[MrMatt]

Rioting isn't the issue.

Just to be clear, Rioting is the issue.
I denounce political violence, it is categorically unacceptable.

 

[sags]

No, the issue is a violent coup attempt by Trump and his minions to overthrow the US government.

Treason and sedition enter into the equation........which aren't a normal consideration in the aftermath of riots.

Federal prosecutors are compiling evidence against everyone, and have pledged they will lay charges if they gather sufficient evidence.

They include Trump and his family in their investigations.

 

[james4beach]

I actually think you're the one that's become radicalized.

This is usually your response every time I point out that you talk like a right wing extremist. I can't even count how many times you have tried to cover for and defend right wing extremists.

It's some kind of a mission for you. You barely post on financial topics, but man oh man, are you vocal when it's time to defend the honour of right wing terrorists.

You see right wing terrorists everywhere

No, I see them when someone bothers to come online and spend their whole day making excuses for violent extremists. And when that person works especially hard to protect the image of extremists, any time they are challenged or called out.

This is your pattern. You either directly protect the right wing radicals, downplay the severity of the terrorism, or you immediately try to deflect attention away, or confuse the situation with what-about-isms and non sequiturs. @Ukrainiandude is doing some of that too.

You did it immediately following this DC attack. Immediately, you popped up to downplay the severity.

What motivates you to do that?

 

[MrMatt]

This is usually your response every time I point out that you talk like a right wing extremist.

I strongly believe you are a right wing extremist, quite possibly a terrorist. I can't even count how many times you have tried to cover for and defend right wing extremists.

Each time, you then play dumb and said "I never did that... you must be thinking of someone else".

No, I remember. YOU defend violent extremists.



No, I see them when someone bothers to come online and spend their whole day making excuses for violent extremists. And then when that person tries deflecting attention away.

No I didn't. You haven't been able to ever provide the evidence.
Your failure to provide the evidence is why I say "I never did that... you must be thinking of someone else".
Because you are ascribing statements and positions that I don't have.

I've consistently denounced violence, of all types.
I denounced it all summer and I denounced it in Washington.

Now you're accusing me of a terrorist, because I categorically and consistently reject political violence?
Rejecting violence must mean I'm one of the most incompetent ones in history.

Just to be clear, I do differentiate between the legal and appropriate actions and the illegal and wrong actions.
I think it is okay for a person to protest non violently.
I also think it's wrong for a person to be violent and participate in a riot.

That is true even if it is the same person, and true irrespective of their political orientation.

For example I think the BLM protests were fine (albeit stupid), until they started rioting and attacked government buildings.
For a second example, I think that the MAGA protests were fine (but again stupid), until they started rioting and attacking government buildings.

Once they got violent, I think they crossed the line, IN BOTH CASES.
So join me, and denounce all political violence, committed by both the right wing and left wing extremists.

I'm sorry if you think consistently espousing liberal values means "talking like a right wing extremist".

 

[james4beach]

For example I think the BLM protests were fine (albeit stupid), until they started rioting and attacked government buildings.
For a second example, I think that the MAGA protests were fine (but again stupid), until they started rioting and attacking government buildings.

Once they got violent, I think they crossed the line, IN BOTH CASES.
So join me, and denounce all political violence, committed by both the right wing and left wing extremists.

Yes, I denounce political violence. But here you go again trying to make false equivalencies as a way to cover for the right wing extremists and deflect attention away from them.

We have a serious problem with, specifically, right wing extremists.

The only ones sending bombs around, murdering everyone inside churches, mosques, synagogues, murdering politicians (UK, Germany, attempts in US and Canada), trying to overthrow government, committing insurrection are right wing terrorists.

Even the DHS and FBI know this, for god sake. They've published reports about how the US has a massive problem with right wing extremism. The leftie extremists don't even make it onto the list, there are so few of them.

 

[MrMatt]

Yes, I denounce political violence. But here you go again trying to make false equivalencies as a way to cover for the right wing extremists and deflect attention away from them.

We have a serious problem with, specifically, right wing extremists.

The only ones sending bombs around, murdering everyone inside churches, mosques, synagogues, murdering politicians (UK, Germany, attempts in US and Canada), trying to overthrow government and invading government building are right wing terrorists.

Those activities are all wrong, irrespective of political or religious ideology.

Yes we have a serious problem with right wing extremists.
But we also have a serious problem with left wing extremists and religious extremists. You're trying to deflect away from them by focusing on right wing extremists.
And yes, saying "only" means you're pretending the second class doesn't exist, and it absolutely does. (Steve Scalise was shot by a left wing extremist) Aaron Driver was a religious extremist.
I reject all of it, left right and other, don't you?


Now you'll go and make some counting and numbers and say "the problem is bigger here or there". But that's just to distract from the fact that extremists on both side present a danger. We should be watching all sides for problem and work to deradicalize ALL OF THEM.
We can argue that all day, but at the end of the day it's irrelevant. It should all stop.
I just want the violence to stop, and law enforcement to do their job and stop it. They should have stopped it this summer, and they should have stopped it before it got into the Capital buildings.


That means no riots, by anyone.
No treason, by anyone. Pence can remove Trump today, Congress & Senate can do it by next week. But lets have the process do the job.

 

[james4beach]

Yes we have a serious problem with right wing extremists.
But we also have a serious problem with left wing extremists

Thanks for demonstrating in real time so everyone can see how you defend the extremists. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

This ^ is the false equivalency you keep pushing. It's a method of covering for the far right and trying to soften the severity of everything they do.

No, we DON'T have a 'problem with left wing extremists'. They barely exist. No US government / intelligence agency, or European one for that matter, has ever said there are significant levels of left wing extremism. Practically all of the active domestic extremists are far-right, today.

 

[MrMatt]

Thanks for demonstrating in real time so everyone can see how you defend the extremists. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

This ^ is the false equivalency you keep pushing. It's a method of covering for the far right and trying to soften the severity of everything they do.

No, we DON'T have a 'problem with left wing extremists'. They barely exist. No US government / intelligence agency, or European one for that matter, has ever said there are significant levels of left wing extremism. Practically all of the active domestic extremists are far-right, today.

I didn't defend anyone. I didn't even draw an equivalency. I simply stated the problem exists from multiple sides/
When people are attempting to assassinate political leaders, WE HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM.

I'm just saying keep an open mind.
The biggest threat is the one you don't see coming. You're only looking in one direction.

The unfounded accusations of being an extremist or even a terrorist is a completely inappropriate personal attack, and in my opinion has no place in this or any discussion.
This discussion is pointless. I'm ending it.

 

[james4beach]

I didn't defend anyone. I didn't even draw an equivalency. I simply stated the problem exists from multiple sides/
When people are attempting to assassinate political leaders, WE HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM.

I'm glad we are in agreement that we have a serious problem, when people are attempting to assassinate political leaders.

 

[sags]

The US needs to restrict their concept of "free speech". It is far too broad a protection and doesn't serve them well.

They are one of the few countries in the world who don't have laws against "hate speech".

If they want to make significant change to dampen the rhetoric.........they can start there.

 

[MrMatt]

The US needs to restrict their concept of "free speech". It is far too broad a protection and doesn't serve them well.

They are one of the few countries in the world who don't have laws against "hate speech".

If they want to make significant change to dampen the rhetoric.........they can start there.

"Hate speech" is just speech that someone disagrees with.

In some countries it's hate speech to say homosexuality is okay, are you okay with that?

I think that there should be very few, carefully considered limits to what can be said.
I think true statements should be, in general almost always explicitly permitted.
I do think direct calls for violence should not be permitted.

But hate speech, not sure about that.
I hate Nazis, I think they're evil and have no place on this earth, and I think anyone should be allowed to post whatever "hate speech" about nazis they want. As long as they don't directly call for violence against them.

We already have laws for libel & slander, they should be enforced.

Hate speech is just an excuse to shut down legitimate debate on an issue.

That being said, I don't think you should engage in speech intended to hurt people. But there is a difference between making a statement of fact or opinion, and "hate".

Some people think "deadnaming" is hate speech.
I think this is a problem.
I should be able to talk freely about how E Pages performance in Whip It was phenomenal, and raised a number of important social issues, and refer to E Page as a the gender they were at that time and in the context of that movie, without being accused of hate speech.
Referring to Elliot Page as Male in the context of gender roles in Whip It only confuses the issue and makes it difficult to discuss.
Nobody benefits.

Juno makes even less sense with Elliot Page as the lead, again great movie that raises a lot of important issues.

Also yes, if you haven't you absolutely should see Whip It, it's excellent.

 

[sags]

Society decides the limits of free speech by choosing the government that represents their moral values.

 

[MrMatt]

Society decides the limits of free speech by choosing the government that represents their moral values.

Yes, and that's why liberal countries like the USA & Canada codified freedom of speech in their constitutions.
it's also part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United...

www.un.org

Governments should protect our human rights, not infringe upon them.

