“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy to deprive someone of his free speech rights is an even more serious crime actually.
 
dasmiller said:
Any strategy that's based on the good guys being better than the bad guys at using violence to suppress dissenting views seems . . . troubling.
Click to expand...

Conflict is hard. Well, that, and this is incorrect. The use of violence is illegal and not to be encouraged within a civil society. It just isn't always the controlling factor in determining morality. The government must enforce its laws equally and properly or it becomes despotic. That doesn't mean a private citizen should view laws as a moral absolute.

So no, it isn't based on violent suppression. Active suppression need not be violent. I personally don't think violence or property damage is a good idea or remotely necessary.

Beyond that, the good side isn't using the government to suppress dissenting views. See how that works out with the bad guys in charge. That is sort of a big deal.
 
Suddenly said:
Active suppression need not be violent.
Click to expand...

But it was.

Beyond that, the good side isn't using the government to suppress dissenting views.
Click to expand...

I dispute your characterization of the violent protesters as "good guys". I see no evidence that they're good. Furthermore, I see no reason to believe they wouldn't use government to suppress dissenting views if they were in charge.
 
sadhatter said:
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
Click to expand...

You mean my tactics of civilly engaging people in real life and investigating ways to use civil law to deter hate groups from being emboldened?

The tactics of the black bloc are not my tactics. I am not an anarchist revolutionary. I am, however, of the belief that worrying more about the black bloc because they break stuff and act like jerks than the people that want to commit genocide is not at all reasonable.

The black bloc is bad. Their end goals are horrible. As soon as one of them is on the national security council and has the President's ear I'll worry about the black bloc. If I could make them not exist, I would. They are pretty far down the list of those I care about as they aren't, you know, genocidal.

I agree wholeheartedly with a protest march intended to in some way persuade Berkeley to not give such people a platform. That certain people are fixated on a few idiots in pajamas breaking windows is both fascinating and troubling. It is like people being distracted by a shiny object...
 
Suddenly said:
Conflict is hard. Well, that, and this is incorrect. The use of violence is illegal and not to be encouraged within a civil society. It just isn't always the controlling factor in determining morality. The government must enforce its laws equally and properly or it becomes despotic. That doesn't mean a private citizen should view laws as a moral absolute.

So no, it isn't based on violent suppression. Active suppression need not be violent. I personally don't think violence or property damage is a good idea or remotely necessary.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were applauding Spencer's getting punched.
 
Giz said:
Now, now, as any fule kno, lynching Nazis without due process is only a problem when the Government is doing it.
Click to expand...

While this is a silly straw man not really worthy of consideration:

it should be noted that the Government killing people is in fact a far bigger problem than individuals doing so. I thought this general principle was a bedrock principle of conservatism, but these days it seems that a lot of conservatives aren't really keen on principle.

(I guess I should further clarify that someone acting under the color of law, or with the express or implicit consent of government is included in the former, in case someone wants to go down that silly road)
 
Suddenly said:
While this is a silly straw man not really worthy of consideration:

it should be noted that the Government killing people is in fact a far bigger problem than individuals doing so. I thought this general principle was a bedrock principle of conservatism, but these days it seems that a lot of conservatives aren't really keen on principle.

(I guess I should further clarify that someone acting under the color of law, or with the express or implicit consent of government is included in the former, in case someone wants to go down that silly road)
Click to expand...

I give up. You look great in that brown shirt.
 
dasmiller said:
Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were applauding Spencer's getting punched.
Click to expand...

I don't know if applauding describes it. I just don't think the illegality or token amount of violence controls whether something is moral or good or whatever valuation one wants to use.

I will not punch nazis. I will not tell others to punch nazis. If I were a prosecutor and I had a case where someone was accused of assault for punching a nazi, I'd have no problem prosecuting it and arguing for punishment for such a breach of the peace within the policies set by my office. Were I the elected prosecutor, I'd probably make it policy that such cases be prosecuted like any other, but the inherent provocation of being a nazi be a mitigating factor in recommending a sentence.

