to wait. Its evident in any political thread.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Radical islam bad, have to stop that, Nazi's gotta protect that though, freedom of speech and all
    You are wrong.

    I oppose both. I oppose radical Islam just as I oppose neo-Nazism.

    However critical I may be, I don't advocate for censorship the speech of either. Just opposition (which some people want to censor me from doing).

  30. #30
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,183

    Default

    I'm sure if a bunch of extremist Muslims were marching around chanting death to the infidel you would not be saying the same thing.

    Would you be willing to protect their free speech as well?

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Evil it likely is, but is it more evil to ban it? Banning protests / public speech, no matter how despicable, is a very dangerous precedent - its typically the first thing a totalitarian government does, be it Cuba, or North Korea, or Nazi Germany.
    So present day Germany is totalitarian?

    The induction of logic would cause you to ask this question before such a sweeping generalization. So that actually a country that knows most about the topic you are attempting to discuss does exactly that which you say shouldn't be done in a free country.

    Indeed this is the difficulty with characterization, generalizing, is its indicative of superficial thought and less due consideration of ones position. Its a tunnel vision polarity which you exhibit almost constantly.
    Last edited by Replacement; 17-08-2017 at 09:57 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    I'm sure if a bunch of extremist Muslims were marching around chanting death to the infidel you would not be saying the same thing.

    Would you be willing to protect their free speech as well?
    Their speech already would be protected.


    I would do what I usually do, and would definitely point out their intolerance, hate, and barbarism (then spend the rest of my day attacking members of the alt-left accusing me of being "racist", even though I am only criticizing their words and beliefs - not their ancestry, skin color, nor country of origin).

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    I'm sure if a bunch of extremist Muslims were marching around chanting death to the infidel you would not be saying the same thing.

    Would you be willing to protect their free speech as well?
    I would - and they do have marches / speeches. We had Iman's in Canada Toronto publically calling for the suppression of Jews. Its despicable, just like those right wing white supremacist rallies are in Canada's. You think they should all be banned (except for the Muslim ones?), ok, on what basis will you decide what marches are allowed, and what marches aren't? Will you allow an environmental march by the Alt-left demanding violence against a commercial project? Will you allow an anti-Israel march that speaks up for the Palestinain people, or would you ban it as anti-Semitism? I would allow it all for a public march, but you would ban some of them? How do you make those decisions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    So present day Germany is totalitarian?
    Germany (and Japan) are very specific cases where they have had to move on from a totalitarian government. I think in time those rules will be relaxed, and there is talk of that now - Mein Kampf for example is no longer ililegal. It's full of hate speech, so you think it should be banned? I don't, anymore than I think that the bible and Koran, which both also are filled with a lot of hate speech, should be banned. Burning or hiding or banning books, or symbols, no matter what evils they contain or stand for, is not the answer. You will find in other countries in Europe such isn't banned. More people have died, and just as much evil, has been committed under the Christian cross as under the swastika - would you ban that then? I'd agree to banning both in public buildings or as part of dress code or for a government ceremony like citizenship, but I would never agree to banning either everywhere for the hatred they stand for, as much as I despise both of them.

    Last edited by moahunter; 17-08-2017 at 11:08 AM.

  34. #34

    Default

    Those marching under the swastika are still with us and still calling for the death of Jews and gays and Muslims. In many cases, they have also used the Christian cross. The KKK still holds cross burnings.

    When a Christian or Muslim or Jewish group starts calling for hatred and violence against other groups is when we stand up to those that are calling for violence and hatred and racism.

    It's funny how many people that are in favour of banning all Muslims, most of whom are peaceful and came here to escape violence and intolerance, are totally cool with defending the rights of actual Nazis who are calling for hatred and intolerance.

    A couple of weeks ago, a bomb was thrown through the window of a Mosque in Minnesota. Someone on this board refused to condemn it because they figured that they had bombed themselves to get sympathy.

