Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Not today

This is what happens when you don’t punch Nazis.

Bags of women's hair at the concentration camp at Auschwitz - Photo Credit, Polish National Archives

Bags of women’s hair at the concentration camp at Auschwitz – Photo Credit, Polish National Archives

 

Rather than putting up the usual pictures of pits full of starved, shot and tortured people. I thought this was more fitting. The people who were murdered in concentration camps were being harvested.

This is what those who support America First wanted to allow to keep happening.

There are some things that are always wrong and do not deserve to be protected or repeated. I have once supported the idea that I would support to the death that people have the right to say what they want. No longer. I am happy to punch Nazis. And I’ll be happy to die to make sure that they don’t do again what they did before.   It’s not punch who you think is a Nazi, punch who *shows* you he, or she, is a Nazi.

If we don’t punch the Nazi, then there will be no free speech of any kind to defend. There are Nazi wannabees in the Trump White House, who don’t think we remember that their kind said to turn away the refugees just like their forebearers who also touted “America First”, turned away the MS St. Louis, to hate anyone who is different, and who do their best to fracture the facts of the Holocaust so it doesn’t sound so bad. It’s too bad that not one Republican seems to be willing to stand up to these people, and lead the conservative Americans away from being supporters of Nazis.

This is where the new meme fits.

First they came for the Muslims

And we said “Not today.”

The current meme often has “motherfucker” appended to it. I find that entertaining but watering down the point. I’d suggest adding “Yippee ki-yay motherfucker” if one wishes after a suitable pause after the quote above.

I believe I’ve mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. I had a Jewish man, a survivor of the Holocaust, take the time to find my contact information and thank me for a letter I wrote to the editor of the local newspaper standing against the attempts of some Christians to force their religion on students in public school in an attempt to create an “us” and “them”. I’m going guess he has probably died by now but in his memory, it will always be “Not today.”. Never think that you can’t do something, even if it is just a blog post or a letter to the editor. Enough of these and the evil retreats.

I recently watched the movie Conspiracy with Kenneth Branagh and Stanley Tucci, playing Reinhard Heydrick and Adolph Eichmann, respectively plus many other excellent character actors.   This movie shows how such “gentlemen” conspired to annihilate people during the Wannsee Conference, mostly the Jews but their hate extended to others, Romany, homosexuals, the disabled, etc. One copy of the notes of this meeting survived and this is what the movie is based on. The one of the movie’s last lines is “”It is night in Moscow already. Soon it will be dark here. Do you think we will ever see the dawn in our lifetime?” It’s up to us to prevent the dark from coming.

And those of you who are about to type and call me a hater, or some such, for daring question you and not tolerating your nonsense, please do. You might want to consider why you’re defending such things and why you believe in a liar who claims that he’ll take care of everything. Many supporters of hatred and ignorance haven’t quite got the idea that their rights stop when they infringe on others. These rights are shared.

Here’s a quote often attributed to George Orwell, “Happiness can exist only in acceptance.” The quote is a shortened version of the opinion of the state, Oceania, in Nineteen Eighty Four (1984). (support Project Gutenberg if you can)

There are three stages in your reintegration,’ said O’Brien. ‘There is

learning, there is understanding, and there is acceptance. It is time for

you to enter upon the second stage.”

“A world of victory after victory, triumph after triumph after triumph: an endless pressing, pressing, pressing upon the nerve of power. You are beginning, I can see, to realize what that world will be like. But in the end you will do more than understand it. You will accept it, welcome it, becomepart of it.’” 

“Forty years it had taken him to learnwhat kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needlessmisunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast!Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was allright, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had wonthe victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

 

and as a bit of biting humor

rangers

Advertisements

20 responses to “Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Not today

  1. So in other words, fuck the First Amendment when it’s inconvenient? If we disagree with someone else’s political views we can grant ourselves carte blanche to beat them to a pulp or set them ablaze?

    Whatever happened to “love trumps hate” and “stronger together” and “when they go low, we go high” and “be better”? Were those just empty platitudes?

    • where during the womens march, or eve the pro”life” march did anyone get beat up or set ablaze? And “fuck the first amendment”? What about using the abilities guaranteed in the first amendment “fucks” it? The First Amendment doesnt’ guarantee harming others and free speech is not absolute.

      Those are indeed platitudes. Platitudes are nice but repeating them and doing nothing doesn’t seem to work very well. Do you think these platitudes would have worked with Nazis? And how is marching going “low”?

      Marching does get attention as so actions. I’m not sure what OWS is or WBC. Greenpeace has contributed to get many countries to stop whaling and they got people’s attention on it so Japan has to lie and hide behind claims of research. PETA is extreme, but humans don’t torture so many animals any more for stupid reasons. And we are working to decrease that more and more. Change isn’t easy but every bit helps. If you do not agree, you can sit at home and do what you want. I believe I know the answer to the question I asked you and you did not respond to: so do you feel that protesting, marching etc, to be worthless?

      In this subject, we do not agree Ron.

      • You’re right: we disagree on the most fundamental aspect of what it means to live within a civilized society based on the rule of law. I don’t subscribe to your ideology that it’s permissible to beat up people for expressing opinions that differ from my own—let alone being happy in doing it.

        To my knowledge no one was physically harmed at the two marches you mentioned. However, the same can’t be said for the riots that have taken place since the election.

        OWS = Occupy Wall Street
        WBC = Westboro Baptist Church

        The First First Amendment states:

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

        Can you point to the part that grants you license to punch out people you disagree with? And if all those slogans were just empty platitutdes, what does it say about the moral integrety of those who parrot them?

      • I’m very happy I disagree with you in this, Ron. I would ask you: what would you have done in the 30s when the Jews, Romany, etc were being rounded up? I do want to know: what would you do?

        Please provide evidence of your claims regarding “to beat them to a pulp or set them ablaze” happening in the marches we were discussing. You seem to be trying to change the subject.

        What changes do you expect to happen, Ron? The OWS got attention to the unfairness of Wall Street. Again, you seem to think that magic will happen and things will change overnight. They won’t and they don’t. The protests by WBC have shown that Christians aren’t all peace and light and have earned the disgust of others. Just because someone claims to a Christian now is not accepted blindly as “good”.

        Free speech is abridged all of the time, Ron, when it can cause harm. Are you so unaware of the “fire” in a theatre concept? And nice try to misrepresent what I said. I did not say punch out anyone who disagrees with you. I said punch out those who show that they are Nazis. Why would you try to misrepresent me? As for the First Amendment, nope, golly gee it doesn’t have anything about punching someone out if you disagree with them. The constitution and its amendments point out that people have the right to equal rights and the laws of the nation support the idea that people may defend themselves, not be lied about, etc.

        Platitudes are slogans and are simplistic by nature. “love trumps hate”, “stronger together”, “when they go low, we go high”, “be better” are meaningless unless one knows context and definitions of what those words connote. I cannot know the moral integrity of others until I see what they do. What else do you think you can judge them by?

      • It’s impossible to prescribe what actions I’d have taken under the circumstances; but I seriously doubt punching the SA, Gestapo and SS officers would have had much impact, other than perhaps getting you killed first.

        As to changing the subject, neither your opening post, nor my initial comment mention any particular protest; so why restrict the discussion to only those two marches? Could it be because video evidence of anti-Trump protesters disrupting speeches, blocking access to the inauguration, vandalizing property, pepper-spraying innocent bystanders, beating people unconscious, setting a girl’s hair on fire and just being plain obnoxious disrupts the narrative that these are all just peaceful protests?

        OWS failed for lack of a unified purpose, leadership and a game plan. WCB protests fail for the reasons you’ve cited. And I predict the steady barrage of violent anti-Trump protests will eventually invoke a severe counter-reaction once the general population decides it’s finally had enough.

        You wrote:

        “There are some things that are always wrong and do not deserve to be protected or repeated. I have once supported the idea that I would support to the death that people have the right to say what they want. No longer. I am happy to punch Nazis. And I’ll be happy to die to make sure that they don’t do again what they did before. It’s not punch who you think is a Nazi, punch who *shows* you he, or she, is a Nazi.

