That’s a good point. There’s definitely no value in evaluating an interview in context of the mission statement of a media company providing it. I must have taken this silly idea from somewhere and wandered into an unrelated thread.
Hey what’s the title again? Oh right it’s “Glenn Greenwald and Friends: Fearless Adversarial Fox News Contributors”.
And taking away their right to speech and assembly is the right answer to that? First of all, the idea that the Charlottesville crowd was on the verge of any sort of real political power is laughable, and whatever influence they did have was actually hurt by their idiotic tiki torch rally. Subsequent rallies were even more pathetic, with just a handful of participants.
What, do you think that Glasser was misquoted? Taken out of context? Did they make up what Glasser was saying? I was linking to the interview for Glasser’s point of view. Not sure what the mission statement of that outlet has to do with that.
He is just flailing around. It’s more like we will a) help gross people from being punished more harshly than they deserve and b) help non-gross people from being wrongly accused/categorized of being gross (including by objecting to systems that have high false positives; like the no fly list) AND c) where helpful, we will defend the rights of gross people to just do gross things as long as the benefits of establishing a universal principle outweighs the cost of the gross thing they are doing.
Lots of good stuff still even when not helping the Nazis after a change of opinion under category C! But no, now they stopped helping the Nazis and are just a bunch of liberal shills. And to be clear, that is a bad thing, a very bad thing! Ridiculous, lol.
I’d be fine with not allowing hate groups intent on burning down society and rebuilding it as a white ethnostate to organize. Obviously evil people can weaponize laws like that, but electing bad people is kind of the bigger issue there
I mean, I know it’s a myth, but that’s why my whole thing is that nobody is really actually an anti-statist libertarian. I never even mention it though because it can quickly devolve into a bunch of semantic nitpicking, but I felt it was appropriate in this thread at this specific time; though, I was about to post “sorry for stirring up something lol I just wanted other people to admit that they’re also secretly filthy authoritarian statists.”
Because, imo, USA#1 propaganda is so strong that the more problematic myth is how ~everybody internalizes that America has somehow squared this circle, a bastion of civilized freedom when other civilized nations punish thoughtcrime but also thinking about being a nazi is totally bad guys knock it off. It’s like how America is rightfully derided when it comes to healthcare and gun control and what not, like,
everybody also already knows how to prevent nazis.
Right, it’s not like these nuts added to their ranks then later stormed the Capitol under President Trump’s direction with the intent of helping him overthrow the election results and keeping him in power. Oh wait…
Maybe? Depends if they had resources left over after defending those who might be unjustly convicted. Or those who are already unfairly in prison. Or those who have been grossly mistreated within the prison system.
No one is asking to have Fuentes’ rights taken away. The ACLU is not a government organization. It’s not even like they came out and said that they agreed with the ban. What you are demanding is that they divert their attention from the many injustices more disadvantaged people are facing today, in order to stand up for this racist guy who has a huge following and sufficiently whined on social media.
“If Isaac Newton can be cancelled, no one is safe”
I’m saying it was hypocritical for the ACLU to backtrack from fighting for the right of the Unite the Right people to assemble. They didn’t backtrack because they had a limited budget or had too much other stuff to do, they took that case and that was exactly the sort of case they’ve been taking for fifty years. They backtracked from that case because they got bad press. And I don’t think they’ll defend the right of Nazis or white supremacists to speak and assemble going forward, and probably won’t defend right wing militiamen if the FBI starts entrapping them in manufactured domestic terror plots like they’ve been entrapping gullible Muslims for fifteen years. And they certainly wouldn’t defend Fuentes if he gets put on the no fly list, but Ira Glasser’s ACLU sure would have. That’s the hypocrisy.
And there is nothing worse than a hypocrite, not even murderers and Nazis!
I don’t see the ACLU out there defending Sir Isaac Newton, just saying.
Touche, stuff like this never happens.
And it’s DEFINITELY not a continuum.
Is that what happened to Glasser? He was quoted in that piece extremely extensively. If this profile was done without his consent or knowledge, then sure. But was it?
SenorKeed, don’t you think you are obligated to provide the ACLU with free message board representation and defend their right to freedom association even though they are alleged, gasp, HYPOCRITES!
If not, wouldn’t that make you a hypocrite? Dumdumdum…
I almost made a post before seeing your added second paragraph. But, yeah, this is what I meant by a semantic tangent. There’s not even a universally agreed upon definition of what a “state” is, or when a non-state becomes a state, but, I am of the school of thought that “‘any’ group of people is a state” becomes true way quicker and looser than most.
Just to be clear I didn’t say anybody was a hypocrite. Hypocrisy, even subconsciously, denotes a sort of antagonistic immoral apathy. I’m saying that it’s a failure of language to easily and succinctly describe the differences between the ideal stateless post-capitalism, the ideal transitionary society in practice, the actual society now in practice, and what makes the best activist rhetoric.
The majority of pacifism isn’t even strictly non-violent so this is more of the semantic pitfall I referred to, but no I’m not saying it’s only that binary. And I didn’t mention defense either but I do know why you said that instead of just “violence”. What I am saying is that once a group starts to coalesce around an ideology of who deserves violence and when and who doesn’t and why, a state is basically formed organically and out of necessity, by definition.
Oh snap you added more. Yeah, when I typed this,
I was alluding to something like this:
That’s not the state of affairs I was addressing nor the argument I was making because that hinges on some notion of pacifism and potential hypocrisy which I never made nor implied. Like, my entire point is that it’s not hypocritical and if that’s not clear then I’m doing a poor job and we’re talking past each other.
GG took the side of Donald Trump and white supremacists and he also seems comfortable with his choice.
I am sure Glenn empathizes with the ACLU as he too finds it possible to defend/support both sides or attack both sides. He has had his target for half a decade plus.
Are there even any nazis the ACLU should have defended of late? Like this has been a really dumb derail, but are there any actual even close to injustices that a racist in the USA has faced of late? It seems the worst they’ve got is the basic yelled at on social media or fired.
Would not letting the Skokie Nazis march in 1978 have been an injustice that the ACLU should have tried to right?