• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Rejecting words and actions which perpetrate, support or encourage white supremacists

Colonel Angus said:
Read up on the Tariff of 1828 (aka the Tariff of Abominations) after you rescue Doug Master's dad from the Middle East.

And I never said slavery wasn't AN issue. It was. It simply wasn't THE issue that the SJW's would have you believe.

But it doesn't really matter, does it? Facts that don't fit the narrative of the Tunnels' left are simply dismissed and any dissenting voices are labeled 'racist'.

It's much simpler that way.
Click to expand...

Attack of the Clones is your favorite Star Wars movie, isn't it.
 
RChildress107 said:
It's next level irony that the Southerners who "believe" that the Civil War was fought over a protectionist Tariff enacted 32 years before shots were fired overwhelming supported our current president and when asked to state why often point to his protectionist stance on trade.

I get it, that does sound a lot better than racism.
Click to expand...

Even better when you realize life expectancy was right around 32 years of age at the time.
 
Junebug said:
Yes, it is.

Childress said that white supremacist speech is inherently not peaceful. That is a guise to regulate it based on its content, which a is fascist sentiment.

If white supremacist gatherings become violent then they may be regulated. But white supremacists should not be regulated based on the view that whites are a superior race, whether one thinks that view is inherently "not peaceful" or not.

The way to combat speech you disagree with under our constitution is to voice your own view, not by suppressing suppressing the speech of others.

Because this is the Tunnels, I feel obligated to add that I am not a white supremacist and I condemn them with the harshest terms possible, lest there be any confusion.
Click to expand...

Showing up in combat gear draped in swastikas to protest the removal of a racist monument is nothing less than a threat and an attempt to intimidate those who used the democratic process to bring down that racist monument.

The content of the message is inherently violent and should not be tolerated.
 
Junebug said:
Yes, it is.

Childress said that white supremacist speech is inherently not peaceful. That is a guise to regulate it based on its content, which a is fascist sentiment.

If white supremacist gatherings become violent then they may be regulated. But white supremacists should not be regulated based on the view that whites are a superior race, whether one thinks that view is inherently "not peaceful" or not.

The way to combat speech you disagree with under our constitution is to voice your own view, not by suppressing suppressing the speech of others.

Because this is the Tunnels, I feel obligated to add that I am not a white supremacist and I condemn them with the harshest terms possible, lest there be any confusion.
Click to expand...

it's going to be OK
 
Colonel Angus said:
Read up on the Tariff of 1828 (aka the Tariff of Abominations) after you rescue Doug Master's dad from the Middle East.

And I never said slavery wasn't AN issue. It was. It simply wasn't THE issue that the SJW's would have you believe.

But it doesn't really matter, does it? Facts that don't fit the narrative of the Tunnels' left are simply dismissed and any dissenting voices are labeled 'racist'.

It's much simpler that way.
Click to expand...

You do realize that confederate states wrote declarations of secession, right? They told the world why they were seceding - slavery. Your clumsy revisionism is unnecessary.
Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes...sion_of_South_Carolina_from_the_Federal_Union
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

"In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River..."
 
Junebug said:
You don't seem to realize that you're making two separate arguments:

1. showing up in combat gear is inherently violent.

2. espousing views of white supremacy is inherently violent.

You are on much firmer footing with argument 1. Argument 2 is fascist.
Click to expand...

how is 2 fascist
 
To be a little clearer:

I don't think the government should, or could, ban a white supremacist from going on tv and saying they think white people are the supreme race or prevent white supremacists from meeting on private property to circle jerk to Breitbart.

But the government is not, and should not, be required to provide them a forum for their violence.
 
If your views call for the destruction of other races, seems pretty violent to me. White supremacists aren't just stating that they are superior and will just let nature take its course allowing their superiority to reign supreme, they want to put in active measures to make it so.
 
Colonel Angus said:
Read up on the Tariff of 1828 (aka the Tariff of Abominations) after you rescue Doug Master's dad from the Middle East.

