Log in

No account? Create an account
April 2012   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

One good thing about my home town

Posted on 2009.04.20 at 09:01
Current Music: The Roots Radics & The Scientist - Scientist Ganja Dub
People in my home town of St. Louis will come out in the rain to flip off parading Nazis.


suzermagoozer at 2009-04-20 13:26 (UTC) (Link)
sunflower_sky at 2009-04-20 15:28 (UTC) (Link)
Nazis are allowed to parade in the USA? o.O

Talk about taking free speech too far. Especially on the eve of Yom HaSho'ah.

theservant at 2009-04-20 15:32 (UTC) (Link)
Justice Brandeis said that the best disinfectant is sunlight. I agree with him.
sunflower_sky at 2009-04-20 16:17 (UTC) (Link)
In certain cases yes.

Medically, certainly not. And in the case of Nazis, probably not either. Hitler got a whole lot of sunlight and it didn't disinfect Germany much. Did you agree with Columbia University when they gave Ahmedinajad a chance to speak?

theservant at 2009-04-20 16:30 (UTC) (Link)
Yes I did, although I thought they handled it terribly.
sunflower_sky at 2009-04-20 17:40 (UTC) (Link)
I thought they handled it fine. It was the principle I was ticked off about.

I ranted about explained my position at the time here. ;)

The Universal Dilettante
roadriverrail at 2009-04-20 21:49 (UTC) (Link)
To clarify things, though, they're on incredibly thin ice when they do so. The legal structure of the US protects speech, but hate speech is not protected speech, and this does sometimes include symbolic forms of speech (NSPA vs Skokie established that display of the swastika is hate speech, for example). Moreover, it's possible to find someone civilly liable if they incite another person to an outburst of hate. In fact, it's using these regulations of free speech that has allowed various legal groups to dismantle our hate groups, including a number of Nazi sympathizer organizations and the Ku Klux Klan. These groups used to be massive fixtures in American culture, even leading to open violence in the streets to struggle against them. Ultimately, however, they still need a much "freer" definition of speech than is allowed, and so they are basically anemic groups of agitators, hounded into the fringe by people who dedicate themselves to keeping hate out of the public sphere.
sunflower_sky at 2009-04-21 05:48 (UTC) (Link)
That's good to know... but they were still parading here, with protection from the police (and therefore the government). I find that deeply disturbing.

The Universal Dilettante
roadriverrail at 2009-04-21 15:05 (UTC) (Link)
I can understand that, but I doubt it was parading in any major sense. It looked like a small, local demonstration. And the police presence was to prevent any outbreak of violence, so it wasn't strictly for their benefit. The same system is used when, say, black nationalists rally.
jonnymoon at 2009-04-23 22:18 (UTC) (Link)
You find it deeply disturbing that Nazis were allowed to demonstrate, with protection from the police?

Do you also find it disturbing when people throw blood on other people, just because they are wearing fur coats?

Do you find it disturbing that police allow parades of degenerates to parade in the streets, flaunting their genitals? I'm not talking about Key West or New Orleans...I'm talking about Gay Pride parades. Most of these are given not only police protection, but in fact are given escorts.

I find all of it deeply disturbing.

But I find most disturbing that people are being denied to express themselves. Whether you're a bigot or you have "gay pride", you should be allowed to express your views. "Hate Speech"? What garbage.

Unfortunately, America is not what it used to be.
sunflower_sky at 2009-04-24 10:02 (UTC) (Link)
With all due respect, I see valuing human life as far more important than valuing free speech. Both are important values, but when they are in conflict, I side with the former.

The promise "Never Again" means nothing if a government will not draw the line somewhere. Germany allowed the Nazis into their government because of the values of democracy, and most people dismissed them as a fringe group of radicals who would never ascend to power. But they did. And millions and millions of people died because of it. Is maintaining the democratic value or equality and free speech more important than preventing world wars and genocide?

Much as the other things you mentioned may not be pleasant, those people are not representing a threat to human life. I have no problem with someone expressing his or her views, even if I don't agree with them and even if I find the views threatening to my lifestyle... but if they walk up to me and express the view that I am vermin and my kind should be systematically exterminated, I would expect my government to protect my life from such people rather than protect their rights of free speech.

jonnymoon at 2009-04-29 22:47 (UTC) (Link)
But walking up to you and expressing their opinion, while dressing up in their silly uniforms, doesn't threaten you. It may disturb you, but that's what the police are there for...to prevent them from carrying out their idiocy.

