Christchurch shooter's views were celebrated online

Jaw drop.

 

No one with a brain thinks trump was referring to skinheads. So stop it. He was talking about the people who were demonstrating, non skin heads, non KKK who organized that demonstration. Others showed up, the people you mentioned, along with violent leftist groups.

There are actually people, who do not want statues taken down, and they are not KKK nor skinheads. Remove your filter that insures hypocrisy. If you desire actual relevance. Or continue to be irrelevant.

 

This claim leftist make that Trump called supremisists good people is kind of a litmus test for me. Those making the claim are either ignorant victims of brainwashing or disingenuous ideologues who subscribe wholeheartedly to the “end justifies the means” credo. This claim is so patently demonstrably false there is no excuse for it’s continued use outside these two possible scenarios.

 

Is that because you are afraid that you might discover that they share your own beliefs and opinions?

 

And yet you have consistently FAILED to ever DEMONSTRATE that it is FALSE!

Why is that?

 

“For once, the person that will be called a fascist, is an actual fascist, I am sure the journalists will love that,” he wrote. “I mostly agree with Sir Oswald Mosley’s views and consider myself an eco-fascist. The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People’s Republic of China.”

https://observer.news/featured/the-manifesto-of-brenton-tarrant-a-right-wing-terrorist-on-a-crusade/

The mass shooter identifies with the Communist/Socialist state that is putting millions of Muslims into reeducation camps.

 

That's a pretty good litmus test, however in that case the lie has so outstripped the truth that even a person trying to inform themselves would have to hunt pretty deeply to find out just what Trump said, and who he was talking about.

My litmus tell is the "Russia if you're listening..." line of Trump's. If you heard him say that on TV and that convinced you that he was an agent of Russia communicating to his Russian handlers than you're too dumb to post on this forum, or any forum.

However there are plenty of people who do post on this forum who believe exactly that.

 

The drugs and violence in the USA is totally acceptable. We accept thug drugs, thug money, thug sex trafficking slavery every day and scarcely lift a finger in opposition to it as it grows like carcinoma.

 

It sounds like you listen to and believe what crazy people say.

 

I don't want strife, I want Nazis and Nazism to be seen as a necessary exception to our general policy of allowing free speech and I want to see that done to avoid strife, which Nazis incite.

Nazis aren't like muslims, because not all muslims say we should kill all non-muslims, and even if they do they want to kill people because of what they DO (being infidels). Nazis want to kill people because of who they ARE and their ideology is first and foremost to kill anyone not of the Master Race.

I realize this goes against the Dershowitz Doctrine and maybe the Doctrine is right and I'm wrong, but I think certain things are just too dangerous to our Freedoms to be allowed and allowing Naziism is one of them.

 

Ultimately there has to be free speech or there will be chains.

It's either the old attribution to Voltaire:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Or chains.

 

Maybe some chains are needed. Chains carefully applied to just certain very specific things, maybe that's why we have society

Hitler hadn't yet been born in Voltaire's time. No one had yet come up with an intellectual cloak to the old idea that if you just kill everyone not of your immediate ethnicity all the world's problems, even your individual ones, will be solved.

 

You must be under the impression that Nazism is actually a threat. That there’s Nuremberg style rallies every weekend, Huge parades, of folks goose stepping down main avenues. I bet a fraction of a fraction in this country actually identify as Nazis.
It’s simply not true

 

Guess who else thought speech needed to be controlled?
That would be the actual Nazis.

 

So, do you deny that the holy book of Islam, the Quran, preaches hate and violence towards non-Muslims?
Can we agree on that?

 

Having ISIS idealogies is.

To my knowledge, these neo nazi rallies aren't inciting anything but hate. If they were inciting violence as it's legally defined, there would be a lot more violent acts.

 

Ironic projection coming from a BLOTUS supporter!

 

Ironic comment from someone who listens to crazy people.

 

The holy bible preaches hate and violence towards non-Christians.

White nationalists preach hate and violence towards non-whites.

Can we agree on that?

 

Insipid response duly noted and ignored for obvious reasons.

 

You are the one who claimed we ought to be listening to crazy people.

 

True enough and good point.

But maybe they were right in this regard. Politics/Ideologies are like 80% right and sensible no matter how insane the other 20% is.

I dunno, I'm very uncomfortable with limiting free speech in any way but Naziism is very seductive and very dangerous and aren't some things like Child Porn? You have to abuse a child to make child porn and so that's why it's illegal, and with Naziism you have to incite lethal violence against some (most) people as an inherent part.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to read Mein Kampf but if you're going to go outside a synagogue with signs like "Hitler Did Nothing Wrong" etc, then you should be taken away and incarcerated IMO.

 

It’s been proved false since the day it took place. Anyone with a modicum of common sense knows there were good people on both sides. People who want to preserve history are good people. That is a fact.

 

In 1918 Hitler was an itinerant postcard painter, a street person. 15 years later he ran the country. Naziism has never been so strong in the world since the end of WWII as it is now.

Many people right on this board say they are Nazis

 

I do deny that the Quran preaches hate and violence to non-Christians. You are quoting out of context. Muhammad said it was muslim duty to defend themselves if attacked by anyone and then discussed practical ways to do that. At the time of the writing he was, in fact, actually under attack so this seems a justified thing to any reasonable person.

Islam is famous for enjoining that neither Christians nor Jews, the "people of the Book" are to be harmed. ISIS is seriously heretical to mainstream historical Islam in persecuting them