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

and a bit more: https://thenib.com/alt-right-hook

Advertisements

35 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.

      • Where did I claim “all” anti-Trump people are terrorists? Where have I misrepresented you? And what questions have I failed to answer? The answer to your Nazi Germany question was: “I don’t know.” You might be unhappy with that answer, but it’s the only honest one I can proffer and re-hashing it won’t change my response.

      • “I’m more concerned about the anti-Trump rioters, because they’re the ones who have shown themselves to be the true terrorists.” I am mistaken. You called anti-trump rioters to be terrorists. And you have called me a terrorist for advocating to stand up to people like Nazis, and have also condemned anyone else who would do this. I have never advocated to attack anyone for doing nothing. I have pointed out that one should not attack anyone unless they show you what they are by what they do. This is where you have misrepresented me, Ron.

        In response to my question about what you would do, you said you didn’t know what you would do and also said that you would do nothing since it could get you killed. Again, what would you suggest to do otherwise except for nothing? I don’t have to rehash it, I am pointing out what you have said and that you have nothing to offer. Again, you have disparaged people who march, claiming it to be “levity”. You have claimed that marches do nothing, and that is not the case. How would you counter the claims of those you disagree with, Ron, other than call them terrorists as you have called me? What would you do?

      • Where did I call you a terrorist? Prior to this comment I’ve only used the word “terrorist” twice: once in the form of a sentence (“I’m more concerned about the anti-Trump rioters, because they’re the ones who have shown themselves to be the true terrorists.”) and once in the form of a question (“Where did I claim ‘all’ anti-Trump people are terrorists?”). I also wrote that “advocating the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims is the literal definition of terrorism.”—which describes those violent rioters perfectly.

        I have never advocated to attack anyone for doing nothing. I have pointed out that one should not attack anyone unless they show you what they are by what they do.

        Yes. But that claim is at odds with your other statement:

        “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.”

        I asked you to clarify this in an earlier comment, but you declined to do so.

        Nonetheless,

        Has Milo Yiannopulos shown himself to be a Nazi? Or his audience members? Or the merchants and vehicle owners suffering property damage during the riots? Or the man beaten unconscious at the airport? Or the girl wearing the “Make Bitcoin Great Again” cap? Or the girl whose hair was set on fire? Where is your outrage against those injustices?

        Again, you have disparaged people who march, claiming it to be “levity”.

        Where did I claim that? I asked (in jest): “Do protests actually achieve anything other than offer an opportunity for letting people get their ya-yas out?” in the comments of your post on the pro-life march. If you consider that question disparaging, then so be it.

        As to how I would counter the claims of those I disagree with, my response is thus: through honest and open dialogue, not by punching them in the face.

      • This is where you called me a terrorist: “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 terrorismhttp://www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorism. In essence, you are the very Nazi you claim to oppose.”

        I wonder what excuse you’ll offer for this. I’m going to guess that you’ll use a common theist tactic in claiming you didn’t say exactly “you are a terrorist”, and thus think this absolves you. I do wonder, do you think that the soldiers who have stopped genocide etc were just like those who they stopped? Your argument indicates this.

        I have clarified my statement, but nice of you to try to claim otherwise. For all you complain about not liking an answer, you intentionally ignore mine when you don’t like them. I will clarify again: I have never advocated to attack anyone for doing *nothing*. I have pointed out that one should not attack anyone unless they show you what they are by what they do. If they advocate harming others, claim that others are less than human, etc this is why you punch the Nazi. It is not based on what I think that someone may be, it is based on what the person says/does. For instance, I can assume someone is a true asshole. However, I do not advocate taking action against them if I only have my assumptions.

        It seems you forget where I said no one should ever be sprayed or attacked if they aren’t doing anything. Hmmm.

        You have disparaged people who march, claiming that it only for them to get their “ya yas” out”. You claimed this was offered in “levity”. And you have yet to offer any other suggestions on what should be done. Finally you have said you would engage these people in “open and honest dialog”. How, Ron? Going back to what you would do about Nazis taking people away just how well did open and honest dialog work there? How well did it work with getting invasions to stop? What happens when the attempts at open and honest dialog fail as they repeatedly do?

      • What’s there to excuse? I didn’t call you a terrorist. I merely pointed out that advocating violence and intimidation to achieve political aims is the very definition of terrorism. And if you choose to act upon those impulses, you end up becoming the very Nazi you claim to despise. And to date, the only practicing Nazis I can identity are the anti-Trump rioters and their Ninja-costumed accomplices. Why aren’t you writing posts denouncing their actions? Why isn’t Hillary Clinton denouncing the violence? Or Barack Obama? Or Bernie Sanders? Or the MSM?

      • Ron, I’m asking for a viable alternative to violence. Show me where honest and open dialog works with people like the Nazis. You did call me a terrorist and said that what I advocate makes me *literally* a Nazi. It does not surprise me at all that after you have made such accusations, you now claim you haven’t. I’m more than happy to post again exactly what you claimed I am. “merely pointed out” is just an attempt to try to remove your responsibility from what you have said. You didn’t say “end up becoming” you said “are”. Funny how a recording medium doesn’t work so well when you want to revise history.

        ““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 terrorismhttp://www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorism. In essence, you are the very Nazi you claim to oppose.”

        Hmm, all of the Nazis you can identify are those anarchists who caused damage at the riot in Berkley. Yiannopulos doesn’t register on your “Nazi” meter I guess.

        I have already denounced their actions, Ron. I said that no one should be sprayed , etc. You seem to have either not read my post or are intending on making a false claim, as you have before when you falsely have claimed I have not clarified my statements. At this point, I don’t particularly care which you’ve chosen to do. Clinton and Obama are private citizens, their every word isn’t covered anymore.

        AS for Sanders I have no idea if he said anything or not about the riot at Berkley. He has soundly critizized violence done by his supporters “”Violence is absolutely and totally unacceptable,” said Sanders, after a press conference on the jobs market with former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich. “If people are thinking about violence, please do not tell anybody you are a Bernie Sanders supporter, because those are not the supporters that I want.”(June 2016).

        As for the MSM which is such a cute term for mainstream media, aka the media, the news organizations, etc, and not the delusion of what conspiracy theorists everywhere (liberal and conservative) have as an “enemy”;, they have reported that the actions of the rioters were violent and destructive. Now do you want opinion pieces from these organizations or reporting? The NYT printed many opinion pieces about the stupid violence. What do you want, Ron? It seems that when asked that about this and other things, you can’t or won’t answer? What do you expect to happen in marches? What alternatives should be done, and can you show these alternatives to work? The original America First was mostly about anti-war; they protested, so was that okay? Civil rights people marched in the 60s and 70s, was that okay? Or should they have just sat down and shut up, hoping that someone might allow them equal rights someday when they felt like it?

        I’ll pose another question to see if you answer: if Clinton, Obama, Sanders, did decry it, what then? What would your reaction be? I’m going to guess you’ll claim you have no idea. We have pathetic claims that Obama was organizing the violence, thanks to Breitbart. Oh and they aren't showing up on your Nazi meter either, eh?

        I’ll restate this again, and am sure I'll get no answer.
        Finally you have said you would engage these people in “open and honest dialog”. How, Ron? Going back to what you would do about Nazis taking people away just how well did open and honest dialog work there? How well did it work with getting invasions to stop? What happens when the attempts at open and honest dialog fail as they repeatedly do?

      • I gave you a viable alternative to violence: honest and open dialog. That’s how civilized societies go about resolving their differences. Punching people you disagree with only strengthens their resolve and leads to further violence. Do I really need to explain this? Moreover, where are all these so-called “Nazis” you’re referring to? Who is openly promoting genocide? Or suggesting that we send people to concentration camps? I submit that branding others “Nazis” serves as a convenient excuse to shift the blame and justify beating up one’s political opponents.

        I don’t mind if you re-post my previous comment, because it provides immediate written confirmation that I never called you a terrorist.

        Why would Milo Yiannopulos register on my Nazi meter? Was he identified as one of the rioters smashing in windows, beating people, tagging buildings and setting fires? If not, what justification do you have in calling him a Nazi?

        Barack Obama was still the POTUS when the riots broke out right after the election in November, and Hillary Clinton has stayed in the public spotlight giving speeches and tweeting her support of the marches, but remains eerily silent on the rioting. I think public statements from either or both asking their supporters to refrain from engaging in violence might have stemmed some of the anger. Meanwhile, American’s trust in mass media sinks to new lows across all demographics, but especially amongst conservative/independent voters and those under the age of 50. In 2012, Business Insider reported that six media conglomerates now control 90% of what you read, watch and hear. And most of what they present is mindless dross, because there’s no market for in-depth news or serious investigative journalism. I cut my cable in 1997 and turned to foreign sources for information when I discovered just how much news was not being reported here in North America. But global media consolidations have now slowly degraded the quality of those foreign sources, as well. Thankfully, independent journalists have taken up the slack.

        Why are you so hung up on my opinion about the inefficacy of marches and protests? I don’t expect anything to come of them for reasons I’ve cited earlier: a lack of unified purpose, leadership and a game plan. But neither have I argued that it wasn’t ok to do so, or that people should just sit down and shut up. Evidently, you’re projecting your own thoughts into the mix, and I’d kindly ask you to stop doing that. Furthermore, I’ve already stated that honest and open dialogue is the most successful method of changing minds. And said dialogue begins with family, friends and colleagues. Simply labeling people you disagree with “Nazis” seems counterproductive—wouldn’t you agree? Naturally, self defense is entirely permissible if you encounter an actual Nazi perpetrating acts of violence against others. But thus far, you’ve failed to identify any.

      • and why didn’t honest and reasonable dialog stop the holocaust? How viable was that?

        I am “hung up” on your claims that marches dont’ work etc, because you are wrong, and all I see is someone who wants everyone to sit down and shut up and do nothing. You indicated that you thought they were only for gettings one’s ya-yas off. I wonder, did the marches in the 60s do nothing per you?

      • Are you seriously suggesting that marches and protests would have influenced Hitler to alter course? Or that our current political state in any way resembles that of Nazi Germany?

        As to the previous marches, which scenario seems more likely:

        – society changed because of the protests; or

        – society changed because older generations died out and the views of younger generations became more dominant?

      • Wow, nice way to ignore my posts so far and evidently have no idea what I’ve talked about, Ron. How did you get from me saying I’d punch a Nazi to thinking that I would find marching against them to work. I am not saying that marches would have stopped Hitler when he was in power and taking people away to the camps. You have claimed that your “honest and reasoned” discussion would be your viable solution to Nazis, not the violence I advocate, and how did that work out for Neville Chamberlain, et al?

        Now, would marches against Hitler et all worked in the 20s and 30s before he had all the power in Germany? Perhaps. Or perhaps not; we can’ t be sure. From what I know of that era, the Germans were pretty desperate and many of them would follow any promise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance_to_Nazism . If his anti-Semitism was pointed out, his outright lies shown, and it be shown that many many people were willing to stand up for their beliefs by demonstrating them, etc, one could posit that people wouldn’t have so blindly accepted him, and have found themselves obeying people who committed genocide.

        I have pointed out that marches can succeed but may not, and it can take time for them to succeed in conjunction with other actions. You have said that people march to get their “ya-yas” off. Now, how does that work with the march on Selma? The march on Washington DC in 1963? Were they just getting their “ya-yas” off? And why were there people of all ages at these marches? This seems to show that your claim of a generation dying off doesn’ t work very well since all people of an age don’t believe the same things. You might want to read about protests: http://time.com/3741458/influential-protests/ There is also the fact that most, if not all, protests are backed with action or the promise of same, be it civil disobedience or violence. To say you can just talk to someone and that’s it is naïve in the face of the past.

        And wow, nice set of claims.

        “- society changed because of the protests; or
        – society changed because older generations died out and the views of younger generations became more dominant?”

        So, we have you being unable to support your claims that marches do nothing, and for only “ya-yas” and then you try to make another baseless claim that society magically changes when people evidently all die off who disagree within, what, a 10 year period. This begs the question: why are those ideas still around if they were only held by younger generations and everyone who held them died off?
        You certainly seem to be terrified of the idea that people and their protests can do something. I don’t understand that.

      • Alright, please connect the dots for me.

        The Selma protests had a unified purpose (to end voter discrimination) that evoked national sympathy against the suppression of rights. How does that compare to the dismayed anti-Trump rioters protesting the 2016 election results? Or the rioters hell-bent on suppressing the 1st Amendment rights of invited speakers like Milo Yiannopulos?

      • Not surprising that after you have repeatedly claimed that marches are just for people to get their ya yas, and were shown wrong, you now try to pretend that you didn’t say what you said. Funny how that works, Ron. We have marches having a unified purpose, speaking out against two men who advocate ignorance and bigotry, and it appears that you simply don’t want to admit that purposes that you don’t agree with are just as valid as those you do.

        Again, you seem to have no idea what the first amendment is. It’s about the gov’t not interfering with free speech. It has nothing to do with people protesting other people.

        Still waiting for you to show how “honest and reasonable discussion” worked out in history and for you to support your claims from last post about how a generation dying off is supposedly the “real” reason things change. Indeed, it seems that your own words about the march on Selma bely that nonsense. It does get very boring pointing out your baseless claims and then watching you run away from the facts to make more false claims.

      • Where have I repeatedly claimed that marches are just for people to get their ya yas? I wrote that only once in another thread. Your the one who is guilty of repeating it over and over. And where did I state that all marches were ineffective? Answer: nowhere. You’re arguing against your own strawmen.

        The Selma to Montgomery is an example of a successful march because it had a real purpose: to end the unlawful suppression of voter rights. What is the purpose of the vandalism and riots following the election? Or the suppression of speaking rights of invited guest speakers on university campuses?

        State-supported public institutions like the University of Berkeley are beholden to uphold the 1st Amendment rights of their students, faculty and guest speakers. In fact, UC Berkeley—heralded as the birthplace of the country’s free speech movement—even has a policy dedicating its commitment to “assuring that all persons may exercise the constitutionally protected rights of free expression, speech, assembly, and worship.” In denying Milo Yiannopulos the right to give his speech, unruly protesters trampled upon the very rights they demand for themselves.

        As to shirking questions, I’ve addressed all of yours. When will you address mine? Here they are again for your convenience:

        What does Nazi Germany have to do with anything?

        Where are all these so-called “Nazis” you’re referring to? Who is openly promoting genocide? Or suggesting that we send people to concentration camps?

        Why would Milo Yiannopulos register on my Nazi meter? Was he identified as one of the rioters smashing in windows, beating people, tagging buildings and setting fires? If not, what justification do you have in calling him a Nazi?

      • Ron: You said that marches (no caveat) were for people to get their ya-yas. Shall I quote you? ““Do protests actually achieve anything other than offer an opportunity for letting people get their ya-yas out?”” You have also claimed that marches don’t work, so I have no problem in saying you repeatedly claimed that marches were only for people getting their ya-yas since you falsely claim that there is no other reason for them. I was quite happy to repeat your false claim and point out that marches do work.
        And now you want to pile on claiming that all along you really meant that marches do work. Again, you want to claim that the Selma march had a purpose, but that marches you don’t agree with didn’t have a purpose and that is simply again untrue. Their purpose is to stand against the hate, ignorance, bigotry, phobia, of the Trump administration and that Yannopoulus tries to spread. Too bad if you don’t like that.

        Again, you try to conflate a march with the indeed pointless vandalism and riots. Nice try, Ron, but it doesn’t work. As in most, if not all, anti-Milo and anti-Trump protests, the vast majority did nothing violent. You have tried to claim that all protestors do the same things and these things are violent. Now, you may rescind your claims and indicate that you meant to put caveats on them but at this time you haven’t done so and there is no reason to believe that you intended to in the first place.

