Lawmakers held a hearing on white nationalism. On YouTube ...

[Oborosen]

It is if you are a "White Nationalist".

Why one of "Those People" might move into your neighbourhood or drink out of the same water fountain that you do so that you get cooties.

If all the lot of you can do, is suggest that your opponent is a racist?

Then you're all just revealing how intellectually stunted you are on the issue.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

So with that analogy, both sides of the political isle in the united states, in fact all political groups should be scrutinized as such, or outright banned. Because all of them have their own hate that they speak, on a nearly constant basis.

Waiting for you to document the liberal body count. How many Americans have been killed by liberals?
Uh ohhhhh BIKE LOCKS!!!!

More illusions.

 

[Oborosen]

What? lol I have no idea what you are asking but terrorist threats are not protected speech threats can land you in hot water

They're attempting to lob it all into one category at this point.
The whole criticism, opinion and outright hateful speech, being equal to actual threats and calls to action. Is a horse that was beaten to death a long time ago.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Once hatred has a documented body count, it is no longer simple hatred anymore.
It is criminal evidence left by an insurgent mercenary army.

Left unchecked, such hatred eventually becomes institutionalized and state sponsored.

Naw.

Protected speech.

 

[AGENT J]

They're attempting to lob it all into one category at this point.
The whole criticism, opinion and outright hateful speech, being equal to actual threats and calls to action. Is a horse that was beaten to death a long time ago.

Whos they?
in america hateful speech will never be illegal on its on IMO nor would i support making it illegal on its own.

 

[3leftsdoo]

So with that analogy, both sides of the political isle in the united states, in fact all political groups should be scrutinized as such, or outright banned. Because all of them have their own hate that they speak, on a nearly constant basis.

Hence why speech is protected.

 

[AmNat]

Karl Popper:

Yes, I'm aware that leftists are opposed to freedom. You didn't need to remind me.

Nationalists loom large in the historical record as those who willingly suspend the permission of their brethren to listen to rational opposing arguments. They are notorious for teaching them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

Surely this is some sort of parody? Even you couldn't miss the irony here . . .

Now go ahead and show me the liberal body count so far in America. How many people have been murdered by liberals in this country?

~61,000,000 since 1973.

 

[Thingfish]

Damn, the comment sections are my favorite part! It’s like a centerfold pull out, or a red text binder Nat Geo map, the cremé de la cremé

 

[The Mark]

If not, then it's closing fast on "I'm going to send a message that the fact that I can't get laid is causing me to have issues." (at least in the "Wholesale Mass Murder" league).

I've literally never gotten laid, but I don't have the urge to kill people, and I certainly don't blame women for it.

 

[Oborosen]

Waiting for you to document the liberal body count. How many Americans have been killed by liberals?
Uh ohhhhh BIKE LOCKS!!!!

More illusions.

You did not make that qualification before, so why should I be forced to do so now?

Violence is still violence and just because you're fine with people getting violently assaulted, and not killed. Such should not be a standard that anyone would willingly abide by.

 

[Oborosen]

Whos they?
in america hateful speech will never be illegal on its on IMO nor would i support making it illegal on its own.

They?
A small, yet highly vocal number of the left. Because a majority of the liberal coworkers I have, don't even care for issues like this.

The law as it is and should stay as such. Unless we all wake up in Canada, or the UK for some reason. Then we'd actually have to worry about literally watching what we say.

 

[Oborosen]

Hence why speech is protected.

As it should be.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Yes, I'm aware that leftists are opposed to freedom. You didn't need to remind me.



Surely this is some sort of parody? Even you couldn't miss the irony here . . .



~61,000,000 since 1973.

OMG you think babies weren't pulled out of a woman's womb when abortion was illegal?
How old are you really? I am sixty-two, so when I first entered high school, abortion was still illegal.
And guess what? It was two hundred bucks and available everywhere anyone had two hundred bucks.
[h=1]$200 in 1973=$1,131 in 2019[/h]And worse than that, back then it was white suburban girls who didn't want to be inconvenienced who were getting them, more than anyone else, because for others, it was too expensive, even if it was a case of rape or incest, or a case where giving birth would endanger the mother's life, or where the birth defect was so profound that the little baby was sure to spend its few hours alive in horrifying agony.

Ask yourself if making pot illegal ever made pot disappear, or if making alcohol illegal made alcohol disappear.
Since you are a proud nationalist, ask yourself if making guns illegal would make guns disappear.

Making abortion illegal never made abortions disappear, it just swept it under the rug, which is what nationalists love to do. They sweep hatred under the rug and try to make it look like patriotism with extra lipstick.
You want to talk about irony? You are the poster child for irony.
And nationalism is the poster child for institutionalized and state sanctioned hatred.

Nationalism, because patriotism, which is simple nonpartisan love of country, isn't enough for screaming foaming at the mouth paranoid ignorant fanatics.

Patriotism builds, nationalism destroys. Patriotism welcomes, nationalism casts out. Patriotism is care and nurturing, nationalism is poison.

So, you admit that liberals haven't killed anybody in America, you just can't bring yourself to let the words out, without resorting to lies. The biggest consumers of illegal abortions were rich conservatives who couldn't bear to see their honor besmirched.

The biggest consumers of illegal abortions were rich white nationalists who couldn't wait to kill the black or hispanic babies in their daughter's lily white bellies.

I know that definitely hit home, you don't even have to say it.

And if by chance you are attempting to equate liberalism with communism, you're in the top five of the biggest political hacks to ever walk the streets of Debate Politics, because equating ordinary liberalism with communism is pure cowardice.
It means you don't have an actual answer at all, so you ran home to Momma John Birch.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You did not make that qualification before, so why should I be forced to do so now?

Violence is still violence and just because you're fine with people getting violently assaulted, and not killed. Such should not be a standard that anyone would willingly abide by.

The answer of someone who doesn't have an answer.

 

[AmNat]

OMG you think babies weren't pulled out of a woman's womb when abortion was illegal?
How old are you really? I am sixty-two, so when I first entered high school, abortion was still illegal.
And guess what? It was two hundred bucks and available everywhere anyone had two hundred bucks.
[h=1]$200 in 1973=$1,131 in 2019[/h]And worse than that, back then it was white suburban girls who didn't want to be inconvenienced who were getting them, more than anyone else, because for others, it was too expensive, even if it was a case of rape or incest, or a case where giving birth would endanger the mother's life, or where the birth defect was so profound that the little baby was sure to spend its few hours alive in horrifying agony.

Ask yourself if making pot illegal ever made pot disappear, or if making alcohol illegal made alcohol disappear.
Since you are a proud nationalist, ask yourself if making guns illegal would make guns disappear.

Making abortion illegal never made abortions disappear, it just swept it under the rug, which is what nationalists love to do. They sweep hatred under the rug and try to make it look like patriotism with extra lipstick.
You want to talk about irony? You are the poster child for irony.
And nationalism is the poster child for institutionalized and state sanctioned hatred.

Nationalism, because patriotism, which is simple nonpartisan love of country, isn't enough for screaming foaming at the mouth paranoid ignorant fanatics.

Patriotism builds, nationalism destroys. Patriotism welcomes, nationalism casts out. Patriotism is care and nurturing, nationalism is poison.

So, you admit that liberals haven't killed anybody in America, you just can't bring yourself to let the words out, without resorting to lies. The biggest consumers of illegal abortions were rich conservatives who couldn't bear to see their honor besmirched.

The biggest consumers of illegal abortions were rich white nationalists who couldn't wait to kill the black or hispanic babies in their daughter's lily white bellies.

I know that definitely hit home, you don't even have to say it.

And if by chance you are attempting to equate liberalism with communism, you're in the top five of the biggest political hacks to ever walk the streets of Debate Politics, because equating ordinary liberalism with communism is pure cowardice.
It means you don't have an actual answer at all, so you ran home to Momma John Birch.

Oh. This is a parody. I'm rather embarrassed that it took me this long to figure it out.

Just a word of advice though, you might want to tone down the angry ranting just a bit. If it hadn't been for this post, you could have kept me going indefinitely.

 

[Oborosen]

The answer of someone who doesn't have an answer.

Seeing as I gave you an answer and an explanation. You're pretty much only exposing yourself in this instance.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Oh. This is a parody. I'm rather embarrassed that it took me this long to figure it out.

Just a word of advice though, you might want to tone down the angry ranting just a bit. If it hadn't been for this post, you could have kept me going indefinitely.

Oh, this is you playing what's known around here as a "Poe".
I've apparently reduced you to mumbling about me, when you're not advancing marxist utopias about housing elsewhere on DP.
You might just be the very first LEFT WING white nationalist on Earth.

Naah, you're actually just a reincarnation of "Poe", aren't ya?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You did not make that qualification before, so why should I be forced to do so now?

Violence is still violence and just because you're fine with people getting violently assaulted, and not killed. Such should not be a standard that anyone would willingly abide by.

Here's a standard that the Right willingly lives by:

Rep. Eric Swalwell on Twitter: "I'm not afraid of this guy. I'm not afraid of the NRA. I'm not afraid. No fear. #EndGunViolence… "

 

[Oborosen]

Here's a standard that the Right willingly lives by:

Rep. Eric Swalwell on Twitter: "I'm not afraid of this guy. I'm not afraid of the NRA. I'm not afraid. No fear. #EndGunViolence… "

No, that's a standard that you believe the right lives by.

Nothing more, nothing less.

It's not different then anyone on the right wing side. Somehow believing all leftist are race baiting communist, who are for some reason intent of bringing socialism into the American fold and force all people to give their hard earned labor to those who are just not really willing to work to get ahead in life.

It's a view, yes. But that could not be farther from the truth. Seeing as a large majority of liberals and leftist don't actually believe in such a thing. Though, those that do tend to have very loud voices and tend to grandstand as much as possible.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

No, that's a standard that you believe the right lives by.

Nothing more, nothing less.

It's not different then anyone on the right wing side. Somehow believing all leftist are race baiting communist, who are for some reason intent of bringing socialism into the American fold and force all people to give their hard earned labor to those who are just not really willing to work to get ahead in life.

