“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[uke2se]

That's an answer to a different question.

In this case, it's an answer to the question you posed.

Again, you're not answering my question.

Yes, I am. Think about it. If I have fundamentally different values than the people who are in charge, there's a good chance what I find morally justified wouldn't be legal.

 

[Belz...]

In this case, it's an answer to the question you posed.

No, I asked you if it's morally acceptable for someone to punch you because of your views if they are, in their opinion, vile and anti-democratic. You responded that they can try, which doesn't tell me if you think it's morally acceptable.

Yes, I am. Think about it. If I have fundamentally different values than the people who are in charge, there's a good chance what I find morally justified wouldn't be legal.

The question was about whether laws would be expected to reflect our moral values as a society. You didn't answer that.

 

[caveman1917]

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

Again, there is no incitement to violence in the hypothetical scenario. You're just making it up so that you can justify your differing responses to the two scenarios without acknowledging the inconsistency in your position.

Here, assume this is the form of the speech this person wants to give:

John Doe, Jew, is hiding in the attic of Main Street 123.
Jane Doe, Jew, is hiding in the cellar of Main Street 456.
...

Where's the incitement to violence exactly?

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

There was nothing needing a comeback. Your logic was off such that you basically made a null statement.

 

[uke2se]

No, I asked you if it's morally acceptable for someone to punch you because of your views if they are, in their opinion, vile and anti-democratic. You responded that they can try, which doesn't tell me if you think it's morally acceptable.

It might be morally acceptable to them. I know there are many people who think it's morally justified to punch me because of the uniform I wear. I don't agree that it's morally justified to punch me, but I'm not a party to that decision.

The question was about whether laws would be expected to reflect our moral values as a society. You didn't answer that.

Yes, I did. Laws reflect the moral values of those in charge. That's why there's bills regarding outlawing abortion and such. Even if abortion would be made illegal, it wouldn't change my opinion that it's morally justified.

 

[caveman1917]

It might be morally acceptable to them. I know there are many people who think it's morally justified to punch me because of the uniform I wear.

It is. Self-defense is morally justified.

I don't agree that it's morally justified to punch me, but I'm not a party to that decision.

Maybe it's more morally justified to punch a cop than to be a cop.

 

[Belz...]

Again, there is no incitement to violence in the hypothetical scenario.

Of course there is. Obviously. Here's where the people we want to kill are hidden is an invitation to kill these people.

 

[Belz...]

It might be morally acceptable to them. I know there are many people who think it's morally justified to punch me because of the uniform I wear. I don't agree that it's morally justified to punch me, but I'm not a party to that decision.

So all that matters is that the person doing the punching feels justified, then?

Yes, I did. Laws reflect the moral values of those in charge.

No, they reflect the moral values of the society. In a democracy, those in charge are the electorate. The current members of government aren't the ones who wrote the laws.

Now, kindly answer my question.

 

[Joe Random]

It all makes total sense. If only someone would have cold-cocked Ernst Röhm, or set fire to a Kaffeehaus then that whole WWII thing wouldn't have happened.

 

[Giz]

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?

Or, in a sane view of the world, the US elected a venal narcissist akin to Berlusconi (not Hitler), and the US is not going to become fascist. In which case your views are warped and your pre-emptive resort to violence is an act of extreme fanatic ignorant bigotry (and worthy of a punch?).


I'll echo this very good point from Sunmaster14:

"You're not really in favour 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 favour of an authoritarian state modelled after the Soviet Union, where thought crimes were actually considered crimes, or perhaps you're in favour of a more subtle type of coercive society like Germany just prior to Hitler seizing absolute control (where paramilitary units suppressed the opposition)."

 

[Giz]

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 aren't fighting for liberty or democracy, you are descending into passionate partisanship and frenzied moral panic.

A quote from wiki:

"The threat of "mob rule" to a democracy is restrained by ensuring that the rule of law protects minorities or individuals against short-term demagoguery or moral panic."

You gazed into what you thought was the abyss and have become the sum of your fears. Take a step back and a few deep breaths.

 

[varwoche]

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

Thank you. This doesn't standup however, due to (1) Milo speaking at a public event doesn't present a credible threat to public safety and (2) even if I'm wrong, there are tactics that wouldn't require shutting down the event by force, e.g. it would be relatively simple to alert attendees to the dangers as they approach the venue.

 

[theprestige]

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

The police should never beat anybody. I think the word you're looking for is "arrest". And yes, of course the police should arrest protestors who don't respect the rights of others. That's pretty much Police Job One.

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.

Depends on the yelling. An adjacent counter-protest that comports with due process and the rule of law, and seeks to compete vigorously in the marketplace of ideas is fantastic.

Intruding on the speaker's venue and attempting to impose the heckler's veto is, or should be, subject to whatever trespassing laws apply. Paying customers who bought tickets simply so they could enter the venue and boo at the speaker are fine with me. It's also fine with me if the owner of the venue prefers to have them leave if they are deemed disruptive.

Non-paying customers blocking access to the venue are, of course, acting illegally and not respecting the rights others.

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

Yep. As it should be.

 

[theprestige]

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

Who are you calling an authoritarian, then?

 

[theprestige]

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.

Unfortunately, by abandoning due process and the rule of law in favor of vigilante justice and mob rule, you have reversed the sides in this conflict. It is the punchers and the rioters who are the enemies of democracy, here. The people who value democracy and are willing to fight to preserve it are the ones arguing against you.

 

[theprestige]

I'll echo this very good point from Sunmaster14:

Actually that raises an interesting question for uk2ese, Hercules56, and others who share their views on Nazi-punching:

Should the left form paramilitary brigades to suppress anti-democratic* speech through extrajudicial means?









---
*For suitably progressive and evolving definitions of "anti-democratic".

 

[applecorped]

You aren't fighting for liberty or democracy, you are descending into passionate partisanship and frenzied moral panic.

A quote from wiki:

"The threat of "mob rule" to a democracy is restrained by ensuring that the rule of law protects minorities or individuals against short-term demagoguery or moral panic."

You gazed into what you thought was the abyss and have become the sum of your fears. Take a step back and a few deep breaths.

This

 

[dudalb]

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 average anarchist is probably a lousy shot and has had no training in basic infanty tactics anyway....

 

[Belz...]

Unfortunately, by abandoning due process and the rule of law in favor of vigilante justice and mob rule, you have reversed the sides in this conflict. It is the punchers and the rioters who are the enemies of democracy, here. The people who value democracy and are willing to fight to preserve it are the ones arguing against you.

Thank you. I wanted to say something like this earlier but this is much better than what I tried to come up with.

 

[dudalb]

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?

Acting like a fascist yourself is not a good way to start. You will end up being as bad as the people you are fighting.
I am not convinced we are on the verge of a fascist dictatorship. And I despise Trump.
Anyway,this kind of thing just gives ammo to Trump.

 

[dudalb]

You aren't fighting for liberty or democracy, you are descending into passionate partisanship and frenzied moral panic.

A quote from wiki:

"The threat of "mob rule" to a democracy is restrained by ensuring that the rule of law protects minorities or individuals against short-term demagoguery or moral panic."

You gazed into what you thought was the abyss and have become the sum of your fears. Take a step back and a few deep breaths.

The Dark Side of the right leads to Hitler;the Dark Side of the left to Stalin. The labeling is different but the product pretty much the same.