@newtboy,
Nazis and white power groups are bad enough that standing with them makes one my foe....like NAMBLA.

Do you apply that with equal opportunity?

The guilt of association for the gallery with Stevens and whatever his name was from Amerika.org, should be similar to association with say the Nation of Islam and Farakhan?

What about Canada’s branch of BLM in Toronto who blocked the Toronto Pride parade and one of whose founders(Yusra Khogali) have said things like “white people are recessive genetic defects, this is factual”

https://archive.is/7R2LV/c2fbdb212391ecd395c3c89372819e2bd8d772bc.png

And

“ Plz Allah give me strength to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today. Plz plz plz”

Thats as much ‘evidence’ as you’ve given for convicting Brett Stevens of white supremacy, and then to convict anyone associated with him there after.

I say we dont get so extreme as you and deny all those people and anyone associated a right to speak their piece on that basis alone. I say the stupid and wrong things being said need to be allowed to be spoken, and confront them with corrections and revelation rather than force and violence to quiet them.

If the same standard applies, then yes, you are saying you expect a lone BLM activist at a clan rally to be treated better...because this treatment is unacceptable in your opinion.

His speech, or at least the speech he's defending, has been used to exactly that effect publicly and repeatedly in recent past, maybe just seconds earlier we don't know, so now it seems you've come around to my side. Am I wrong?

No, I never heard of this before this video, I have no other info, nor have I independently verified what I found. That said, a gallery that repeatedly hosts Nazis and white power speakers, surely bringing with them crowds of Nazis and white power groups into a neighborhood IS acting as a neo Nazi hq, at least during those multiple events.

I think if the gallery wasn't in a residential neighborhood but in the country, the "wrong think" would be fine, it's that they repeatedly turn the neighborhood into a race war zone by holding what amounts to white power rallies people would be outraged by, imo...but I'm not British, I can imagine they think worse about Nazis than Americans do and might be less tolerant.

I don't disagree that the gallery may have intended to just be an open space available to anyone, but what they became was a beacon to Nazis and racists, a safe place to hold rallies and events in a neighborhood that clearly doesn't want them. A place from which to provoke. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
When they saw how angry their neighbors were at the groups they brought to the neighborhood they should have changed how they operate, or where, but seemingly didn't.


So, while the gallery may not be specifically a Nazi HQ, by hosting the speakers and groups it does, it supports their ideologies and facilitated spreading their message by offering them a platform. That makes them complicit, intentionally so after the first protest when they were put on notice the neighbors are outraged.

@newtboy
Do you honestly believe a BLM sign holder at a clan March would be treated better? What about at a Trump rally? If you claim to think either case wouldn't end in hospitalization, you're not being honest.

Not only did I never claim that, I have trouble figuring why you think I would? My second sentence again:"My opinion though lies the same whether it’s this guy treated as he was in the video, or if the situation was reversed and the lone guy had a BLM sign instead, same standard applies."

I oppose meeting speech with force excepting when that speech is being used to promote violence or harm, I'm also willing to allow that 'speech' can also amount to being disruptive or harassment like your notion of bringing inappropriate material to a kids park, or using a megaphone inches from someone's face.

I kind of thought on that point we'd find agreement, or at least understanding and agree to disagree?

Opening a new point from you're statement:He was the instigator. His sign amounts to "you will not silence our Nazi voice" at a rally pushing to silence their Nazi voice in their neighborhood.

I've read a few of the links you provided, and looked up a few articles on the gallery and I'm having troubles with the characterization. Do you have a good specific link that more clearly focuses on the nazi support from the gallery? The reading I've done seems to describe an art gallery, that allowed exhibits and talks from far-right and at least arguably fascist speakers on possibly a few occasions. You seem to talk like it was operating openly as a neo-nazi HQ.

So, what I've looked up so far, it does look an awful lot like a gallery pulled in speakers that people disliked, so they rallied to shut down the gallery as punishment for allowing wrong-think to be spoken. Then when guys like the one in the video came to defend free-speech, they too were classed as nazi's and lumped in as enemies too. Last article I found by the guy in video, so maybe he's lying, but other articles I've found also suggest that the gallery operated more generally rather than being an explicitly alt-right hub:
https://medium.com/@dctvbot/i-regret-nothing-c05401636032

I openly admit I’m plenty ignorant on the background to all this.

My opinion though lies the same whether it’s this guy treated as he was in the video, or if the situation was reversed and the lone guy had a BLM sign instead, same standard applies. You had a very large crowd around him not content to shout him down, but intent on using force to chase him off and trying to again use force to take his sign from him. Thats over the line and I don’t care who is doing the pushing or what the sign actually says. As above, if the sign or message is itself a promotion of violence, then its the police and court system you want to pull in, not the mob or vigilantism.

The little background I read from your links though suggests the large crowd had been there repeatedly with the same purpose of getting the gallery/HQ shutdown. Seems awful likely to me guy with sign was then standing outside said gallery and all the more aught have the right to stand near it with a simple sign, without being dismissed as the one ‘invading’ or stealing the protestors platform. To be honest most of the discussion about giving or blocking platforms reeks to me of just renaming stuff so folks can duck the well worn arguments in support of free speech.

I'll probably vote for Biden, but the rest of my votes have to go Republican for one reason only.

Guns. I am OK with some gun control. But it is clear that no matter what, Democrats will make every attempt they can if they sweep the election to re-do the assault weapon ban, apply punitive taxes to ammo (and possibly guns), and remove the right to private sale.

Bedo was the only one to fully admit it, but Biden has been harsh on guns as well going by comments alone. I don't want Trump back, but I want the Senate to stay Republican to counter gun measures.

I know it's unpopular, but I am one of those people that will never give up my rifles, my pistols, my shotguns, my large capacity clips, and my right to buy as much ammo as I wish without paying another government tax. I also feel I should be able to give or sell my firearms to someone I trust, be it a family member or close friend.

Man, this is absolutely spot on, and applies to pretty much any institution. *promote

The key point here is that the Emancipation Proclamation, although widely celebrated, had no real legal effect. It did not apply to states that had not seceded, and for states that had seceded US federal government proclamations didn't mean much. The real effect of the Emancipation Proclamation was diplomatic, it made it more difficult for European governments, particularly the UK, to support the Confederacy, as was in their economic best interest.

Yeah ive become more cynical in my view of these types. It seems that its' always "the rules apply to everyone except me getting more stuff" and is rooted more simply in the idea that they are selfish.

Gov benefit for everyone? THAT'S SOCIALISM AND WHAT NEXT NAZIS? WHAT? YOU WANT EVERYONE TO HAVE EVERYTHING FOR FREE? THEN WHAT? NO ONE WORKS? NANNY STATE? STATISM!!! TYRRANY!!!"

Gov benefit for me? Well... I'm gettin' mine...OF COURSE.

Ahhh...So all those "takers", the welfare queens and system abusers who live on the government's money aren't the dregs of society, they're the smart people intelligent enough to take whatever they can take, and hardworking taxpayers are the stupid cucks too dumb to get their handouts and chill?!? I had no idea you were such a ridiculously far left socialist...what have you done with Bob?

You realize Trump is that dumb government, and he thinks the checks are great since he gets to put his name on them and distract you from the trillions he's just giving his large donors....and himself since reportedly most of his properties have applied for bailouts. Citizens got 1/8 of the first stimulus, and Trump has insisted they'll get nothing in the next rounds. Guaranteed that won't mean his family though, they'll get their checks.

1) Looks like a closed racing track. I don't know if laws will be applied differently?
2) Totally.
3) Yes!

His "the other side of the argument" comment leads me to believe this movement is to mock the concept that opposing viewpoints are different but credible. Somehow I have a feeling he only applies this to viewpoints that oppose liberal positions.

I was thinking about car safety and how the biggest variable is likely the driver...how specific cars are driven on average, and it struck me that the best way to promote public safety would be to make your maximum speed limit variable based on gvw (gross vehicle weight). This is already done for vehicles with more than two axles or those towing trailers because it's obvious they take longer to stop. The same logic should apply to every car. It's a no brainer that a Humvee takes longer to stop than a Miata, and is far less controllable under emergency braking. For the safety of both those in such larger vehicles and the general public, they should not be allowed to go as fast as cars weighing 1/4 their weight with better brakes.
A side benefit of such a system would be greater average fuel economy, because bigger cars have greater wind resistance (on average) so become less efficient at higher speeds.
Of course, I wouldn't expect that kind of reason to ever fly in America where the most popular car is a heavy truck that's never used for hauling and could be replaced with a Honda Civic with no loss of functionality for >75% of owners....but everyone wants to drive a tank so they're safer, with no thought about what that means for the other cars on the road.

*quality explanation of why crash testing is only a tiny part of real life safety in cars
*promote

Those look like eucalyptus not pine trees....but the same process applies.
The heat will not only desiccate leaves/needles, but it will also vaporize the oils in the leaves (needles in pine trees) making even the air in the canopy flammable. Eucalyptus trees are loaded with oils, maybe even more than pine trees. This is also called crowning, a crown fire, or a canopy fire. Once a fire crowns, it's nearly impossible to fight from the ground....or at all if the tree tops are close together.

Scary stuff. Where I live, in the Northern California redwood forests, that canopy can be hundreds of feet high and continuous in places.