You are Never Guilty by Association if you Defend Human Rights

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Blaine91555
I get your point, but it's a much more complex issue than just who has what rights. Whenever protecting someones human rights, denies others their own human rights, the lines get blurred and rightly so.

I've heard it said that, "Rights are what other people allow you to have."
Also, as far as free speech goes, "You can say whatever you want as long as nobody cares."

you are correct....American born Japanese were herded up, and put into camps during WW2......at that point, the constitutional protections of the bill of rights failed......the American government failed at the most crucial time to uphold the constitution....it can happen again

a reply to: Blue Shift

I've heard it said that, "Rights are what other people allow you to have." Also, as far as free speech goes, "You can say whatever you want as long as nobody cares."

That's true. Rights are best described as duties. Your right to insult my mother is rather my duty not to punch you in the nose when you do. It involves conscious and deliberate work towards upholding a very important principle.

To be fair, when people see you defend Hitler's free speech, they see you defending the genocide. The Holocaust was the result of Hitler's free speech and his targeted audience.

You may call it a knee-jerk reaction if you want but it is to be expected.

originally posted by: RowanBean
To be fair, when people see you defend Hitler's free speech, they see you defending the genocide. The Holocaust was the result of Hitler's free speech and his targeted audience.

You may call it a knee-jerk reaction if you want but it is to be expected.

When I defend a Nazis free speech I defend the holocaust—that's quite the leap in logic, not to mention a fallacy. So, to be fair, its a stupidity that would hardly leave a reasonable mouth.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm not a fan of the ACLU because it's a partisan tool that does not view everyone equally. I'm sure you're aware they don't step forward for those in need of them. They pick and choose based on the bias of the day.

I have no interest in limiting speech that does not interfere with the rights of others. I just think the rights of others include the right to happiness and to feel secure in their lives and property, in particular in a public space. I wanted to see how far you would carry it. Thanks for your replies.

I do not consider rioting, looting or throwing bottles and bricks as protected and yet it is, depending on who is doing it. There will always be a gray area.

a reply to: Blaine91555

I'm not a fan of the ACLU because it's a partisan tool that does not view everyone equally. I'm sure you're aware they don't step forward for those in need of them. They pick and choose based on the bias of the day.

I have no interest in limiting speech that does not interfere with the rights of others. I just think the rights of others include the right to happiness and to feel secure in their lives and property, in particular in a public space. I wanted to see how far you would carry it. Thanks for your replies.

I do not consider rioting, looting or throwing bottles and bricks as protected and yet it is, depending on who is doing it. There will always be a gray area.

The ACLU has been actually fairly consistent when it comes to civil liberties, especially free speech. I'm not sure of any other organization that defended the free speech rights of neo-Nazis after the whole Charlottesville affair. The ACLU actually represented the right-wing organizer in court. I also remember when ACLU member AP Griffin, a black lawyer, was fired from the NAACP for representing the grand dragon of the KKK. Though the rest of their politics lean left (I think), their adherence to defending civil liberties is quite consistent, and people of all politics can thank them for it.

Rioting and looting are not protected, and I wouldn't call that speech anyways.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If I recall correctly they have at times represented both sides in a dispute.

I was thinking of the Occupy Movement, which no doubt many involved would like to forget existed. Many argued that blocking streets, blocking sidewalks, taking over parks was a civil right, even though it clearly violated others rights. The ACLU represented them in a few cases, but I don't recall them coming forward to represent those harmed by Occupy. Some rights are more equal than others?

Look at their history with NAMBLA. Is the promotion of child rape a right? Or is it promoting crime? What they promote is not only a crime, it's one of the worst as it involves kids. The ACLU helps them promote the rape of children by defending them. No real way around that I can see. You defend a thing, you support it whether you think you are or not.

Power certainly plays into it. Specifically because some voices have had more power than others. Much more power. Have been louder than others. Have been given the microphone, the bullhorn, the airwaves. And those voices were using the language of subjugation in order to stay in power. To keep others down. And then to write laws and to influence the direction that their very narrow concentration of power wanted to see this country go. There was no such thing as equality when it came to speech. And this was by design.

We are finally at a time when the people, and specifically groups that have been subjugated by tptb for as far back as they can trace their bloodlines, are being given a voice. Have claimed their voice. And now those that have been doing the subjugating are getting shouted down. Are finally being told to shut up. We won't stand for the greed and inequality in the way that they have used language to keep others down. And now they are scared. And they are clinging to "free-speech" slogans as if they really cared about equality. We know what is happening here. It's been plain as day for hundreds of years.

