“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[dasmiller]

Agreed. But...wait for it...we are in the 21st century. Are you suggesting that a 16th century mindset is comparable to this discussion? Perhaps we could compare the political musings of cavemen while we're at it?

First, it's an ongoing problem in Africa to this day, so I'm not so quick to dismiss it as a 16th century problem.

I don't recall supporting forcible suppression of anyone by anyone else. Or suppressing speech. Or any other words put in my mouth.

The 'forcible suppression' thing came from your quoted definition of fascism. But I think it does represent your view. For the 'forcible' part, you certainly seem willing to tolerate violence against fascists:

the battle lines are drawn and there is basically nothing left to discuss rationally, hence the ordinarily unwarranted jump to...a more visceral show of disagreement.

They are against basic humanity, IMO. Their extreme position warrants extreme response.

And I have no objection to taking a step or so outside of decency with them. I'm not proud.

4) Who gave you (again, generic) to right to decide when someone's speech has crossed the line into 'no point in talking, time to burn stuff'?

Natural Law, IMHO.

"a more visceral show of disagreement?" "extreme response?" "A step or so outside decency?" Were you not implying the use of force?

As for 'suppression,' if the intent isn't suppression, then what is it? Catharsis?

ETA: witches- I would opine that that was a different issue altogether, what with the accused not actually having done what they were being accused of. You know, witches not actually existing and all.

Then I'm not sure what you're advocating here. Very few fascists have actually done all those terrible fascist things, either, so if witches get a pass for not actually doing the deeds, so should most fascists. But if it's based on their beliefs, some of the witches really did believe they were witches, so should they be given an "extreme response" too?

IMO, the whole witch thing is actually a good example of how things can go terribly wrong if this "Natural Law" attitude is accepted.

ETA again: You assert more than once that I support forcible suppression of speech and/or people. May I ask what you are talking about?

See above.

ETA: or what Emily's Cat said.

 

[theprestige]

Their extreme position warrants extreme response.

What, exactly, is the "extreme position" of the fascist? When you are warranting your "extreme response", what exactly are you responding to?

And what exactly is the "extreme response" you are warranting, anyway?

This thread was started to discuss a violent protest of a speaker at UC Berkeley. Your recent posts suggest that you are confused about the topic, or at least equivocating about your position.

Can you take a moment to answer my questions?

 

[sadhatter]

I...uh...hm...

Thank god autocorrect changed one letter or else you might have had to reply.

The word was our, so are you going to reply or did I miss an Oxford coma?

 

[Mycroft]

MostlyDead,

It seems (to me) as though you don't support attacking fascists, but because of their odious nature would not be upset if/when it happens?

Which is how I feel about Richard Spencer being punched. That guy, whoever he is, should be prosecuted for assault if caught, but since it was Richard Spencer I still giggle a little bit when I think about it.

 

[dudalb]

I'm not seeing it, but given that I made the argument, I'm probably inclined to be blind to it. Please clue me in on what fallacy you believe I've fallen prey to?

Putting things you have no choice about..being born into a specific ethnic group...with things you choose to be..embrace a specific political philosophy.
IE;equating being Black or Chinese with being a Communist or Nazi. One you have no choice about, the other you choose to be.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Rare event, do not miss!

I agree the violent protesters on the left in the OP case are asshats, and that anyone should be allowed to speak, unless violating those few prohibitions against inciting to riot or similar. Moreover, I think universities are a place for debate, not a safe zone (not to countenance harassment, or forceful verbal challenge outside formal debate areas/classrooms). By the accounts I've read about (not a reliable sample, admittedly), the PC movement at many schools is beyond the pale. Yes, I'll go so far as to say what I've seen from time to time so far is intellectual cowardice and a public trouser drop denying the democratic credentials of those so acting.

That said, as for some of those allowed to speak, may the allowable ridicule of ideas be withering, merciless and give no quarter. But stamping feet and plugging ears is ugly no matter who does it.

/rare agreement event

 

[theprestige]

MostlyDead,

It seems (to me) as though you don't support attacking fascists, but because of their odious nature would not be upset if/when it happens?

Which is how I feel about Richard Spencer being punched. That guy, whoever he is, should be prosecuted for assault if caught, but since it was Richard Spencer I still giggle a little bit when I think about it.

Giggling is fine. I think this is more than just giggling, though. What I read MD saying, both in this thread and that one, is that they are happy to give away a little rule of law, if it means seeing a little violence done to "fascists"; and that they don't mind seeing violence used to suppress speech, if it's "fascist" speech.

Seeing a deserving jerk slip on a banana peel is satisfying. Seeing a deserving jerk punched in the face by a masked vigilante is even more satisfying--in a comic book. Seeing a jerk, no matter how "deserving", punched in the face by a masked vigilante in real life, and seeing that act of violence praised and defended by my fellow citizens, is far more disturbing to me than it is satisfying.

I have fantasies about being Batman. But I know they are fantasies. I enjoy seeing fictional Batman carrying out fictional vigilante justice. I know that's not reality. MD and others seem to view the violence in Berkeley, and the violence against Richard Spencer, as if they were just another form of fantasy-fulfillment. As if they were not actually real things being done by real people in our real life society.

Richard Spencer is not Adolf Hitler. Not even close. Milos Yiannopolous is not the Joker. These vigilantes are not Batman. This violence is not cathartic fantasy.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Putting things you have no choice about..being born into a specific ethnic group...with things you choose to be..embrace a specific political philosophy.
IE;equating being Black or Chinese with being a Communist or Nazi. One you have no choice about, the other you choose to be.

I see what you're saying. I'm not sure I see it as a fallacy in this particular case, but it's also not particularly material to the point I was trying to make. If it pleases you, go ahead and remove the "no choice" bits. So we're left with religion and politics at least. I can probably come up with others given a moment.

So then... Does casting a particular religion as being "universally" abhorrent justify physical assault and violence toward those people on the basis of what they believe?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Rare event, do not miss!

I agree the violent protesters on the left in the OP case are asshats, and that anyone should be allowed to speak, unless violating those few prohibitions against inciting to riot or similar. Moreover, I think universities are a place for debate, not a safe zone (not to countenance harassment, or forceful verbal challenge outside formal debate areas/classrooms). By the accounts I've read about (not a reliable sample, admittedly), the PC movement at many schools is beyond the pale. Yes, I'll go so far as to say what I've seen from time to time so far is intellectual cowardice and a public trouser drop denying the democratic credentials of those so acting.

That said, as for some of those allowed to speak, may the allowable ridicule of ideas be withering, merciless and give no quarter. But stamping feet and plugging ears is ugly no matter who does it.

/rare agreement event

 

[Joe Random]

I'd be curious to hear which of Milo's views move him into the category where it's acceptable to use violence/intimidation to silence him. Not 'keep him from enacting his ideas', but to actually silence him from expressing them. Since it's apparently a given for some in this thread that ideas/speech alone (and not action) are sufficient grounds to make sucker punches/Starbucks torchings acceptable responses, which specific ideas move him into the 'have at him' category, just so everyone knows where acceptable thoughts begin and end.

I'm genuinely curious : if some opinions sans action are odious enough to justify silencing, physical assault, and/or vandalism, which specific opinions of Milo (or any other 'Nazi/fascist/BadThink Person') are those which so justify?

 

[Joe Random]

<...>
Could you clarify this one? Think I understand but I can read it a couple different ways.
<...>

Returning to the thread late and it has moved on, but wanted to answer the above.

In saying that there are beliefs so offensive/damaging/whatever that it is appropriate to abandon the rule of law in expressing opposition to them you [generic] have empowered any group to use those same extra-legal tactics against views you and I would both support.

Examples I've used before in the 'punch a Nazi' thread:

Trump was duly elected according to the Constitution and laws of this country. Those saying his presidency is illegitimate and who protest him are attacking the fundamental roots of our Democracy (the non-violet transition of power based on the expressed will of the people). Therefore we are justified in punching people in pussy hats, or setting fire to cars near a 'He Will Not Divide Us' installation (for the record, HWNDU is silly beyond words, IMO), because they're attacking not just [bloviating gassbag dickhead] Trump, they're attacking the very fundamentals of our democratic society!

Pro-choice activists want to make it legal, and to a varying degree sponsored by the state, to MURDER UNBORN CHILDREN! No one in their right mind could possible support the murder of unborn children. Hell, I don't think even Hitler thought it would be okay to murder unborn babies! Ergo any and all means to shut down a pro-choice rally is justified. Punch a Planned Parenthood worker if you love little babies.

This is the important bit : if some of the views of these purported 'fascists' were put into action, I'd be right there with others opposing them, even risking my personal physical safety. I've had ... colorful run-ins with anti-abortion activists in the past, and will gladly continue to do so where needed, for instance. But while the views are still just words and rhetoric, the rule of law serves we who would see people treated fairly and not sent off into camps or thrown off buildings for having WrongThink. Abandoning the rule of law merely because it feels so damned good to punch a neo-fascist or aim our car at an anti-abortion protester (yes, I can speak from experience here, I'm ashamed to say) only weakens the protections against those views we support, since we've now said there are times when <Southern Comfort> "You have to abandon principles and do what's right!" </Southern Comfort>.

There are many civil rights which don't apply to me, but for which I'd be willing to risk physical safety to guarantee for others should they become outlawed. But while the rights we seek to uphold still fall within the remit of the rule of law to protect, stepping outside that rule because we feel "it's justified in this case" only serves to weaken the defenses provided against all those other things we want to protect. Carried to its extreme and it's nothing more than 'might makes right' (since the rule of law is now subject to the "but I really want to hit him" test), which has never worked out well in the end for anyone. Not even Lord Humungus.

 

[Thermal]

I don't think your argument holds any water. It's special pleading.

Special pleading is citing something as an exception to the rule, without justification. I am taking time to provide justification, although you clearly do not agree or understand (I think the latter- you are reading too much in and assuming elements I do not assert).

You've decided that "fascism" is such a threat to what you view as the US way of life, that you feel preemptive violence against US citizens is justifiable and excusable. Then all you have to do is proclaim that a person is a "fascist" and you feel that attacking them with violence is A-Okay.

Please show where I say a damn thing about preemptive violence, or retract. No reading in, quote 'preemptive' or any synonymous meaning, specifically. Also, I do not declare others to be fascists. I have only argued where they declare themselves to be so.

No matter how you church it up, you've taken a stance that *some* US citizens should be denied their rights as US citizens, and that violence should be enacted against them because of their beliefs.

Bull. I never said anyone should be denied rights, and I never said violence should be enacted against someone for any reason. Simply untrue. You're making a strawman by changing a word here and there to distort the meaning.

YOU are a threat to the US way of life.

Tossing in a rule 12 violation for the road?

 

[Thermal]

You've supported the use of preemptive violence against people that you've decided are fascists. Not based on what they've done, but on what they've said. You have supported and lauded aggression and assault as an appropriate response to speech in order to stop "those people" from engaging in "that sort of" speech.

Again with 'preemptive', strawmanning the argument. And pretending that I decided anyone to be anything.

What do you think your stance is? Please clarify.

Sure. After you support the 'preemptive' claim you make. It adds on a very different element, so I'm not inclined to let it slide.

ETA: I'm basing my responses on these posts of yours:

All of these boil down to "Attacking people is wrong, unless you're attacking a 'fascist', then it's ok".

Only if you are predisposed to a conclusion. There are others you could reach with the same quotes, should you read without bias.

 

[Thermal]

First, it's an ongoing problem in Africa to this day, so I'm not so quick to dismiss it as a 16th century problem.

Fair point. But I don't dismiss the problem, I suggest that it is a different one than the thread topic. No one is accusing fascists of supernatural alliances that do not exist. I am charging them with un-American political philosophies that they acknowledge (and per definition posted earlier, racial superiority and authoritarian control over citizens).

The 'forcible suppression' thing came from your quoted definition of fascism. But I think it does represent your view. For the 'forcible' part, you certainly seem willing to tolerate violence against fascists:

I am admittedly asking for it now, but I do tolerate violence to differing degrees. In context of the OP, I see this more as a street fight between rivals, with the anarchists hopping in for the lulz, and I do tolerate this more if not outright condoning. An earlier post contained an eyewitness account, describing mutual aggression, not just Milo protesters. In fact, I didn't see anything Milo-specific going down; it looked more like an 'us v them' clash.

"a more visceral show of disagreement?" "extreme response?" "A step or so outside decency?" Were you not implying the use of force?

Mutually, yes. I don't have extreme objections to 'taking it outside', unless one party does not want to.

As for 'suppression,' if the intent isn't suppression, then what is it? Catharsis?

No, but to drop my junk on the block again: the intent is showing a natural reaction. A fascist/neo-nazi is, IMO, giving a solid 'F.Y.' to American ideals, and often to blacks, Muslims...often non-male-WASPs in general. There comes a point where it is antagonizing, then inciting, and that is where I can see some justifiable violence entering the picture. It has no guarantee of being legally protected...but depending on the circumstances, it may.

Then I'm not sure what you're advocating here. Very few fascists have actually done all those terrible fascist things, either, so if witches get a pass for not actually doing the deeds, so should most fascists. But if it's based on their beliefs, some of the witches really did believe they were witches, so should they be given an "extreme response" too?

Then those witches would be what we call 'nuts' (generally). The 'not real' element of witch hunts is not analogous here. Fascists really do want to take away the Constitution, it's what fascism is all about (democracy is obsolete, per Wikipedia).

IMO, the whole witch thing is actually a good example of how things can go terribly wrong if this "Natural Law" attitude is accepted.

Agreed. It can go horribly wrong. Or work for the best. Natural Law arguments are not an ace-in-the-hole, those involved would still face the music if charged. Then a jury gets to consider nullification, which is kind of where I'm at.

See above.

ETA: or what Emily's Cat said.

Perhaps you agree with the 'preemptive' violence claim and could show me where I claim that? If I said that, I offer a retraction. If not, I await one.

 

[Thermal]

Can you take a moment to answer my questions?

Of course, always have and always will.

What, exactly, is the "extreme position" of the fascist? When you are warranting your "extreme response", what exactly are you responding to?

The extreme position, in the context of being an American fascist, is that the concept of authoritarian rule and that democracy is obsolete, per definitions upthread, fundamentally undermine our Constitution, and would effectively toss our hard-fought system of self-government out the window and replace it with exactly what we revolted against. Overturning our entire system of government is pretty extreme, IMHO. I respond to this declared objective, whenever it is championed, specifically that authoritarian rule with it's attendant racial superiority and direct power to control its citizens (per definition) is extremely adversarial to one who values civil rights and the rights of the individual as legislated by consent.

And what exactly is the "extreme response" you are warranting, anyway?

That would vary with specifics, wouldn't it? Hence the vague phrasing. But if a fascist wants essentially to dismantle Constitutional principles (pretty honking extreme), a proportional response is called for. What exactly that would be can be all over the map. A garden-variety neo-nazi (I prefer this term to fascist, but fascist was already in use ITT) may focus on white supremacy, or relegating Muslims or gays to second-class citizenry. That is hate speech IMO. And fighting words.

This thread was started to discuss a violent protest of a speaker at UC Berkeley. Your recent posts suggest that you are confused about the topic, or at least equivocating about your position.

I don't think so, although I am pretty sure others are equivocating the hell out of my position. I have said repeatedly that I do not consider the OP a suppression of speech so much as a street fight. Yet I am asked why I support the suppression of free speech.

A question for you, if you don't mind: How, specifically, am I equivocating? What double meanings am I using, and where?

 

[Thermal]

Thank god autocorrect changed one letter or else you might have had to reply. The word was our, so are you going to reply or did I miss an Oxford coma?

You've got to be kidding. What sense of entitlement are you under that you ignore questions posed to you but make catty comments about not repying? I have answered your questions; how about you show the same freaking courtesy starting with post #1612?

 

[Thermal]

MostlyDead,

It seems (to me) as though you don't support attacking fascists, but because of their odious nature would not be upset if/when it happens?

Which is how I feel about Richard Spencer being punched. That guy, whoever he is, should be prosecuted for assault if caught, but since it was Richard Spencer I still giggle a little bit when I think about it.

Agreed, 100%. I hope I would have tried to stop the Spencer-puncher, but I would not help or hinder him being brought to justice, beyond my legal requirements.

ITT, though, I see it as a clash of ideologies, gang-style, more than a suppression of speech issue. I am more inclined to accept the violence in this OP because I don't see it as people protesting Milo, but as rival political/social factions squaring off together.

 

[Thermal]

Giggling is fine. I think this is more than just giggling, though. What I read MD saying, both in this thread and that one, is that they are happy to give away a little rule of law, if it means seeing a little violence done to "fascists"; and that they don't mind seeing violence used to suppress speech, if it's "fascist" speech.

Can you really not understand that from another point of view, this is simply not about speech? Their speech is understood, and they are given free reign to proclaim it. Actions taken are a response, not a desire to suppress. While you clearly don't agree, can you not even understand this?

Seeing a deserving jerk slip on a banana peel is satisfying. Seeing a deserving jerk punched in the face by a masked vigilante is even more satisfying--in a comic book. Seeing a jerk, no matter how "deserving", punched in the face by a masked vigilante in real life, and seeing that act of violence praised and defended by my fellow citizens, is far more disturbing to me than it is satisfying.

I have fantasies about being Batman. But I know they are fantasies. I enjoy seeing fictional Batman carrying out fictional vigilante justice. I know that's not reality. MD and others seem to view the violence in Berkeley, and the violence against Richard Spencer, as if they were just another form of fantasy-fulfillment. As if they were not actually real things being done by real people in our real life society.

Richard Spencer is not Adolf Hitler. Not even close. Milos Yiannopolous is not the Joker. These vigilantes are not Batman. This violence is not cathartic fantasy.

All well and good. But please don't project these fantasies on others. Some of us are practical-minded and offering an apparently unpopular POV honestly. Having nothing to do with batman fantasies.

 

[Thermal]

I'd be curious to hear which of Milo's views move him into the category where it's acceptable to use violence/intimidation to silence him. Not 'keep him from enacting his ideas', but to actually silence him from expressing them. Since it's apparently a given for some in this thread that ideas/speech alone (and not action) are sufficient grounds to make sucker punches/Starbucks torchings acceptable responses, which specific ideas move him into the 'have at him' category, just so everyone knows where acceptable thoughts begin and end.

I'm genuinely curious : if some opinions sans action are odious enough to justify silencing, physical assault, and/or vandalism, which specific opinions of Milo (or any other 'Nazi/fascist/BadThink Person') are those which so justify?

To wit: I just checked back to the OP, and it says that the rioting continued and spilled out even hours after Milo's event was cancelled. Does this not seem like it was never about Milo per se? (my contention all along)

And you say opinions that justify silencing...who is suggesting that? I see a bunch of posts baldly asserting it, but why, oh why, is it assumed that anyone is actually trying to shut him up? As opposed to, say, offering a dissenting counterpoint?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Only if you are predisposed to a conclusion. There are others you could reach with the same quotes, should you read without bias.

This might be an excellent opportunity for you to step back, take a moment, and just restate your position and beliefs in their entirety. If I were alone in reading your positions this way, what you say regarding bias might have merit. But I'm not. Several people in this thread have interpreted your arguments in exactly the same way I have. If you feel that ALL of these interpretations are incorrect, then it appears that you are failing to communicate effectively. Please try again.