Also we should hold the government accountable for immoral acts, and ensure that we have mechanisms to do so.
There are many cases where the laws of the land were immoral and wrong, and freedom of speech is the most powerful tool to address them.
Only those who feel they benefit from the status quo would want to restrict speech, in order to prevent progress.

 

[andrewf]

I think most transgender people are pretty understanding when people use the wrong name or pronoun. The strict enforcement of 'deadnaming' is mostly from 'allies' or activists who see it as a cudgel, or are trying to protect from those who deadname out of malice to deny the individual's identity.

I was a little put off by the news coverage around Eliot Page reveal his transgenderism. The news media did not mention his previous name but talked about Eliot as if you have any idea who that is. And then wink, include a picture. It's a silly game, and not offensive to say that Eliot was previously named Ellen.

 

[MrMatt]

I think most transgender people are pretty understanding when people use the wrong name or pronoun. The strict enforcement of 'deadnaming' is mostly from 'allies' or activists who see it as a cudgel, or are trying to protect from those who deadname out of malice to deny the individual's identity.

I was a little put off by the news coverage around Eliot Page reveal his transgenderism. The news media did not mention his previous name but talked about Eliot as if you have any idea who that is. And then wink, include a picture. It's a silly game, and not offensive to say that Eliot was previously named Ellen.

I agree.
Personally I honestly don't grasp the whole problem.

If gender is a social construct that doesn't matter, then being transgender is a non issue, and actually nonsensical.
So why do they seem to care so much?

Nobody is denying anyone identity or existence that's simply not a thing.
Really ones gender is mostly irrelevant to my interactions with them, I simply don't care, and don't understand why anyone cares about anyone elses gender.

 

[james4beach]

I was a little put off by the news coverage around Eliot Page reveal his transgenderism. The news media did not mention his previous name but talked about Eliot as if you have any idea who that is. And then wink, include a picture. It's a silly game, and not offensive to say that Eliot was previously named Ellen.

By the way, it's (tiny) inconsequential issues like this ^ one you describe, which the right wing media blows up into a "rallying cause" for angry men. Most of us shrug and say, who cares - Ellen or Elliot will call him or herself whatever they want.

These things are constantly amplified through Fox News and other right wing media outlets, plus their Facebook news items, and made into actual issues which men start caring about, even getting steamed about. Things like this, or a small number of hispanic refugees, or the fact there are restrictions on what kinds of guns they can buy.

And then [the Republicans and right wing media machinery] amplify those emotions and anger for 5-10 years, telling white men that everyone is out to get them, the "libs" are going to destroy your life and take away your freedoms, and that's how we land where we are today.

Then before you know it, you have them creating and mailing pipe bombs, organizing armed militant groups, posting on CMF that Pelosi is going to "exterminate" conservatives, and all this nonsense. It all traces back to a long history of angry right wingers constantly fuelling anger and outrage about stupid, inconsequential things, for their political purposes.

 

[MrMatt]

By the way, it's (tiny) inconsequential issues like this ^ one you describe, which the right wing media blows up into a "rallying cause" for angry men. Most of us shrug and say, who cares - Ellen or Elliot will call him or herself whatever they want.

Then why criminalize it?

 

[andrewf]

By the way, it's (tiny) inconsequential issues like this ^ one you describe, which the right wing media blows up into a "rallying cause" for angry men. Most of us shrug and say, who cares - Ellen or Elliot will call him or herself whatever they want.

These things are constantly amplified through Fox News and other right wing media outlets, plus their Facebook news items, and made into actual issues which men start caring about, even getting steamed about. Things like this, or a small number of hispanic refugees, or the fact there are restrictions on what kinds of guns they can buy.

And then [the Republicans and right wing media machinery] amplify those emotions and anger for 5-10 years, telling white men that everyone is out to get them, the "libs" are going to destroy your life and take away your freedoms, and that's how we land where we are today.

Then before you know it, you have them creating and mailing pipe bombs, organizing armed militant groups, posting on CMF that Pelosi is going to "exterminate" conservatives, and all this nonsense. It all traces back to a long history of angry right wingers constantly fuelling anger and outrage about stupid, inconsequential things, for their political purposes.

To be clear, Page is blameless in this. I blame PC culture run amok in news media, when they publish a story like that.

 

[MrMatt]

To be clear, Page is blameless in this. I blame PC culture run amok in news media, when they publish a story like that.

PC culture run amok is a huge problem.
I think part of the problem is that many lifelong advocates have won their battles, now they're bored, and don't know what to do with themselves.

 

[andrewf]

I think it is virtue signaling. PC as fashion statement. The quiet middle keep their mouths shut for fear of being shouted down, despite generally being sympathetic.