No one said we would be tolerant of intolerance.

originally posted by: okrian
Power certainly plays into it. Specifically because some voices have had more power than others. Much more power. Have been louder than others. Have been given the microphone, the bullhorn, the airwaves. And those voices were using the language of subjugation in order to stay in power. To keep others down. And then to write laws and to influence the direction that their very narrow concentration of power wanted to see this country go. There was no such thing as equality when it came to speech. And this was by design.

We are finally at a time when the people, and specifically groups that have been subjugated by tptb for as far back as they can trace their bloodlines, are being given a voice. Have claimed their voice. And now those that have been doing the subjugating are getting shouted down. Are finally being told to shut up. We won't stand for the greed and inequality in the way that they have used language to keep others down. And now they are scared. And they are clinging to "free-speech" slogans as if they really cared about equality. We know what is happening here. It's been plain as day for hundreds of years.

No one said we would be tolerant of intolerance.

The subjugated people were treated in the same manner: shouted-down and told to shut up by people who disapproved of them. Why you would apply the same methodology against groups you disapprove of is beyond me.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If I recall correctly they have at times represented both sides in a dispute.

I was thinking of the Occupy Movement, which no doubt many involved would like to forget existed. Many argued that blocking streets, blocking sidewalks, taking over parks was a civil right, even though it clearly violated others rights. The ACLU represented them in a few cases, but I don't recall them coming forward to represent those harmed by Occupy. Some rights are more equal than others?

Look at their history with NAMBLA. Is the promotion of child rape a right? Or is it promoting crime? What they promote is not only a crime, it's one of the worst as it involves kids. The ACLU helps them promote the rape of children by defending them. No real way around that I can see. You defend a thing, you support it whether you think you are or not.

That’s not true. They are defending civil liberties, not the content of what is spoken.

Again, who would you nominate to decide what we can and cannot say?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You practically ONLY defend the indefensible LesMisanthrope.

Your protestations on their behalf would be a damned sight easier to believe, in terms of coming from a positive, fair and decent place in your mind, if you spent even a few seconds a day advocating for the rights of people who are ACTUALLY oppressed, not oppressors themselves.

Advocating for the rights of oppressors to oppress people, can ONLY make you guilty by association.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You practically ONLY defend the indefensible LesMisanthrope.

Your protestations on their behalf would be a damned sight easier to believe, in terms of coming from a positive, fair and decent place in your mind, if you spent even a few seconds a day advocating for the rights of people who are ACTUALLY oppressed, not oppressors themselves.

Advocating for the rights of oppressors to oppress people, can ONLY make you guilty by association.

I want to change their minds; you want to smash their skulls. Very positive, fair and decent of you, TrueBrit.

People who think like you are precisely why I’m slowly leaving the party. So if my wife I get arrested (not even going to court yet) and have to go to jail. What happens to our children? This is no different. The bleeding hearts are going all in on such a stupid cause such as this? . If the bleeding hearts on the fringe left want to actually do something. Why not try to help the hundreds of AMERICAN children who will be separated from their parents for a myriad of reasons?

These children will be reunited with their parents as soon as they work through the system.

One last Thing. With so many of my close friends and family and extended family suffering so many things, cancer, financial ruin at the hands of the healthcare industry, Fire, and drugs. It’s really hard for me to garner any sympathy for people who are knowingly breaking the law. It’s not like these kids are taken away forever. Give it rest and pull your panties out of your butt.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You do not want to change their minds, you want them to get away with oppressing people, and never have to answer to anyone for doing so.

If you are going to advocate on behalf of scum, the least you could do is be honest about it.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You do not want to change their minds, you want them to get away with oppressing people, and never have to answer to anyone for doing so.

If you are going to advocate on behalf of scum, the least you could do is be honest about it.

If having ideas that you don't like is oppressing people, and therefor they should have their heads kicked in, that makes you the oppressor.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Its not a matter of having ideas I don't like, LesMisanthrope.

There is a clear, distinct difference, between preventing the oppression of oppressed peoples, and falsely claiming that supporting oppressors prevents oppression.

Standing up for the "right" of Nazis to be oppressive toward minorities, people whose sexual orientation does not suit them, people whose religion is not acceptable to them, or people who simply have the "wrong" colour skin, does not make you a humanitarian, it does not make you noble, or righteous, or virtuous. It makes you part of the problem, not its solution.

The reality, sir, is that your perceptions of the meaning of your activities are flawed beyond belief, and reality will keep beating you over the head with that fact until the day you die.