And I never said slavery wasn't AN issue. It was. It simply wasn't THE issue that the SJW's would have you believe.

But it doesn't really matter, does it? Facts that don't fit the narrative of the Tunnels' left are simply dismissed and any dissenting voices are labeled 'racist'.

It's much simpler that way.
Click to expand...

Hmmm..."facts." You seem pretty certain that your "facts" are the correct "facts."

I have a different set of facts...the Confederate's own articles of Secession. Each state clearly and overwhelming declared slavery as their reason for secession. I choose to listen to what the actual states who were involved said in 1861 vs internet poster 2017.
 
Junebug said:
You don't seem to realize that you're making two separate arguments:

1. showing up in combat gear is inherently violent.

2. espousing views of white supremacy is inherently violent.

You are on much firmer footing with argument 1. Argument 2 is fascist.
Click to expand...

I realize that, but still think my footing is firm on 2 as well. The speech is inherently violent, though I think it's still an open question on how and how much to regulate it. And while I'm wary of the issues Scalia addressed in his opinion in R.A.V., Im not sure I find them compelling.

Put differently,

If you think the First Amendment protects, or should protect, the inherently violent speech of white supremacy, I disagree but understand where you are coming from.

If you think that espousing views of white supremacy is not inherently violent, then I don't know what to tell you.
 
Last edited:
Louis Gossett Jr said:
Even better when you realize life expectancy was right around 32 years of age at the time.
Click to expand...

That's because infant and child mortality was so high. Infant mortality (age 0) is averaged in.

If you made 12 or so, you had a chance at a long life in the cities back then. Frontier life or in the military, maybe not so much.
 
Junebug said:
You don't seem to realize that you're making two separate arguments:

1. showing up in combat gear is inherently violent.

2. espousing views of white supremacy is inherently violent.

You are on much firmer footing with argument 1. Argument 2 is fascist.
Click to expand...

But in the case, they were the same.
 
Junebug said:
Nice try, counselor, but not even close.
Click to expand...

I know it when I see it.

But honestly I'd rather not turn this into a legalistic argument. It's too easy a place for you and your ilk to hide. I'll agree with you that espousing such views cannot be regulated under current First Amendment jurisprudence.

I'll stand by my statement that such language is obscene, inherently violent, and has no place in our public discourse. It has the same value as snuff films or child pornography and should be regulated as such.
 
Last edited:
ImTheCaptain said:
the fruits of southern education about the war of northern aggression, folks
Click to expand...

I grew up in MD and had never really been further south before college. Needless to say, I was always amused the numerous times I heard the term "War of Northern Aggression" seriously used at Wake. I'm also bemused by the states rights arguments. While it's true that 19th century southerners used that term, they were also very quick to ask the feds to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act when wanting to retrieve slaves from the North.
 
Not sure I agree with all of this. I haven't followed this thread closely because I got the hell out of Dodge for the weekend when this thread mushroomed. But I believe holding a white supremacist rally is protected speech. And Judge Conrad found on Friday that the City in wanting to move the rally to McIntire Park was attempting to regulate speech based on its content and told the City they had to let the rally proceed at Lee Park. Go back and look at the Skokie decision. The facts there were even more egregious. That was the Klan wanting to march through a largely Jewish neighborhood of Chicago at a time when the Holocaust was not that distant a memory. (BTW, the ACLU joined Kessler's suit against the City too.)

The interesting legal aspect now to me is where do we go from here because this thing is not going away. We largely got what we expected on Saturday - that the antifas and the white supremacists would throw down, and folks would get hurt. But Jason Kessler, Richard Spencer and David Duke are irate that the cops stopped them from proceeding with their rally, and Kessler has said they're coming back. Now it could be that they come back without a permit for an impromptu or surprise rally, like their little tiki torch march through UVA Friday night. Or they could apply for another permit. My question is what effect does the violence that occurred this past weekend have on future permits. Can they be denied entirely? My guess is no. Can they now alter the place and time based on public safety? The City has a stronger position for that the next time around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top