Not presently being a prosecutor, in such a case I might post the guy's bond, I might take his case for free, or maybe just buy the guy a beer. I'll smile to see someone who advocates genocide and who believes himself intrinsically superior based on socially constructed classifications made to look foolish and weak by a simple punch.

That about sums up what I would do on a personal level. If that is applauding, then so be it.
 
theprestige said:
No, he was saying that Milo's speech is a Nazi monstrosity that is far worse than the protestors' violent response.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, except I don't think we are in any way in agreement about the significance of the violence. Property damage, and some conflicting accounts of someone being maced. I don't think such things are a good idea, and I am of the impression that had the black bloc morons not appeared the talk would have still been cancelled.

Fog of war and all that... every party to this is going to see things differently and want to push different narratives. I don't claim to absolutely know about the facts, but that is the impression I have based on various sources. I can see how others could have vastly different impressions as this might have been the least evenly reported event I can remember.
 
Ziggurat said:
But it was.



I dispute your characterization of the violent protesters as "good guys". I see no evidence that they're good. Furthermore, I see no reason to believe they wouldn't use government to suppress dissenting views if they were in charge.
Click to expand...

The black bloc? They wouldn't, because they are anarchist dimwits who think they wouldn't have a government because they haven't figured out the whole vacuum and power thing.

They aren't the good guys. The other protesters are the good guys. The black bloc was at most a distraction; sort of a shiny object various people are dangling to divert attention from bigger things.
 
Suddenly said:
Pretty much, except I don't think we are in any way in agreement about the significance of the violence. Property damage, and some conflicting accounts of someone being maced. I don't think such things are a good idea, and I am of the impression that had the black bloc morons not appeared the talk would have still been cancelled.
Click to expand...

The macing (pepper spraying, actually) incident is on video, as is a lot of other violence perpetrated against ostensible Milo or Trump supporters. For you to claim there are conflicting accounts shows either willful ignorance or dishonesty.
 
sadhatter said:
When presented with direct evidence that this is causing division in the left
Click to expand...

Feel free to present any such evidence? If anything it is reducing division in the left, as it is helping Marxists and anarchists organize together around anti-fascism.

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
Click to expand...

I don't think they care much about your suggestions, they probably prefer to go by the overwhelming evidence showing the tactics to be effective.
 
CPAC rescinds Yiannopoulos invitation amid social media uproar

The organizers of this week’s Conservative Political Action Conference rescinded their booking of Breitbart Editor Milo Yiannopoulos on Monday, following an outcry after the right-wing speaker’s critics resurfaced videos of him criticizing age-of-consent laws and joking about a teenage sexual encounter he had with a Catholic priest.

“Due to the revelation of an offensive video in the past 24 hours condoning pedophilia, the American Conservative Union has decided to rescind the invitation,” the group’s chairman, Matt Schlapp, said in a statement.

"https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/20/cpac-sticks-with-yiannopoulos-as-critics-highlight-his-comments-about-underage-sex/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_milo-215pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.93511537666b#comments"

Milo's comments defending pedophilia were vile and repulsive. CPAC was right to disinvited him.
 
Suddenly said:
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.

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

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.
Click to expand...
It doesn't make me sympathize with the Nazi, it makes me sad that the guy who opposes the Nazi adopts Nazi tactics.
 
zorro99 said:
Berkeley didn't disinvite him, I have to admit, but CPAC did. So which side was more tolerant?
Click to expand...

CPAC, obviously. Association and tolerance are two different things. I tolerate a lot of people and groups that I choose not to associate with.

I don't (as far as I know) use violence to suppress or intimidate any people or group I choose not to associate with.
 
theprestige said:
CPAC, obviously. Association and tolerance are two different things. I tolerate a lot of people and groups that I choose not to associate with.

I don't (as far as I know) use violence to suppress or intimidate any people or group I choose not to associate with.
Click to expand...

You may not. However, Conservatives have been using laws to suppress and intimidate people into silence. Right now, Republicans are passing laws to make it very hard to hold protests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom