“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[uke2se]

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.

I have? I am? I'm so glad you're here to tell me these things.

 

[uke2se]

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

No, bigotry is bigotry. If you Think that isn't it, you need to do some soul-searching.

Hilarious. ��

A bigotry-fan, I take it?

 

[uke2se]

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.

This is how I feel. Very eloquently put.

I'm sad to bear witness to the amount of rolling over for the racists and bigots that we see nowadays.

 

[Belz...]

Just stop it, please. This defense of the indefensible in the guise of being an uber skeptic is bordering on despicable.

I'm not defending anyone or anything. I am countering a baseless accusation and speaking out in favour of free speech.

The only reason why you think I'm defending him is because you are not looking at this issue rationally. Milo offends you, and that is the only justification you need. The mere fact that I'm arguing against _you_ is enough for you to try to shame me into submission. Don't you have actual arguments to make? "Indefensible" is not a demonstration of anything. It's a value judgment, one that you now claim no one can disagree with.

 

[Belz...]

I'm done spoon feeding you.

Translation: "I don't have one, but I'll keep pretending that it's your fault."

That Milo spews vile bigotry.

Subjective opinion.

Doesn't matter what you retro-actively claim.

My words are right there for you to read. Anyone can go back and see exactly what I said and clearly meant. You're offended and your emotions are preventing you from looking at this rationally.

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.

It was the perfect comparison, since you're the one who brought up the Godwin.

 

[Sherkeu]

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



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.



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.



Agreed.



Exempted under fair fighting rules, elderly.



If you insist. But cutting to the chase: Mom will be pissed that the attacker didn't break Spencer's jaw.

Well, I would agree with you that I would not fault someone for feeling angry enough to want to punch one of these people- no matter their age, gender, etc... I think we all can understand the motivation behind it.

But it's the action of a short-sighted idiot. Someone who hasn't quite thought it through, yes?

One sucker punch to Spencer gave him publicity he never dreamed of.
Applaud him or hate him, his visibility, reach, and bank account have grown from this. Breaking his jaw would extend his coverage for weeks.

Milo's book, not even released yet, went from 642nd to #1 after the Berkeley protest and has stayed there since. He writes for Breitbart. I imagine their site traffic did very well. Cha-ching!

Ann Coulter isn't about to leave herself open to physical attacks, but I have to think she is more than a bit jealous. Can someone throw some foreign feces on poor Ann to make her happy? She has some truly awful books to sell.

 

[uke2se]

Translation: "I don't have one, but I'll keep pretending that it's your fault."

It is your fault. You won't read the citation given to you.

Subjective opinion.

I disagree. I believe it takes considerable effort to deny that Milo spews vile bigotry.

My words are right there for you to read. Anyone can go back and see exactly what I said and clearly meant. You're offended and your emotions are preventing you from looking at this rationally. It was the perfect comparison, since you're the one who brought up the Godwin.

The same right back at you.

 

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.yourtango.com/2017299732/9-milo-yiannopoulos-quotes-explain-why-people-hate-him

Some notable quotes by Milo.

 

[Belz...]

It is your fault.

It's my fault that you haven't provided the evidence requested? Zig's already called you on the absence of what you claimed was there.

I believe it takes considerable effort to deny that Milo spews vile bigotry.

"Vile" is a value judgment, and yet you throw it in there as though it were some sort of fact.

The same right back at you.

What are you even talking about? It's precisely because I'm _not_ emotionally invested that I can see things clearly. Did you just throw it back at me like a child does? That is such a weak riposte.

I'm really sorry that this "skeptic" thing has become inconvenient to you.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I'm not defending anyone or anything. I am countering a baseless accusation and speaking out in favour of free speech.

The only reason why you think I'm defending him is because you are not looking at this issue rationally. Milo offends you, and that is the only justification you need. The mere fact that I'm arguing against _you_ is enough for you to try to shame me into submission. Don't you have actual arguments to make? "Indefensible" is not a demonstration of anything. It's a value judgment, one that you now claim no one can disagree with.

In case you haven't noticed (that's facetious - you haven't noticed) you are not arguing with me. I have seven posts in this thread. You are closing in on 60.

Milo doesn't offend me. I know many Milos. The fact that you choose to insist on a level of evidence that is simply not available seems to escape you. You can defend his right to free speech all you like. To those of us who can read (with one exception), though, you're defending the right of a despicable person. I join you in that defense; I just don't call a dog turd a begonia!

 

[uke2se]

It's my fault that you haven't provided the evidence requested? Zig's already called you on the absence of what you claimed was there.

It's your fault that you won't read the evidence provided. I can't see Ziggurat's posts, so there's no use for you to refer to him.

"Vile" is a value judgment, and yet you throw it in there as though it were some sort of fact.

Maybe you should have rejected the objectivity of the word 'vile' then, instead of asking for a cite?

What are you even talking about? It's precisely because I'm _not_ emotionally invested that I can see things clearly. Did you just throw it back at me like a child does? That is such a weak riposte.

You certainly seem emotionally invested in never being wrong on the internet.

I'm really sorry that this "skeptic" thing has become inconvenient to you.

It's not inconvenient. You're just misapplying skepticism.

 

[Belz...]

In case you haven't noticed (that's facetious - you haven't noticed) you are not arguing with me. I have seven posts in this thread. You are closing in on 60.

I'm not sure why you think that's relevant to what I said. Of course I'm arguing with you since you addressed me and I responded. What a strange thing to say.

Milo doesn't offend me.

You called him despicable. I'd call that offense.

The fact that you choose to insist on a level of evidence that is simply not available seems to escape you.

It's not available because the claim is unfounded.

You can defend his right to free speech all you like.

You say this as though it were a bad thing.

To those of us who can read (with one exception), though, you're defending the right of a despicable person.

And now you're claiming that there is only one possible conclusion, and continuing to shame me into submission. It won't work. Nice of you to suggest that despicable people shouldn't have rights.

 

[Belz...]

It's your fault that you won't read the evidence provided.

You didn't provide evidence. You posted a whole article and expect me to search for your evidence in there myself. No, it's your claim, so you do it.

I can't see Ziggurat's posts, so there's no use for you to refer to him.

Here, let me help you:

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.

...

You certainly seem emotionally invested in never being wrong on the internet.

Please stop throwing childish insults at me. You're embarrassing yourself.

It's not inconvenient.

Sure it is. Applying skepticism would lead to you not reaching a conclusion that suits your feelings, so you ditch it.

 

[uke2se]

You didn't provide evidence. You posted a whole article and expect me to search for your evidence in there myself. No, it's your claim, so you do it.

Well, sod it then. As I said, I'm done spoon feeding you. As evidenced by your behavior in this thread, you will simply casually dismiss anything I put forth, so there's no use.

Skeptic indeed.

Please stop throwing childish insults at me. You're embarrassing yourself.

It's not an insult. It's what I gather from your posts.

Interesting, however, that you can call me emotionally invested and it not being an insult, but what's good for the goose apparently isn't good for the gander.

Sure it is. Applying skepticism would lead to you not reaching a conclusion that suits your feelings, so you ditch it.

No, applying your version of skepticism leads you to reject anything that doesn't meet a subjective, and apparently ever-changing burden of evidence.

 

[sunmaster14]

http://www.yourtango.com/2017299732/9-milo-yiannopoulos-quotes-explain-why-people-hate-him

Some notable quotes by Milo.

I think I actually agree with the entire list. It's weird that Milo is considered a despicable person. I realize he riles people up, but he's really quite an amazing person. Fabulous even. I'm not saying I wish there were more Milo's. There's definitely diminishing returns to having more. But I'm grateful that there is at least one.

 

[Belz...]

Well, sod it then. As I said, I'm done spoon feeding you. As evidenced by your behavior in this thread, you will simply casually dismiss anything I put forth, so there's no use.

I only dismiss the lack of evidence. Soon as you post anything substantial, I'll consider it.

It's not an insult. It's what I gather from your posts.

No it isn't. You were flustered when I told you that you were emotionally invested (which is obvious, since you keep using value judgments as facts) and you decided to throw it back at me because you _had_ to do something about it.

I realise you're desperately trying to avoid actually discussing the topic now.

Interesting, however, that you can call me emotionally invested and it not being an insult, but what's good for the goose apparently isn't good for the gander.

I've explained the difference. Apparently you think that when someone makes a judgment about another, the judgment necessarily applies to both. That makes no sense, of course, but as usual, when emotion is the foundation of your reasoning, nothing needs to make sense.

No, applying your version of skepticism leads you to reject anything that doesn't meet a subjective, and apparently ever-changing burden of evidence.

The burden hasn't changed. You just haven't provided anything substantial. You can't see it because your emotional burden of evidence was met. That, however, doesn't mean squat.

 

[uke2se]

I only dismiss the lack of evidence. Soon as you post anything substantial, I'll consider it.

No, you won't.

No it isn't. You were flustered when I told you that you were emotionally invested (which is obvious, since you keep using value judgments as facts) and you decided to throw it back at me because you _had_ to do something about it.

I realise you're desperately trying to avoid actually discussing the topic now.

And I realized that you were emotionally invested when you made a despicable comparison between punching Nazis and Nazis persecuting Jews, and were flustered when I pointed it out, desperately resorting to retro-fit your comparison.

I've explained the difference.

No you haven't.

Apparently you think that when someone makes a judgment about another, the judgment necessarily applies to both. That makes no sense, of course, but as usual, when emotion is the foundation of your reasoning, nothing needs to make sense.

No, I don't think that. I think that when you get to call me emotionally invested without me whining about it, I get to do the same to you, with equally much evidence supporting me.

The burden hasn't changed. You just haven't provided anything substantial.

Maybe it was simply a question of an unreasonably high burden to begin with then, but then again, you won't even look at the evidence presented.

You can't see it because your emotional burden of evidence was met. That, however, doesn't mean squat.

And you can't admit to casually dismissing evidence due to being emotionally invested in always being right on the internet.


ALL of this petty bickering just because you don't want to admit that Milo Yiannapolous spews bigotry and hatred. I mean, what a thing to hang your coat on.

 

[Belz...]

No, you won't.

Yes I will. Stop making this about me and either support your claim or admit that you can't.

And I realized that you were emotionally invested when you made a despicable comparison between punching Nazis and Nazis persecuting Jews, and were flustered when I pointed it out, desperately resorting to retro-fit your comparison.

See what I mean? You can't accept any sort of criticism and you knee-jerk try to find a way to mirror it back to me. That is extremely childish, and reflects poorly on you, not me.

There's nothing "emotional" in pointing out the similarities between two justifications for violence. Analogies are based on the things that are similar between the two things being compared, not the things that aren't.

No you haven't.

Stop lying:

It's precisely because I'm _not_ emotionally invested that I can see things clearly.

There.

ALL of this petty bickering just because you don't want to admit that Milo Yiannapolous spews bigotry and hatred.

Yes, I'm such a big meanie for not agreeing with you without question. Such a big meanie for asking for evidence and dismissing your claim when you don't provide the evidence that meets my standard. Such a big meanie for insisting that freedom of speech applies to those we despise.

Nope, nothing emotional about your position at all.

 

[uke2se]

Yes I will. Stop making this about me and either support your claim or admit that you can't.

Start reading the evidence provided, or admit you won't.

See what I mean? You can't accept any sort of criticism and you knee-jerk try to find a way to mirror it back to me. That is extremely childish, and reflects poorly on you, not me.

And you are doing exactly the same thing.

There's nothing "emotional" in pointing out the similarities between two justifications for violence. Analogies are based on the things that are similar between the two things being compared, not the things that aren't.

The comparison you made is vile. There is nothing comparable between the plight of Nazis today and the plight of Jews under Nazism during WWII. That you would think there is is mindboggling.

Stop lying:



There.

I'd say the same to you. You're clearly emotionally invested.

Yes, I'm such a big meanie for not agreeing with you without question. Such a big meanie for asking for evidence and dismissing your claim when you don't provide the evidence that meets my standard. Such a big meanie for insisting that freedom of speech applies to those we despise.

Nope, nothing emotional about your position at all.

What you are is willfully ignorant. You have been provided with sources, but you won't read them, because doing so might force you to reexamine your pre-conceived conclusion that I am wrong.

You feel a need to argue about this because you disagree with me that punching Nazis is a good thing, and that's fine. What's not fine is you digging in your heels this deep in defense (and your argumentation has become a defense) of a vile bigot. There's no need for that. You can admit that Milo is a bigot and still not agree with punching him. You can argue that he has a right to say what he does without fearing violence, and I am free to disagree with that. That's were this discussion could have ended, but you just had to be right about everything, and it was so important to you that I had to realize that I was wrong.

 

[Belz...]

Start reading the evidence provided, or admit you won't.

More high school-level reversals.

And you are doing exactly the same thing.

And again with the mirror! Seriously, stop acting like a ten year old.

The comparison you made is vile.

Oh, it's vile? Well that's a LOT more convincing. I should really change my ways and accept that some people just need punching in the face, then.

I'd say the same to you.

Of course you would, since throwing back criticisms at other people is the only thing you've done here.

What you are is willfully ignorant.

If I'm ignorant it's because you refuse to post the evidence you claim exists. I've already quoted Ziggurat telling you that what you claim is in the article isn't there. I couldn't find it either. Perhaps you'd like to change your claim now?