“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[Thermal]

With respect to this restatement...

1) What do you think constitutes street-fighting?

I have no unusual interpretation. Fighting...on the street. As opposed to, say, in a ring.

2) Do you think that someone using words alone and expressing an opinion is considered "provoking" to an extent that you believe justifies using violence against them?

Yes they can. The concept of 'fighting words' sums it up pretty well, although I probably endorse a broader interpretation than the courts. From Wikipedia:

Fighting words are written or spoken words, generally expressed to incite hatred or violence from their target...It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage.

An important distinction: upthread, poster theprestige is quoted as musing about whether fascism should be revisited. His (I assume male) posting is thoughtful and rational, clearly not inciting or fighting words. Neo-nazis like Richard Spencer are IMHO absolutely trying to provoke hatred and violence, and when they succeed, they cannot don the martyr's mantle.

Does that make my position any clearer?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

 

[caveman1917]

Something I found that applies to this discussion, a quote from actual anarchists:

"Instead of attacking impersonal symbols of justice, we think that it is very important to transpose our hostilities to the personal environment of the enemy, their homes, offices, hangouts and vehicles. We know that to authority ”nobody is irreplaceable” but we also know that a personal hit against one of them would instill fear in another 100. "

https://insurrectionnewsworldwide.c...lls-of-fire-nemesis-project-an-open-proposal/

Hooboy! Doesn't that just make you ache to live in a world of their creation?

Ah, the nice people of the CCF. So what is the problem this time?

 

[Mycroft]

Ah, the nice people of the CCF. So what is the problem this time?

What's the problem with using fear and intimidation to get your way?

You tell me. Is it a problem?

 

[caveman1917]

What's the problem with using fear and intimidation to get your way?

You mean the state?

You tell me.

No, feel free to go ahead. And let's remember that your claims about my "disciplinary history" concern just me calling you a fascist (as opposed to your peculiarly still-unsupported other claims regarding it) over the issue of Israel. Just as a quick comparison here, the CCF has over 9 years injured one person in what you call "using fear and intimidation to get your way" whereas I think you'll find the Israeli state to have killed numerous people over 9 years on the same basis.

Is it a problem?

Well, clearly not to you or anyone else who supports a state, let alone the Israeli one, for starters. The real question is: why is it suddenly a problem now, especially when having obviously OOM less impact?

 

[Mycroft]

You mean the state?

No, but how clever of you to turn our paradigms inside out and reveal this unique and surprising alternative perspective!

Oh wait, did I say clever? I meant tedious.

It's also a tu quoque argument.

No, feel free to go ahead.

Go ahead and what?

Just as a quick comparison here, the CCF has over 9 years injured one person in what you call "using fear and intimidation to get your way" whereas I think you'll find the Israeli state to have killed numerous people over 9 years on the same basis.

And comes the obligatory knee jerk tu quoque deflection.

Do you receive training in that? Does someone tell you that you're never to discuss criticism of your methods and ideology, but always instead to turn that criticism to something else?



Well, clearly not to you or anyone else who supports a state, let alone the Israeli one, for starters. The real question is: why is it suddenly a problem now, especially when having obviously OOM less impact?[/QUOTE]

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, clearly not to you or anyone else who supports a state, let alone the Israeli one, for starters.

Who here is surprised by caveman's need to inject his hatred for Israel into unrelated conversations?

Nobody? That's what I thought.

 

[theprestige]

I have no unusual interpretation. Fighting...on the street. As opposed to, say, in a ring.



Yes they can. The concept of 'fighting words' sums it up pretty well, although I probably endorse a broader interpretation than the courts. From Wikipedia:



An important distinction: upthread, poster theprestige is quoted as musing about whether fascism should be revisited. His (I assume male) posting is thoughtful and rational, clearly not inciting or fighting words. Neo-nazis like Richard Spencer are IMHO absolutely trying to provoke hatred and violence, and when they succeed, they cannot don the martyr's mantle.

Does that make my position any clearer?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

It seems to me that Richard Spencer has taken great pains to voice his opinions in a legal, peaceable fashion that avoids incitement. You are condoning violence against him not because he has actually incited violence, but because you believe his ideas give you license to indulge in violence against him.

Do you disagree? Cite one occasion on which you believe Spencer has incited violence. Don't cite his beliefs generally: Cite a specific time and place where he uttered speech or otherwise expressed his ideas in a way that you believe was clearly inciteful.

 

[sadhatter]

It seems to me that Richard Spencer has taken great pains to voice his opinions in a legal, peaceable fashion that avoids incitement. You are condoning violence against him not because he has actually incited violence, but because you believe his ideas give you license to indulge in violence against him.

Do you disagree? Cite one occasion on which you believe Spencer has incited violence. Don't cite his beliefs generally: Cite a specific time and place where he uttered speech or otherwise expressed his ideas in a way that you believe was clearly inciteful.

His very being is an heretical affront to the emperor of mankind. By the virtue of him being what he is he is an enemy to the imperium of mankind and must be held accountable for his heresy.

Just saving you the time of waiting for a reply.

 

[dudalb]

It seems to me that Richard Spencer has taken great pains to voice his opinions in a legal, peaceable fashion that avoids incitement. You are condoning violence against him not because he has actually incited violence, but because you believe his ideas give you license to indulge in violence against him.

Do you disagree? Cite one occasion on which you believe Spencer has incited violence. Don't cite his beliefs generally: Cite a specific time and place where he uttered speech or otherwise expressed his ideas in a way that you believe was clearly inciteful.

Spencer is generally very careful to avoid fighting words or inflammatory language, that does not make the crap he is peddling any more acceptable.
Problem is that Spencer's ideas have violence inherent in them;violence has to be employed in carrying them out.
Look, I think Spencer has a right to spout his garbage but let's not try to portray him as some sort of reasonable man. He is still a reprehensible bigot.
Or do you find reprehensible bigots acceptable so long as they irritate the "Progs"...

 

[mgidm86]

Spencer is generally very careful to avoid fighting words or inflammatory language, that does not make the crap he is peddling any more acceptable.
Problem is that Spencer's ideas have violence inherent in them;violence has to be employed in carrying them out.
Look, I think Spencer has a right to spout his garbage but let's not try to portray him as some sort of reasonable man. He is still a reprehensible bigot.
Or do you find reprehensible bigots acceptable so long as they irritate the "Progs"...

What does "acceptable" mean? I can accept that a neighbor of mine may be a reprehensible bigot. What does it mean to not accept that?

It seems like some people here want to say it's okay to attack someone like Spencer without actually committing to that belief.

 

[caveman1917]

Go ahead and what?

Go ahead and tell us what you think the problem is with the article by the CCF you quoted. At first one might think that you have some sort of problem with what you call "using fear and intimidation to get your way"[*] but clearly, based on your earlier positions re Israel, you don't have an inherent problem with that even if it's OOM worse on the measure of "using fear and intimidation to get your way" than the CCF could be accused of.

So go ahead, Mycroft, explain in full what you consider to be the problem with that CCF statement you quoted.

* and even that language and framework of understanding is pure propaganda on your part, but let's ignore that. See, that's how bad your arguments are, we can even ignore most of what's problematic about them and they still immediately fall apart.

 

[caveman1917]

Spencer is generally very careful to avoid fighting words or inflammatory language

"Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!" ... *Nazi salutes from audience*

 

[Mycroft]

At first one might think that you have some sort of problem with what you call "using fear and intimidation to get your way"
[*]

Yep, that's it.

but clearly, based on your earlier positions re Israel...

I disagree with your characterization of my opinions on Israel, but I commend your efforts to sneak in your knee-jerk tu quoque argument. It's still a fallacy, but damn you were sneaky in trying to work it in there.

 

[caveman1917]

Yep, that's it.

Clearly not, from earlier claims you've promoted you do not hold such a position. Hence your argument is rejected.

I disagree with your characterization of my opinions on Israel, but I commend your efforts to sneak in your knee-jerk tu quoque argument. It's still a fallacy, but damn you were sneaky in trying to work it in there.

It's not a fallacy to point out that your position is internally inconsistent and reject it on that basis. As much as you might not want it to be, the error regarding consistency is yours.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Spencer is generally very careful to avoid fighting words or inflammatory language, that does not make the crap he is peddling any more acceptable.
Problem is that Spencer's ideas have violence inherent in them;violence has to be employed in carrying them out.
Look, I think Spencer has a right to spout his garbage but let's not try to portray him as some sort of reasonable man. He is still a reprehensible bigot.
Or do you find reprehensible bigots acceptable so long as they irritate the "Progs"...

Acceptable?

I don't approve of nor support his viewpoints. My "acceptance" isn't required no matter how I look at it.

But my lack of approval and support certainly don't justify violence in response to words. And it most assuredly doesn't lead me to approve of someone else's violence against someone whose beliefs I find reprehensible.

 

[Mycroft]

Clearly not, from earlier claims you've promoted you do not hold such a position. Hence your argument is rejected.

Which claims?

It's not a fallacy to point out that your position is internally inconsistent and reject it on that basis. As much as you might not want it to be, the error regarding consistency is yours.

We've talked about whataboutism before, and this is pretty much the same thing.

As far as what my opinion is, I'm the better authority than you, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Thermal]

It seems to me that Richard Spencer has taken great pains to voice his opinions in a legal, peaceable fashion that avoids incitement. You are condoning violence against him not because he has actually incited violence, but because you believe his ideas give you license to indulge in violence against him.

Do you disagree? Cite one occasion on which you believe Spencer has incited violence. Don't cite his beliefs generally: Cite a specific time and place where he uttered speech or otherwise expressed his ideas in a way that you believe was clearly inciteful.

Rhetorical demand for citation? You say yourself Spencer does not deliver deliberately inflammatory rhetoric designed to rouse the rabble. He is also a cowardly liar (in his famous 'getting punched' video, he is asked if he likes black people. He nonchalantly responds 'Sure, why not?' I don't believe it needs to be demonstrated that this is a bald-faced lie). His infamous 'Hail Victory' following President Trump's inauguration and tweets such as 'The [New England] Patriots even call their Blacks 'White' [referring to running back James White]' tend to create verbal or physical confrontations, even if unintentional, per the Wikipedia definition of fighting words. So yes, I think his publicly declared beliefs suffice to be fighting words.

 

[sadhatter]

Rhetorical demand for citation? You say yourself Spencer does not deliver deliberately inflammatory rhetoric designed to rouse the rabble. He is also a cowardly liar (in his famous 'getting punched' video, he is asked if he likes black people. He nonchalantly responds 'Sure, why not?' I don't believe it needs to be demonstrated that this is a bald-faced lie). His infamous 'Hail Victory' following President Trump's inauguration and tweets such as 'The [New England] Patriots even call their Blacks 'White' [referring to running back James White]' tend to create verbal or physical confrontations, even if unintentional, per the Wikipedia definition of fighting words. So yes, I think his publicly declared beliefs suffice to be fighting words.

All those things are dick moves, none are worthy of violence. None are even worthy of condoning violence against him. I always considered myself on the low end of normal as to how high my bar is for responding with violence or condoning others committing it. I have a bit of a survivalist streak , I believe in putting your money where your mouth is if you are going to threaten someone, and in general that being able and willing to defend yourself to the best of your ability is more responsibility than right.

Check any post I have made in threads involving weapons, self defense, or any similar topic (hell I'd say a decent chunk of threads I have started could be classified as such. ) and I believe the general consensus is that I'm a bit liberal to say the least writh my views on how easily one should resort to force.

I want to say this, because I would like to underline my point of reference when I say, if your bar for violence is set at these examples, it is much too low. Absurdly low, so much so that a team of trained dwarves have been mining for the last 5 years to set it.

Seriously, if those are examples, even moderate ones of what you consider worthy of violence or even condoning violence, you should seriously think about a more peaceful philosophy.

This is coming from a user whos only thread worth mentioning is about knives. Let that sink in.

 

[caveman1917]

Which claims?

I'm not going to bother looking it up again, so let's quickly do a rerun of the important bit:

Are you opposed to the state? If no, do you concede that "using fear and intimidation to get what you want" is (part of) the modus operandi of the state?

We've talked about whataboutism before, and this is pretty much the same thing.

This blah blah blah isn't getting you out of being challenged on the consistency of your position.

 

[Thermal]

All those things are dick moves, none are worthy of violence. None are even worthy of condoning violence against him. I always considered myself on the low end of normal as to how high my bar is for responding with violence or condoning others committing it. I have a bit of a survivalist streak , I believe in putting your money where your mouth is if you are going to threaten someone, and in general that being able and willing to defend yourself to the best of your ability is more responsibility than right.

Agreed on self-defense. I have spent the better part of my adult life in sparring gear, and have had the opportunity to test its effectiveness, like many have. Upthread, you made comments on what you thought my beliefs were, I asked you to clarify because they were way off (you didn't). For clarity, because you don't seem to get it: I don't personally attack anyone. But I understand that others can have a whole different way of seeing things, and are entitled to their different worldview. A white supremacist is mostly just a cowardly douche to me, but I can empathize with someone for whom it cuts closer to the bone. That's when an 'opinion' can become fighting words. Try to picture being black, and hearing Spencer say that the N.E Pats call their blacks White. Oh, yeah. Them's fighting words.

Check any post I have made in threads involving weapons, self defense, or any similar topic (hell I'd say a decent chunk of threads I have started could be classified as such. ) and I believe the general consensus is that I'm a bit liberal to say the least writh my views on how easily one should resort to force.

I want to say this, because I would like to underline my point of reference when I say, if your bar for violence is set at these examples, it is much too low. Absurdly low, so much so that a team of trained dwarves have been mining for the last 5 years to set it.

Seriously, if those are examples, even moderate ones of what you consider worthy of violence or even condoning violence, you should seriously think about a more peaceful philosophy.

My philosophy is pretty peaceful. That doesn't mean I insist others adopt it, or that I can't apply a different standard to different people. Is that wrong?

This is coming from a user whos only thread worth mentioning is about knives. Let that sink in.

Ok, I'll bite. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Am I supposed to think 'Ooooooh, that sadhatter, he craaaaazy. He...he...posted a thread about knives. Are you suggesting that you cut people? That your street name is really madslasher? Or maybe we should get together and work on a breathalyzer controlled laptop; I sometimes think it's a good idea to post after tilting back a few too many, too. Lo siento, hermano.