“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

How about we just drop the whole freedom of expression and instead try to collectively [--- REDACTED BY THE MINISTRY OF ACCEPTABLE TRUTHS ---]?
 
MostlyDead said:
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?
Click to expand...
While this is an interesting distinction, it doesn't sway me. What about hard-core misogynists? And hard-core homophobes? And hard-core religious zealots who advocate stoning adulterers? Etc. (Rhetorical questions.)

In the Spencer thread and here, I find it interesting that vigilante advocates haven't argued for stricter interpretation of laws pertaining to incitement. I suppose this wouldn't satisfy the same visceral urges.

Notwithstanding, the most unpopular speech is what tests our commitment to free speech. The visceral pleasure isn't worth the cost.
 
MostlyDead said:
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?
Click to expand...

Not on the legitimate use of violence, no. That should be very black and white, because once you unleash violence, people get killed. Everyone should be very clear on where that dividing line is. Other responses can have more nuance, but not this.

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.
Click to expand...

No, Spencer is not a deep shade of charcoal when it comes to the legitimacy of violence used against him. He obeys the law. Therefore he should enjoy the full protection of the law, including protection against assault. That should be the only relevant question. The contexts in which violence are justified are already spelled out by the law, and Spencer clearly doesn't fit in them. Expanding those contexts to include thought crimes or speech crimes would be an unmitigated disaster.
 
Ziggurat said:
Not on the legitimate use of violence, no. That should be very black and white, because once you unleash violence, people get killed. Everyone should be very clear on where that dividing line is. Other responses can have more nuance, but not this.
Click to expand...

Agreed, assault is not legally justified, and the attacker would have to face relevant law if charged. But morally, is it justified? As in, would you call the police and willingly testify against him?

No, Spencer is not a deep shade of charcoal when it comes to the legitimacy of violence used against him. He obeys the law. Therefore he should enjoy the full protection of the law, including protection against assault. That should be the only relevant question. The contexts in which violence are justified are already spelled out by the law, and Spencer clearly doesn't fit in them. Expanding those contexts to include thought crimes or speech crimes would be an unmitigated disaster.
Click to expand...

Spencer wants protected rights taken away from others. Is it not a taste of his own medicine to swish that around in his own mouth or a bit? Morally, not legally.
 
varwoche said:
While this is an interesting distinction, it doesn't sway me. What about hard-core misogynists? And hard-core homophobes? And hard-core religious zealots who advocate stoning adulterers? Etc. (Rhetorical questions.)

In the Spencer thread and here, I find it interesting that vigilante advocates haven't argued for stricter interpretation of laws pertaining to incitement. I suppose this wouldn't satisfy the same visceral urges.

Notwithstanding, the most unpopular speech is what tests our commitment to free speech. The visceral pleasure isn't worth the cost.
Click to expand...

Very persuasive, and eloquent to boot, but you are right: just realized this is the wrong thread :o
 
Argumemnon said:
What's your alternative? Letting people punch the crap out of them? Throw them in prison? Sterilisation? Hanging?

Who gets to set the standard of what speech is acceptable?
Click to expand...

Free Speech is perfectly acceptable doesn't mean I'm going to go into a bar in Boston and give a speech about why the Red Sox suck. That's what Milo does and these anarchists are feeding into his plans. He could have hosted the entire thing on FB Live but he didn't even think about that did he now?

One could also argue that, his speech has only been amplified since this incident.
 
MostlyDead said:
Agreed, assault is not legally justified, and the attacker would have to face relevant law if charged. But morally, is it justified? As in, would you call the police and willingly testify against him?
Click to expand...

No, it is not morally justified, and yes, I would notify the police and testify in court against his assailant. Civil society requires not only the police to enforce the laws, but for the public to support the laws as well. The damage to the social fabric from disregarding the law in this manner is far more dangerous than Spencer is, precisely because it has broad appeal.

Spencer wants protected rights taken away from others. Is it not a taste of his own medicine to swish that around in his own mouth or a bit? Morally, not legally.
Click to expand...

No, that's not his medicine at all. He wants the law changed, but he still obeys the law as it is currently written. If the law changes in a way that harms him, that might qualify as a taste of his own medicine, but that's not what this is, that's not what people here are advocating for, and I don't even see how you could change the law to hurt him in a way that wouldn't do far more collateral damage than it would be worth.
 
Argumemnon said:
You said that he wanted the law changed as a response to Zig's argument that he obeys the law. If you don't think it's a counter to that argument, why bring it up?
Click to expand...

Because it shows what he accepts as legitimate. I suggest that extrajudicially, he can have no logical objection to having his rights negated. Within the law, he is of course protected.
 
MostlyDead said:
Because it shows what he accepts as legitimate. I suggest that extrajudicially, he can have no logical objection to having his rights negated. Within the law, he is of course protected.
Click to expand...

And he acts within the law. That should be the end of the story.
 
Argumemnon said:
Yeah, because you don't want to either get beat up or ruin people's evening. I don't see how this answers my previous post to you.
Click to expand...

That pretty much sums up what happened at Berkeley only Milo is too much of a coward to face the music so he just complains about it on Facebook instead of doing the stupid speech on FB Live.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom