“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

Better question: you assume that American anarchists have the same philosophy and motivation as Europeans. Why?

Because he's read the books written by anarchists from generations past, and that makes him an "expert" on what "true anarchism" is.

More to the point, it's like a religion. If someone were to apply the principles of anarchism in a way he doesn't agree with, they would be guilty of heresy at the very least.
 
Your bald assertion is to claim the Oakland crew is politically aligned with European anarcho-whatever. You provide exactly ZERO support for this, except for similar fashion tastes. Again, what is your support that the Oakland crew has any of the political or philosophical views you repeatedly claim?

I have no idea who this "Oakland crew" is and I've made no assertions about them.

Already done. Antifa = anti-fascist. Anti-fascist = opposed to fascism. That does not demend that they are left-wing, just that they are against the ultra-right.

If you like to refute antifa being primarily left-wing then feel free to present some evidence rather than your bare assertions. Until then I will ignore it. Antifa has always been primarily anarchists, communists and socialists of all stripes and varieties. And I've never heard of a right-wing antifa, so no liberal antifa, no conservative antifa etc.

A Libertarian or apolitical anarchist can easily be against fascists without identifying with the left.

What would an "apolitical anarchist" be other than a contradiction in terms? Besides, irrespective of your identity politics, self-identification is not the determining factor. The Nazis, after all, call themselves "neither left nor right" but that doesn't stop them from being far-right.
 
Collectivism <-> Autonomy

is a different axis than Lib/Con or Left/Right.

Can we move on from playing 'pin the tail on the donkey/elephant' now?
 
On gays:
On transgenders:
On African Americans:

Looks like "bigotry" in this case is just anything that you disagree with. Not everyone shares your sacred cows.

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

Hilarious. &#55357;&#56834;
 
Looks like "bigotry" in this case is just anything that you disagree with. Not everyone shares your sacred cows.

On the LGBT issue:

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."

Transgender:

"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."

But whatever, this is an issue of you either see it or you don't.

Tends to tell you a lot about a person, really.

This isn't new, this is the same 'mental illness' argument that has existed forever. At one time, it was orthodox 'science' to say so. It was wrong. Perpetuating these assertions in order to justify discriminatory treatment is indefensible.
 
Last edited:
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?



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.

Thought experiment:
Take all the healthy men out of this equation so you are left with women, children & teens, the physically and mentally disabled, and people over 75yo.

Now, this group above argue exactly the same as people like Milo and Spencer. They write books, give speeches, denigrate marginalized groups, and promote a viewpoint you find absolutely abhorrent to human decency.


The children and teens can probably be excused. Agree?
Among the rest, how do you decide who to physically assault with full moral justification?
THEY ALL WANT TO TAKE YOUR RIGHTS! You punch them, right?

Ann Coulter? Punch that bitch in the mouth!

Pat Robertson? That bastard obviously deserves a hard kick in the face. At 86yo, you might kill him, but that's ok - he totally asked for it by inciting so much hate!!

Now, go call your mother and ask her what she thinks. You know, morally.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure those on the left willing to use violence to shut down speech they find disagreeable will understand when others return the favor.
 
I'm sure those on the left willing to use violence to shut down speech they find disagreeable will understand when others return the favor.

Many of them would argue that this is already the case, and that they're responding to 'violence' themselves.
 
Many of them would argue that this is already the case, and that they're responding to 'violence' themselves.

I'm sure they would argue that. But they would be wrong. Milo has not committed any violence. He's only said offensive things. Calling it 'violence' doesn't make it violence.
 
Thought experiment:
Take all the healthy men out of this equation so you are left with women, children & teens, the physically and mentally disabled, and people over 75yo.

*MostlyDead sniffs at the air, smelling a 'you wouldn't hit a poor, weak woman' argument coming*

Now, this group above argue exactly the same as people like Milo and Spencer. They write books, give speeches, denigrate marginalized groups, and promote a viewpoint you find absolutely abhorrent to human decency.

The children and teens can probably be excused. Agree?
Among the rest, how do you decide who to physically assault with full moral justification?

Easy. As I said earlier, I won't physically assault anyone, except in defense. But simple schoolyard fair fighting rules would apply in your thought experiment: the elderly, mentally ill, physically disabled, all off limits for fighting. Leaves just women, right? *MostlyDead confirms the earlier scent* Further exclude dramatic size differences, like weight classes in fighting sports.

THEY ALL WANT TO TAKE YOUR RIGHTS! You punch them, right?

Not this cat. I think talk is cheap. But I wouldn't force that standard Spencer's attacker. And I wouldn't lift a finger to see him brought to justice either. Spencer has disdain for American ideals, so I feel no compulsion to protect him with them.

Ann Coulter? Punch that bitch in the mouth!

Agreed.

Pat Robertson? That bastard obviously deserves a hard kick in the face. At 86yo, you might kill him, but that's ok - he totally asked for it by inciting so much hate!!

Exempted under fair fighting rules, elderly.

Now, go call your mother and ask her what she thinks. You know, morally.

If you insist. But cutting to the chase: Mom will be pissed that the attacker didn't break Spencer's jaw.
 
"First they came for the Nazis..." has a sweet feeling of irony to it.

Except the version that you're supporting is more like:

First they came for the Nazis...
But I didn't see any Nazis. Show me where he says "Hey, I'm a Nazi".
So the Nazis got a pass due to free speech.

Then they came for the Racists...
But I din't see any Racists. Show me where he's in the Racist Registry. Sure it's unpleasant to hear him go on and on but I don't see where it's necessary to call the man names.
So the racists got their pass.

........

Just stop it, please. This defense of the indefensible in the guise of being an uber skeptic is bordering on despicable.
 
I have no idea who this "Oakland crew" is and I've made no assertions about them.

They are the subject of the thread. Specifically American anarchists employing a black bloc who have been continuously active in the Berkley and Oakland areas for decades.

If you like to refute antifa being primarily left-wing then feel free to present some evidence rather than your bare assertions. Until then I will ignore it. Antifa has always been primarily anarchists, communists and socialists of all stripes and varieties. And I've never heard of a right-wing antifa, so no liberal antifa, no conservative antifa etc.

It requires no evidence, only reason. Anti-fascists are opposed to fascism. This can mean left wing, but not necessarily. A moderate right wing person can be vehemently anti-fascist. It doesn't matter what you have heard of.

What would an "apolitical anarchist" be other than a contradiction in terms? Besides, irrespective of your identity politics, self-identification is not the determining factor. The Nazis, after all, call themselves "neither left nor right" but that doesn't stop them from being far-right.

An anarchist who has no interest or connection to politics. Anti-establishment types, who just want to watch the world burn (before you misunderstand that one again, it is a movie reference from Heath Ledger's Joker).

Fair point on self-identification as not being the determinant.
 
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?

I would absolutely testify, hell yes.

Looks like "bigotry" in this case is just anything that you disagree with. Not everyone shares your sacred cows.

On the LGBT issue:



Transgender:

Again.......

Looks like "bigotry" in this case is just anything that you disagree with. Not everyone shares your sacred cows.
Seems that way. I saw nothing to dispute this in Delphic's post.

Amazing that anyone here could think it's okay to use violence against those who share an opinion they do not agree with.

I don't agree with that view at all, can I come over and smash your teeth in? I find these posters more offensive than anything Milo has been quoted saying here.

ETA:
I remember many months ago that a person was saying nasty things across the street from a school (I don't remember details, maybe immigration related?) and some of these same people cheered when someone smacked that person upside the head.
 
Last edited:
Just stop it, please. This defense of the indefensible in the guise of being an uber skeptic is bordering on despicable.

The principle of rule of law is quite defensible. So is the principle that violence should not be used to suppress speech.

Why do you insist we not defend these things? These things should always be defended.

"We're not imploding!" cries the left, as the fire of their liberal ideals is no longer sufficient to resist the pressure of their totalitarian ideology.
 
They are the subject of the thread. Specifically American anarchists employing a black bloc who have been continuously active in the Berkley and Oakland areas for decades.

They must be fairly old by now then. Yet you can find no publications from them to back up your assertions? Curiously I seem to have no problem finding plenty of publications coming from anarchists in the Oakland area.

It requires no evidence, only reason. Anti-fascists are opposed to fascism. This can mean left wing, but not necessarily. A moderate right wing person can be vehemently anti-fascist. It doesn't matter what you have heard of.

Of course it requires evidence. Feel free to provide evidence of right-wing antifa groups or actions.

An anarchist who has no interest or connection to politics.

A contradiction in terms it is. Even the most ardent life-stylist who does nothing other than dumpster-diving, given that they claim to base themselves on anarchism, will gladly point out their anti-capitalist political persuasions.

Anti-establishment types, who just want to watch the world burn (before you misunderstand that one again, it is a movie reference from Heath Ledger's Joker).

I understood the reference just fine. Furthermore I've provided you with an example of statements and actions from groups which you would call "just wanting to watch the world burn" showing clear left-wing inspiration (anti-capitalism, criticism of commodity fetishism, etc). You've provided exactly squat to back up your claims.

It really just looks like you want to make some random slurs towards a particular group of anarchists which you make all sorts of unsupported claims about. Given your lack of evidence I'll simply ignore it.
 
Last edited:
The principle of rule of law is quite defensible. So is the principle that violence should not be used to suppress speech.

Why do you insist we not defend these things? These things should always be defended.

"We're not imploding!" cries the left, as the fire of their liberal ideals is no longer sufficient to resist the pressure of their totalitarian ideology.

That's not the tacit uber skeptic defense. The implication, lost in all the navel gazing, is "Can't Prove It. So he's not a racist, fascist, whatever...." Anyone who can read knows what these people are.

Defend the position as a pacifist or as a supporter of the rule of law. Do NOT defend racists and neo-fascists by claiming that we need documentary evidence when their every second line is obvious evidence of their political sentiments.
 
Quote the relevant portion.

I'm done spoon feeding you. You can either read the article (it's not that long) or not, your choice.


Not sure what you think all this shows, however.

That Milo spews vile bigotry. You know, the thing that you asked for a citation for?


v
Interesting. Wrong and stupid, but interesting.

I'm blessed by not caring what you think is stupid.


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.

Doesn't matter what you retro-actively claim. Fact is, you made a comparison between the plight of a Nazi being punched on TV with that of Jews being persecuted by Nazis during WWII. All you had to do was to say "alright, that wasn't the best comparison, and I withdraw it", but you are so hell bent on never being wrong on the internet that you instead dug your heals in. Pathetic.
 
Against my better judgement, I did click the naked link this time though. Sure enough, fail.

Fail, as in what? They did not appear at the same conference, or this doesn't meet your subjective defenition of "associate"?
 

Back
Top Bottom