@TheMiddleWay -- Yup.

@TheMiddleWay incorrect! being jewish is NOT always about following judaism. jews are a people, too, an ethnicity. i am an atheist. i am also jewish. i do not follow judaism. nonetheless i am a jew. hitler did not hate jews for following judaism. he didn't care whether a jew was secular or even had converted to another religion.

no, you cannot kill or maim a religion, LITERALLY. you can get rid of it i suppose but it can't feel pain or die and decompose. there is a difference between metaphor and literal speech. learn it.

g

@TheMiddleWay hmm. I'd like to see some screen shots of their posts/convos. I have a feeling anti semitic groups are likely to be a tad more militant/racist/violent than atheists or agnostics but I could be wrong I guess.

@OwlInASack Free speech already defines what you talk about in terms of violence. I never disputed that things like inciting riots etc. was a valid part of free speech. When your free speech actively leads to breaking laws and harming others physically then it doesn't fall under free speech as it's defined under free speech already. Someone who is obnoxious and who has free speech and shouts over others alone also doesn't equate to denying a voice to others. Are they taping a person's mouth shut? Free speech pretty much is only valid when it comes to being punished by government and making laws really. You don't really have free speech at a job or towards other citizens in terms of wanting recompense. As shitty as it might be, where you work is a private organization (not sure how it works with government jobs) and as long as they don't break the law they can have you suffer the consequences in any situation in which you speak. If they don't like what you say, they can fire you. In a lot of states they can fire you for no reason at all, let alone "denying your free speech". If your boss tells you to shut up while you're on company time and you don't, then they can just fire you with no consequences. There are some exceptions I'm sure. The First Amendments points MOSTLY are only valid towards the government/citizen relationship with some exceptions to outside forces like citizen/citizen and citizen/corporation/business relationships. If I own a business and you walk in and start preaching I can throw your ass out of my store without consequences. If you are some guy in the street preaching to me and I tell you to shut the fuck up, what type of punishment would I get from government? Nothing. As to a business withholding services from someone, it depends on if it breaks any laws having to do with discrimination and civil rights. There is something called "Public Accommodation Law" that would fall under this issue. It's also why we have a court system, as imperfect as it is. It has to do with interpretation, precedence, and the laws that are already on the books.

@OwlInASack Someone who hates Jews should have the right to say they hate Jews without being physically assaulted or coerced. It's speech. Physicality is completely different, but like I said, there are some exceptions depending on the situation I guess.

So I never said it was black and white.

@OwlInASack Remember the whole Colorado baker/gay customer issue? I used to believe that it fell under public accommodation law, but the judges didn't see it that way. I have since kind of changed my mind about it falling under public accommodation. I'm still a little torn on it. As a piano player/songwriter I can hold a concert (Just an example. I'm not that good to do concerts lol) where people pay for my service, but nobody can order me on what to play, even though they have paid. A custom cake is the same thing. It's not a general service. If I tell the baker that I want a cake with 50 dicks on it, they can refuse. It's not a common item and they can't be forced to make it.

[cnn.com]

"The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs. The ruling is a win for baker Jack Phillips, who cited his beliefs as a Christian, but leaves unsettled broader constitutional questions on religious liberty."

"A custom wedding cake is not an ordinary baked good; its function is more communicative and artistic than utilitarian," Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued. "Accordingly, the government may not enact content-based laws commanding a speaker to engage in protected expression: An artist cannot be forced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, and a poet cannot be forced to write."

This incident happened in 2012. In 2015, same sex marriage was legalized by the Federal government. If this incident happened after that ruling, then I believe that Colorado baker would have been found guilty of discrimination under public accommodation. But now there is Supreme Court precedence in that case so I'm not even sure how that would be worked out now.

It all depends on the judges and interpretation etc. That's just the way it is.

@OwlInASack What I said is plain as day. I said physically harming others. Of course there are laws that seem bad and a lot of people don't agree with them. The people usually being punished from breaking those laws don't agree with them, but it's a fine line and that's really another discussion. Plenty of people don't agree with seat belt laws, but it's usually after they are fined for not wearing it. To the contrary of what some people believe, it saves lives, and money. It saves taxpayer money in terms of city resources.

When someone wants to speak their opinion, it's fine, unless it actively leads to bodily harm. You can't stand out in a public square and incite a riot with your words, or have a group of people attack someone on your words and command, etc etc etc. That's what I was talking about. You can't say, "Jack is a despicable human being and he deserves to be beaten to a bloody pulp right now!". Well, you can, but you can also be arrested for it. People deserve protection from bodily harm in a civilized society. Laws aren't perfect, but they are necessary. This isn't the wild west. They didn't exactly have a long life expectancy.

I assume you are a Libertarian? Correct me if I'm wrong please.

[hg.org]

@OwlInASack I did not misquote myself. It was meant in the context of physically harming others or words leading to physical harm. I'm not being disingenuous at all. If you want to insult people instead of just talking about the issue, I'm not the one. I posted what free speech entails and what it doesn't. I'm not sure how you can't understand my argument, but let's look at my quote:

""When your free speech actively leads to breaking laws and harming others physically then it doesn't fall under free speech as it's defined under free speech already."

What don't you understand about SPEECH ACTIVELY LEADING TO BREAKING LAWS AND HARMING OTHERS PHYSICALLY? Violent speech often leads to physical violence. It's INCITEMENT!

As to your example, yes it was violent (there are different degrees of violence, and screaming at people is violence, especially in the context of racist speech), and it was most definitely aggressive behavior. Look up the definition of violence. It has more than one definition of just physical harm. I don't think we actually disagree much. I think you might have misinterpreted my entire argument. I'm not a "free speech warrior" or a right winger, so you need to check yourself.

If you had read the link I provided, you would have read this:

"Fighting Words
Government may prohibit the use of “fighting words,” which is speech that is used to inflame another and that will likely incite physical retaliation. Likewise, language that is meant to incite the masses toward lawless action is not protected. This can include speech that is intended to incite violence or to encourage the audience to commit illegal acts. The test for fighting words is whether an average citizen would view the language as being inherently likely to provoke a violent response

Obscenity
Most forms of obscenity are protected by the First Amendment. However, there is a high threshold that must be met in order for obscenity not to be protected, which includes showing that the language appeals to the prurient interest in sex, that it depicts something that is considered patently offensive based on contemporary community standards and that it lacks serious literary, scientific or artistic value."

Maybe stop being so blind with rage and actually read next time.

@OwlInASack Let's add this one in there too since you didn't read anything in the link I provided:

"Crimes Involving Speech
The First Amendment also does not provide protection for forms of speech that are used to commit a crime, such as perjury, extortion or HARASSMENT. "

@OwlInASack It's not shouting. It's emphasis in text, but you're welcome. It doesn't pay talking to you while you're just going to insult me and mischaracterize what I said and IGNORE (shouting again, sorry) the link I posted.

Anti-theism doesn't automatically mean that you want to lock up or kill anyone. Locking up also only because of the negative consequences that religions can have. It's not the goal in itself. With anti-semitism this IS what those people want. And it's not just a minority but the ideology itself which teaches this. Anti-theism can just mean you want to educate people.
This is a very clear difference.

@TheMiddleWay I am an antitheist. I have no intention of hurting people. However, if I am given a choice to undermine religion or not, I will choose to undermine religious power. And yeah, I do think there are religious practices that are abusive, that's why I want religion to go. Claiming my views are the same as those on Gab that encouraged a bigot to shoot up a synagogue is ridiculous.

“If atheists had it their way, people would have to change their opinion“

Speak for yourself.

@indirect76
Did you read the whole comment? I relativized that statement a few lines later. I wanted to get a certain point across, you know?

@Dietl Oh. Sorry. I misunderstood.

@Veteran229 Phobia also refers to an aversion toward something. Or are you going to argue that hydrophobic materials have an "illogicall fear" of water? You won't score points with me using intentionally pedantic talking points.
Furthermore, we SHOULD fear Islam? That's a pretty broad brush with which to paint something that I'd wager you know not much about. I don't fear Islam because it's not a threat to me. The conflation that you're attempting to make here is that of Islam and theocratic dictatorships. I do indeed fear a theocratic dictatorship, but that is regardless of whether it wears a hijab, a cross, or whatever have you. It should also be noted that they are rarely ever about the religion in question, rather they are shortcuts to creating and maintaining power structures.
Regardless, I have no time to fear a theocratic dictatorship on the other side of the planet when we have the makings of one right here at home. AND, the same way I would ask people not to judge me based on the government that I currently reside (or formerly resided) under, it would only make sense to extend that same courtesy in kind.
And as for your 'Qur'anic invasion playbook' theory, how does it compare to the European imperialist method?

1. Bring enough people, guns, and diseases to wipe out the current occupants of a given territory.
2. Subject the few remaining survivors to forced indoctrination.
3. Claim that the land was always your GOD given right (manifest destiny and the like).
4. Round up a few million slaves to build up that newly minted imperialist engine of yours.
   Etc...

If my point wasn't clear, let me crystalize it for you. You can keep your PHOBIA. I have no use for it.

@OwlInASack Agreed.

@TheMiddleWay not wanting to have anything to do with an identifiable group is not the same as hating or inciting against an identifiable group.

@TheMiddleWay Yeah, but for both sites losing a host isn’t an end at all. Sites can be move to another host.

@TheMiddleWay Closer, maybe. But your argument is based on the premise that if one does not believe in god then one is, ipso facto, opposed to organised religion. One's position on organised religion is not determined by their belief in god. For example I don't believe in god, but I am not opposed to organised religion; Martin Luther did believe in god but was opposed to organised religion as it was then constituted (in fact it was today in 1517 he nailed his ninety-five theses to the church door condemning organised religion.

@TheMiddleWay So your argument is to let the antisemite decide whether there should be a distinction between an ethnic Jew and a religious Jew?

@ghettophilosopher
The anti semitic group comes for the socio ethnic, the religion is just a plus.
That's why is different.
You can attack Judaism, you can't attack the jew.
Even taking out the ethnic factor.
You can criticize catholicism, you can't the catholics.
You can criticize one catholic on the basis of his individuality and personal traits, but never as a group.

@OwlInASack That is a by-product of Free Speech. We can't cherry-pick which speech remains "free". It's an all-or-nothing proposition.

@OwlInASack You are free to believe whatever you choose. I am free to not agree with you.

@TheMiddleWay You were not focusing only on "anti-theism" as you were using "agnostic.com" as an example, and this is not an anti-theistic website.

An anti-theist is once more, pointing at a concept while Jews are actual people that form a nation. Once again, concept vs people, not the same.

I'm not going to debate the actions of individuals in separate groups that make equally abhorrent claims. However I'm also not going to use them as examples of the majority of those groups.

There is not a razer thin line as long as you are not an asshole. You should treat people with respect, and ideas with skepticism. Once again, the actions of some do not equate to the majority ideology.

@TheMiddleWay Okay so some members are more extreme than the main group or the common message. They should be dealt with as the extremists they are, if an anti-theist directs hate at people they are a problem just as anti-semitic people are. However the anti-semites are more often than not in the majority when they direct their hate at the people, while anti-theists at least in my opinion, are in the minority.

That said I don't necessarily support shutting down the whole site unless the hate speech was a good majority of the traffic or mission statement of the site. The sites moderators should be responsible for making sure it's not a safe space for hate groups to gather with impunity, but policing this sort of thing Im sure is easier said than done.

@TheMiddleWay in the case of anti semetism I think its important to distinguish it from simple anti religiousity. I don't know the nature of attacks that were conspired on that site, but in regards to the synagogue shooting and the general increase in violent white nationalists lately, fox and Trump would have us believe the attack was anti theist motivated when it clearly wasnt. The shooter had about as many white nationalist red flags on his social media as the pipe bomber had on his rape van.

The fact that judaism is both a religion and an ethnic group is giving the wrong people like trump license to play the victim along side them, but when has an antisemetic attack ever been aimed primarily at a white guy who converted to judaism? Antisemetism in the way that white nationalists act on it seems to be more ethnically motivated than religiously. Being from a different religion is at best a section of the differences that make it easier for them to dehumanize and hate a different ethnic group.

It's like the black community's strong protestant communities or strong italian irish and latino correlations as catholics. A domestic terrorist might bomb a black church or a catholic church in a certain neighborhood if they had designs against that demographic in mind, but the hatred is very seldom about hating the church, its hatred of the people. Its tribalism to the core. It might just be the optimist in me but I dream of a day of full societal integration where everyone of every religion looks the same, then we can start attacking each other based solely on beliefs again like the good lord intended.

Right? Definitely underplaying the violent rhetoric employed by actual hate sites. The conservative athiests and that one group thats violently antitheist here miiiiiight count as hate speech. Then again most of our members disagree with those groups and wish they weren't a part of the site, so.....

@TheMiddleWay Never been on gab.com.

@JesseThompson what has your despicable rave got to do with hating jews without individually knowing them? that's antisemitism. telling lies: you saying jews DO drink christian babies' blood? or even that jews came to the middle east and murdered and stole the land of the people who lived there, which is NOT what happened? (read some HISTORY some day; you may LEARN something.
wait, no you won't. you know everything already.) you are so ignorant and antisemitic that i have nothing more to say to you, or hear from you. haters: be gone! the block feature is SO useful.

g

@TheMiddleWay in what way would you have me consider those attitudes?

i addition, i am not concerned with whether those who are against the jewish people are illogical. i am concerned with their being bigots.

g

@TheMiddleWay I understand where you are coming from but I am not really concerned. Calling people dumb/ignorant is about the worst I have seen here.

@TheMiddleWay My mistake. I have yet to see those dark recesses of Agnostic.com but I will keep my eye out for them

Lol, why do you think he was talking about you. I assume you have seen some of the real anti religious stuff here.
Those I've never seen anyone advocate violence.

@TheMiddleWay you want to root out antitheism but you support Gab.

Nice to know who you're really in favor for. Christian supremacists.