“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[Newtons Bit]

Obviously we ALL need some punching.

Personally, I think no one needs punching for speech. I'm just very sad that not everyone agrees with me.

 

[Belz...]

Personally, I think no one needs punching for speech. I'm just very sad that not everyone agrees with me.

I was joking, of course.

It's worth pointing out that saying that "feminism is cancer" or inciting harassment against a trans student at a university he was giving a speech at is not at all a "microaggression", it's outright hostility - and in the latter case is particularly despicable.

Sure, but I'm not sure what you thought I was arguing there.

I don'/t think Milo "believes in" anything except himself - he was openly hostile to gamers right up until Gamergate started harassing women.

Let's not go there. That isn't what happened.

 

[caveman1917]

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.

* Or maybe the contention is, everyone who has despicable views is subject to vigilante justice / speech denial.

Neither of those are the contention. What you mean is that is what you (generic you at ISF) want the contention to be because it represents the limit of your collective intellectual capabilities to perceive that to be the contention.

 

[caveman1917]

Same. I'm surprised. Before the Spencer thread

...none of you probably even heard of antifa. This of course at no point stops any of you from self-righteous declarations and judgments on the event. I guess it never crossed any of your minds that the actions and positions of antifa are based on decades of worldwide experience in countering the far-right.

As for anyone clinging to this empty-headed "free speech" rhetoric, if you really think that "free speech" is some abstract entity void of social context and consequences, feel free to answer this question:

Suppose the Nazis took over a town and the people in the town decided to hide the Jews from them. Someone in that town wants to go make a public speaking event to the local SS telling them the identities of the Jews and where they are hiding. Do you defend his "right to free speech"?

Furthermore, none of you "free speech defenders" are any more than hypocrites, given that y'all seem to have no problem cheering for violent repression of speech you disagree with - ie speech which does not include your cherished belief system about "private property" as an assumption, as can be determined by your reaction to speech involving the rearrangement of shop windows or limos.

This is doubly hypocritical since this free speech protection is something limiting the government and not the people, and in the case where you collectively cheer repression of free speech you're cheering for the government to repress it, but in the other case you're all whining about people who are not the government shutting down Milo's event.

 

[Giz]

I believe in free speech, as defined in the first amendment. I'm not talking about robbing Milo or anyone else of his free speech. In fact, I am unable to do so. The first amendment speaks specifically about government suppression of free speech.

Nobody has a right to do or say as they please and not expect people to react and respond.

Oh, so while you're against the government stifling speech you're OK with an outraged mob of private citizens forming a lynching party.

Stellar support for free speech there.

 

[Ziggurat]

Suppose the Nazis took over a town and the people in the town decided to hide the Jews from them. Someone in that town wants to go make a public speaking event to the local SS telling them the identities of the Jews and where they are hiding. Do you defend his "right to free speech"?

See that hilighted bit? That's where the problem is. Not with the subsequent speech, but with that first step.

But that first step hasn't happened.

Furthermore, none of you "free speech defenders" are any more than hypocrites, given that y'all seem to have no problem cheering for violent repression of speech you disagree with - ie speech which does not include your cherished beliefs about "private property" as an assumption, as can be determined by your reaction to speech involving the rearrangement of shop windows or limos.

You're delusional. Nobody here has called for violence against you because of your speech. Nobody here has committed violence against you because of your speech. All anyone here has done is counter your speech with their own speech, which comports 100% with the position of free speech defenders.

And vandalism limo isn't speech. Your pathetic attempt to define it as speech cannot make it so.

This is doubly hypocritical since this free speech protection is something limiting the government and not the people

No. The first amendment applies specifically to government. But the concept of free speech is broader than the 1st amendment. This is particularly ironic since this is actually the best display of true hypocrisy here. You're trying to limit free speech when it suits you by appealing to government, even though you consider government to be fictitious, but then ignoring government when it doesn't in order to justify claiming non-speech actions are speech. Your entire position is a joke, with no intellectual consistency let alone any connection to reality.

and in the case where you collectively cheer repression of free speech

Nobody has done that except those calling for violence in response to speech. In other words, it's mostly you.

 

[The Big Dog]

Furthermore, none of you "free speech defenders" are any more than hypocrites, given that y'all seem to have no problem cheering for violent repression of speech you disagree with - ie speech which does not include your cherished belief system about "private property" as an assumption, as can be determined by your reaction to speech involving the rearrangement of shop windows or limos.

What are you talking about? The cops were just "rearranging" the Black Bloc's schedules.

destroying and stealing other people's personal property, and he calls it "rearranging"

Think he'd be mad if someone rearranged his iPhone 7?

 

[Newtons Bit]

You're delusional.

I think he's Poeing you, man

 

[Belz...]

Suppose the Nazis took over a town and the people in the town decided to hide the Jews from them. Someone in that town wants to go make a public speaking event to the local SS telling them the identities of the Jews and where they are hiding. Do you defend his "right to free speech"?

If they took over a town in the way you describe they'd be criminals and we'd send the police to root them out.

Furthermore, none of you "free speech defenders" are any more than hypocrites, given that y'all seem to have no problem cheering for violent repression of speech you disagree with - ie speech which does not include your cherished belief system about "private property" as an assumption, as can be determined by your reaction to speech involving the rearrangement of shop windows or limos.

What are you babbling about? Most of us have stood opposed to violence on either side.

 

[caveman1917]

See that hilighted bit? That's where the problem is. Not with the subsequent speech, but with that first step.

But that first step hasn't happened.

I notice you prefer not to answer the question.

You're delusional. Nobody here has called for violence against you because of your speech.

I never said anyone here called for violence against me. So much for who's delusional here.

And vandalism limo isn't speech.

Of course it is, it's no different from shouting "your deity does not exist!" - you know, in context of a group which would call this "vandalizing the state of the atmosphere" because "the atmosphere is private property of God".

You're trying to limit free speech when it suits you by appealing to government

I'm not appealing to any government. Piling delusion on delusion...

Your entire position is a joke, with no intellectual consistency let alone any connection to reality.

Need a mirror?

 

[caveman1917]

If they took over a town in the way you describe they'd be criminals and we'd send the police to root them out.

No the Jews and the people hiding them were criminals. Why do you avoid the question?

What are you babbling about? Most of us have stood opposed to violence on either side.

False, most of you have stood in favour of state violence in response to speech regarding the inauguration protests.

 

[Ziggurat]

I notice you prefer not to answer the question.

Because your question is irrelevant, and your only reason for asking it intellectually dishonest.

I never said anyone here called for violence against me.

Then how the **** are we cheering for violent repression of speech we don't like?

Oh, that's right, you keep claiming that vandalism is speech.

I'm not appealing to any government.

Of course you are. "speech protection is something limiting the government". That's a pretty direct appeal to the 1st amendment, which is... (drumroll please...) part of the government.

Piling delusion on delusion...

You're the king of irony, caveman.

 

[Ziggurat]

False, most of you have stood in favour of state violence in response to speech regarding the inauguration protests.

He wants to classify vandalism as speech, so that when the police arrest people for it, he can claim that violence is being used to suppress speech.

And if you define cows as people, then I'm a cannibal.

 

[Ziggurat]

What are you talking about? The cops were just "rearranging" the Black Bloc's schedules.

But what will their moms think?

 

[Thermal]

What are you talking about? The cops were just "rearranging" the Black Bloc's schedules.

Nominated!

 

[The Big Dog]

He wants to classify vandalism as speech, so that when the police arrest people for it, he can claim that violence is being used to suppress speech.

And if you define cows as people, then I'm a cannibal.

hell, he wants to reclassify violence against people as speech because reasons.

 

[theprestige]

What would you suggest in order to resist a drift towards authoritarianism if you rule out violent resistance?

I would suggest increasing your output of anti-authoritarian speech.

And I don't rule out violent resistance. But let me make a few things clear:

First, I reject violence as an appropriate means of resistance to a drift. A drift is a matter of competing ideas. It is properly resisted by speech in opposition, by democratic elections, by rule of law, by commercial choices, and by all other peaceful social and economic means.

Second, punching people in the streets for their speech is not "violent resistance". Rioting and trashing downtown shops because someone is speaking is not "violent resistance". It's violent suppression. The National Socialist party in Germany did not win elections by speech, but by violently suppressing other political parties. Anyone who endorses ANTIFA's antics, anyone who praises the punching of Richard Spencer, endorses and praises the tactics of the Nazi party to suppress speech.

Third, violent resistance is an appropriate means of resisting an authoritarian or totalitarian state. If you think that's where we're headed, if you think that's where we are, then get on with your resistance already. Get your guns, get your IEDs, man your barricades. Stake out your Fallujah and tell the tyrant molon labe. Take to the hills and fight the good fight against tyranny.

This rioting in the streets and then going home to pat yourself on the back isn't violent resistance. It doesn't resist anything. It's a childish and cowardly act tolerated by a fundamentally peaceful, benevolent, and free society. But the more these acts continue, the less society will tolerate them.

 

[caveman1917]

Because your question is irrelevant, and your only reason for asking it intellectually dishonest.

Because it clearly points out the emptiness of your approach of considering "free speech" in isolation of its social context and consequences it is.

Then how the **** are we cheering for violent repression of speech we don't like?

Oh, that's right, you keep claiming that vandalism is speech.

You expressed belief in the existence of an anthropomorphized entity called Nationwide Chauffeured Services (NCS) which has no physical basis. This belief leads you to cheer for violent repression of speech (ie symbolic rearrangement of inanimate objects so as to communicate an idea) which fails to assume the existence of your NCS.

It's the equivalent of shouting "your deity does not exist!" within a group which defines this as "vandalizing" the atmosphere because "the atmosphere belongs to the deity", and then proceeds to use violence against the person making such proclamation.

Of course you are. "speech protection is something limiting the government". That's a pretty direct appeal to the 1st amendment, which is... (drumroll please...) part of the government.

Calling someone else a hypocrite for appealing to the government is not the same as appealing to the government. I have no interests in your games.

You're the king of irony, caveman.

Says the person who believes in the existence of anthropomorphized entities with no physical basis, and believes that his belief system justifies him calling for the violent repression of speech which negates his belief system.

You're at the level of a wacky and violent religious cult Zig.

 

[Belz...]

No the Jews and the people hiding them were criminals. Why do you avoid the question?

Your hypothetical was about Nazis taking over a town here and now. I did answer your question: send in the police and kick the Nazis' ass. IF you're asking about Nazi Germany, then your question wasn't clear.

False, most of you have stood in favour of state violence in response to speech regarding the inauguration protests.

Where? You seem to be talking either about hypothetical people, or people you're not actually talking with here. Don't lump me with either group.

 

[Belz...]

Anyone who endorses ANTIFA's antics, anyone who praises the punching of Richard Spencer, endorses and praises the tactics of the Nazi party to suppress violent speech.

I have it on good authority that the quoted here is a vile suggestion that right-wing extremists are the same as oppressed Jews in Germany.