"Alt-right" Still Parading Ignorance, Stupidity, Malice, Etc.

[Brian Peacock]

That Richard Spencer. What is he like eh? He's such a scamp.



Yesterday the BBC news programmes were talking about '... the president's comment, which some people have considered racist ...' etc, whereas today they were talking about '... the president's racists tweets ...' I guess some editorial heart searching has been undertaken in the interim.

...and still no-one cares.

This would be even funnier, if it went to Trumps benefit somehow, that the news was focused on outrage rather than policy.

(I think many dems would have been critical of the new policy https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... n-migrants )

If Dems don't oppose it soon, they won't be able to keep bringing in 'dreamers' to help them with their goals...

I'd suggest that Trump's words reflect his attitudes and opinions which in turn are reflected in his policies. Personally I wouldn't condone a head of State's racism even if I agreed with their policies, but I can understand why you might.

[Cunt]

I'd suggest that Trump's words reflect his attitudes and opinions which in turn are reflected in his policies. Personally I wouldn't condone a head of State's racism even if I agreed with their policies, but I can understand why you might.

I'd suggest that the point I was making was that the racist tweet was bait to distract rubes from the (much more significant) policy change, but I can understand why you might miss my point.

[Cunt]

Personally I wouldn't condone a head of State's racism even if I agreed with their policies, but I can understand why you might.

Can I remind you of this recent moderation.

[pErvinalia]

What's my warning got to do with anything?

[Joe]

I figure he's just trolling the moderators again.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Another blow against freedom of speech, engineered by the SPLC.

'A Judge Ruled A Neo-Nazi Blogger Should Pay $14 Million To A Woman Targeted In A Racist “Troll Storm"'

A federal judge ruled more than $14 million should be awarded to a woman who was barraged with anti-Semitic and threatening messages online after a neo-Nazi blogger instructed his followers to target her and her family with a "troll storm."

The ruling was handed down Monday against Andrew Anglin, a white supremacist and publisher of the website The Daily Stormer.

In his decision, judge Jeremiah Lynch found that Anglin "acted with actual malice" when he told followers: "Let's Hit Em Up. Are y'all ready for an old fashioned Troll Storm? Because AYO - it's time, fam."

What followed were a series of racist and sometimes threatening messages to Montana real estate agent Tanya Gersh, her co-workers, and her family, including her 12-year-old son.

The recommended ruling against Anglin included more than $200,000 for lost earnings and medical expenses incurred by Gersh, $821,000 for future lost earnings, and $3 million for past and future pain and suffering.

The bulk of the judgment, however, was the state maximum of $10 million in punitive damages against the white supremacist for what the judge called "particularly egregious and reprehensible" behavior and to "punish Anglin and deter him from engaging in such conduct in the future."

"The court today made clear that this type of conduct is intolerable in a civil society and that those who would engage in it must pay the price," David Dinielli, deputy legal director at the Southern Poverty Law Center, who filed the suit on behalf of Gersh, said in a statement. "Even more, this ruling symbolizes a victory for our client, Tanya Gersh, who refused to cower in the face of Anglin's hate."

[JimC]

The legal system must be a Zionist conspiracy!

[Brian Peacock]

Andrew Anglin, the man who denies the Holocaust but still thinks it would have been a good idea if it had happenedd, the man who wrote the Daily Stormer article that called Heather Heyer, the woman killed by James Alex Fields in Charlottesville, "a fat, childless 32-year-old slut." $14 million dollars eh? A tidy sum, but I'm guessing he'll never pay more than a small fraction of that in the end.

[Cunt]

Andrew Anglin, the man wrote the Daily Stormer article that called Heather Heyer, the woman killed by James Alex Fields in Charllotsville, "a fat, childless 32-year-old slut." $14 million dollars eh? A tidy sum, but I'm guessing he'll never pay more than a small fraction of that in the end.

Well, if they can't award a sum too large to ever be paid (without expensive lawyers chasing it etc.) then what could they do to him?

I would like the idea of the punishment fitting the crime, but in cases like this, more hate doesn't seem any kind of remedy either...

Maybe apply his fine directly to a MLK memorial? (or a Heather Heyer memorial)

What would 'balance' be? I think an unreasonable sum might have been the best the judge had at their disposal.

[Brian Peacock]

I would like the idea of the punishment fitting the crime, but in cases like this, more hate doesn't seem any kind of remedy either...

Do you think the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and if so what do you think would be a more appropriate punishment? What do you mean by hate and what's hateful about this - is it the judicial ruling itself, or is just being critical of or standing in opposition to neo-Nazis and white-supremecists a hateful act as well? What do you think is the best, non-hateful way to oppose fascism and other forms of right-wing authoritarianism?

[Cunt]

I would like the idea of the punishment fitting the crime, but in cases like this, more hate doesn't seem any kind of remedy either...

Do you think the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and if so what do you think would be a more appropriate punishment?

I don't know if the punishment fits the crime, since I don't know the details of what was weighed. Let's say the judge nailed it this time. I still am dissatisfied, because I doubt the defendant will actually pay that, and if they do, it will be after lawyers have nibbled it down to nothing...

And the one victim can't really be satisfied, or I don't see a good way.

What do you mean by hate and what's hateful about this - is it the judicial ruling itself, or is just being critical of or standing in opposition to neo-Nazis and white-supremecists a hateful act as well?

No, but when I think of balance (an aspect of justice I sometimes consider) hating a hater doesn't seem a good answer. Putting a hater to work paying a giant ridiculous fine seems better.

What do you think is the best, non-hateful way to oppose fascism and other forms of right-wing authoritarianism?

To oppose fascism? I think branding antifa a terrorist group, and pointing out how their violent tactics are...well, a bit fascist.

And togetherness. Sounds cheesy, I know, but if everyone is working toward something agreeable, that can smooth out a lot of disagreements along the way.

As to 'right-wing authoritarianism', why would I be interested in that? Our culture has been GREAT at opposing groups like the KKK and other tiny fringe groups.

What we seem to suck HORRIBLY at is opposing left-wing authoritarianism.

How would you oppose the intersectional far-left fringe? Without being accused of being a white-devil racist-patriarch, I mean.

[pErvinalia]

Only Cunt could turn a discussion about right-wing white nationalism into a whinge about ANTIFA. Can't you ever stick to the topic?

[Cunt]

ANTIFA looks like mostly white people, who use masks, intimidation and violence to achieve their goals.

Here is another (You) for you.

[pErvinalia]

You still not addressing the topic?

[Cunt]

You still not addressing the topic?

I DID, but I don't mind that you can't keep up.

I'll wait. Here is a (You) for you in the meantime.