deleted by creator
Plaintiff Brown not only lost a $50,000 a year gig as an electrician’s assistant, he also “became estranged from his father, who required him to leave the Brown residence,” the suit records.
“Get your racist ass the fuck out of my house.” Gotta love it.
Do these people ever just stop for a moment and ask themselves why people react with such disgust when their views are exposed?
It’s particularly weird because most (all?) of the racists I’ve known in my life are constantly looking around for other people that share their views by making dog-whistle comments (or explicitly racist comments for that matter). Like, they’re never content to just keep their racism to themselves and are perpetually looking for affirmation from others - if you need that much approval from others, why not adopt views that aren’t so abhorrent?
They’re confused, because the approval that’s showered on them from 4chan or truth social or wherever is not reflected in reality, where there aren’t (normally) random collections of racists running around.
A sort of example: I have an old 4wd that sort of has a cult following. I can tell people online that I have a Suzuki Samurai, and there will be people online who know what that is. But in the real world? I have the only one in my city. It’s weird and unusual. There are adults who don’t remember when they were everywhere, there are adults who have never seen one, and of course, there are adults who don’t even care.
It’s like that with racist assholes. They spend time online thinking that their hobby (being a shithead) is normal and acceptable, then they go out in public, and try to be a racist asshole around their parents, or employers, or the general public, and they forget that their views are not normal.
We’ll Skip to the important questions, this samurai did you solid axle swap it?
Samurai’s come from the factory with a solid axle at each end. You may be thinking of the Sidekick.
The joke is that the most important thing is the samurai.
Father of the year.
Props to the dad for telling him to fuck off. Usually people learn this sort of ugly behavior from their family. This just seems extra sad that homeboy went out and got this way on his own
Again, downvoter is a shit-heel. Go fuck yourself. I see that you’ve peppered your discontent with being shown how wretched your views are many times over, but I’ll resist spamming this entire thread as a kindness to normal people who find this bullshit repugnant. Suck my fucking dick.
What actual point are you trying to make with that histrionic word salad?
The answer to the question “do Nazis self reflect” is no.
They need to be the victim.
It explains why the defective parts of their personalities aren’t their fault.
To some of these people the fact that they are rejected by most people just confirms how s have corrupted modern society and how awesome and special they are for being one of the chosen greats to see through it.
They mainline confirmation bias as if it is cheap heroin. Everything reinforces their world view.
Nazism was the worst thing that ever happened to Germany, and these folks want it to happen here too.
Dad, you just don’t understand how brainwashed you are with contagious wokeness! The white race is being persecuted and is dying. You need to wake up!
If you really, really think you’re right and everyone else is wrong, then everyone’s disgust is simply misplaced. They’ll come around. By force, if necessary.
Pick some crime you abhor. Now imagine 90% of people thought it was OK. That’s how they see the world. “There’s a war going on that everyone refuses to see, and the white race is losing it.” They don’t care how abhorrent you think they are because they are on the “right side”. They are the “freedom fighters”.
I’ve asked my parents a number of times whether or not it ever gives them pause knowing that they vote exactly the same way as literal, flag waving nazis. They never answer. At this point, I think I’m just mistakenly ingratiating them into the false idea that nazi ideology “must not be that bad.”
deleted by creator
Isn’t it funny how nothing is ever enough for these entitled Trump supporters? $107,000 a year and this shithead is still going to risk such great privilege. It’s why we should have never tolerated any of it at all.
To the one person who downvoted this comment (as of this comment), you’re a wretched little worm.
“You facilitated cause and effect! How dare you? I blame youuuuu and the rest of the librulz!!”
Hope the lawsuit exposes them more. It should be 100% illegal to be anonymous to be part of a domestic terrorist groups our a hate group like this. Do what Germany does with nazis.
As an attorney, I would absolutely love to have subpoena and discovery power against right wing loons. I’m surprised they sued in the first place.
Exactly no one can accuse them of being smart.
Accuse*
Bone apple tea!
