You cannot vandalize someone else's property and infringe on their rights because you don't like what they say.

There's no equivalence between the two.

Is it possible some/many/most of the people who actually participated in the activity also just found it interesting to do?

And yes, I would feel the same way if someone did it to a Nazi flag or a confederate flag. I don't actually care that much about the specific political ideologies. But the increased tribalism and decreased tolerance for freedom of opinion is terrifying. It is disgusting and we shouldn't be celebrating it.

Not sure you're understanding completely how an anonymous internet community works.

You gotta be kidding me

That's basically what the Pepe flag stands for at this point, as I suspect you are already aware.

Nevermind that outside of political circles and people who take The Internet way too seriously, Pepe is just a stupid meme that has transformed from "Sad Frog" to "Woznak's friend" to "Betrayer of Woznak" to "Smug Frog/Pepe" to "Rare Pepe". And due to its prevalence in Chan Culture became a stupid meme to tell Channers from Normies (REEEEEEE) with the red Pepe with the wavy tongue. Honestly that meme has transformed quite a bit over the years.

I'm convinced anyone who thinks Pepe is a symbol of the alt-right has no idea that The Internet has its own cultures and subcultures. It just so happens that 4chan and /r/The_Donald have a huge cross-section of users. No surprise that many 4chan memes are prominent there.

The worst defense I've seen are images of Pepe shopped to be Hitler/a Nazi. FFS, you can find the same for Mickey Mouse and Hello Kitty - or nearly anything actually. Shopping something into Hitler is common.

Makes me think if /r/The_Donald chose a Gay Pride or LGBT Flag as their "official flag" if it would cause people to second guess if someone supports LGBT or is an alt-right neo-nazi sympathizer. Talk about extremism.

E:

Just noticed your name and I feel you weren't asking your question seriously, but have a serious answer anyway, Mr. Jimmy Rustles

The moment that Hillary went nuclear with the stupid, harmless frog was the moment that I questioned the things "progressive" people label people who don't agree with them. As silly as it was, it was truly the turning point of me re-examining what I read and listen to with a more skeptical approach.

Thanks for the answer - it really unrustled my jimmies.

> individuals coming together, learning new things, and working towards a common goal

the common goal here is being an asshole

> if this was a nazi flag, would you feel the same way?

Shia's flag said "he will not divide us" it was a message of unity that someone took down to replace with the representation of an administration with actual white nationalists as advisors.

> it's a bit ironic that you bring up an attempt to shut down free speech, when that's exactly what shia did

Yelling into someone's livefeed is free speech in a public place, but continuing to follow them and ultimately trespassing onto private property is harassment. Free speech isn't yelling whatever you want whenever you want. It's freedom from the government oppressing your speech.

>would you feel the same if it was a nazi flag?

This again? Seriously. Here's a challenge for you in the future: try to make a sound argument without simply throwing the word "nazi" in.

Unity that excludes almost half of the US population. I'm glad that people reacted against the passive-aggresiveness of this message when the stream was hosted in a public space. I don't condone stealing on a private property but let's not fool ourselves here, the message of this art project is reinforcing the US vs THEM mentality that is currently tearing Americans apart rather than truly trying to unify people.

It does not. They are free and encouraged to join in (AFAIK).

Those who embrace racial and religious discrimination, of course, might not choose the join, as the message contradicts their beliefs. But that is an old issue and red herring, the paradox of tolerance. Tolerate everyone but the intolerant, who are parasites on the social contract of tolerance.

I guess the flag really is wrong.

I think trump is an imbecile, but denying his supporters free speech as you are doing, is exactly why he is popular.

I think trump is an imbecile, but denying his supporters free speech as you are doing, is exactly why he is popular.

Despite getting the second-most votes nationally, the geographic distribution of the Republican votes gained them quite a few more "electoral college votes" (i.e. winning points) than the Democrats. The electoral college system gives more power to the countryside than the cities, proportional to the population.

Trump won 57% of the Electoral College, 46% of those who voted, 25% of the voting age population and 19% of the population as a whole.

That's not half the US population.

The reasoning is pretty straight-forward. Tomorrow (or apparently literally today given the craziness of the current socio-political discourse), you and I will be considered the Nazis.

Stop dodging, actually respond to what you're replying to. Do you consider capturing the hypothetical Nazi flag differently than the HSNDU flag?

This is still very ambiguous. There are MANY situations where the above statement is not true.

>you and I will be considered the Nazis.

That's absurd. If you look back 100 years ago there are many people I would not consider a "nazi" so why would it hold true 100 years from now? Your rhetoric has very little substance. It's Godwin all the way down.

>Stop dodging, actually respond to what you're replying to. Do you consider capturing the hypothetical Nazi flag differently than the HSNDU flag?

I'm not dodging anything, I'm sick of people throwing around the freedom of speech like it justifies everything anyone wants to say.

To answer your question: As an individual I view it very differently.

BUT I don't think the government should snatch either flag, and if you're on someone else's private property doing so it should definitely be considered theft.

Spencer is a white-supremacist shitbag, yes. His ideology, however, is very different from Hitler's, and he has never publicly advocated violence.

Again, my scenario is not hypothetical. See http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/oppose-terror-youre-a-nazi/

">The context you are referring to has repeatedly born out that American law allows private citizens to say or express anything, no matter how hateful, as long as it's not an incitement to violence nor slanders a specific party.

This is still very ambiguous. There are MANY situations where the above statement is not true."

Show me one.

• you couldn't make a sign with a pornographic image and use it as a protest

• you can't advertise tobacco in public spaces

that's just off the top of my head, I could dig up some more if you want

Though yes, one of my posts was wrong - "incitement to violence" should have been "incitement to illegal activity."

Citation needed. You're probably talking about Bannon - can you explain in your own words why you think this?

Then you should check out your own before you decide to act high and mighty.

Oh yes, it's like the enlightenment in a bottle.

You remove choice from Shia when you attempt to indicate the irony in him "shutting down free speech" on his feed. In fact, given it is his communications channel, his right to limit anything disrupting that channel is well within his right, as entities have rational choice to speak their mind.

Irrational choice is where logical arguments paralyze trusted communication.

Your post, for example, does this here, by saying "but still", indicating disapproval of his actions. Further, you remove choice from the parent's post about their emotion of disgust.

I find it disgusting people will continue to rationalize altering communication's trust in an effort to win an argument.