newtboy said:

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 said:

Context matters. Truth matters.

Knowing now that he's a well known Nazi figurehead, a spokesman for the pro Nazi gallery being protested, do you see how the title and description are both utter bullshit lies, a 100% misrepresentation of the truth here?

He is not called a Nazi for supporting free speech. That's a blatant, disgusting, Nazi sympathizing lie he hoped you would repeat. I wish you were ashamed of that, but you just defend it.

His sentiment on his sign aren't the unacceptable sentiments he's removed for, they are the cover for the Nazism he espouses and supports, and the red herring he hoped would distract you from them...It worked, even though you know the truth it still works. *facepalm.

I'm ashamed for you that you got suckered into defending Nazis because for two minutes he managed to appear reasonable and you're willing to completely ignore context, just like he planned.

I'm more ashamed for you that you bought it so deeply that you repeated the bullshit, totally false descriptions without considering you are being duped by a nazi into supporting their cause.

newtboy said:

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).

newtboy said:

It took me two seconds to figure out this was fake or at best a total misrepresentation, and under two minutes to find plenty of evidence to that effect.

They only look bad when viewed totally out of context. This was edited to create a false narrative that some random innocent meek individual supporting rational discourse was attacked by a violent gang of anti free speech liberals, which is asinine and a blatant lie. He's a professional racist instigators defending racist ideologies at a racist propaganda center being protested, not free speech but his freedom to espouse racial hatred unopposed and uncontradicted.
I'm sad this bullshit is still getting passed around without explanation three plus years later.

I bet if we saw the five minutes before this conveniently edited video started, no one could question them calling him a Nazi and shouting him away, since he is in fact one, one who actively and publicly works to legitimize Nazism and other racist ideologies...he is a long time professional public aggressor and race baiter.

He has every right to discuss his ideas, the rest of us have every right to vocally disagree. When his ideas are actually supporting racial violence, it's pretty disingenuous to complain when they spark some "verbal violence".

newtboy said:

You misread. Please don't speak for me, especially when you're so wrong.

I support both disband the police, which means require all police to go through the hiring process again with those with multiple or serious complaints on their record disqualified or at least forced into retraining and a long probationary period...and I also support defund the police...meaning remove mental health from their job (and fund a mental health department that is sent on mental health calls, normally without police escort), it means the SWAT team is only called after weapons are used, not pre-emptive for non-violent calls, so can be cut in half or less. It means ZERO dollars for military equipment.
It does not mean eradicating the police, it does not mean cut ALL police funding, it means remove the second, third, and fourth hats they wear, remove violent or abusive officers, and cut their funding accordingly.

Mostly I think people want enforceable responsibility, criminal and civil, not immunity. If police had no shield from their actions, they would act better instantly. That's a no brainer and doesn't cost a dime.

Edit: eradicating the police unions would go a long way towards fixing the culture.

I think the demands of the public are more homogeneous than you claim....I know so, since you mischaracterized my position to create an outlier. That said, people do have different ideas of how to fix a problem we seem to agree on....but stripping immunity seems to be nearly universal outside police and Republican senator circles.

The people running the country aren't our best and brightest, they are those narcissistic enough to think they alone can make a difference and those slimy enough to think they can take advantage of an elected position for their personal gain. Trump proves undeniably that they aren't necessarily better educated , smart, or professional.

The problem with "Defund the Police" is right there in the name, and its name only. It's understandable that those who lost hope on reforms felt the need to escalate into using the term "Defund."

But uninformed people that don't understand nuance nor care about policies and enforcement would likely judge that's extreme and leads to anarchy immediately, and dismiss its merits. And let's be honest, would you bet there're more informed people in the USA or uninformed ones? If there's ONE thing that USA does better than any other countries, it's politicizing the hell out of complex issues into sound bites. Pushing people into all-or-nothing For or Against camps. In the end, little gets done, but even more divisions & hate.

I watched on the news here in Canada (with its fair share of racial injustices in its policing not that far behind the USA, ) that the mayor of Toronto (our largest city in the country) picked up and used the term "Detask the Police"... I think that's a much better term to advance the cause.

harlequinn said:

Part 1: the video portrays mocking. If they're going to mock someone, they should at least get their numbers right, otherwise they're no better than Trump and his continual exaggerations (e.g. it's like them saying "and it was the least steepest ramp in the world, and I've walked all the ramps of the world, more than anyone else").

Part 2: if they're trying to be funny by comparing two things then you have to, you know, compare the two things. So where is the video of Biden coming down the ramp? I want to see Biden cartwheel down the ramp like a champ.

Part 3: "I can 100% expect Trump, if he ever sees the clip, to respond exactly as your comment did", except for the fact that Trump already described this event (walking down the ramp) in this video. So you better check your 100%.

BTW, there is no dilemma - no sarcasm was implied or could be interpreted from my comment, and there is a little sarcasm check box that remained unchecked (just to be sure). On the other hand, I fully expected someone to try to diminish my comment, because facts always get in the way of a good story.

harlequinn said:

It's an 11 degree ramp, not 3, which is over 2 times the gradient allowed (as per the ADA). And the ADA requires ramps of this sort to have handrails.

Where's the comparison video? I.e., Biden coming down the ramp.

mxxcon said:

This seems ridiculous to issue a warning for traveling 5mph UNDER the speed limit..
It's the speed LIMIT, not speed REQUIREMENT!
What if I don't feel safe or comfortable driving that fast?!
What if my car doesn't have enough power to travel that fast?!
What if I want to drive economically and not waste gas/electricity traveling that fast?!

bobknight33 said:

See White privilege is a farce.

Obey the police. There are consequences either intentional or non intentional.

99% black on black murders. 1%cop on black murder. Address the 99% and the 1% will fade away.

Guess it better to live as a victim then actually make something of yourself.