Go to first unread
Back
to top
Man called a Nazi for holding sign saying he believes in open discussion
Watch this thread
Empirical
Badges:
1
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
One might ask if there are some issues with the belief system in this country or the western world.
This man was called Nazi scum for holding a placard which said he believes in open discussion. Yes of course the first response will be that these are a small fringe who is accusing him, but ask yourself something, isn't this fringe behind the belief system that in some way drives this country. In the 70s this fringe practically took over government, they mantras where everywhere and revolution was a commonly used word. There are many people holding these views.
Posted from TSR Mobile
This man was called Nazi scum for holding a placard which said he believes in open discussion. Yes of course the first response will be that these are a small fringe who is accusing him, but ask yourself something, isn't this fringe behind the belief system that in some way drives this country. In the 70s this fringe practically took over government, they mantras where everywhere and revolution was a commonly used word. There are many people holding these views.
Posted from TSR Mobile
2
reply
pastelsloth
Badges:
14
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Joep95
Badges:
19
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report
#3
So the 'anti-fascists' are going round covering their faces intimidating people and silencing speech, they seem to be inspired by the fascists
0
reply
_Hafsa
Badges:
11
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report
#4
I don't believe I uphold the upmost intellect to fully debate this issue from all angles.
However after watching 'The Big Questions' this morning on Sunday television, where the question 'Should we have the right to be offended?' Was proposed. I believe the simple answer would be Yes. But this answer and the question is in all aspects subjective. An offence is an attack to ones personal feelings, So should the right to free speech, allow this to occur, should racism, discrimination etc occur because we have the right to free speech? Frankly no.
But, free speech should also allow that man to stand there with his placard and state his belief as to why there should be an open discussion.
Yes there should be, and those people should not have undermined and treated him like that because if defeats the whole purpose they are protesting for, they have the power to protect their beliefs, protect Muslims who recieve religious hatred, protect black lives, protect Jewishs from a 'Nazi scum'. They have this power simply because of the right to free speech. Therefore their reaction to the man defeats the whole purpose.
But I analyse this all with the few minutes I've been shown and the man in the video did not express any views of hatred in those few minutes, he simply stated there should be an open discussion and without an open disscussion we can't oppose those with discriminating views.
But We cannot use the right to free speech as an excuse to discriminate, which is probably why the people felt the way they did in the video, and if the man did portray these views it can be understood why they reacted the way they did.
However after watching 'The Big Questions' this morning on Sunday television, where the question 'Should we have the right to be offended?' Was proposed. I believe the simple answer would be Yes. But this answer and the question is in all aspects subjective. An offence is an attack to ones personal feelings, So should the right to free speech, allow this to occur, should racism, discrimination etc occur because we have the right to free speech? Frankly no.
But, free speech should also allow that man to stand there with his placard and state his belief as to why there should be an open discussion.
Yes there should be, and those people should not have undermined and treated him like that because if defeats the whole purpose they are protesting for, they have the power to protect their beliefs, protect Muslims who recieve religious hatred, protect black lives, protect Jewishs from a 'Nazi scum'. They have this power simply because of the right to free speech. Therefore their reaction to the man defeats the whole purpose.
But I analyse this all with the few minutes I've been shown and the man in the video did not express any views of hatred in those few minutes, he simply stated there should be an open discussion and without an open disscussion we can't oppose those with discriminating views.
But We cannot use the right to free speech as an excuse to discriminate, which is probably why the people felt the way they did in the video, and if the man did portray these views it can be understood why they reacted the way they did.
0
reply
_gcx
Badges:
21
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Jirga
Badges:
2
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report
#6
Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a nazi or a fascist these days. No one takes them seriously.
1
reply
BobBlobson
Badges:
2
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Empirical
Badges:
1
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
(Original post by _Hafsa)
I don't believe I uphold the upmost intellect to fully debate this issue from all angles.
However after watching 'The Big Questions' this morning on Sunday television, where the question 'Should we have the right to be offended?' Was proposed. I believe the simple answer would be Yes. But this answer and the question is in all aspects subjective. An offence is an attack to ones personal feelings, So should the right to free speech, allow this to occur, should racism, discrimination etc occur because we have the right to free speech? Frankly no.
But, free speech should also allow that man to stand there with his placard and state his belief as to why there should be an open discussion.
Yes there should be, and those people should not have undermined and treated him like that because if defeats the whole purpose they are protesting for, they have the power to protect their beliefs, protect Muslims who recieve religious hatred, protect black lives, protect Jewishs from a 'Nazi scum'. They have this power simply because of the right to free speech. Therefore their reaction to the man defeats the whole purpose.
But I analyse this all with the few minutes I've been shown and the man in the video did not express any views of hatred in those few minutes, he simply stated there should be an open discussion and without an open disscussion we can't oppose those with discriminating views.
But We cannot use the right to free speech as an excuse to discriminate, which is probably why the people felt the way they did in the video, and if the man did portray these views it can be understood why they reacted the way they did.
I don't believe I uphold the upmost intellect to fully debate this issue from all angles.
However after watching 'The Big Questions' this morning on Sunday television, where the question 'Should we have the right to be offended?' Was proposed. I believe the simple answer would be Yes. But this answer and the question is in all aspects subjective. An offence is an attack to ones personal feelings, So should the right to free speech, allow this to occur, should racism, discrimination etc occur because we have the right to free speech? Frankly no.
But, free speech should also allow that man to stand there with his placard and state his belief as to why there should be an open discussion.
Yes there should be, and those people should not have undermined and treated him like that because if defeats the whole purpose they are protesting for, they have the power to protect their beliefs, protect Muslims who recieve religious hatred, protect black lives, protect Jewishs from a 'Nazi scum'. They have this power simply because of the right to free speech. Therefore their reaction to the man defeats the whole purpose.
But I analyse this all with the few minutes I've been shown and the man in the video did not express any views of hatred in those few minutes, he simply stated there should be an open discussion and without an open disscussion we can't oppose those with discriminating views.
But We cannot use the right to free speech as an excuse to discriminate, which is probably why the people felt the way they did in the video, and if the man did portray these views it can be understood why they reacted the way they did.
What the important thing is, is that people should have the right to free speech and if someone is offended then they don't have to listen to them.
Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
anarchism101
Badges:
17
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report
#9
Seems everyone in this thread is just taking what the OP claims happened as true, without realising the obvious silliness of the idea that a man holding a cardboard sign at the side of a road would be a clearly predictable event that enough people would know about to organise a protest.
If you want more context on what was actually going on, he is counter-protesting them, not the other way around. They aren't protesting because they knew he would be there, he is protesting because he knew they would be there.
The main focus of the protest, and of the "Nazi scum" shouts, is not actually the man holding the sign, but rather the building behind him, which is the LD50 gallery, a prominent gallery and platform for fascists and quasi-fascists.
If you want more context on what was actually going on, he is counter-protesting them, not the other way around. They aren't protesting because they knew he would be there, he is protesting because he knew they would be there.
The main focus of the protest, and of the "Nazi scum" shouts, is not actually the man holding the sign, but rather the building behind him, which is the LD50 gallery, a prominent gallery and platform for fascists and quasi-fascists.
2
reply
anosmianAcrimony
Badges:
20
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report
#10
(Original post by JohnGreek)
Well... they never were the smartest group of people to begin with.
Well... they never were the smartest group of people to begin with.
0
reply
Joep95
Badges:
19
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report
#11
(Original post by anarchism101)
Seems everyone in this thread is just taking what the OP claims happened as true, without realising the obvious silliness of the idea that a man holding a cardboard sign at the side of a road would be a clearly predictable event that enough people would know about to organise a protest.
If you want more context on what was actually going on, he is counter-protesting them, not the other way around. They aren't protesting because they knew he would be there, he is protesting because he knew they would be there.
