Skip to main content

Close-mindedness and the open internet

I was supposed to be watching tennis. Instead, I had my neck bent at an uncomfortable angle, my fingers scrolling through a Twitter timeline that would prove to engulf my day and imbue it with a frenetic energy that, sitting on a couch hundreds of miles away, I had trouble controlling.

What happened in Charlottesville unfolded in real time, on Twitter and elsewhere, similar to other events that we now, months or years later, refer to primarily by their location — Ferguson, Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino — or the name of the victim. There are so many victims.

Yesterday, though, I had a sober thought amidst the chaos: that despite the divisive and horrific nature of the images being captured and conveyed across myriad channels, they were being captured by everyone, all at once, and disseminated through an open internet that does not discriminate of the type or origin of the content itself. Whether it was Twitter, Facebook, Periscope, Livestream or any number of platforms, no one was being prevented — no company or government stood in the way — from seeing the turmoil and judging for him or herself the verisimilitude of the claims therein.

The networks stayed up and performed their function without bias — they were dumb pipes.

On the other side of the argument — and this isn't sexy, but it's business — the recent ramp-up of competition in the wireless space in the U.S., led by T-Mobile, allowed people in Charlottesville to continue streaming without fear of enormous overage charges or punitive throttling. And that despite the concentration of people, we didn't hear about any one network struggling to keep up with the strain of people hammering its core with a stream of video-intensive activities. The carriers performed as they were meant to: as dumb pipes, not distinguishing between perceived right or wrong, good or bad. That judgment isn't for the networks to make, but for the people — and it was made, forcefully and with no ambiguity.

Other countries are not quite as lucky. Many protests, and the media covering them, are kept from the public because of repressive internet laws and governments that oversee, or even own, the providers themselves. They control the networks and the frontiers for debate and exchange of ideas, the social networks and the video platforms. The U.S., as divided and chaotic and, well, frustrating as it can often be, still protects the right to free speech and doesn't impose restrictions or block the exchange of those ideas through the internet, which has become the primary source of such traffic — for the left and the right.

I abhor much of the imagery I saw yesterday. There is no place for Nazis, nor white supremacy, in the U.S. or anywhere in the world. Here in Canada, which is believed to be largely above the hate and division, the defiling of mosques and synagogues is a common occurrence. People of color and religious minorities are taunted and beaten, and, though less prominent, there is an intense, growing empowerment of white supremacists (opens in new tab). No country is beyond what happened in Charlottesville, but an open and free internet allows regular people to see it and judge it for themselves.

If, a month ago, you sat by passively and did nothing during the Net Neutrality Day of Action, or criticized the movement as anti-consumer, think about how different things would be if your provider decided to side with one particular viewpoint or another, or if a carrier that also owned a media outlet decided that its message was the right one at the expense of, well, neutrality. This could happen if and when Title II is stripped away.

A few more thoughts this week:

  • Back in the day, Phil was criticized for making this Editor's Desk column too political. I understand the need to remove oneself from the fray every now and then and just read about Android, but that's not the world we live in, especially not when the maker of Android needed to fire someone for a memo he wrote that contravened the company's code of conduct.
  • Google's culture of openness and inclusiveness was systematic in making Android into the biggest operating system on the planet. Its willingness to work with people of all cultures, and engage with both men and women, is largely why Android has been so successful. To agree with James Damore's ideas about women is to tacitly support a culture within Google that could not build Android, or Chrome, or any number of services that empower girls and women in countries around the world that are a hell of a lot less inclusive than we are in North America.
  • On a lighter note, this is the beginning of Crazy Season, with a number of device launches in the cards for the next couple of weeks. The Galaxy Note 8 and LG V30 are certainly the most exciting of the two, but we also have the Essential Phone, more details of which are expected this week, and new flagships from Sony, Huawei and others in the coming months.
  • Perhaps most interesting of all is Google's strategy around Android O and the Pixel. We're expecting Android O — the final, finished, ready-for-consumer version on August 21. That will probably be Android 8.0, or 8.0.1. When the Pixel 2 line is unveiled, likely in late October, they will ship with Android 8.1, bringing some device-specific enhancements that may or may not trickle down to the older Nexus and Pixel models.
  • I am also incredibly intrigued by the rumors that Apple, with its Phone 8, will do away with fingerprint biometrics and move straight to face and retinal authentication, mainly because of how tough that transition has been for Samsung. The eye is always going to be more secure than the finger, but it's also a lot more difficult to do properly, as we've seen.

It's been an emotional few days, and I am looking forward to some nice work-related distractions in the weeks ahead. I hope you'll join us on that ride — it's going to be good.

-Daniel

Daniel Bader was a former Android Central Editor-in-Chief and Executive Editor for iMore and Windows Central. 

253 Comments
  • I get politics all day long from FB, Twitter, and general news sources. I just want Android news from this site. But I guess nowhere is safe now from political views being pushed into your face. Will try other Android sites now. Good luck to your website.
  • Have a great day.
  • Don't let the door hit you...you know the rest.
  • Such an overreaction. You could always not read the article if the topic offends you? Not sure why you're so offended, the title makes it clear what this article was about. I think that it's a carefully worded article that successfully remains neutral. It's not like this site has been exclusively about Android for a while now anyways; I've seen numerous PS4 and Nintendo Switch related articles round these parts lately. But there are still plenty of Android-only articles round here so... just not sure why someone would rage quit over the mere presence of an article such as this one.
  • What people like aron(xxxxx) don't realize is that politics define tech websites. The wrong type of politics becoming law will definitely put an end to his (just tech reading) attitude.
  • Sometimes Android and politics cross one another, deal with it. They can't ignore something Google/Android related because it got political or they wouldn't be doing their job.
  • See ya snowflake
  • Considering you get politics all day long, how did you manage to stumble into this topic? I figure most people at least read the title, then determine if they want to further explore the content. What did you do wrong?
  • Dueces....
  • Our very own POTUS refused to condemn the white supremacists, which isn't surprise considering he has Bannon working for him in the White House. Trump himself said he condemned the violence from "all sides", yet it was a white nationalist who drove his car into a crowd of people, killing one and injuring dozens of others. Again, Trump refused to place the blame where the blame belongs. Thank you for publishing this article.
  • Sounds similar to when Obama was president and refused to call the acts of Muslim extremists what they were. It goes both ways.
  • This has nothing to do with Obama. Your deflection is noted and ignored.
  • He does have a point though. Obama definitely created the black vs white
  • Sarcasm? I hope...
  • [citation needed]
  • "Obama definitely created the black vs white" Then what was the Civil War about? Good god.
  • Must be sarcasm. Obama refused to use the phrase "Radical Islamic Terrorism" because certain opponents of his insisted that he had to use those specific words or else he didn't see the terrorism for what it was, or was in denial about it, or secretly is a Muslim, or some other nonsense. It was playground-level silliness, but apparently it persuaded a few people. He didn't cave in because he was a grown-up.
  • Obama called it terrorism. They wanted him to add the qualifier "Islamic" as though those words changed anything.
  • Exactly! It was all school yard squabbling.
  • "Obama definitely created the black vs white" How so?
  • Obama did nothing but angry a bunch of racists by being President, he didn't create a white vs black problem. Please pay attention in school, you might learn a thing about US history if you attend class.
  • This
  • Please, explain how?
  • "Obama definitely created the black vs white" Someone missed all of their history classes in high school.
  • There's no personal responsibility. They always seem to deflect to Obama and Clinton. Their defense to anything Trump does is someone else did it too as though that excuses Trump's behavior.
  • Not excusing Trump from anything. I'm just suggesting that people will put blame on whomever they're for and defend whomever they're against. Trump has battled the media the whole step of the way. From pre election to post. The mainstream media always defends the liberals and rides the conservative's hard. Just the way it is.
  • Very true
  • Trump is getting treated they way he is by the media because of his awful character. He just seems like a big asss man baby who's in way in over his head. He has no respect for anyone, has no self control, surrounds himself with sycophants and regards himself as the best person to ever live. That type of behavior doesn't make you any friends.
  • Guy was practically a media king years ago. How many cameos has made in leftist Hollywood movies again? Wasn't his show on leftist NBC?
  • What absolute nonsense.
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
  • Nope, not even remotely similar
  • And when the news covers these events his followers will cry fake news and claim America doesn't have white supremacists.
  • Not condemning something is different than believing that thing is OK.
  • I get torn in two with these issues. Long story short the Constitution of the United States of America protects freedom of expression for everyone.
  • Freedom of expression only goes so far. Calling for violence against other people based on their skin color, sex, religious beliefs, etc - especially to the point of violence as we saw from the Nazis - is deplorable.
  • Tom Westrick - Agree 100%
  • Scary times in this country.
  • I'll take a dangerous Freedom over a safe tyranny any day of the week.
  • Unfortunately I'm not just talking about the events of this weekend.
  • Nice. Should just abolish all law enforcement and let the people decide for themselves what flies and what doesn't.
  • Though I understand the counterpoints, I am sympathetic to Blucero's position. Distasteful speech, even provocatively distasteful speech is, to a great extent, protected for a reason. Think Skokie Illinois. But I do worry that not enough ppl (black and white, and brown) feel "protected" enough GENERALLY...from poverty, from violence of all kinds, etc...to be confident that when extremists hold their marches that they will ultimately be able to live normal lives despite such demonstrations. And if you don't feel that safety generally, then words can trigger you. And that's a dangerous place for us to be.
  • Also blm is just as hateful as the group yesterday.
  • Please let us know when a BLM member has driven a car through a crowd of counter-protesters.
  • Are you kidding?? Lol not going to explain it to someone so far to the left
  • Please provide a source
  • Don't need to provide a source. Simply do a Google search.
  • I don't see BLM protestors driving into people when I look it up. All I see when I search it are BLM protestors getting driven into, not the other way around. I could be missing something, though.
  • Obviously were not talking about driving into people as a specific act of violence
  • I know you didn't mean specifically, but I don't see any reports of that specific type of violence by BLM protestors. Some people take it too far and cause the violence, which no doubt occurs by BLM protestors and other types of protestors, but mainly by the ignorant a**holes who only use violence to prove their point, whatever that point may be.
  • You're missing nothing. This is nothing more than "whataboutism".
  • Naw, they are to busy setting fire to buildings......
  • Blucero supports the Neo-Nazis.
  • Of course he does.
  • Um, blm IS the vehicle that racists have driven into law enforcement across the country.
  • There is hate on both sides. This was a predictable situation that many in the media and establishment did not try to prevent. Likely desired. It's way more complicated than this simple article.
  • No, there's only hate on one specific side.
  • Left wing antifa violence has not been covered by the media. There is hate on the left too, it's a small minority. Just like the dumb Nazis. They want you to think all Trump voters support these hillbillies. Don't be a pawn.
  • Please find a source
  • Portland riots, Berkely riots, punch a Nazis slogan, violence at conservative meet ups. Google is your friend. These hillbillies are terrible. They are tiny fraction. I think there are forces in play here you don't understand.
  • Ok, there is violence on both sides, that is a fact. Just look at the Republican baseball practice a couple months ago, where James Hodgkinson, a Bernie supporter and Democrat, shot 60 times at the GOP congressman, staffers and police. I am a Democrat, but I don't believe there is violence on only one side.
  • Portland: Trump supporters began attacking a counter protest. Berkley: Students protested the hateful message of Milo Yiannoplous. Again, the far right began attacking these protesters. Punch a ****: My grandfather punched a lot of Nazis back in WWII. Today's counter protesters are continuing that. The US Oath of Naturalization and the military's Oath of Enlistment make sure that all citizens defend the country against all enemies foreign and domestic. I would categorize Nazis as domestic enemies. Violence at conservative meet ups: Do you mean when Trump incited violence at his own rallies?
  • You're just wrong about Portland and Berkeley. Defeat Milo with debate. Punch a **** promotes violence. Your definition of **** is anyone you disagree with. I know it's pointless debating, every now and then I just get the urge.
  • Tom, you're hopeless. You can't be reasoned with, and you're snarky little cite the source "rebuttals" betray your own lack of critical thinking. Leftists protestors actually set Berkeley and Portland on fire, with none of those hateful right wingers you bash. I live in Portland. I know what goes on here. The business owners whose livelihoods were impacted by "antifa" know as well. Grow up, dude, or live a little more and educate yourself.
  • You are ******* untruths and seem too ignorant to care. Berkeley violence was caused by rioters from the left. You really need to get out more.
  • Go on a BLM March in Philadelphia, I was there to hear and see how they conducted themselves.
  • The "antifa violence" doesn't exist. That's something that's only reported on right wing rags like Stormfront. None of it is legitimate.
  • Open your mind, there are dozens of videos
  • None of this excuses what that ****** bag did by driving into protesters.
  • You're right, he will get his in prison. Worthless scum. No one here is justifying what he did.
  • Dude are you being serious? You are honestly saying that only one side promotes hatred?
  • 👍 I was born in the 50's Didn't know racism or bigotry until I went back east USA in the 70's Wow.