        Okay. Please clarify: Do you or don’t you support the right of people to say whatever they want? Because at present, the wording of the paragraph sends a mixed message.

        Moreover, how does someone *show* you that they’re a Nazi? Is simple self-identification sufficient? Or must they meet additional requirements before the punching begins? And what happens if others were to decide that communists and atheists be included on your list because of the atrocities committed under Mao and Stalin? How will you counter that?

        The First Amendment is fairly unambiguous and contains no riders. I’ll grant that the Constitution by itself is powerless and derives its authority through the will of the people; so there’s nothing you can do if the people decide to abandon the compact en masse to do their own thing. But once you cross that line, all bets are off.

      • “It’s impossible to prescribe what actions I’d have taken under the circumstances; but I seriously doubt punching the SA, Gestapo and SS officers would have had much impact, other than perhaps getting you killed first.”

        That’s all I really needed to know, Ron. This and that you have no evidence for your claims. You can make all the claims you want but until you can support them, they are nothing more than that, unsupported claims.

        Again, you try to put words in my mouth, and I am surprise you would try the same tactics as so many deceitful theists. I meant what I said in the paragraph you quoted and I do not see that there is a “mixed message”. You may explain what you mean. One shows what one is by actions. Again, there is no such thing as absolute free speech.

  2. What does my response to the 1930s Germany question have to do with your desire to stifle the free speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment? Answer: Absolutely nothing. It’s a transparent attempt to avoid dealing with the issue.

    As for evidence, here is the video of protesters preventing Trump supporters from attending the inauguration:

    • all I needed to know, and I hope I never need to rely someone like you to help me.. Thanks for the videos, I was wrong. Again, you seem terribly ignorant about what free speech is and how it is not complete, not even in the US.

      • I wrote that it was impossible to prescribe what actions I’d have taken under the circumstances; not that I wouldn’t have taken any. There is a distinct difference.

        In BRANDENBURG v. OHIO, (1969), the per curiam opinion regarding the limitation on First Amendment rights was as follows:

        These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

        To which Justice Douglas added the following:

        The line between what is permissible and not subject to control and what may be made impermissible and subject to regulation is the line between ideas and overt acts.

        The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre.

        This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 536 -537 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). They are indeed inseparable and a prosecution can be launched for the overt [395 U.S. 444, 457] acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. Certainly there is no constitutional line between advocacy of abstract ideas as in Yates and advocacy of political action as in Scales. The quality of advocacy turns on the depth of the conviction; and government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief and conscience.

      • No. I wrote:

        “It’s impossible to prescribe what actions I’d have taken under the circumstances; but I seriously doubt punching the SA, Gestapo and SS officers would have had much impact, other than perhaps getting you killed first.”

        In other words: I don’t know what I would have done, but punching Nazis—an act that would result in immediate death and prevents you from taken any further actions—would have be the least effective method of trying to help others.

    • To note your video links:

      Setting fire to a Trump Supporter: http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/24/protester-sets-trump-supporters-hair-on-fire/ Yes, it happened with one person being the perperator and the group apologized for the action of an idiot as per the video.

      I do have a question about the video that has Kiara Robles being sprayed with something and for some reason. If someone is pepper sprayed, they don’t just turn away and start walking and respond to a question “Ma’am are you alright?” with nothing more than “Yes. Thank you for asking.” In any case no one should be sprayed with anything if you are just chatting with a reporter. I also am not sure why she is called a Trump supporter, when there is nothing in that video that indicates what exactly she is there for, other than she seems to support Bitcoin. I’ve seen the same video calling her a Milo Yiannopulos fan. All she says is “”I’m looking to make a statement by just being here and I think the protesters are doing the same. Props to the ones who are doing it non-violently, but I think that’s a very rare thing indeed.” In that it appears that most of the prostestors were doing things non-violently (a thousand as opposed to 150 idiots in black), it seems a little strange. As for Yiannopulos, he hides behind free speech laws to harm others and complains when he is targeted by other people’s free speech. He is a coward and a hypocrite and complains about the free speech of others when it doesn’t agree with him. I suppose at this point my question for is: are intentional lies told with the intention to harm protected by free speech? There are laws against such things. If I said that Ron was a pedophile, should I be allowed to do this with no repercussions? IF you think I shouldn’t be able to say such things, then you acknowledge that free speech isn’t as protected as you might imagine.

