The Official Inauguration of Donald J. Trump News Thread: Reality sets in Edition - Polidicks

[QUOTE=OvB;51702420]And someone already made extremely distasteful jokes about Trump's ten year old son.[/QUOTE] I don't understand why people gotta do stuff like that. Make fun of Trump but leave his kid out of it. The little guy didn't have a choice in any of this.

[QUOTE=1239the;51702440]Decking a fascist is not fascism.[/QUOTE] No, but decking someone you don't agree with is. Both of them are pieces of shit.

[QUOTE=OvB;51702420]And someone already made extremely distasteful jokes about Trump's ten year old son.[/QUOTE] SNL Writer made this and deleted it, but it is popping up on some news sites. [img]http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/Screen%20Shot%202017-01-20%20at%205.22.55%20PM.png[/img] [url]http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/20/saturday-night-live-writer-smears-donald-trumps-10-year-old-son/[/url] [url]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/saturday-night-live-writer-deletes-tweet-about-trumps-youngest-son/article/2612520[/url]

[QUOTE=Tudd;51702508]SNL Writer made this and deleted it, but it is popping up on some news sites. [img]http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/Screen%20Shot%202017-01-20%20at%205.22.55%20PM.png[/img] [url]http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/20/saturday-night-live-writer-smears-donald-trumps-10-year-old-son/[/url] [url]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/saturday-night-live-writer-deletes-tweet-about-trumps-youngest-son/article/2612520[/url][/QUOTE] How to be blacklisted from working in the mainstream entertainment industry in 144 characters or less

[QUOTE=Stroheim;51702506]No, but decking someone you don't agree with is. Both of them are pieces of shit.[/QUOTE] Intolerance will not be tolerated. [QUOTE=Stroheim;51702521]How to be blacklisted from working in the mainstream entertainment industry in 144 characters or less[/QUOTE] She'll be fine.

[QUOTE=1239the;51702440]Decking a fascist is not fascism.[/QUOTE] Physically hurting people for their beliefs sets a precedent that it is okay to assault others for having opposing beliefs, even if they are completely abhorrent. Beliefs should be assaulted through the social and political channels. Shooting, maiming and otherwise hurting people is not the answer to destroying fascism. If you kill the fascists for being fascist, it sets a precedent that you can kill people for being any number of different things from one's self. At what point would the killing end then?

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51702522]Intolerance will not be tolerated. She'll be fine.[/QUOTE] She'll be fired from SNL in a night. To literally call the newly inaugurated president's child a future "homegrown school shooter" is suicide in the media. I mean even the democrats in Election season didn't stoop that low. Hell the guy who said all Trump voters should wear scarlet T's for the rest of their lives got flak for what he said, and that was during the actual election season.

[QUOTE=ZombieWaffle;51702526]Physically hurting people for their beliefs sets a precedent that it is okay to assault others for having opposing beliefs, even if they are completely abhorrent. Beliefs should be assaulted through the social and political channels. Shooting, maiming and otherwise hurting people is not the answer to destroying fascism. If you kill the fascists for being fascist, it sets a precedent that you can kill people for being any number of different things from one's self. At what point would the killing end then?[/QUOTE] The fuck do you think the end-game of neo-Nazis is? Politely asking non-white people, Jews, and LGBT people to just not exist anymore? White supremacists and Nazis are not just "a different opinion". "Black people and jews should die and immigrants should be forced out of the country" can't be debated away with facts and reason like arguing about whether healthcare should be free. They're people who are definitely not just "ignorant to the facts", but they've chosen to pursue the goal of violence and genocide, just because they don't literally have a gun to the head of a Jewish person right now doesn't mean they aren't working towards a state where doing such a thing is acceptable. You can't just argue these people out of their beliefs, they take advantage of media's addiction to sensationalism to spread their message as far as possible and try their best to make neo-Nazism seem acceptable, normalizing it. The only way to fight against people who will not ever come around to not being a Nazi is by denying them the ability to pursue their goals. Stop them from being able to speak to the media, disrupt their ability to spread their message. Punch them in the face while they're trying to trivialize their violent rhetoric to the press, if you have to. I'm not going to advocate that neo-Nazis should be rounded up and executed - I hold human life with more value than they do. But they should not be allowed to pursue their ideals of violence on a massive scale, and if it takes a guy decking them in the face to do it, then it's far less violent than the systematic displacement and genocide they advocate and try to make a reality.