    Protest the actions and when people use the slogans and symbols of a group like the Nazis, your stand up to them. There's no redeeming qualities of Nazism. There are no good people that would march with or support them. By the same token, if a Muslim Iman stands up and calls for violence, you denounce them too. Same when a Christian does it, like calling for a country to go to war based on lies. Patriotism wrapped in religion has no place in society.
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 17-08-2017 at 12:53 PM.

  35. #35

    Default Historians say removal not the only way to deal with racist relics

    Basically, what I say (historians are smart folks):

    https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4248173

  36. #36

    Default

    Yeah, but you're a racist sympathizer (at best, a straight up racist at worst), so you'll understand that your opinions on race relations vis a vis the monuments won't carry a lot of weight with non-racists.

    You've little-to-no credibility with anyone outside your fellow regressive, illiberal, racists & racist sympathizers.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  37. #37

    Default

    Yeah it seems some people want to whitewash history to suit their narrative. A lot of countries were born out of great changes and revolutions. It's how we got to were we are today. If you start destroying monuments or taking names off buildings the whole truth is not being told. Same as trying to change wording in books or banning certain literature. The past is the past, we cannot change it nor should we pretend bad stuff did not happen. We are even living in times while this is happening as their have been quite a few buildings with Trump's name of them that have changed their names and businesses that are distancing them selves from him. I doubt there will be a big push to get Trump name on many things once his tenor is over unless he really does something great and has a eureka moment.
    Why try to change the times people lived in, it's their history, their story warts and all.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  38. #38

    Default

    These statues are part of the effort to whitewash history, by making treasonous racists into something to venerate. Celebrating or otherwise venerating traitorous secessionist racists is the (almost literal) white-washing of history.

    It's the removal of the statues, the vast majority of which were constructed/erected during periods of increasing civil rights for black people in the US & not contemporaneously or immediately after the Civil War, that is returning history to it's un-whitewashed state.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  39. #39

    Default

    There are always going to be opposing factions in every major issue. It's very rare that any mass body of citizens have 100% approval on things or they sing from the same page. One could say statues or buildings carrying names of not so savoury people should be eradicated or changed but doing that is another form of oppression to the group that follows that ideology. What needs to be done is for people to just hold true to their own values and truths. I certainly don't agree with what happened in Charlottesville but those idiots did have a permit to protest. The left then formed their own protest (without a permit) and looks what transpired, mayhem. What the left should have done was just stayed at home, why bring drama and attention to those fools. Let them march through town with no one watching and let them be. They were hardly going to start rioting amongst themselves. It was basically like poking the bear when the alt-left showed up.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    There are always going to be opposing factions in every major issue.
    True. On one hand you have people idolizing traitorous, secessionist, racists & on the other side you've got people who believe that all people are equal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    It's very rare that any mass body of citizens have 100% approval on things or they sing from the same page.
    This is true, however that shouldn't stop us from the goal of getting everyone to agree that all people are created equal & that it's not good to promote the idea that it was OK that one arbitrary group of humans could literally own another group of humans, or that fighting to keep that system in place wasn't morally reprehensible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    One could say statues or buildings carrying names of not so savoury people should be eradicated or changed but doing that is another form of oppression to the group that follows that ideology.
    Oppressing Nazis, racist sympathizers & racists seems pretty OK with me. It's not an innocent or acceptable difference of opinion at the heart of the ideology, it's straight up evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    What needs to be done is for people to just hold true to their own values and truths.
    Not if those values & truths are racist, evil, hateful & regressive. Nobody needs to hold true to the belief that one arbitrary group of people is inherently superior to another arbitrary group of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    I certainly don't agree with what happened in Charlottesville but those idiots did have a permit to protest. The left then formed their own protest (without a permit) and looks what transpired, mayhem.
    WRONG! http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...unter-protest/


    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    What the left should have done was just stayed at home, why bring drama and attention to those fools. Let them march through town with no one watching and let them be. They were hardly going to start rioting amongst themselves. It was basically like poking the bear when the alt-left showed up.
    No. There should be no tolerance for intolerance. At no point should these regressive, harmful, hurtful, racist ideologies be given any quarter. They should be opposed at all opportunities, with whatever means are available. Anything less gives them tacit approval & allows for the continued flourishing of their bigoted & hateful beliefs.

