In this case though, there were at least a couple of alt-right speakers slated to speak. How many times do the politics of hate need to be aired? They have already seen the light of day. The alt-right rally is not a place for debate. It's just a platform for the spread of hateful ideas that have already been discussed. I really don't have a problem with peaceful counter-protest. In fact I support it.
Ok but why would Dr. Ayyadurai be willing to share a platform with the alt-righters? I know several of them dropped out after there was a commotion, but was he unaware that he would be sharing a platform with these people?
It's John Medlar's story. He's a young white "Libertarian" male, very honest. That's the beauty of the Trumpanzee phenomenon, anything that doesn't fit the desired story can be dismissed as fake news. And you are the same guy who repeatedly has said stories weren't true and then when Trump himself confirmed them as true you moved right to prosecuting the "leakers", completely ignoring the stories and their implications. Your whole shtick is complete deceit of the facts and the truth. You should be freaking ashamed of yourself.
Yeah, when the organizers have to send out tweets asking people to leave their Nazi flags at home, I think it goes a bit beyond a benign "free speech rally".
Nope. Disagree with the "America First" platform all you want, but to conflate it with Nazism and White Supremacy is no better than conflating Obamacare with Communism.
LOL, considering that the "America First" was explicitly founded in 1940 to prevent the US from attacking Nazi Germany and full of anti-semiitic conspiracy theorists like Charles Lindbergh - this analogy fails on a number of very amusing levels.
I won't insist the analogy is perfect, but arguing that supporting America First today is a de facto support for Nazism and needs to be protested on those grounds is simply dumb. Harkening back to Lindbergh's isolationist committee of the same name doesn't change that. And, to add, I'm obviously not against political protest of Trump in general, but perpetual protest aimed at disrupting and harassing attendeees of Trump rallies (with the excuse that they are Nazi sympathizer) is a wrong strategy.
Sure, the fact they chose to name their group after an infamous Pro-Nazi group form the 40's is probably just a coincidence, as we all know, there' some very fine people on both sides! Your posts are kind of an embarrassment.
To durv's credit though, Sam, how many of the young, aggrieved white men showing up for crap like this know ****-all about the 1940's political spectrum of America? But yeah, definitely some people pulling the strings know and love the connection.
Not if you planned to cancel them in the first place so you could recast yourself from "Nazi murdering thugs" to "beleaguered free speech advocates victimized,once again, by non-racists"
The "Free Speech Absolutists" people like those who organized the Boston rally sound confused as to what they are trying to accomplish. On one hand, it seems what they want is being able to say usually offensive, often racially tinged if not racist, things without facing the consequences of people who don't agree with them exercising their own freedom to not associate with assholes. On the other hand, the want to not associate with the more openly white supremacists swastikas people from their free speech absolutist rally-- which doesn't seem very free speech absolutist to me.
I don't think it's at all a coincidence that they would name it after an infamous nationalist/isolationist group from the 40s. The Reform party was rebranded as "America First" for similar ideological reasons. Saying the name was chosen to signal their pro-Nazi leanings, because America First was accused of such sentiment by those who were eager for the US to enter the war earlier, is quite a claim. I can't say I understand why they would be motivated to advertise that they are cool with Nazis if that was their true intent.
I don't think Nazi groups were forbidden from coming. They were just not invited, and so would not have been welcomed to speak at the rally. Is that contradictory to free speech absolutism?
I really don't know. I do think you made an interesting observation. Saying offensive things does not make you a champion of free speech. Allowing others to freely say things that offend you is what makes one a champion of free speech. So, how many of the invited speakers had views that the organizers of this "free speech rally" found offensive? If the answer is zero, then it's not really a free speech rally.
True. You and i can never divine the true intent of these white supremacist neo Nazi groups organizing these astroturf rallies absent a giant Charles Xavier Cerebro machine. There may be very fine people! We'll just have to live in a land of what-ifs and MANY SIDES.