What did they write in the first place?
Exactly no one can excuse them of being smart.
Thanks!
Imho comments should be append only and not entirely rewritable.
Since Patriot Front itself as an organization is not party to the suit how much can reasonably be gotten from them that wasn’t in the leak? And I assume they’ve all been sanitizing their electronic devices and destroying anything remotely incriminating leading up to this lawsuit. Probably even distancing themselves from Patriot Front itself.
Heard from a friend; Just as real champagne only comes from France, only facists from Germany can be called Nazis. All others a simply sparkling facists.
c’mon, man, “sparkling white supremacists” was right there waiting for you to take it
White Zin-Heil-dell
Your friend is Nazi.
Champagne for my true friends, And true pain for the sparkling fascists.
Together, we can make anything better. Up vote for you
I mean, I hate white nationalism just as much as the next guy. But if you go around making it illegal to be anonymous or part of a particular group, whether they’re considered terrorist or otherwise, that’s bad. It gives the next party in power precedent to make being part of your group illegal. That’s why freedom of speech is so important.
I think associating with a group that believes in the creation of an ethnostate should remain legal so that associating with a group that believes in the dismantling of capitalism remains legal.
The paradox of tolerance is real, and not all things are equal.
If you allow a group that wants to murder to organize, they will eventually murder.
Banning genocide enthusiast groups doesn’t mean you also have to ban bird watchers.
I agree, but given that police have tried to charge Cop City protesters with terrorism we need to be really careful and scrutinize any new laws designed to stop these groups and how it may be intentionally or unintentionally harmful to littigamate activism and protest.
That’s a reasonable point.
Writing good laws is difficult.
Can we learn to discern between legitimate uses of a term and illegitimate ones? Can we accept it’s okay to call hate groups terrorists while their protesters are not? Can we accept reality for what it is?
We can. Our justice system and politics on the other hand seems hell bent not to.
This is why I’m generally very cautious about suggesting new laws to limit behaviour, and am more supportive of private action (e.g., companies firing Nazis rather than criminalizing being a Nazi). People that are left of center tend to forget that people that are right of center are often able to use the exact same laws written by those on the left to suppress progressive views.
All of this ends up being a double-edged sword. You need to think of every possible way that a law could be misapplied, or can unintentionally cause harm, before moving forward. Because someone is going to intentionally misapply it for personal or political advantage.
The paradox of tolerance is based on some schmo’s personal article. It’s not backed up by any research, historical analysis, or anything other than the fact that it kinda feels good to think about because it gives us an excuse to other a group, ignoring that someone else will eventually other us. It’s literally only in the zeitgeist because it’s attractive, not because it’s right.
I’m okay with othering the people that want to literally kill me, my family, and my friends.
People do this thing where they’re like “if we refuse to accept their mass murder plans, someone might refuse to accept our bird watching plans!” That’s stupid. We’re humans not badly written computers.
To be othered, you have to be an ethnic group or a legitimate political group. So you’re implying fascism and Nazis are a legitimate political or ethnic group when you complain about being “othered”.
They are legitimately identified as a political group because they aim to have a say in politics. This can be true without their beliefs having any legitimacy.
That doesn’t make them a legitimate political group, either. By that logic, the Taliban and ISIS would be legitimate political groups, and they’re not. They’re considered terrorist groups and so are these fucking white nationalists.
This isn’t hard. Common sense exists.
I think both can be true. They are political groups who advocate and practice terrorism.
It’s not about what groups you ban in the beginning. It’s about the groups they’ll ban when your particular party is out of power.
I already know my politics will make me a target under fascism. It’s one of the reasons I’m so adamantly against it. It’s not just repugnant; I’m also the enemy. I say fight them hard because wresting control back from them will be far more difficult because of what they will do to entrench themselves if they gain power.
No it’s not. The whole point of the tolerance nonsense is to silence racists while allowing minority groups to thrive. There’s nothing hypocritical about it and the fact that people think there is indicates a flaw in their thinking, not tolerance.
Yeah, I used to be a “free speech absolutist” too. Used to harp on about how important it is that we allow all views to be spread, regardless of how disgusting it might be… Then I grew up and realized how harmful that idea is to society.
Slippery slope fallacy isn’t enough to convince me that having laws similar to Germany is going to lead to oppression or something. These ideologies have no place in modern society, and they should be given no quarter.
These people use your ideal of free speech absolutism against you, and until we realize there needs to be limits, we will never progress as a society because all of our time, focus, and resources will need to be on fighting this shit over and over and over.
I thought “clear and present danger” took care of this sort of thing.
Not sure where I fall in this conversation, but, imo all hate speech is a clear and present danger. Every time you preach hate, even if you don’t have a specific immediate call to action, you are speaking to people that will take it as a call to action. I think the clear and present danger idea is really giving human beings far too much credit. Normalizing hate makes assholes think they have the support of their peers, which leads to bad things, every time. In that sense hate speech is violence. Try being on the receiving end of hate speech and you will understand just how clear and present the danger really is.
My single-sentence comment seems to have caused me to be misunderstood.
I’m wondering, why is the “clear and present danger” doctrine NOT being used to shut these racists down? Because from my perspective, racist hate speech is clearly dangerous.
Because,as we’ve seen in this thread, other people are easily manipulated.
I’m not a free speech absolutist.
A free speech absolutist would say libel should be legal, and I’d disagree. There are certain things the government can do to ensure a person’s right to free speech doesn’t infringe upon anothers right to health, happiness, etc, and I think that’s okay, but that people really need to be wary of such things so that power doesn’t get too concentrated. But I wouldn’t say I’m an absolutist.
Im just saying you shouldn’t make it illegal to be a part of a particular group, because then the next party in power will have precedent to make it illegal to be a part of a different group.
Yeah it hard to xonvuce people that speach beeds limits. All ither rights do.
Agreed. The first Gay and Lesbian liberation groups people operated with aliases because infiltration could mean their persecution under the law. To fight an unjust rule of law anonymity to a degree is needed to shield the just. That someone unjust can utilize that same shield is an unfortunate consequence.
The difference is if people still think your version of justice is deplorable when you come out from behind the shield then the consequences are yours to reap. In this instance it’s not a matter of people wanting to be able to love each other publicly and get married it’s people wanting to crush people beneath a boot so the issue is a little less gray. Caveat emptor.
You make a good point but whar do we do about these white nationalist and fascist?
The nuance in this discussion has me both-sidesing pretty hard. I’m gonna have to put some deliberate thought into where I land on this.
I think associating with a group that believes in the creation of an ethnostate should remain legal
So long as the group explicitly says they do not condone violence and they want to achieve their goals through purely peaceful means. If they want to deport everyone who “isn’t them” to establish an ethnostate, that’s one thing. But killing everyone who isn’t them to create an ethnostate is very different and crosses the line.
The same would go for dismantling capitalism. Winning elections and passing laws to achieve that is very different from a violent overthrow of the government.
Why the fuck would wanting an ethnostate magically become okay simply by wanting it done through peaceful means?
The abortion bans were imposed through “peaceful means”.
Peaceful does not mean good.
Also countries can and do ban hate groups while allowing other speech. It is possible to have your cake and eat it too. It is possible to define something by observation alone.
I never said it was good. Just that if we’re going to be cautious and not outright ban it, then we will need to draw the line at violence.
So long as the group explicitly says they do not condone violence and they want to achieve their goals through purely peaceful means.
No, this is still a problem. The Long Shadow podcast did a great job of explaining how groups like the KKK and The Order have decentralized. Everyone knows that their message is a call to action to be taken on by individuals who they can then publicly denounce to say not like that. But they want it exactly like that. People like Timmy McVeinycock understand this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Berg https://open.spotify.com/show/70a5obPALvMVMPSzxYelik https://podcasts.apple.com/za/podcast/long-shadow/id1577471264
Mmm, fair enough. I guess this is a strain of enlightened centrism thinking. Maybe the best standard is the same for porn – you know it when you see it. And when your see it, you don’t buy any bullshit. You throw the book at them.
Even if the group calls for violence, it should be legal to be a part of that group. If I am subscribed to a YouTuber who calls for violence on people, and those subscribers commit violence upon those people, and I am sitting at home eating Cheetos, it is not justice for me to be charged for being part of that group.
The caller of violence should be charged, the co-conspirators, inciters, and the actors – but not me, because I was eating Cheetos on my couch.
No, calling for violence is generally accepted to be unprotected speech.
As it should be
It should be 100% illegal to be anonymous to be part of a domestic terrorist groups our a hate group like this.
Now, define “domestic terrorist group” and “hate group” and do so in such a way that someone explicitly looking to attack the causes you believe in can’t manage to count people you support in either of those groups. Because that’s the hard part.
Also the bit where you have to throw out the 1st Amendment - freedom of speech that doesn’t apply to even wildly unpopular ideas isn’t actually freedom of speech because only unpopular ideas ever need protecting and exactly how far into unpopular, hated, reviled and abhorrent ideas you have to go before things become illegal is exactly how strong those freedoms are. Henry Louis Mencken once wrote, “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
Just imagine a hard right fundie christian conservative judge getting to rule whether or not a group falls under the definitions you give, and they’ll rule it accurately for any hard and fast cases but also will use any flexibility you give against you.
deleted by creator
Not to undercut you, but a study of German police and such recently found there are a LOT of Nazis gaining power…
I heard they’ve naizies in the military n in their police ranks etc… do you know/ can You verify?
I don’t know this source that well, but it very recently claimed that Nazi symbols and child porn were found in police chats. I lean more towards believing it after NPR reported in 2020 about Germany investigating their own police during a noticeable rise in “Far-Right Extremism” around the country.
I don’t know this source that well, but it very recently claimed that Nazi symbols and child porn were found in police chats.
USA Today ran it, so that’s some amount of a known-quantity. I’d say the accusation has definitely been made and isn’t made up. The veracity of the accusation will have to be determined through the courts.
https://ustoday.news/nazi-symbols-and-child-pornography-found-in-german-police-chats/
TYVM
NP
Germany is all talk. They try to PR that they’re so anti fascist and pro freedom, but the numbers don’t lie. Germany only cares about money
So no different then America.
Do what Germany does with Nazis
What do you think we do with Nazis?
edit: not sure why this is sitting at -1 right now, germany barely does anything against Nazis on a state level. In fact they support them and allow them to grow with barely any hinderance. Check out the NSU Murders, their relationship with the office for constitutional protection (Verfassungschutz) and their reaction and prosecution of the perpetrators. Bonus if you look at Germanys handling of far right groups and people online, in the military and in the police. Extra-credit is if you look how they treat leftist and progressive photojournalists and activists. Extrajudicial searches and wiretapping, smear campaigns, etc.
elect them to political office
lmao exactly, not sure what the commenter I replied to thinks we do, but it’s basically: “nothing” at best and “allow them to spread their dangerous ideology” or “use taxpayer money to fund terror groups” at worst
Yep…
Alternative gegen Deutschland polling at 20% a few weeks ago
Lock they up ?
To the tune of “if you’re happy and you know it, clap your hands”
If you’re a Nazi and you’re fired, It’s your fault 👏👏
If you’re a Nazi and you’re fired, It’s your fault 👏👏
You were spotted in the mob, Now you’ve lost your fucking job.
If you’re a Nazi and you’re fired, It’s your fault 👏👏
Edit for spacing
You were spotted in the mob, Now you’ve lost your fucking job.
If you’re a Nazi and you’re fired, It’s your fault 👏👏
Absolutely nailed the cadence, well done
8am and my day is already fucking great having read this.
deleted by creator
I agree these people are bad, but if you’re on the left at a protest, hide your face also. It’s not worth exposing your identity to potential employers or the police. Hiding your identity isn’t just a fascist thing. Everyone should be doing it.
I understand that there are cameras everywhere now and that some of my views could be held against me by asshole bigots, but I have nothing to hide about my brand of politics. I will state them proudly because I believe they are just.
Now, if the argument is that fascists might dox and harass or harm me or my loved ones, then I might consider it. But I’m not influential in any movements so I don’t consider myself a target.
ETA: Oh snap, he’s the one who leaked the 400GB torrent of internal files. I’ve had that on a permanent seed. Always lifts my spirits when I spot any activity on it. You can find the torrent with a quick search if you weren’t already aware of it. I’ve got gigabit fiber, so feel free to grab a copy and help expose these shitheads.
ETA2: I did a quick search for a GoFundMe for this guy’s legal expenses and found none. If I start one, do folks think there will be significant interest on the Left?
Many people with just causes have been attacked, by right wing extremists or the police. The police are not our friends. It won’t be an issue for most people, but I still think most should protect their identity. The more people doing so makes it harder to identify anyone.
I’m not sure on the rules on it here, but you should link your torrent, unless you think it’d hurt.
I’m not sure on the rules on it here, but you should link your torrent, unless you think it’d hurt.
Happily: magnet:?xt=urn:btih:2c87816e4c81990fb25bbca43dd8d578eaa55886&dn=patriotfront&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F9.rarbg.to%3A2920&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.opentrackr.org%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fexodus.desync.com%3A6969
Here’s the original download: https://vault.unicornriot.ninja/patriotfrontleaks/patriotfront-repack.torrent
Here’s where I got that: https://unicornriot.ninja/2022/patriot-front-fascist-leak-exposes-nationwide-racist-campaigns/
To hell with these people.
deleted by creator
When anarchists and tankies are dressed that way at protests, it isn’t possible to tell whose side they are on. Are they there for civil rights, or are they right wingers (or even undercover cops?)
I also don’t buy the argument you guys make good protection at protests. Against who? The cops? Every person who goes to a civil rights protest knows the history, they know the risks, and they go anyway.
Anarchists and tankies should not be grouped together.
Yes, protection from the cops, and yes everyone knows the risks. Because they know the risks, they should take precautions. They should know cops will target them, so they shouldn’t willingly give up their identity.
You guys are the protection from cops? Brother, they dress up like you to throw bricks through windows as excuse to go after the rest of us.
Now you want us dress like you so that the media can then take the cops side when the fighting starts?
You are not our protection and we are not your cover.
Now you want us dress like you so that the media can then take the cops side…
When have they needed an excuse? I’m not saying everyone needs to be dressed in black block or anything, but don’t just give away anonymity for no reason. They’ll abuse your self-righteous attitude and it won’t protect you.
The more of us willing to drop the anonymous organizing, the safer it becomes for those of us who aren’t anonymous.
The lawsuit hinges on unwelcome public identification. Ironically, the parties here sue in their own names, filing in federal district court in Washington state and creating a public record of what the suit terms their “unpopular opinions.” By their own identification, they are:
Names listed in the article
They’re not sending their best and brightest, folks
They’re not sending their best and brightest, folks
Yes they are.
I hadn’t even heard about this suit, barely knew Patriot Front existed, and didn’t have a clue about any leaks prior to reading this article, and now due to the suit I know them by name. Nice publicity stunt?
I knew about them, but I guess my skin color makes me sensitive to any news of the existence of groups like these.
My skin color qualifies me for membership and I knew who these feckless pieces of shit are. Feel free to grab the torrent at Unicorn Riot for the 400GB leak. I’ve got a permaseed running.
I’m pretty sure these are their best and brightest
“Yes, we believe Hitler was right and we want to exterminate every race other than us so that our white children can fulfill their white destinies… But we don’t want people to know our names. They might get mad.”
Fuck all of these bigots.
files in court with their legal names, creating a permanent public record
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The suit decries how the left-wing activist conned Patriot Front into thinking he was a fellow traveler, “lying about his background and values,” only to expose its members through photography, secret recordings, and a massive computer hack.
The suit pulls back the curtain, for the first time, on how 400 gigabytes of Patriot Front data came to be exposed by the whistleblower group Denial of Distributed Secrets, in conjunction with the media collective Unicorn Riot in early 2022.
With this alleged hack, “Capito was able to download private chats and intercept video links” later posted in a data dump by DDoSecrets, the suit contends, and publicized by Unicorn Riot.
This leaked material showcased — among other rancid behavior — videos of Patriot Front members defacing murals that celebrate racial justice, burning LGBTQ pride flags in the woods, and thowing up Roman salutes and shouting “Sieg fucking Heil” when they thought they were off-camera.
And the group is infamous for menacing flash-mob tactics, in which shouting members march in a uniform of khakis and blue polo shirts — obscuring their identities with white face gaiters, baseball caps and sunglasses.
Five members of the group, including James Johnson, were recently convicted of “conspiracy to riot” at the 2022 Pride festival Coeur d’Alene, Idaho — where they were intercepted by FBI agents before they could descend on the celebrants.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Good job 👏 bot
secret recordings
If any of those were in CA, or any party being recorded was in CA at the time they’d have grounds to sue over that alone. CA is unique about recording laws in that according to CA where the recording was actually done is irrelevant, if any party is in CA, CA law applies. Not sure what recording consent laws look like elsewhere in the PNW.
deleted by creator
They all deserve rights. But what right was even violated? If I dump my company’s staff list to the Internet, I maybe broke a company policy, but it’s not infringing on rights, right?
Monkeys paw curls: Republicans are the ones who decide what a “terrorist” is (hint: it’s black people protesting)
That would be an obvious violation of equal protection and blatantly unconstitutional in a way that even our current SCOTUS wouldn’t support.
Now, they could define a terrorist in a way that any group or cause who protests in which such protest involves a certain amount of property damage, violence to persons or loss of human life counts as a terrorist group and it wouldn’t be hard to fit BLM and related terrorists under that flag over the 2020 summer protests (which I find interesting because one side likes to pretend that entire cities were burned to the ground and the other likes to pretend they were entirely peaceful and neither of those is true).
Do you want another abu ghraib? Because this is exactly how we get it.
Everyone, no matter how horrible, deserves basic human rights. Otherwise they are not rights, they are privileges. Also, I would rather live in a world where we all have a right to food and water, even in prison, than one where prisoners die slowly and in agony because some cruel warden decides they don’t deserve it anymore.
How’s about the right to a fair trial? Food in prison? Right to appeal? Right to protection from cruel and unusual punishment?
Think about what you say and think, lest you wind up being just as much a threat to democracy, freedom, and equality as those you claim to oppose. Don’t get me wrong; I get that it’s really tempting to treat Neo-Nazis the same way they’d like to treat everyone else, but then you’re just like them.
I think there’s a big reason why treating them the same way they treat others is fine.
The people that Nazis target are not only usually innocent, but they often don’t even have a choice in the reason for their bullying. You don’t choose to be non-white, be gay, be trans, etc.
Nazis choose to be pieces of shit that hurt innocent people.
The argument that people bring up for not treating them badly is that we don’t want to set a precedent in case the Nazis eventually get in control and decide being on the left is worthy of being deprived your rights.
But I think we all know that they wouldn’t need a precedent to deprive you of your rights if they took control and didn’t like you. They would simply do it if they had the power.
No, the idea behind human rights is that you get them if you’re human, period. If we suddenly decide this particularly horrible group of humans doesn’t deserve them, we are literally dehumanizing them and paving the way for someone else to later decide another group of humans doesn’t deserve them either.
Your second point is the exact point that I addressed. There is no “paving the way”. They will do it if they want to, regardless of what we do now.
As for your first point, that’s a fair statement. Human rights are Human rights. However, im talking more about civil rights. Civil rights are taken away all the time. You lose your right in the USA to vote, to own firearms if convicted of a felony.
You lose your right to live in a certain places if convicted of sex crimes.
If you are a Nazi, you definitely still deserve the human rights. But you shouldn’t have a say in how anything is decided. You shouldn’t have the right to vote, because you will always vote to attack minorities for no reason. You shouldn’t have the right to own a gun.
Basic human rights must be guaranteed. That’s what separates us from them. But beyond that? I completely agree, fuck them. Nazis should not have free speech, because Nazis sure as hell won’t give you free speech.
It needs to follow a paradox of tolerance situation – if someone would use X right to get into power so they can take away X from people on the basis of race, religion, sex, orientation, identity, ethnicity, etc then they relinquish X right.
On the surface this seems hypocritical, but it really isn’t. Stripping white supremacists and Nazis of free speech is not taking away a right on the basis of race, religion, sex, orientation, identity, nor ethnicity. It’s taking it away on the basis that they think a born trait makes someone inherently inferior to them. Believing in discrimination is not a born trait. Plus, there’s also the order. The express purpose of limiting the right is to protect vulnerable groups from losing it.
Your second point is the exact point that I addressed. There is no “paving the way”. They will do it if they want to, regardless of what we do now.
No, that’s not what I was saying. The “someone else” I was referring to wasn’t the Nazis or any other extremist group; it was some other person, likely later on in history, probably well-meaning and certainly part of the mainstream, using our decision to strip Nazis of their rights as precedent for stripping another group of those same rights. People like, say, rapists. Rapists are bad, right? Why do they deserve rights? Or how about just anyone who expresses a bigoted belief? People who are convicted of crimes? I hope you see the point: it’s the slippery slope argument. You open the door just a crack, because you think in this particular instance it’s justified, and soon someone else comes along and says, “hey, here’s another instance I think is justified;” faster than you’d think, the door is wide open and our government itself has become the fascist terror organization.
My point is more addressed at civil rights. Civil rights are taken away all the time. You lose your right in the USA to vote, to own firearms if convicted of a felony.
Civil rights are different and not what I was objecting to in the original comment.
You’re still speaking about opening a door and setting a precedent. I’m saying that if someone really is motivated to strip rights from people, they don’t need a precedent. They will do it if they have the power to do it. Whoever they may be, hypothetically. That shouldn’t stop us from taking action when we can against groups whose sole ideology is hatred of others.
Anybody in the future can set a new precedent. Why should that limit us from challenging the problems of today?
You don’t seem to be getting the point that I’m talking about us, not them. Adhering to principles that guarantee everyone–even our most hated enemies–get basic human rights is what separates us from them. If we abandon those principles, we become no different from them.
This principle is laid out in Marvel movies. It’s not hard to grasp. I don’t understand why it’s giving you so much trouble.
But you shouldn’t have a say in how anything is decided. You shouldn’t have the right to vote,
There’s a certain irony here as one of the early things the Nazis did was make other parties illegal so as to ensure they would remain in power despite a hypothetically democratic process. Depending on how you define “Nazi” (what is the bare minimum position or action one would have to have/take to count as a “Nazi”?), this touches awfully close to that.
One you can prove that I don’t think they should have ANY rights. And yes, I mean of any kind.
Having that conditioned on “proof” requires everybody to have rights, though. Otherwise, you risk removing rights from the wrong people.
It casts him as a 3-D-printed “ghost gun” enthusiast, a practitioner of the martial art of Krav Maga, a seasoned lock picker, and perhaps even “immune” to pepper spray.
They couldn’t make him sound cooler if they tried
Dude sounds like how the mobsters talk about the “boogyman” in John Wick. Less discrediting and more showing how much they fear him.
This guy is a real hero
Removed by mod
No. Not every modern Nazi is an FBI agent. Plenty of them are just standard Republicans.
Lol 😂
What’s also funny is that capito is italian for “i understood.” Like, he understood this would happen, and it was kind of the point
He Infiltrated a leftist group.