[QUOTE=1239the;51702599]The fuck do you think the end-game of neo-Nazis is? Politely asking non-white people, Jews, and LGBT people to just not exist anymore? White supremacists and Nazis are not just "a different opinion". "Black people and jews should die and immigrants should be forced out of the country" can't be debated away with facts and reason like arguing about whether healthcare should be free. They're people who are definitely not just "ignorant to the facts", but they've chosen to pursue the goal of violence and genocide, just because they don't literally have a gun to the head of a Jewish person right now doesn't mean they aren't working towards a state where doing such a thing is acceptable. You can't just argue these people out of their beliefs, they take advantage of media's addiction to sensationalism to spread their message as far as possible and try their best to make neo-Nazism seem acceptable, normalizing it. The only way to fight against people who will not ever come around to not being a Nazi is by denying them the ability to pursue their goals. Stop them from being able to speak to the media, disrupt their ability to spread their message. Punch them in the face while they're trying to trivialize their violent rhetoric to the press, if you have to. I'm not going to advocate that neo-Nazis should be rounded up and executed - I hold human life with more value than they do. But they should not be allowed to pursue their ideals of violence on a massive scale, and if it takes a guy decking them in the face to do it, then it's far less violent than the systematic displacement and genocide they advocate and try to make a reality.[/QUOTE] So you are asking for literal escalation.

The blatant hypocrisies of Leftists, and in this case I do exclusively mean 'those to the left' are on full display in this thread to an extent and depth which surprises me. When '[B]you[/B]' strike a political opponent across the face, it's for freedom. When '[B]they[/B]' strike a political opponent across the face, it's a sign of systemic oppression. When '[B]you[/B]' make a joke at the expense of the family, appearance or disabilities of the enemy, it's in 'good humor.' When '[B]they[/B]' make a joke at the expense of the family, appearance or disabilities of the enemy, it's their revealing of their true, insidious nature. When '[B]you[/B]' pass ethically questionable bills through legislature, it's for the greater good, and would never be abused. When '[B]they[/B] pass ethically questionable bills through legislature, it's a powerplay, that [I]must[/I] be abused. I seriously cannot defend how someone makes light of, or defends, calling the child of the current POTUS "a future home-school shooter" while harping on the apparent "demagoguery" of Trump's tweeting. I cannot imagine the stomach churning, self-evident irony of, "it's not fascism to punch a fascist." I cannot express, with more revulsion and sufficient disapproval, the defense or justification of the use of violence in opposition, when up until not an [I]election[/I] ago those methods were being decried by the same people as "neo-fascism that must be condemned." There are many people I wish to name. People who will defend their posts as 'sarcasm,' or try to speak sideways until they find their feet on the moral highground again, or most heinously of all will try to justify their actions by the apparent and conceived shortcomings of their opponents. People who, after the defeat of Hillary Clinton, spent some considerable hours waxing philosophical about how shortsighted they were, about the need to redefine their understanding of the world. Then safely retreated in to the warm cloister of their own conceits. I cannot even find the ability to make an argument ad hitlerum or an argument ad stalinum, because this truly is the unique evil of liberal democracy. It is not death camps or gulags, it is the prison of the conceited mind, built to ensure oneself that one is more righteous and more apt than anyone who dissents against them. It is an evil I embrace willfully, knowing the reward is great, but to suggest it is anything less than evil is absolute bullshit.

