“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

NoahFence said:
Conspicuous by its absence from any reply from Sunmaster, theprestige, TBD or the user who made the observation initially, mgidm86 - is an answer to the question. Deflect, deflect, deflect.
Why is that?

So I ask.

Again.

Why do the infinitesimally small number of nitwits who choose violence represent the whole of liberals in your mind, but the massive number of peaceful protesters that we saw at the Women's march don't?
Click to expand...
Conspicuously absent is anywhere I made either of these claims. Also conspicuously absent is any relevance the question has to anything I've said.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, Dan Adamini, a County-level GOP official in Michigan, said that the best way to deal with campus protestors is to have another Kent State.

The violent protests at our universities certainly indicate portage acacian at the lower level. I'm thinking another Kent State might be the only solution protest stopped after only one death. They do it because they know there are no consequences yet.
Click to expand...


Violent protesters who shut down free speech? Time for another Kent State perhaps. One bullet stops a lot of thuggery.
Click to expand...


Of course, he walked it back later.
Taking a lot of heat for a very poorly worded tweet yesterday. Sorry folks, the intent was to try to stop the violence, not encourage more
Click to expand...


"Tin soldiers and GOP coming."
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Why should we tolerate Nazis?
Click to expand...

Because violence is not an appropriate response to thought crimes in a free and civil society, and we want to live in a free and civil society.

Perhaps you don't want to.
 
Hercules56 said:
Why should we tolerate Nazis?
Click to expand...


There are two sides to this conflict. One side throws tantrums, breaks windows and burns the American flag, and the other side controls the purse strings, signs executive orders and nominates supreme court justices.

Gee, I wonder which side will ultimately prevail?
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
Oh, come on, Oracle. You know exactly what he meant.
Click to expand...

As I said, I'm willing to accept that a person can honestly believe they meant no malice. That doesn't change the fact that the language subtly undermines the legitimacy of the person themselves rather than condemning a behavior.

Besides, overstaying a visa is how most end up being determined to be unlawfully present. That's a civil offense, not a criminal one. Deportation proceedings are a civil procedure and removal from the country is a civil penalty.

It's an issue of the proportionality of the response. A permanent restriction on ever becoming a citizen because of a procedural infraction seems quite out of balance to me. This is not to say 'free citizenship for all' but just make the punishment fit the offense. Many proposals exist that seem like a workable starting point. Get on papers, pay a fine, stay out of trouble for x period of time, etc. These are compensatory penalties, but what is proposed by permanently being barred from citizenship is punitive. It doesn't sound too dissimilar from a lot of structured legal deals where one pays a fine, performs community service, meets with a court corrections officer for check-ins, stays employed, etc. in order to avoid prison or other punishments.
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
That's ridiculous. There isn't a progressive pundit around who could hold a candle to Milo in a debate. He's a deeper thinker than any of them. Far more articulate. And funny as hell. He may be a troll part of the time (much of the time actually), but he's certainly not a paint-by-numbers troll.
Click to expand...

...oh give me a break. Even Boy George made Milo look like a fool.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm8QCUpFPrg
 
Sherkeu said:
Anyone else see the death threat in here? Insane.
Click to expand...

Another constant paradox the anarchists never seem to see.

If one gathers sufficient violent potential to 'protect' the vulnerable, then they've merely traded one abusive force for another who prefers a different kind of victim.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
No one made a peep when Obama was deporting people like gangbusters.
Click to expand...

Partisan blindness knows no party, for sure. But to say 'nobody' was making this point is utterly false. One might have had to go outside their own typical experience to find people articulating that message, however.
 
theprestige said:
Yeah, but did people go on a violent rampage and trash downtown whenever someone showed up to speak in favor of Obama's policy?
Click to expand...

Not sure. Has anyone showed up to speak in support of Obama deporting people?

If someone showed up to speak in support of Obama deporting people and a violent rampage ensued, would that mean it's ok?

I'm trying to understand how this argument doesn't end up eating itself.
 
Argumemnon said:
No it doesn't. It's being sensitive to a ridiculous extent.
Click to expand...

I see an assertion of my motives.

I've given a thorough explanation of why I feel 'illegal' is a dangerous adjective to apply to a person rather than a behavior. I have even declared that I accept it can merely be repeating a common phrasing without understanding the implications.

You can disagree with my conclusion and I would accept that. If all you have is a motive-impugning retort, then so be it.
 
I haven't read this entire thread. I browsed a few pages. It seems to me that an important point is being overlooked: All evidence is that the violence, vandalism, and rioting were caused by anarchist antifa. Not the leftists at the protest.

Note the black clothing. The covered faces. The anti-government banners. Pay attention to coverage of most riots and you'll start to notice that most the folks vandalizing and instigating violence dress in black clothing, cover their faces, and carry anti-government signs. These are anarchists. They commonly appropriate legit protests for their own cause.

I'm not sure how we've been through so many protests that featured anarchist-caused vandalism, violence, and rioting without this being common knowledge. I'm not sure how the media hasn't caught on.

Anyway. Not leftists. Not right wingers trying to discredit protesters. Anarchists. Antifa anarchists specifically in this case. But anarchists.
 
OMGturt1es said:
All evidence is that the violence, vandalism, and rioting were caused by anarchist antifa. Not the leftists at the protest.
Click to expand...

Can you provide this evidence?

I'm especially interested in evidence that antifa isn't leftist. After all, anyone bothering to do even the most basic reading on anti-fascism (such as its wikipedia article) will quickly find that it is distinctly leftist. One could even say that anti-fascism is a distinguishing feature of the broad left (anarchists, communists, socialists & social-democrats) as opposed to the broad right which does not feature it (liberals, conservatives, nationalists).
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
Not sure. Has anyone showed up to speak in support of Obama deporting people?

If someone showed up to speak in support of Obama deporting people and a violent rampage ensued, would that mean it's ok?

I'm trying to understand how this argument doesn't end up eating itself.
Click to expand...

The essence the argument is that there is a double standard when it comes to these kinds of protests. Here's a report of Nancy Pelosi defending Obama's deportation raids:

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/2...efends-discreet-obama-immigration-enforcement

Where was the destructive rampage?

Here's a report of Press Secretary Josh Earnest defending the raids:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-deportation-idUSKCN0Y429P

The article includes a photo of peaceful protesters. If there was a violent rampage, Reuters didn't report it.

Here's DHS Secretary Johnson, defending the raids:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-deportation-raids-families_us_568ac49ee4b0b958f65c5935

There's a video of peaceful protesters, but no violent rampage.

If a violent rampage ensued, it would not be OK, but it would at least suggest that people are acting from a consistent, principled position. What would be OK is if the people who responded peacefully to Barack Obama's immigration policy, applied that same principle to Trump's immigration policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom