Announcement

Collapse

FORUM POSTING RULES - Read before posting

Forum Rules.

(1) The guiding principle for posting in this forum is moderate yourselves.

(2) Don't write a post that attacks, impugns or denigrates another poster's character. There's an obvious difference between the language of humor and hateful, debased language. Know the difference and post accordingly.

(3) This is a Michigan sports forum. The forum welcomes posts from M's sports rivals. Talking smack, posting sass is what college sports rivalries are all about. Rules (1) and (2) above apply. If you don't want to view the posts of a rival talking smack or sassing, use the ignore feature in User Controls.

(4) This forum is about sharing thoughts, ideas and viewpoints about all sports, any number of subjects and issues, learning stuff from other posters and having fun. There are threads by subject matter within the forum for doing this. Keep the threads on point.

NB: The rules above are not intended to build a case to ban a poster. There are consequences for rule breaking as specified below. That's as far as it should go. Only the most egregious and persistent rule breaking would cause the moderators to consider a ban.

Due Process.

(1) The forum has 6 moderators. Jeff Buchanan, Jon, JD, Hannibal, Oracle, Entropy. None of them want to moderate adult posters who should know better. There may be posts that break the rules.

(2) Posters who, at the sole discretion of a moderator, break a rule will be given a warning post that will site one of the rules listed above as the reason for the deletion.

(3) If the rule breaking behavior continues, a moderator can remove an offending post and any ensuing post that whines about that action. If a moderator removes a post(s) the reason for the removal(s) will be posted with the removal notice that appears in the thread. This should be the end of it. Man up, take responsibility for breaking the rules. The forum moves on. If not, see below.

(4) A poster who has had a warning or a post(s) removed can certify a question by PM to any moderator about that action. Do not complain about the action or attempt to make your case in the forum/threads. Moderators shall do their best to address the question within 72h. At the end of 72h the majority opinion of the moderators responding will be the answer.

(5) Banning a poster for egregious and repeated rule breaking requires a unanimous vote to ban from all 6 moderators. We don't anticipate this will ever happen.
See more
See less

Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I would never be for disallowing their right to websites, assembly, or speech. Ever. Giving the government such authority is well-intentioned but I don't think it's difficult to find hundreds of examples where that power is abused. The judicious use of such power would depend on the leaders elected. Would you trust a Trumpian Government with that power? ::::shudders::::
    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham Lincoln

    Comment


    • Originally posted by SeattleLionsFan View Post
      I get what you are saying, but that's not what happened.
      Perhaps not. It's kinda what some are suggesting, though.
      Last edited by AlabamAlum; August 16th, 2017, 08:39 AM.
      "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham Lincoln

      Comment


      • I don't like the idea of finding these guys' employers and pushing for them to get fired, and god bless the good ol' ACLU and Glenn Greenwald for being ideologically consistent about that.

        I'm actually okay with that. These nazis had the right to assemble, but some private citizen had the right to identify people at the rally and publicize that info. If you're doing this in public there can be no expectation of privacy.
        "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham Lincoln

        Comment


        • Originally posted by AlabamAlum View Post
          About them meeting and buying tiki torches and nazi salutes and espousing racist beliefs?

          These are all things that are legal and should remain legal. So, nothing, really. Officially, anyway. Although, I did like that many of them have been outted and their idiocy publicized. At least one has been fired and another shunned by his families.

          But as far as "let's get a mob to go and try and beat-up another mob so they won't espouse racist and moronic things"? Nah. It will not work.
          I dont think I have proposed sending mobs after them, but if they incite violence I have no issues with it being returned in kind.

          That said, I think the first condition that must be met is determining whether them marching around is even really a problem. If its not, cool. Carry on with the marginalization efforts that have worked so well in recent years.

          More active solutions are required in my opinion, as the marching foolishness has downstream effects on the electorate. The "outing" approach is a great one, I agree. I believe that a vast increase in awareness at the societal level, which appears to be starting up now, is also vital. It is also critical that it includes most elements of the Right, in which these groups tend to camouflage themselves.

          Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
          Last edited by Wild Hoss; August 16th, 2017, 08:49 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by AlabamAlum View Post
            I'm actually okay with that. These nazis had the right to assemble, but some private citizen had the right to identify people at the rally and publicize that info. If you're doing this in public there can be no expectation of privacy.
            Virginny apparently has laws against protesting with the face covered. That should be universal.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wild Hoss View Post
              I dont think I have proposed sending mobs after them, but if they incite violence I have no issues with it being returned in kind.

              That said, I think the first condition that must be met is determining whether them marching around is even really a problem. If its not, cool. Carry on with the marginalization efforts that have worked so well in recent years.

              More active solutions are required in my opinion, as the marching foolishness has downstream effects on the electorate. The "outing" approach is a great one, I agree. I believe that a vast increase in awareness at the societal level, which appears to be starting up now, is also vital. It is also critical that it includes most elements of the Right, in which these groups tend to camouflage themselves.

              Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

              I don't know if I agree with the "if they incite violence" part. Or at least it's troublesome to me. I much prefer the "if they ARE violent" standard because what constitutes "incitement" is such a nebulous standard. For example, Bull Connor (the infamous hard-line racist mayor of B'ham fifty years ago or so) used that against "freedom riders" and protesters. They were "inciting" violence. Bull also worked out a deal with the KKK where he would let the KKK beat on the freedom riders for 15 minutes before his officers came in and arrested them (the freedom riders, not the KKK).
              "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham Lincoln

              Comment


              • I would never be for disallowing their right to websites, assembly, or speech. Ever. Giving the government such authority is well-intentioned but I don't think it's difficult to find hundreds of examples where that power is abused. The judicious use of such power would depend on the leaders elected. Would you trust a Trumpian Government with that power? ::::shudders::::


                I could equally counter with ``giving people the authority to have more free speech is well intentioned but I don't think it's difficult to find hundreds of examples where that power is abused." The hypothetical situation you speak of is certainly one we want to avoid, but in doing so we allow for actual and real violations of other rights that people have. And it's important to note that those rights violations are not ones in which government is the violator.

                I don't think we are in the right/wrong zone here. I think we are choosing amongst flawed options, and my thinking is certainly not rigid here. I'm just responding to what we see. We do know that there are plenty of governments that have that power and do not abuse it. They govern citizens who are every bit as demonstrably free as Americans.

                Comment


                • I mean, rights don't exist in a vacuum. They bump up against each other, and have to be balanced. "Your right to swing your fist ends at my face." Choices are going to have to be made that balance practical realities and lofty ideals. Given current behavior today, maybe more choices than should be ideal.

                  Comment


                  • Illinois Nazis? I hate Illinois Nazis.
                    Shut the fuck up Donny!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by AlabamAlum View Post
                      I don't know if I agree with the "if they incite violence" part. Or at least it's troublesome to me. I much prefer the "if they ARE violent" standard because what constitutes "incitement" is such a nebulous standard. For example, Bull Connor (the infamous hard-line racist mayor of B'ham fifty years ago or so) used that against "freedom riders" and protesters. They were "inciting" violence. Bull also worked out a deal with the KKK where he would let the KKK beat on the freedom riders for 15 minutes before his officers came in and arrested them (the freedom riders, not the KKK).
                      Bamians are crafty folk.

                      Comment


                      • The Jackson-Lee Monument taken down in Baltimore overnight is being given to Chancellorsville Battlefield. Good place for it.

                        But that one's a good example of a Confederate memorial that has more ideological value than historical. First, it was in freaking Baltimore. Second, it was erected in 1948!

                        Comment


                        • hack,

                          As far as the right/wrong zone, we're talking opinions. I don't know if any proponent of either side of this issue will be able to stand up and claim that they are absolutely right. My belief is that silencing voices -even idiots' voices- is dangerous and is to be avoided. To me, the idea and practice of free speech is essentially sacrosanct and with that protection of speech, some hateful voices are allowed, too, and that's just the unfortunate cost of having these freedoms. I think of it as a variant of Blackstone's Formulation in that it's better that 10 websites like Stormfront be allowed to exist that to silence one voice innocent of such ideas.

                          But, as always, your mileage vary.

                          And with that, driving to the condo at the beach. Later, bitches.
                          Last edited by AlabamAlum; August 16th, 2017, 10:08 AM.
                          "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham Lincoln

                          Comment


                          • So when Trump was asked yesterday if he was going to visit Charlottesville, he worked in a plug for his winery outside Charlottesville. POSOTUS

                            Comment


                            • Wait. Are you really equating the BLM whose purpose is not to get killed by police, with Nazis who believe white people are superior to others?
                              well, when you put it that way........

                              BLM and KKK have the same fundamental belief in racism, pure and simple. Both are violent, both are haters, both posit government as their enemy. The only difference I was trying to point out was that while Trump denounced the white supremacists, Obama invited the BLM haters into the White House.

                              I honestly don't see how you can denounce hatred by whites and condone hatred by blacks.

                              When armed men are marching the streets in body armor and crashing cars into crowds on people, we're probably past the point of commissions IMO. All approaches should be pursued, but this might be a matter of Neo-Nazis and Clansmen being beaten- literally- until they retreat back into the dark recesses for another fifty years.
                              This is always the statist solution. Exaggerate what happened ("...cars..."), then eliminate the opposition by force.

                              All the media attention is exactly what the Nazi white supremacists want. I say ignore them as much as possible and they'll crawl back under a rock for another 50 years.

                              Comment


                              • What the First Amendment should and shouldn't protect is a nice theoretical discussion. I'm of the mind that the Court has it right when it comes to political speech -- the government ought not get involved (basically).

                                However, the practical realities are clear. The Court upheld the right of Neo-Nazis to march in Skokie. It's possible that they could revisit the issue, I guess, and make themselves arbiters of acceptably racist speech and unacceptably racist speech. But I don't see that happening.
                                Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
                                Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X