“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[uke2se]

More high school-level reversals.

No, it's a legitimate challenge. You have been provided with evidence. You have replied that you won't read it, and then kept asking for evidence. That's arguing in bad faith.

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

Doesn't feel too good when the punches you throw can so easily be turned back on you, does it?

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.

You confuse the issue, because you are too emotionally invested. You can admit Milo is a bigot while still not agreeing with punching him. If you considered this without emotion you would realize that.

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

No, because you lied about not being emotionally invested.

If I'm ignorant it's because you refuse to post the evidence you claim exists.

No, you're willfully ignorant because you refuse to read the evidence provided, and you apparently lack even the basic knowledge about the person this discussion is centered upon. Instead of reading up on him so you know what the hell you're talking about, you expect to be spoon fed.

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?

I can't see Ziggurat's posts, and I'd expect you to show enough respect not to quote him for me.

There was another paragraph to my post. Wanna comment on that?

 

[Belz...]

Doesn't feel too good when the punches you throw can so easily be turned back on you, does it?

It feels pretty terrible, but mainly because your "punches" are pathetic. I'm not the topic of the thread. Either make your case or don't. So far you've failed to address the fact that Spencer isn't even mentioned in the link you provided as a response to my challenge to prove your claim that Milo's associated with him.

I can't see Ziggurat's posts, and I'd expect you to show enough respect not to quote him for me.

I will quote whatever relevant point I think he makes and I don't care if you think that's disrespectful.

 

[Ziggurat]

I can't see Ziggurat's posts, and I'd expect you to show enough respect not to quote him for me.

This is what tolerance looks like on the ISF.

 

[marplots]

This is what tolerance looks like on the ISF.

QFT

 

[uke2se]

It feels pretty terrible, but mainly because your "punches" are pathetic. I'm not the topic of the thread.

Nor am I, but you throw punches anyway.

Either make your case or don't. So far you've failed to address the fact that Spencer isn't even mentioned in the link you provided as a response to my challenge to prove your claim that Milo's associated with him.

I apologize, I got my articles and names mixed up. It should have been Jack Donovan. You can read about it here. I'm truly sorry.

I will quote whatever relevant point I think he makes and I don't care if you think that's disrespectful.

I'm asking you not to quote it to me, like you did before. It's very disrespectful. I'm trying to use a forum feature to ignore him.

 

[Belz...]

QFT

Disrespectful!

 

[uke2se]

Disrespectful!

No, that wasn't quoted to me like you did. Don't even pretend it's the same thing.

ETA: Also, screw tolerance of bigotry. Nobody should have to tolerate intolerance.

 

[Belz...]

I apologize, I got my articles and names mixed up. It should have been Jack Donovan. You can read about it here. I'm truly sorry.

See, if you didn't have Ziggurat on ignore you would've spotted that yesterday and you wouldn't have had to look like a fool accusing everybody of ignoring your evidence because they're big meanies defending freedom of speech.

 

[Belz...]

No, that wasn't quoted to me like you did. Don't even pretend it's the same thing.

You don't think Marplots quoted him specifically so that you'd see it? I quoted him so that you'd see him telling you that your link didn't support your claim. Marplots did it to spite you, and you think mine's the disrespectful one?

 

[uke2se]

See, if you didn't have Ziggurat on ignore you would've spotted that yesterday and you wouldn't have had to look like a fool accusing everybody of ignoring your evidence because they're big meanies defending freedom of speech.

Now will you read it?

 

[uke2se]

You don't think Marplots quoted him specifically so that you'd see it? I quoted him so that you'd see him telling you that your link didn't support your claim. Marplots did it to spite you, and you think mine's the disrespectful one?

Yes, because I don't claim to read his mind. His post didn't include me.

 

[Belz...]

ETA: Also, screw tolerance of bigotry. Nobody should have to tolerate intolerance.

See, here we agree: but you should respond to bigotry with words and turning the bigot into a social pariah, not punching him in the face, and inviting others to do the same when they think YOU're the baddie.

 

[Belz...]

Now will you read it?

