“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

I'm sorry, what is that supposed to prove?

Milo Yiannapolous associated with noted neo-Nazi Richard Spencer.


That isn't a quote. I can only surmise that, after at least three requests by me, you have no quote by him saying anything Nazi-like. I'll consider your claim retracted.

You requested links to "vile bigotry". In the link there are quotes containing vile bigotry. You're welcome.


Based on **** all, apparently, since you're unable to support these claims.

I did support them.


Then they wouldn't be punching you. You're not making any sense, here.

That's because you don't know anything about me. People try to punch me for reasons other than them thinking I'm a Nazi, although I have heard that as well. Comes with the territory.


I've already made the comment: I'm directly comparing your rhetoric to that of Nazis in order to highlight your sickening comparison of Milo to Nazis. Your outrage simply demonstrates that your argument comes entirely from emotion.

No, you are comparing the plight of neo-Nazis being punched on TV in the US with that of Jews being persecuted by Nazis during WWII. That's what you did. Do you stand by the comment?
 
Milo Yiannapolous associated with noted neo-Nazi Richard Spencer.

I could find no mention of Spencer in your link. So how does your link show Milo associates with Spencer?

That's because you don't know anything about me. People try to punch me for reasons other than them thinking I'm a Nazi, although I have heard that as well. Comes with the territory.

What territory? Being violent?

But I should listen to my own argument. You aren't interested in reason. You've made up your mind already. There's really no way to change the opinion of someone who has already concluded violence is a justified response to speech.
 
Milo Yiannapolous associated with noted neo-Nazi Richard Spencer.

Associated in what way?

You requested links to "vile bigotry". In the link there are quotes containing vile bigotry. You're welcome.

No, no no. You don't get to throw me in that article and expect me to find whatever quotes you _think_ are bigoted. Either post them or continue to find your claim baseless.

That's because you don't know anything about me. People try to punch me for reasons other than them thinking I'm a Nazi, although I have heard that as well.

Ah, so when they think you're a Nazi, they are entirely justified in punching you, right? You see nothing wrong with them punching you in this instance, correct?

No, you are comparing the plight of neo-Nazis being punched on TV in the US with that of Jews being persecuted by Nazis during WWII.

Now you're just plain old lying. I am comparing the justification, as you well know and as I've plainly stated more than once. Stop lying.
 
Last edited:
Associated in what way?

It's in the article.


No, no no. You don't get to throw me in that article and expect me to find whatever quote you _think_ are bigoted. Either post them or continue to find your claim baseless.

According to forum rules, I'm not allowed to quote extensive parts of another website. I'll quote a few of them, as you seem unwilling to look for yourself:

On gays:

Gays have been told for 30 years that they were 'born this way'. That's a lie. 'Born this way' was invented by the gay lobby as a run-around of the religious right. The religious right was saying that homosexuality was a sinful lifestyle choice, and then the gay lobby invented the 'gay gene'. They said "we're born this way"... it really has no basis in science at all. The most we can say is that it is a mixture of nature and nurture and it may have some epigenetic component. Nobody really knows."

##"But the thought that I might influence my child towards a lifestyle choice guaranteed to bring them pain and unhappiness – however remote that chance may be – is horrifying to me. That’s why, quite simply, I wouldn’t bring a child up in a gay household and, if by some chance I were to end up having a child with a woman, I would seek to insulate that child from inappropriate situations and influences until they were old enough to understand the principles, ramifications and, yes, the mechanics surrounding such an enormous decision. [....] [C]eteris paribus, no one would choose to have a gay child rather than a straight one. It would be like wishing that they were born disabled – not just because homosexuality is aberrant, but because that child will suffer unnecessarily. Again, you’d have to be mad. Or evil. [....] Is being homosexual “wrong”? Something somewhere inside of me says Yes."

##"Gay Rights Have Made Us Dumber, It’s Time to Get Back in the Closet": "The endless celebration and mollycoddling of homosexuals in the media has transformed the genteel, camp rightsists of the 1950s into brash, glitter-drenched Pride queens. If for no other reasons than manners and aesthetics, we ought to think about shoving the next generation back into Narnia."

On transgenders:

"Never feel bad for mocking a transgender person. It is our job to point out their absurdity, to not make the problem worse by pretending they are normal. Much like fat-shaming, if our mockery drives them to get the help they need, we may save their life."

On African Americans:

“The best way to know Shaun King is white is the way he threw his mom under the bus when it was alleged he wasn’t half black. What black guy would do that to his own mama?”

"Did Black Lives Matter Organizer Shaun King Mislead Oprah Winfrey By Pretending To Be Biracial?"

I honestly can't go on, as it's soul destroying reading Yiannapoulous' bigotry. There's loads more where that came from, though.


Ah, so when they think you're a Nazi, they are entirely justified in punching you, right? You see nothing wrong with them punching you in this instance, correc?

If they were punching me because they were convinced I was a Nazi, I would say they were morally justified. I'm not a Nazi, though, nor have I ever expressed Nazi sympathies (cue you quoting your misunderstandings of my posts).


Now you're just plain old lying. I am comparing the justification, as you well know and as I've plainly stated more than once. Stop lying.

No, I'm not lying. That's what you did. Do you stand by it?
 
Last edited:
It's in the article.

I couldn't find it. In fact, I couldn't find a single mention of Spencer anywhere, even with a word search. I don't believe your claim that it's in the article.

I honestly can't go on, as it's soul destroying reading Yiannapoulous' bigotry. There's loads more where that came from, though.

Wow. They let anybody be a Nazi nowdays. It used to be that you had to call for concentration camps and genocide, but I guess now making fun of people qualifies.

If they were punching me because they were convinced I was a Nazi, I would say they were morally justified.

Expect to get punched a lot.

No, I'm not lying. That's what you did. Do you stand by it?

I believe you when you say you aren't lying. You're still completely wrong, though.
 
Last edited:
It's in the article.

Quote the relevant portion.

On gays:

On transgenders:

On African Americans:

Not sure what you think all this shows, however.

If they were punching me because they were convinced I was a Nazi, I would say they were morally justified.

Interesting. Wrong and stupid, but interesting.

No, I'm not lying. That's what you did.

You absolutely are lying, since you are ignoring what I just told you, which is that I am comparing the justifications. Evidently, you are doing that because trying to pin some sort of shame on me is easier than making an actual argument. However since I know what I am saying your trick will not work. Better to stop lying now.
 
"Gays have been told for 30 years that they were 'born this way'. That's a lie."

Ha ha ha! I agree "that's a lie." The lie is that "gays have been told...that they were 'born this way.'"

The truth of the matter is that gays have TOLD US that they were born that way. I am not gay, so I don't presume to tell someone who is how they got to be that way.

Funny he brings up the religious right. What is their basis for the assertion that being gay is a choice? As far as I know, it is not in the bible. The science on the matter is, AT BEST, inconclusive, and most of what there is leans toward the not a choice side.

So what is the religiousite basis for the claim that being gay is a choice?

Actually, I think I know. It is because in order to be able to call being gay a sin, it has to be a choice. If you are born gay, and that is the way God made you, then only a monster God would punish you for that. So it must be that being gay is a choice, because God doesn't make anyone sinful just by who they are.

If you pushed a religious person on this issue, I think that is the answer you would get. Of course, the problem with it is that it is based on the premise that being gay is a sin. What if that interpretation of the bible were wrong, and being gay is not a sin? The whole thing falls apart.

The short answer: being gay MUST be a choice, because it must be a sin.
 
The truth of the matter is that gays have TOLD US that they were born that way. I am not gay, so I don't presume to tell someone who is how they got to be that way.

To be entirely fair -- and I am of the opinion, supported by evidence, that homosexuality has at least an important genetic component -- a homosexual isn't in a position to know where his homosexuality comes from any more than I'm in a position to know the brain mechanisms that drive me to conclude that I like a good burger, unless homosexuality is a choice, in which case he could at least say that he chose it because of such and such.

What is their basis for the assertion that being gay is a choice?

Convenience. Because if homosexuality is genetic or at least not something one actively chooses (in most cases), then it's a bit silly to punish people based on their sexual preferences. Now, if it's a choice, you can label it as perverse and deviant and evil, and corrupting to children who may be exposed to it because they may make the same choice. Thereby justifying any sort of bigotry and discrimination against homosexuals.

Actually, I think I know. It is because in order to be able to call being gay a sin, it has to be a choice. If you are born gay, and that is the way God made you, then only a monster God would punish you for that. So it must be that being gay is a choice, because God doesn't make anyone sinful just by who they are.

Oops! I hadn't read that part before I wrote the previous paragraph. :o
 
...Spencer really is a hardcore racist. He can barely conceal (or barely tries to conceal) his hard-on for Hitler.

Who gets to decide and where does one draw the line though...

To very loosely paraphrase Potter Stewart, we may not define exactly where the line is today, but we can see when one is unabashedly over it.

Do you think that if one is openly and vehemently a Neo-Nazi that a physical rebuke (not a witch hunt or shooting) might warrant an...overlooking...of conventional standards?
 
I'm sorry, what is that supposed to prove?
Indeed. That's why I generally won't click on a naked link. It's far too vague a way to communicate, and all too often foretells weak evidence. The onus is on uke2se to point out precisely what bits s/he is referring to.

Against my better judgement, I did click the naked link this time though. Sure enough, fail.

If one is advocating violence against a specific person, I expect to see some damn juicy direct quotes of that person. It's not a lot to ask.
 
Then they are welcome to outline their arguments for me being a Nazis. Would be fun to read.

I would think they would just punch you and claim the moral high ground. That's not a situation I want to see, nor I wager one you want. But that's the ultimate consequence of raising up people that punch people for disagreements over words. Everyone becomes a target.
 
He has a platform. He has publicity. He's even got a book deal. If people want to punch him in the face for his bigotry, I have no problem with it.
Goalpost movement. You've expanded your punchables beyond "just nazis" to people who associate with nazis and bigots in general.

You're digging a deeper hole with each post.
 
Last edited:
Do you think that if one is openly and vehemently a Neo-Nazi that a physical rebuke (not a witch hunt or shooting) might warrant an...overlooking...of conventional standards?

No, I don't. Here's the thing: the dividing line on what thoughts are acceptable and which are not is always going to be hazy, and while you may claim that Spencer is far over the line, what do you do if the next case is a little closer? You can't solve that problem.

We're far better of drawing the dividing line between what is and is not violence, with violence being unacceptable, than trying to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable thoughts.
 
No, I don't. Here's the thing: the dividing line on what thoughts are acceptable and which are not is always going to be hazy, and while you may claim that Spencer is far over the line, what do you do if the next case is a little closer? You can't solve that problem.

We're far better of drawing the dividing line between what is and is not violence, with violence being unacceptable, than trying to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable thoughts.

Damn, I hate it when I agree with you.
 
I would think they would just punch you and claim the moral high ground. That's not a situation I want to see, nor I wager one you want. But that's the ultimate consequence of raising up people that punch people for disagreements over words. Everyone becomes a target.

This. And escalation; to misquote Neimoller:

First they came with punches, and I said nothing because I agreed with punching my opponents, then they came with rifles and there was no civil society left to speak up.
 
Letting the pedophiles, rapists and murderers just skate by? Have you no proper sense of self-righteous outrage?

Is it possible that hard-core racists are making a rational (/s) choice, as opposed to the antisocial violent crimes and/or mental illness associated with the crimes you refer to, and that choice founded on hate and bigotry warrants their different treatment?
 
No, I don't. Here's the thing: the dividing line on what thoughts are acceptable and which are not is always going to be hazy, and while you may claim that Spencer is far over the line, what do you do if the next case is a little closer? You can't solve that problem.

We're far better of drawing the dividing line between what is and is not violence, with violence being unacceptable, than trying to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable thoughts.

A fair point, but is it not also a valid POV to see the proverbial field of gray between black and white, as opposed to a defined line? As it gets murkier, you should err on the side of restraint, but Spencer is a deep, deep shade of charcoal on the black/white scale. Violence is, after all, justified in limited contexts.
 

Back
Top Bottom