“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[The Big Dog]

You can't simultaneously declare that government is oppressing you and that it doesn't exist.

 

[Ziggurat]

I declared neither of those.

Sure you did.

 

[The Big Dog]

I declared neither of those.

Help, help, the anthropomorphized abstract entities are repressing me!

 

[caveman1917]

Sure you did.

Quotes or it didn't happen. And don't forget to cop-out with some quality meme to the "define reality" thing.

 

[The Big Dog]

Quotes or it didn't happen. And don't forget to cop-out with some quality meme to the "define reality" thing.

Talk about a anthropomorphized abstract "cop out"!

 

[shuize]

What many on the left don't seem appreciate is that whatever political tactics they adopt now will likely be used against them in the future.

What was it their hero said? "Don't think we're not keeping score, brother."

 

[Joe Random]

What many on the left don't seem appreciate is that whatever political tactics they adopt now will likely be used against them in the future.

What was it their hero said? "Don't think we're not keeping score, brother."

And that's precisely what many others of us on the left have been trying to get across to the 'no-platform/punch-out' brigade : they've just told the 'other guy' the exact reasoning he needs to use to justify his own campaign of silencing or assault.

 

[caveman1917]

Meet Antifa, the Most Reasonable People in America

Interesting article, particularly this bit about liberal pundits:

A “concern troll” is someone who pretends to share a group’s goals, for the sole purpose of complaining about their tactics. Faced with anti-fascists in the streets breaking windows and Nazi faces, liberal pundits have gone full concern-troll. “Destroying D.C. businesses is absolutely the wrong way to protest Donald Trump,” wrote the New Republic’s Graham Vyse before the glass at the first Starbucks had hit the ground. At the New York Times, Frank Bruni claimed, bizarrely, that punching Spencer in the head “does more to help him than to hurt him.” As far as these folks are concerned, the problem is twofold: There’s no excuse, they say, for extralegal violence or property destruction (which they often confuse with violence), and anyway (they claim), the tactics are ineffective. That’s all a little rich coming from die-hard Hillary Clinton supporters, people who don’t have a lot of credibility when it comes to knowing how to beat Trump and his merry band of racist garbage. But liberals don’t share a strategic agenda with people who march under red and black flags anyway; what the pundits think about radical tactics is moot.

as well as a witness account from the Berkeley protest:

I asked Alex what he’d tell those critics who say that protesters are fueling pro-fascist propaganda. “People who will be sensitive to his messages are going to be regardless,” he said. “It is more important, to me, that we prevent the active recruiting of college students and especially prevent any additional outing of students, whether they be trans, undocumented immigrants, or any other group that is under attack.” He doesn’t support property damage in principle (Alex is also a law student), but his proximity gave him a more informed perspective than (say) Bruni’s. Fireworks were targeted “brilliantly” at smoke alarms in the buildings, he said, and protesters set fire to a portable floodlight that had been lighting a security corridor for Yiannopoulos and his entourage. “All the peaceful protesters, many of whom were older Berkeley residents, alumni, and even families, were cheering them on, which I considered a sign of efficiency,” Alex said, “not violence.” He told me that the real violence had come from the police.

 

[Belz...]

The person in question is setting up nothing personally. They would not personally murder or round up anyone, they'd just have a public speaking event.

Incitement to violence is a crime.

What have undocumented students at Berkeley ever done to you so that you would not just not speak up (as in "First they came for the undocumented Berkeley students but I did not speak up") but you actually do speak up in favour of Milo's speaking event?

Again you are talking about hypotheticals, we've covered this.

We all are.

Now you're just talking crazy. The very fact that Milo can speak his mind and not get arrested, or that SJWs can do the same, is proof that you're wrong.

 

[dudalb]

And that's precisely what many others of us on the left have been trying to get across to the 'no-platform/punch-out' brigade : they've just told the 'other guy' the exact reasoning he needs to use to justify his own campaign of silencing or assault.

And once you start using the tactic you throw justice and fairness out the window. It becomes not about who is right, but who can bring the biggest mob and who has the most clubs or guns.
I can understand our resident anarchists liking this:He wants to rip down society anyway. It is the more rational members buying into this I don't get.

 

[caveman1917]

Incitement to violence is a crime.

The person wouldn't be inciting to violence, just having a public speaking event including communicating information on where the criminals are hiding the criminal Jews in that town.

Again you are talking about hypotheticals, we've covered this.

No. But it doesn't matter, you're apparently now clinging to whatever you can come up with to ignore your inconsistencies - such as your appeal to "incitement to violence is a crime".

Now you're just talking crazy. The very fact that Milo can speak his mind and not get arrested, or that SJWs can do the same, is proof that you're wrong.

 

[caveman1917]

I can understand our resident anarchists liking this:He wants to rip down society anyway.

The sooner the better.

It is the more rational members buying into this I don't get.

Because it is the/a rational position?

 

[sadhatter]

Meet Antifa, the Most Reasonable People in America

Interesting article, particularly this bit about liberal pundits:



as well as a witness account from the Berkeley protest:

Wow that person has zero knowledge of social construction. Around these parts we call that the arguement from incredulity.

 

[caveman1917]

Wow that person has zero knowledge of social construction. Around these parts we call that the arguement from incredulity.

What argument?

 

[sadhatter]

The sooner the better.



Because it is the/a rational position?

Is cute you think if it came down to fighting you think your side would win.

You wouldn't just be fighting the military, the police, and those of a conservative bent, but a massive portion of those on the left and in the middle. You would be out gunned, out manned, and out politicized.

You wouldn't put a dent in society, but what you would do is give your mirror image on the right something to rally behind and point to when justifying silencing the reasonable left.

Take a sociology course I *********** beg you. I will ship my texts to you if need be.

 

[sadhatter]

What argument?

The one going on in dodge vs question, a monumental case to be sure.

What arguement do you think? The one put forth by the knob that wrote the article.

 

[caveman1917]

Is cute you think if it came down to fighting you think your side would win.

You wouldn't just be fighting the military, the police, and those of a conservative bent, but a massive portion of those on the left and in the middle. You would be out gunned, out manned, and out politicized.

You wouldn't put a dent in society, but what you would do is give your mirror image on the right something to rally behind and point to when justifying silencing the reasonable left.

Take a sociology course I *********** beg you. I will ship my texts to you if need be.

The one going on in dodge vs question, a monumental case to be sure.

What arguement do you think? The one put forth by the knob that wrote the article.

Feel free to provide evidence for every claim you made.

 

[crescent]

And that's precisely what many others of us on the left have been trying to get across to the 'no-platform/punch-out' brigade : they've just told the 'other guy' the exact reasoning he needs to use to justify his own campaign of silencing or assault.

And once you start using the tactic you throw justice and fairness out the window. It becomes not about who is right, but who can bring the biggest mob and who has the most clubs or guns.
I can understand our resident anarchists liking this:He wants to rip down society anyway. It is the more rational members buying into this I don't get.

A disturbing number of previously rational people seem to be buying into the no-platform thing, and they don't take kindly to disagreement. On a different message board, I recently tried to make the same arguments that Joe and dudalb make here. That board was a place I had previously thought of as a good place for some discussion, generally less "spirited" than this one. I was accused of being a secret neo-Nazi (because why else would I support the right of Yiannopoulos to speak?), then banned, without warning, no reason given, forever.

I am solidly liberal, I always have been. I find the current climate frightening. For the first time in my life I realize that I might outlive the existence of America as a unified nation. I blame the pro-Trump conservatives more than the liberals, but I increasingly find the liberals sharing more and more of the blame. I guess I am a concern troll.

 

[Ziggurat]

Feel free to provide evidence for every claim you made.

Hierarchy is more efficient for fighting than anarchy. This is indisputable.

And if you're a member of a weak group (as anarchists are), you either get crushed or you live under the protection of a strong group. That's why there are more anarchists in the US than in Soviet Russia: We tolerate and even shelter them here, but the commie bastards just crushed them over there. So it's rather stupid to think that anarchists can pick a fight with the very people who are protecting them and win, or for that matter even survive.

 

[Joe Random]

A disturbing number of previously rational people seem to be buying into the no-platform thing, and they don't take kindly to disagreement. On a different message board, I recently tried to make the same arguments that Joe and dudalb make here. That board was a place I had previously thought of as a good place for some discussion, generally less "spirited" than this one. I was accused of being a secret neo-Nazi (because why else would I support the right of Yiannopoulos to speak?), then banned, without warning, no reason given, forever.

I am solidly liberal, I always have been. I find the current climate frightening. For the first time in my life I realize that I might outlive the existence of America as a unified nation. I blame the pro-Trump conservatives more than the liberals, but I increasingly find the liberals sharing more and more of the blame. I guess I am a concern troll.

While most discourse centers around the conservative/liberal axis, the too-often-overlooked axis in social issues is authoritarian vs libertarian. If someone calls for a scientist to be fired for the T-shirt he wore in an interview, or publicly shames programmers for making a private joke at a conference, that person's conservative/liberal position doesn't matter - it becomes all about their authoritarian desire to impose RightThink on others.

The current run on calling everyone a Nazi is merely a continuation of a trend that runs back through sexist office air conditioning and racist Halloween costumes, and even further.

I think I started to realize how much of our collective nut the left had lost when I saw widespread calls to no-platform Christina Hoff-Somers for being anti-feminist. These past several weeks? They're just higher notches on a dial we've been turning for a while already.