Thanks to Trump throwing his voters to the dogs, I'm not sure there will be enough surviving republicans to win a soapbox derby.

Don't pretend to be so oblivious.
The gallery is one person making decisions on who to allow to hold private rallies in secret at her establishment, and she chooses Nazis and white power personalities. I thought you support taking individual responsibility.
The Nation of Islam, and I'm no fan at all, is a huge, multinational organization of millions I assume lead by some form of committee and encompassing a wide range of views and opposing extremes....They did not all choose to be associated with that one extremists nor did they all agree with him by far, then or now, only some did. That's similar to the same question but changing "nation of Islam" to "America". Obviously that's comparing apples to the president's drag queen makeup.

I won't comment much on Canada blm because I don't know them and don't choose to take the time needed to sleuth out some truths about them, but assuming what you say is correct it sounds like they have some racism in their midst that they should weed out before they become the monster they wish to destroy.

Brett Stevens, did you read any of the links? Or my quotes from them? Did you visit America.com, his website, or his blog amerika? (i won't) Do you have a clue who he is and the racist mass murderer he celebrates?

They have a right to speak, the crowd has a right to protest and take any civil legal action they choose to remove the soapbox from their neighborhood. I never said different. You must have confused me with the protesters.
They don't have a right to shout or hold their signs emblazoned with their stupid wrong things intended to provoke at a protest and attempt to spark violence, even if they cleverly camouflage it so on the surface their message seems agreeable, which is what I think was his intent. If successful, he would gain more fuel for the argument that the racists and Nazis planning a violent race war aren't the problem, it's the fascist liberal grandma shovers and sign thieves we should really be worried about....just like the boogaloos in America that caused many if not most of the riots, shot cops, and planned multiple mass murders and bombings all of which they intended to pin on blm.

They don't actually need any place to speak today, there's a soapbox in every cellphone.

But

This facility was holding their alt-right events in secret, hiding their speech itself. They wanted it hidden. You can't bemoan their voices being silenced while also defending their secret rallies which no one who might confront or correct them was told happened, can you?

And side note
The government isn't stopping them, so it's not censorship before that idea crops up.

Again, your bar for crying violence in this instance is subterranean. No one would ever be prosecuted for the level of violence without injury that he suffered, nor compensated for his miniscule loss of cardboard. Do you see him hit, kicked, punched, shoved hard, anything? Time stamp please. I'll change my tune if he was actually injured, I didn't see it anywhere, just his sign yanked after being slowly shoved away from one specific spot.

Could you honestly say ANY right wing event, especially any alt-right event infiltrated by a fairly quiet blm activist with a sign bemoaning police corruption would be as gentle and non violent? Edit: I doubt it.

The point of this video as presented is to pretend that's the case, that the shove from grandma is societies downfall, a direct attack on freedom not a rejection of a defender and facilitator of racists and Nazis (if he's not one himself). The Nazis and racists resurfacing and arming themselves (happening here in America) are nothing to be upset about or oppose....they're good people, not like disgusting anti free speech granny and those other freedom haters.
I'm astonished I'm apparently the only one willing to object to that long ago debbunked distortion of reality.

It sure didn't sound like she publicly posted the personal info of any right wing artists. She would never have another event if she had....and the gallery would probably have been firebombed.
She's a liar, one who bitches and moans when her lies are exposed. I don't trust a self serving word she says, she's a proven liar.

Nazis and white power groups are bad enough that standing with them makes one my foe....like NAMBLA. Some ideologies don't deserve any help spreading their message, even though they have a right to. When you offer your soapbox and amplifier to them, you become complicit in their support for hate crimes.

Sorry, but I've seen far too much alt-right lies and misdirection to buy it, and plenty of evidence that the gallery is abusing support for free speech to support and spread racist, racist alt-right ideologies, and blatantly lying about it. Their actions prove it to me. Pro-racist mass murderer speakers at events open only to alt-right listeners and kept secret from the public = rally, not roundtable.
Alt-right IS code for Nazi or white power, their own code. I'll just call them nazis, KKK, and random white power fans.

I'm still waiting for an admission that the title and description are bullshit, lies, and right wing propaganda. Can you be that honest please?

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.

I'm just guessing, but I bet his chosen spot was right behind the speakers who were on camera...so would be stealing their soapbox. He could have been inside the gate, 3 ft away, and held his sign just as visibly....but nope, he had to be in the middle of the protest against Nazis telling them they're wrong, you just need to give those poor Nazis and white power organizations more of a platform and more time to espouse their hatred, and ignore the real violence and murders they commit.

Ok, you see a violent attack, mob violence, I see an older woman gently walking him out and others yelling, not touching.
You see a violent robbery of his sign, I see his tool for disruption being removed.
You act like his treatment was SO far over the line and 100% unacceptable. I see him treated with kid gloves in a way that his group wouldn't even fathom, because they use ACTUAL violence to do ACTUAL harm, not slow tender shoving without hands or feet out of the middle of their event, punches, kicks, machetes, torches, nooses, etc. This wasn't even turnabout, and turnabout is always fair play.

If this crosses your line, and this group needs some repercussions, what does his actually violent hate group need? More than a protest.

So, when is your child's next birthday party? I guess I can come and advocate for more incest pornography, and you would just let me be? Bullshit.
As you saw, the police were there and not getting involved. It's not honest to say "it's the police and court system you want to pull in" when the police were there.

Again, what park do your children have parties in, I'll be there with my sign before the party starts so I won't be "invading" your party and I expect you to protect me from all the angry parents....yeah right. That's asinine. If I intentionally provoke them to violence, that's on me.

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. He is (in part) exactly what they are protesting. It's almost a certainty that before his heavily edited video starts he was being loud and disruptive, then acted reasonable and meek after instigating violence with his typical hate speech. Provocation actually is a legal defense to violence.

Can you at least admit the title and description are total lies? They called him a Nazi for being one, not for supporting free speech.
The liberals removed him from their event for being a well known Nazi, not the sentiment on his sign.
The way this is portrayed is absolutely bullshit. He's not a victim he's an instigator, he wasn't hurt, he's absolutely not interested in freedom of speech for everyone.

Lol. Yeah, right, more liberal (my liberal friends think I'm pretty conservative, I say I'm old school republican... socially liberal and fiscally responsible, definitely not a neocon)...but do you feel the same about BLM activists disrupting other events, they should be allowed to stay and speak, holding their anti police violence signs high even at anti BLM rallies? Would they be allowed?

I agree, getting slightly physical with him was stooping ever so slightly closer to his ilk's level, although the extent they got physical was pretty minor, wasn't it?
Oh no...they grabbed his cardboard sign equivalent to an all lives matter sign at a BLM march. VIOLENCE!! Pay him one cent in restitution if he sues. It's not a civil rights case, it's what he was hoping for.

When a known white power spokesman shows up at a protest against a white power organization he's associated with it's international provocation. Don't be naive.

Removing him by having an older woman slowly walk into him until he's out of the middle of the protest doesn't bother me one bit. I don't call that violence, I call it the opposite. If they punched him, violently grabbed him (not his sign), kicked him, or actually assaulted him I might think differently, but I saw none of that.

If he wasn't doing this in the middle of a protest against his pro Nazi racist organization in an effort to disrupt and distract from the anti racist crowd, I might feel differently. He has every right to his voice, but not their soapbox. No one stopped him from standing outside the active protest area with any sign.

They grabbed his cardboard, he was so intimidated that he held on and went back into the angry mob with it instead of letting them steal it, then cries for years about how he was attacked violently by an entire mob that didn't touch him. He was poking the bull, got a snort, and cries he got both horns.

What I saw was a person who was identified as a well known racist spokesman intentionally provoking anti racists at an anti racist event and being calmly moved out of the crowd without anyone laying hands on him.

I did not see what the title and description describes at all.

It was his well known public support of Nazism being considered support for Nazism, not free speech.

It was not the disingenuous words on his sign they found unacceptable it was his public support of racist positions that were the unacceptable sentiments. (disingenuous because I assume he doesn't think blacks should have a right to openly join discussions of ideas, but his sign meant Nazi/white supremacist opinions matter and you must let them espouse them whenever and wherever they wish including at anti racist events or you're anti free speech...which I find to be hypocritical nonsense).

Straight under the skin. Straight, I say!

1. If you want to borrow MY crayons, then yes, I AM the boss of you. How is that even in question? They're my crayons, so I set the rules. You will not bear down, or I will withdraw my generosity. At the very least. Don't like it? Don't make requests.

2. Do not smash a toilet in a dog's face, just to get attention. The dog could have been blinded or otherwise injured, inconsiderate clumsy fool.

3. Refrain from using a sensationalist iPhone smear/repair video as a soapbox to promote sexist notions. Twice.

4. Don't expect a company to support cases of user error. Especially huge companies. It's just not possible. Devote energy to precaution and research rather than blame-shifting.
(Disclosure: Samsung user)

I think it was probably a sifted video that first got me to look up Kaepernick's actual statements from about 2 years ago when he started sitting out the anthem in protest. There's a great post-game interview where he made himself available and answered questions from many reporters etc. about his motivations, etc.


To me, it seems impossible to watch that with an open mind and come away with the Fox News narrative on the guy intact. He straight-up says that it wasn't ever meant to be taken as a slight on the military at all. He clearly and rather eloquently explains what it was/is about for him. He acknowledged that there would likely be consequences, which certainly came true.

Maybe he wouldn't be a QB in the NFL even if he'd have just kept quiet and been a good little conformist, but he got to a point where he didn't feel he could do that.

So, at least in my eyes, kudos to him for standing up for what he believes in. Even after losing his primary soapbox (being an NFL player), he's still putting the issue out there with Nike's help. I don't necessarily trust their motivations -- all publicity is good publicity, after all -- but after having heard his own statements I sure as hell trust his as being 100% genuine.

Good and interesting stuff in there.

I think Sharpe is right that this escalation happened for a pretty silly reason (known blowhard and mouth-runner Trump runs his mouth, news at 11), and the NFL vs Trump skirmish detracts from the root issue that Kaepernick was trying to bring attention to a year ago.

On the other hand, I kinda agree with the other guy that maybe bringing attention to that skirmish will also bring attention to the original issue, so maybe it is a net good thing.

Yeah, the owners aren't going to give a fuck until shit lands on their doorstep. Yeah, calling people a "son of a bitch" rates at about a 2 on the "Trump just said what?!" scale. Sharpe's cynicism about how we got here makes a lot of sense.

I didn't care about Kaepernick sitting for the anthem a year ago enough to pay attention. I wasn't against it. I didn't think the was trying to "disrespect" the flag / soldiers / country / whatever, but I wouldn't have really cared if he was. Aren't people allowed to be anti-war? Opposed to mindless nationalism?


Fast forward to today. The billionaires that Sharpe mentioned who donated big sums to Trump's campaign finally get upset when his shit lands on their door. His (comparably tame) "Twitter attacks" on the NFL kick off a dog-and-pony show that may possibly have been cunningly intended to distract from the much more weighty stuff that Kaepernick was trying to draw attention to in the first place, but I seriously doubt that Trump is that clever.

However, something good did come of it: I went from "meh" to paying attention. I went back and listened to Kaepernick's interview about why he was sitting for the anthem from a year ago (embed below), which I didn't watch at the time. I heard a rational, honest, and eloquent young man calmly and clearly explain what he was doing and why he was doing it.

He saw injustice, and wanted to do something about it. He had access to a soapbox that very very few of the people on the receiving end of that injustice have. So, he made up his own mind to do something to try to get conversations started. He was surprised and confused that anyone would see his actions as disrespectful towards soldiers / military, and was later persuaded (by a Navy SEAL) to kneel as opposed to sit for the anthem in an effort to make that more clear.

He seemed aware that he can only control what he does -- not how people will try to spin it, and not how people may react to it. And he also clearly accepted that his actions could have consequences, and that he didn't want to rope anybody else in to acting with him unless they were prepared to accept those consequences also.

So, yeah. Some good came of this recent escalation, even if it came for the wrong reasons. Because some of the people that get drawn in to the dog-and-pony show might decide that they care enough to go back and take a deeper look at it, like I did. And when they look deeper, they're going to see Trump's standard, everyday twitter nonsense on one side compared to a lot of more rational stuff like, say, perhaps actually listening to words of the person that got the ball rolling on the other side (Kaepernick, and others). I like the way that scale balances out.

It's not about it being not to my liking. It's about it being dishonest and incredibly right biased while claiming to be on the left. It's about the typical one set of rules for one side and a completely different set for the other that is how he makes his "points". It's a style of information that only works with those in the bubble and the ignorant, and it's insulting, no matter which side it comes from. He didn't have a single piece of new information or even a new take. Please don't pretend I don't give right wing ideas consideration. I couldn't point out the flaws if I didn't.

I don't waste my time hearing out the far anything. Extremists are to be educated or ignored, not given a soapbox and our attentive ears repeatedly. I've heard all I need from Nazis, fascists, alt right, antifa, anarchists to know their ideas don't hold up to critical examination, there's no reason to keep listening after that, I won't believe them, so what's to be gained? Hearing this weeks talking points? No thanks.

You can listen to the idiots that tell you these extremists represent the left, I say it's wishful thinking, because that's the only way the right can excuse or deflect from the Nazis and blatant racists the right welcomed into the party to win the last election. (To be clear, I may be left leaning, I'm not a democrat).
I was glad to hear the leadership of the Republicans finally publicly tell the Nazis and KKK that the Republicans don't stand with them and don't want their votes after Charlottesville, and I'm still waiting for a similarly dismissive statement from the Democrats about antifa.

Both (most) extremists groups say and do idiotic, barbaric things and should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law at every opportunity....no matter what their political affiliation or leaning. Ends justify the means is the mantra of tyrants, and they come in all flavors.

How can I agree or disagree with such a meaningless statement....racial collectivists? enlightenment? I do agree, both act as if they are opposed to freedom, sanity, civil behaviour, and rationality.

so i have been watching this argument over the "ban" all over my facebook.people really like their little "memes" that offer no real criticism,nor any context,they simply display that persons particular bias.the discussion over this "ban" was not my issue.my issue was with the utter lack of depth of understanding.the evident laziness of those who got up on their little soapbox and sanctimoniously,and self-righteously moralized over a situation that they maybe..maaaybe..spent a total of five minutes on.

until finally my head exploded,and i went into hulk-mode.this was my rant,that i now share with you all:

jesus fucking christ...am i reading these comments correctly?

ok,lets put a little clarity into the mix,shall we?

first of all its not actually a "ban" but an extension to vette refugees further.

sounds reasonable right?

but what is NOT mentioned is that the majority of these refugees have already BEEN vetted,and the process has taken up to two years already.

so stop wetting your pants over brown people who happen to be muslim.

secondly,
let us take a look at the countries whose refugees are being "banned".

notice anything?

each and every one of those countries the american military is deployed in.the CIA has been fighting a proxy war in syria for five fucking YEARS.obama expanded operations into:sudan,somolia,yemen,syria and jordan (another proxy war executed by our radical saudi arabia buddies,who just happen to hate america and promote the most radical of muslim interpretations:wahhabism.they spend BILLIONS of their oil money to open madrasas across the region to light the match of radical islam)

so we,along with russia,turkey and other nations,are bombing the SHIT out of these countries,therefore creating the refugee crisis in the first place,and then we turn around an slap a "ban" on them.

oh,i'm sorry,not really a ban,just an extension to vette them further,because god knows we need more than two years to find out if someone is radicalized.

hypocrisy much america?

thirdly,
and this should make us all VERY nervous,but corporate media has YET to address this little turd nugget.a federal court slapped an injunction on this "ban",because it was not done through the proper channels,but rather through executive order.

and DHS ignored the injunction.
IGNORED it,because who needs "checks and balances" right?
who needs an institution,which was put in place to uphold the law and to restrict a sitting president from over-stepping his authority?
right?

and the fact that the DHS,which is under the DoD,outright ignored a direct order from a federal judge to cease and desist,because trump had overstepped his authority by attempting to use executive orders to circumvent the law.,and this was just an injunction,which really just means "stop!until we further review"...the DHS ignored the injunction.

lets ignore the fact that trump gutted the very agency that would have been the first to challenge his executive order "banning" these refugees.trump literally gutted all the high ranking officials at the state dept.

his press secretary said,and this is fucking laughable..they resigned..ALL of them?
all of them just stood up and resigned?

so it came down to a judge to hold trump accountable,which he did by injunction and an entire dept ignored that federal judges ruling.

now let us look at the countries left off that list.

notice anything?

well well well...would you look at that.
not only do they all purchase large amounts of weapons and military apparatus from us.not only do have they have large reserves of oil that our american companies make a shit ton of money from,but lookie here..trump has business in every singly one of those countries.

coincidence?

oh,and lets not overlook the fact that by executive order trump opened the door to have steve bannon on the national security council!
an unqualified,and with zero experience white nationalist is now on the national security council.

this is unprecedented!

but who cares right?
who needs those protocols,or checks and balances right?

trump is slowly creating his own tiny cabal of extreme loyalists and you people are wetting your pants over some brown people who lost everything,and have spent TWO FUCKING YEARS to find refuge?

this isnt the behavior of a president.
this is the behavior of a king.

yes,other presidents have implemented bans.
this is not a new thing.
what IS new,and some of you nimrods are either willingly,or unwittingly ignoring,is that THOSE bans were in direct response to the US being threatened by a particular group,and THOSE bans had the approval of congress..not a fucking piece of paper that king trump signed.

does america need to reform it's immigration policies?
yes,most certainly.

do we need to have an system in place to help assimilate refugees from syria beyond vetting?

of course,all we have to do is look at germany and see what happens when you allow refugees into your country without proper preparation and a system in place to see just how horrible it can get.

does this mean that every muslim refugee is somehow a terrorist?

well,just look at dearborn michigan.the largest muslim community in america and tell me how many terrorist came from that city? how many muslims were radicalized in dearborn?

is radicalized islam a problem?
yes,of course,who would deny this?

but the causes of radicalization are well understood,and have been well documented,and it is NOT only muslims who engage in terrorism.

really folks,before you start making declarations of certitude without having even the most basic knowledge how our government functions,you need to shut the fuck up.

and for FUCK sakes pick up a book once in awhile,and stop being a gaggle of fucking bed wetters.
jesus...you little fags piss yourselves every time a muslim is even mentioned in conversation.

oh,and before one of you tough guys even think about talking shit to me.
1.i am ex military.so go fuck yourself.
2.my JOB is to debunk bullshit stories and research politics and offer analysis.

so you better think twice before you go off half cocked,because my comment hurt your wittle feewings.your comments are ignorant and they are so lacking in the basic understanding of how this government operates that the only feeling you should having right now is:SHAME.

*edit:this is not directed towards anyone in particular here,but this single focus on trumps ill-thought "ban",and how he did so in such a broad,and general wave of a pen stroke that affected even those HAD gone through the process to get their green cards,visas etc etc is simply buying into the corporate narrative.

and then NOT consider the implications of a gutted state department,the loss of the attorney general and the defiant,disobedience of the DHS in regards to a federal judges injunction.

is unforgivable in it's ignorance.

the implications ALONE should make us all worried.
very very worried.
because it appears trump is reshaping our government into his own little fiefdom of loyalists,willing to defy the everyday governmental operations of checks and balances.

trump is consolidating and concentrating his power by creating his own little cabal of loyalists.that motherfucker has ALREADY put his candidacy on the ballot for 2020.now accepting donations to the highest bidder! feel free to purchase your own piece of the american presidency!

on sale NOW! so act fast! positions are limited!
*prices may vary according to your status and where you reside on the class scale.poor people can simply fuck off.

i realize this speculation on my part,
and i could be wrong.
god..please let me be wrong.

I agree we need dissenting voices, but I also feel that those repeatedly proven to use their soapbox to lie, or intentionally obfuscate, confuse, exaggerate, minimize, omit, misrepresent, etc. have lost their right to have their voice heard. If their issues are shared by others, the others have a responsibility to honestly and truthfully explain, removing proven liars as the issue's spokesman, or they leave themselves open to being completely ignored...some of us don't dismiss lying and see it as a disqualifier for a spokesperson or reporter.
I'm speaking generally here, not accusing anyone specifically.

Why look for that excuse? I think the word you are looking for is 'validation'. I think it's really human nature that compels us to search out those who we see as being like us and helps to reaffirm our beliefs. Fox News became a media empire based almost entirely on this principle and ever since then many other media outlets have followed suit.

@Imagoamin
I read that article a little while back, but I'm not sure taking away Patreon or ad money would silence those people. I'm pretty sure many like thunderf00t would just keep on doing what they're doing anyhow. I've watched some of thunderf00t's videos and while they may not use the most genteel language or may come off as snarky but it never sounded like harassment to me.

YouTube, and the internet in general are a soapbox which people like Anita Sarkeesian can use to criticize popular media and can also be used by others to criticize Sarkeesian in turn, this is perfectly fair in my opinion.

I agree about the over-reaction to the "white slavers" comment, which I think just got hyper-PC types riled up.

And he does seem pretty humble and wise, although if he was really going to practice what he's preaching he would just butt out and not say anything. To be fair, he probably got invited on the show and is just responding honestly to the questions -- which is a fair bit different than if he sought out a soapbox to complain from.

I think Lucas had a fantastic combination of Tolkien-esque level creativity AND knew how to adapt his specific creations to the broadly appealing "Hero of 1000 faces" fantasy prototype AND got lucky in many ways. He deserves a LOT of praise for all of that. ...BUT, for the original movies he knew how to delegate things that he doesn't do well -- dialog, directing, etc. He was reined in by internal and external constraints. When those largely went away, we got the prequels.

I love Star Wars and am very grateful to George Lucas for creating that universe. And I'm pretty much equally grateful that he isn't at the helm anymore.

Okay, so it's not a spontaneous and challenging interview but rather a soapbox for his philosophical meanderings.

And that makes him wrong how..?

A lot of the stuff he says is bang on the money, particular as it regards America's actions and stances. Iran is a perfect example. It wouldn't be climbing back from being a fundamentalist state if the US hadn't deposed the democratically elected leader and installed the Shah all those years ago. Which eventually precipitated Ayatollah Khomeni's rise to power as a fundamentalist leader by overthrowing the Shah... Now Israel, and ergo the US, rail against Iran being able to have nuclear power because they are a rogue state, but they are only a rogue state because of western interventionism.

You might not think much of the guy (I don't personally), but you can assess the truth of his words for yourself can't you? He's saying things that plenty of people think or understand, but few care to actually speak out about it. Yup, it's borderline propaganda, so approach it with a critical eye, but a lot of what he talks about is bang on.