First, I don't think you've ever seen any terrorist propaganda. I have. It absolutely calls for violence.
What you fail to realize is that those particular groups are recruiting into organizations that explicitly require violence against anyone who disagrees with them. I know it's popular to pretend that isn't true, it's just an "internal struggle" or whatever, but that's simply not the case. When they say "we must fight the infidels", they literally mean, we're going to take up arms and go and murder all the infidels, specifically including as many noncombatants as we can find.
In general, people speaking in America aren't calling for that. I don't agree with what you refer to that they're advocating, and I think the right way to combat it is to argue why they're wrong, but they're not advocating murder of innocents. Those who do are falling afoul of the restrictions that have been allowed on speech and should be dealt with accordingly - making threats isn't legal.
I'm well aware of where the comment came from. Again, restricting speech you disagree with is a slippery slope, and that's why we don't do it -- or didn't, until it became fashionable to shut down all forms of conservative discussion on media that has become left wing propaganda arms.
Well, I haven't watched the video (skimmed the article), but if he's a Trump supporter who's also LGBT+, then he's not only supporting fascism, nationalism, and bigotry, he's also kinda dumb for supporting an ideology that wants to eradicate him.
The article says he's a fiscal conservative, so that explains why he's a Trump supporter, if he is (it doesn't actually outright state that, just says that he's a conservative), but I don't consider it to be a good enough excuse. Maybe two years ago before we knew just what kind of politician and President he would be, but not now.
I understand the dilemma the Republican party has right now. Many of them don't actually believe in the horrible things that Trump supports, but feel like they don't have any choice because the Democratic party opposes so many of their policy positions.
But policy should take a back seat when you're confronted with actual evil, and that's what we're dealing with right now. Nazis. Literal, not-even-slightly-kidding gas-the-Jews lynch-the-blacks ethnic-cleansing white-power Nazis are what Trump truly represents right now, and the Republican party leaders, by and large, won't even denounce them and say they don't support that shit.
If you support Trump, now, you support the rise of literal Nazis, and I don't care what else you believe in or support, that's something I can't see any value in even allowing in the debate.
In post-ww2 Germany, they essentially adopted the policy of suppressing Nazi ideology and it was regarded as a good thing, thought every German except post-war Nazi holdouts. They came to find out its not all that much dif't in fx than shouting "fire! in a crowded theater. Not just those who went throught he war, but especially all those who were born afterwards.
This here is just doing what Germany did except pre-emptively. Like Woody Guthrie's guitar. The 1st Amendment is a great step forward in democracy, but Rupert Murdoch has a ) day exploit on the constitution and pretending he doesn't = owned
Gay marriage is a concept. Trump is currently the president of the United States, the most important actor in the world stage and we are seeing the results of him exercising that power.
A sitting US president, by the strength of their mere words, have the power to change culture. Trump, just by talking the way he talks about the things he talks about, is changing what legal speech is now disavowed by society.
You seem to fail to grasp that a sitting US president is of more consequence than two men marrying one another.
4 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 24.2 ms ] threadWhat you fail to realize is that those particular groups are recruiting into organizations that explicitly require violence against anyone who disagrees with them. I know it's popular to pretend that isn't true, it's just an "internal struggle" or whatever, but that's simply not the case. When they say "we must fight the infidels", they literally mean, we're going to take up arms and go and murder all the infidels, specifically including as many noncombatants as we can find.
In general, people speaking in America aren't calling for that. I don't agree with what you refer to that they're advocating, and I think the right way to combat it is to argue why they're wrong, but they're not advocating murder of innocents. Those who do are falling afoul of the restrictions that have been allowed on speech and should be dealt with accordingly - making threats isn't legal.
I'm well aware of where the comment came from. Again, restricting speech you disagree with is a slippery slope, and that's why we don't do it -- or didn't, until it became fashionable to shut down all forms of conservative discussion on media that has become left wing propaganda arms.
The article says he's a fiscal conservative, so that explains why he's a Trump supporter, if he is (it doesn't actually outright state that, just says that he's a conservative), but I don't consider it to be a good enough excuse. Maybe two years ago before we knew just what kind of politician and President he would be, but not now.
I understand the dilemma the Republican party has right now. Many of them don't actually believe in the horrible things that Trump supports, but feel like they don't have any choice because the Democratic party opposes so many of their policy positions.
But policy should take a back seat when you're confronted with actual evil, and that's what we're dealing with right now. Nazis. Literal, not-even-slightly-kidding gas-the-Jews lynch-the-blacks ethnic-cleansing white-power Nazis are what Trump truly represents right now, and the Republican party leaders, by and large, won't even denounce them and say they don't support that shit.
If you support Trump, now, you support the rise of literal Nazis, and I don't care what else you believe in or support, that's something I can't see any value in even allowing in the debate.
A sitting US president, by the strength of their mere words, have the power to change culture. Trump, just by talking the way he talks about the things he talks about, is changing what legal speech is now disavowed by society.
You seem to fail to grasp that a sitting US president is of more consequence than two men marrying one another.