The main focus of the protest, and of the "Nazi scum" shouts, is not actually the man holding the sign, but rather the building behind him, which is the LD50 gallery, a prominent gallery and platform for fascists and quasi-fascists.
Seems everyone in this thread is just taking what the OP claims happened as true, without realising the obvious silliness of the idea that a man holding a cardboard sign at the side of a road would be a clearly predictable event that enough people would know about to organise a protest.
If you want more context on what was actually going on, he is counter-protesting them, not the other way around. They aren't protesting because they knew he would be there, he is protesting because he knew they would be there.
The main focus of the protest, and of the "Nazi scum" shouts, is not actually the man holding the sign, but rather the building behind him, which is the LD50 gallery, a prominent gallery and platform for fascists and quasi-fascists.
0
reply
Joep95
Badges:
19
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report
#12
(Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
You're saying that opposing fascism is not a smart thing to do...?
You're saying that opposing fascism is not a smart thing to do...?
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges:
17
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report
#13
(Original post by joecphillips)
So he went to protest a group that is protest the right to free speech and is called nazi scum because of it.
So he went to protest a group that is protest the right to free speech and is called nazi scum because of it.
0
reply
Empirical
Badges:
1
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
(Original post by anarchism101)
Seems everyone in this thread is just taking what the OP claims happened as true, without realising the obvious silliness of the idea that a man holding a cardboard sign at the side of a road would be a clearly predictable event that enough people would know about to organise a protest.
If you want more context on what was actually going on, he is counter-protesting them, not the other way around. They aren't protesting because they knew he would be there, he is protesting because he knew they would be there.
The main focus of the protest, and of the "Nazi scum" shouts, is not actually the man holding the sign, but rather the building behind him, which is the LD50 gallery, a prominent gallery and platform for fascists and quasi-fascists.
Seems everyone in this thread is just taking what the OP claims happened as true, without realising the obvious silliness of the idea that a man holding a cardboard sign at the side of a road would be a clearly predictable event that enough people would know about to organise a protest.
If you want more context on what was actually going on, he is counter-protesting them, not the other way around. They aren't protesting because they knew he would be there, he is protesting because he knew they would be there.
The main focus of the protest, and of the "Nazi scum" shouts, is not actually the man holding the sign, but rather the building behind him, which is the LD50 gallery, a prominent gallery and platform for fascists and quasi-fascists.
Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Joep95
Badges:
19
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report
#15
(Original post by anarchism101)
In what way are they protesting the right to free speech? What they are objecting to is the content of LD50's speech.
In what way are they protesting the right to free speech? What they are objecting to is the content of LD50's speech.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges:
17
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report
#16
(Original post by joecphillips)
They clearly state that he is not welcome
They clearly state that he is not welcome
because of his sign promoting free speech and they harass, intimidate
and assault/battery and steal to silence him for promoting it.
0
reply
PhantomHill
Badges:
2
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report
#17
You might find "battery" to be laughable, but as soon as they touched him they were guilty of assault. I know that antifa-types don't care about common law prerogatives, but that doesn't change the law.
1
reply
Hirsty97
Badges:
21
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report
#18
It's because he's a) white b) dares express an opinion that doesn't conform to the beliefs of the far-left.
Now he's been branded a Nazi people will believe they have moral justification to beat him to a bloody pulp on the street
Now he's been branded a Nazi people will believe they have moral justification to beat him to a bloody pulp on the street
1
reply
PhantomHill
Badges:
2
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report
#19
(Original post by joecphillips)
So the 'anti-fascists' are going round covering their faces intimidating people and silencing speech, they seem to be inspired by the fascists
So the 'anti-fascists' are going round covering their faces intimidating people and silencing speech, they seem to be inspired by the fascists
0
reply
Joep95
Badges:
19
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report
#20
(Original post by PhantomHill)
Or communism, more accurately. Not that that's any better.
Or communism, more accurately. Not that that's any better.
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
