“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[sadhatter]

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.



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?



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.

Bounced right off ya, tends to happen when you read half the post.

If you think you are peaceful you are sadly mistaken, and if you think only condoning violence in regards to your examples makes it better, it doesn't, just makes you wrong and cowardly.

 

[Thermal]

Bounced right off ya, tends to happen when you read half the post.

If you think you are peaceful you are sadly mistaken, and if you think only condoning violence in regards to your examples makes it better, it doesn't, just makes you wrong and cowardly.

How so, sadhatter? I say responding to fighting words with fighting can be acceptable, but that those involved are still subject to rule of law and the possibility of either punishment or jury nullification. What is wrong or cowardly about that?

ETA: and I am peaceful, no matter what you project on me. I say with no small amount of pride that I have not even tried to hit anyone in anger for over a quarter century, despite a few assaults and breaking up fights.

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 0 & rule 12; please do not alter member names.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm not going to bother looking it up again...

Because you know it's not there to find, and have a peculiar inability to admit to being wrong when you overstep.

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?

Are you kidding? You blow off every question I put to you but somehow think you can interrogate me?

I'll tell you what, answer a few questions of mine and I'll answer yours. We can put the "di" back in "dialog".

Do you think getting your way by fear and intimidation is wrong?

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

I hope you realize that my being consistent or not has nothing to do with whether breaking windows, burning cars and sending letter bombs is using fear and intimidation to get your way. Correct?

 

[sadhatter]

How so, sadhatter? I say responding to fighting words with fighting can be acceptable, but that those involved are still subject to rule of law and the possibility of either punishment or jury nullification. What is wrong or cowardly about that?

ETA: and I am peaceful, no matter what you project on me. I say with no small amount of pride that I have not even tried to hit anyone in anger for over a quarter century, despite a few assaults and breaking up fights.

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited to correct member name

I seem to have hit a nerve, you have resorted to literal name calling and trying to prove yourself manly.

But fact remains your bar for condoning violence is lower than someone who is seen as heavy handed in regards to self defense. Objectively you are a more violent person than I, if this bothers you, which is obvious it does, I can't change that, only you can. Get on that, if ya could.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I say responding to fighting words with fighting can be acceptable, but that those involved are still subject to rule of law and the possibility of either punishment or jury nullification. What is wrong or cowardly about that?

I disagree with your assessment.

First, I don't believe that your assessment of what constitutes "fighting words" is in keeping with current legal interpretations. For consideration:
https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-words-exception/

Secondly, I think your application of "fighting words" is flawed. Fighting words aren't protected free speech - which means that they are allowed to be censored by law. That doesn't mean that they are accepted justification for violence.

At the end of the day, regardless of whether you think they constitute fighting words or not, those words neither justify nor excuse acts of violence in response.

 

[theprestige]

Rhetorical demand for citation?

It's only rhetorical if empty rhetoric is all you have.

You say yourself Spencer does not deliver deliberately inflammatory rhetoric designed to rouse the rabble.

And you agree.

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).

There's a lot to unpack here. But first, let's be clear:

Cowardice does not justify violence. Lying does not justify violence. Even the two things together do not justify violence.

Also, cowardice and lying are not the same as fascism, Nazism, or any other -ism that you have so far listed as justifying a violent response. This is either special pleading, or else horrific antisocial madness on your part.

Okay, now to unpack. "Cowardly liar"? Think about this. He could have answered the question in an inflammatory way, but he didn't. Instead he gave an answer that was much less aggravating. It may be a lie, but it's totally reasonable. People lie about their beliefs all the time, to avoid confrontation. In many situations, it's the polite thing to do. Discretion is the better part of valor, but to you it's an excuse to beat them up.

Punching someone because you think they're lying is the bully's art. Punching someone because you think they're lying is the wife-beater's art. Punching someone because you think they're lying is the torturer's art. That's where we're at, now: You say it's okay to punch Spencer for lying about what he really believes. Of course, if he told you the truth about what he believes, you'd say it was okay to punch him for that, too.

