“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[caveman1917]

The marriage analogy is a good one, but that is a discussion that can (and should) be held rationally.

It's not a good analogy. The better analogy would be, if someone was attacking homosexuals (aka expressing "dissenting opinion"[*]) and people then choose to defend themselves from these attackers.

* Don't be misled by this propagandistic language of "dissenting opinion" or "just words" or BS like that. The video footage of that guy who ended up pissing himself clearly shows him dropping his weapon (wooden stick) so as to choke-hold a black person so that his fascist buddies can beat him up easily. Just last year in a town close to where I live in Belgium some fascists had a demonstration and afterwards beat a homeless person to death. Several "undesirable" people were attacked in the margin of Milo's event in Berkeley. Then there is the IWW member in Seattle who got shot, and the list goes on - and that's only what gets reported.

The language of "just dissenting opinion" and "they shut us down only because they disagree with us" and things like that is nothing more than far-right propaganda and has practically nothing to do with reality on the ground. There's no such thing as a peaceful fascist assembly, if they can't get away with attacking untermenschen during their demonstration itself - for example due to having too much cops around them - they'll do it afterwards in small groups in the back alleys away from peering eyes.

To think that fascists have demonstrations because they want to peacefully express a "dissenting opinion" is ignorant to the extreme. Fascist isn't a slur, it's a term with a meaning.

 

[caveman1917]

but we've seen your definition of "fascist" to be so loose and all encompassing that it seems to include anyone who isn't an anarchist who is openly opposing the existence of nation-states.

Have you? Surely you will then provide examples of this, as well as arguing your claim based on those examples?

 

[Mycroft]

Have you? Surely you will then provide examples of this, as well as arguing your claim based on those examples?

You are the leading expert on your own opinions, so if you have a definition of "fascist" that you use that is different from what I described, please share it. If you want to be tedious and demand "evidence" of your own thought processes, I'll point to your disciplinary history on this board before you learned to stop calling everyone who disagreed with you a fascist.

 

[Mycroft]

It's not a good analogy. The better analogy would be, if someone was attacking homosexuals (aka expressing "dissenting opinion"[*]) and people then choose to defend themselves from these attackers.

* Don't be misled by this propagandistic language of "dissenting opinion" or "just words" or BS like that. The video footage of that guy who ended up pissing himself clearly shows him dropping his weapon (wooden stick) so as to choke-hold a black person so that his fascist buddies can beat him up easily. Just last year in a town close to where I live in Belgium some fascists had a demonstration and afterwards beat a homeless person to death. Several "undesirable" people were attacked in the margin of Milo's event in Berkeley. Then there is the IWW member in Seattle who got shot, and the list goes on - and that's only what gets reported.

The language of "just dissenting opinion" and "they shut us down only because they disagree with us" and things like that is nothing more than far-right propaganda and has practically nothing to do with reality on the ground. There's no such thing as a peaceful fascist assembly, if they can't get away with attacking untermenschen during their demonstration itself - for example due to having too much cops around them - they'll do it afterwards in small groups in the back alleys away from peering eyes.

To think that fascists have demonstrations because they want to peacefully express a "dissenting opinion" is ignorant to the extreme. Fascist isn't a slur, it's a term with a meaning.

The masked people who were breaking things, bloodying faces and intimidating people so Milo Yiannopoulos couldn't speak in Berkeley were not doing so because some Trump supporter was an asshat in the Great Lakes area five weeks later.

Violence in response to violence or defence from violence isn't necessarily bad. What we're talking about here is violence as a first choice to express your opinion or to prevent someone you disagree with from expressing theirs.

Your response here is another tu quoque argument. It's "They do it so we do it too", but "they" are not very well defined and, again, you're making yourself as bad as they are.

 

[Joe Random]

It's not a good analogy. The better analogy would be, if someone was attacking homosexuals (aka expressing "dissenting opinion"[*]) and people then choose to defend themselves from these attackers.

* Don't be misled by this propagandistic language of "dissenting opinion" or "just words" or BS like that. The video footage of that guy who ended up pissing himself clearly shows him dropping his weapon (wooden stick) so as to choke-hold a black person so that his fascist buddies can beat him up easily. Just last year in a town close to where I live in Belgium some fascists had a demonstration and afterwards beat a homeless person to death. Several "undesirable" people were attacked in the margin of Milo's event in Berkeley. Then there is the IWW member in Seattle who got shot, and the list goes on - and that's only what gets reported.

The language of "just dissenting opinion" and "they shut us down only because they disagree with us" and things like that is nothing more than far-right propaganda and has practically nothing to do with reality on the ground. There's no such thing as a peaceful fascist assembly, if they can't get away with attacking untermenschen during their demonstration itself - for example due to having too much cops around them - they'll do it afterwards in small groups in the back alleys away from peering eyes.

To think that fascists have demonstrations because they want to peacefully express a "dissenting opinion" is ignorant to the extreme. Fascist isn't a slur, it's a term with a meaning.

 

[sadhatter]

It's not a good analogy. The better analogy would be, if someone was attacking homosexuals (aka expressing "dissenting opinion"[*]) and people then choose to defend themselves from these attackers.

