White Nationalists v Democratic Socialists!

[LV426]

You choose to show empathy toward blacks while ignoring empathy with anyone you disagree with.

Wait - what empathy am I ignoring?

What perspective am I not indulging?

You've argued different things all over this thread, none of which are an actual, articulate, informed position because you have come right out and said you can't wrap your head around the concept that the Confederate Flag is intimidating to people because of what it represents and its history.

You've said that because you are applying your own perception of it...which is the exact opposite of empathy.

You justify that lack of empathy by pretending their views do not deserve your concern.

What views? I find their views disingenuous just as I find yours disingenuous, because all of it requires a suspension of disbelief in historical facts and context that is simply too outrageous to allow.

How can I empathize with that?

 

[LV426]

It is not an either/or situation, we can be tolerant, empathetic, and humane toward all people.

But you're not that way, though.

You refuse to see things from anyone else's perspective, and instead wonder why people can't see things your way.

So that's not empathy, Flash. That's narcissism.

Calling for the death of others is not being a good or humane person.

I disagree. Embracing Nazis doesn't make you a good person, it makes you a Nazi.

 

[LV426]

Intimidation means using force or threats to try to force a person to take some action or prevent them from acting.

AH...OK!

So...would flying a flag that represents the subjugation and oppression of an entire race above a building where black people go to vote, be intimidation?

Wouldn't it be an act of intimidation on the part of those who erected it, and an act of defiance of that intimidation by those casting a ballot?

 

[LV426]

So you don't think it intimates Blacks?

If not, how do you come to this conclusion?

I can answer that for him; because Flash is simply incapable of seeing anything from anyone's perspective other than his own.

 

[LV426]

I didn't say that. I said it doesn't meet the criminal definition of intimidation.

Wait a second...

So it can be intimidating, but not intimidating?

Square that circle.

Because now you're hedging against your own position by conceding that...OK, yes...MAYBE the flag is intimidating to some people.

 

[TTQ64]

It may intimidate you but not violate any laws against intimidation (remember, you asked me for the legal definition?). Did someone flying that flag threaten to harm you if you didn't do something against your will? If he did, he committed illegal intimidation but the flag had nothing to do with that.

It seems rather hypocritical to be concerned about something that intimidates black people but not white people. Don't you favor equality?

I would tell the white person who was intimidated the same thing I would tell the black person. "Everything is OK, nobody is going to hurt you", or "don't go to that rally, there might be intimidating flags", or "don't look", or "it can't hurt you, it's only a flag."

Again, please explain what you would do about anything and everything that people find intimidating.

What action would you take to prevent any person (black or white) from being intimidated by:

1. Gay marriage
2. Someone wearing a Trump shirt
3. Someone waving a Mexican flag
4. A Klan rally where the speaker was advocating for segregation

With the exception of the klan rally none of the others represent racism, violence, slavery, oppression or hate.

That flag represents all those things and it was flown to intimidate Black people to make sure they understood WHO'S STILL IN CHARGE.

All this other BS your spewing is just that BS. Stop being a fucking coward and stand behind your racist beliefs since you don't give two shits about how Blacks feel......then speak your truth. Stop hiding behind false equivalencies and twisting laws to fit you narrative. Be proud of what you represent and stand for after all, Blacks cant' do anything about right?

You fucking cowards make me sick.

 

[Flash]

The point of empathy is to see something from someone else's perspective, which is something you have literally said yourself you refuse to do.

Dismissing people isn't empathizing with them.

For you to empathize with someone, you'd have to acknowledge and understand their perspective.

You don't do that, Flash.

You dismiss their perspective.

You've done it dozens of times on this thread. You've even said you do it. Empathizing with someone doesn't mean you dismiss them, it means you listen to them and understand their perspective.

You have repeatedly said you can't do that because you can't understand how a flag could intimidate someone.

So that's not you empathizing with anyone.

When I volunteer to tell you how the flag does that, instead of understanding or accepting it, you dismiss it or feel you have to counterargue it.

The only reason you do that is because you personally cannot understand how someone could possibly not see things your way (what you would call the "correct" way because of your entitlement)...and that's what makes you a narcissistic sociopath.

More lies. I never said I dismissed anybody. I understand their position. I worked in the war on poverty program in the 1960's, worked for Barbara Jordan's election to the Texas Senate and heard her speak at our politics club several times. I am not dismissive of the issue.

My point is that it is not consistent with current law or basic American principles or constitutional law. We can't ban anything that might offend someone.

Please explain how you would handle cases in which a person feels they are intimidated?

Example: A person says LV426 on JPP is calling for him to be shot and wiped out and he is intimidated and fears for his life. What does he do?

 

[LV426]

A guy walking down the street carrying a flag is not trying to force blacks to do anything or stop doing something by threatening harm to them.

But you said yourself that is what the flag represents, the message it conveys...so it is an act of intimidation for that trash to do that.

 

[Flash]

With the exception of the klan rally none of the others represent racism, violence, slavery, oppression or hate.

That flag represents all those things and it was flown to intimidate Black people to make sure they understood WHO'S STILL IN CHARGE.

All this other BS your spewing is just that BS. Stop being a fucking coward and stand behind your racist beliefs since you don't give two shits about how Blacks feel......then speak your truth. Stop hiding behind false equivalencies and twisting laws to fit you narrative. Be proud of what you represent and stand for after all, Blacks cant' do anything about right?

You fucking cowards make me sick.

You said they were wrong if they were intimidating. Intimidation does not just involve racism, violence, slavery, oppression or hate. Now you are saying intimidation is ok unless it involves black people. Things intimidating white people are acceptable. That is the real racism.

 

[LV426]

IMy point is that we can't stop somebody from exercising their freedom of expression because it might offend someone.

So Flash does this really cheap, shitty rhetorical trick by replacing "intimidation" with "offense"...I suppose he does that because if he said the flag "intimidates" someone, he can no longer argue that it's free expression.

He does that because he can easily dismiss "offense" but can't dismiss "intimidation".

So he has to reclassify it as "offense" because that's the only way he can get away with saying the flag isn't intimidating anyone.

So he uses his privilege and entitlement to say that what the silly people who are intimidated by the flag really are is just "offended", and that only he knows the distinction and difference between what is "offense" and what is "intimidation".

So he does the double duty of patronizing and narcissism.

So this is how Flash dismisses things that don't conform to his perspective; he diminishes and trivializes because that's all he knows how to do, and he does that because he's a narcissist.

 

[Flash]

But you said yourself that is what the flag represents, the message it conveys...so it is an act of intimidation for that trash to do that.

Messages are free speech and is not an ACT of intimidation. You must threaten to harm someone unless they follow your orders. That is intimidation.

Or, threatening to shoot or wlpe out people you disagree with--that is intimidating (by your definition). Yet, you found it acceptable to write it many times.

 

[LV426]

A person might be offended by gay marriage but their right to marry trumps his being offended. A city council member in the Houston area yelled and screamed at some teenage girls in an ice cream shop for wearing Trump shirts but their right to wear those shirts outweighed her being offended.

Again, Flash conflates "offense" with "intimidation" then patronizes anyone who is intimidated by the Confederate flag by relying on his privilege and entitlement to say "no, what you actually are is offended, not intimidated, silly black person, don't you know your own feelings? Don't you know what emotions are? Don't you know how you're supposed to feel?"

Total narcissistic sociopath.

 

[TTQ64]

Intimidation means using force or threats to try to force a person to take some action or prevent them from acting. You can look up the term and see the criminal statute defining it in each state.

If everyone got to decide if they were victims of intimidation there would be millions of cases per day. What would that involve? Just going to the police and claiming you felt intimidated because somebody wore a Bernie, BLM, or Trump shirt? Courts never approve laws so vague and have struck down laws for "offensive" speech as being too vague.

Simply carrying a Confederate flag is not intimidation. It may offend some people, but that is true of many things.

In this case it kept Blacks in their place. - intimidation = prevent them from acting

 

[Flash]

So Flash does this really cheap, shitty rhetorical trick by replacing "intimidation" with "offense"...I suppose he does that because if he said the flag "intimidates" someone, he can no longer argue that it's free expression.

He does that because he can easily dismiss "offense" but can't dismiss "intimidation".

So he has to reclassify it as "offense" because that's the only way he can get away with saying the flag isn't intimidating anyone.

So he uses his privilege and entitlement to say that what the silly people who are intimidated by the flag really are is just "offended", and that only he knows the distinction and difference between what is "offense" and what is "intimidation".

So he does the double duty of patronizing and narcissism.

So this is how Flash dismisses things that don't conform to his perspective; he diminishes and trivializes because that's all he knows how to do, and he does that because he's a narcissist.

Because it may be offensive but is not intimidation. You are too lazy to research the term. Because you cannot understand the meaning of a term does not mean we should follow your definition. The important difference is that intimidation as you are using the term is not illegal. Therefore, you seek to ban something based on a false definition of a "crime" even though you know it is unconstitutional.

 

[LV426]

are you willfully avoiding the issue?

You're the one who equated the Confederate Flag with the Rainbow Flag, and I merely asked how are they equivalent?

Does the rainbow flag intimidate you? If so, why and how?

what should one do if they wave around the Texas flag, but someone is offended????

Stop sidestepping the question...

If the flag is about "Southern Pride" like you say it is, how did they convey that "Southern Pride" prior to the Confederacy?

It's a simple question.

 

[Flash]

In this case it kept Blacks in their place. - intimidation = prevent them from acting

BS. Did seeing a Confederate flag ever keep you in your place or prevent you from acting? If it did, you are a coward. If it did not, then you are a liar.

Also, there was no threatening action involved. You are looking at a flag and making up with your version of what the holder meant. A flag cannot theaten anybody.

You and DL426 need to learn some basic constitutional law. It would rid both of you of many erroneous assumptions.

 

[LV426]

It is not intimidation unless it involves a threat to force somebody to take some action (MEMORIZE THIS).

It is threatening to tell someone that you think they should be your slave or sent back to Africa.

Do you not think that is intimidating?

 

[Flash]

AH...OK!

So...would flying a flag that represents the subjugation and oppression of an entire race above a building where black people go to vote, be intimidation?

Wouldn't it be an act of intimidation on the part of those who erected it, and an act of defiance of that intimidation by those casting a ballot?

What an irrational stretch. Did the person who erected the flag make threats to potential voters? You are going to charge somebody for erecting a flag?

Do you think the New Black Panther Party members should have been convicted for voter intimidation?

Do you think you should be charged with intimidation for calling for people to be shot and wiped out?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You're the one who equated the Confederate Flag with the Rainbow Flag, and I merely asked how are they equivalent?

Does the rainbow flag intimidate you? If so, why and how?

I equated a piece of cloth with a piece of cloth, that is all. What you are trying to legitimize is actions that intimidate others, just because of feelings. It's tantamount to being able to prosecute someone for waving the American Flag because some arabs were intimidated.
maybe that will help you understand your wrongful thinking

 

[cawacko]

It is not that I haven't listened or that I don't understand, it is that I put our 1st Amendment rights ahead of a person being offended.

And, it has nothing to do with views contrary to mine. I am just citing basic constitutional and criminal law. There is not another view about what the law is, you just disagree with current law.

And you are very selective of your empathy. On this forum I have seen you:

1. Insult and curse people
2. Call for people to be shot

Are these intimidating (using your definition)? Is it intimidating to call for someone's death because you disagree with their actions? Where is your empathy?

I haven't followed this thread but I did see this post and what you responded to. You are talking about a person who regularly wishes death on others, regularly tells people to kill themselves and tells other they aren't allowed to have an opinion and they want to speak about empathy and intimidation?

You take this board for what it is and you take things with a large grain of salt but even that made me do a double take.