So it's not really about punching him for being a liar. It's about punching him for what he really believes. Or rather, it's about punching him for what you imagine he really believes. Not only can you not give any real examples of incitement to violence, you can't even cite his actual beliefs. Punch him for lying about what he believes? That you can condone, even though you have no idea what those beliefs are.

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.

More to unpack!

Again, to be clear: none of these are fascism.

If offensive jokes on Twitter are the bar for violence, there should be a lot more people in the ER with concussions from well-earned elbows to the head. There should be a lot of comedians, pundits, and incontinent corporate spokespeople walking around with richly-deserved broken noses and black eyes.

Finally, "tend to create verbal confrontations"? That's how low your bar is? If you'd said he deserved to be heckled for lying about his beliefs, or for his tasteless tweets, that would be one thing. But you're saying he deserves to be beaten. Not for actually inciting violence, not even for actually advocating a racially segregated fascist state (does he even do that? do you even know?) but for lying about his beliefs (you think) and for telling bad jokes on twitter.

At this point, you have done more to promote violence and undermine civil society than Richard Spencer.

 

[Thermal]

I seem to have hit a nerve, you have resorted to literal name calling and trying to prove yourself manly.

Not at all. And it wasn't name-calling, it was a teasing reference to the previous post. Please accept my apologies for offending you; I will keep your sensitivities in mind in the future.

But fact remains your bar for condoning violence is lower than someone who is seen as heavy handed in regards to self defense. Objectively you are a more violent person than I, if this bothers you, which is obvious it does, I can't change that, only you can. Get on that, if ya could.

Thank you so much for your helpful advice.

 

[Thermal]

I disagree with your assessment.

First, I don't believe that your assessment of what constitutes "fighting words" is in keeping with current legal interpretations. For consideration:
https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-words-exception/

Agreed, but I already said as much (and thank you for the link):

...The concept of 'fighting words' sums it up pretty well, although I probably endorse a broader interpretation than the courts...

Secondly, I think your application of "fighting words" is flawed. Fighting words aren't protected free speech - which means that they are allowed to be censored by law. That doesn't mean that they are accepted justification for violence.

Also agreed. Their use can, though, be justification for an assault charge. It is not much of a stretch to then interpret a violent reaction as being a form of self-defense to an assault. Again, with the caveat that it is not a slam-dunk defense; I know it is not and am not arguing that it is, but that I think it sometimes could/should be

At the end of the day, regardless of whether you think they constitute fighting words or not, those words neither justify nor excuse acts of violence in response.

I believe we have juries comprised of our peers to make such determinations. Most would, I assume, generally agree with you. But I think a strong case could be made for a jury to consider nullification in some circumstances.

 

[Thermal]

...There's a lot to unpack here. But first, let's be clear:

Cowardice does not justify violence. Lying does not justify violence. Even the two things together do not justify violence.

Agreed, but that is not remotely being argued. You demanded a citation where Spencer specifically incites violence. I pointed out that Spencer lies about his views out of convenience, so his speech will not always be a reliable indicator of his position. His more private speaking and website publishing I think are more revealing than what he has the courage (or lack thereof) to say in public. No justifications regarding lying or cowardice.

Also, cowardice and lying are not the same as fascism, Nazism, or any other -ism that you have so far listed as justifying a violent response. This is either special pleading, or else horrific antisocial madness on your part.

Special pleading is requiring an exception without justification. I am taking the time to provide (arguable) justification, so that does not fairly apply. So it's 'horrific antisocial madness'. This is your reasoned evaluation?

Okay, now to unpack. "Cowardly liar"? Think about this....

Addressed above, that he is demonstrably a two-faced liar is solely about the credibility of his public speaking, not part of any justifications.

More to unpack!

Again, to be clear: none of these are fascism.

Agreed. Not claimed, but agreed.

If offensive jokes on Twitter are the bar for violence, there should be a lot more people in the ER with concussions from well-earned elbows to the head. There should be a lot of comedians, pundits, and incontinent corporate spokespeople walking around with richly-deserved broken noses and black eyes.

I think there is a rather large difference between a comedian making an off-color joke and a white supremacist making hateful/derogatory jokes against a protected-status minority group. But I don't hold a tweet as a standard, it was presented as an example of how I interpret fighting words: speech which a reasonable person would expect to elicit a violent reaction.

Finally, "tend to create verbal confrontations"? That's how low your bar is?

No. That was referencing Wiki's definition of fighting words, not setting any bar.

If you'd said he deserved to be heckled for lying about his beliefs, or for his tasteless tweets, that would be one thing. But you're saying he deserves to be beaten. Not for actually inciting violence, not even for actually advocating a racially segregated fascist state (does he even do that? do you even know?) but for lying about his beliefs (you think) and for telling bad jokes on twitter.

The above, in toto: simply untrue (except that I have advocated ridicule as the best weapon against him and his ilk). I have never said he or anyone else deserves to be beaten, particularly not for lying about his beliefs, nor for jokes, bad or otherwise. A white supremacist making derogatory black 'jokes' is not good-natured ribbing- it is hate speech.

At this point, you have done more to promote violence and undermine civil society than Richard Spencer.

So I keep hearing.

 

[Mycroft]

At this point, you have done more to promote violence and undermine civil society than Richard Spencer.

You so had me up to this point. Beautifully articulated, very well said, but Richard Spencer works on a larger scale than a fistfight.

 

[Thermal]

Okay, now to unpack. "Cowardly liar"? Think about this. He could have answered the question in an inflammatory way, but he didn't. Instead he gave an answer that was much less aggravating. It may be a lie, but it's totally reasonable. People lie about their beliefs all the time, to avoid confrontation. In many situations, it's the polite thing to do. Discretion is the better part of valor, but to you it's an excuse to beat them up.

Forgot to reply to this while responding to the larger red herring argument:

You say Spencer was prudent to publicly lie for fear of being aggravating, inflammatory, and confrontational. Does that not rather clearly suggest that his words would otherwise have incited a violent reaction? That they might be...you guessed it...fighting words? You also seem to suggest that lying was the polite thing to do. No. His comments about minorities are delivered without regard for politeness. It was simply cowardice- to start firing off his racist tripe on a public street would likely get him more than a rebuking punch. To repeat, though, his lying and cowardice have nothing to do with anything but his credibility as a speaker.

...Or rather, it's about punching him for what you imagine he really believes. Not only can you not give any real examples of incitement to violence, you can't even cite his actual beliefs. Punch him for lying about what he believes? That you can condone, even though you have no idea what those beliefs are...Not for actually inciting violence, not even for actually advocating a racially segregated fascist state (does he even do that? do you even know?) but for lying about his beliefs (you think) and for telling bad jokes on twitter.

Yes, I am familiar with his Alt-Right site and his suggestions of 'peaceful ethnic cleansing' and the like. We acknowledge that Spencer is cunning in how he speaks publicly, to maintain credibility. To use the popular example, in his recent closed door speech, he openly says 'Hail Victory'. If you respond to anything, please respond to how this can be anything but an obvious allusion to Nazi propaganda, and his clear endorsement of it. It is not a question of what I think his beliefs are. They are as clear as can be, even with the cowardly lying.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Agreed, but I already said as much (and thank you for the link):

Glad it was useful

Also agreed. Their use can, though, be justification for an assault charge. It is not much of a stretch to then interpret a violent reaction as being a form of self-defense to an assault. Again, with the caveat that it is not a slam-dunk defense; I know it is not and am not arguing that it is, but that I think it sometimes could/should be

I cant' think of a situation where I would consider violence in response to "fighting words" to be self-defense... Fighting words don't qualify as credible threats.

I believe we have juries comprised of our peers to make such determinations. Most would, I assume, generally agree with you. But I think a strong case could be made for a jury to consider nullification in some circumstances.

I wouldn't condone juries nullifying clear violations of a just and fair law just because they think someone else's beliefs deserve such a response. I would find that to be more a threat to a just society than any words could be, and to stand against the foundations of the US.

 

[Jules Galen]

Punching someone because you think they're lying is the bully's art. Punching someone because you think they're lying is the wife-beater's art. Punching someone because you think they're lying is the torturer's art. That's where we're at, now: You say it's okay to punch Spencer for lying about what he really believes. Of course, if he told you the truth about what he believes, you'd say it was okay to punch him for that, too.

Whatever. Get used to it. The Liberals have changed. from now on, there we be less holding hands about the campfire while singing "Kumbaya", and more punching conservatives and Tea Partiers and Alt right and such in the mouth until they learn to keep their mouth closed.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Whatever. Get used to it. The Liberals have changed. from now on, there we be less holding hands about the campfire while singing "Kumbaya", and more punching conservatives and Tea Partiers and Alt right and such in the mouth until they learn to keep their mouth closed.

Do you think that becoming bullies and thugs will win votes?


ETA: Isn't the desire to avoid the use of violence and intimidation to censure ideas kind of the entire basis behind speech being protected in the US?

 

[theprestige]

Whatever. Get used to it. The Liberals have changed. from now on, there we be less holding hands about the campfire while singing "Kumbaya", and more punching conservatives and Tea Partiers and Alt right and such in the mouth until they learn to keep their mouth closed.

Using violence to suppress speech? That's not what MD is talking about.

 

[Jules Galen]

Do you think that becoming bullies and thugs will win votes?

ETA: Isn't the desire to avoid the use of violence and intimidation to censure ideas kind of the entire basis behind speech being protected in the US?

Yes.

People respect strength.

 

[sadhatter]

Yes.

People respect strength.

You keep thinking that.

Meanwhile the adults will find a way to fix your mess.

 

[Jules Galen]

You keep thinking that.

Meanwhile the adults will find a way to fix your mess.

You mean the same adults who elected Trump?

I don't think so....and it's not my mess.

Anyways, I figure the people who elected Trump are Power junkies - unlike the better people, brute force impresses them. So, I figure the Liberals have come to the conclusion that a "Punch in the Mouth" works better with guys like these than a respectful, well-reasoned argument. I figure the Libs have concluded that Trump Supporters are just dumb animals, and they should be dealt with as such.

In the future...I advise you to stop taking everything so personally.

 

[Thermal]

Glad it was useful


I cant' think of a situation where I would consider violence in response to "fighting words" to be self-defense... Fighting words don't qualify as credible threats.

Ok, that's fair. Self-defense is admittedly a stretch. In most (all?) U.S. States, the idea of provocation is still a mitigating factor when considering guilt and sentencing. The courts do consider whether one was provoked into violence; I think my POV is only a small step beyond the current legal views (Imma have to dig in my heels about being a threat to civilized society). Do you agree that provocation is a mitigating factor? If so, is it possible that publicly voicing hateful views could constitute a form of preemptive provocation? At least possibly?

I wouldn't condone juries nullifying clear violations of a just and fair law just because they think someone else's beliefs deserve such a response. I would find that to be more a threat to a just society than any words could be, and to stand against the foundations of the US.

I think the hilited is highly subjective, in particular with loosely defined terms like provocation (ie: what is and isn't reasonable). Would you consider any words to be sufficient to get rowdy in response to? If the words suggested a credible threat to your personal safety, would you?

 

[Jules Galen]

I cant' think of a situation where I would consider violence in response to "fighting words" to be self-defense... Fighting words don't qualify as credible threats.

No they don't but, they can easily negate the self-defense "Defense".

For example, if some guy talks to a Mexican or a Biker about his Gonads on his Mother's Chin, then whatever happens next may not be determined "self defense". Self-Defense, would be conflict de-escalation...and no provocation! Many people lose sight of this and end up on the wrong side of the law too often.

Lots of guys in Prison for this.