Problematic Stuff

[Hermit]

Of course the shove was a bad idea, but I don't think the man deserved to be executed for it.

The notion that you can shoot someone dead for shoving you to the ground, and get away with it scot free is a-fucking-mazing.

I do wonder if the Sheriff took the same attitude if the skin colour were reversed.

The killer:

Michael Drejka.jpeg (14.39 KiB) Viewed 2237 times

The killed:

[Jason]

Only 47, thought he was older from the video. No matter, my advice (which I follow myself, BTW) is not to physically assault random people in a state with over 2,000,000 concealed carry permits. Wouldn't be prudent.

I don't even mouth off in Canada anymore. The last time I did was 7 years ago in Windsor Ontario, not the nicest city in Canada. It got me a punch in the jaw - but I didn't stop there. I had to tell the guy he punches like a girl... so he goes and gets his gang of about 7 or 8 guys and they manage to cut me off before I get to the next block...

Well I didn't get my ass kicked in or shot, because I'm such a charming smooth talker when I need to be, but I haven't pulled something like that since.

[Brian Peacock]

Sharp increase in number of extremists who reject 'modern Germany'

https://dailym.ai/2uHVYCH

[Scot Dutchy]

Another load of bollocks from the Wail.

[Forty Two]

The reality is that nobody has such foreknowledge, and that nobody really knows if person X would ever commit a crime.

Yeah, we can't possibly know what uniformly clad lads bearing torches and chanting "Jews will not replace us" are aiming at as they march down the street.

You know precisely as much about those individuals as you do about masked antifa asshats marching down the street as part of a revolution and "resistance" who will "do what it takes" etc. I wouldn't arrest or suggest hitting them, would you?

We don't know what's in the mind of people giving the Hitler salute as they listen to someone giving a speech that pointedly uses the word "Lügenpresse", German for "fake news".

Indeed you don't. And, even if you know what's "in their mind" - we don't punish or physically attack people for "thought crimes." Totalitarian states do that. Criminals do that.

The left and the center do not own virtue and righteousness, and they are not exempt from claims that their views can lead to violence and oppression.

Oh. An echo of an earlier, shorter version: "There's good and bad on both sides." Here's news for you. It shouldn't be news because you've been told repeatedly, but I guess some people are just not much good at digesting intelligent debate, but here it is again: Belting the living daylights out of a white supremacist, racist, fascist fuck is not the same as driving a car into a bunch of people who disapprove of white supremacist, racist, fascist fucks. There is no equivalence of violence from fascists and violence from anti-fascists.[/quote]

No, but it is the same as belting the living daylights out of masked antifa protesters, who themselves advocate violence against their political opposition. And, violence against "a bunch of people who disapprove of white supremacist, racist, fascist fucks" is one thing, but violence against "a bunch of revolutionary communists and anarchists who advocate (and actually commit) assaults, batteries, destruction of property, and other crimes while advocating a murderous ideology that results in massive oppression of individuals" is much the same as violence against racist fucks. It's one group claiming righteousness, designating another group as evil and deserving of vigilante action, and taking physical action against them.

Leftists are not privileged to do violence against those they think are wrong and hateful, without other people also being privileged to take action agaisnt the Lefists who many people believe are hateful and wrong and deserving of violence against them as well.

That's why - and this has been repeatedly explained to you - that OPINIONS - VIEWPOINTS -- and nonviolent protest/demonstrations are allowed and are to be free from state oppression and also private physical violence -- even if those opinions and viewpoints and ideologies are hateful, racist, communistic, anarchistic, and the like. Anyone who physically attacks a person who is just talking, protesting or demonstrating is in the wrong, and it doesn't matter if the talker/protester/demonstrator is an antifa scumfucking douchebag or an alt-right scumfucking douchebag.

There ARE assholes on both sides - on the extremes - the left are full of scumbag fucking assholes advocating a bankrupt ideology that repeatedly ends in mass killing and oppression. That doesn't give people the right to physically attack them for that ADVOCACY.

But yeah, you just keep supporting the leader of your country who keeps resolutely sitting on his hands, pretending to be neutral on the matter while constantly complaining about the Lügenpresse.

I want the government to be neutral on political viewpoints. The politicians can hold whatever viewpoints they want. But they cannot use the machinery of government to impose political orthodoxy, even as against extreme viewpoints. Viewpoints.

Man, your country is becoming a nightmare, and it is precisely because of people like you defending the right of those whose aim it is to abolish the rights of others to do exactly that instead of shutting them down, by rearranging their jawbones if that is what it takes.

I've seen the left aim to abolish the rights of others. When people have the right to free speech, if they physically attack a street preacher who says that homosexuality is wrong, or physically attack an "alt right" person for espousing alt-right viewpoints, they are aiming to "abolish the right [of free speech] in others." If that's what you support - people attacking others for exercising there freedom of thought and opinion and speech - then you are in favor of abolishing their rights.

I'm not against abolishing anyone's rights, nor do I defend those whose aim it is to do so. Back in the 1970s, the American Civil Liberties Union - not an alt right organization - defended the american nazi party's right to freedom of speech and to march down the streets of Skokie, Illinois. Yes, Nazis tend to want to abolish other people's rights. But,the ACLU defending their right to speak, and march and demonstrate, is not supporting their aims. It's supporting their rights. And, the way our individual rights are protected by the "worst among us" - Communists and Nazis alike - having their individual rights protected too. If they commit a crime - if they destroy property - if they assault people - then the state has an obligation to step in. But, the state has no obligation or lawful authority to step in when all they're doing is talking.

[Brian Peacock]

Do you think society should support people's right to advocate limiting or removing the rights of others?

[Forty Two]

Do you think society should support people's right to advocate limiting or removing the rights of others?

I think the law should protect people's right to advocate limiting or removing the rights of others. If it didn't, how could someone advocate for gun control, which is the advocacy of limiting the rights of others? How could one advocate for an age minimum to drive or to smoke cigarettes, which is advocating limiting the rights of others? How could one advocate against employment or other discrimination based on a new classification (maybe like transgender or gender expression or personal appearance), that would be advocating the limiting or removing the rights of employers, wouldn't it?

Many on the left advocate for limitations on what they say is "hate speech" or "discriminatory speech" or "racist speech" - they're advocating for limiting the right of free speech of others.

Otherwise, I think that different individual members of society can support or oppose (lawfully) whatever it is they would like to support or oppose. If someone wants to oppose the US constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, then have at it. Maybe they want us to be a Monarchy. I wouldn't want to live in a country where a person couldn't advocate the merits of a King or Queen, even where that might ultimately be advocacy of the elimination of everyone's rights in favor of an all powerful Monarch.

Maybe a person philosophically opposes the entire concept of rights, suggesting that rights aren't real and that the majority will should be what controls.

[Jason]

Many on the left advocate for limitations on what they say is "hate speech" or "discriminatory speech" or "racist speech" - they're advocating for limiting the right of free speech of others.

It's a question of psychological violence - something justice systems around the world are only really starting to recognize and identify. The alt-right fascists you are so set on defending are perpetrating violence against the groups they target with their vile rhetoric. The sustained campaign of pyschological violence perpetrated by those you defend amounts to psychological torture under the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of which the United States of America is a signatory. So long as the United States does not "take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction" (article 2 of the aforementioned UN Convention against Torture) they are in violation of two international human rights treaties - the UNCAT and the UDHR (article 5 which states "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.").

Your country needs to clean up its act. Your backward definition of "Free Speech" as ensconced in your constitution is in conflict with other, more basic and fundamental (real) human rights and needs to be modified. No one has the right to use their "free speech" as an implement in psychological warfare.

[Forty Two]

The notion that the expression of unpopular or even hateful ideas is "torture" under international law is not supported by a shred of legal authority or precedent, nor could it be torture for citizens to share an equal right to express their views. Even the advocacy of the merits of pedophile activity is protected, as reprehensible as that is. Such viewpoints might significantly bother other people, but then again, there is hardly any viewpoint that doesn't significantly bother other people.

However, I'll bite - what justice system has recognized that the expression of certain opinions is torture under international law? Is there a court case or legislative act where this was ruled or stated?

Also, once again, I am not defending the alt right. I'm defending the right of individuals to hold and express viewpoints, even repulsive and repugnant ones, even ones with which I vehemently disagree and loathe with every fiber of my being. That's clearly different, since I'm not just defending the alt right assholes, I'm defending the far left assholes who are expressing miserable, awful, oppressive viewpoints born of leftist ideology. They too, get to say what they want. Are you suggesting that by supporting their equal right to speak, that I am supporting their ideas?

[Jason]

The notion is clearly expressed in article 1 of the UNCAT were it reads "For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

The acquiescence of your public officials is implicit in their refusal, thus far, to abide by article 2 of the UNCAT.

What you just implicitly opposed, and the core of the issue here, is the contention that right free speech trumps the right to not be tortured - not the question of precedent. Adherence, and enforcement, of international human rights treaties is not contingent upon there being precedent.

[Jason]

Or maybe you're denying that what your people are doing is psychological torture?

[Jason]

The notion that the expression of unpopular or even hateful ideas is "torture" under international law is not supported by a shred of legal authority

Perhaps I'm missing more than I thought. Are you saying you don't recognize the authority of the international human rights treaties your country is signatory to?

Because there can be no intelligent debate on whether fascists and neo nazis using their right to free speech are inflicting mental pain and suffering on those that are the target of their 'hateful ideas.'

[Forty Two]

No, that provision does not make the expressions of political opinions or public demonstrations unlawful. There is no finding that the expression of miserable, horrible far left views, or "alt right" views inflicts or is intended to inflict severe pain or suffering. Do you have a single example of torture by public expression of noxious idea? One example.

[Jason]

No, that provision does not make the expressions of political opinions or public demonstrations unlawful. There is no finding that the expression of miserable, horrible far left views, or "alt right" views inflicts or is intended to inflict severe pain or suffering. Do you have a single example of torture by public expression of noxious idea? One example.

Intention doesn't enter into it. The fact is it does cause "mental pain and suffering."

[Forty Two]

The notion that the expression of unpopular or even hateful ideas is "torture" under international law is not supported by a shred of legal authority

Perhaps I'm missing more than I thought. Are you saying you don't recognize the authority of the international human rights treaties your country is signatory to?

Of course I recognize the authority of international human rights treaties. The one you quoted doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. It doesn't say anything about public expression of alt right ideas amounting to torture. What it's talking about is the intentional infliction of severe pain and suffering for specific purposes. Things that have amount to "mental" torture is where a captive has been subjected to certain kinds of sounds or messages over a prolonged period of time nearly driving the person mad, or actually doing so. If you are of the view that this treaty means that alt right people are committing torture by expressing racist views in public, you are sorely mistaken, and you have not one example to hang your hat on. No court. No tribunal. None, has ever ruled in the way you describe.

Because there can be no intelligent debate on whether fascists and neo nazis using their right to free speech are inflicting mental pain and suffering on those that are the target of their 'hateful ideas.'

Oh, are they inflicting mental pain and suffering? Maybe. But so are communists. So are antifa shitbags. Their verbiage inflicts a lot of mental pain and suffering of the kind suffered by people who don't like what fascists and neonazis say. Take a Muslim who hears jokes about his stupid religion. Take a Christian who hears jokes about his stupid religion. When South Park has the Virgin mary bleeding from her asshole, and when they lampoon Jesus, the holiest of personages in Christianity, that causes Christians -- some of them say -- a lot of pain and suffering. The good thing is, that kind of pain and suffering doesn't mean it's "torture" for people to joke about Christianity (or Islam), and it wouldn't be torture to serious advocate the elimination of all religion or some religions.

Once again - give me an example of one tribunal which ruled that the public expression of noxious ideas rose to the level of torture. One.