      People did block entry to the Trump inauguration. Entrance was limited because of security, and that was a problem, but as we know, people could enter and did, and much to Trump’s consternation, there weren’t that many. The streets weren’t filled with people who couldn’t get in. Doesn’t seem to be the violence you’ve claimed or what the fellow in the video claims that there were no similar protests at the Obama inaguaration. You also seem to have forgotten about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw6R-kIX4fA where some conservatives were just as idiotic some liberals. Also here: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/305749-republicans-employ-double-standard-to-discredit
      This article https://ajps.org/2015/04/23/the-influence-of-mass-protests-on-political-attitudes/ shows that the issue of political protest is a complicated one, having different effects depending on many variables.

      Ron, you have disparaged the efforts of people trying to do something claiming that a march is only to get one’s “ya-yas” off. You have also stated that you would not defend people being taken away by the government for just being of a certain ethnicity, religion, or disability because it might get you killed. This is why your answer to my question regarding what you would have done when the Nazis were shipping off people in 1930s Germany, do you take action “punch the nazi” or not, MATTERS. Can anyone trust you to help them? There are lots of people who would indeed do nothing and we see what happens. This is my point about actions. Do you take your own? Do you stand against those whose actions are harmful, those people who show you that they aren’t just doing free speech but will do worse? It starts somewhere and when do you stop it? We already see that allowing people to spread lies with the intention to harm leads to more such actions because it is accepted as okay to act out, and such things often, but not always, lead to acting on such ideas. This is why free speech is not absolute.

      You have claimed that marches are not good for anything and that violence can come from them. You are very correct that sometimes violence does come from a march and that violence was purposeless. To equate this with violence to save someone is ridiculous.

      You may be a pacifist, which is a possible position but one with a predictable end if there are no one to stand up for you and do the work of “rough men”. Or you may be akin to a fair number of agnostics, who want disparage anyone who takes a stand, smug in their supposed neutrality, which is little more than a decision to do nothing that inconveniences them. Actions may not end up with the effected wanted but that is not from lack of the attempt. And we do know that protests, which include marches, can make change, witness what happened in the 60s and 70s. The access to civil rights have changed because of these actions that got people to notice what was going on. The results aren’t immediate or dramatic, but again things do happen. I am still wondering what you expect to happen? And if it doesn’t happen quick enough for you, then if you think one should just give up

      • To my knowledge, Milo Yiannopulos has never caused harm to anyone attending his speaking engagements, or denied anyone the right to express their opinions, or advocated for either. It’s always his detractors who create disturbances, spew hatred and engage in the violent tactics they claim to oppose.

        “You have also stated that you would not defend people being taken away by the government for just being of a certain ethnicity, religion, or disability because it might get you killed. “

        Where did I state that? I wrote:

        “It’s impossible to prescribe what actions I’d have taken under the circumstances; but I seriously doubt punching the SA, Gestapo and SS officers would have had much impact, other than perhaps getting you killed first.”

        I don’t consider myself a pacifist; but I do subscribe to the non-aggression principle, which holds that it is morally wrong to initiate force against others except when it’s in self defense. Voicing genuine uncertainty as to what course of action I’d have taken is not the equivalent of stating I’d have taken no action at all.

        And again, what does Nazi Germany have to do with anything? Who are you marching against? Do you see anyone herding people into rail cars headed towards concentration camps? Or are you just haphazardly labeling anyone with whom you have political disagreements a Nazi?

        I’m more concerned about the anti-Trump rioters, because they’re the ones who have shown themselves to be the true terrorists.

      • Ron, there is little point to continuing this conversation because you seem to be intent on ignoring what I’m saying and attacking the strawmen you’ve invented.

