“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

dudalb said:
Acting like a fascist yourself is not a good way to start. You will end up being as bad as the people you are fighting.
Click to expand...

Worse still. If you're right and he's wrong about the US being on the verge of losing its democracy, uke2se will be the only one who's being anti-democratic. Ironic.
 
Argumemnon said:
Worse still. If you're right and he's wrong about the US being on the verge of losing its democracy, uke2se will be the only one who's being anti-democratic. Ironic.
Click to expand...

For all the talk of Nazi Germany,I think Spain in the Spanish Civil War is more likely nightmare scenario for the US. BOth left and right become authoritarian, and the only question is what flavor of dictatorship you get.
 
dudalb said:
For all the talk of Nazi Germany,I think Spain in the Spanish Civil War is more likely nightmare scenario for the US. BOth left and right become authoritarian, and the only question is what flavor of dictatorship you get.
Click to expand...

I'll bet they both taste equally bitter.
 
And you make the guy you are supressisng look like a martyr for free speech. Bad move.
That is the mistake the McConell made in the gagging of Warren in the senate yesterday.
If he would have let her drone on, it would have been written off as Politics as Usual. Now it is a free speech issue, and made the GOP in the Senate look really bad.
 
Bump for theprestige ...

varwoche said:
How very evasive. It would have taken fewer words to just answer the question. I'm left with the distinct impression that you're unable to answer because you're foisting BS.

Here again are your words:
theprestige said:
I'm talking about people who responded peacefully to Obama's deportation raids a year ago, responded peacefully to several different supporters of Obama's policy who spoke in defense of that policy, and who responded violently to Milo.
Click to expand...
It's a simple question. I'm not asking for an essay. Who are these people you refer to?
Click to expand...
The invitation stands. In the meantime, I conclude that you foisted unsupportable BS, and that's why you evade my question.
 
Giz said:
I'll echo this very good point from Sunmaster14:

"You're not really in favour of a liberal democracy, since in a liberal democracy people shouldn't be afraid for their physical safety to speak freely on any subject. You're either in favour of an authoritarian state modelled after the Soviet Union, where thought crimes were actually considered crimes, or perhaps you're in favour of a more subtle type of coercive society like Germany just prior to Hitler seizing absolute control (where paramilitary units suppressed the opposition)."
Click to expand...

It isn't a good point.

If you are never in fear at all for expressing any viewpoint, then your society is likely so far authoritarian or nihilist that none of this matters. In a truly free and reasonable society, if someone wants to stand on a street corner and explain he likes to rape children, someone eventually is likely going to punch him in the head.

That person should be charged with the appropriate level of assault given the level of violence and provocation involved. I'm not saying people should punch people for being offensive, but it is pretty predictable given the human condition. A society that eliminates this urge to the point where one can feel totally safe earnestly advocating genocide is far scarier than one where nazis occasionally get punched. This means either the members of that society are soulless nihilists, or the government is so oppressive that any disorder is met with such force that total obedience is a social norm.

Hard pass either way.

(If you are thinking that this somehow would justify something like the beatings of civil rights workers, you are missing the point and might want to examine your own nihilism. At some point, no matter how open minded one wants to be, there is such a thing as right and wrong)
 
Suddenly said:
It isn't a good point.

If you are never in fear at all for expressing any viewpoint, then your society is likely so far authoritarian or nihilist that none of this matters.
Click to expand...

Strawman. The point was about fear for one's physical safety. Fear of being embarrassed or of being ostracized or of facing a boycott can certainly be appropriate.

In a truly free and reasonable society, if someone wants to stand on a street corner and explain he likes to rape children, someone eventually is likely going to punch him in the head.
Click to expand...

That's just plain stupid. Sure, it's impossible to stop all crime all the time, but it's not crime that is keeping potential neo-nazis from gathering a critical mass. As for whether or not getting punched in the head is a foreseeable consequence of such behavior, it sure wouldn't be in my neighborhood. Somebody undoubtedly would call the police, and the police actually might make the speaker stop because of public indecency laws or some such, or perhaps even commit the speaker to a mental institution, but it would shock me if he were actually physically attacked.

That person should be charged with the appropriate level of assault given the level of violence and provocation involved. I'm not saying people should punch people for being offensive, but it is pretty predictable given the human condition. A society that eliminates this urge to the point where one can feel totally safe earnestly advocating genocide is far scarier than one where nazis occasionally get punched. This means either the members of that society are soulless nihilists, or the government is so oppressive that any disorder is met with such force that total obedience is a social norm.
Click to expand...

Well, your false dichotomy is clearly false. My neighborhood is like that, and entire countries like Japan are like that. I'm pretty sure that total obedience to the government is not a social norm. Acting morally might be, however.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Oh no! Not your conclusion! I can't handle that!

But seriously: What's in it for me, if I try to help you out?
Click to expand...
I see that you're opting for more evasion, rather than answer a simple question. When posters write negative things about "people", but can't/won't specify who those people are, that's a pretty good indicator of rank BS.

I'll answer your question anyway: You might realize that your thinking is faulty. Or you might gain the satisfaction of helping me realize that my thinking is faulty. Much like any give and take hereabouts.
 
varwoche said:
I see that you're opting for more evasion, rather than answer a simple question. When posters write negative things about "people", but can't/won't specify who those people are, that's a pretty good indicator of rank BS.

I'll answer your question anyway: You might realize that your thinking is faulty. Or you might gain the satisfaction of helping me realize that my thinking is faulty. Much like any give and take hereabouts.
Click to expand...

I can't really speak for theprestige, but his claim appears to be true for the so-called Black bloc protesters in the US. They were pretty quiet until Trump sewed up the Republican nomination, but they did exist even prior to Obama's administration. So it can be inferred that they responded peacefully to deportation raids under Obama (which some immigrant advocate groups peacefully protested as well).

I'll note that the claim that Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any other President is false. His administration was the first to include aliens turned back at the border in the count of deportations, so the Obama number is wildly skewed.
 
varwoche said:
I see that you're opting for more evasion, rather than answer a simple question. When posters write negative things about "people", but can't/won't specify who those people are, that's a pretty good indicator of rank BS.
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ. I specified who those people are in the passage you quoted. I can't help you any more than that. You're on your own now.

I'll answer your question anyway: You might realize that your thinking is faulty. Or you might gain the satisfaction of helping me realize that my thinking is faulty. Much like any give and take hereabouts.
Click to expand...

Look, you conclude whatever it is you gotta conclude. As long as you don't plan on punching me if I dissent, I think we'll be fine.
 
Last edited:
Suddenly said:
It isn't a good point.

If you are never in fear at all for expressing any viewpoint, then your society is likely so far authoritarian or nihilist that none of this matters. In a truly free and reasonable society, if someone wants to stand on a street corner and explain he likes to rape children, someone eventually is likely going to punch him in the head.

That person should be charged with the appropriate level of assault given the level of violence and provocation involved. I'm not saying people should punch people for being offensive, but it is pretty predictable given the human condition. A society that eliminates this urge to the point where one can feel totally safe earnestly advocating genocide is far scarier than one where nazis occasionally get punched. This means either the members of that society are soulless nihilists, or the government is so oppressive that any disorder is met with such force that total obedience is a social norm.

Hard pass either way.

(If you are thinking that this somehow would justify something like the beatings of civil rights workers, you are missing the point and might want to examine your own nihilism. At some point, no matter how open minded one wants to be, there is such a thing as right and wrong)
Click to expand...

You are moving the goal posts. I've bolded where this occurs.

So you are saying:
"I'm not saying people should punch people for being offensive"

But uke2se said:
"Some of us (well, me at least) are seeing liberal democracy under serious threat, and are willing to stop talking when it doesn't work, and start fighting instead. "

You see, where I disagree with Uke2se is not over some utopian "You must be able to be as offensive as you like, in the worst part of town, and have nothing happen to you" but rather over the following:
1- In civil society, we should strive to decide issues via law and discussion. Not by violence.
2- As a reciprocal fairness, we should treat political opponents as we would like to be treated.
3- NOT respond to vague, non-immediate threats, that may never materialize outside of our fevered imagination, with immediate physical violence.
 
theprestige said:
Jesus Christ. I specified who those people are in the passage you quoted. I can't help you any more than that. You're on your own now.
Click to expand...
Your specification has all the clarity of Frontier Gibberish. Here, maybe this will help you understand:

theprestige said:
I'm not talking about violent and peaceful demonstrators. I'm talking about people who responded peacefully to Obama's deportation raids a year ago, responded peacefully to several different supporters of Obama's policy who spoke in defense of that policy, and who responded violently to Milo.
Click to expand...

I now take it that you were indeed referring to the handful of violent protesters. (Or is it a Schrodinger's cat sort of deal?) Anyway, my pushback was/is, I don't see that your population sampling tells us anything particularly useful/informative.
 
varwoche said:
I now take it that you were indeed referring to the handful of violent protesters. (Or is it a Schrodinger's cat sort of deal?) Anyway, my pushback was/is, I don't see that your population sampling tells us anything particularly useful/informative.
Click to expand...
I think it's extremely informative and useful to know that there are people on the left who will riot on a partisan basis, and who are happy to use violence to suppress political speech they disagree with.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I think it's extremely informative and useful to know that there are people on the left who will riot on a partisan basis, and who are happy to use violence to suppress political speech they disagree with.
Click to expand...

See, what you aren't getting is that some of us reject the underlying premise.
 
theprestige said:
I think it's extremely informative and useful to know that there are people on the left who will riot on a partisan basis, and who are happy to use violence to suppress political speech they disagree with.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

I assume you have now reviewed our exchange, you are now aware that you communicated poorly, and in that light you now can see that I asked an innocent question which you blew off because I hadn't "followed the conversation". Next time, I assume you'll follow the conversation.

See, knowledge resulted. You're fortunate that I'm persistent.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
See, what you aren't getting is that some of us reject the underlying premise.
Click to expand...
I get that just fine. I won't punch you for it, though, if that's what you're worried about.

varwoche said:
Fair enough.

I assume you have now reviewed our exchange, you are now aware that you communicated poorly, and in that light you now can see that I asked an innocent question which you blew off because I hadn't "followed the conversation". Next time, I assume you'll follow the conversation.

See, knowledge resulted. You're fortunate that I'm persistent.
Click to expand...
Haha no.

Delphic Oracle followed the conversation. You're still struggling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom