“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[Ziggurat]

I realize the use of violence is a tough sell for US liberals, but this is where the Right is actually correct: there comes a time when violence is not only justified, but necessary.

Oh sweet lordy, is the lack of self-awareness strong here. You didn't learn this from the right. But if you keep it up, you might teach it to the right.

violence is morally justified against purveyors of hateful and bigoted speech with a major platform.

It's depressing how many people here simply don't believe in free speech.

 

[uke2se]

Here are some of the justifications you've posted:

​

So far, he's punchable due to being a nazi. But then your criteria expands...

​

This is the goalpost movement I refer to.

Guilty, I suppose. I guess I simply see Milo's racist bile in the same light as I see the racist bile Nazis spew. His crimson armband is the only thing missing.

 

[Belz...]

That's all well and good as long as you can expect society to back you up and keep the bigot a pariah. With the bigots in power, there is no such guarantee. Violence becomes a legitimate form of resistance in such a hostile environment.

Sure, I'll agree to that, too. The concept of free speech carries risks.

And no, I can't prove Donovan is a Nazi. Only that he is a white nationalist.

Ok fair enough. Does that mean that Milo's not a Nazi supporter or whatever, and that punching him isn't ok?

We'll dispense with the gas chambers. That's such a Rightist concept.

Careful. Extremism doesn't distinguish between left and right.

 

[sunmaster14]

Oh sweet lordy, is the lack of self-awareness strong here. You didn't learn this from the right. But if you keep it up, you might teach it to the right.



It's depressing how many people here simply don't believe in free speech.

A lot of Europeans don't believe in free speech. Swedes are some of the worst in that regard. They also tend to have despicable views about Jews, not that they deserve to be punched for that.

 

[uke2se]

Sure, I'll agree to that, too. The concept of free speech carries risks.



Ok fair enough. Does that mean that Milo's not a Nazi supporter or whatever, and that punching him isn't ok?

No, I've moved the goal posts. See above.

Careful. Extremism doesn't distinguish between left and right.

No, but the means of execution does.

 

[Belz...]

As long as we can all agree that Milo has despicable views

He has plenty of views I strongly disagree with. He's a Christian, for one, which is odd considering what the bibble has to say about homosexuals.

I realize the use of violence is a tough sell for US liberals, but this is where the Right is actually correct: there comes a time when violence is not only justified, but necessary.

An interesting proposition, and certainly one I've considered in the past. However it is inherently problematic in a democracy: once you go down the road that violence is sometimes justified against certain groups, how can you make sure that you don't end up in one of those groups? People were mentioning how Spencer made his bed and was reaping the consequences of his rhetoric by wishing for violence and discrimination against minorities and getting it turned against him. How do you make sure that this doesn't happen to you?

The only way that you can have, in my view, an organised application of violence against undesirables and make it "work" is in a non-democratic system.

But you may be right that, at some point, violence may be the only way to preserve democracy. However, doing that also carries a tremendous risk of toppling that system.

 

[Belz...]

No, I've moved the goal posts. See above.

I want to make sure I understand you correctly: is it still ok to punch him and, if so, why?

 

[uke2se]

He has plenty of views I strongly disagree with. He's a Christian, for one, which is odd considering what the bibble has to say about homosexuals.



An interesting proposition, and certainly one I've considered in the past. However it is inherently problematic in a democracy: once you go down the road that violence is sometimes justified against certain groups, how can you make sure that you don't end up in one of those groups? People were mentioning how Spencer made his bed and was reaping the consequences of his rhetoric by wishing for violence and discrimination against minorities and getting it turned against him. How do you make sure that this doesn't happen to you?

The only way that you can have, in my view, an organised application of violence against undesirables and make it "work" is in a non-democratic system.

But you may be right that, at some point, violence may be the only way to preserve democracy. However, doing that also carries a tremendous risk of toppling that system.

I agree with you that violence is problematic in a democracy. I would argue, however, that violence can be vital to save a democracy, or to reinstate a democracy. If you believe that the US is moving away from democracy - as I do - and towards autoritarianism, violence becomes a rational response in defense of democracy.

 

[uke2se]

I want to make sure I understand you correctly: is it still ok to punch him and, if so, why?

Because he's a vile and racist little toad.

Punch him, throw a shoe at him, call him names.

 

[Belz...]

I agree with you that violence is problematic in a democracy. I would argue, however, that violence can be vital to save a democracy, or to reinstate a democracy. If you believe that the US is moving away from democracy - as I do - and towards autoritarianism, violence becomes a rational response in defense of democracy.

Perhaps. How many violent uprisings have resulted in a democracy, however?

Because he's a vile and racist little toad.

Plenty of them running around. Skeptic Tank is openly racist. Should we punch him?

Punch him, throw a shoe at him, call him names.

How about instead: pressure venues to disinvite him, counter his arguments with facts, inform others about the consequences of his proposals?

 

[uke2se]

Perhaps. How many violent uprisings have resulted in a democracy, however?

One pops into my head right away. It occured around the end of the 18th Century.

Plenty of them running around. Skeptic Tank is openly racist. Should we punch him?

I'm not sure it's in my best interest to openly post a wish to enact violence on a fellow forum member.

How about instead: pressure venues to disinvite him, counter his arguments with facts, inform others about the consequences of his proposals?

Why not both?

 

[Belz...]

One pops into my head right away. It occured around the end of the 18th Century.

I didn't say it couldn't happen. What I'm suggesting is that it's so rare that hoping that it'll happen again this time is wishful thinking.

I'm not sure it's in my best interest to openly post a wish to enact violence on a fellow forum member.

Yeah, I thought about that when I posted it, but you see what I mean? Punching people for their views isn't going to achieve anything. And once you go down that path forever with the dark side consume you the set of punchable people will just expand.

Why not both?

Because the latter doesn't undermine the very concept of your democracy.

 

[uke2se]

I didn't say it couldn't happen. What I'm suggesting is that it's so rare that hoping that it'll happen again this time is wishful thinking.

I'd say it has been US policy for quite a long time to support democratic uprisings in order to spread democracy. I don't think it's wishful thinking at all.

What would you suggest in order to resist a drift towards authoritarianism if you rule out violent resistance?

Yeah, I thought about that when I posted it, but you see what I mean? Punching people for their views isn't going to achieve anything. And once you go down that path forever with the dark side consume you the set of punchable people will just expand.

I honestly have no problem with that. There are a lot of people due for a good punching.

Because the latter doesn't undermine the very concept of your democracy.

Nor does the former, as I explained.

 

[varwoche]

It's depressing how many people here simply don't believe in free speech.

Same. I'm surprised. Before the Spencer thread, if somebody claimed that a not insignificant population of ISF lefties promoted such views, I'd have called ********.

 

[uke2se]

Same. I'm surprised. Before the Spencer thread, if somebody claimed that a not insignificant population of ISF lefties promoted such views, I'd have called ********.

I believe in free speech, as defined in the first amendment. I'm not talking about robbing Milo or anyone else of his free speech. In fact, I am unable to do so. The first amendment speaks specifically about government suppression of free speech.

Nobody has a right to do or say as they please and not expect people to react and respond.

 

[Ziggurat]

I believe in free speech, as defined in the first amendment. I'm not talking about robbing Milo or anyone else of his free speech. In fact, I am unable to do so. The first amendment speaks specifically about government suppression of free speech.

The concept of free speech is broader than the 1st amendment. If you're punching people in response to speech, you're absolutely trying to suppress it, and you don't believe in free speech.

Nobody has a right to do or say as they please and not expect people to react and respond.

And the appropriate response, if you believe in free speech, is more speech. Milo should expect people to say things about him. But in a civil society, he should not expect to be punched. And shopkeepers in the town he visits shouldn't expect their windows to be smashed.

 

[Eddie Dane]

He has plenty of views I strongly disagree with. He's a Christian, for one, which is odd considering what the bibble has to say about homosexuals.

He's Catholic.

Come to think of it, all religious gay people I know are Catholic.

Is it because all things Catholic look like they've been designed by Liberace?

One guy I know uses the catchphrase 'that looks as gay as a Cathedral'. Don't know if he came up with that himself or if it is a meme in the gay community.

 

[Ziggurat]

He's a Christian, for one, which is odd considering what the bibble has to say about homosexuals.

What does the bibble say about homosexuals?

 

[xjx388]

This is one of the saddest threads I've come across here. It is morally acceptable to punch people if they say things the puncher interprets as anti-democratic... Therefore, it would have been morally acceptable for people to, if they could reach him, punch Obama because his views were perceived as Socialist. The only criteria seems to be, "I think what he/she is saying is anti-democracy!"

What is solved by punching the person saying things you don't like? You certainly aren't winning the argument by punching someone. In the end, you are doing it because it just makes you feel good. "He got what he deserved!" That doesn't sound like any kind of "morally acceptable," I've ever heard of. And on a skeptic's forum . . . SMH

 

[Belz...]

I'd say it has been US policy for quite a long time to support democratic uprisings in order to spread democracy.

And again, how often does that actually work? The autocracy-to-democracy regimes I can think of were done with outside occupation (Japan, Germany).

I don't think it's wishful thinking at all.

The goal isn't the same as the results.

What would you suggest in order to resist a drift towards authoritarianism if you rule out violent resistance?

Aside from well-funded public and mandatory education, I don't have a solution for you.

I honestly have no problem with that. There are a lot of people due for a good punching.

Including yourself, when others see you as despicable?

Do you think punching people somehow turns them to your side, or convinces them of the error of their ways, or makes them less likely to use violence in turn?

Nor does the former, as I explained.

I disagree with you on this. State-condoned violence is NOT a path you want to go down.