4 ms·

>If I act like a complete jackass and no one wants to sell me a house, society wouldn't be "covering me up". They'd just be refusing to associate with me, as is

>If I act like a complete jackass and no one wants to sell me a house, society wouldn't be "covering me up". They'd just be refusing to associate with me, as is the right of every individual. That sort of thinking is what validated racial segregation of neighborhoods in the US. >I fail to see the problem. Failing to see the problem is the problem. >We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured. -Dr. King, Letter From a Birmingham Jail

scottLobster 9y ago
Watch your context on that quote. Exposing racial injustice and providing a platform for the promotion of racial injustice (among other things perpetrated by the Daily Stormer) are two very different things. In any case, what are you suggesting? That owning a web domain is a right? That people should be forced by law to listen to and debate all available opinions regardless of how inane or evil? Please be specific, because right now your only argument is that people shouldn't be free to choose who they associate with on the grounds that the right was once abused regarding racial segregation. Then you make an out-of-context appeal to authority that doesn't really support anything beyond exposing injustice. Refusing the daily stormer a web registration isn't covering up injustice, it's refusing to support it.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  >Watch your context on that quote. Exposing racial injustice and providing a platform for the promotion of racial injustice (among other things perpetrated by the Daily Stormer) are two very different things. How can it be exposed if all the public platforms are withheld? The context is clear if you've studied Dr. King's tactics. The media (TV/newspapers, and now the internet) ignored racial injustice, and so Dr. King made a point of creating public agitation that forced the media to give it attention so that everyone could be made aware of its existence and decide how to deal with it. >Please be specific If your goal is to defeat your enemies, forcing them out of public view and into the shadows obscures your reconnaissance capabilities and decreases your strategic advantage. >>Failing to see the problem is the problem.
  - scottLobster 9y ago
    I think they were allowed to expose themselves quite effectively the other day. Neo-nazis also found ways to expose themselves well before the invention of the internet. They still have their free speech, but they are not entitled to aid in expressing it from private entities. You can't "defeat" neo-nazis on a message board any more than you can "defeat" a racist grandparent at the dinner table. The goal is to prevent evil ideas from infiltrating mainstream society, they will always be around in some form or other. Judging by the reaction to the recent events in Charlottesville, including the revocation of the daily stormer's registration, it looks like mainstream society is soundly rejecting evil.

scottLobster 9y ago

Watch your context on that quote. Exposing racial injustice and providing a platform for the promotion of racial injustice (among other things perpetrated by the Daily Stormer) are two very different things. In any case, what are you suggesting? That owning a web domain is a right? That people should be forced by law to listen to and debate all available opinions regardless of how inane or evil? Please be specific, because right now your only argument is that people shouldn't be free to choose who they associate with on the grounds that the right was once abused regarding racial segregation. Then you make an out-of-context appeal to authority that doesn't really support anything beyond exposing injustice. Refusing the daily stormer a web registration isn't covering up injustice, it's refusing to support it.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>Watch your context on that quote. Exposing racial injustice and providing a platform for the promotion of racial injustice (among other things perpetrated by the Daily Stormer) are two very different things. How can it be exposed if all the public platforms are withheld? The context is clear if you've studied Dr. King's tactics. The media (TV/newspapers, and now the internet) ignored racial injustice, and so Dr. King made a point of creating public agitation that forced the media to give it attention so that everyone could be made aware of its existence and decide how to deal with it. >Please be specific If your goal is to defeat your enemies, forcing them out of public view and into the shadows obscures your reconnaissance capabilities and decreases your strategic advantage. >>Failing to see the problem is the problem.
- scottLobster 9y ago
  I think they were allowed to expose themselves quite effectively the other day. Neo-nazis also found ways to expose themselves well before the invention of the internet. They still have their free speech, but they are not entitled to aid in expressing it from private entities. You can't "defeat" neo-nazis on a message board any more than you can "defeat" a racist grandparent at the dinner table. The goal is to prevent evil ideas from infiltrating mainstream society, they will always be around in some form or other. Judging by the reaction to the recent events in Charlottesville, including the revocation of the daily stormer's registration, it looks like mainstream society is soundly rejecting evil.