Free speech has become white supremacy

[aCultureWarrior]

Liberals will stand against neo-nazis but they won't stand WITH conservatives FOR free speech.

Don't let white supremacists own free speech. K:

You should have saw this coming way back when liberal anti-free speechers were tearing down Berkley over a conservative speaker giving a lecture there,

That's right, you republicrats are calling Milo Yiannopoulos "conservative". Just what exactly is this pervert conserving?

http://rackjite.com/wp-content/uploads/429kkmn.jpg

 

[aCultureWarrior]

That was an interesting link, although I'm bemused by that fact that it leads to an anarchist website.

The anarchist movement is really run by communists. It's interesting how communists and fascists seem to think that they're enemies.

 

[kmoney]

I think it's more that racists and rabble rousing groups have clothed themselves in its appearance of free speech defenders that's the problem, kmo. Show me one of those groups promoting the other side and I'll accept and commend the advocacy.

Refusing to buy into that or support what those groups are actually doing with it shouldn't be seen as an unwillingness by liberals to support speech and, again, there's no real incentive for liberals to stand with conservatives who use the opportunity to demonize them, as Gibson has done.

The 'free speech' event may have been code for 'let's bash liberals' and that would be unfortunate. Many people don't seem to care about supporting the right to speech they don't support, which is also unfortunate. I appreciate that the ACLU does take both sides.

I already said that I don't expect liberals to march with Gibson and that what I'd like to see is nothing more than let the event go on.

Now that wasn't up to your fairness standard, kmo. What preceded the shirt remark? And what does that shirt say about the sort of rhetoric he endorses? I don't for a minute think he just grabbed it off the shelf at Walmart. Not so trivial when you really consider it.

The shirt wasn't relevant to the opposition to the event. That's why I'm not concerned about it in this context.

I think demonizing a group of people is close enough to hatred. Isn't that what Trump did to Mexicans, by way of? I mean, he didn't stand there and say, "I hate Mexicans. Don't all you guys hate them too? Huge problem with the evil Mexicans. H U G E problem." Of course not. He demonized them and sprinkled in "a few good ones." But when you demonize the left who are you largely speaking about? I know it's not white middle class America. I don't have any reason to think he's racist and don't, but I do have reason to believe he sews aggressive division and a level of contempt that is precisely the problem I have with this president. And it serves those who do have racist mindsets, which is why you've seen people like that at his rallies, his feeling aside.

Again, you're bringing up stuff that may be reason to avoid this group in general but was not relevant to the opposition to this particular event. I imagine the response would have been different if Charlottesville hadn't happened.

Sure. And he's even dropped the F bomb publicly, at his rally, aimed at those groups. And the president has had a few strong words about racists recently, right?

Your point?

Sure. I don't support shutting down speech at all. But tell me, if the Klan was going to hold a rally in your town, would you show up to let the world know where you stand, peacefully? That's speech to celebrate too.

:cheers:

Maybe.

 

[kmoney]

That's right, you republicrats are calling Milo Yiannopoulos "conservative". Just what exactly is this pervert conserving?

http://rackjite.com/wp-content/uploads/429kkmn.jpg

Is conservative speech the only kind worth defending?

 

[Town Heretic]

Your point?

That these aren't free speech rallies, they're "my speech" rallies pretending to be more and that the sort of speech they're proffering goes directly to that as it does to why the left isn't supportive and shouldn't reasonably be expected to be supportive and has reason to oppose using that same right.

Essentially I think you went a bridge too far with:

Liberals will stand against neo-nazis but they won't stand WITH conservatives FOR free speech. Don't let white supremacists own free speech.

And I aimed at demonstrating why there's no one to stand up on "free speech" because that's not what they're doing.

 

[Interplanner]

Yesterday Rusha said that the bumper sticker 'political dissent is not racism' was of no use, because no one is saying that it is. The opposition to the Patriot Prayer rally said it was.

 

[Town Heretic]

Yesterday Rusha said that the bumper sticker 'political dissent is not racism' was of no use, because no one is saying that it is.

Sounds right.

The opposition to the Patriot Prayer rally said it was.

Where and in what context? I think you may be reading in.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Is conservative speech the only kind worth defending?

If you want a country that embraces Judeo-Christian values, yes.

 

[annabenedetti]

Is conservative speech the only kind worth defending?

If you want a country that embraces Judeo-Christian values, yes.

And there you have it.

You wouldn't want that pesky constitution and bill of rights getting in the way of your theocracy...

 

[Interplanner]

Sounds right.


Where and in what context? I think you may be reading in.

Nope, read any report out there on why BAMN forced down the Patriot Rally, with violent threats. "Racist, supremacist speech is not a value we want in our community." So they call it racism, even if not the case, because no other handle stirs enough #s of people to do anything.

 

[Rusha]

And there you have it.

You wouldn't want that pesky constitution and bill of rights getting in the way of your theocracy...

Indeed ... there is no good reason to stand up for the rights of those who wish to take away the rights of others.

 

[Interplanner]

My problem with a prayer rally is that it does to prayer what the women who married a building in Seattle did to marriage: turns it into a tool to have power to do something outside of the usual process.

As I recall Jesus encouraged prayer in closets where no one can show that they are praying, and no one else would know. If you actually believe in God working through prayer, you would not form a 'rally'.

 

[Town Heretic]

Nope, read any report out there on why BAMN forced down the Patriot Rally, with violent threats. "Racist, supremacist speech is not a value we want in our community." So they call it racism, even if not the case, because no other handle stirs enough #s of people to do anything.

I'm not for the suppression of speech, within reason (you don't have a right to stand in front of my house yelling profanity) but maybe the history of the sponsoring group gave them reason to object. Who was on the bill again? And what is the actual history with the sponsoring group and the rallies they bring to the public square? The answer is likely in there, somewhere.

My problem with a prayer rally is that it does to prayer what the women who married a building in Seattle did to marriage: turns it into a tool to have power to do something outside of the usual process.

I think its telling that instead of a prayer rally (which I think would be a great idea) they felt obliged to marry it to a political context, which automatically made it something else.

As I recall Jesus encouraged prayer in closets where no one can show that they are praying, and no one else would know.

He also prayed publicly too. I suspect it's more about the way we tend to pray when no one else is looking and the way so many who pray in the square manage it.

If you actually believe in God working through prayer, you would not form a 'rally'.

Don't agree with you there, but I'd say if you think it's important to gather in prayer do that and leave the political philosophy rally for another day. Don't willfully divide the Body by interjecting a concern separate from what unites it.

 

[Interplanner]

I'm not for the suppression of speech, within reason (you don't have a right to stand in front of my house yelling profanity) but maybe the history of the sponsoring group gave them reason to object. Who was on the bill again? And what is the actual history with the sponsoring group and the rallies they bring to the public square? The answer is likely in there, somewhere.


I think its telling that instead of a prayer rally (which I think would be a great idea) they felt obliged to marry it to a political context, which automatically made it something else.


He also prayed publicly too. I suspect it's more about the way we tend to pray when no one else is looking and the way so many who pray in the square manage it.


Don't agree with you there, but I'd say if you think it's important to gather in prayer do that and leave the political philosophy rally for another day. Don't willfully divide the Body by interjecting a concern separate from what unites it.

I didn't know praying for patriots divided it. a country will not last without patriots, and the Left does not want this country to exist. So it Attacks By Any Means Necessary. The Left would be perfectly happy with a dictator, anarchy or a caliphate; anything but a constitution that acknowledges the existence and place of God.

 

[Town Heretic]

I didn't know praying for patriots divided it.

You can see how it could, given what the political divide is like in this country. Praying without it shouldn't. I say go with that and leave politics to politics.

a country will not last without patriots,

I agree, but most people are the heroes of their narrative and the next fellow's definition on what constitutes patriot can get iffy. Essentially, the more definition laden differences you interject in a thing the greater the likelihood of conflict and discord.

and the Left does not want this country to exist.

See, that illustrates my point. Most liberals, with or without your acceptance, love their country. When we get into this layer we automatically invite counter productive finger pointing. So your response alone makes my point about keeping prayer separate and unifying.

So it Attacks By Any Means Necessary. The Left would be perfectly happy with a dictator, anarchy or a caliphate; anything but a constitution that acknowledges the existence and place of God.

Completely wrong, but it does underscore my point. So there you go.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by kmoney

Is conservative speech the only kind worth defending?


Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

If you want a country that embraces Judeo-Christian values, yes.

And there you have it.

Yes, I believe in Judeo-Christian values and that those values once made a nation great.

You wouldn't want that pesky constitution and bill of rights getting in the way of your theocracy...

You know nothing about the Constitution other than applauding the Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges decisions anna.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

My problem with a prayer rally is that it does to prayer what the women who married a building in Seattle did to marriage: turns it into a tool to have power to do something outside of the usual process.

Are you talking about the Patriot Prayer movement, and if so, are you saying that it's a Christian based group that prays at it's rallies?

As I recall Jesus encouraged prayer in closets where no one can show that they are praying, and no one else would know. If you actually believe in God working through prayer, you would not form a 'rally'.

So when Jesus gathered with people, He demanded that they find a closet before they could pray?

Matthew 18:20

 

[Interplanner]

Are you talking about the Patriot Prayer movement, and if so, are you saying that it's a Christian based group that prays at it's rallies?



So when Jesus gathered with people, He demanded that they find a closet before they could pray?

Matthew 18:20

He was explaining how not to act like a Pharisee.

I don't know all that Patriot Prayer has for doctrine, but I distrust the admins of San Francisco to do anything sensible; have for years. Gibson was going to attend an anti-Marxist rally today. Apparently, anonymous threats of violence against groups is how your preserve Berkeleyan "free" speech.

 

[Interplanner]

You can see how it could, given what the political divide is like in this country. Praying without it shouldn't. I say go with that and leave politics to politics.


I agree, but most people are the heroes of their narrative and the next fellow's definition on what constitutes patriot can get iffy. Essentially, the more definition laden differences you interject in a thing the greater the likelihood of conflict and discord.


See, that illustrates my point. Most liberals, with or without your acceptance, love their country. When we get into this layer we automatically invite counter productive finger pointing. So your response alone makes my point about keeping prayer separate and unifying.

Completely wrong, but it does underscore my point. So there you go.

Not completely wrong. The seattle city council just cowed to the dictate of the Marxist there to unionize Uber drivers so that everything is "equal" as defined by a centralized state. Leftists would rather have a dictatorship of equal outcome than a free market of equal opportunity to earn. By 'wanting anarchy' I mean those that attack the police. By 'wanting a caliphate' I mean those that have no idea what Islam is actually about (the name is a verb: submit), or what a caliphate means (shari'a law). The complicity of the Left and Islam is documented way back.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Are you talking about the Patriot Prayer movement, and if so, are you saying that it's a Christian based group that prays at it's rallies?

So when Jesus gathered with people, He demanded that they find a closet before they could pray?

Matthew 18:20

He was explaining how not to act like a Pharisee.

So if a group of people gather in public with the love of God in their heart and pray, then it's acceptable as long as it isn't for show?

I don't know all that Patriot Prayer has for doctrine, but I distrust the admins of San Francisco to do anything sensible; have for years. Gibson was going to attend an anti-Marxist rally today. Apparently, anonymous threats of violence against groups is how your preserve Berkeleyan "free" speech.

If you want to talk about Pharisees, let's talk about a guy who is the founder of a movement that has prayer in it's name, but according to his own words, the movement isn't religious and he invites transsexuals and atheists as speakers.
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ized!-Part-4&p=5089263&viewfull=1#post5089263