        The first amendment says that the government cannot abrogate free speech, however it does quite frequently based on harm. I agree that there should not be violence to prevent someone but if the students choose to protest they can; again, the vast majority do not do violence. As you apparently acknowledge, the college did give MY his ability to speak (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/opinion/violence-at-berkeley-and-freedom-of-speech.html) . The protestors again are not covered by the First Amendment and again, it was a small group that was violent, not everyone as you have claimed.

        As for Yiannopoulos, how is he a Nazi? (I’ll make sure you know that I’m answering your question by repeating it “Why would Milo Yiannopulos register on my Nazi meter? Was he identified as one of the rioters smashing in windows, beating people, tagging buildings and setting fires? If not, what justification do you have in calling him a Nazi?”)

        Let’s look at Milo’s claims. I am wondering how much you know about Nazism and Nazis considering your question. He attacks homosexuality, whilst claiming to be one, but then has a fit when women dare to ignore him and not act subservient “Most of the reason I went gay is so I didn’t have to deal with nutty broads”. He’s quite a “kirke, kuchen, kinder” fellow. He attacks the transgendered, claiming that they are “diseased” and claims he is protecting others against the horrible transgendered people, making false claims about how many crimes they commit. He has written admiring tracts about anti-semitic and racist authors, which is quite amusing since they don’t appreciate him doing so. He is sure that the Jews run the banks, the media, something quite familiar to anyone who reads the crap on sites like Stormfront (http://www.dailywire.com/news/4396/responding-alt-right-are-they-bigots-or-just-ben-shapiro) . It’s also curious that he chose to wear an Iron Cross, a known white supremacist symbol. Did he wear it to get a reaction, because he’s a brat? Maybe, but he made the choice, and now he gets to take responsibility for it. He is quite a sad little boy who must have an “enemy” and he shares quite a bit of similarity to the Nazi ideal. I would ask, for the record, do you support his stance and/or Trump’s on bigotry, misogyny, homosexuality, etc? It has been claimed that Milos is just a professional troll and doesn’t mean a thing he says and he’s being “ironic” and that others write under his byline. There’s nothing to indicate that this is true, but it’s a common way to avoid responsibility for a bully and coward.

        Wow, nice attempt to lie and claim I haven’t answered your questions. .

        “What does Nazi Germany have to do with anything?”

        Amazing, how I answered it right here: “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.” https://clubschadenfreude.com/2017/02/02/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-not-today/#comment-10725 And I have no idea how to explain how something one is talking about has to do what something one is talking about. If we were talking about oranges, and you asked me “what do oranges have to do with anything?” I would think you were either rather slow or looking for an excuse as I have done when you asked about what the Nazi Germany has to do with talking about Nazis.

        “Where are all these so-called “Nazis” you’re referring to? Who is openly promoting genocide? Or suggesting that we send people to concentration camps?”

        Again, amazing. I’ll answer again. You again seem to be trying to pretend that Nazis didn’t start by claiming other humans were at fault for their country’s problem, quite similar to Milo and Trump. It doesn’t start with genocide and concentration camps, but it can surely end with them. We can compare the ginning up fear against the “other” in the Nazis in the 20s and 30s with what is being said now. I see you moving the goal posts again, with trying the “openly promoting genocide” nonsense. Nice try. Doesn’t work.

        “Why would Milo Yiannopulos register on my Nazi meter? Was he identified as one of the rioters smashing in windows, beating people, tagging buildings and setting fires? If not, what justification do you have in calling him a Nazi?”

        See above.

        I’d ask you my questions again but you have refused to answer and have been asked multiple times to reply. You have called me a Nazi and haven’t answered that mess. No more chance now. I’ll let the questions stand and your silence. Bye, Ron. You can post on my blog again but I’m done with your nonsense on this subject now. You are not participating in the discussion. Your comments are moderated.

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