“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

To be clear, this isn't sarcasm. The takeover of the country by a hostile, bigoted, generally demented, anti-democratic force complicates this entire discussion. Dear Leader is the elephant in the room.

In what way does Trump complicate the discussion of the recent anti-speech violence in Berkeley?
 
No, they (the violent protestors - most seemed to be peaceful) were smashing *other* people's property, setting a tree on fire, and pepper-spraying a person (a woman, not that it matters) for wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat, all of which is indefensible.

Honestly I don't care what you[*] think is defensible, I just said that Milo wasn't beaten the crap out of. Though feel free to present your evidence that this person was pepper-sprayed for wearing that hat.

* "you" generally including, but not limited to, anybody who votes and thereby shows their support for the US government - the crimes of which massively eclipse a stupid tree being burned.
 
Honestly I don't care what you[*] think is defensible, I just said that Milo wasn't beaten the crap out of. Though feel free to present your evidence that this person was pepper-sprayed for wearing that hat.

* "you" generally including, but not limited to, anybody who votes and thereby shows their support for the US government - the crimes of which massively eclipse a stupid tree being burned.

I was told that the United States did not exist and therefore how can something that does not exist commit crimes, which also do not appear to exist.

Consistency!
 
Punching them in the face doesn't prevent anything, though.

I'd have more respect for your position if it actually involved effective fighting.
True ^^
If the stated goal is to prevent their speech, wouldn't it be much MORE effective to go and hit their children or their mother instead? People can take on a lot for themselves, but terrorizing their innocent kids? That will make them think twice!
(As long as we are sliding merrily down the morally justified scale to meet lofty civil goals by violent means, anything goes!)
 
Oh, you're absolutely right. I was saying that the method you've chosen to do so is a fascist's method. I certainly wasn't saying that all methods of fighting fascism were like that. Just yours.

No, violence isn't a Fascist method. Violence is violence. That Fascists also use violence doesn't make violence Fascist.
 
I'm unable to say to uke2se -- Relax, right-wing extremists don't hold real power in the USA.

Why are you unable to say it to me? You just did. You are wrong. In fact, they are in charge in the US.
 
No, violence isn't a Fascist method.

It's nice that you ignore the rest of what I said about your methods and how they parallel those of fascists. Doing so gives the impression that I said something else. However, since this is a web forum that keeps track of what we say:

You're advocating using violence to achieve nationalistic political goals. How would you call that?
 
It's nice that you ignore the rest of what I said about your methods and how they parallel those of fascists. Doing so gives the impression that I said something else. However, since this is a web forum that keeps track of what we say:

But I answered that, and explained that I'm not trying to achieve nationalistic political goals. I'm trying to prevent someone from achieving a Fascist goal. And using violence to prevent someone from achieving a Fascist goal doesn't make violence Fascist.
 
No, I'm not. I'm trying to prevent someone else from acheiving political goals.
Using violence to prevent someone else from achieving political goals is literally a tactic used by the National Socialist party to intimidate opposing parties and suppress voter turnout in the 1930s. The only way you could be more fascist in your methods would be to actually advocate the extermination of undesirables.
 
Last edited:
Using violence to prevent someone else from achieving political goals is literally a tactic used by the National Socialist party to intimidate opposing parties and suppress voter turnout in the 1930s. The only way you could be more fascist in your methods would be to actually advocate the extermination of undesirables.

Well, he could also write a book about it: "My Struggle" has a nice ring to it.
 
Of course there is. Obviously. Here's where the people we want to kill are hidden is an invitation to kill these people.

No, this person is not saying he wants to kill anyone. He's just having a public speaking event about where certain criminals are hiding.
 
Oh, you're absolutely right. I was saying that the method you've chosen to do so is a fascist's method. I certainly wasn't saying that all methods of fighting fascism were like that. Just yours.

Most methods are. For example holding up signs or have speaking events are also methods used by fascists. Do you have examples of methods which are not used by fascists and therefor not objectionable?
 
Plausible deniability won't help you here. He knows exactly what revealing their location will entail.

Yes, the criminals might get into trouble with law enforcement or other people.

If that is the required condition, then why argue against shutting down Milo's event? The criminal undocumented students might get into trouble with law enforcement or other people.

Respecting the rule of law comes to mind.

That's not a method.

Besides, don't fascists respect the rule of your law? I thought that was basically the premise behind the defense of Spencer's and Milo's "free speech"?
 

Back
Top Bottom