It's a view, yes. But that could not be farther from the truth. Seeing as a large majority of liberals and leftist don't actually believe in such a thing. Though, those that do tend to have very loud voices and tend to grandstand as much as possible.

Then stop defending white nationalism because whether you like it or not, nationalism is not patriotism.
If it was, we wouldn't need to use words like patriotism.

pa·tri·ot
/ˈpātrēət/
Origin
late 16th century: from late Latin patriota ‘fellow countryman’, from Greek patriōtēs, from patrios ‘of one's fathers’, from patris ‘fatherland’, from French patriote.

The etymology of the word "patriot" started out from "father" (patris) but evolved into late Latin "patriota" "fellow countryman".
Patriotism welcomes.

The word "nationalist" is a relatively new word when described in a political sense, and indeed, it was Napoleon's conquests that led to the rise of political nationalism, ultimately causing the rest of Europe to turn against France. Then German intellectuals rejected all the principles that American and French revolutions had been based on as well as the liberal and humanitarian aspects of nationalism. Suddenly instinct became a larger and more powerful force than reason.
Rational attempts at progress and a more just order foundered as the historical differences between nations rather than their common aspirations took the fore. Bismarck forged an authoritarian nationalism which eventually seduced Slavic nationalists, who saw the liberalism of the West as a curse, a view endorsed today by none other than Vladimir Putin.

Nationalism segregates and looks for enemies. Patriotism builds on hope for a humanitarian ideal based on fellowship.
Nationalism uses words like "pride" as lipstick and makeup to make the ugly face of hatred and xenophobia look beautiful.

PS: I suspect you meant to say "It's not different then anyone on the LEFT wing side."

 

[Oborosen]

Then stop defending white nationalism because whether you like it or not, nationalism is not patriotism.
If it was, we wouldn't need to use words like patriotism.

pa·tri·ot
/ˈpātrēət/
Origin
late 16th century: from late Latin patriota ‘fellow countryman’, from Greek patriōtēs, from patrios ‘of one's fathers’, from patris ‘fatherland’, from French patriote.

The etymology of the word "patriot" started out from "father" (patris) but evolved into late Latin "patriota" "fellow countryman".
Patriotism welcomes.

The word "nationalist" is a relatively new word when described in a political sense, and indeed, it was Napoleon's conquests that led to the rise of political nationalism, ultimately causing the rest of Europe to turn against France. Then German intellectuals rejected all the principles that American and French revolutions had been based on as well as the liberal and humanitarian aspects of nationalism. Suddenly instinct became a larger and more powerful force than reason.
Rational attempts at progress and a more just order foundered as the historical differences between nations rather than their common aspirations took the fore. Bismarck forged an authoritarian nationalism which eventually seduced Slavic nationalists, who saw the liberalism of the West as a curse, a view endorsed today by none other than Vladimir Putin.

Nationalism segregates and looks for enemies. Patriotism builds on hope for a humanitarian ideal based on fellowship.
Nationalism uses words like "pride" as lipstick and makeup to make the ugly face of hatred and xenophobia look beautiful.

PS: I suspect you meant to say "It's not different then anyone on the LEFT wing side."

No one is defending white nationalism and no, that is an actual conceived notion about the left, on the right. Not widely held. But those that do hold it are both annoying and very vocal about it.

 

[The Mark]

This is a good example of a "big lie". A falsehood which people believe because it is so often repeated.

Or perhaps the "Big Lie" is that it's not.

 

[AGENT J]

They?
A small, yet highly vocal number of the left. Because a majority of the liberal coworkers I have, don't even care for issues like this.

The law as it is and should stay as such. Unless we all wake up in Canada, or the UK for some reason. Then we'd actually have to worry about literally watching what we say.

So its a small group and they are ONLY on the left?
and they are HIGHLY vocal yet i never heard of who you speak of besides here?

so basically "they" are just really nutball extremists and or trolls found in the bowls of the "intranets" that dont really matter and people dont take seriously

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Welcome to the internet kids. Remember, if you're going to play in the rain. Then bring a coat and golashes, as well as a helmet apparently.

People who attended a Gallagher performance and who were seated in the front several rows were given large rolls of transparent plastic sheeting to cover themselves with.

Given that, maybe we should give Gallagher credit for inventing the Internet.

I've seen some of the comments as they came out on two separate streams. This is just trolling, nothing more, nothing less. But I bet there're going to plenty of people that will use this as their own little spring board into the whole "we need more censorship online and white nationalism is a dangerous threat" arena.

Personally I can't see the need for "censorship" as much as I can see the need for people to wake up and admit that there is a problem.

By analogy - assume that slavery was still legal, but no one would talk to anyone who owned slaves, and no one would sell anything to anyone who owned slaves, and no one would buy anything from anyone who owned slaves, and everyone completely ignored (except to insult) anyone who owned slaves, would there be any need for a law that "outlawed slavery"?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If all the lot of you can do, is suggest that your opponent is a racist?

Then you're all just revealing how intellectually stunted you are on the issue.

You know, if you completely disregard the post that my post was in response to, then your response to my post almost makes sense.