“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[Hercules56]

What should the police do? Beat protestors who don't respect the free speech right of others?

Is it a criminal act to disrupt a legally sanctioned speech by a Neo-Nazi or right-wing extremist?

I know its a criminal act to physically disrupt a legally sanctioned protest, but its not a criminal act to try to yell them down.

Though police do have the authority to seperate two legally sanctions protests.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Now you're just playing with words, but incitement is a real thing.

No.

Yes, we've covered this.

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".

What in the blue hell are you babbling about? Incitement IS a crime.

Wow, that is a killer comeback. You sure showed me.

 

[Joe Random]

What should the police do? Beat protestors who don't respect the free speech right of others?

<...>.

Nope. They should simply arrest people who decide to answer differing opinions with physical assault or vandalism.

 

[Belz...]

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.

In more ways than one. The only system in which anarchists can thrive, ironically, is a democracy.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Calling people Nazis is a tradition that goes back at least 70 years.

 

[varwoche]

caveman1917, I posted this...

The contention is, Milo is a nazi, hence it's righteous to deny him free speech rights, and/or assault him...

And you replied...

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.

It certainly was the contention in my exchange with uke2se.

As to your contention, by all means explain how my summary differs.

 

[Ziggurat]

In more ways than one. The only system in which anarchists can thrive, ironically, is a democracy.

In some ways, you can think of anarchism as an auto-immune disease for liberal democracies.

 

[Mumbles]

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

Not arguing, just pointing out that a discussion of "microaggressions" is of no relevance to this topic, regardless of whether or not the term is made to make speech violence (which it's not).

 

[Belz...]

Not arguing, just pointing out that a discussion of "microaggressions" is of no relevance to this topic, regardless of whether or not the term is made to make speech violence (which it's not).

Acts of aggression aren't violence? News to me.

And it's relevant to the topic if SJWs are relevant to the topic of Milo.

 

[Mumbles]

Acts of aggression aren't violence? News to me.

I have never heard of microaggressions referred to as violent (although there are always some fringe people, I suppose), but rather as rude or dismissive, such as being shocked when a person of Asian descent doesn't have an accent, or insisting that a black or Hispanic person that describes being harassed by police "must have done something wrong".

 

[Belz...]

I have never heard of microaggressions referred to as violent

I'm referring to the very name they've given it, and the implication that it's a form of aggression which, normally, would be considered violence. It was in response, remember, to another poster saying that it could be used as justification for violence in return.

 

[uke2se]

But see, this is the problem: it's entirely subjective. Of course you don't consider yourself despicable. Few people think of themselves that way. We tend to think we're right. But you say Milo could be punched because he's despicable. You have your own means of determining that, but who's doing the punching if not the person who has come to that conclusion, and how can we make sure that this person has come to that conclusion justifiably? The reason I ask is because if you think your own conclusion about Milo is correct based on nothing but your own subjective values, then it follows that someone who has the same conclusion about _you_ would be justified in punching you whether you agreed with them or not.

Yes, that absolutely follows. It goes both ways, and I'm well aware of that. That doesn't change my opinion that it's morally justified to punch someone spewing vile bigotry.

We're not talking about two equal sides of the same coin. Instead, on one side we have people who value democracy and who are willing to fight to preserve it, and on the other we have authoritarians who don't value democracy and are willing to fight to get rid of it. That fight is here, now.

No, it hasn't. T'was always so.

Oh, it has changed. The change has been going on for quite some time, but until recently, the West was dominated by liberal Democracy. Now it's becoming more and more dominated by authoritarianism.

This is what they talked about when they explained why the German people did nothing to stop Hitler. This is what they talked about when they said "Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."

You think it's right, but that it should be illegal? How do you reconcile those two?

Morally justified and legal isn't always the same thing.

 

[uke2se]

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.

Was Milo lynched? I don't agree with that. Punching him would suffice.

 

[uke2se]

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.

Not quite the same, but nearly as despicable.

I just love how all the authoritarians come out tsk-tsking my posts. It's the hight of hypocrisy.

 

[uke2se]

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.

Some of us (well, me at least) are seeing liberal democracy under serious threat, and are willing to stop talking when it doesn't work, and start fighting instead.

Sometimes you do actually have to fight for your values. I know, it's scary and mean and wouldn't everything be better if we could all just get along, but here we are, and the US is sliding towards fascism. What are YOU going to do about it?

 

[Belz...]

Yes, that absolutely follows. It goes both ways, and I'm well aware of that. That doesn't change my opinion that it's morally justified to punch someone spewing vile bigotry.

So we're in agreement that if someone finds that what YOU say is vile bigotry, whether or not you agree that it is, they can freely punch you and it's ok (but with legal consequences)?

Morally justified and legal isn't always the same thing.

Shouldn't our laws be based on our moral values? I'd think the two would be very closely related.

I just love how all the authoritarians come out tsk-tsking my posts.

Wait, did you just call me an authoritarian? I'm arguing in favour of the rule of law rather than vigilante justice!

 

[uke2se]

So we're in agreement that if someone finds that what YOU say is vile bigotry, whether or not you agree that it is, they can freely punch you and it's ok (but with legal consequences)?

They can try.

Shouldn't our laws be based on our moral values? I'd think the two would be very closely related.

My moral values don't coincide with the people in the US government.

Wait, did you just call me an authoritarian? I'm arguing in favour of the rule of law rather than vigilante justice!

No, I'm not calling you an authoritarian. I apologize if I made it seem directed at you. It was not my intention.

 

[Belz...]

They can try.

That's an answer to a different question.

My moral values don't coincide with the people in the US government.

Again, you're not answering my question.

No, I'm not calling you an authoritarian. I apologize if I made it seem directed at you. It was not my intention.

Ok, good. I used to be one when I was young and foolish, but that's been behind me for a while now (thought I'm not entirely libertarian either).

 

[caveman1917]

caveman1917, I posted this...


And you replied...
It certainly was the contention in my exchange with uke2se.

As to your contention, by all means explain how my summary differs.

Try this: somebody is endangering the safety of others, hence it's justified to intervene.

 

[sunmaster14]

Some of us (well, me at least) are seeing liberal democracy under serious threat, and are willing to stop talking when it doesn't work, and start fighting instead.

Sometimes you do actually have to fight for your values. I know, it's scary and mean and wouldn't everything be better if we could all just get along, but here we are, and the US is sliding towards fascism. What are YOU going to do about it?

You're not really in favor of a liberal democracy, since in a liberal democracy people shouldn't be afraid for their physical safety to speak freely on any subject. You're either in favor of an authoritarian state modeled after the Soviet Union, where thought crimes were actually considered crimes, or perhaps you're in favor of a more subtle type of coercive society like Germany just prior to Hitler seizing absolute control (where paramilitary units suppressed the opposition).

If anything, your philosophy is the fascist one. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Fascism should really be a neutral word. There are reasonable arguments to be made in favor of fascism. Perhaps your ideas are so good for society that they should be forced on people at the point of a gun or the knuckles of a fist. I don't think so because I think your ideas are embarrassingly shallow and rooted in ignorance, but, hey, I could be wrong. There's always a first time for everything.