LDS Church denounces racism

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, I'm not advocating "going after" anyone violently, or criminally.  

No, I'm not either. Physical violence is always a terrible idea. 

I'm seeing a lot of pseudo-tough guys on Facebook talk about how much they want to "punch" Nazis. I agree in theory-but it's always a good idea to remember that punching people, even scumbags, will only lead to trouble. Something tells me that Mr. Nazi won't just stand there and let you assault him, and you (generic) aren't as tough as you think you are. 

Edited August 17, 2017 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, I'm not advocating "going after" anyone violently, or criminally.   I'm absolutely advocating "going after" neo-Nazis and their BLM mirror-image folks in the arena of public debate, legislation, and any other legal arena.

Denver has a reasonable AM talk radio guy.  He did some research, and estimates there are around 3,000 people in America willing to stand up and identify themselves as a neo-nazi or white supremacist or KKK.  Those are 3,000 who need to be targeted for public shaming, they should lose their jobs, their neighbors should know who they are, people should engage them verbally and call them out for their evil beliefs whenver possible. And this guy should keep working his miracles with them. 

Disagree with the bolded above.

What you believe can have no bearing on whether you can competently accomplish a given task - for example... a white supremacist who is the best and cheapest Underwater Welder on the planet can't be fired by the government from a military contract.

Now, of course, private corporations have the right to hire or fire you for any reason.  James Damore is an example of that.  But, Damore has a legal recourse to sue for discrimination because he was fired for statements that Google leadership considered as hate speech which has no bearing on his job competency.  The CEO of Mozilla was also fired for the same reason.  I don't think he took Mozilla to court, but he could.  Diamond and Silk (although not "employees" of YouTube) got demonetized by YouTube for the same reason.  They are suing YouTube.

Edited August 17, 2017 by anatess2

[NeuroTypical]

I'm ordinarily a huge fan of 1st amendment protected activity.  I'm big on letting the protesters protest peacefully.  I can sit here on message boards and Facebook and say my piece in response.

When it comes to neo-nazis, I guess I'm saying it's serious enough that I have been seriously considering joining counter-protests, forming my own, etc.  Doing something more than just online quarterbacking.  Like standing up and going somewhere and being counted with the people who are opposing such things.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm ordinarily a huge fan of 1st amendment protected activity.  I'm big on letting the protesters protest peacefully.  I can sit here on message boards and Facebook and say my piece in response.

When it comes to neo-nazis, I guess I'm saying it's serious enough that I have been seriously considering joining counter-protests, forming my own, etc.  Doing something more than just online quarterbacking.  Like standing up and going somewhere and being counted with the people who are opposing such things.

Amen, me too. 

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm ordinarily a huge fan of 1st amendment protected activity.  I'm big on letting the protesters protest peacefully.  I can sit here on message boards and Facebook and say my piece in response.

When it comes to neo-nazis, I guess I'm saying it's serious enough that I have been seriously considering joining counter-protests, forming my own, etc.  Doing something more than just online quarterbacking.  Like standing up and going somewhere and being counted with the people who are opposing such things.

 

2 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Amen, me too. 

Just be careful, both of you. As someone who has engaged in social protest on several occasions these things can be very intense. 

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm ordinarily a huge fan of 1st amendment protected activity.  I'm big on letting the protesters protest peacefully.  I can sit here on message boards and Facebook and say my piece in response.

When it comes to neo-nazis, I guess I'm saying it's serious enough that I have been seriously considering joining counter-protests, forming my own, etc.  Doing something more than just online quarterbacking.  Like standing up and going somewhere and being counted with the people who are opposing such things.

The number of people who self-identify as neo-Nazis is so small that you are better off counter-protesting... i don't know... Public Education, Obamacare, etc.  Counter-protesting neo-Nazis is exactly what they (and the media) want - to make them seem a big contingent of American society.

