@Jinx -- Whether in "meatspace" or on the internet, I think the difference is engaging with others vs being in the echo chamber.

A lot of "engaging" with others is going to be negative. Picket line meets picket line has about as much chance of being productive as reading the comments on a controversial YouTube video.

But even if the majority of the "engagement" is that, there are going to be some patient people who connect in a positive enough way to actually enlighten and persuade. Like the former-WBC lady's new husband.

And while that positive engagement seems to have the best shot at redeeming those that can be redeemed, it also might be the best way to show the true colors of those beyond redemption. The skinhead leader guy got maced by counter-protesters twice. That gives him a semi-legitimate provocation to respond in kind or with escalating violence (bloody knuckles, broken bones, whatever). But if he isn't provided with any such provocation and still resorts to violence, people can truly see his "idealogy" for what it is.

Hence Rosa Parks responding to the bus driver in Montgomery:
Driver - "If you don't stand up, I'm going to have to call the police and have you arrested."
Parks - "You may do that."


If I was there in Charlottesville in the heat of the moment, face to face with that kind of hate and bigotry, I'd have been one of the people chanting "fuck off nazis". I'd have cheered when somebody on "my side" maced chief-skinhead in the face, if I hadn't done it myself. ...But I recognize that we could sure use more people that react like Rosa Parks did, and less like I would have.

Dunno.

I think of Megan Phelps-Roper, once prominent member of WBC, now "reformed". She was the sort of "Social Media Manager" for the WBC. She used twitter to further spread their message but, ofc, the world of twitter stares also into you. She began to engage in a sort of dialogue with those that responded to her hate filled tweets and over time the WBC grip on her was chipped away. In the end I think she actually married one of those that engaged with her on twitter. Cool Story. Bro.

Anyhoo. So it can be done but it doesn't happen on the picket line or in protests. I mean, with some of these people you can't even agree on the definition of "human"... I really strongly doubt the value of allowing such groups to have a voice for the sake of having an opportunity to denounce (ostracise?) them further. It takes carefully considered, long term, personal debate.

My feeling is that his is happening not because we have suppressed such ideas for too long and now they are boiling over...they are boiling over because where once discontented individuals were alone with their prejudices and fears now they can find in minutes a group online to agree with. The suppression of these fringe ideologies wasn't the cause, the cause is that the internet seems to have rendered such suppression ineffectual. How we now challenge these festering online dens I'm not sure...

Also, and I hate to go all reducto ad hitlerum here but if there was ever a time, discussing neo-nazis must surely be it.... Hitler spoke and spoke and spoke and his bad ideas didn't fall into the shitter fast enough to save the lives of all the millions of Jews and those that fought against them.

As I've said, it's contradictory.

Jesus's death was hardly the end....there have been innumerable accomplishments since then, so in my mind it can only mean the final apocalypse.

I agree, the entire old testament seems at odds with Jesus's teachings....unless you interpret murder of infidels as somehow loving them to death. That's why his statements about the laws still being in full effect don't jibe with his teachings of love and acceptance, and no where does he, or God, or any prophet say his death erases God's laws that I find, that's pure conjecture and impious wishful thinking on the part of all those self labeled Christians, no?

If you were correct about that interpretation, ALL the old testament is moot and none of the laws/rules are still in effect, no? But no Christian worships that way that I know of....certainly not the WBC types. It's kind of all or nothing, and it's simply not practiced that way. If God hates fags, he also hates oyster eaters and poly blend wearers just the same, no?

Yeah, I didn't really agree with that part of the video.

Felt like a false equivalency to me. There really is an "us" and "them". This isn't some "two sides to every story" kind of thing. The WBC are simply wrong. Their position is objectively awful, and I feel no need whatsoever to try to understand their point of view other than to utterly debunk it.

I'm not saying that they should be burned at the stake or anything. Her experience shows that compassion and reasoned argument are better tools.

See also racists, creationists, homeopaths and climate deniers.

So really it's more "You either allow ALMOST every type of speech (with some very narrow exceptions) or you give up ALMOST every type of speech (with some very narrow exceptions)".

Excellent, we have agreed that freedom of speech (like everything in the grown-up world) is not absolute.

Now we're just arguing over WHAT the exceptions should be.

Personally, I have no problem with adding things like inciting violence against minorities (aka hate speech) to that list.

It's very important to distinguish between criticism of ideologies and attacking members of said ideology.

Saying "I think the westboro baptist church is a disgusting organisation" is not the same as saying "you should punch WBC members in the face".

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

By your logic, a Christian is a Christian, so you are as much of a scumbag as the WBC members or those nutcases who blow up abortion clinics?

Yes Bernie is a socialist, but saying all socialists are the same is about as accurate and as truthful as saying all Christians are the same. So why don't you start judging Bernie by what he actually says.

If you disagree with his actual policies, that's fine. At least then you're making an informed opinion instead of speaking out of ignorance.

Seriously? That's your response? Some people agree with bob so it's ok to post racist shit? Allow me to post child porn then, allow me to post some WBC "god hates fags" shit. Some people agree with that shit, so by that logic, it must be allowed. Your guidelines say don't post racist stuff, but I must have missed the part that said "unless some people agree with it, then it's ok"

You're worried about group think? on the internet???? HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHA! You're tilting against windmills on that one because you're a little late to the party, dag. Besides, if racism not being tolerated is group think, then sign me up! EVERY site...EVERY SITE leans a certain way, dictated by the particular community (even a dying community like ours). If this nonsense of "some people agree with it" exemption is your new excuse, then you're no better than CNN or other media outlets, who allow all sorts preposterous shit to air, because they're trying to pretend to be 50/50 on every issue, and don't debunk things that they know are incorrect...because hey..some people believe it, so it's ok. Or is it just to feed the controversy and get more clicks? Cuz that's another thing the press does. They don't care about reality, they just want that sweet ad revenue.

I don't get what the problem is, you've banned people for racist stuff before, why is it so difficult now? These are your own rules dag. When are you going to enforce them? If you're not going to enforce them, then take those rules down. If you're not going to do that, then you might as well shut this site down, or just revel in the apathy that surrounds this site and enjoy your sycophantic upvotes?

You've got ample evidence, you've got a slew of clearly racist videos, you've got him abusing the ignore system in regards to @newtboy, and all you have to do is look at his comment history to see more reasons to get him out of here.

Do your job!

I can agree with that, it is an issue...I just don't think it applies to this video where he was fired because the business found his behavior unacceptable.

The facebook post thing, it depends on the opinion. For instance, it's some people's opinion that 5 year old girls want to have sex (just to go back to an earlier example). Expressing that opinion, while legal, is certainly reason to fire someone IMO, because it would definitely hurt the company if it came out they hire people that publicly state that, and indicate (rightly or wrongly) that the company supports that sentiment. EDIT: I think that's best left up to the boss, but should be indicated in the contract what's expected and what's unacceptable.

Unsubstantiated claims by competitors is not the same thing as video proof of someone's actions....it doesn't mean people don't still make unsubstantiated claims to other's detriment, but isn't applicable to THIS situation.

It's not a PC police issue because the PC police didn't cause this action, it was taken precipitously by the employer. In fact, there's little indication the protesters even knew who he was, much less where he worked.

Yes, the WBC have the right to be disgusting...just as I have the right to not hire them because I find them disgusting...right? I would also defend to the death their right to be offensive, but not the right to have no social consequence for their words and acts. The two don't go together, in fact the latter would make the former intolerable.
I would certainly rail against a LAW that bars some kind of speech criminally, but never the public's right to decide for themselves what they find appropriate, or the right to not support people they find disgusting and/or dangerous.

If you want to publicly espouse your positions, and you care, you should do a little checking to be sure your boss won't be so offended by you that he no longer wants you as an employee. If you work for a giant corporation, you should understand it comes with conditions like 'don't publicly say or do things that, if seen, would injure the business'. It is controlling, yes, but not forced. It's a contract...you get to work there and be paid, they get to tell you what's unacceptable to them.

Not all companies think or operate that way. It's limiting, but if you find that methodology unacceptable, don't work for a company with a 'behavioral standards' clause in your contract.

The PC police aren't needed. They didn't have to go after the company, the company took action on it's own. Any guess as to exactly WHY they took this action is just that, a guess, but they have SAID it was based on their outrage, and they were not under any pressure YET to act...that's a good indicator to me that they just found him disgusting and fired him because they don't want to employ people they wouldn't spit on if they were on fire.

If there were laws requiring them to fire him, I would be right there with you saying it's terrible. Since it's the company took action by itself, ostensively for their own reasons, I'm not bothered in the least...except by those defending the racist's right to keep his job...a right that never existed.

Yes...there COULD be abuse by PC groups (EDIT: or non PC groups...religious groups use that methodology often) pressuring companies into this kind of reaction, and that's bad....but not here. In fact, you seem to want to remove the decision from the company...which leaves it in the hands of the masses, exactly what you DON'T want.

It HAS been my behavior being vilified. I'm a legal marijuana patient, but I'm not protected from discrimination based on my prescribed medicine. it doesn't even have to be publicly known, they can test me for it. I dislike that, but I do agree a company has a right to do so.
I accept it as a cost of having the same freedom to decide who I hire.

Again, I do see this CAN and HAS been abused by 'pc thugs'...I just disagree that that happened at all in THIS case.

Again, intentional infliction of emotional distress is also an actual legal charge, and can be prosecuted. It does not have to be irreparable harm, that's never been the standard for harm. Aggressive use of 'hate speech' does meet the standard in many if not most places....but he's not being prosecuted, at worst you might say he was persecuted.

I agree that there is a danger with the PC groups exerting too much control over others, but looking at this case by itself, I don't think it is in that category.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

Calling people bigots when you have no clue only indicates the depth of your unfortunate, unnecessary and willful ignorance.

The law in Indiana is meant to keep gay people from suing those who refuse to participate in their ceremonies. The point of my comment, which you fail to comprehend, is that it also protects you from lunatics like those from the WBC.

But good job with that chaos-spreading.

Clearly you didn't watch the video because that specific retarded rebuttal is soundly dismissed.

Gay people getting married IS NOT THE FUCKING SAME as Nazis, the KKK or the motherfucking WBC.

The fact that bigots like you keep trying to conflate to the two just exposes your ignorance.

Allying yourself with WBC must be the fastest way to hoist yourself right out of the argument since Godwin's Law. Sometimes I wonder if such comments aren't actually left by left-wing shill-martyrs propping themselves up as strawmen.

I think WBC may have bit off more then they can chew with this one.

It's getting hard not to believe the WBC aren't secretly funded by Dawkins or something.