How about "Nazis are bad" or something like that? It was a Nazi or Nazi wannabe that murdered the woman. There are also no fine individuals who are active Nazis.
All he had to do was condemn white supremacist and/or Nazi violence, and let it sit there. He couldn't do that.
Okay, how about this connection? I was against the invasion of Iraq. I was on a neo-Nazi mailing list then, for some unknown reason, and it was also against the Iraq invasion. Does that make me a Nazi?
Seriously, you say the Black Liberation Movement must be teh evilz because the Black Panthers supported it, and then that Black Lives Matter must be teh evilz because they support it. You're reasoning that, if an evil organization is for a cause, all organizations who believe in that cause must be evil. How about this: some very good people I know are against Nazis. Antifa is against Nazis. Therefore, by the same reasoning, Antifa must be good. I don't think either of us will agree with that conclusion.
You know, despite living in the center of a city, the closest I've seen to Mad Max was on a Blu-ray. From the people I personally know (not a random or statistically significant sample), the ones in the suburbs have had more crime problems than the ones in the center cities, and didn't get help from the police.
You'll find "freedom of the press" listed right next to "freedom of speech" in the First Amendment. This has never been construed as a need to give out free printing presses, or a requirement that any commercial operation with a press would have to accept anything somebody else wanted to print. It has been found sufficient to allow someone to shop around to find someone with a press who would print something. Same with web hosts. Nobody's saying Nazi propaganda can't be published, although people are saying it won't be published with them.
Slow down a little. Nobody is denying Nazis freedom of speech. Nobody. There are people who refuse to assist them in getting their message out, nothing more. I thought it was a popular right-wing argument that businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone they want for any reason they want, but apparently they should be able to refuse service to blacks and lesbians but not Nazis.
No. Intelligent people realize that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to make other people support your speech. Nobody here is trying to deny them freedom of speech, and neither are GoDaddy and similar sites.
He's a goddam Nazi. There's plenty of people whose messages I don't agree with. I'm a lot more polite about most of them than about Nazis. Except when discussing legal rights, which the Nazi murderer is getting, being against Nazis is a really crappy basis for a slippery slope argument. Equating being against Nazis with being against people you disagree with is a lame and intellectually dishonest argument.
I don't like Antifa either, and when I've seen one drive a car into a group of people with intent, I'll happily not support him.
Insanity in the legal sense isn't the same as psychotic, so we'll have to see what the court says about that.
However, I'd bet there are lots of schizophrenics in prison cells, and I doubt many people complaining about the Nazi murderer are providing money to help them get the therapy they need.
Once more, he will get all the justice of a fair trial in this country, no matter whether he has money or not. If you think that's insufficient, you're free to lobby for better representation by public defenders. Personally, if we're doing this on a piecemeal basis, I'd rather start with people who are more likely to be found not guilty.
What specifically do you want done about all the poor people who get caught up in the justice system and can't pay a lawyer who earns more per hour than the average citizen earns in a week? If this is denying him any right, then that right is routinely denied to a very large number of people, and you should be concerned about that. Are you going to support people who want to provide better lawyers to indigent defendants in general?
What you don't seem to realize is that nobody here is advocating denying the guy any rights. He has a right to a fair trial, and if he can't afford a lawyer one will be appointed to represent him. He will have the right to call witnesses and the whole nine yards.
This is all that a lot of people get. If there's some right to not have to have a public defender, then lots and lots of poor people are having their rights denied, which should bother you more than just one person.
Let me get this straight. Are you saying nobody should have to resort to a public defender ever, or do you just want Nazis to get preferred treatment? Nobody's saying that having to use a public defender is good, just that arguing that it's wrong for a Nazi to have to rely on one while ignoring all sorts of other people who have to is hypocritical.