    Thanks for this Gem, I was waiting for you to chime in. I'll add you to the list of racists & racist sympathizers, as per your support of them here.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  41. #41

    Default

    The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

    Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
    ― Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies.

    Figured I'd post up the full quote that my cartoon yesterday was based on.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  42. #42
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post

    No. There should be no tolerance for intolerance. At no point should these regressive, harmful, hurtful, racist ideologies be given any quarter. They should be opposed at all opportunities, with whatever means are available. Anything less gives them tacit approval & allows for the continued flourishing of their bigoted & hateful beliefs.
    They should be opposed at all opportunities within the law. Any means available makes it sound like you should go beyond the law. That just gives them fuel for their ideology, allows them to play the victim, and pretend that both sides are the same, as seen this weekend.

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    They should be opposed at all opportunities within the law. Any means available makes it sound like you should go beyond the law. That just gives them fuel for their ideology, allows them to play the victim, and pretend that both sides are the same, as seen this weekend.
    Oh, I am not advocating going beyond the law. As a law-abider, I don't really consider illegal means as "available means", as it were. Apologies for any misunderstanding or inadvertent calls-to-arms.

    Not to trot out Popper yet again, but this encapsulates my thoughts pretty well:

    ...as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
    Last edited by noodle; 18-08-2017 at 01:56 PM.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  44. #44

    Default

    The alt left arguing on this forum:



  45. #45
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    There are always going to be opposing factions in every major issue.
    True. On one hand you have people idolizing traitorous, secessionist, racists & on the other side you've got people who believe that all people are equal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    It's very rare that any mass body of citizens have 100% approval on things or they sing from the same page.
    This is true, however that shouldn't stop us from the goal of getting everyone to agree that all people are created equal & that it's not good to promote the idea that it was OK that one arbitrary group of humans could literally own another group of humans, or that fighting to keep that system in place wasn't morally reprehensible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    One could say statues or buildings carrying names of not so savoury people should be eradicated or changed but doing that is another form of oppression to the group that follows that ideology.
    Oppressing Nazis, racist sympathizers & racists seems pretty OK with me. It's not an innocent or acceptable difference of opinion at the heart of the ideology, it's straight up evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    What needs to be done is for people to just hold true to their own values and truths.
    Not if those values & truths are racist, evil, hateful & regressive. Nobody needs to hold true to the belief that one arbitrary group of people is inherently superior to another arbitrary group of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    I certainly don't agree with what happened in Charlottesville but those idiots did have a permit to protest. The left then formed their own protest (without a permit) and looks what transpired, mayhem.
    WRONG! http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...unter-protest/


    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    What the left should have done was just stayed at home, why bring drama and attention to those fools. Let them march through town with no one watching and let them be. They were hardly going to start rioting amongst themselves. It was basically like poking the bear when the alt-left showed up.
    No. There should be no tolerance for intolerance. At no point should these regressive, harmful, hurtful, racist ideologies be given any quarter. They should be opposed at all opportunities, with whatever means are available. Anything less gives them tacit approval & allows for the continued flourishing of their bigoted & hateful beliefs.

    Thanks for this Gem, I was waiting for you to chime in. I'll add you to the list of racists & racist sympathizers, as per your support of them here.
    additional emphasis/underlining added...

    the other thing that needs to be added is that not all of those protesting this nazi/alt-right/supremecist evil are "alt-left" or even "left". the vast majority of those of us who consider our politics to be to the "right" are just as outraged and just as opposed.
    Last edited by kcantor; 18-08-2017 at 02:01 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  46. #46
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,314

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post

    No. There should be no tolerance for intolerance. At no point should these regressive, harmful, hurtful, racist ideologies be given any quarter. They should be opposed at all opportunities, with whatever means are available. Anything less gives them tacit approval & allows for the continued flourishing of their bigoted & hateful beliefs.
    They should be opposed at all opportunities within the law. Any means available makes it sound like you should go beyond the law. That just gives them fuel for their ideology, allows them to play the victim, and pretend that both sides are the same, as seen this weekend.
    Not sure how much of this is applicable in Canada but anyway...

    How to (Legally) Punch a Nazi Who's Threatening You

    Swing responsibly.

    https://www.inverse.com/article/3549...-rally-protest
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    The alt left arguing on this forum:


    The fact that someone who's espoused pages & pages of abhorrently racist beliefs is now trying to make it seem like it's a bad thing for the rest of us to call you out on it a bad thing is hilarious.

    The opinions of bigots are not ones I take to heart.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  48. #48

    Default

    Not sure how much of this is applicable in Canada but anyway...

    How to (Legally) Punch a Nazi Who's Threatening You

    Swing responsibly.

    https://www.inverse.com/article/3549...-rally-protest

    Yes, as long as you shout "Nazi!" or "Racist!" first, you can criminally and violently assault a person.


    That's the alt left, ladies and gentlemen.

  49. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Not sure how much of this is applicable in Canada but anyway...

    How to (Legally) Punch a Nazi Who's Threatening You

    Swing responsibly.

    https://www.inverse.com/article/3549...-rally-protest

    Yes, as long as you shout "Nazi!" or "Racist!" first, you can criminally and violently assault a person.


    That's the alt left, ladies and gentlemen.
    Yes, as long as you ignore the very obvious "Legally" part and make vague equivocations.

    That the alt-Reich, ladies and gentleman.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  50. #50

    Default

    You're gonna end up on his ignore list if you keep that up.

    (Not that being ignored by the board's pre-eminent Trump supporter & racist sympathizer/apologist is a bad thing, I take it as a badge of honour that I'm so abhorrent to his thought processes that he literally can't bear to look at my posts.)
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  51. #51

    Default

    There's not point in talking to you, noodle. This is you ever respond with:


  52. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    There's not point in talking to you, noodle.
    Maybe you need to dial back the racist posts then? I'm not gonna kowtow to you or give your abhorrent personal beliefs any quarter. You wanna stop being called a racist bigot? Stop. Being. A. Racist. Bigot.

    Simple.

    Until then your posts will be met with the appropriate level of derision & categorization.

    Bigot.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  53. #53

  54. #54

    Default

    Okay.

    The thing is, you're incapable of recognizing your own racism, bigotry, ignorance & hatred so you're just gonna reply that your racist screeds against Islam are factual discourse.

    Just leave me & my post ignored, since there's nothing you like in them & you'll never get me to be party to your regressive, illiberal belief system.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  55. #55

  56. #56

    Default

    Oh no. The ignorant, racist bigot with massive critical thinking skills & enough cognitive dissonance to make my head hurt doesn't agree with my assessment of him being an ignorant, racist bigot. Woe. Is. Me.

    See here's the thing: I don't care what you think of yourself & especially what you think of me. You hold beliefs that are anathema to me & as such you have no sway, influence or import to me whatsoever. I only mock you & deride your terrible beliefs & abhorrent posts for my own personal enjoyment & the edification of others. The only way for you to deny me that joy is to curtail your expression of said views. Either change your thoughts or keep them to yourself, as they have no place in a modern, evolved, equal society & I will not give you even the slightest whiff of tacit approval by letting your vitriol & bile go unchallenged.

