Jump to content
Thailand Forum
rooster59

Trump condemns 'hate' after protest violence in Virginia

Recommended Posts

JCauto    448
1 minute ago, sirineou said:

Those of you who know how I feel about Trump and his kind. Also know how I feel about free speech.

You are for free speech only when you protect the free speech you disagree with. 

If those right wing idiots were allowed to protest, non of this would have happened, and they would had being exposed for the idiots they are.

But it takes two to tango ,

 don't forget not even for a moment that fascism can exist on the left as well as the right.  

Nobody prevented these idiots from protesting. I don't believe it's at all been determined who started the fighting. I don't understand why they didn't have more of a police presence to ensure that the violence didn't break out, but that's a different issue. 

The right to free speech does not include the right to be immune from the consequences of your free speech, one of which is to have people who disagree with you express that point of view, or even drown it out. I noted this previously in my point about the Westboro Baptist Church. They're free to obnoxiously offend people, just as others are free to reduce their effectiveness at doing so by having counter-protests. Is your point that they should have prevented people from counter-protesting? Wouldn't that infringe upon their rights?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onthesoi    958

A few feet away, a young white man with a buzzed haircut and sunglasses leaned towards them over a facing barrier. "You'll be on the first f*****g boat home," he screamed at the black woman, before turning to the white woman. "And as for you, you're going straight to hell," he said. Then he gave a Nazi salute.

 

A very confused and conflicted young man by the sounds....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sirineou    4,321
1 minute ago, JCauto said:

Nobody prevented these idiots from protesting. I don't believe it's at all been determined who started the fighting. I don't understand why they didn't have more of a police presence to ensure that the violence didn't break out, but that's a different issue. 

The right to free speech does not include the right to be immune from the consequences of your free speech, one of which is to have people who disagree with you express that point of view, or even drown it out. I noted this previously in my point about the Westboro Baptist Church. They're free to obnoxiously offend people, just as others are free to reduce their effectiveness at doing so by having counter-protests. Is your point that they should have prevented people from counter-protesting? Wouldn't that infringe upon their rights?

In a free society people are free to express their point of view  ( how ever wrong) within the limits of the law. If they exceed the legal limits it is the responsibility of the police to arrest them and the legal system to prosecute them . Anything else is vigilantism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JCauto    448
Just now, sirineou said:

In a free society people are free to express their point of view  ( how ever wrong) within the limits of the law. If they exceed the legal limits it is the responsibility of the police to arrest them and the legal system to prosecute them . Anything else is vigilantism.

Agreed. So I ask you once again, do you have any information to the effect that these people were prevented from protesting or that the counter-protesters were the ones to start the fighting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sirineou    4,321
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, JCauto said:

Agreed. So I ask you once again, do you have any information to the effect that these people were prevented from protesting or that the counter-protesters were the ones to start the fighting?

I don,t know who threw the first punch , I am not sure anyone knows.

But that's not the point

The counter protesters were not there to express their right of free speech they were there to   disrupt other people's right.

They could just as easily have had a counter protest later  after the right wingers, at a different location . or a different day , Their counter protest could had being peaceful and on point, showing the world how they were different.

Instead they took the bait and crawled in the mud with them .

Edited by sirineou
thypos LOL
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilostmypassword    6,754
46 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Actually I think Muslims in the US are cool with female drivers.  I understand a lot of US Muslim women drive.

Not only are American Muslims cool with female drivers. They are also a lot more favorably disposed to gay marriage than are christian evangelicals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thakkar    5,046
30 minutes ago, RobFord said:

 


I just shrugged off the occasional racist and bigoted comments that were let slip during 20 plus years of business trips to those red states.

After all, it was just some goof, and had nothing to do with the US government.

All that changed with the election of the orange ass hatchling.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

They were always there. They just never had a champion in the WH—till now.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JCauto    448
1 minute ago, sirineou said:

I don,t know who threw the first punch , I am not sure anyone knows.

But that's not the point

The counter protesters were not there express their right of free speech they were there to   disrupt other people's right.

They could just as easily have had a counter protest later  after the right wingers, at a different location . or a different day , Their counter protest could had being peaceful and on point, showing the world how they were different.

Instead they took the bate and crawled in the mud with them .

Of course they were! They were there to let the world know that these idiots were not representative of the views of the majority and that they supported the decision to remove the statue. And it's very effective, after all, there were far more of them and it was a far more diverse group of people. A protest after they left would have been less effective, and in fact would have provided the idiots with the kind of false equivalence that we're seeing more and more of. 

As with Scott Pruitt of the EPA forming "Red" and "Blue" teams to "debate" climate change, this is simply a tactic designed to provide an illusion that there is serious doubt about an issue (there is not, at least among those who are informed) and to give the whacko viewpoint some kind of standing beyond what it has earned. Climate change deniers were provided opportunity to review the data and findings and despite having enormous funding to do so failed to sway scientific consensus. Why should they now be given a national platform and megaphone to broadcast what they already have had discredited by the best informed and trained people on the issue? I use this as a parallel, obviously. Similarly, the view that White people are superior to others has been completely discredited. Why should they be allowed to protest without having more enlightened people demonstrate to show that they're both wrong and that their views are contrary to those of civil society? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zzaa09    332

America's true colours across the board.

 

Historically reflected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 22 September 2017 05:51
Sponsors
×