Because there are certain classes of people who are often discriminated against to the point that it becomes a real problem for them. If you think "Nazi scum" should be a protected class, feel free to lobby your legislators. I, personally, don't think it should be. I also am not really happy at the comparison of a murderous Nazi to an innocent lesbian couple, and would like to point out that crowdfunding sites are not engaging in an internet harassment campaign against the asshole, as the bakers did towards the couple.
Oh, it's a problem. It's a problem without a simple solution.
We do in some cases mandate non-discriminatory behavior. However, I don't know of any state where "murderous Nazi scum" is a protected class. We allow public businesses to refuse service to individuals on grounds other than being members of protected classes. It's a clumsy solution, but it works reasonably well. Requiring businesses to deal with everyone is simply not going to work.
Nobody is talking about denying him any rights. Nobody is talking about removing his right to a fair trial.
I assume that you're perfectly fine with him possibly having to rely on a public defender, just like other people who can't afford better. What's fair for a scared black kid is fair for a Nazi murderer, as you have pointed out.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a noble sentiment that is applied in the courts, but it really doesn't work that way anywhere else. If you're apparently guilty of a crime, you're likely to be arrested and imprisoned, which is a lot less likely than if there's no evidence linking you to a crime. Employers ask for arrest records if they can get them, despite the fact that someone who has been arrested five times for shoplifting and never convicted or plead guilty is legally innocent.
It's pretty obvious who did it. I've seen large chunks of Slashdot come to firm conclusions about guilt and innocence with much less evidence.
Nor is he being denied the right to a fair trial. He gets one on the same basis as any other person. He can get the representation he can afford, or a public defender, just like anyone else. If you have problems with that concept, you also should have problems with a large number of poor people who are in that exact situation, without people financially supporting them.
He's not even being denied the ability to get other people to contribute to his legal defense fund. People did that before the internet was widely available. There's no requirement that anybody in particular contribute to his defense, and no requirement that anybody in particular help him raise money. Crowdfunding sites aren't harming him in the least; they're just not helping him. Are you proposing that crowdfunding sites be required to support any campaign that applies that doesn't actually break the law?
You're assuming that the listed crime rate between the center cities and the suburbs means what it appears to say. There's lots of things that could throw that off. Police who are looking for bad behavior are more likely to find it than police who aren't. Pretty much every element of the police and court system is harder on blacks than on whites, given the same behavior. Given that, blacks are going to be less cooperative with the police, intensifying the hostility and leading to further problems.
I fail to understand why being forced to stay in a dysfunctional family is less likely to produce criminal behavior than being in a smaller family. You do know what "dysfunctional" means, don't you?
The crime statistics are dubious. Statistically, for the same behavior, blacks are a lot more likely to be convicted than whites. If we had statistics based on actual actions and amount of evidence, we could correct for that.
That you had it hard for some reason is completely irrelevant to discussing white privilege. Whether your life would have been harder if you were black is relevant.
Moreover, you are pretty sure of things that you don't actually know about, and that's always bad to reason from.
Omigod, BLM and the Black Panthers were associated in some way with the same movement! BLM must be teh evilz.
Did you have any relatives who served in WWII? Then they're associated with Hitler.
Look, if you have some actual evidence against Black Lives Matter, feel free to pull it out and post it. Heck, if you have actual evidence against the Black Liberation Movement as a whole, post it. Don't pull irrational crap.
If you actually bother yourself to read about some of the killings BLM complain about, you'd realize that blacks get killed without any illegal or improper activity, and the cops get off. The one who murdered Castile just got a $48K severance package to get him off the force.
I'm advocating that police be held responsible for killing other people for no particular reason. That's all.
Good for you. It doesn't usually work that way for people with real depression.
Depression is not about any crap that happened to you. It just is. Faking feeling better isn't going to do any good. Faking feeling better to get out and dealing with people or accomplishing something may be worthwhile, but just pretending you're happy does not work.
Slashdot Mirror
How about "Nazis are bad" or something like that? It was a Nazi or Nazi wannabe that murdered the woman. There are also no fine individuals who are active Nazis.
All he had to do was condemn white supremacist and/or Nazi violence, and let it sit there. He couldn't do that.
Sure. I notice that the warrant is being contested in court, so the system is working, at least so far.
And protectionism brings the entire world economy down. We tried that in the 1930s. I'd rather have at least a full century before we try it again.
Okay, how about this connection? I was against the invasion of Iraq. I was on a neo-Nazi mailing list then, for some unknown reason, and it was also against the Iraq invasion. Does that make me a Nazi?
Seriously, you say the Black Liberation Movement must be teh evilz because the Black Panthers supported it, and then that Black Lives Matter must be teh evilz because they support it. You're reasoning that, if an evil organization is for a cause, all organizations who believe in that cause must be evil. How about this: some very good people I know are against Nazis. Antifa is against Nazis. Therefore, by the same reasoning, Antifa must be good. I don't think either of us will agree with that conclusion.
You know, despite living in the center of a city, the closest I've seen to Mad Max was on a Blu-ray. From the people I personally know (not a random or statistically significant sample), the ones in the suburbs have had more crime problems than the ones in the center cities, and didn't get help from the police.
You'll find "freedom of the press" listed right next to "freedom of speech" in the First Amendment. This has never been construed as a need to give out free printing presses, or a requirement that any commercial operation with a press would have to accept anything somebody else wanted to print. It has been found sufficient to allow someone to shop around to find someone with a press who would print something. Same with web hosts. Nobody's saying Nazi propaganda can't be published, although people are saying it won't be published with them.
Slow down a little. Nobody is denying Nazis freedom of speech. Nobody. There are people who refuse to assist them in getting their message out, nothing more. I thought it was a popular right-wing argument that businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone they want for any reason they want, but apparently they should be able to refuse service to blacks and lesbians but not Nazis.
No. Intelligent people realize that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to make other people support your speech. Nobody here is trying to deny them freedom of speech, and neither are GoDaddy and similar sites.
He's a goddam Nazi. There's plenty of people whose messages I don't agree with. I'm a lot more polite about most of them than about Nazis. Except when discussing legal rights, which the Nazi murderer is getting, being against Nazis is a really crappy basis for a slippery slope argument. Equating being against Nazis with being against people you disagree with is a lame and intellectually dishonest argument.
I don't like Antifa either, and when I've seen one drive a car into a group of people with intent, I'll happily not support him.
Insanity in the legal sense isn't the same as psychotic, so we'll have to see what the court says about that.
However, I'd bet there are lots of schizophrenics in prison cells, and I doubt many people complaining about the Nazi murderer are providing money to help them get the therapy they need.
Once more, he will get all the justice of a fair trial in this country, no matter whether he has money or not. If you think that's insufficient, you're free to lobby for better representation by public defenders. Personally, if we're doing this on a piecemeal basis, I'd rather start with people who are more likely to be found not guilty.
Were they all wielding weapons?
Anyway, private mayhem is not a legal solution for attending an illegal demonstration.
OK, here's the next question.
What specifically do you want done about all the poor people who get caught up in the justice system and can't pay a lawyer who earns more per hour than the average citizen earns in a week? If this is denying him any right, then that right is routinely denied to a very large number of people, and you should be concerned about that. Are you going to support people who want to provide better lawyers to indigent defendants in general?
What you don't seem to realize is that nobody here is advocating denying the guy any rights. He has a right to a fair trial, and if he can't afford a lawyer one will be appointed to represent him. He will have the right to call witnesses and the whole nine yards.
This is all that a lot of people get. If there's some right to not have to have a public defender, then lots and lots of poor people are having their rights denied, which should bother you more than just one person.
Let me get this straight. Are you saying nobody should have to resort to a public defender ever, or do you just want Nazis to get preferred treatment? Nobody's saying that having to use a public defender is good, just that arguing that it's wrong for a Nazi to have to rely on one while ignoring all sorts of other people who have to is hypocritical.
Because there are certain classes of people who are often discriminated against to the point that it becomes a real problem for them. If you think "Nazi scum" should be a protected class, feel free to lobby your legislators. I, personally, don't think it should be. I also am not really happy at the comparison of a murderous Nazi to an innocent lesbian couple, and would like to point out that crowdfunding sites are not engaging in an internet harassment campaign against the asshole, as the bakers did towards the couple.
Oh, it's a problem. It's a problem without a simple solution.
We do in some cases mandate non-discriminatory behavior. However, I don't know of any state where "murderous Nazi scum" is a protected class. We allow public businesses to refuse service to individuals on grounds other than being members of protected classes. It's a clumsy solution, but it works reasonably well. Requiring businesses to deal with everyone is simply not going to work.
Nobody is talking about denying him any rights. Nobody is talking about removing his right to a fair trial.
I assume that you're perfectly fine with him possibly having to rely on a public defender, just like other people who can't afford better. What's fair for a scared black kid is fair for a Nazi murderer, as you have pointed out.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a noble sentiment that is applied in the courts, but it really doesn't work that way anywhere else. If you're apparently guilty of a crime, you're likely to be arrested and imprisoned, which is a lot less likely than if there's no evidence linking you to a crime. Employers ask for arrest records if they can get them, despite the fact that someone who has been arrested five times for shoplifting and never convicted or plead guilty is legally innocent.
It's pretty obvious who did it. I've seen large chunks of Slashdot come to firm conclusions about guilt and innocence with much less evidence.
Nor is he being denied the right to a fair trial. He gets one on the same basis as any other person. He can get the representation he can afford, or a public defender, just like anyone else. If you have problems with that concept, you also should have problems with a large number of poor people who are in that exact situation, without people financially supporting them.
He's not even being denied the ability to get other people to contribute to his legal defense fund. People did that before the internet was widely available. There's no requirement that anybody in particular contribute to his defense, and no requirement that anybody in particular help him raise money. Crowdfunding sites aren't harming him in the least; they're just not helping him. Are you proposing that crowdfunding sites be required to support any campaign that applies that doesn't actually break the law?
You're assuming that the listed crime rate between the center cities and the suburbs means what it appears to say. There's lots of things that could throw that off. Police who are looking for bad behavior are more likely to find it than police who aren't. Pretty much every element of the police and court system is harder on blacks than on whites, given the same behavior. Given that, blacks are going to be less cooperative with the police, intensifying the hostility and leading to further problems.
I fail to understand why being forced to stay in a dysfunctional family is less likely to produce criminal behavior than being in a smaller family. You do know what "dysfunctional" means, don't you?
The crime statistics are dubious. Statistically, for the same behavior, blacks are a lot more likely to be convicted than whites. If we had statistics based on actual actions and amount of evidence, we could correct for that.
That you had it hard for some reason is completely irrelevant to discussing white privilege. Whether your life would have been harder if you were black is relevant.
Moreover, you are pretty sure of things that you don't actually know about, and that's always bad to reason from.
Omigod, BLM and the Black Panthers were associated in some way with the same movement! BLM must be teh evilz.
Did you have any relatives who served in WWII? Then they're associated with Hitler.
Look, if you have some actual evidence against Black Lives Matter, feel free to pull it out and post it. Heck, if you have actual evidence against the Black Liberation Movement as a whole, post it. Don't pull irrational crap.
If you actually bother yourself to read about some of the killings BLM complain about, you'd realize that blacks get killed without any illegal or improper activity, and the cops get off. The one who murdered Castile just got a $48K severance package to get him off the force.
I'm advocating that police be held responsible for killing other people for no particular reason. That's all.
Good for you. It doesn't usually work that way for people with real depression.
Depression is not about any crap that happened to you. It just is. Faking feeling better isn't going to do any good. Faking feeling better to get out and dealing with people or accomplishing something may be worthwhile, but just pretending you're happy does not work.