  • Tom, you are betraying yourself as mindless to think that hatred is one-sided. You are actually going point at a side? If you think that there wasn't hate at the occupy orgies, you are clueless. Hate is on both sides. And please, you don't help your credibility by citing wiki.
  • Tom you can't be that ******* dense and left wing to defend the fact that all violence done at rallies is honestly only coming from the right.
    Backing your argument up with "facts" that can only be backed up by a Google search leading to FAR left news media does very little to justify your case. Coming from someone that is now employed by this site I would like to see just a TAD bit of professionalism. There's being left or right and then there's being to stupid to admit there is violence on both sides.
  • He's young, and a leftist ideologue. He still hasn't responded to just three of hundreds of sources I could pull up about leftist violence across the country since Trump won.
  • its true, hate is on both sides. some are just concerned that when one side does it, they're called out on it specifically. when the other side does it, its just "both sides have hate," and aren't singled out by certain institutions. that has real life implications and effects.
  • I really hope they unveil the name and statue soon. I'm headed to the Mountain View area in a week and would love to get a picture with it!
  • You want to make Android Central political, your choice. Let's now hope you don't go around censoring opinions in the comments...(Edit: I had to misspell Nazzi because you pathetically censor the word)
    Anyway, here we go (brace yourselves, this will be long): "The U.S., as divided and chaotic and, well, frustrating as it can often be, still protects the right to free speech and doesn't impose restrictions or block the exchange of those ideas through the internet, which has become the primary source of such traffic — for the left and the right." - Funny enough, Leftists in America are trying to get rid of that. By trying to force their ideas and agenda on people, they try to stigmatise anyone who doesn't agree with them.
    Google IS part of that problem as of last week. Their firing of someone who dared to disagree with the company's set of ideas just proves that Google's leadership not only agrees with the repression of any ideas that don't match theirs but also that it's completely unable to refute those ideas based on arguments or facts. And it would be so easy...
    But no. Google did what Leftists like to do which is persecute someone and repress his opinion by force. Stuart Mill is probably revolving in his grave. - Free speech isn't selective. With that I agree. And everyone should be free to express their beliefs freely. No matter what those beliefs are. The limitation to free speech is action. You are free to defend "white supremacy" or "black supremacy" or "blue supremacy". You are NOT free to, based on those beliefs, go around assaulting or killing people.
    This is a concept valued in the U.S. and something Americans don't cherish enough.
    Here in Europe, on the other hand, SOME countries like to persecute people based on their beliefs. Germany and Austria, for example, move Heaven and Earth against anyone who even so little as question the numbers of the Holocaust or even possesses nazzi symbols (even Theatre and Film productions and to go through a bureaucratic nightmare to be able to use those symbols in historical pieces, often having to actually replace the swastika with an Iron Cross). That's not free speech. That's State-Controlled speech. As a result, you have an increasing sentiment of revolt and "rethinking" in Germany in regards to their past. Many Germans are now re-evaluating if Hitler wasn't right. And you know why? Because since the end of WWII everything related to Nazism was made tabu and Germans don't speak openly about it. Many of them never even read Mein Kampf which, until one or two years ago, was completely banned in Germany and now is only available in limited editions and costs tons of euros.
    In Britain, by contrast, the moment they stopped trying to persecute speech, extremist parties pretty much went away.
    A couple of years ago the British National Party was a growing force in Britain. They were pretty much in line with the Golden Aurora of Greece or the American Nazzi Party (yes, America. You HAVE an American Nazzi Party. Headquartered in...Virginia. Yeah). For years British media tried to silence the BNP. As a result, the Brits started supporting it more and more. Then one day, the media started to allow the BNP air-time. They let them speak. You know what happened? People ACTUALLY HEARD their ideas an as a result the BNP went from a presence across much of Great Britain in 2010 to only 10 constituencies in 2017. "I abhor much of the imagery I saw yesterday. There is no place for Nazis, nor white supremacy, in the U.S. or anywhere in the world." And now let's revert that into "There's no place for Communists, nor black supremacy, in the U.S. or anywhere in the world". Would you agree with this? I think you would.
    But do you know what happens if you say it? You're called a Fascist and a Racist. This is the sort of hypocrisy that leads to the growing of extremist movements.
    Let's look at the U.S. situation again: everyone suddenly is outraged at the "White Supremacists" and at the way Trump didn't condemn them. YET, when the "Black Live Matter" organisation and the ANTIFA's went through cities, shot cops dead, burned and pillaged their way through streets, where were the cries against "Black Supremacists" and the way Obama reacted to those attacks? They weren't.
    Why?
    Because the Leftist rhetoric created the idea that if you attack something like "Black Lives Matter" (no matter is they go around doing whatever they want) you're just a racist.
    And I know what someone will inevitably say: "a few members of Black Lives Matter do not represent the entire movement". Well, fair enough. Then you must apply the exact same to the other side. That - let's call him what he is - terrorist who ran over a crowd also doesn't represent all the other far-right protesters that did NOT attack anyone and whose only "crime" was holding a vigil in defense of an historical statue.
    There's a picture going around the internet which shows well a big difference between the protest yesterday and the protests of BLM for example. That picture has a black officer standing in the street, doing his job, and behind him a group of protesters with Confederate flags and people doing the Roman Salute. He's not being attacked. They aren't even close to him. That was what the majority of those protesters did. They shouted whatever they wanted, did their little Nuremberg-styled parade and that's it.
    In the last BLM protest, that police officer would have been shot like many were. But no one cried out about BLM or ANTIFA. And it should also be said that the protest only turned violent after "counter-protesters" (who did NOT have any legal permission to be there one should add) showed up. That's something the authorities should have foreseen and prevented. Every time extremist groups collide, there's always problem.
    That doesn't mean, however, they shouldn't be free to express themselves. If means they should be prevented to do more than expressing their views. That's what people have to come to terms with. If you want free speech, you need to learn to respect it EVEN if you absolutely loathe everything the other person stands for. Otherwise the Western World has to drop the entire "free speech charade" and admit once and for all that they do not accept free speech and we go back to censorship and regimes which are not democracies (and I'm sorry, if you don't have free speech you can not have a modern democracy). - One last thing: Americans should REALLY think about the path they're taking. Let us go back to the REASON why the protest happened in the first place: History re-writing.
    This protest happened because the Leftist will to erase History decided to continue to remove anything connected to the Confederacy. See, the problem is, the Confederacy IS a part of American History. A REALLY important part. And if you go around removing everything related to it, changing flags etc, you know what happens? You make it a taboo. And you know what happens after that? Anyone who is displeased with the establishment immediately sees the "taboo" as the solution to the problem. Why? Because "if the establishment tried to suppress it, it must be because it's what can destroy them".
    It's the Leftist obsession with "feelings" that is ultimately making the far-right grow in America. It's their attempts to police speech and oppress anyone who disagrees with their cultural marxism that has led to the election of Donald Trump. If you still insist in denying the obvious, you will continue on this path...except you'll manage to increase even more the racial conflicts in a country where the racial wars never actually ended.
  • Agreed
  • Agree 100 percent. We all need to remember, the free speech that needs the most protection is the speech we disagree with. The other is easy.
  • Really? So if a crowd of radical muslims took to the streets of Washington with torches shouting "Hail Osama", you'd simply disagree and go about your day?
  • Yes, if it is a peaceful protest with no violence I would go about my day and disagree.
  • I agree
  • I have a hard time believing any American would accept a group marching in their town expressing support for Osama or ISIS.
  • Of course. Peaceful idiocy can be easily ignored
  • They do that freely in England.
    As long as it's speech, they're free to say whatever they want.
    The problem with Islamic Terrorism is that their rhetoric is far less than their practice.
  • Oh course not... Kaepernick couldn't even take a knee without the right crying.
  • Yep, couldn't agree more.
  • I love and support freedom of speech... But I think it's important to also condemn the things that are being said by these people. Right leaners who defend these Nazì scum are just as disgusting as the members of the regressive left who refuse to condemn Islamic extremism.
  • All well and good. Both sides still need to have the right to express their idiotic points of view.
  • Monologues don't help. Try a live conversation with someone on the other side, and you may find you get called out on some of the sweeping generalizations about "Leftists" you make here. Where you see an effort to purge the Confederacy from history, many others see a long overdue second look at who gets hero treatment from our governments. Progress is sometimes painful and disruptive, and there are excesses (on both sides, yes), and setbacks along the way, but it will go forward and not back. The white nationalists are the ones truly advocating for others to be deprived of rights our Constitution guarantees. Not a close call, IMHO.
  • "Where you see an effort to purge the Confederacy from history, many others see a long overdue second look at who gets hero treatment from our governments." Monuments are not necessarily "monuments to heroes". They are also monuments to people who, somehow, marked the history of a country. If we go around taking down all monuments that relate to someone who, in 2017, we see as on "the wrong side of History", then in Europe we will be reduced to barely any monuments at all.
    Like him or not, Robert E. Lee was a prominent figure of American History and a respected general, even amongst Unionists. He was also a prominent American officer. There's absolutely no reason why his statue should be removed. If anything, it should stay there and serve to educate Americans in their own History which is something that, as an European, I've noticed far too many Americans don't know. In fact I find it honestly shocking how many Europeans know more about American History than Americans themselves. As for "sweeping generalizations about "Leftists" "
    Oh it's not a sweeping generalisation. "Leftists" is used to refer to the left-wing people who crusade against everyone who disagrees with them. And I use crusade on purpose. It's not about disagreeing. It's about persecuting people for their beliefs and trying to publicly diminish their opinions based on their own concept of right and wrong.
    Here in Europe we normally call them just "communists" but in America I know the use of the word "communists" brings immediately an array of imagery connected to the Cold War which is not what we're intending to talk about. But that's another good example. If the U.S. in the 50's didn't went on that "witch hunt" against communists and demonised them, many Americans would have probably learned what socialism and communism stand for and the likes of Bernie Sanders would have never left their holes because Americans would be aware of how dangerous and seriously messed up Marxist ideas of any sort are.
    I could have used the term "Democrats" but the problem with that would be that the Democratic Party has been a mess for so long that it's really hard to attach any ideas to them, really.
    Think of "Leftists" as: all those people who believe that "words hurt", that think people should be forced to accept their political idea that there are more than two genders, that want to force quotas everywhere based on gender or race or religion instead of merit, that "God has no place in society", that marriage is a "human right" etc...AND actively try to force governments and institutions to comply with their ideals. This last part is crucial. Because all those ideas are valid in a free market of ideas. It's when they try to force others to abide by them that they become "Leftists". "The white nationalists are the ones truly advocating for others to be deprived of rights our Constitution guarantees." And black supremacists aren't? When they go out shouting "What do we want? Dead cops!" aren't they advocating for murder? And isn't life protected by the Constitution? I don't think you get the point: white supremacists, just like black supremacists, HAVE the right to advocate for whatever they want. The Constitution guarantees them that right. THAT is what a democracy is: allowing everyone an opinion and the freedom to express it, even if that opinion would put an end to democracy at the first opportunity.
    They just don't get the right to act upon those beliefs if they conflict with the rights of others to life and physical safety. "Monologues don't help. Try a live conversation with someone on the other side" I have a Masters in Political Science with a thesis precisely on free speech in democracies. I do debates with all sorts of opinions all the time. And I actually like to do it. But here on Android Central, we have to limit ourselves to "monologues". Which is why you can "reply". And I can "reply back" ;)
  • You see to be focused on labeling of opponents rather than ideas. Keep mowing down those straw men. We won't persuade each other, so let's just agree to disagree.
  • When you can't prevail over truth and logic, pull out the, "you just want to label," card. Personal responsibility, doing good for others, and loving your enemy would fix a LOT of problems...and the government wouldn't have to spend a dime or get involved.
  • I didn't see much truth and logic, just a rant full of circular reasoning. As to your second comment, I sort of agree.
  • You need to change brains.
  • dude, did you read the post he was responding to? it reads like a book example of "no true scotsman"
  • Pretty dumb rebuttal to well reasoned thought and opinion.
  • No one uses 'Leftists' to decry someone that disagrees with what another person believes in with they happen to hold left leaning ideas, that is a silly excuse for generalizing and using strawmen. Again, your argument falters, and it's interesting you have a said degree in Political Science to not recognize that, or you do, and still do it regardless. And fun fact about American political parties, the Democratic Party would fit nicely labeled as a Centre-Right European party, it no where encompasses anything widely seen as Far-Left, and regarding Bernie Sanders, from Political Compass, and his policies in general, he is actually pretty moderate, and isn't close to being a Marxist/Communist. American politics have sadly reared to much to the right, that any talk about what other developed Western nation's have, like universal healthcare, is decried and talked about like it's the end times, with the Antichrist coming, and Jesus returning.
  • Your entire argument falters and flops when you generalize. Who are these 'Leftists' that you speak of exactly? What is their ideology? Is every person that has some left leaning political interest part of this group? No one is trying to erase history. The statue is going to go to a museum where it belongs. After all, it is a representative of a traitorous nation that seceeding from the Republic. Furthermore, those counter protestors were peaceful, and were not violent, it was when an actual terrorist rammed their car into a crowd of people was when it turned violent. No one was suppressing their freedom of peaceful protesting whatsoever.
  • "Furthermore, those counter protestors were peaceful, and were not violent, it was when an actual terrorist rammed their car into a crowd of people was when it turned violent. No one was suppressing their freedom of peaceful protesting whatsoever." As I've said above, the counter-protest was peaceful but unlawful. By going there to antagonise the people protesting, the counter-protesters effectively provoked the disturbance. There's a reason why public protests NEED permissions for the authorities.
    That's the time when the right to free speech HAS to be used with carefulness and regulated (not suppressed). Which is why I say the authorities were also at fault. They should have foreseen that the appearance of eventual counter-protesters would lead to physical confrontation from both parts.
    As for the terrorist, I don't think there's anything else to say that I haven't said already. What the guy did was an act of terrorism, he's in jail and I expect him to be sentenced just like any other terrorist of any sort. The first two paragraphs of your reply I've addressed above in response to JoseGui.
  • you're right. the counter-protesters' speech should be silenced until they get permission from the government.
  • Nobody is re-writing history. The statue was going to a museum. But it should go to the bottom of a trash heap where it belongs. Think about what the statue stands for. It stands for oppression, slavery, hate, violence. If that's the heritage you want to celebrate, then what does that say about you as a person?
  • I've already replied to see above. See my answer to JoseGui. Just so I don't have to keep writing the same over and over again.
  • it doesn't address the concept of going to a museum though... that would still fit with your argument. it doesn't make it taboo. you talk about it being a part of history, what better place than a museum?
  • Yawn Folks like you can't learn and don't even see their own ignorance
  • "- Funny enough, Leftists in America are trying to get rid of that. By trying to force their ideas and agenda on people, they try to stigmatise anyone who doesn't agree with them." When you express an idea and someone else responds with displeasure that's both sides expressing their free speech rights. Where it becomes an issue is when the government chooses sides. The entity that makes the law and has the power to arrest you can not be involved in this process. It will lead to oppression.
  • No. It becomes an issue when those ideas lead to the loss of freedom and lives. We've seen it over and over again in our history. Luckily, based on the responses from both sides, those idiots are outnumbered and out gunned.
  • The lost of freedom can only come from the government - they enact and enforce the law. No one is obligated to respect to the views or ideas of someone else. Someone can use their free speech rights to say these are my ideas and someone else can use their free speech rights to say I don't respect your ideas.
  • Until they drive their car into a crowd. It doesn't take a government to end lives based on faulty/hateful ideology. There is a difference between free speech and hateful extremism.
  • Driving your car into people is not expressing your free speech rights. It's assault or worse and we have laws against that.
  • ok, but his point was to the one from the OP. Such as his example of Google. Google didn't kill anyway last i checked.
  • Agreed.
    The problem isn't people believing in something, it's them forcing those beliefs on others.
    Which is what happened at Google. They fired the guy not because he wasn't good at his job or committed some crime but because he dared to question Google's leadership political ideas and agenda.
  • Not so much questioning, but violating it's code of conduct. Entirely different argument.
  • A convenient platitude for Googs
  • being convenient doesn't make it false. it has a code of conduct and it crossed it. and then more so due to the negative publicity that the business got. google has freedom of speech as well as a private entity (yes, its publicly traded, but its not owned by the government). unless you conveniently want to silence all those who don't agree with you.
  • Please read my short comment again, slowly. Where did I accuse anything of falsehood?
  • Businesses are not obligated to respect your speech. You're employed at a company at the pleasure of the employer. If you cross your employer you risk the chance of being fired,
  • Google fired him because he violated their code of conduct. If Damore has any case for what some think is unlawful firing, he can certainly challenge it legally. Odds are, he has no real traction. Private companies are allowed to have their own agenda and political leanings. The right very specifically advocates for them to do so with their business-first mentality, so this shouldn't be an issue just because a left-leaning company has a different culture than what members of the right would personally tolerate. Though lower-profile, people have been legally fired for much less.
  • Nicely stated.
  • Went back east USA in the 70's. Literally found out that there was a pageant for Miss Black America. Ok... But I havent seen a Miss White America or a Miss Hispanic America... In America - most of us are all imigrants anyway. Jeesh... I am basically an immigrant.
  • True. I always find it amusing when I hear Americans complaining about "immigrants". I mean...unless the ones complaining are Native American, every single other American is an immigrant. It's fair to complain about the amounts of immigrants admitted. Or about immigrants refusing to assimilate American values. But everything else is pretty ludicrous.
  • No such thing as a "Native American". Unless they sprouted up from American soil, they came from somewhere else, too.
  • "Went back east USA in the 70's. Literally found out that there was a pageant for Miss Black America. Ok... But I havent seen a Miss White America or a Miss Hispanic America..." Would you like to take a guess at why that was? =)
  • So. Many. Words.
  • Hey...I gave fair warning... :P
  • Well stated
  • I like cake.
  • Thank you. Well said.
  • I think free speech is extremely important but when it is used to indoctrinate our youth to commit violence I question how unbalanced speech can do great harm. Unfortunately, most hate speech is one sided and unopposed within these groups. Rational debates are not typically presented to the youth of these radical groups and therefore hatred seems inevitable.
  • hey buddy!
    Gosh, you sure wrote a lot. a couple of things, i guess because i'm a little nit-picky and all: "And now let's revert that into "There's no place for Communists, nor black supremacy, in the U.S. or anywhere in the world". Would you agree with this? " can you go more in depth about this "black supremacy" that you're talking about? if you are referring to the "black lives matter" movement, i would have to say...you're quite wrong. BLM as a phrase, came about when Mike Brown was killed by a cop (whether you think he was executed by the state, or just a unfortunate death-by-circumstance, in the end, someone who was sworn to protect the public, caused the death of a citizen). a large...very large segment of the black population, even in this version of america, do not feel that they receive equal chances, equal rights, equal justice. (you should ask them. and...ooooh i dunno...listen a bit). in short they want their lives to matter as much as a white-anglo-saxon-protestant's life would. in short the phrase should be 4 words...Black Lives Matter, Too. the work that the people in that movement is, is for the furthering of this concept. so if you could explain this 'black supremacy' thing that you interpreted from "Black Lives Matter", please share with the class. thanks! Oh and one thing:
    "See, the problem is, the Confederacy IS a part of American History. " it is part of history. a real bad part, which was part of the Civil War, which they lost, which is why is belongs in history books and museums, not in public squares to be celebrated and revered.
  • Okay here it goes. The police yesterday were told to stand down, this enabled Antifa to go crazy and start attacking the white supremacists, this has also many many times before in other cities around the country, as we've seen before at the Trump rallies the anti-trumpers were allowed to attack innocent Trump supporters, yesterday some person for some unknown reason ran through a group of Antifa members, it looked like it was done on purpose, maybe he was scared for good life.
  • Anti-Trump people were NOT causing violence at Trump rallies. In fact, Trump has been inciting violence at his rallies when he was campaigning. Do you remember these gems? "Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court. Don't worry about it."
    "Knock the crap out of him".
    "I'd like to punch him in the face".
    "The audience hit back and that's what we need a little bit more of." But of course you don't remember because that would throw away your narrative.
  • The thing is, Antifa wasn't attacking anyone, or inciting any violence, do I have to remind you that an actual ****, a homegrown radicalized terrorist purged their vehicle into a crowd of people, killing one, and injuring dozens more? It wasn't done because the coward was scared, it was done deliberately. He was a Neo-Naz 1, White Supremacist, inhumane trash that killed an American civilian. Who would've imagined that would've occurred.
  • These people throw around "antifa" like it's a bad thing, but antifa means anti-fascism. Being anti-fascism is a GOOD thing, last I checked.
  • Antifa is basically facism in the guise of being anti racist. They really came back because they didn't want to hear Milo speak and UC Berkeley, and destroyed many infastructures. Sorry, but that is terrorism and the fact they want to condemn speech IS facism.
  • I say let them march. It shows their anger in the face impotence. A glorious thing to watch.
  • Thank you. Freedom of expression must be persevered at any and all costs. Nothing is as precious as the freedom that This country was founded on.
  • Agreed! Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
  • Too true, let them March peaceful, and let America see their hatred and their bigotry. Racism is dying, and you could say that their little stunts are them backlashing one last attempt to stay relevant.
  • I don't think racism is dying at all. It's being perpetuated at almost every State University in the country. Safe spaces where you self-segregate hardly are a bridge to healthy race relations.
  • "It's being perpetuated at almost every State University in the country" You sure are going out of your way to support racist jerks, aren't you?
  • If you mean the racist jerks setting up safe spaces, then yes!
  • The people setting up safe spaces are racist? How so?
  • Let them march - protest etc. Peacefully. Not block roads - create safety issues or be aggressive to other people. Blocking an ambulance or traffic or subduing people - is an act of violence.
  • Trump courted these lunatics and now they feel empowered since they helped elect him. They feel like they are being racist with his blessings and he has the nerve to not place blame for this weekends violence on the **** pigs who support him.
  • Then the same was true of Obama with blacks. If you can't see that, then you're just blind, man. Bottom line is you hold the criminals responsible. Politicians say anything to get elected. Trump did. Obama did.
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
  • Cute. What's your point? That I'm a Russian? That I'm a Soviet? You know, until Trump won, leftists loved Russia, especially Soviet Russia.
  • Tom Westrick's point. Your head. Someone points out a fault about Trump--our current POTUS--someone will immediately go "what about Obama??!!!1111ELEVENS" Why that's a fallacy is because 1. Obama isn't our POTUS anymore, hasn't been for seven months now. 2. the topic has nothing to do with Obama.
  • I'm calling for a little self-reflection on the part of you lefties, in the midst of your self-righteous sermonizing.
  • No you're not. You're knee deep in the "They does it too" defense. There's no personal responsibility
  • The escalation of racial tensions in the US started during the Obama administration. You can NOT deny that.
    So it IS fair to point how the duality of criteria used.
    Of course, that duality is expected in politics. When a side loses, they blame everything on the side that won. And when they win, they blame everything on those who came before.
  • I'm sure you think that's true. Your wrong. Ask anyone who grew up around Los Angeles in the late 80's and early 90's. If you don't know anyone, it's okay. Think OJ and Rodney King and what precipitated all of that nonsense. It started long before any trials were held. I'm pretty sure Obama wasn't the President then.
  • Sure, it 'started' under Obama, you know why? Because racists couldn't imagine a biracial President, someone that wasn't purely white, sit in the White House. Obama did nothing, and it wasnt his fault his skin color triggered a bunch of inhumane individuals that decried he wasn't American and wasn't born in Hawaii. Funny how the man who was a leader in the birther movement became President. If Obama said half the shiz Trump said, he would be reviled by Republicans alike.
  • Please ... sarcasm?
  • Yes, you can deny that.
  • "The escalation of racial tensions in the US started during the Obama administration. You can NOT deny that." Of course it escalated. People like Trump were leading the charge on the birther movement. That's what you meant, right? Right.
  • So in other words, we need a black, female, conservative president. 😉
  • Best part is there are a lot of black conservatives and I'm sure some women. If that was to happen I'm sure lefties brains will explode. No one commended this piece of **** from driving into anyone.
  • Probably. Just look how insane they go over Milo Yiannopoulos...an immigrant Jewish gay man who only dates black guys (the epitome of a left-wing voter)...that so happens to be a conservative and Trump supporter.
  • And is a troll and caricature, and has vanished mysteriously. I wonder why? If he's a prime example how Conservatism is filled with diversity, terrible example.
  • Wouldn't bother me. I actually liked Herman Cain, and I like Ben Carson, and Condi Rice, and Mia Love, and Tim Scott. Consider yourself rebuked.
  • Man your getting so defensive you couldn't even see my irony was in defense of what you said. You may need a break. 😑
  • Obama didn't do much for the black community.. Stay off Infowars.. It is rotting your brain
  • The mess at google is a lot more complicated than you make it out to be, though. From what is coming out, the culture there is a whole lot more toxic than is being acknowledged. And, it turns out that Damore was right about one thing - there definitely does seem to be a culture of shaming and forcefully silencing people. Note that Sundar Pichai had to cancel his "town hall" address because the identity of the people asking some unpopular questions were leaked. That's a problem in itself - people should NOT need to be afraid to ask questions. But, they were right to be afraid! In at least one case, the leak lead to *death threats*. That's just unacceptable. Google NEEDS to find the person (or people) responsible for the leaks, and impose some serious consequences (possibly including firing), and DEFINITELY fire the person who made death threats.
  • Good luck with that. The Google Borg does no self-reflection. It just assimilates, or destroys.
  • I don't mind politics on any site. But when it's leftist politics being proffered exclusively, that's a problem. AC has got a problem with bias, and they don't even have the wit to look in the mirror and see it. For instance, where was the outrage or disturbed-ness, if you will, on AC when that leftist, Bernie lover whack job tried to assassinate Republican congressmen? I proudly voted for Trump, and would do it again gladly, but I still hate and condemn what happened yesterday. It was wrong and sick, period. The guy should be strung up. But there were also leftist agitators there too, who, comically enough, call themselves antifa. Supposedly, fascism is the way to fight supposed fascism these days. But back to AC, I like this site. Good writers, but hopelessly leftist, for the most part. Please, the next time a white cop is killed by a racist black man, please write a story on how disturbed you are then. Otherwise, you're a hack, and have no credibility.
  • If you want alt-right conspiracy theories, there are sites for that. AC isn't the place for that garbage.
  • I didn't know that white cops being shot by blacks was a conspiracy. It's no longer a conspiracy when it actually happens, my friend. It's a fact.
  • "by blacks" and BLM are two different things. Are you also a racist?
  • When a black guy kills a white cop because they are white, that makes them a racist. Me? That makes me a purveyor of facts.
  • And what is a white guy that plows into a group of protesters because they disagree with his racist beliefs called?
  • A racist. You see, I have no problem criticising far right wingers. You are the one who is so self-righteously blinded.
  • You don't know me. That's the problem with these debates when you begin labelling people you don't know based on a simple question.
  • Everyone here is expressing their views and we're coming to conclusions based on those views.
  • A terrorist. Easiest answer ever.
  • You're a tad bit obessed with 'race' and skin color mate.
  • It's their opinion and they're entitled to it. That's why there are comment sections for you to give your POV. They made you no promises of being neutral.
  • It's like saying it's sad that you're so hopelessly Right Wing. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, here you are expressing yours. A majority of the people in the Tech Industry just so happen to be left leaning.
  • I thought that you didn't like labels, hmmmm....
  • I think the problem some of us have is that these White supremacists, Nazis and Alt right groups believe they have the support of the top echelon of government. They think Trump will get them back to the "good old days" where every other group played second fiddle to White males. These groups are emboldened because of the false equivalency some on the right are pushing that people fighting to end police brutality are on the same level as people fighting to take away the rights of others who are not White and Christian.
  • I dont discuss too much online about politics but one thing I dislike is how the gov fights about everything. While congress wastes time fighting about some stupid stuff, he said she said garbage, some other countries continue to advance their weapons programs. I'd like to see more unity within the us. The racist stuff and hate isn't good no matter who's doing it. I'm black and I won't be friends with a black person that hates other races or a white person that hates other races etc. Racism is such a waste of life If I disliked white people just because I'm black, I'd miss out on plenty of good things. I'm a big Van Halen fan, Metallica fan, etc etc. Some of my favorite actors are white. If someone tells me I should only listen to rap music or soul because I'm black, I'll tell them to take a hike.
    It's time for racism to be a thing of the past that's for sure
  • I'm Van Hagar fan myself. Good comment though
  • I like Sammy Hagar too. Great singer and seems like such a genuinely nice guy
  • Good stuff, caddyman. I like many black entertainers/singers myself, as a white guy. Nat King Cole, Michael Jackson, Bill Cosby, and many others. The Cosby Show was my favorite show in the '80's. Not once did I even think about the Huxtable's being a black family. They were an American family to me. I have friends who are black, Asian, and Mexican. Of course I know they have darker skin, but so what? I don't feel the need to validate their color or ethnicity, and they certainly don't have to validate my European heritage. White supremacy fails to get beyond the outside, and see the human being inside. Leftist identity politics does the same exact thing, and propagates the very thing it claims to be against. They are both the tools of fools.
  • OMG just reading these comments shows how divided people are. The blame game is insanely strong. The scary thing is people really have their justifications down to a science. It's all fun and games until people's true colors comes out and what better way to expose true colors then by throwing politics into the mix. Once people learn what people's political ideologies are they will no longer speak to them, not here or in the forums. The hate on both sides is very strong.
  • In psychology, that is called deinviduation, commonly found when people hide behind a screen, and social norms and decency falter. It is also a tribal Them v Us, ingroup v outgroup situation. When a person has a strong schema, a set of beliefs, that is so strong, any information that contradicts their own simply bounces off! I'm not really seeing it that much here though, from my perspective anyways.
  • Not here. I have a healthy dose of friends from all sides. I'm also not a knee jerk liberal or conservative. I use common sense and stay away from labels. No one is branding me with anything. I like to call out the idiocy of either "side".
  • Nah, a lot of us here in the comment sections have been going at this at least a few years. So far we have been pretty civil towards each other. We pretty much know what political side each takes. We all keep coming back. Nothing wrong with healthy debate and a few jabs.
  • True dat.
  • This is democracy. We should celebrate it.
  • Apart from the obvious political and social implications of this weekend's events, the tech aspect that I find interesting is precisely one of the key points Daniel highlighted. How is this world we now live in--with instant, worldwide distribution of singular news stories--impacting how we perceive our collective reality? How is it changing us? Because I think it IS changing us. And fundamentally, too. For me the jury is still out on whether all this instant, at our fingertips data is good or bad on balance. Perhaps now we can just see more clearly, and quickly when news breaks, just how rough the edges of our world is. But whatever road it's taking us down, good or bad, it seems it's going to be a one way trip.
  • So so true. There's no other way but through, and we can only hope that it will leave us with a better understanding of each other.
  • This is for Tom Westrick, who seems obsessed with citations. Here's one of many...
    http://www.kgw.com/news/local/more-trump-protests-thursday-night/350855158
  • Here you go, Tom... https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2017/live-updates/politics/live-cov...
  • Here's another one, Tom. This guy loved Bernie Sanders, so clearly this is Bernie's fault, right? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/06/16/baseball-practice-shooter...
  • Awesome, not one wiki citation :-D
  • Reading this just made me dumber. I hope this comes out as cohesive. The article was fine the comments from both sides are asinine. His condemnation of both sides was perfectly fine and just. So please shut up and read the article for what it was for. Trump said for everyone to chill, Obama did take sides. The right has ******** as does the left. Both have now killed. So get over it and realize **** is ****** and the only way to be right again is to join as a nation of AMERICA. However don't break the law and you will be fine. This includes ILLEGAL immigration. So to conclude the article was pretty interesting in that tmobile is the first in recent times to allow unlimited data and allows this kind of data flow in our society. So shut up, go watch thrones or peaks and leave the tech to the tech.
  • The comments on here got very nasty at a quick rate. Hard to believe civil discussion has become impossible among most Americans. The far right attacks the left, the far left attacks the right, those who are in between get attacked by both sides. I could find amusement in trolling, or I could endlessly argue my views against people who obviously don't care about or respect others views and opinions. Why waste my time? I'm gonna go find some tech to discuss in the forums.
  • You're not wrong, and it's sad. Everyone is fed up with each other it seems.
  • So many snowflakes appeared all of the sudden. America is diverse, get over it.
    The Confederate lost, get over it.
    Obama was a good president considering the sh*t pile he was handed, get over it.
    Trump is awful and you know it, admit it.
    Free speech is our right, but don't be an assh*le about it because you're full of self hatred. People also have the right to tell you shut the f up and punch you in the face.
  • Turn that drivel u posted on it's head, and it all applies to you as well, especially the punch in the face part.
  • Don't hear me spewing hate with my free speech, do you? "fill in the blank" Supremacist are the problem and need to grow up and accept their reality. And aggression should and will be met with double.
  • Your comment is beautiful haha. Apart from the punching part, although if they're Naz 1's, I'm all for it!
  • That's who I meant, people like that. These white supremacist, neo ****, spewing hatred claiming free speech. No. You don't get free speech. We went to war with this mentality, we went to war with the people who thought enslaving an entire race was their right. No, you no longer have a platform in this country. I don't mean random person you don't agree with. I mean, you can punch them if you want, but they'll likely punch back and you'll end up in jail.
  • You just showed you are incapable of honesty and reasoned thought. Man , where do you folks get your daily feeding of BS?
  • They have the right to tell you to shut the F up, but not punch you in the face. If you think that's ok, you clearly misunderstand what free speech is. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth would leave the world blind and toothless. "America is diverse, get over it." So it shouldn't be a big deal that others express an opinion that disagrees with yours. Or does that only go one way? "The Confederate lost, get over it." I don't think there are many that aren't over it. That said, you can't white wash and rewrite history because it's unpleasant. If everything is torn down and forgotten about, we're bound to repeat history again. And who would that be good for? No one. Leaving monuments like Lee's up allow people to have the conversation and reflect on his actions and the circumstances around them, to understand whether they were good or bad. Also be careful of the yardstick with which you judge - people 100 years from now can easily think us just as f'ed up and barbaric. "Obama was a good president considering the sh*t pile he was handed, get over it." Opinion. I voted for him the first time and not the second because I didn't think he was a good president, and did nothing with the chance. He didn't improve that sh*t pile he was given. Sure, he did some good, just like every other president before him. But to ignore his shortcomings and the bad he did is ignorance. "Trump is awful and you know it, admit it." Again, your opinion. Your saying it does not make it fact. "Free speech is our right, but don't be an assh*le about it because you're full of self hatred." Your statement is seething with irony.
  • You are one of those people who can't accept their reality and everything becomes someone's "opinion".. Everything I stated is fact. Get over it.
  • Thanks to Obama we have all the race tension, snowflakes and triggered temper tantrum wimpy Americans now. He was the biggest coward of a president ever.
  • It's hard to accept a black man was our greatest president of modern history to a racist. I get it.. And coward, really? Lol.. One minute he's a war hawk use Drones like no tomorrow. Next he's a little coward.. I know, I know.. We all know who the real snowflakes are.
  • "To agree with James Damore's ideas about women is to tacitly support a culture within Google that could not build Android, or Chrome, or any number of services that empower girls and women in countries around the world that are a hell of a lot less inclusive than we are in North America." Incorrect--quite the opposite, in fact. The main thing that attracted me to Android over iPhone was that Android embraced diversity of ideas rather than insisting on one way of doing things. By firing Damore, they have proved one of his points: that intellectual diversity is subservient to their progressive ideology. Additionally, he clearly stated his opposition to stereotypes and wrote of significant overlap and statistical distributions that shouldn't be applied to individuals. He also suggested better ways to increase the interest of girls and women in STEM instead of discriminating based on gender. This incident has ruled out any chance I had of going to work at Google once I finish my computer science degree. I'd much rather work where intellectual diversity and questioning the status quo is cherished rather than punished.
  • I agree with you, I seriously wonder how people writing in technology get the manifesto so wrongly interpreted.
    I also agree that id probably stay away from working for google who fires for "wrong-think". Id think a technology company is beyond this, but I was proven wrong.
  • Im against racism, but I never saw anything posted against BLM. Now I'm just saying I get the point of the cause but eventually it became racist and well where were those articles?
  • BLM terrorism doesnt fit the narrative of most these article writers it seems.
  • So the group that wants to stop police brutality against black people are terrorists? You should Google what terrorism is.
  • ter·ror·ism ˈterəˌrizəm/ noun the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. They have done this through attacking people on the streets purely because they are white:
    http://itsghostofanidiot.tumblr.com/post/149085530951 Chanting for dead cops: https://youtu.be/hqQXmnMr_w8 Taunting dead police officers:
    https://saboteur365.wordpress.com/2016/07/08/as-cops-lay-dying-on-the-st... Say they will riot the streets of Trump wings (this directly defines the definition of terrorism: "If we dont get what we want politically, we will incite violence.")
    http://eaglerising.com/31565/black-lives-matter-protester-threatens-if-t... And much much more instances of them acting as terrorists. This is a group that is rightfully phrased as a terorist group.
  • Hey, how about that Moto X4?
  • It looks nice. I hope they come out with an X4 plus that has the rumored 660 and 3800 mAh battery. That could be a sleeper, especially if motorola optimizes it
  • Looks nice actually. Still dislike Lenovo's modification of Moto phones with their hideous bezels.
  • Look noone comes to this it's to hear about your politics. Personally I am getting sick of the political world comingling with my tech news.
  • Was one of them using an Android when they greased that cars axles or something? I must have missed that the 1 million times it was regurgitated all over us like bad sushi. Did whinerscentral url end up in my addrress bar? Damn Google autocomplete!
  • This was a great piece, thanks for writing it.
  • Violence bad. Free speech good. Android good. Politics unpleasant but important.
  • BLM protest because of police brutality. Why are these right wing **** alt-right people protesting for? The removal of Confederate statues?
  • Yup. Holding on to their slave owning heritage.. This was a different country that lost a long time ago. These statues should have been removed and confederate flags burned back then. It all belongs in history books.
  • Really? Your uninformed. Seems that BLM stands for the whole smorgasboard of leftist garbage. http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/
  • Being a good person and respecting others is a lefty agenda, huh? Have Russian Trolls infiltrated AC??
  • Maybe blm started off that way now it's race filled hate against White people
  • Really cause I have seen white, hispanic and indians marching with them.
  • Smh..
  • Politics is in everything. Either you stay quiet and pretend injustice isn't happening, thereby supporting the injustice. Or you speak up. Even if only a little. Thank you for speaking up.
  • These political articles are stupid on an Android site.
  • Says the person who wrote "Agreed" to DJCBS's very long political comment.
  • Great article, tech and politics unfortunately do have to cross mostly because of the freedom of speech. Keep it open and neutral. No voice should be silenced. If they were we could not see the bad ideas forming.
  • No mention of leftists terrorism in the article which is what caused the "white nationalist" march in the first place is a bit alarming on the viewpoint of these article writers.
    Once again, i believe AC should be strict on technology revolving around Android. Politics can be avoided at all costs unless a nuclear war has been called or something comic-book-extreme on those lines. This march is not the end of America as leftists believe, it is a reaction to certain anti-white agenda and political corectness that has gone around in developed countries for years. From most of the alt-right or white nationalists ive met with, they are open to dialouge and they can be discussed with to an extent, although they will slip in "cuck" at some point in the conversation.
    Point is, i disagree, AC does not have to be political with concerns that are so below the realm of other political concerns such as environmentalism.
    Thats what i have to say about this.
  • That awkward moment when you're an alt-right.... Though I do believe in some liberal ideology, just that I personally swing a little more to the right. That rally as a whole was just wrong, though.
  • Are you alt right? Im just asking out of curiosity. They seem to typically believe in white genocide, and want ethno states in the US, meaning they want the US to become a majority white again.
  • Not really. I consider myself a right-winger, but not necessarily part of that portion of the alt-right.
  • I see, thats cool. Im not sure, i always say im center right but seeing Sargon if Akkad's videos and agreeing with him alot, i might actually be just a classic liberal but im still unsure of that either.
    I guess the point is, im not an extremist.
  • +1 for Sargon! Shadilay my friend
  • I'm gonna be hated for this but I think the whole thing should've just been ignored by social and mainstream media because it drew attention to those people (which is what they wanted all along).
  • true. but it's easy for me and you to say that. people who went though hell because if this ideology can't stay still and mind their business. This is like a cancer , it's hard to ignore it especially if you are in pain.
    Another reason to cover it is to point at what's going on as of now in our Govt and Society. We have some real racist ppl in the White House and even before this blatant one, we had many policies in place affecting POC. Thanks to social media coverage , with not so many MSM reporters on the ground we can finally see the level of ignorance we are dealing with. Police was "cought of guard" , the ugly face of Na_tzees showed again as real as ever (not hiding under hoodies ) and the failure of our POTUS to acknowledge and address the centuries old problem that is not going away.
    Bannon doesn't want "Asians " in Silicon Valley as CEOs and he said that while talking to his buddy (he propped up) Trump on the radio, months before he was elected. We know how fast he was hired and given a high position in WH. These are fcuki ng seek people running wild.
  • It's sad to see people choosing a side, this is what the Elites of EVIL want us to do. Divide us, then bring in their False God. Elohim is the only True God to fear, cause their are far worse things then death of the body. God bless you all. Turn to Yahushua the Christ and King that is coming with Firey judgement of the Great day of the Lord.
  • The only interesting point in this article is the performance of the Big 4 networks. The rest is just drivel.
  • Thanks for this article, it needed to be done.
  • Why , when the left us roiled, do we get slapped with political commentary? Was there commentary after Berkeley, or other outrageous acts of bigotry and hatred that came from the left?
  • Because "FREEEE SPEEEEECH!" Don't get triggered, just accept what you advocate for, even if it comes from those with opposing views.
  • Guess the article was here for the clicks but I'd rather not have politics on a tech site.
  • Be careful for what you ask for with Net Neutrality; you just may get it. You people should be smart enough to know by now that government and neutrality have nothing to do with each other. Also the law of unintended consequences mean that you will get just the opposite of what you want with any net neutrality legislation. There is language in the net neutrality legislation covering speech used on the Internet. Political organizations can use it to limit certain types of speech. The best way to achieve net neutrality is to promote open and free markets for Internet and broadband access so there are plenty of competitors. I agree with the first poster that I go to AC and other sites for a break from the divisive political rhetoric. I am tired of one-sided agendas always being shoved down my throat. I watched several of the unedited videos and saw the Antifa and BLM protesters with their masks and huge sticks inciting violence, but that was not reported. Charlottesville was a huge coup for Antifa and anarchists because they were successful at cementing the meme that all alt-right are KKK or Nazis without even being identified as being there. No one is asking where was law enforcement or the national guard to break it up or why were the two groups allowed to mix in the first place? Most protests keeps the parties separated to prevent violence. I read in initial articles on CBS and CNN that a couple of the cops that were interviewed said that the driver may have not intentionally run into the crowd. I can no longer find those quotes though, but law enforcement has not made statements either way so I'm reserving judgement right now. I think it would be wise for others to wait until the investigation by local law enforcement and the FBI/DoJ before labeling him a domestic terrorist. Why wasn't this term used when Rep. Steve Scalice was shot? Don't you people realize that all of this imagery is being used to further polarize and divide us as a country! Wake up! Conservative or liberal, these extremist groups on both sides are being used to further divide us and make us believe that we are more different than the same. They are winning and we are losing. Reading all of the polarizing comments below is proof. Charlottesville is an example of what happens when we let polarizing elements succeed. Let's rise above it and condemn all extremism!
  • Yet in your entire article, all you can do is blame white nationalists, neo-****'s and the KKK without a single word about the other hate groups that showed up. Those other groups did not have a permit to be there and started the fights with these "violent racist white people". The reason tech blogs should stay out of politics is because by their very nature, you are liberal millennial snowflakes and we already know the political opinion you are going to have, so that makes you no different that the mainstream media that pushes their agenda and narrative every day of our lives. If we wanted that opinion, we know where to go to find it. Let me know when you start including Black Lives Matters in your tirade against violent, terrorist, racist anti-american hate groups and I will start coming back to your website.
  • None of them are hate groups. Only Antifa, they hates na*is.. They're just doing their job, beating up na*is
  • Freedom of speech:
    "I'm smarter/stronger/prettier than them."
    "They are dumb,stupid,ugly."
    "Your God is false God.My God is better than yours/There is no other God but mine." "God will punish you"
    "There is no God.All religious people are idiots." In any of these instances 1 exercise his right to opinion,which will inevitably offend those on the other side.It will only hurt their feelings,but won't get them suffer any other consequences.
    Now, if this same person, to all that was said adds "this is what's to be done with those Folks (any form of discrimination)..." or suggests that some of the discriminatory/attrocious/murderous actions taken against them in the past are justified - shall not be deemed as just another opinion publicly expressed,but rather as a call to directly harm those people. from that point, those people are no longer offended and can't look away getting on with their lives, but actually fear for their safety, livelihood and their lives. If I was to call, text or scream on multiple occasions at my neighbour all the stuff these idiot "Nazis" say, he would take the recordings and screenshots to the court and in no time get the restraining order against me. Since the restraining order forbids one's presence within a specific vicinity of the potential victim (say around 100 feet) I would be forced to move out-sell apt or house.
    I still can't understand, how a hateful speech calling in very specific actions against the targeted group can be protected by "Freedom of Speech". You are entitled to your opinion behind your closed doors (fantasies of killing millions if you want) but when outside in public you gotta be aware that certain actions May and will cause harm to other people. You can still "hate" and call people names as long as that doesn't affect their lives - limits their own FREEDOM.
    What happened the other day was frightening. Besides the plowing through a crowd of decent people (no,those were not Antifa) , Nazis holding torches surrounded one chapel with people inside , so they were trapped inside of the church. Their Free Speech ended right there - limiting movement of others with extreme intimidation. Police was nowhere to be found. But Antifa & Anarchists were there , so many people (even some clergy) thanked them for helping them out Antifa is a reactionary force (many are also just anarchists) confronting fascists. If any individual causes harm to "Nazis" is by all means and at all times legally persecuted - of course unless it was self defense. So, violent behavior of a group of individuals is never to be tolerated no matter what ideology they profess.
    But, just because of the violent behavior of some in that group, let's say even majority of them , nobody can say that they are even with Nazis and how we should be worried equally about the both groups. Their actions and ideologues are light years away. Nazis killed and are still killing or discriminating and targeting everybody but them and Antifa has only 1 target - the fascists.And so far I haven't heard of any Na_tzee being killed by Antifa member, despite the violence and talk. I'm still to hear one case where they would go to the church and kill 9 people like Dylan Roof did (no he wasn't a "lone wolf"). And "punch a Na_tzee" slogan could have been created by just anyone who experienced first hand intimidation (not to say real suffering) or being threatened by Nazis.
    Domestic Terrorists commit murder in US More than any other group and they are mostly White folks,mostly Christian. Mr Clown in Chief still has no balls to call this problem for what it is, but luckily others do (like Gov. of Virgina) - White Radical National Extremists. They should be watched and dealt with just as with any other terrorist organization. Unfortunately, the Clown's Admin decided to cut the staff in FBI dealing with them (that was already understaffed and w insufficient funds) to Zero. His speech only confirmed his dedication to look the other way and treat it as a non issue. All focus on Muslims and Mexicans. His record is beyond racist even prior to ridiculous hate speeches during campaigns and inciting the violence (there is a lawsuit in place). "Beat them (peaceful protestors) and I'll pay the legal fees...back in the old they, they used to take them out on the stretches...".
    The fact, that the city and police didn't care to provide security on the streets - in timely manner w adequate numbers, speaks volumes.
    Scary times