And I don't get this "disavowing" requirement... do we really need to stand up and be counted with the people who are opposing... Murder?  Pedophilia?  Racism?... I mean, unless you start suspecting me of being sympathizers of murderers and pedophiles and racists or being one myself... I shouldn't have to publicly disavow those things for you to think I'm AGAINST those things, right?  Right?

Edited August 17, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 

Just be careful, both of you. As someone who has engaged in social protest on several occasions these things can be very intense. 

I would second this.

Have you read the news about what is happening to some of the anti-Trump inauguration day protesters?

About 200 of them were arrested.  They are being charged under various rioting conspiracy laws for the acts of their fellow protesters.  Some of them are apparently facing decades in jail just for showing up.

I don't have all the facts about why the protesters are being charged the way they are.  However, the take-home I got out of this is that protesting may not be a safe way of voicing discontent, and you can wind up in a lot of very serious trouble just by showing up at these things.

Edited August 17, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[NeuroTypical]

12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Disagree with the bolded above.

What you believe can have no bearing on whether you can competently accomplish a given task - for example... a white supremacist who is the best and cheapest Underwater Welder on the planet can't be fired by the government from a military contract.

Fair enough - we disagree.  But I'm not shedding a single tear for this guy.  
http://www.columbiadailyherald.com/news/20170816/restaurant-worker-loses-job-over-charlottesville-protest

Or this guy.
http://kron4.com/2017/08/16/video-san-francisco-neo-nazi-set-to-speak-at-white-supremacist-rally-in-charlottesville-loses-his-job-as-an-electrician/

Or this guy.
http://nypost.com/2017/08/13/white-nationalists-are-being-ousted-on-twitter-and-one-lost-his-job/

Again, I tried to make this clear, I'm supporting this limited stuff for only two cases - neo-Nazis and the violent paramilitary race-baiting elements of the BLM.  I hope they all get outed and lose their jobs.  

Now, whenever I hear about some idiot SJW activist professor getting fired, I don't necessarily support it, but I do tend to chuckle out loud.  I shed not a single tear for this lady's firing:

Edited August 17, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Fair enough - we disagree.  But I'm not shedding a single tear for this guy.  
http://www.columbiadailyherald.com/news/20170816/restaurant-worker-loses-job-over-charlottesville-protest

Or this guy.
http://kron4.com/2017/08/16/video-san-francisco-neo-nazi-set-to-speak-at-white-supremacist-rally-in-charlottesville-loses-his-job-as-an-electrician/

Or this guy.
http://nypost.com/2017/08/13/white-nationalists-are-being-ousted-on-twitter-and-one-lost-his-job/

Again, I tried to make this clear, I'm supporting this limited stuff for only two cases - neo-Nazis and the violent paramilitary race-baiting elements of the BLM.  I hope they all get outed and lose their jobs.  

Now, whenever I hear about some idiot SJW activist professor getting fired, I don't necessarily support it, but I do tend to chuckle out loud.  I shed not a single tear for this lady's firing:

Yeah, I vehemently disagree with it.

The problem here is... anybody can call anybody a neo-Nazi.  I mean, America just spent a few days calling Trump a neo-Nazi.

And doxing... that's a terrible thing to do in my opinion.  The threat of doxing, alone, is an easy recourse for blackmail.

Edited August 17, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I would second this.

Have you read the news about what is happening to some of the anti-Trump inauguration day protesters?

About 200 of them were arrested.  They are being charged under various rioting conspiracy laws for the acts of their fellow protesters.  Some of them are apparently facing decades in jail just for showing up.

I don't have all the facts about why the protesters are being charged the way they are.  However, the take-home I got out of this is that protesting may not be a safe way of voicing discontent, and you can wind up in a lot of very serious trouble just by showing up at these things.

 Exactly. 

Look, it's a noble thing that you want to do, and I support you both. But there are some unforeseen consequences that can come up sometimes. 

[Mike]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

The quotes (in context) are about government or any type of "force" that would threaten body or life.  I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I confess that my post is somewhat vague. Wondering if you will consider any limitations on free speech?

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Now, of course, private corporations have the right to hire or fire you for any reason.  James Damore is an example of that.  But, Damore has a legal recourse to sue for discrimination because he was fired for statements that Google leadership considered as hate speech which has no bearing on his job competency.  The CEO of Mozilla was also fired for the same reason.  I don't think he took Mozilla to court, but he could.  Diamond and Silk (although not "employees" of YouTube) got demonetized by YouTube for the same reason.  They are suing YouTube.

I think Google and the others could make an argument that they were trying to protect their brand from unseemly association. After all, one competent employee who is outed as a known neo-Nazi is potentially far more harmful to a company than one incompetent employee who doesn't hold taboo beliefs. 

[Mike]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

If you want a discussion, you discuss.  Not just tell me I am not paying attention to what you originally wrote and not explain WHY you think so.  I read what you originally wrote.  And everything you wrote after that.  And what I wrote was a response to it.  Now, if you want to discuss, then tell me why you think I misunderstood your post and stop being passive aggressive to the point of non-discussion.  If you don't want to discuss further then say so.  Then I can file that away to The End.

Then reconsider what you failed to discuss.: 

Quote

i'm talking about the way their opponents went to confront them at the rally.  I wish both sides could somehow segregate themselves (or even be compelled) from one another without giving audience at best, and without the violence which ultimately serves their goals at worst.

I'm currently of the opinion that had the neo-nazis' opponents chosen (or been compelled) to hold their own "rally" in a different location in order to freely express their counter-views, they would have robbed (in a good way) the new-nazis of the attention they actually sought. These kinds of attention-giving almost always result in unwanted consequences. 

[Mike]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, I'm not advocating "going after" anyone violently, or criminally.   I'm absolutely advocating "going after" neo-Nazis and their BLM mirror-image folks in the arena of public debate, legislation, and any other legal arena.

Denver has a reasonable AM talk radio guy.  He did some research, and estimates there are around 3,000 people in America willing to stand up and identify themselves as a neo-nazi or white supremacist or KKK.  Those are 3,000 who need to be targeted for public shaming, they should lose their jobs, their neighbors should know who they are, people should engage them verbally and call them out for their evil beliefs whenver possible. And this guy should keep working his miracles with them. 

Then I think you and I stand together. I would only add at the moment that ther are foolish ways to call them out, and there are effective ways to call them out--and to defeat the growth of their ideas.

Edited August 17, 2017 by Mike

[anatess2]

17 minutes ago, Godless said:

I think Google and the others could make an argument that they were trying to protect their brand from unseemly association. After all, one competent employee who is outed as a known neo-Nazi is potentially far more harmful to a company than one incompetent employee who doesn't hold taboo beliefs. 

The court argument on this would be a debate over the accusation of "unseemly association" versus "breach of contract".

Personally, I believe a private company like Google can do whatever it wants.  I don't hold the position that Google, and even YouTube, is a monopoly nor a utility.  I believe the free market (if it were really free - that's another can of worms because Google is a perfect example of corporatism) would simply deal with this.

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

The problem here is... anybody can call anybody a neo-Nazi.  I mean, America just spent a few days calling Trump a neo-Nazi.

Yeah, but those links include photos of neo-Nazis actually marching in the neo-Nazi protest.  The accusation isn't coming from people, the person's presence in the protest provides the accusation and the proof.

Quick fact I learned recently:   You know the meaning behind this uniform?  The tan slacks and white shirt with a collar?  Sometimes with a red hat?

This is the meaning behind the uniform.

Doesn't really say anything about Trump, just the neo-nazis.  It's one of the things that make them so creepy and scary.  They sigheil Trump, and figure he's their best hope of making the changes they hope to see.

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Mike said:

Then reconsider what you failed to discuss.: 

I'm currently of the opinion that had the neo-nazis' opponents chosen (or been compelled) to hold their own "rally" in a different location in order to freely express their counter-views, they would have robbed (in a good way) the new-nazis of the attention they actually sought. These kinds of attention-giving almost always result in unwanted consequences. 

And like I said, the unwanted consequences was EXACTLY the desired outcome in Charlottesville.  You seem to think that Charlottesville was an organic protest.  It was not.  Both sides of the violence were herded there.

 

[Mike]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And like I said, the unwanted consequences was EXACTLY the desired outcome in Charlottesville.  You seem to think that Charlottesville was an organic protest.  It was not.  Both sides of the violence were herded there.

What specific outcome are you referring to?

Edited August 17, 2017 by Mike

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, but those links include photos of neo-Nazis actually marching in the neo-Nazi protest.  The accusation isn't coming from people, the person's presence in the protest provides the accusation and the proof.

Quick fact I learned recently:   You know the meaning behind this uniform?  The tan slacks and white shirt with a collar?  Sometimes with a red hat?

This is the meaning behind the uniform.

Doesn't really say anything about Trump, just the neo-nazis.  It's one of the things that make them so creepy and scary.  They sigheil Trump, and figure he's their best hope of making the changes they hope to see.

I think you missed my point.

My point was not that neo-Nazis get the treatment they deserve.  My point was that it is just as easy to paint non-Neo-Nazis as neo-Nazis by simply saying they are.  You can disavow them for 20 years, it wouldn't matter.

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Mike said:

What specific outcome are you referring to?

The outcome you thought could be avoided by moving the counter protesters elsewhere.

[Mike]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The outcome you thought could be avoided by moving the counter protesters elsewhere.

So you're saying that the unwanted outcome of Heather Heyer's murder was EXACTLY desired (by someone)? 

[Guest Godless]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

They sigheil Trump, and figure he's their best hope of making the changes they hope to see.

And he lets it happen. If he spent half as much energy attacking neo-Nazis as he does attacking CNN and the New York Times (and Nordstrom, and Merck, and well, you see where I'm going with this), I think the David Dukes and Richard Spencers of the world would have a very different view of his relationship to their cause. His combination of silence and weak, scripted remarks make it hard not to perceive him as an ally to white supremacists. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

I confess that my post is somewhat vague. Wondering if you will consider any limitations on free speech?

What case law has said:

If the free speech is the impetus for creating a significant, clear and present danger to others, that speech is censured.

1. Conspiracy or abetting a crime.
2. Shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater.
3. Defamation of character.
4. Fraud.

(not an exhaustive list).

[Mike]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

What case law has said: If the free speech is the impetus for creating a significant, clear and present danger to others, that speech is censured.

1. Conspiracy or abetting a crime.

The only one of the four that seems even remotely applicable in the context of this thread is number one, which is problematic to determine before the fact. And of course all items in the list are based upon experiences that made the justifications obvious. Without resort to legal counsel since you and I are not experts does it seem to you that a clear and present danger to others exists when participants such as those in Charlottesville are involved?

[NeuroTypical]

27 minutes ago, Godless said:

And he lets it happen. ... His combination of silence and weak, scripted remarks make it hard not to perceive him as an ally to white supremacists. 

And I'm sure that you perceive Obama as an ally to islamic terrorism since not once in his 8 years, despite tens of thousands of murders worldwide, including no small number in our own country, he never denounced them once.  Right?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/14/statement-president-trump

Quote

The Department of Justice has opened a civil rights investigation into the deadly car attack that killed one innocent American and wounded 20 others.  To anyone who acted criminally in this weekend’s racist violence, you will be held fully accountable.  Justice will be delivered.
     
As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence.  It has no place in America.
 
And as I have said many times before:  No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God.  We must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence.  We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.
 
Racism is evil.  And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by NeuroTypical