        You have disparaged marches and claimed they are only for people to get their “ya-yas” off. Those marches do make change, and you have yet to explain what you expect from a march. You do seem to expect instance change or you just can’t be bothered. You have stated that you have no idea what you’d do if people were being taken away by the Nazis, and then you have offered that the reason you wouldn’t do anything to stop them is that you might be killed, something you claim is inevitable but is not. This is why it appears that you have already decided that you wouldn’t do anything, you have an excuse already invented. All I’ve seen is your complaining that someone would do something you don’t agree with. You might not want to be killed but if someone does want to do something, your own fear doesn’t mean that they can’t or shouldn’t.

        As for your question “what does Nazi Germany have to do with it”, well, Ron, we’re talking about punching Nazis. If you can’t figure out what mentioning Nazis has to do with the discussion, I am afraid I can’t think of a way to explain it to you.

        You have claimed that there are some ways that you would use other than punching a nazi to stop them from taking your friends and neighbors. What would those be, Mr. Chamberlain? How well did letting Hitler get his way work? How well did talk and scolding work? How well did saying that we shouldn’t do anything since it’s not our fight?

        You can sit on your sofa and do nothing. If you would be too afraid, it’s okay to admit that. I can’t be 100% sure that I wouldn’t run; I do have the intent and desire to take a stand. You trying to tell others that they should do nothing is pathetic. That you call every anti-Trump protestor a terrorist, that’s just sad.

        As for what that xenophobic hate-monger Yiannopulos says, harm often start with words. The speaker may not directly incite violence but that is the same excuse that people who want abortion doctors killed use. Oh, shucks they post their names, their addresses, etc, but since they don’t say “harm them” directly, they must be innocent. That’s just bullshit. It may be a slippery slope argument but we know that those slippery slopes can be fallen down. We already know that the hate and ignorance that these bigots preach is tracked closely by the violent actions taken against the people these bigot incite against.

        The first amendment says that the government can’t restrict speech, though it does frequently by laws of public safety, libel, slander, etc. A private citizen can take issue with someone’s speech as much as they want; they only have to bear the responsibility for doing so and that can indeed end up with them in jail. A private citizen can speak like Yiannopolus, and he gets to reap that responsibility too.

        You get to be the person “tsking” against violence because of the actions taken by people who will stand against those who incite violence and who perform it. The rough men get their hands dirty so you can pretend to be so morally superior. So be it. I’m happy to be one of those rough men. If you don’t want to do something, that is your choice.

      • I’m not surprised you want to end the conversation given the untenable position you’ve chosen to defend. I mean, advocating the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims is the literal definition of terrorism. In essence, you are the very Nazi you claim to oppose.

      • Alas, Ron, my position isn’t untenable at all and that is just one more of your false claims. I have indicated why I find it pointless to continue with you when you intentionally avoid answering my questions, you try to misrepresent what I have said and when you lie when you claim all anti-Trump people are terrorists. It is not unexpected at all that you now accuse me of being a terrorist when I have advocated standing up against those who would try to use fear and violence to cause people to change their actions. It’s just another intentional falsehood created when you misrepresent what I have said. I wonder, Ron, do you consider all of the soldiers in WWII to have been terrorists since they dared to stand up against the Nazis and the imperial Japanese? Were they the “very Nazis” they opposed? By your argument, they were and that is quite a curious argument to make.

        When asked what you would do to save your friends and neighbors from being taken away, you offer the excuse that standing up to them would get *you* killed. When I point out that this seems to indicate that you would do nothing you claim that is untrue. So, Ron, what would you do? What action, other than punching the Nazi would you take? What are these actions that you claim are better than standing up to the Nazis and punching them if need be? Now, I don’t expect you to answer, because you have had opportunities to do so in the past and have refused. I’m content to again point out your lack of response repeatedly.

Leave a Reply (depending on current posters, posts may be moderated, individually or en masse. It may take a day or two for a comment to be released so don't panic). Remember, I control the horizontal, I control the vertical.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s