Neo Nazis and the Alt Right

Actually, i didn’t violate any greek law. I know the laws of Greece very well, also i know EU laws. Show me a law i broke. You can’t just say something, prove it.

I do to. I want to engage with TemplarGR honestly, because as irksome as it may be at times, I do want to discuss things honestly with people. Why, though I may be close to @ArmandoPenblade politically if not rhetorically, I didn’t like the jump to insults.

However it requires good faith from all sides. Which this discussion is a microcosm of the problem with engaging the GOP, they are not dealing in good faith. And when you drop a line about BLM being worse racists than the alt right? You clearly show you are not dealing in good faith.

You just called BLM worse than Nazis.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/010/692/19789999.jpg

Like you said, your “feels” don’t mean shit.

We’re exercising said right. Also your country doesn’t have it anyway, so lecturing us on it is kind of funny.

Yeah. No. You were very questionable through out, but most of us were willing to give you a fair shot, but the BLM statement seals the deal of what you’re about.

Ok. This is a cop out. I am not with alt-right, but replies like yours are really tempting. Refusing to reply to someone just because you are ASSUMING they debate in bad faith, is not a good way to win people to your cause. It is just a weak cop out that spells:

“Hey, i can’t rely debate you, so i will just pretend to have the moral high ground (despite having done nothing to prove i have the moral high ground), and will just claim that proving to you you are wrong is a waste of time, so i won’t have to prove it.”

Actually I CAN just say it. That’s the fun part of actual free speech.

I’m sure if I was motivated I could find something, your BLM statement, your defense of fucking Nazis who killed a person, and calling BLM worse than them almost certainly does. But I believe in your right to do so, even if you and your government don’t, so I’m not going to do anything about it.

Also these sites you think we should defend… would be illegal in your country. So maybe lecturing us about it is a bit silly? Of course that wasn’t the end goal here, so I guess it doesn’t matter at the end of the day.

I’m not a Nazi, but I became one because someone on the internet made fun of me.

Literally an alt-right talking point/meme.

Also if you have proof, there is a BLM thread, you could present it there, but honestly quarantining it here is probably for the best and you aren’t interested in honest discussion or you would’ve brought proof instead of crazy horseshit.

I’d just like to say that I’m really busy and I appreciate the yeoman’s work y’all been putting into this thread over the last 24 or whatever hours.

I never claimed BLM people are worse than Nazis. I did claim that they are racist. The very definition of the quote “Black Lives Matter” is racist, because it segregates the races. Why claim Black lives matter? White lives don’t matter? Asian lives don’t matter? Native American Lives don’t matter? Latin Lives don’t matter?

It should be “ALL LIVES MATTER”. Why separate blacks? This is racism.

Also, claiming that BLM is racist doesn’t make you an alt-right person. It is true to anyone with a brain intact.

Fun fact: Greece does have freedom of speech. In fact, we have much more freedom of speech than in USA.

So anyway, Neo-Nazis suck fucks, M I RITE guys?

Here are your hate speech laws:

Here are my hate speech laws:

Oh wait, I don’t have any.

As always.

Wow, just wow. This is the very definition of ad hominem. Where in this thread have i defended a Nazi who killed a person? Copy paste the post please. For 24hours i have debating against the destruction of free speech by private megacorporations. I just replied to a post i read that it is fine to send people you don’t like to abandoned warehouses.

Again, nothing i said here is illegal in my country. Feel free to call the cops on me dude.

Oh look more alt-right talking points.

How long till the Pepe memes? Asking for a friend.

That I even could and they would have to take me seriously shows why you don’t have actual freedom of speech.

You do not know nearly enough about the racial issues and concerns, especially vis a vis policing, that led to the origins of the BLM movement.

I heartily encourage you to either take some time and learn about it, or stop talking about it. Because your stance is plain wrong.

If you want to know why it exists, and why it was named the way it was due to the racial issues in America, there are answers. And those answers aren’t ‘because they are racist’.

Have you actually READ the law you quoted? It criminalizes libel, inciting violence, and denial of certain historical facts that have scientifically happened, like the holocaust. How is that a reduction of free speech? Free speech isn’t about lying in public and destroying other people’s reputations or promoting riots and crimes against various races dude.

I’m pretty sure I’m clearly better informed than you, dude.
Your analogies are just bad.

No, you are not “buying” anything. Certainly, you are giving Twitter value by your participation, but you are not guaranteed anything in return, beyond what is established in your usage agreement with them.

And guess what? That agreement does not, in any way, say that you “own your account”.

Your statements regarding this stuff is just entirely incorrect. It is factually inaccurate.

No, you tried to compare your usage of twitter to a painter’s work of art.
But the painter PAID for his canvas and paints. That’s why he owns them.
If he took YOUR canvas, and painted on it, he wouldn’t own it. You’d still own it.

You own exactly what is specified through the agreement you made with Facebook when you signed up. Nothing more.
If this is unacceptable to you, then you are free to not use their service.

You want to force them to assist white supremacists and nazis.

No one is preventing Nazis from speaking when Twitter bans them.

There are currently over one billion websites on the internet. They are not all owned by 5 media conglomerates.

At this point, trying to correct your woefully misinformed understanding of how intellectual property works seems like a fool’s errand. Suffice to say, all internet connected technology is not communally owned simply by virtue of using some elements of technology which were once developed by the government.

You do not have any rights to use twitter. Not sure how many times that needs to be stated before you understand it.

When you wrote this, did you believe that it was a compelling argument? Because I defy you to find even a single person on this forum who read it, which thought it was good.

I mean, it’s pretty obvious that ownership of property does not allow you to harm other people with said property. No one would suggest otherwise. This is a strawman argument.

But why do you keep saying this? No one is suggesting otherwise.
You are creating what is called a mott and bailey argument, switching back and forth between an easily defensible position (human rights should not be violated) and an indefensible position (my ability to use twitter should not be violated).

Use of twitter is not a human right. There is absolutely nothing which guarantees your usage of such a system. You would have to actually make a coherent argument suggesting that there is some inherent basis for you having a right to use twitter. But you have not done so.

But he could absolutely refuse to sell me a ticket.

I realize that you don’t really know anything about our legal system, but let me try to explain this to you again:
Your statement there, that he could sue you? That’s not true. That’s false.

In our legal system, there are certain, very specific, classifications of people which cannot be discriminated against. At a federal level, this includes things like race, gender, religion. It does not include beliefs in some generic sense. It does not include political affiliation. This is well established through existing legal precedents.

In SOME states, political affiliation is not a legal basis for discrimination for employment. In even fewer (I think 2?) states, it’s not a legal basis for discrimination for customers. Meaning, in most states, it is entirely legal for you to refuse to do business with someone based on their political beliefs. You can’t sue them for that. Or rather, you could sue them, but it would be thrown out of court based on existing legal precedent.

Do you understand this now? Because you’ve said this a few times, and I already explained how it was wrong.

I’m not sure if you are aware, but currently, there are some cities in the US who have been hit by poor weather, and are suffering from catestrophic flooding. Like Houston, for instance.

As a result, we are sending a lot of assistance to Houston. Because they need it right now.

Imagine if I said, “Why separate houston? ALL cities matter!”

Salt Lake City Matters Too!

That analogy just works. You worry about the groups or people that are in most need. Sure others groups and places matter, and shouldn’t forget it, but sometimes one problem stands out and needs to be tackled first.