270
271

Reddit feels bad for the KKK (self.circlebroke)

FlavoredTeddyBears が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]redwhiskeredbubul 206ポイント207ポイント  (168子コメント)

From here it looks like the klan members were attempting to rally peacefully.

This sentence is the logical conclusion of, and everything wrong with, the 'always look at both sides of the argument' cliche.

[–]ameoba 129ポイント130ポイント  (157子コメント)

A "peaceful protest" to say "y'all are subhuman and don't deserve human rights".

Yeah - fuck them. You don't deserve a seat at the table in civil society.

[–]orbitur 64ポイント65ポイント  (45子コメント)

Everyone has a right to not be assaulted. Racist piece of shit or not.

[–]geoff- 34ポイント35ポイント  (4子コメント)

I can't possibly have empathy towards every living being. It's just too much. I don't really care about a klansman being punched and it's just one of those "ah, makes sense" situations. There's far too many good people to care for that I don't really have a place in my conscience for someone who's already publicly qualified themselves as a complete waste of life. Fuck em, don't care.

[–]BaldKnobber 12ポイント13ポイント  (2子コメント)

The issue is deciding is who is "good" and who is not. Not in this scenario, but maybe others.

[–]GobtheCyberPunk 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're right, we should never pass moral judgment on whether people are good or not. It's not as if that has any consequences for social conflicts.

[–]AssassinAragorn 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

What you just said can be summarized as one of my favorite lines from Attack on Titan.

"I only have so much room in my heart to decide who to care about. And unfortunately, that was decided years ago."

[–]colepdx 18ポイント19ポイント  (19子コメント)

Won't someone please think of those poor domestic terrorists?

[–]Jeanpuetz 30ポイント31ポイント  (9子コメント)

I'm sorry but we can't just draw a line at a certain group of people and say "Human rights only extend to these viewpoints."

Do I feel bad for these KKK members? No, not even a little bit. But they still have rights and it's important that they get to keep them. Same reason why I don't support torture.

[–]GobtheCyberPunk 15ポイント16ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm sorry but we can't just draw a line at a certain group of people and say "Human rights only extend to these viewpoints."

Why?

Literally every other developed country but the U.S. has zero problems with hate speech laws, and believe it or not freedom of expression and freedom of speech has not collapsed. Your argument is a flimsy slippery slope argument.

Same reason why I don't support torture.

You're right, recognizing that expressing hateful beliefs promoting the denigrating of the marginalized and oppressed = allowing torture. That's totally a valid moral equivalence and not totally divorced from reality. I'm absolutely certain you're not part of a majority or empowered group that would never be negatively affected by you're hands-off, self-blinded perspective.

[–]Jeanpuetz 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Whoa there you're making huge assumptions in your comment.

I'm not even American. I'm German, a country with laws against hate speech. Those laws are very clearly defined and if you break them, you have the law coming after you. That's the way it should be.

I'm not making an argument against laws for hate speech. I'm not trying to "play devil's advocate" here. I just hold the opinion that no human, even if they are a piece of shit, should be afraid of assault as long as they don't start with physical violence themselves.

My brother is a police officer who often has to watch rallies from groups like the PEGIDA (I don't know where you're from or if you're familiar with them, but they are essentially a xenophobic far-right group under the pretense of "concerned citizens"). He says that the counter-rallies are usually the real problems and the reason why the police has to be present in the first place. Yes, the PEGIDA are a group of assholes, but they don't break laws, and they are almost never the first ones to start violence.

Not that I'm defending the PEGIDA, or judging the counter-rallies. I've actually been part of one before. I just wish people would stop beating each other up.

And I know that my torture analogy is very flawed, but my point was just that we can't change the laws for groups of people we disagree with. Many states would never torture a petty criminal, but have no qualms when it comes to terrorists, and I think that's fucked up.

[–]Ais3 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Tell me, what human right was violated?

[–]Jeanpuetz 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

The right not to get assaulted for expressing their opinions. Yes, fucked-up opinions, but that shouldn't matter IMO.

[–]Ais3 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

But doesn't the 1st amendment only cover violence from the government? Yes, assault is illegal, but the old dude got to exercise his right.

[–]Pinkfish_411 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

First Amendment rights aren't the issue here. The right of safety from physical assault is also a right, and that right was violated in this case.

[–]Ais3 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ok, that's fair. But what seems to be the problem then? I assume the perpetrator is under custody and will get a charge.

[–]colepdx 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm not advocating stripping them of their rights-- I'm just not upset at all that a group of hate-mongers that choose to live outside the law (that pesky law that says black folks are people) are being targeted by people who also live outside the law. It's poetic justice to have a group responsible for a century of violence against minorities targeted by minorities. To be fair, I also really loved Django Unchained.

They have a right to assemble and carry the banner that symbolizes a century of violent oppression-- I just won't give a flying fuck that some people give them what's coming to them.

[–]Jeanpuetz 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh, I'm not upset either. I just think that maybe... people shouldn't celebrate the ones who are responsible for the violence, even though they are one the "right" side.

[–]orbitur 8ポイント9ポイント  (7子コメント)

It's less about the terrorists and more about principles. We shouldn't just arbitrarily apply violence to shitty people when we are ostensibly (or want to be) a non-violent, civil society.

[–]colepdx -3ポイント-2ポイント  (6子コメント)

Evil begets evil, Mr. President. Domestic terrorist groups are getting targeted for violence? Why am I thinking about the Joker in the Dark Knight where nobody bats an eye because it's all part of the plan?

[–]orbitur 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

So you have nothing to say beyond "they deserve violence because they are hateful". Okay.

[–]colepdx 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

"They are hateful--" boy, don't respond if you can't read. They are willfully associating with a domestic terrorist organization, particularly one that has for several generations committed assault, arson and murder against minorities. They're being treated THE EXACT SAME WAY they've set out to treat minorities. What goes around comes around. Get your racist ass outta here with this dumbass shit. Won't somebody think of the poor hateful people?? Won't somebody protect my right to be hateful and advocate violence??

[–]orbitur 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

Won't somebody think of the poor hateful people?? Won't somebody protect my right to be hateful and advocate violence??

You're taking 10% of my argument and presenting it as the whole.

I'm advocating non-violence.

Get your racist ass outta here with this dumbass shit.

I'm not a racist just because I want to defend everyone's physical well-being. Racism is awful and terrible. Violence is pretty close to it.

[–]colepdx 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, that would be ideal, but it's just not that way. If a gangbanger decides to get arrested brawling it out with a klansman, that's pretty win-win.

[–]StanleyCucci -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fuck you motherfucker don't correct my shitty logic and reasoning just let me go on passive-hyperagressively straw-manning you. Got a problem with this? Then you're probably a fascist.

[–]GaroldWilsonSnailJr 20ポイント21ポイント  (5子コメント)

Ya. I don't feel particularly bad that they got beat up, but they still have the same legal rights, and you also don't have the legal right to beat up someone up in this country unless out of self-defense or protecting someone else, no matter how scummy they may be.

[–]iamagoodatheist 25ポイント26ポイント  (4子コメント)

Welp

Who exactly do you think sold them? AFRICANS. Disagree with me on historical events if you want but I dare you to find one even marginally "racist" thing I said. I've never seen such an intentionally dramatic overreaction in my life lol. Haha "stormfront racist" what a straw man.

-GaroldWilsonSnailJr

[–]StanleyCucci 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think the point he made just now in this thread still stands.

[–]LaoTzusGymShoes 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Whadayaknow...

[–]throwaway_350 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, but I won't defend a KKK member who is being assaulted

[–]Shilix 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

Allowing them to spread their genocidal views is immoral. Antifa on the streets is one of the few opportunities to suppress their views. Fascists can go to hell.

[–]orbitur 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Okay, so let's change the law! We can do that without beating the shit out of people.

The problem with violence is that it doesn't actually change people's minds, it only reinforces bad ideas.

[–]jack_a_nape -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I have never heard of an antifa group that wasn't fascist themselves.

[–]bolognahole 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Everyone has a right to not be assaulted

Do you have the right to spread hate (and historically, incite violence) and not expect the target to turn around and break your nose?

[–]charlestonchewing 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

No kidding. What the hell is up with circlebroke? In an effort to stir up content for this sub, some of you have really jumped the shark. I think as a whole, Reddits response to this was pretty reasonable.

[–]tangostwo 33ポイント34ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't condone stabbing anybody (quote me on that!), but let's look at it this way.

Remember when those two armed aggressors tried to provoke a BLM rally, and the sympathy was with the aggressors? Now the KKK is holding a protest, there was an aggressive counter-protest, and sympathy is with the KKK.

Freedom of speech, absolutely. The KKK and Neo-Nazi groups are pices of shit, but nobody should be stabbed for their intolerant beliefs. That said, just a few months ago a similar situation occurred and reddit did not side with the victims. That is why this is Circlebroke material.

[–]I_love_Hopslam 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

I really don't think many people actually looked at the comments.

[–]SaitoHawkeye 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think that given their history, pretty much any black man in the vicinity of a Klan group can expect to be the victim of violence and defend themselves accordingly.

[–]Why_do_men_exist -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Totally agree. Good thing that fighting off the denial of your human rights is only self-defense.

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]orbitur 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

    You can be against race-motivated murders AND take a principled stand against violence in general. They aren't mutually exclusive!

    [–]kyunkyunpanic -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Yeah, if you give someone a bloody nose you should probably be arrested. That doesn't mean it was wrong to do it though.

    [–]evilrobotdrew1 8ポイント9ポイント  (81子コメント)

    So, who gets to decide who sits at this table? Are you comfortable with the possible overreach that can stem from limiting the right to assemble?

    https://www.aclu.org/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie

    I am with the ACLU on this. Just because they are inhuman fucktards doesn't mean they do't have rights.

    [–]Zennistrad 58ポイント59ポイント  (18子コメント)

    The KKK is a group that is defined by a refusal to acknowledge the rights of others, you realize. That's literally the entire purpose of a public KKK demonstration: it's a public threat to the rights of those they declare to be inferior.

    [–]evilrobotdrew1 10ポイント11ポイント  (15子コメント)

    And, under the first amendment they have the right to be total dumbasses. They have the right to say that people with brown hair should be exterminated or whatever dumbass thing they want. unless they are making an explicit threat, they are still peacefully assembling.

    Read some of the case law surrounding the KKK and neo-nazi groups. However you feel, the law is fucking clear. If you don't like it, lobby for hate speech legislation.

    [–][削除されました]  (9子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–]evilrobotdrew1 6ポイント7ポイント  (8子コメント)

      Yep, the First Amendment is kind of a bitch like that.

      The law is settled on this. If you have an issue, start lobbying against the ACLU.

      [–][削除されました]  (7子コメント)

      [deleted]

        [–]runeplate 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

        But you don't understand, the ability to literally literally say whatever you want trumps everything else! Could you imagine a country where it was illegal to spout KKK-Propaganda?

        [–]evilrobotdrew1 9ポイント10ポイント  (4子コメント)

        Maybe I should move to the EU, such a bastion of ethnic harmony. Certainly no rabid right-wing neonazis in /r/europen.

        Frankly, i am not going to troll your history to see where you live, cause I don't give a fuck. Don't like the USA, don't visit, that's fine. I don't see why you are trying to start fights with people, based on laws that don't effect you.

        [–][削除されました]  (3子コメント)

        [deleted]

          [–]Zennistrad 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

          I'm not particularly concerned with case law: I do not recognize the state as a legitimate metric for ethics.

          You are correct in that in most cases it is preferable to respect people's right to assembly, because in most cases they have no intention of violating your own rights.

          As soon as someone starts seriously advocating for the denial of your rights, however, there ceases to be an ethical justification for protecting theirs. If you do, you're only opening the door for them to trample on you later, which they will if they ever get the opportunity. Rights can only function if they are respected in reciprocity.

          [–]evilrobotdrew1 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

          But then you have a question, what qualifies as "advocating for the denial of your rights"

          Traditional Marriage activists are basically arguing to restrict the right of marriage. I think they have every right to demonstrate and advocate without facing violence or legal resistance; even though they are wrong and sometimes very nasty. What about something like, the ACA. The Right was arguing that it was a restriction on your rights, compelling you to purchase something you didn't want. Would arguing for the ACA be advocating for the denial of your rights and who makes that decision?

          IMHO the Freedom of speech is too sacred to touch. No matter how repugnant the viewpoint, people have a right to state it and advocate for it. In the case of good things, like LGBT rights, we make a better place. In the case of bad things like the KKK, we let them have an open stage, so we can point and laugh at their idiocy.

          [–]Zennistrad -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

          Marriage isn't a right so much as it is an institution that's defined and controlled by the state. What "traditional marriage" advocates are arguing is that the state should restrict access to that institution, while LGBT activists have argued that the state should expand it. I think the state should be abolished, so the question of state-defined marriage is not one that's relevant to me in the long-term: what should be advocated for in the long-term is the dismantling of heteronormative cultural beliefs.

          As for the ACA, I take the ethical position is that there is a moral obligation to prevent suffering that can be prevented, and this includes providing healthcare. That said, I would still prefer an option that isn't just forcing people to buy it.

          Free speech is a good thing, but it's never going to be possible for it to be all-encompassing: it's well-established that the harm principle allows for circumstances where free speech can be curtailed. Deliberately trying to intimidate people and call for the labeling of entire ethnicities as subhuman is absolutely harmful.

          [–]evilrobotdrew1 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

          I think the state should be abolished

          But, you still want to restrict Freedom of Speech even a little? I'm gonna call bullshit.

          Regardless, you could be a Monarchist for all I care, that is not the point. Your opinion on the ACA doesn't matter, or your opinion on Gay Marriage. My point is if you restrict speech in any way, you open the door for censorship of valid viewpoints. I only mentioned those two issues as examples.

          [–]James_Solomon -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

          My point is if you restrict speech in any way, you open the door for censorship of valid viewpoints.

          I think you might want to offer some clarifications, because no one, not even the USA, allows for completely unrestricted speech.

          [–]Jeanpuetz 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

          That shouldn't matter. You should still be allowed to hold and express those views without fear of prosecution or violence.

          I'm not saying that these assholes deserve sympathy, but if we have a law, we need to apply to it everyone equally.

          [–]Pinkfish_411 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          This is the great thing about America: we have a strong history of defending the free speech rights of those who would use their speech to try to undermine the rights of others. And I'm not being sarcastic when I say it's great.

          [–]clouds_become_unreal 44ポイント45ポイント  (48子コメント)

          They still have to right to assemble, but if you're gonna assemble to tell people that they're subhuman, you can't really whine when they get mad.

          When racist fucking scum feel the need to express themselves, they deserve what they get.

          [–]throwWay239 16ポイント17ポイント  (47子コメント)

          but if you're gonna assemble to tell people that they're subhuman, you can't really whine when they get mad.

          Getting mad is fine, waging a counter protest is fine, calling them racist scumbags is also fine. Assaulting them is not fine.

          When racist fucking scum feel the need to express themselves, they deserve what they get.

          So you think people deserve to be sent to the hospital or assaulted when they express opinions you disagree with? Does this right extend to the racists or are you the only one who gets to decide which opinions are assault worthy?

          [–]ponyproblematic 31ポイント32ポイント  (13子コメント)

          I mean, like, I'm not down with the situation either, but it's kind of minimizing the KKK to reduce it to "opinions you disagree with." There's a huge difference between me thinking Jimmy down the street is wrong because he likes the edges of the brownies more than the center (he is wrong btw fight me) and me joining an organization that advocates that we just straight-up kill Jimmy because he's an edge-loving pervert, that has killed thousands of people for nothing more than liking the wrong part of the brownie pan. I'm not American so I'm used to hate speech laws and things, but I think, for Jimmy's safety, I wouldn't have a problem with the Kill The Fuck Out Of Jimmy club not being able to meet publicly to discuss how they want to just use the brownie knife to stab him in the guts.

          [–]GaroldWilsonSnailJr 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Jimmy sounds like a real douche

          [–]throwWay239 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

          They haven't committed any actual murders in a long time, I'm pretty sure that's not what they're about anymore. Either way AFAIK they weren't advocating for imminent lawless action or violence.

          [–]TNBK -4ポイント-3ポイント  (9子コメント)

          Well, it's often the case that these protests carry no actual threats of violence. Explicitly anyway, because even the KKK aren't that dumb. It's less a Kill the Fuck Out Of Jimmy club and more Jimmy's A Fucking Monkey club. Which sort of deliberately obfuscates the line to "these are calls for violence" to "these are unpopular protests I disagree with"

          [–]KretschmarSchuldorff 15ポイント16ポイント  (6子コメント)

          With a history of lynching everybody called Jimmy they possibly could, and burning crosses in Jimmy's front yard.

          The KKK has a violent history of enforcing Jim Crow laws as vigilantes at best.

          The KKK doesn't need to threaten explicitly, because they got that part done by the 1950s.

          Don't think that this isn't something on a minority's collective mind when the Klan shows up.

          [–]TNBK -3ポイント-2ポイント  (5子コメント)

          So is every appearance by the Klan publically carte blanche to beat the shit out of them? Because of all the shit they got up to in the 50's? If they just stopped calling themselves the Klan and protested with the same message, would that be gucchi because they're not invoking their history, or no?

          Honestly I feel dirty for even having to defend this but just because Uncle is a racist fuck with nothing better to do in his retirement doesn't mean you should kick his teeth in.

          [–]SPna15 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

          So is every appearance by the Klan publically carte blanche to beat the shit out of them

          Yes.

          [–]KretschmarSchuldorff 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

          Honestly I feel dirty for even having to defend this

          Then don't. Pick a better hill to die on than defending a hate group's right to physical inviolability.

          [–]ScribbleBliss 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Because of all the shit they got up to in the 50's?

          No, it's because of hate crimes they've been committing and inspiring for over a century and a half, up to and including the present. People need to stop talking about them as if they're as harmless as an especially-uppity D&D club.

          [–]ponyproblematic 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

          That's what the KKK is though. It's, like, the best and most prominent example of a hate group there is. When the "mild" version is them saying that Jimmy shouldn't have the same rights because he doesn't eat brownies like a regular person, and they're really well known for killing whoever buys those fucked up pans that are shaped like an S so all the brownies have edge bits, and they openly support killing Jimmy all the time, Jimmy's probably not going to be cool with them showing up wearing "Jimmy Should Die" t-shirts but not technically saying they're going to kill him.

          [–]TNBK -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Yes, a hate group, but with no imminent threat of lawlessness. "We think white people are better than every other kind of people" is a stupid, shitty thing to say but I don't think you get to knock someone on their ass for saying it. Am I mad that it happened? No. Would I stop you? No. But I know it's wrong.

          [–]clouds_become_unreal 18ポイント19ポイント  (27子コメント)

          "Expressing opinions I disagree with" is a funny way of saying "telling me I'm subhuman." Sure, the parties are in disagreement, but a mere difference of opinion isn't the problem here. I wouldn't advocate for a purge of Macklemore fans by righteous Kendrick supporters.

          I view expression of racist sentiment as a serious symbolic (which makes it no less real) assault on the target, and retaliatory violence as self-defense.

          [–]throwWay239 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

          "Expressing opinions I disagree with" is a funny way of saying "telling me I'm subhuman."

          But not inaccurate. Subhuman is an opinion, you can call them subhuman back.

          I view expression of racist sentiment as a serious symbolic (which makes it no less real) assault on the target, and retaliatory violence as self-defense.

          That's the most warped justification I have ever heard. You are not being assaulted when someone calls you a name. Physical retaliation is not self defense because you are not being physically hurt or restrained.

          [–]TNBK 2ポイント3ポイント  (25子コメント)

          Unless there's a a direct call for violence I don't really but it as self-defense. What are you defending yourself from? Racism? Abstract thoughts can't threaten people. I understand the KKK protest is super shitty and I don't in the slightest feel bad that they got hurt, but trying to rationalize it like this is dum.

          [–]Why_do_men_exist 7ポイント8ポイント  (18子コメント)

          What are you defending yourself from? Racism?

          No, racists. Abstract thoughts don't exist without the people who have them (I can't believe I have to explain this) and people who want you removed or subjugated because of your skin color, believe it or not, can threaten people.

          [–]TNBK 3ポイント4ポイント  (17子コメント)

          Right, but they actually have to do something for it to be a threat. Racists just existing isn't a threat.

          [–]Why_do_men_exist 7ポイント8ポイント  (16子コメント)

          They did do something. They went to advocate and recruit for their cause. Racists trying to gain power and influence is incredibly threatening.

          [–]clouds_become_unreal 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

          I'm not rationalizing; this is what I believe.

          Let me put it a different way.

          Randy the White Supremacist is parading around in KKK gear, a commonly understood signifier of a certain ideology. This ideology holds that I am fundamentally different than Randy; that exploitation and violence directed by him at me is not only morally permissible, but a thing to be encouraged to uphold the social order.

          By donning the uniform of the KKK, Randy is intentionally signaling to me that, to him, my life has no value. I don't know what he's thinking or what he'll do, but I know that nothing in his moral schema prevents him from hurting me.

          Will he? Here? Now? Probably not. Thankfully, our legal system has evolved to a point where the potential penalty is too great for Randy and his buddies to say, beat me, strip me naked and hang me from a tree.

          But I don't really care. Randy has, in my opinion, really fucked up.

          I'm not going to try to argue that assaulting Randy is the most virtuous course of action, but I don't think it's morally impermissible, either. By denying my rights as human, Randy's forfeited his to me.

          [–]TNBK 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

          But he's not denying your rights as a human, because Randy can't. Randy doesn't have the power. As you say, our legal system is too fargone from those days. All Randy has is a stupid fucking opinion. You think if these people had any power in society, they'd be hosting dumb little rallies that are outmanned by the counter protests they inspire? Randy's a fuckstick, but that's not a reason to the shit out of him.

          [–]ItsBabySheep 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Agree. I wouldn't feel sorry for them if they got the shit beat out of them, but that doesn't mean I actually advocate violence.

          It's kinda hypocritical when CB handwaves it away, with the same rhetoric that rape apologists use against women.

          Then again it's hard to blame them. The KKK are absolutely revolting human scum, who honestly don't deserve to be respected like any other ordinary citizen ought be.

          [–]TroutFishingInCanada 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

          Assaulting them is not fine.

          Yes, it is.

          [–]throwWay239 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Since you ignored the other question let me repeat, who gets to decide which opinions are assault worthy?

          [–]TroutFishingInCanada 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          I'd put this one up to the judiciary or something.

          I dunno. I don't have all of the answers.

          [–]Flameblamegame -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Assaulting them is not fine.

          Thanks Internet Judge, we were really lost here before you came in and broke it all down for us! Can't have a video on the internet without a detailed breakdown of who was wrong and why.

          [–]ameoba 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Not saying they should be legally stripped of their rights but they deserve a firm "shut the fuck up and get your bullshit out of here" whenever they open their mouths. Hate speech should be drowned out by the community saying it's unacceptable.

          ...and if a little violence breaks out, it's just karma if the cops look the other way for a bit.

          [–]OIP 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Are you comfortable with the possible overreach that can stem from limiting the right to assemble?

          are you comfortable with the possible overreach that can stem from allowing people to freely spout hate speech with the aim of recruiting more people to their cause?

          never really understood this argument. "sure, they are smearing their own feces on a wall, but if we stop them, what's next? banning all art?"

          [–]evilrobotdrew1 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

          The American definition of 'Freedom of speech' is far more permissive than other nations, but the law is settled on this. If you have an issue, start lobbying against the ACLU.

          [–]JudgeRoySnyder 2ポイント3ポイント  (28子コメント)

          So they should be assaulted? I'm confused.

          [–]Fopenplop 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

          yes. assault any klansman, nazi, or miscellaneous fascist that has the balls to come out in the daylight.

          [–]JudgeRoySnyder 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Why limit it to just those people?

          [–]AnAntichrist 22ポイント23ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Only good nazi is a dead one

          [–]GobtheCyberPunk 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Nazi punks fuck off. I have no sympathy for them.

          [–]JudgeRoySnyder -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Dont think anyone is asking for people to sympathize with them...

          [–]ameoba 16ポイント17ポイント  (20子コメント)

          They're sort of asking for it.

          [–]gavinbrindstar 16ポイント17ポイント  (2子コメント)

          They were asking for it dressed like that.

          [–]B-Train 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

          damn that photo is creepy

          [–]Treyman1115 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Imagine it was more than just creepy for my grandparents

          [–]diyorgasms 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

          It's what they were wearing. Those white robes just scream "kick the shit out of me!"

          [–]GaroldWilsonSnailJr 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          They are, but those who attacked them should be legally prosecuted like anyone else who commits assault. You don't get a free pass because you were beating up a-holes.

          [–]JudgeRoySnyder -2ポイント-1ポイント  (6子コメント)

          So where should the line be drawn?

          [–]ameoba 17ポイント18ポイント  (5子コメント)

          Don't really feel like playing that game, sorry.

          [–]JudgeRoySnyder 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Yeah, I guess I'll check out some fish memes now or something...

          [–]charlestonchewing -3ポイント-2ポイント  (3子コメント)

          Lol, of course you don't.

          [–]ameoba 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

          If I learned anything from freshman philosophy, it's that Socrates always wins.

          [–]JudgeRoySnyder 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Then you don't actually believe they should be roughed up for their dumb ass beliefs. I win 😏

          [–]GobtheCyberPunk 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Ayy lmao we should always be open for the same debates at all times.

          [–]orbitur -3ポイント-2ポイント  (7子コメント)

          No, they aren't. The only time they are asking for it is when they initiate violence or attempt physical contact with someone.

          Signed, A Non-racist

          edit: I added the "signed" because I was concerned about reactionary "why u defending the kkk bro?" but apparently everyone is very reasonable here, they just advocate violence

          [–]GaroldWilsonSnailJr 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

          Your argument is completely valid without the "signature"

          [–]runeplate 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

          "As a non-racist,..."

          Hm. It does sound kind of idiotic, doesn't it?

          [–]GaroldWilsonSnailJr 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Well it's like he made a reasonable argument that in no way made me suspect he might be racist. It's just a weird thing to end it on.

          [–]flameoguy 15ポイント16ポイント  (2子コメント)

          Signed, A Non-racist

          I'm not a racist, but...

          [–]orbitur 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Doesn't apply here, I'm not trying to dress up a racist statement, I'm trying to advocate against physical violence. 😒

          [–]DukeOfQuinn -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          I'm not a racist, but...

          I believe in universal human rights for everyone, including those whose opinion I disagree with, no matter how personally distasteful I find it.

          [–]newheart_restart 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Legally? Their attackers should be arrested and charged.

          Morally? They deserve to be roughed up a tad. Not killed or permanently injured. But after all the pain they've caused...

          [–]colepdx 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

          A group formed and run for over a century under the basis of operating outside the law, through assaults, arson, and murder, in order to reject the basic principle that black folks are people and have rights...

          ...but we need to care so hard that people have no respect for their rights. A hundred years ago, Anaheim had four of five county seats held by klansmen. I'm sort of enjoying the way times have changed that if they so much as show their faces in public in Anaheim, they'll get the shit kicked out of them.

          I find it incredibly ironic that you can find people fawning over how the law protects the rights of the KKK to be shitheads and yet defend people like Edward Snowden who knowingly broke the law. Here's the algorithm for whether Reddit likes the law:
          Does the law support the interests of white men? yes - this is America, follow the law!!
          No - this is basically communist Russia, fuck the law!!

          [–]PopPunkAndPizza 35ポイント36ポイント  (4子コメント)

          The Klan exists to intimidate minorities into compliance through implied violence. Their presence inherently cannot be peaceful, they are inherently perpetrators of systemic violence.

          [–]ROBO_D -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

          Intimidation doesn't equal violence. In the eyes of the law "implied violence" isn't a good enough reason to ignore the First Amendment.

          [–][deleted] 16ポイント17ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Threats of intimidation absolutely aren't allowed under "free speech." That's not necessarily what's happening with these "protests" but please don't just decide for yourself what is and is not acceptable under American law.

          [–]ROBO_D 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Read up on case law relevant to this and you will find that the law has already ruled on this. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, however I certainly am not "deciding for myself what is and is not acceptable under American law."

          [–]iamaneviltaco 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

          How about stringing people up in trees? Because, we're all acting like the KKK doesn't have an active history of violence. They really really do, if a street gang had their numbers they'd be locking people up just for joining.

          But, that doesn't mean people should be allowed to go around stabbing em.

          [–]AngryDM 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          The Golden Mean Fallacy has, as a consequence, a smugly self-absorbed internet drone hearing about hate crimes involve people being stabbed with flag poles and saying "both sides are equally right and wrong!"

          [–]mapppa -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

          I wonder what he would think if people formed a "I hate G03tia club", a club that believes that the reddit user 'G03tia' (OP of that comment) is inherently lazy, stupid, and shouldn't exist in America. They would gather right at his front yard with signs about how much he is hated. No problem because free speech, right?

          [–]redwhiskeredbubul 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Well, I think the issue there is whether you actually begin committing crimes against him? Otherwise, yeah, that's mere advocacy and thus protected.

          [–]mapppa 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Otherwise, yeah, that's mere advocacy and thus protected.

          I'm pretty sure that he would see that differently.