    Or like I said here, if you don't wanna be called an ignorant racist bigot, don't portray yourself as an ignorant racist bigot.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  57. #57

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    There are always going to be opposing factions in every major issue.
    True. On one hand you have people idolizing traitorous, secessionist, racists & on the other side you've got people who believe that all people are equal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    It's very rare that any mass body of citizens have 100% approval on things or they sing from the same page.
    This is true, however that shouldn't stop us from the goal of getting everyone to agree that all people are created equal & that it's not good to promote the idea that it was OK that one arbitrary group of humans could literally own another group of humans, or that fighting to keep that system in place wasn't morally reprehensible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    One could say statues or buildings carrying names of not so savoury people should be eradicated or changed but doing that is another form of oppression to the group that follows that ideology.
    Oppressing Nazis, racist sympathizers & racists seems pretty OK with me. It's not an innocent or acceptable difference of opinion at the heart of the ideology, it's straight up evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    What needs to be done is for people to just hold true to their own values and truths.
    Not if those values & truths are racist, evil, hateful & regressive. Nobody needs to hold true to the belief that one arbitrary group of people is inherently superior to another arbitrary group of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    I certainly don't agree with what happened in Charlottesville but those idiots did have a permit to protest. The left then formed their own protest (without a permit) and looks what transpired, mayhem.
    WRONG! http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...unter-protest/


    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    What the left should have done was just stayed at home, why bring drama and attention to those fools. Let them march through town with no one watching and let them be. They were hardly going to start rioting amongst themselves. It was basically like poking the bear when the alt-left showed up.
    No. There should be no tolerance for intolerance. At no point should these regressive, harmful, hurtful, racist ideologies be given any quarter. They should be opposed at all opportunities, with whatever means are available. Anything less gives them tacit approval & allows for the continued flourishing of their bigoted & hateful beliefs.

    Thanks for this Gem, I was waiting for you to chime in. I'll add you to the list of racists & racist sympathizers, as per your support of them here.
    additional emphasis/underlining added...

    the other thing that needs to be added is that not all of those protesting this nazi/alt-right/supremecist evil are "alt-left" or even "left". the vast majority of those of us who consider our politics to be to the "right" are just as outraged and just as opposed.
    Except did the right counter-protest? My understanding is that the centre and the right apparently didn't counter protest. Moreover neither you, nor me, nor I believe noodle actually went there to personally protest. So by noodle's own standard it seems we are now all on a "list of racists & racist sympathizers".

    As noodle said: "No. There should be no tolerance for intolerance. At no point should these regressive, harmful, hurtful, racist ideologies be given any quarter. They should be opposed at all opportunities, with whatever means are available. Anything less gives them tacit approval & allows for the continued flourishing of their bigoted & hateful beliefs.

    "Thanks for this {substituting KC, kcantor and noodle}... I'll add you to the list of racists & racist sympathizers, as per your support of them here."

    "Support" being of the opinion that legal permits for protest should be ignored, and misinformation regarding the "left's" lack of a permit is insufficient reason not to have gone there to counter-protest. As George W Bush said: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." It's all becoming clear, neutrality is never an option: speech can be terrorism. Sorry, hate speech is terrorism.


    Going forward, noodle has made known his satisfactory financial condition so I suspect he'll be booking a flight to the next such event to find redemption for his support of the racists at this last event, through tacit approval of it shown through his apparent absence from the counter-protest. Blah, blah, blah...

    Now tongue out of cheek. Noodle, you need help.
    Last edited by KC; 18-08-2017 at 04:17 PM.

  59. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Not sure how much of this is applicable in Canada but anyway...

    How to (Legally) Punch a Nazi Who's Threatening You

    Swing responsibly.

    https://www.inverse.com/article/3549...-rally-protest

    Yes, as long as you shout "Nazi!" or "Racist!" first, you can criminally and violently assault a person.


    That's the alt left, ladies and gentlemen.
    Yes, as long as you ignore the very obvious "Legally" part and make vague equivocations.

    That the alt-Reich, ladies and gentleman.
    I was looking for a single word term that covered: neo-nazis, alt-right, anti-semites, racists, bigots, white supremacists, MrOilers, moahunter, Steve Bannon,Trump, etc AL.


    Alt-Reich pretty much sums it up. Do I have your permission to use it?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  60. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    The alt left arguing on this forum:


    Alt-Reich
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  61. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    You're gonna end up on his ignore list if you keep that up.

    (Not that being ignored by the board's pre-eminent Trump supporter & racist sympathizer/apologist is a bad thing, I take it as a badge of honour that I'm so abhorrent to his thought processes that he literally can't bear to look at my posts.)
    Too bad we don't have a 'supress racist post' feature that we can apply to MrOilers. ..
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  62. #62
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,791

    Default

    ^^^^

    "Except did the right counter-protest?"???

    on what grounds do you believe that all those who protested were exclusively "left" and not a single one of them "right"?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  63. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    You're gonna end up on his ignore list if you keep that up.

    (Not that being ignored by the board's pre-eminent Trump supporter & racist sympathizer/apologist is a bad thing, I take it as a badge of honour that I'm so abhorrent to his thought processes that he literally can't bear to look at my posts.)
    Too bad we don't have a 'supress racist post' feature that we can apply to MrOilers. ..
    You guys are making it stunningly easy, if not compelling, for it to troll you.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  64. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ^^^^

    "Except did the right counter-protest?"???

    on what grounds do you believe that all those who protested were exclusively "left" and not a single one of them "right"?
    Note that question mark.

  65. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post

    Yes and that reaction is getting old real old on this board. I can't see many people (left or right) being swayed by any of those buffoons marching in alt-right protests.
    One has only to look at their history to know they are not what one would call 'model citizens'. Then again, the left is trying to obliterate that history as if it did not happen. Yup, I guess if you don't like what the alt-right are saying but you defend that they have a right to say it I guess it's gonna get you branded as a racist by some on this board.
    I'm taking a leap but we are all adults who post and I am sure we can watch and read about alt-right opinions without feeling a massive urge to rush to the southern states and join them. The fast majority of us just sit back and watch their circus and shake our heads. We are not racist because we do this. More like bystanders shaking our heads at the sheer stupidity of them.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  66. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    There are always going to be opposing factions in every major issue.
    True. On one hand you have people idolizing traitorous, secessionist, racists & on the other side you've got people who believe that all people are equal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    It's very rare that any mass body of citizens have 100% approval on things or they sing from the same page.
    This is true, however that shouldn't stop us from the goal of getting everyone to agree that all people are created equal & that it's not good to promote the idea that it was OK that one arbitrary group of humans could literally own another group of humans, or that fighting to keep that system in place wasn't morally reprehensible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    One could say statues or buildings carrying names of not so savoury people should be eradicated or changed but doing that is another form of oppression to the group that follows that ideology.
    Oppressing Nazis, racist sympathizers & racists seems pretty OK with me. It's not an innocent or acceptable difference of opinion at the heart of the ideology, it's straight up evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    What needs to be done is for people to just hold true to their own values and truths.
    Not if those values & truths are racist, evil, hateful & regressive. Nobody needs to hold true to the belief that one arbitrary group of people is inherently superior to another arbitrary group of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    I certainly don't agree with what happened in Charlottesville but those idiots did have a permit to protest. The left then formed their own protest (without a permit) and looks what transpired, mayhem.
    WRONG! http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...unter-protest/


    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    What the left should have done was just stayed at home, why bring drama and attention to those fools. Let them march through town with no one watching and let them be. They were hardly going to start rioting amongst themselves. It was basically like poking the bear when the alt-left showed up.
    No. There should be no tolerance for intolerance. At no point should these regressive, harmful, hurtful, racist ideologies be given any quarter. They should be opposed at all opportunities, with whatever means are available. Anything less gives them tacit approval & allows for the continued flourishing of their bigoted & hateful beliefs.

    Thanks for this Gem, I was waiting for you to chime in. I'll add you to the list of racists & racist sympathizers, as per your support of them here.
    Sticks and stones and all that. Might as well just bite me as well.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  67. #67

    Default

    About the people that fight this battle every day:



    After Backing Alt-Right in Charlottesville, A.C.L.U. Wrestles With Its Role - NYTimes.com


    "This year has been a banner one for the civil liberties group, which is expected by some on the left to serve as a legal bulwark against some of the Trump administration’s policies. Indeed, the A.C.L.U. helped secure the first court ruling against the travel ban.