[QUOTE=Stroheim;51702615]So you are asking for literal escalation.[/QUOTE] Way to miss the point of his argument and completely ignore the fact that [i]they[/i] are the ones who won't be swayed by facts or reason. It's pretty simple on their part: if they want to avoid "escalation", stop calling for entire swathes of people to be thrown out of the country or murdered because their skincolor is different or because they have a different religion or speak a different language. Because that shit is completely incompatible with what the United States is supposed to stand for, and it [i]will not[/i] be tolerated here. If you try and make it happen, there's the distinct possibility that you will be attacked and killed-- as a matter of self-preservation. Stop making up excuses for them and trying to relativize everything. Fighting Nazis and fascists does not make a person "just as bad" as them, we were never "just as bad" as them when we were [i]actually[/i] properly fighting them during the Second World War, they are not peaceful and innocent victims, and if you give them any sort of power or mainstream recognition they will use it to further their agenda at the expense of other people who just want to mind their own business and be left alone. Things are not going to "get out of control", and this is not a slippery slope; again, the majority of people who want something done about them just want to be left alone and be able to go about minding their own business without having to deal with their aggressive shit. The inability of people to see how this is not a matter of relativism is hilarious. It proves that they don't actually stand for anything or believe in taking a stance on anything. I'm amazed at how paralyzed by inaction and indifference some of you people are.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51702522]Intolerance will not be tolerated. She'll be fine.[/QUOTE] Intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance. Richard Spencer will delight in the opportunity to showcase how intolerant others are of his "lovely" ideas. With the right framing its all too easy to start an endless cycle of hate using the logic of "Intolerance will not be tolerated." Don't rely on tools that your political "enemies" can use against you. Nazis are bad and must be fought but trying to destroy an ideology of hate by pushing it underground and letting them seethe and moan isn't the solution either. Nazi ideology is a joke when shown in daylight.

[QUOTE=Govna;51702628]incompatible with what the United States is supposed to stand for, and it will not be tolerated here.[/QUOTE] Assaulting people for their beliefs is unconstitutional, illegal, and incompatible with what the United States is supposed to stand for. :goodjob:

[QUOTE=-nesto-;51702638]Assaulting people for their beliefs is unconstitutional, illegal, and incompatible with what the United States is supposed to stand for. :goodjob:[/QUOTE] Not when they're the ones causing trouble in the first place. That's called self-defense. These people [i]are not[/i] peaceful. Listen to their rhetoric and pay attention to the things they call to be done. They want power and control, and they want to use it to persecute people for no reason at all. [editline]21 January 2017[/editline] Fuck it, let them egg people on. Don't be surprised when they get attacked for it, that tends to happen when you threaten and harass people for no reason because you don't like that they're from a different race than you are. It happened to George Wallace, it happened to George Rockwell, it could very well happen with Richard Spencer. The beautiful thing about this problem is that it will solve itself. It always does. It'll either be tackled preemptively, or it will escalate to a point where there's finally a consensus that something should be done about it. That's how it has always worked throughout history.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51702627]When '[B]you[/B]' pass ethically questionable bills through legislature, it's for the greater good, and would never be abused. When '[B]they[/B] pass ethically questionable bills through legislature, it's a powerplay, that [I]must[/I] be abused.[/QUOTE] This is not exclusively a leftist thing and you know it.

[QUOTE=MasterKade;51702377]they moved them to @potus44[/QUOTE] [url]https://twitter.com/@potus40[/url] Heh.

[QUOTE=1239the;51702599]The fuck do you think the end-game of neo-Nazis is? Politely asking non-white people, Jews, and LGBT people to just not exist anymore? .. I'm not going to advocate that neo-Nazis should be rounded up and executed - I hold human life with more value than they do. But they should not be allowed to pursue their ideals of violence on a massive scale, and if it takes a guy decking them in the face to do it, then it's far less violent than the systematic displacement and genocide they advocate and try to make a reality.[/QUOTE] There is no need for violence at all. I am aware of the views neo-nazis hold and aware of how dangerous their beliefs and actions are and can be. But that doesn't mean we can go around hitting people for mere words, however instigating and controversial they may be. The most effective battleground isn't via individuals attacking eachother. That gets nobody nowhere fast. It's on a higher level- the social and political realms through which we can truly have influence over the darker side of extremism. I am not saying to convince them out of their beliefs, I am suggesting that in order to truly fight extremism, you must first convince society to actively ostracize them for those very beliefs. They are working against the good of everyone. Fascism should not be tolerated, and I never suggested that it should. But physical violence can only exacerbate the issue- if we make assaulting others for abhorrent viewpoints acceptable who's to stop individuals from taking the precedent of being able to assault them and twisting the idea towards their own means? Why wouldn't the fascist also be able to assault people?

[QUOTE=SenhorCreeper;51702671][url]https://twitter.com/@potus40[/url] Heh.[/QUOTE] A bunch of @potus variants are suspended. Kinda funny. [url]https://twitter.com/@potus37[/url] for example when [url]https://twitter.com/@potus38[/url] works. Also [url]https://twitter.com/@potus20[/url] is Obama too apparently?

[QUOTE=Govna;51702659]Not when they're the ones causing trouble in the first place. That's called self-defense. These people [i]are not[/i] peaceful. Listen to their rhetoric and pay attention to the things they call to be done. They want power and control, and they want to use it to persecute people for no reason at all. [editline]21 January 2017[/editline] Fuck it, let them egg people on. Don't be surprised when they get attacked for it, that tends to happen when you threaten and harass people for no reason because you don't like that they're from a different race than you are. It happened to George Wallace, it happened to George Rockwell, it could very well happen with Richard Spencer. The beautiful thing about this problem is that it will solve itself. It always does. It'll either be tackled preemptively, or it will escalate to a point where there's finally a consensus that something should be done about it. That's how it has always worked throughout history.[/QUOTE] The dude was giving an interview Idiot runs up and decks him SELF DEFENSE LOLOLOL Aren't you a bright one.

[QUOTE=Anderan;51702662]This is not exclusively a leftist thing and you know it.[/QUOTE] It's the "them vs. us" mentality. It's only bad when the other party does it. Both parties do it Why do you think the same people that were doing "NOT MY PRESIDENT!" and "IMPEACH IMPEACH" when Obama was elected are the same people going "lol liberal tears" and "He won get over it!" now.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;51702685]The dude was giving an interview Idiot runs up and decks him SELF DEFENSE LOLOLOL Aren't you a bright one.[/QUOTE] There's a bit more too it than that, bud. [quote]Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American white nationalist, known for promoting white supremacist views. He is president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think-tank, and Washington Summit Publishers, an independent publishing firm. Spencer has stated that he rejects the description of white supremacist, and describes himself as an identitarian. He advocates for a white homeland for a "dispossessed white race" and calls for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" to halt the "deconstruction" of European culture. Spencer and others have said that he created the term "alt-right", a term he considers a movement about white identity. Spencer has repeatedly quoted from Nazi propaganda and spoken critically of the Jewish people, although he has denied being a neo-Nazi. Spencer and his organization drew considerable media attention in the weeks following the 2016 presidential election, where, in response to his cry "Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!", a number of his supporters gave the Nazi salute similar to the Sieg Heil chant used at the Nazis' mass rallies. Spencer has defended their conduct, stating that the Nazi salute was given in a spirit of "irony and exuberance".[/quote] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Policy_Institute[/url] But it's cool guys, he just wants [i]peaceful ethnic cleansing[/i]... whatever that entails... so the United States can be a "white homeland". Totally not an asshole. He's an innocent victim who never did anything to anybody before and doesn't want to cause trouble. I can't tell if you're just trolling, or if you genuinely didn't know this about Spencer, his followers, and the NPI. I'm betting on the latter. It's best to educate yourself about topics before you start talking about them. ;)

[QUOTE=Govna;51702659]Not when they're the ones causing trouble in the first place. That's called self-defense. These people [i]are not[/i] peaceful. Listen to their rhetoric and pay attention to the things they call to be done. They want power and control, and they want to use it to persecute people for no reason at all. [editline]21 January 2017[/editline] Fuck it, let them egg people on. Don't be surprised when they get attacked for it, that tends to happen when you threaten and harass people for no reason because you don't like that they're from a different race than you are. It happened to George Wallace, it happened to George Rockwell, it could very well happen with Richard Spencer. The beautiful thing about this problem is that it will solve itself. It always does. It'll either be tackled preemptively, or it will escalate to a point where there's finally a consensus that something should be done about it. That's how it has always worked throughout history.[/QUOTE] look dude I hate nazis and fully support assaulting them but you can't pretend that you aren't going out and assaulting people

[QUOTE=Anderan;51702662]This is not exclusively a leftist thing and you know it.[/QUOTE] You're right. Neither is justifying violence against the opposition [I]vis[/I] a context of percieved oppression, nor are the twisting of statements by the opposition to match rhetorical assassination. Congratulations for perceiving context. Demerits for not grasping it. These are the [I]de jure[/I] features of the left at the moment. The left in a moment when their hand is not on the wheel. Very few Republicans have found issue with the expansive Drone and Intelligence upgrades that the Obama administration dropped in. The public [I]zeitgeist[/I] has no problems with the prolific character assassinations of either Trump, or his Republican predecessor, Dubya. In part because these character assassinations have been delivered with great grace and artistry by an entertainment media which, unsurprisingly, is predominantly left. Not that I believe there is a correlation, I think entertainment media can politically swing any which way, I'm just pointing out. Meanwhile, of course, any such comments or jabs from the right are immediately sanctioned as, "violating the American spirit, racist, or fascist." To me, that seems somewhat peculiar. If for some reason we lived in the 1920's, and also had the internet (telegraph message boards?), I would probably be painting the Christian Democrats of America in much the same light though they would arguably be to the far [I]right[/I], as fanatical moral crusaders with no sense of equity or any real 'democratic spirit.' Instead, I would say, they are thoroughly deluded moral puritans who have created a byzantine, self-justifying code of conduct that with one hand cheers for Prohibition while with the other silently condones the actions of the Klu Klux Klan. Unfortunately, since politics are quite contextual things with very little in the way of hard-boiled universal sums, I couldn't write a clever political treatise that would encapsulate the atomic property of 'leftism' for the duration of the known universe. If it makes you more comfortable, feel free to recast my entire post as a condemnation of human shortcomings in general.

[QUOTE=Govna;51702659]Not when they're the ones causing trouble in the first place. That's called self-defense.[/QUOTE] "Physical self-defense is the use of physical force to counter an immediate threat of violence" Dude all it took was a simple 5 second google search to counter your bullshit statement. Richard Spencer can be a white supremacist and all but that logic of assaulting someone physically where there was no implication of immediate threat of violence is not called "self-defense".

[QUOTE=Judas;51702709]look dude I hate nazis and fully support assaulting them but you can't pretend that you aren't going out and assaulting people[/QUOTE] You can't pretend it's the same as attacking somebody who hasn't done anything wrong and is just minding their own business, which is exactly what people are trying to do. It's not. It's a pretty straightforward matter: they're the ones who run out and cause trouble in the first place, people naturally react to this. That's why Spencer got punched. He deserved it. That's my point. It's not that it isn't assault, it's that it isn't unwarranted assault. My suggestion would be for him to stop advocating ethnic cleansing in the United States and preaching that certain people are inferior to others because of their skin color. Otherwise, yeah, there's a very real chance you'll get punched in the face or maybe even killed. That tends to happen when you provoke large groups of people over trivial things without any reason other than you're a bigoted asshole. If you start gaining more positive attention and your movement beings gaining traction, which is what's been happening with the Alt-Right movement and Spencer personally, then the odds that this will happen to you increase. Why? Because you start scaring and upsetting people. They have good reason to be: you're saying that huge numbers of innocent people should be ethnically cleansed because they're of a different race, that they're inferior because they're of a different race, you and your followers start shouting Nazi slogans unironically-- and everybody knows how well that went the last time... yet in spite of this, you're becoming more and more popular. What's that say about where the future is headed? People are going to react to it.

[QUOTE=Govna;51702707]It's best to educate yourself about topics before you start talking about them. ;)[/QUOTE] You better educate yourself on freedom of speech fam By your dumbfuck logic lets go into the mosques after people that tweet support for ISIS and bash em with bats What Spencer is doing is A-OK in this country What you are doing is illegal Until he tells his followers to go out and physically do shit, he's perfectly within his right to say whatever the fuck he wants. Even if he crosses the line you still have zero right to assault them. I'd love to see your defense in a court of law after you assault someone you don't agree with. B-b-but self defense and my feelings waaah. Grow up kid.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51702627]The blatant hypocrisies of Leftists, and in this case I do exclusively mean 'those to the left' are on full display in this thread to an extent and depth which surprises me.[/QUOTE] nice high horse. too bad that all of this is based off the words of only a few people on this thread. Guess what? all areas of the political spectrum have their fair share of idiots, the "left" included. However, I and many others will call them out for this. lets see [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51702627] When '[B]you[/B]' strike a political opponent across the face, it's for freedom. When '[B]they[/B]' strike a political opponent across the face, it's a sign of systemic oppression. [/QUOTE] physically attacking another person soley due to their political beliefs is wrong. wrong morally, and it doesnt make logical sense because you just give their cause extra ammunition. [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51702627] When '[B]you[/B]' make a joke at the expense of the family, appearance or disabilities of the enemy, it's in 'good humor.' When '[B]they[/B]' make a joke at the expense of the family, appearance or disabilities of the enemy, it's their revealing of their true, insidious nature. [/QUOTE] you accuse the "left" of making crude insults with all the trump has said on twitter? really? but even that aside, the unfortunate part of politics is that cruel words will be tossed around. Now while Obama handled accusations and insults pretty well, Trumps response is to rage on twitter like a child on a temper tantrum. That is what I, and many of us criticize Trump and certain aspects of the alt-right for; thin skin. Insults are never a good thing but handling them is a critical part of leadership. of course that "school shooter" tweet does not fall under "valid criticism" and was wrong. [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51702627] When '[B]you[/B]' pass ethically questionable bills through legislature, it's for the greater good, and would never be abused. When '[B]they[/B] pass ethically questionable bills through legislature, it's a powerplay, that [I]must[/I] be abused. [/QUOTE] I cannot exactly guess what you are refering through this. Personally, I disagree with obama's stances to privacy, and hillary did not do much to help in that regard. I, and many others shall criticize the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" mentality that quite a few democrats and republicans have been pushing. however, with what the GOP has been pushing, with reducing LGBT rights, wanting to end planned parent hood, and wanting to end net neutrality, of just a few examples, I personally find myself siding with the democrats with a majority of issues. However, to be honest, politics aside, your general attitude is not so far off from mine. We both are sickened by hypocrisy. We both are frustrated of double standards. We are both upset by the lack of logical discourse in our media and country. So I tell you that your anger is not so wrong as it is simply misplaced. its not so accurate to blame "liberals" for the problems that have been rising lately. this is the fault of anti-intellectualism.

[QUOTE=Govna;51702730]You can't pretend it's the same as attacking somebody who hasn't done anything wrong and is just minding their own business, which is exactly what people are trying to do. It's not. It's a pretty straightforward matter: they're the ones who run out and cause trouble in the first place, people naturally react to this. That's why Spencer got punched. He deserved it. That's my point. It's not that it isn't assault, it's that it isn't unwarranted assault. My suggestion would be for him to stop advocating ethnic cleansing in the United States and preaching that certain people are inferior to others because of their skin color. Otherwise, yeah, there's a very real chance you'll get punched in the face or maybe even killed. That tends to happen when you provoke large groups of people over trivial things without any reason other than you're a bigoted asshole. If you start gaining more positive attention and your movement beings gaining traction, which is what's been happening with the Alt-Right movement and Spencer personally, then the odds that this will happen to you increase. Why? Because you start scaring and upsetting people. They have good reason to be: you're saying that huge numbers of innocent people should be ethnically cleansed because they're of a different race, that they're inferior because they're of a different race, you and your followers start shouting Nazi slogans unironically-- and everybody knows how well that went the last time... yet in spite of this, you're becoming more and more popular. What's that say about where the future is headed? People are going to react to it.[/QUOTE] So when does it become morally acceptable to execute lena dunham then?

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51702711]You're right. Neither is justifying violence against the opposition [I]vis[/I] a context of percieved oppression, nor are the twisting of statements by the opposition to match rhetorical assassination. Congratulations for perceiving context. Demerits for not grasping it. These are the [I]de jure[/I] features of the left at the moment. The left in a moment when their hand is not on the wheel. Very few Republicans have found issue with the expansive Drone and Intelligence upgrades that the Obama administration dropped in. The public [I]zeitgeist[/I] has no problems with the prolific character assassinations of either Trump, or his Republican predecessor, Dubya. In part because these character assassinations have been delivered with great grace and artistry by an entertainment media which, unsurprisingly, is predominantly left. Not that I believe there is a correlation, I think entertainment media can politically swing any which way, I'm just pointing out. Meanwhile, of course, any such comments or jabs from the right are immediately sanctioned as, "violating the American spirit, racist, or fascist." To me, that seems somewhat peculiar. If for some reason we lived in the 1920's, and also had the internet (telegraph message boards?), I would probably be painting the Christian Democrats of America in much the same light though they would arguably be to the far [I]right[/I], as fanatical moral crusaders with no sense of equity or any real 'democratic spirit.' Instead, I would say, they are thoroughly deluded moral puritans who have created a byzantine, self-justifying code of conduct that with one hand cheers for Prohibition while with the other silently condones the actions of the Klu Klux Klan. Unfortunately, since politics are quite contextual things with very little in the way of hard-boiled universal sums, I couldn't write a clever political treatise that would encapsulate the atomic property of 'leftism' for the duration of the known universe. If it makes you more comfortable, feel free to recast my entire post as a condemnation of human shortcomings in general.[/QUOTE] "Character assassination?" The character was dead when they found it, the rest was just kicking the corpse for the people who keep insisting they saw it breathing.

[QUOTE=Govna;51702730]You can't pretend it's the same as attacking somebody who hasn't done anything wrong and is just minding their own business, which is exactly what people are trying to do. It's not. It's a pretty straightforward matter: they're the ones who run out and cause trouble in the first place, people naturally react to this. That's why Spencer got punched. He deserved it. That's my point. It's not that it isn't assault, it's that it isn't unwarranted assault. My suggestion would be for him to stop advocating ethnic cleansing in the United States and preaching that certain people are inferior to others because of their skin color. Otherwise, yeah, there's a very real chance you'll get punched in the face or maybe even killed. That tends to happen when you provoke large groups of people over trivial things without any reason other than you're a bigoted asshole. If you start gaining more positive attention and your movement beings gaining traction, which is what's been happening with the Alt-Right movement and Spencer personally, then the odds that this will happen to you increase. Why? Because you start scaring and upsetting people. They have good reason to be: you're saying that huge numbers of innocent people should be ethnically cleansed because they're of a different race, that they're inferior because they're of a different race, you and your followers start shouting Nazi slogans unironically-- and everybody knows how well that went the last time... yet in spite of this, you're becoming more and more popular. What's that say about where the future is headed? People are going to react to it.[/QUOTE] You are allowing your knee-jerk response to get in the way of your rational thinking capability. We have an entire constitutional amendment that protects a citizen's right to say what they want and if we do not protect that right to the fullest then it will be exploited by powerful interests and used against every single person in the country who dares speak their mind. Killing people is not the answer. Hurting people is not the answer. He has abhorrent views that are totally baseless, but we cannot give him a left hook for holding them, else we risk that same right that we, and they, use and take for granted every day.