Yes, though I note that there's essentially a single mention of this Donovan guy, with whom I'm not familiar, and not much in the way of showing Milo's association with him. However, there's no denying that Milo's strongly associated with the Alt-Right.

A good long way from Nazis, mind you. Racists, sure.

 

[varwoche]

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.

Remember, we're not discussing "these people". We're discussing a specific person. The contention* is, Milo is a nazi, hence it's righteous to deny him free speech rights, and/or assault him.

Do you think it's fair to characterize him as a nazi? If yes, is it so crystal clear that it defies skeptical inquiry? This isn't a casual observation. His right to speech and his right not to be assaulted hinges on this categorization. (According to some.)

Not everyone who has despicable views is a nazi.

* Or maybe the contention is, everyone who has despicable views is subject to vigilante justice / speech denial. That seems to be where uke2se was taking things.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Damn! We're unmasked as the deplorables we are. How long to the public beatings and gas chambers, I wonder?

 

[uke2se]

See, here we agree: but you should respond to bigotry with words and turning the bigot into a social pariah, not punching him in the face, and inviting others to do the same when they think YOU're the baddie.

That's all well and good as long as you can expect society to back you up and keep the bigot a pariah. With the bigots in power, there is no such guarantee. Violence becomes a legitimate form of resistance in such a hostile environment.

 

[uke2se]

Yes, though I note that there's essentially a single mention of this Donovan guy, with whom I'm not familiar, and not much in the way of showing Milo's association with him. However, there's no denying that Milo's strongly associated with the Alt-Right.

A good long way from Nazis, mind you. Racists, sure.

Milo and Donovan have hung out and are facebook friends. I'd say that qualifies as "associating with". Donovan is a white nationalist.

And no, I can't prove Donovan is a Nazi. Only that he is a white nationalist.

 

[uke2se]

Remember, we're not discussing "these people". We're discussing a specific person. The contention* is, Milo is a nazi, hence it's righteous to deny him free speech rights, and/or assault him.

Do you think it's fair to characterize him as a nazi? If yes, is it so crystal clear that it defies skeptical inquiry? This isn't a casual observation. His right to speech and his right not to be assaulted hinges on this categorization. (According to some.)

Not everyone who has despicable views is a nazi.

* Or maybe the contention is, everyone who has despicable views is subject to vigilante justice / speech denial. That seems to be where uke2se was taking things.

As long as we can all agree that Milo has despicable views, I'll concede that I can't provide evidence that he's a Nazi. I can, and have, provided evidence that he associates with at least one white nationalist.

I realize the use of violence is a tough sell for US liberals, but this is where the Right is actually correct: there comes a time when violence is not only justified, but necessary. I'm not going to argue that it was necessary to punch Richard Spencer in the face, or that it is necessary to do the same to Milo Yiannapolous, but I will argue that in the current climate, violence is morally justified against purveyors of hateful and bigoted speech with a major platform.

ETA: Violence in this case would be humilitating violence such as sucker punching, shoe thrown at head, bucket of vile liquid poured over head, or cake to the face. That kind of thing. When the climate gets worse, the violence does as well.

 

[uke2se]

Damn! We're unmasked as the deplorables we are. How long to the public beatings and gas chambers, I wonder?

The public beatings have started. We'll dispense with the gas chambers. That's such a Rightist concept. We Leftists line up our enemies against a wall and shoot them.

 

[varwoche]

Goalpost movement. You've expanded your punchables beyond "just nazis" to people who associate with nazis and bigots in general.

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

Here are some of the justifications you've posted:

People like Milo and Spencer should not be listened to, and speaking engagements should be protested. Venues should be pressured to remove their appointments and visitors to the events should be pressured and harrassed. This is how we lay bare who's peddling neo-Nazism.
* I have no issue with someone socking Spencer or Milo in the face.

Sure, bring it on. Lively discussion on the virtues of neo-Nazism in the public space would make it easier to see who's who.

If they are Nazis, yes.

So far, he's punchable due to being a nazi. But then your criteria expands...

Yiannopolous is a stooge for racists and White supremacists. As such, he's the enemy.

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.

Violence is a-ok when directed against anti-democratic bigots. Hell, the US has a long history of such violence.

This is the goalpost movement I refer to.