4 ms·

I don't think that's enough. If this is a fight, which it is, the cockroaches are going for your throat, and this approach amounts to a light sparring session.

I don't think that's enough. If this is a fight, which it is, the cockroaches are going for your throat, and this approach amounts to a light sparring session. It reminds me of the film Manhattan, where Woody Allen's character is at a cocktail party, and a group is ruminating about what to do with a group of Skinheads that popped up in NY. His party acquaintances suggest they use satirical literature in the paper. Allen's character, dismayed by their solution, suggests baseball bats. He had the right idea. As long as we let cockroaches hide behind legal technicalities, as they do MAJOR damage, they will continue to do so, and the damage will continue.

aphextron 10y ago
>As long as we let cockroaches hide behind legal technicalities, as they do MAJOR damage, they will continue to do so, and the damage will continue. And yet those "legal technicalities" are the difference between a free society like ours, and Russia. As despicable as they may be, to give in to the allure of dehumanization and extrajudicial punishment is fascism incarnate.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- grasshopperpurp 10y ago
  Laws should evolve to serve the people. If monsters like this are allowed to say, 'But it's legal,' it should not be legal. People like Nix are much worse than some racist frat boys, but I'm reminded of this: "The way we interpret the First Amendment need not be simplistic and empty of nuance, and was not always so. The Supreme Court unanimously held over eighty years ago that “those words which by their very utterance inflict injury … are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.” And in 1952 the Court upheld an Illinois statute punishing “false or malicious defamation of racial and religious groups.” These rulings, while never officially reversed, have shrunk to historical trinkets. But they mark a range of the possible, where one can be a staunch defender of full-throated discourse but still recognize the difference between dialogue and vomitus." https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-limits-of-free-speech/387718/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-lim...
  - gpawl 10y ago
    And criticizing the President used to be a criminal offense. Would you like the Republican-majority Congress to pass a new Alien and Sedition Act?
- thatcat 10y ago
  > to give in to the allure of dehumanization and extrajudicial punishment is fascism incarnate It's well known that the US has an extrajudicial assassination program and prison.
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    Something I realised the other day, is that the campaign of dehumanization and extrajudicial punishment that the USA carried out against African Americans doesn't really have a name, like Fascism or Nazi-ism. Yeah there's "slavery" and then "Jim Crow" but what do you call the stuff since the 1950s? Mostly it's referred to by the inverse, the Civil Rights Movement, but what did they move against?
    - gpawl 10y ago
      "The New Jim Crow", sort of like "neo-Nazi" http://newjimcrow.com/ http://newjimcrow.com/
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

aphextron 10y ago

>As long as we let cockroaches hide behind legal technicalities, as they do MAJOR damage, they will continue to do so, and the damage will continue. And yet those "legal technicalities" are the difference between a free society like ours, and Russia. As despicable as they may be, to give in to the allure of dehumanization and extrajudicial punishment is fascism incarnate.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
grasshopperpurp 10y ago
Laws should evolve to serve the people. If monsters like this are allowed to say, 'But it's legal,' it should not be legal. People like Nix are much worse than some racist frat boys, but I'm reminded of this: "The way we interpret the First Amendment need not be simplistic and empty of nuance, and was not always so. The Supreme Court unanimously held over eighty years ago that “those words which by their very utterance inflict injury … are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.” And in 1952 the Court upheld an Illinois statute punishing “false or malicious defamation of racial and religious groups.” These rulings, while never officially reversed, have shrunk to historical trinkets. But they mark a range of the possible, where one can be a staunch defender of full-throated discourse but still recognize the difference between dialogue and vomitus." https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-limits-of-free-speech/387718/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-lim...
- gpawl 10y ago
  And criticizing the President used to be a criminal offense. Would you like the Republican-majority Congress to pass a new Alien and Sedition Act?
thatcat 10y ago
> to give in to the allure of dehumanization and extrajudicial punishment is fascism incarnate It's well known that the US has an extrajudicial assassination program and prison.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  Something I realised the other day, is that the campaign of dehumanization and extrajudicial punishment that the USA carried out against African Americans doesn't really have a name, like Fascism or Nazi-ism. Yeah there's "slavery" and then "Jim Crow" but what do you call the stuff since the 1950s? Mostly it's referred to by the inverse, the Civil Rights Movement, but what did they move against?
  - gpawl 10y ago
    "The New Jim Crow", sort of like "neo-Nazi" http://newjimcrow.com/ http://newjimcrow.com/

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]