Someone saying to you, "You are vermin and your kind should be systematically eliminated" shouldn't even phase you...unless you are. And I doubt it, because nobody is.

Well, strike that. I can think of a few segments of humanity that I would take my turn with a burlap bag, drowning them at birth. (Some politicians come to mind.)

It's the same to me, Nazis who dress up and make their presence known by presenting themselves and their views. It's the same as Gay Pride parades, or "Act Up" crowds...all very offensive. Constitutionally protected, unfortunately.

But it seems to me that your opinion is the only thing that separates those who dress up in silly clothing, flaunting their appendages in rude guestures, spouting nonsense...

...and Nazis.
sunflower_sky at 2009-04-30 09:20 (UTC) (Link)
The difference between you and me is that you aren't taking what they are saying seriously. The original Nazis in Germany were also a bunch of nutcases, protected by free speech, walking around saying that the Jews should be systematically eliminated. I'd think the world would learn to take such things a little more seriously judging from what happened as a result our dismissiveness back then.

Again. Gay pride parades may be offensive, but those involved are marching for their own rights, with no interest in harming any one else's rights. Nazis are marching not only to harm others' rights, but to harm them physically. That's not my opinion, it's a fundamental difference.

niyabinghi at 2009-04-20 15:33 (UTC) (Link)
You like Scientist!!! :D Do you also like King Tubby?
theservant at 2009-04-20 15:59 (UTC) (Link)
Yeah, but on the whole I like roots better than dub.
jonnymoon at 2009-04-23 22:21 (UTC) (Link)
In all those pictures, I'm finding it occasionally difficult to determine who's inciting more...

And I think that many of those people would flip the bird at the drop of a hat, much less to come out and try to pick a fight. What's the matter? Truth hurt? Can't stand people with an opposing point of view? Are you that insecure in your own opinion?

And another thing...I have to admit, I'm wondering what the fuss is about anyway. Isn't Obama driving this country towards Nationalistic Socialism? Isn't that supposed to be the popular thing right now?

Isn't it what's giving all the liberals "tingles up and down their legs"?

Some really confused people, there....
theservant at 2009-04-23 23:25 (UTC) (Link)
I don't think that the political system called National Socialism can be reduced to anything like a "nationalistic socialism."
jonnymoon at 2009-04-29 22:51 (UTC) (Link)
Socialism, Marxism, Nationalism, whatever you choose to call it...it's not Capitalism.

Obama espouses anything except Capitolism. I lump him and the Nazis in the same group...bad for America, and not Capitalism.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)" -- Marx

"Spread the wealth" - Obama

'Nuff said. Guilty.

theservant at 2009-04-30 02:31 (UTC) (Link)
“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expen[s]e, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”


“No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged."


both of those are from Adam Smith
jonnymoon at 2009-04-30 05:28 (UTC) (Link)
Which represents capitalism? Which does not?

"...the produce of their own labour...", except in Marxism, some people labor more to provide for those who do not...and therefore are undeserving. Pull your weight, and all that. (Ring a bell?)

Anyone who wants to change the US should instead consider moving somewhere else. The country is not perfect, I'll grant...but Capitalism is good enough, as-is, and I see no reason to give away that which I have earned...charity is for the church.

I especially don't see any reason to give away my hard-earned dollar to some illegal immigrant, whether he be from Mexico, the imaginary state of Palestine or Israel. Let other people earn their own money. If they want extra, let them get it form charity.

"We should make the poor uncomfortable, to kick them out of poverty" - Benjamin Franklin

I think I'll throw my lot in with that sentiment. Especially since Adam Smith was the orignal Marxist...it turns out that Marx actually based his early works on Smith's stuff. Not what I'd call the best reference for capitalism. Besides, do you really think morality belongs in economics? All it will do is weigh it down.
theservant at 2009-04-30 14:36 (UTC) (Link)
I am curious- do you think that the US has ever had the type of capitalism you describe, and if so, when?
jonnymoon at 2009-04-30 16:50 (UTC) (Link)
It it did, it was before the 1900's. Seems to me it was in 1914 when this country really started to slide. I think it really went to pot right 1932, when Roosevelt pissed all over it, and decided that government should stick it's fingers into business that wasn't theirs.

It's been getting steadily worse, for about 100 years now. Obama is the result...trillions of dollars of debt for invasive and unneeded programs.
Previous Entry  Next Entry