“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[CapelDodger]

For all the talk of Nazi Germany,I think Spain in the Spanish Civil War is more likely nightmare scenario for the US. BOth left and right become authoritarian, and ...

... everybody hates the anarchists. That's one of very few fixed points in political life.

 

[Mumbles]

If you are never in fear at all for expressing any viewpoint, then your society is likely so far authoritarian or nihilist that none of this matters. In a truly free and reasonable society, if someone wants to stand on a street corner and explain he likes to rape children, someone eventually is likely going to punch him in the head.

n a lot of these folks' cases, it's less explaining that they like to rape children, and more like walking up to people and stating "I'm going to rape your children". In my experience, these folks are generally really big on the whole "put Jews in gas chambers, send black people back to Africa" business - thus you get nonsense like Spencer's "peaceful ethnic cleansing", which is an obvious contradiction - or Milo stating that he's watched adults have sex with children on Joe Rogan's podcast and then refusing to go to authorities.

I won't say that authoritarians make people free to say anything at all - in fact, they tend to punish speech that doesn't align with their viewpoints - but Milo's ultimately the one who decided to take his disgusting online trolling to the streets, so no shock if someone beats the crap out of him for it.

 

[theprestige]

You are misclassifying these people as "on the left". They are not.

Body of work.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Body of work.

Circle of logic.

 

[uke2se]

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

No, that's not all that matters, but it matters enough.

No, they reflect the moral values of the society.

You keep saying that, and I keep disagreeing with you.

In a democracy, those in charge are the electorate. The current members of government aren't the ones who wrote the laws.

Not all laws, but they have written and will write many laws.

Now, kindly answer my question.

I have. At least twice now.

If a law doesn't align with my moral values, I may feel morally justified when breaking it.

 

[uke2se]

Acting like a fascist yourself is not a good way to start.

I'm not acting like a fascist.

I am not convinced we are on the verge of a fascist dictatorship. And I despise Trump.

I am, hence my attitude. Maybe this is were the butt of the argument lies? Would you accept violence as a valid form of resistance if you did think you were on the verge of becoming a fascist state?

Anyway,this kind of thing just gives ammo to Trump.

I disagree. Punching Spencer garnered him no obvious sypathies. It made him a laughing stock. A cake in Bannon's face would not make people suddenly start to like him. It would make them laugh at him.

 

[uke2se]

1- In civil society, we should strive to decide issues via law and discussion. Not by violence.

I think that too.

2- As a reciprocal fairness, we should treat political opponents as we would like to be treated.

I completely agree.

3- NOT respond to vague, non-immediate threats, that may never materialize outside of our fevered imagination, with immediate physical violence.

Again, agreed.

You have COMPLETELY misunderstood me. Perhaps it's my fault, although I don't actually think it is.

We should strive to settle issues with words and the law. That doesn't mean we should not react when people spew hateful bile from a podium. The natural, and in my view, morally right thing to do is to clock that person, and then take the punishment.

When it comes to treating political opponents like we want to be treated, this does not apply at all. Bigotry and hatred aren't political positions.

Finally, the threat isn't vague or non-immediate. It's overwhelming and started a while back.

 

[Belz...]

No, that's not all that matters, but it matters enough.

A nice non-answer.

You keep saying that, and I keep disagreeing with you.

Platitudes. You've not actually made an argument.

I have. At least twice now.

I have explained to you why you haven't.

 

[uke2se]

A nice non-answer.



Platitudes. You've not actually made an argument.



I have explained to you why you haven't.

We're not getting anywhere. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not acting like a fascist.

You're advocating using violence to achieve nationalistic political goals. How would you call that?

 

[uke2se]

You're advocating using violence to achieve nationalistic political goals. How would you call that?

No, I'm advocating using violence against people to prevent them from achieving their fascist goals.

 

[Giz]

We should strive to settle issues with words and the law. That doesn't mean we should not react when people spew hateful bile from a podium. The natural, and in my view, morally right thing to do is to clock that person, and then take the punishment.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding but the above seems like a contradiction. "We should strive to settle things with words and the law" AND "we should punch our opponents in the face"?

When it comes to treating political opponents like we want to be treated, this does not apply at all. Bigotry and hatred aren't political positions.

This is the mother of all subjective slippery slopes. First you want to apply extra-judicial violence against those you view as 'beyond the pale' (which is kinda nazi-ish) and you have a subjective way to justifying it (when does, say, discussing immigration policy, become bigoted? Can you put a finger at any particular spot and say 'this is where it becomes illegitimate '? Where is that?)

Finally, the threat isn't vague or non-immediate. It's overwhelming and started a while back.

Opinions can differ. Did you know that Alan Moore (graphic novel author) was convinced in the 80's that Margaret thatcher was going to turn the UK into a fascist state? And yet, no fascism occurred. (Just some policies that he disagreed with).

I think that what you see as overwhelming should actually be called "worrying and we should keep an eye on but any descent into violence would be grossly premature and would put the perpetrator in the wrong, both morally and legally ".

 

[uke2se]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding but the above seems like a contradiction. "We should strive to settle things with words and the law" AND "we should punch our opponents in the face"?

There is no contradiction. I never said we should punch our opponents in the face. Read it again.

This is the mother of all subjective slippery slopes. First you want to apply extra-judicial violence against those you view as 'beyond the pale' (which is kinda nazi-ish) and you have a subjective way to justifying it (when does, say, discussing immigration policy, become bigoted? Can you put a finger at any particular spot and say 'this is where it becomes illegitimate '? Where is that?)

Yes. It's when you start treating people differently because of their ethnicity, their skin color, their hair color, their eye color, their country of origin or their gender identity or sexuality.

Opinions can differ. Did you know that Alan Moore (graphic novel author) was convinced in the 80's that Margaret thatcher was going to turn the UK into a fascist state? And yet, no fascism occurred. (Just some policies that he disagreed with).

Alan Moore was wrong and so must I be?

I think that what you see as overwhelming should actually be called "worrying and we should keep an eye on but any descent into violence would be grossly premature and would put the perpetrator in the wrong, both morally and legally ".

Nope, I disagree. The US has already crossed the line. The time to fight is now. It will rapidly become too late.

 

[Giz]

There is no contradiction. I never said we should punch our opponents in the face. Read it again.

My apologies, I read this:

"The natural, and in my view, morally right thing to do is to clock that person"

As saying that 'opponents should get punched in the face'.

 

[Belz...]

No, I'm advocating using violence against people to prevent them from achieving their fascist goals.

That isn't mutually-exclusive with what I said.

So essentially you've become what you fear.

 

[Belz...]

My apologies, I read this:

"The natural, and in my view, morally right thing to do is to clock that person"

As saying that 'opponents should get punched in the face'.

It's a slippery statement, it seems. Like the definition of "Nazi", it's become very fluid.

 

[uke2se]

My apologies, I read this:

"The natural, and in my view, morally right thing to do is to clock that person"

As saying that 'opponents should get punched in the face'.

As I explained, I believe it's morally justified, perhaps even morally right. It is, however, not legal. Hence, I can't say we should do it.

 

[uke2se]

That isn't mutually-exclusive with what I said.

So essentially you've become what you fear.

No, that's not correct. Fighting Fascism doesn't mean you become Fascist. That's just asinine. It demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what Fascism is.

 

[theprestige]

As I explained, I believe it's morally justified, perhaps even morally right. It is, however, not legal. Hence, I can't say we should do it.

That's about the ugliest bit of sophistry I've seen on these fora in a long time.

 

[Giz]

No, that's not correct. Fighting Fascism doesn't mean you become Fascist. That's just asinine. It demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what Fascism is.

But if one side hasn't started using violence to fulfill its agenda and you resort to violence to stop them rather than democratic methods, then you are fascist one.