Removal of Confederate symbols turns nasty in New Orleans

Deezbeet-u-z · 21分前

And I don't hear me arguing that he's a hero.

Deezbeet-u-z · 35分前

So you're saying black people in America today should just forget slavery happened?

Deezbeet-u-z · 1時間前

Fuck the generals who fought against the South because you don't support slavery? I think you may be confused bud.

Edit: comment above edited out "Fuck Grant. Fuck Farragut. Fuck Butler." From the beginning of the second paragraph because he/she didn't know they were generals for the north.

Deezbeet-u-z · 1時間前

I'm not asking Dresden to put up a Eisenhower or Roosevelt statue.

Deezbeet-u-z · 2時間前

It's a specific act, but it can set a broader precedent. Just because you don't want it to doesn't mean it that it isn't so. Other lawyers can cite the case as precedent, and then judges get to decide if your interpretation is correct. If they do, great. If they don't, fuck us I guess because now there's greater limitation on free speech and expression. There are laws on the books that don't set the broader precedent and deal out the same punishment, send out the same message. Why not take the best of both worlds?

Deezbeet-u-z · 2時間前

Grant, yup. Farragut, absolutely. Butler, good deal.

Fuck Sherman. He waged warfare primarily on a population of people who neither owned slaves nor had the capacity to fight back. He burned the homes of women and children who's husbands were (regardless of rightly or wrongly) largely just trying to defend the place they lived. If he was alive today and trying to do what he did then in say, Syria or Iraq, he'd get publicly crucified.

I'm glad the North won. And I say that as someone from the South. We didn't to continue down that path. There are some damned heroes who fought for the North. Sherman was not one of them. He was a war criminal, and I'll never for the life of me understand why people idolize him.

Deezbeet-u-z · 2時間前

Well, the whole "if one idiot has to suffer it's fine by" you thing doesn't really fly when you look at how legal precedent works. You're looking at this in isolation if that's what you're thinking. His act is easily analogues to burning an American flag in terms of how it can be addressed by the freedom of expression. That can easily be seen as an act to intimidate American citizens. The media has highly publicized terrorists and terrorist sympathizers doing so after attacks on the country. But burning an American flag is also completely protected by the first amendment, and it should be.

I'm not saying he didn't deserve expulsion and legal repercussion. Not even saying the punishment is too much. But I would have preferred he get charged with a vandalism or defacing public property charge rather than a threatening force to intimidate charge (or other similar 1A limitation law). It wasn't his property; he had no right alter or deface it. I agree what was wrong and deserving of punishment, but setting a precedent that non-violent, anonymous demonstration can be punished by law isn't a path I want to go down. Limiting the right of speech and expression is a universal trait among totalitarian, oppressive governments.

Hit him with the vandalism charge with a hate crime escalator and give him the same sentence. Sends the same message without setting a legal precedent limiting expression.

Deezbeet-u-z · 3時間前

fatsupreme seems to be implying that there are racial activists and social activists who would "do it for real if they got the chance" and "are hoping and praying for a race war", just like there are neo-nazis and klan members who would.

Deezbeet-u-z · 3時間前

So he was charged with misdemeanor charge of threatening force to intimidate not vandalism, which does bring 1A into the scope of the argument. But I'm not really gonna state an opinion there.

I just find it interesting that you think 6 months in prison and 12 months parole, which will typically entail a slew of fines and fees, in addition to his expulsion and now easily google-able name isn't an apt punishment. I'm not saying the kid should get off scott free, but this is no slap on the wrist, in my opinion.

Edit: Just realized OP was saying the punishment was apt, and that you aren't OP. I is dumb.

Deezbeet-u-z · 4時間前

Yes. If you have a row of cars behind you, and you're in the left lane you can get pulled over for impeding traffic regardless of speed. Theoretically, you could be speeding, have traffic behind you and get both a speedng and an impeding ticket.

Deezbeet-u-z · 7時間前

Well to be fair double parking is illegal and so is blocking the passing lane. It's called impeding traffic, and you can get pulled over for doing the speed limit.

Deezbeet-u-z · 7時間前

Truck driver shouldn't have done what he did, but habitually double parking because you like to back your car when the spot your double parking in is paid for by someone else isn't excusable. Park the other direction. I think both got their just desserts in this situation.

Deezbeet-u-z · 7時間前

Eh, truck driver has to be punished (pay for damages, maybe misdemeanor property damage charge, etc) but I still completely relate and it gives me a solid justice boner.

Deezbeet-u-z · 7時間前

Also the owner of the double parked car was on vacation.

Deezbeet-u-z · 1日前

Reading it wrong. There is a high correlation between actual psychopathy and competitiveness. I'd guess that most habitually violent people would score high in competitiveness, but to my knowledge being competitive isn't an indicator of violent tendencies.

Deezbeet-u-z · 1日前

Can't tell if you're a troll or need to check in...

Deezbeet-u-z · 1日前

You're right, he didn't explicitly say remove competitive people. However, there is a pretty high correlation between competitiveness and psychopathy, so it'd be fairly easy to run into a scenario where a very competitive yet not psychopathic people get swept up in the psychopath drag net. OP's idea sounds like an unsafe combination of eugenics and McCarthyism in my opinion.

Deezbeet-u-z · 1日前

So who would be the arbiter of who gets to breed and who doesn't? And what's to ensure said arbiter isn't a psychopath?

Deezbeet-u-z · 1日前

Ok, that's an interesting point of view. But what of Europe? They've got more than two parties in virtually every country barring the UK and their governments are doing the same thing. How is it the average citizen's fault there that the government(s) aren't representing their interest and practicing policy detrimental to the average citizen?

Deezbeet-u-z · 1日前

So basically if you vote for a Democrat or Republican candidate at all, regardless of your party affiliation and regardless of how you voted in the last election, then you're average and it's your fault that the government represents the interests of the wealthiest few?

Edit: extra word removed

Deezbeet-u-z · 1日前

Seems a lot like Republicans voting exclusively Republican or Democrats voting exclusively Democrat. So you're line of thought is that you are only truly "independent" if you vote for "independent" candidates?

Deezbeet-u-z · 1日前

Last year Gallup found that 43% of Americans are considered politically independent. So if 43% of people fit your definition of not being an average citizen, then what is average?

Deezbeet-u-z · 2日前

And when they change their voting pattern, but others don't, it's still their fault?

Deezbeet-u-z · 2日前

So because not enough people change their voting patterns unilaterally, the average citizen is in control of these decisions?

Deezbeet-u-z · 2日前

Well seeing as how the average citizen can't control how or why other people vote the way they do, how exactly is it in the control of the average citizen?

Deezbeet-u-z

トロフィーケース

本日のreddit gold目標額達成率