|
Post by champagneprince on Aug 20, 2017 18:21:57 GMT 1
There's no difference here, both are examples of hatred. Both allowed by their governments on the grounds of 'free speech.' Just as the police stood by in the American video, the police stood by in the British video. Yes, but the point I'm making, and you're astute enough to get this, is the one group is emboldened by the President of one if the most powerful countries in the world. And how this discussion has turned into 'whataboutry' is beyond me, but there you go. Isn't the other group emboldened by the weakness of the successive governments of the other? The 'whataboutry' is there to show that we can't blame Trump for this hatred in Charlottesville. Blame having ineffective boundaries on free speech, but not Trump - even if he is a bit of a knob!
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Aug 20, 2017 18:38:04 GMT 1
Yeah, I have. I'm talking about this video and I still believe that these people should be dealt with by the police, security and intelligence services just like any other extremists. With regards to your comment about the planning and the police, are you now saying that the authorities (the police, security service, intelligence services, politicians, whoever) are facilitating this? And so people will do what they have to do. You believe that to be the case when combating and looking to eradicate Islamic extremism too, right? People will have to do what they have to do in order to do so. Including violence. And you support that. You said they should be dealt with by the authorities, fine. The march was planned. The authorities let them march despite there rhetoric of hate against people based on their race, religion and sexuality. You heard the filth coming out of their mouths. But, that's the first amendment for you isn't and as the police seemed unable to step in, so others took matters into their own hands. As for your comment about Islamic extremism. I fail to see what your point is. But, yes absolutely when necessary and violence is already being used is case you hadn't noticed. Sure. Violence is being used already. But this is about whether we deem that violence as acceptable or not. Fair enough. You condone such violence. I don't. And I don't because I think we'll find ourselves on a very slippery slope if we were to do so. We're effectively talking about people turning to violence in order to take the law into their own hands. And Lord knows where that could end. Just how far will people be willing to go in order to do what they have to do. To say, eradicate Islamic extremism in the UK. What means are deem acceptable, who are legitimate targets in order to do so. So the point is you condone one you condone all. And I think that will create one hell of a mess with an awful lot of innocent people getting hurt in the process. All violence needs to be condemned from the off. We don't need people taking the law into their own hands. I just think it will make matters worse still.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2017 19:20:47 GMT 1
Yes, but the point I'm making, and you're astute enough to get this, is the one group is emboldened by the President of one if the most powerful countries in the world. And how this discussion has turned into 'whataboutry' is beyond me, but there you go. Isn't the other group emboldened by the weakness of the successive governments of the other? The 'whataboutry' is there to show that we can't blame Trump for this hatred in Charlottesville. Blame having ineffective boundaries on free speech, but not Trump - even if he is a bit of a knob! Blimey. Trump talked about building walls to stop Mexicans among other things. He may have talked e, but those idiots in the video will believe it. I made that point up thread. There's a difference between inflammatory rhetoric and hand wringing liberals. Anyway, thankfully in the UK there's now this. www.gov.uk/report-hate-crime
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2017 19:28:44 GMT 1
You said they should be dealt with by the authorities, fine. The march was planned. The authorities let them march despite there rhetoric of hate against people based on their race, religion and sexuality. You heard the filth coming out of their mouths. But, that's the first amendment for you isn't and as the police seemed unable to step in, so others took matters into their own hands. As for your comment about Islamic extremism. I fail to see what your point is. But, yes absolutely when necessary and violence is already being used is case you hadn't noticed. Sure. Violence is being used already. But this is about whether we deem that violence as acceptable or not. Fair enough. You condone such violence. I don't. And I don't because I think we'll find ourselves on a very slippery slope if we were to do so. We're effectively talking about people turning to violence in order to take the law into their own hands. And Lord knows where that could end. Just how far will people be willing to go in order to do what they have to do. To say, eradicate Islamic extremism in the UK. What means are deem acceptable, who are legitimate targets in order to do so. So the point is you condone one you condone all. And I think that will create one hell of a mess with an awful lot of innocent people getting hurt in the process. All violence needs to be condemned from the off. We don't need people taking the law into their own hands. I just think it will make matters worse still. Let me put it this way. I think shooting dead a terrorist to protect others/yourself is perfectly acceptable. I also think punching a KKK member in the nose because you're black, gay, or Jewish, or who knows all 3, to protect yourself/others is also acceptable. And you know, I'm all for free speech as it happens, but be prepared for the consequences.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Aug 21, 2017 8:30:29 GMT 1
Sure. Violence is being used already. But this is about whether we deem that violence as acceptable or not. Fair enough. You condone such violence. I don't. And I don't because I think we'll find ourselves on a very slippery slope if we were to do so. We're effectively talking about people turning to violence in order to take the law into their own hands. And Lord knows where that could end. Just how far will people be willing to go in order to do what they have to do. To say, eradicate Islamic extremism in the UK. What means are deem acceptable, who are legitimate targets in order to do so. So the point is you condone one you condone all. And I think that will create one hell of a mess with an awful lot of innocent people getting hurt in the process. All violence needs to be condemned from the off. We don't need people taking the law into their own hands. I just think it will make matters worse still. Let me put it this way. I think shooting dead a terrorist to protect others/yourself is perfectly acceptable. I also think punching a KKK member in the nose because you're black, gay, or Jewish, or who knows all 3, to protect yourself/others is also acceptable. And you know, I'm all for free speech as it happens, but be prepared for the consequences. I think we'd all agree that self defense against any aggressor is perfectly acceptable. But people who are looking to attend events with the purpose of inciting and participating in violence, they are the aggressors. And they come from both sides of the equation and neither side should be condoned. We know that there are people from both sides who attend such marches to cause trouble, cause public disorder, come armed and come to cause violence. You simply can not look at Charlottesville in isolation. You condone people to use violence to take the law into their own hands and you condone all to do so. And like I say, that is a very slippery slope. And if you'd happen to say something that somebody else doesn't like then prepare for the consequences? Because of course we can absolutely agree that these racist, Nazi, far-right nut jobs from the video are horrible, horrible people who no doubt are actively seeking the consequences that you speak of. But then how many times today in any discussion on say immigration do you see the term racist, Nazi and far-right thrown about with absolutely no foundation whatsoever? I see it loads. Do those people with perfectly reasonable views but are labelled this, that and the other because they happen to have said something somebody else doesn't like should also prepare themselves for the consequences? Again, a very slippery slope. We don't need people taking the law into their own hands, it'll just make things worse.
|
|