    Membership in the group has almost quadrupled, and donations online have reached $83 million since the election, when, in a typical period, about $5 million or less might be expected, a spokeswoman for the A.C.L.U., Stacy Sullivan, said.

    But the group’s defense of the Charlottesville rally has crystallized a recurring challenge for the organization: how to pursue its First Amendment advocacy, even for hate-based groups, without alienating its supporters."


    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/1...kie-rally.html

  68. #68

    Default

    Video clip of elderly women getting assaulted by masked alt-left thugs in Boston for holding American flags.

    https://twitter.com/foxnews/status/898939777453400065

  69. #69

    Default

    The Left never changes:


  70. #70

  71. #71

    Default

    The quest for liberal censorship of all opposing ideas marches on. The Washington Post advocates for censoring certain political speech: https://archive.fo/zhjFM


    Free speech is one of the only tools regular people can use to fight oppressive governments.

  72. #72

    Default

    MrOilers, there's a difference between free speech and hate speech. You seem to not know the difference.

    Free speech doesn't entitle you to just say what ever racist remarks and hate filled speech you want and expect no repercussions.

  73. #73

    Default

    People in free society - in order to stay free - need access to a "soap box", ballot box, then an ammo box. Those are really the only weapons average people have against governments that try to become oppressive and controlling.

    Enforcing and oppressing people over what they can or cannot say is fascism. Pure and simple.

  74. #74
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,183

    Default

    They are free to speak, just as everyone else is free to speak out against them.

    Funny how the people always yelling about free speech only like it when it works in their favour.

  75. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    MrOilers, there's a difference between free speech and hate speech. You seem to not know the difference.

    Free speech doesn't entitle you to just say what ever racist remarks and hate filled speech you want and expect no repercussions.
    The Problem With Making Hate Speech Illegal – Foreign Policy

    https://www.google.ca/amp/foreignpol...premacist/amp/


    When is it hate speech?: 7 significant Canadian cases - Canada - CBC News

    http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/w...ases-1.1036731
    Last edited by KC; 23-08-2017 at 11:26 AM.

  76. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Funny how the people always yelling about free speech only like it when it works in their favour.
    Yup. And that's why it ALL needs to be allowed. Language is incredibly subjective. People will ALWAYS disagree on what types of language to censor, and examples all over the world show us that whenever there are laws banning certain words/language, whoever is in power at the time gets the final say. And the censorship laws always work in their favor.
    Last edited by MrOilers; 23-08-2017 at 11:28 AM.

  77. #77
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    People in free society - in order to stay free - need access to a "soap box", ballot box, then an ammo box.
    The above quote is a shocking and disturbing statement that is straight out of the playbook of the right wing militia movement. And a mirror image of the rhetoric terrorist groups like ISIS use to justify their actions.

  78. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Yup. And that's why it ALL needs to be allowed. People will ALWAYS disagree on what types of language to censor, and whoever is in power at the time gets the final say.
    Ah the ol' slippery slope fallacy.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  79. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    People in free society - in order to stay free - need access to a "soap box", ballot box, then an ammo box.
    The above quote is a shocking and disturbing statement that is straight out of the playbook of the right wing militia movement. And a mirror image of the rhetoric terrorist groups like ISIS use to justify their actions.
    Don't be ridiculous.

    The worst and most oppressive governments in history (and today) are the ones that have disarmed their populations.

  80. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Yup. And that's why it ALL needs to be allowed. People will ALWAYS disagree on what types of language to censor, and whoever is in power at the time gets the final say.
    Ah the ol' slippery slope fallacy.

    How are numerous examples of government censorship to maintain power throughout history a "fallacy"?

  81. #81

    Default

    Like Australia, bastion of oppression & an unquestionably terrible place to live.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  82. #82

    Default

    if you don't make a connection between fascist regimes who disarm their citizens and control every facet of what they can say in public, and the horrors that people in those countries endure under that oppression, then you are simply being willfully ignorant.

  83. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Yup. And that's why it ALL needs to be allowed. People will ALWAYS disagree on what types of language to censor, and whoever is in power at the time gets the final say.
    Ah the ol' slippery slope fallacy.

    How are numerous examples of government censorship to maintain power throughout history a "fallacy"?
    Shouldn't you be ignoring me, snowflake?

    I've provided information regarding the paradox of tolerance & my take on it which aligns closely with Popper's. Feel free to go poking through my history for a refresher.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  84. #84

    Default

    Meanwhile, 35,000 people are killed by guns in the US and many more injured. The USA also has the highest rate of incarnation in the world.

    Makesone wonder who is oppressed, all the people loving in fear in the US behind triple locked doors...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  85. #85

    Default

    Australia largely disarmed its citizens after Port Arthur & doesn't meet your standard for "free speech", yet hasn't devolved into some sort of oppressive terror state.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  86. #86

    Default

    Simple - If you choose to call me names in your post instead of engaging me intelligently, you get ignored.

  87. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Yup. And that's why it ALL needs to be allowed. People will ALWAYS disagree on what types of language to censor, and whoever is in power at the time gets the final say.
    Ah the ol' slippery slope fallacy.

    How are numerous examples of government censorship to maintain power throughout history a "fallacy"?
    Or Canada, England, France, Germany, Switzerland and most of Europe. They all feel so oppressed. But maybe if they had access to 300 million more guns they would be better off.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  88. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Australia largely disarmed its citizens after Port Arthur & doesn't meet your standard for "free speech", yet hasn't devolved into some sort of oppressive terror state.
    But it easily can. And if it does, people have no way to regain their freedom.

  89. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Meanwhile, 35,000 people are killed by guns in the US and many more injured. The USA also has the highest rate of incarnation in the world.
    So?

  90. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Simple - If you choose to call me names in your post instead of engaging me intelligently, you get ignored.
    From the guy who posts the same image a dozen times...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  91. #91

  92. #92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Australia largely disarmed its citizens after Port Arthur & doesn't meet your standard for "free speech", yet hasn't devolved into some sort of oppressive terror state.
    But it easily can. And if it does, people have no way to regain their freedom.
    So you're telling me its a slippery slope?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  93. #93

    Default

    Nope - I'm saying it's a possibility, and more likely to happen in Australia, than in a country with better freedom laws and more armed populace (like Canada).

  94. #94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    That was funny!
    Then why is no one laughing except AT you?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  95. #95

    Default

    And we're getting off topic - this thread is supposed to be about speech, not guns.

  96. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Simple - If you choose to call me names in your post instead of engaging me intelligently, you get ignored.
    I mean as much insult & derision when I refer to you as a fascist or racist/racist sympathizer as you do when you call me a leftist, or alt-left or whatever Fox tells you I am. Exactly as much.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  97. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    And we're getting off topic - this thread is supposed to be about speech, not guns.
    You've made it clear you believe progress requires unfettered, unrestricted free speech & free speech requires guns. Therefore guns are perfectly on-topic.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  98. #98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    People in free society - in order to stay free - need access to a "soap box", ballot box, then an ammo box.
    The above quote is a shocking and disturbing statement that is straight out of the playbook of the right wing militia movement. And a mirror image of the rhetoric terrorist groups like ISIS use to justify their actions.
    Don't be ridiculous.

    The worst and most oppressive governments in history (and today) are the ones that have disarmed their populations.
    I'm not sure about that. There's a number of regimes out there that have become increasingly oppressive as rebel groups have increasingly armed up and committed violent acts. One begets the other.

  99. #99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    That was funny!
    Then why is no one laughing except AT you?
    Lacking a sense of humor is my guess.

  100. #100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    And we're getting off topic - this thread is supposed to be about speech, not guns.
    You've made it clear you believe progress requires unfettered, unrestricted free speech & free speech requires guns.
    You're making stuff up. I never said that free speech requires guns.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •