“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[sadhatter]

Now knowing that, what do you think of Milo?

If you find him loathsome, doesn't it follow that others will? The whole problem with the alt-right at this point is that they are still somewhat under the radar as to far too many people. If this sort of thing makes people like Milo or Richard Spencer the publicly accepted face of this movement, great. Then making the alt-right look like a bunch of silly fools becomes that much easier. Not only does it present specific targets on which to concentrate efforts, the public perception that these guys are leaders will continue to fragment the far right as they bicker among themselves.

If this means a few people get famous, so it goes. History needs individual villains, arguably more than it needs individual heroes.

If I heard of him before this I would say there are no topics him and I would agree on. Now after seeing this otherwise repugnant individual have his events cancelled due to criminal acts I can say we agree that the actions taken against him are wrong.

Those people doing these actions have given me a situation in which he is objectively the victim, and in which I will fight against others on "my side".

You wanted an answer and there you have it. These actions have done nothing except give myself and this guy common ground we would otherwise not have. I sure as hell would never go to one of his shows, but i would step in front of a punch to protect his right to free speech, like I'd do for anyone.

 

[Suddenly]

If I heard of him before this I would say there are no topics him and I would agree on. Now after seeing this otherwise repugnant individual have his events cancelled due to criminal acts I can say we agree that the actions taken against him are wrong.

Those people doing these actions have given me a situation in which he is objectively the victim, and in which I will fight against others on "my side".

You wanted an answer and there you have it. These actions have done nothing except give myself and this guy common ground we would otherwise not have. I sure as hell would never go to one of his shows, but i would step in front of a punch to protect his right to free speech, like I'd do for anyone.

I do not agree that it was wrong, just like I don't think the Blues Brothers making the Illinois Nazis jump off the bridge into the river was wrong. Neither were legal (the physical and property damage in Berkley, not the demonstration itself) and both rightfully subject to prosecution, but I'm not so far up my own rear end to consider that illegality even remotely as significant as the monstrosities advocated by nazis.

Acting on sympathy for nazis based on non-governmental parties obstructing them from their goals is collaboration. That is not a civil liberty issue. That is making a choice about what is important and finding social order a more important issue than genocide and despotism.

 

[theprestige]

The alt-right will not be as easy to be made to look absurd.

I think part of the problem is that "alt-right" has quickly become a broad catch-all term that's supposed to mean "all those people we already agree look absurd". Without actually going to the trouble of identifying specific people or groups and making them an object of specific ridicule.

 

[theprestige]

I do not agree that it was wrong, just like I don't think the Blues Brothers making the Illinois Nazis jump off the bridge into the river was wrong. Neither were legal (the physical and property damage in Berkley, not the demonstration itself) and both rightfully subject to prosecution, but I'm not so far up my own rear end to consider that illegality even remotely as significant as the monstrosities advocated by nazis.

Sorry, you lost me. The physical violence in Berkeley was in response to what monstrosities advocated by what nazis?

 

[dasmiller]

If I heard of him before this I would say there are no topics him and I would agree on. Now after seeing this otherwise repugnant individual have his events cancelled due to criminal acts I can say we agree that the actions taken against him are wrong.

Those people doing these actions have given me a situation in which he is objectively the victim, and in which I will fight against others on "my side".

You wanted an answer and there you have it. These actions have done nothing except give myself and this guy common ground we would otherwise not have. I sure as hell would never go to one of his shows, but i would step in front of a punch to protect his right to free speech, like I'd do for anyone.

Well said, and I wish I'd said this.

 

[sadhatter]

I do not agree that it was wrong, just like I don't think the Blues Brothers making the Illinois Nazis jump off the bridge into the river was wrong. Neither were legal (the physical and property damage in Berkley, not the demonstration itself) and both rightfully subject to prosecution, but I'm not so far up my own rear end to consider that illegality even remotely as significant as the monstrosities advocated by nazis.

Acting on sympathy for nazis based on non-governmental parties obstructing them from their goals is collaboration. That is not a civil liberty issue. That is making a choice about what is important and finding social order a more important issue than genocide and despotism.

First off when you have to reference a fictional event to support yourself even you know your arguement is crap. Movies put things in clear boxes that are not filed with the real moral gray areas in life. Sorry to inform you of this but it seems nessecary.

Second you made an assumption that this press will make people less sympathetic to folks, I showed you that you were wrong, instead of looking at this and seeing your conclusion was wrong you double down and start talking about how you are as cool as fictional characters.

I get it, I'm busting your bubble, I'm 32 I was there at the end of the punk scene I understand where your attitude is coming from, plenty of fight but the way to fight is not how you want to fight so you convince yourself that you are really doing good and it is just the cowards who won't step up.

 

[Suddenly]

So had it worked yet? Have any of these people given up or faded politically?

Because from here I see lots of people talking about folks I hadn't heard of 6 months ago.

I said as much. It is putting a face on the problem. It is quite a bit early as to using them to embarrass the movement, although the alt-right has already begun doxxing and denouncing each other over leadership and ideological purity disputes. Richard Spencer looking like a smug douchebag will be of great benefit to exposing the stupidity behind the movement. Etc.

Who did these actions help and how did they do so.

They are galvanizing the left. The Spencer punch was a cathartic moment for a lot of people, as was shutting down Milo. It was a flexing of muscle that maybe in the end won't mean all that much as to the actual struggle. So was the Doolittle raid.

The liberal moderate has always been a huge problem when it comes to defending civil rights. They confuse prizing restraint in modes of resistance with requiring protest to be passive.

 

[Suddenly]

I think part of the problem is that "alt-right" has quickly become a broad catch-all term that's supposed to mean "all those people we already agree look absurd". Without actually going to the trouble of identifying specific people or groups and making them an object of specific ridicule.

This sort of thing is always an issue, but not that important in a broad rhetorical sense. It is better to use broad labels and make the far right try to explain why they are not really part of the movement.

General rule of politics: If you are explaining, you are losing.

 

[Suddenly]

Sorry, you lost me. The physical violence in Berkeley was in response to what monstrosities advocated by what nazis?

Little things like dehumanizing others based on racial and other classifications in order to end the idea of a pluralistic society. Specifically, that speaker having a pattern of specifically identifying people as targets for harassment.

 

[Thermal]

I think part of the problem is that "alt-right" has quickly become a broad catch-all term that's supposed to mean "all those people we already agree look absurd". Without actually going to the trouble of identifying specific people or groups and making them an object of specific ridicule.

Don't they go pretty far out of their way to identify themselves as alt-right?

 

[dasmiller]

They are galvanizing the left. The Spencer punch was a cathartic moment for a lot of people, as was shutting down Milo. It was a flexing of muscle that maybe in the end won't mean all that much as to the actual struggle. So was the Doolittle raid.

The liberal moderate has always been a huge problem when it comes to defending civil rights. They confuse prizing restraint in modes of resistance with requiring protest to be passive.

Any strategy that's based on the good guys being better than the bad guys at using violence to suppress dissenting views seems . . . troubling.

 

[theprestige]

This sort of thing is always an issue, but not that important in a broad rhetorical sense. It is better to use broad labels and make the far right try to explain why they are not really part of the movement.

General rule of politics: If you are explaining, you are losing.

It seems like a large part of the country has finally had enough of the "broad labels" strategy, and has decided to stop explaining and start winning.

 

[Ziggurat]

Little things like dehumanizing others based on racial and other classifications in order to end the idea of a pluralistic society. Specifically, that speaker having a pattern of specifically identifying people as targets for harassment.

So in response, we should dehumanize this speaker and identify him as a target for harassment?

Do you really not get the irony here?

 

[sunmaster14]

Little things like dehumanizing others based on racial and other classifications in order to end the idea of a pluralistic society. Specifically, that speaker having a pattern of specifically identifying people as targets for harassment.

Do you have any concrete examples?

 

[Suddenly]

First off when you have to reference a fictional event to support yourself even you know your arguement is crap. Movies put things in clear boxes that are not filed with the real moral gray areas in life. Sorry to inform you of this but it seems nessecary.

Blah blah blah. I could name any number of real life events. I used that because it is a well known part of the cultural canon. Your argument is the reason why lawyer jokes are a thing.

Second you made an assumption that this press will make people less sympathetic to folks, I showed you that you were wrong, instead of looking at this and seeing your conclusion was wrong you double down and start talking about how you are as cool as fictional characters.

You showed me it made you sympathetic. Other people might just be different, especially those with more at risk.

I get it, I'm busting your bubble, I'm 32 I was there at the end of the punk scene I understand where your attitude is coming from, plenty of fight but the way to fight is not how you want to fight so you convince yourself that you are really doing good and it is just the cowards who won't step up.

The punk scene in the US was played out before you were in diapers. I've had any number of death threats for protecting the constitutional rights of people as, if not more, detestable then these nazis. In fact, I've defended nazis against hate crime allegations. In actual court. In real life, not on some silly message board.

I'd do it again. There is no real distinction between a society that abandons the rights of the accused in criminal trials and despotism.

You mistake respecting the rule of law with respecting speech. The non-governmental disrupting of nazis is not an issue of civil liberties. It is a moral issue. One can be a ACLU style first amendment absolutist and still believe that private parties that obstruct the speech of nazis are a good thing, and that any illegalities in doing so do not an absolute in judging the morality of a specific act.

If a few broken windows or a punch in the face makes you sympathetic to nazis, you are a bad person who is easily led to evil. Plain and simple.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Do you have any concrete examples?

I think they're still stuck on the whole illegal aliens thing. Apparently identifying people that are breaking the law is equivalent to gassing Jews.

 

[sadhatter]

I said as much. It is putting a face on the problem. It is quite a bit early as to using them to embarrass the movement, although the alt-right has already begun doxxing and denouncing each other over leadership and ideological purity disputes. Richard Spencer looking like a smug douchebag will be of great benefit to exposing the stupidity behind the movement. Etc.

They are galvanizing the left. The Spencer punch was a cathartic moment for a lot of people, as was shutting down Milo. It was a flexing of muscle that maybe in the end won't mean all that much as to the actual struggle. So was the Doolittle raid.

The liberal moderate has always been a huge problem when it comes to defending civil rights. They confuse prizing restraint in modes of resistance with requiring protest to be passive.

I don't know how else to say this so I will do so simply.

You are wrong, your conclusions are wrong, and your philosophy is wrong.

When presented with direct evidence that this is causing division in the left you again double down, in your own post you state you are alienating moderate the moderate left right after saying you are galvanising it. That is some of the worst cognitive dissonance I have ever seen.

Of course the extremist left is galvanized by this that is what extremists do, tow the party line regardless of morality. But you shave off a bit of the middle the more this goes on.


If your goal is to feel like a revolutionary keep doing what you are doing, if it's too do real good, then I suggest a complete change of tactics

 

[Ziggurat]

The non-governmental disrupting of nazis is not an issue of civil liberties.

No, you're wrong. Depriving someone of their free speech rights IS a civil liberties issue. And it can be a crime specifically because of the deprivation of civil liberties, even when not done by the government.

 

[Giz]

No, you're wrong. Depriving someone of their free speech rights IS a civil liberties issue. And it can be a crime specifically because of the deprivation of civil liberties, even when not done by the government.

Now, now, as any fule kno, lynching Nazis without due process is only a problem when the Government is doing it.

 

[Giz]

I think they're still stuck on the whole illegal aliens thing. Apparently identifying people that are breaking the law is equivalent to gassing Jews.

How dare the federal government enforce federal laws. There should be a law against it.