5 ms·

They were calling for America to be a whites only homeland. You don't get from here to there without murdering lots of minorities

ryanwaggoner 9y ago
Not defending their views, but your statement isn't accurate. You could also get there through deportation, or in the long term, through banning immigration and reproduction by minorities. Obviously horrible beyond words, but not fair to say that murder is only option.
- davidcbc 9y ago
  Unless you can come up with a scenario where all minorities line up to get on airplanes willingly that aren't accomplishing their goal without massive amounts of violence. They know this, which is why they are heavily armed. Whether they try to deport them all or murder them all they are going to have to kill millions to accomplish their goal.
  - ryanwaggoner 9y ago
    Ugh. I don't even want to participate in this as a hypothetical. Sorry for leading us down this rabbit hole.
  - censoredhn 9y ago
    Given how oppressed by whites they supposedly are, you'd think they would be chomping at the bit to get away from us. Yet "white flight" continues to be a thing, while "black flight" strangely does not...
DarkKomunalec 9y ago
You can deport people, or segregate races by state and form separate federal entities. Or are you saying L.A. became minority white[0] through the murder of ~600k whites? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_angeles#Demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_angeles#Demographics
ryanbrunner 9y ago
Yeah, and I don't disagree with you. If they were successful, that's where this ends up. But in the specific context of this discussion (should speech be banned), saying that speech should be banned if it indirectly leads to violence is a very hard standard to enforce. Should communist speech be prohibited because establishing a communist state probably requires a dictatorship of the proletariat? Should BLM be restricted from speaking because one of their members views their plight as hopeless and decides to take violent action? Should left-wing organization supporting a "diversity of tactics" be banned because it explicitly allows for violent acts without suggesting or condoning them? I want to be very clear that it's possible to think these groups should not exist and to disagree as strongly as possible with their message, while still believing they should not be legally restricted from making an argument that does not explicitly call for violence.

ryanwaggoner 9y ago

Not defending their views, but your statement isn't accurate. You could also get there through deportation, or in the long term, through banning immigration and reproduction by minorities. Obviously horrible beyond words, but not fair to say that murder is only option.

davidcbc 9y ago
Unless you can come up with a scenario where all minorities line up to get on airplanes willingly that aren't accomplishing their goal without massive amounts of violence. They know this, which is why they are heavily armed. Whether they try to deport them all or murder them all they are going to have to kill millions to accomplish their goal.
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  Ugh. I don't even want to participate in this as a hypothetical. Sorry for leading us down this rabbit hole.
- censoredhn 9y ago
  Given how oppressed by whites they supposedly are, you'd think they would be chomping at the bit to get away from us. Yet "white flight" continues to be a thing, while "black flight" strangely does not...

DarkKomunalec 9y ago

You can deport people, or segregate races by state and form separate federal entities. Or are you saying L.A. became minority white[0] through the murder of ~600k whites? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_angeles#Demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_angeles#Demographics

ryanbrunner 9y ago

Yeah, and I don't disagree with you. If they were successful, that's where this ends up. But in the specific context of this discussion (should speech be banned), saying that speech should be banned if it indirectly leads to violence is a very hard standard to enforce. Should communist speech be prohibited because establishing a communist state probably requires a dictatorship of the proletariat? Should BLM be restricted from speaking because one of their members views their plight as hopeless and decides to take violent action? Should left-wing organization supporting a "diversity of tactics" be banned because it explicitly allows for violent acts without suggesting or condoning them? I want to be very clear that it's possible to think these groups should not exist and to disagree as strongly as possible with their message, while still believing they should not be legally restricted from making an argument that does not explicitly call for violence.