I just wrote a long comment on this and then the site crashed. Sigh.

Even during this visit, which should be nothing more than an empty PR stunt, she manages to parrot lies straight from the White House talking points. 

I mean, I want to disagree with this because I want to believe they’re better and capable of overcoming subconscious biases, but I really can’t. Republicans are actively white supremacist and many Democrats are passively. The passive version is definitely better, but only in comparison.

So your response was to completely turn around what I wrote and provide absolutely no evidence for your claim.

Not a single person has been able to prove what you just wrote is true. It’s a reductive generalization. You haven’t even measured the costs! So how can you say it’s worth it when we don’t even know the totality of the cost?

No, and in fact Republicans screamed quite loudly any time the Obama administration even tried to step up enforcement in those areas. 

You didn’t really ever answer the question. What substantive difference is there between a Daesh supporter and a neo-Nazi, neither of which can be personally linked to any criminal violence? One we tolerate and the other we don’t, which significantly undercuts a great deal of your passionate but verbose response.

Nowhere did I assume that. That’s part of the character assassination game a bunch of pricks are playing. Why would I even bother to state my opinion if I thought I was the only one who held it? That makes no sense.

You know, I really hope the phrase “rule of law” never recovers from the taint being laid on the term by all these proto-fascist bigots.

This reminds me of when I was younger. When some Christian asshole in school said I was going to burn in hell as a satanist (I was never a satanist, I was a pagan) I was the one who got in trouble for telling them to go fuck themselves. They said I needed to be “civil” and “respectful” of others. The fact that I was…

You asserted I’m a poor judge of things and then illustrated yourself being a poor judge of things. That’s the point I was trying to hit.

I’ve written articles, I’m aware of that. But that sort of sidesteps the issue. There’s a lot of big important things that just don’t get covered here. If they were I wouldn’t be annoyed by fluff pieces. 

The problem with this fairly common claim is that you arbitrarily limit “violence” to the local and short term, and make no attempt to quantify the long term costs of giving such people a platform. That’s what I’ve been arguing over and over as people distort my comments and respond to strawmen. We don’t do an honest…

Should Daesh have the ability to have such a rally? Or do we limit them based on their speaking, the content and costs of their speech? Why should far-right extremists be treated any differently? 

Wow, nice “both sides” rhetoric there. That’s severely fucked up. 

Well a lot of it is I’ve apparently made two controversial comments that people just don’t want to bother to engage with before screaming and insulting and tossing out scripted responses that are highly predictable. I was dumb and naively thought people would read with nuance on the internet.

Most people here are responding to a strawman version, ignoring the nuance and details. I’m just arguing for a more holistic and honest analysis and considering the idea that very narrow restrictions might be beneficial. This is a cliched debate and people are reading from scripts without engaging half of what I’ve…

Again, slippery slope. Your point is a fallacy that’s been made 50 times in this subthread.

Should Daesh supporters be allowed to have a rally in DC?

No, but I trust our ability to create precise enough statutory language for that to be difficult and overruled by the courts. Again, narrowly crafted law is possible, people are running with slippery slope arguments and hypotheticals that ignore that.