* Don't be misled by this propagandistic language of "dissenting opinion" or "just words" or BS like that. The video footage of that guy who ended up pissing himself clearly shows him dropping his weapon (wooden stick) so as to choke-hold a black person so that his fascist buddies can beat him up easily. Just last year in a town close to where I live in Belgium some fascists had a demonstration and afterwards beat a homeless person to death. Several "undesirable" people were attacked in the margin of Milo's event in Berkeley. Then there is the IWW member in Seattle who got shot, and the list goes on - and that's only what gets reported.

The language of "just dissenting opinion" and "they shut us down only because they disagree with us" and things like that is nothing more than far-right propaganda and has practically nothing to do with reality on the ground. There's no such thing as a peaceful fascist assembly, if they can't get away with attacking untermenschen during their demonstration itself - for example due to having too much cops around them - they'll do it afterwards in small groups in the back alleys away from peering eyes.

To think that fascists have demonstrations because they want to peacefully express a "dissenting opinion" is ignorant to the extreme. Fascist isn't a slur, it's a term with a meaning.

The bad guys hold meetings then beat people up, the good guys beat people up without the meeting.

So what is it I'm supposed to admire about your people? The time saved on meetings?

 

[Thermal]

Accomplishing what, exactly? In specific terms can you say what good this actually does, apart from giving some people an unearned sense of self-righteousness?

Not trying to be flippant, but in neither this nor the 'punch a Nazi' thread has anyone shown what property destruction or physical assault actually accomplishes toward stopping 'fascism'.

Lotsa thoughts here. Will try to keep replies brief:

You ask what is accomplished. What is accomplished by dancing, or art? Expression, right? A reaction to the world around you. I don't think every action need have a practical payoff.

For the sake of argument let's grant the disputed point that the targets are even fascists in the first place : do you honestly believe that silencing or socking someone who genuinely wants to exterminate the 'mud people' will dissuade them in any way? They really want to wipe out all of <group X> from the face of the earth, so viscous is their ideology. But then suddenly their rally is disrupted by a gaggle of privileged wankers breaking random people's stuff - are they going to stop and think "Oh, guess we'll have to grudgingly live in harmony with all mankind now. Shoot, and I so wanted a Holocaust this Christmas. "

Agreed, physical engagement is not likely to help the Deplorables^TM see the err of their ways. Nor is discussion, or much else. Except maybe one thing- ridicule. Probably the best weapon against them. But you ask what is the expected accomplishment. I say it is to show the passion and rage their very presence elicits. Not just philosophical disagreement.

And that's not even touching on :

1) It hasn't been shown that these are actually close-minded, irredeemable, by Hoyle "fascists".

True. But being a card-carrying Fascist versus a being a casual neo-nazi is an almost academic point. Their precise point on the fascist scale is not that interesting when that entire end of the scale is beyond the pale.

2) You don't need to be able to discuss higher concepts to get to the issue of basic humanity with anyone- doesn't mean you'll succeed or win them over, but even a mild nudge in the direction of decency with 1 person out of 10 is more than having them all double down because you just clocked them.

Agreed. But my experience and observation of these types is that they aren't moved by decency. Their base ideals are about as far removed from decency as you can politically get. They do not want to be decent. And I have no objection to taking a step or so outside of decency with them. I'm not proud.

3) Abandoning the rule of law makes you (generic you) the threat to Democracy, not the odious talking head giving a speech

Not really. I (the generic...uh...I) do not abandon the rule of law, in the sense that the boys at the Boston Tea Party had not. The Trump supporters were called out as initiating the conflict at Berkeley by a reporter linked earlier IIRC. I see a good chunk of this as a mutual fight.

4) Who gave you (again, generic) to right to decide when someone's speech has crossed the line into 'no point in talking, time to burn stuff'?

Natural Law, IMHO. Burning stuff depends on who owns it (just realized I am way behind on the thread and the topic may have evolved)

5) You've now show just about any bigoted group in the country that all they need to do to silence pro-choice, or atheist, or anti-Trump gatherings is threaten to **** up a Starbucks if these deeply anti-American radicals are allowed to get together and talk

Could you clarify this one? Think I understand but I can read it a couple different ways.

And now to be intentionally flippant : you know who else thought it was a good idea to use physical violence and intimidation against groups whom they opposed? The SA.

Returning Godwinesque flippancy: they were the bad guys. I am the good guys, so comparing Auschwitz and oranges .

 

[Thermal]

It's not a good analogy. The better analogy would be, if someone was attacking homosexuals (aka expressing "dissenting opinion"[*]) and people then choose to defend themselves from these attackers.

* Don't be misled by this propagandistic language of "dissenting opinion" or "just words" or BS like that. The video footage of that guy who ended up pissing himself clearly shows him dropping his weapon (wooden stick) so as to choke-hold a black person so that his fascist buddies can beat him up easily. Just last year in a town close to where I live in Belgium some fascists had a demonstration and afterwards beat a homeless person to death. Several "undesirable" people were attacked in the margin of Milo's event in Berkeley. Then there is the IWW member in Seattle who got shot, and the list goes on - and that's only what gets reported.

The language of "just dissenting opinion" and "they shut us down only because they disagree with us" and things like that is nothing more than far-right propaganda and has practically nothing to do with reality on the ground. There's no such thing as a peaceful fascist assembly, if they can't get away with attacking untermenschen during their demonstration itself - for example due to having too much cops around them - they'll do it afterwards in small groups in the back alleys away from peering eyes.

To think that fascists have demonstrations because they want to peacefully express a "dissenting opinion" is ignorant to the extreme. Fascist isn't a slur, it's a term with a meaning.

Agreed on one main point: it's not an issue of free speech or dissenting opinion with these cats. They are against basic humanity, IMO. Their extreme position warrants extreme response.

 

[sadhatter]

Agreed on one main point: it's not an issue of free speech or dissenting opinion with these cats. They are against basic humanity, IMO. Their extreme position warrants extreme response.

You realize if you get your way and violence versus discourse becomes the norm, you ate Orman and outgunned right?

Even if violence was the morally acceptable option is not the best tactical decision.

 

[varwoche]

It's not a good analogy. The better analogy would be, if someone was attacking homosexuals (aka expressing "dissenting opinion"[*]) and people then choose to defend themselves from these attackers.

This is a continuation of justification for breaking windows? Assuming so...

The justification spelled out, as best I comprehend.. If somebody (X) verbally attacks a class of people, the organization that hosts X, and anyone in the general vicinity, is subject to having their windows broken, tough luck.

 

[Thermal]

You realize if you get your way and violence versus discourse becomes the norm, you ate Orman and outgunned right?

I...uh...hm...

Even if violence was the morally acceptable option is not the best tactical decision.

Agreed, and said so above. Ridicule is IMO probably the most effective.

 

[caveman1917]

Agreed, and said so above. Ridicule is IMO probably the most effective.

So if that homeless guy had ridiculed them then they wouldn't have beaten him to death? If those numerous refugees had only ridiculed them then they wouldn't have been attacked? How exactly is this ridicule thing supposed to work?

So if I'm getting this straight, rearranging a window constitutes "violence" and rearranging people constitutes "discourse", and presumably this depends on whether it's a fascist doing it or a leftist. Liberal ethics...

 

[Thermal]

So if that homeless guy had ridiculed them then they wouldn't have beaten him to death? If those numerous refugees had only ridiculed them then they wouldn't have been attacked? How exactly is this ridicule thing supposed to work?

In the bigger picture, not being taken seriously is disempowering. Pretty obviously not the move during live conflict.

So if I'm getting this straight, rearranging a window constitutes "violence" and rearranging people constitutes "discourse", and presumably this depends on whether it's a fascist doing it or a leftist. Liberal ethics...

Was this meant for someone else? I breathed not a word about discourse in any context and even agreed with you that this was not about speech.

 

[caveman1917]

In the bigger picture, not being taken seriously is disempowering.

It can be. For example I really liked this one. It depends on the situation, and with respect to fascists it isn't all that effective anyway. But then I'm all for ridiculing them for pissing their pants after their asses handed back to them, or for managing to pepper-spray themselves, etc.

Pretty obviously not the move during live conflict.

What constitutes live conflict?

Was this meant for someone else? I breathed not a word about discourse in any context and even agreed with you that this was not about speech.

Yes, it was meant as a general observation, not specifically for you. I should've made that clearer.

 

[caveman1917]

calling everyone who disagreed with you a fascist.

So you have now two claims for which to provide evidence.

1. That my definition of "fascist" includes anyone who isn't an anarchist who is openly opposing the existence of nation-states.

2. I call(ed) everyone who disagreed with me a fascist.

I suggest you get to it rather than adding more unsupported claims each post.

 

[Mycroft]

So you have now two claims for which to provide evidence.

1. That my definition of "fascist" includes anyone who isn't an anarchist who is openly opposing the existence of nation-states.

2. I call(ed) everyone who disagreed with me a fascist.

I suggest you get to it rather than adding more unsupported claims each post.

Snipping out the part where I drew your attention to your disciplinary history for calling people fascist on this board is revisionist and does not go unnoticed.

 

[Mycroft]

So if that homeless guy had ridiculed them then they wouldn't have beaten him to death? If those numerous refugees had only ridiculed them then they wouldn't have been attacked? How exactly is this ridicule thing supposed to work?

Has anyone spoken against self-defense?

So if I'm getting this straight, rearranging a window constitutes "violence" and rearranging people constitutes "discourse",

You're not getting it straight, then.

and presumably this depends on whether it's a fascist doing it or a leftist. Liberal ethics...

No. The point is it doesn't depend on if it's a fascist or leftist doing it. Being a violent thug makes you a violent thug regardless of your politics.

 

[Beerina]

No. Why would they be? Every pair of things is comparable in some ways and incomparable in other ways. You have to actually show that these things are comparable in a relevant way.

Islam is much more successful in becoming a dominant memeplex controlling vast swaths of humanity in dictatorship than fascism ever was?

 

[Emily's Cat]

No. Why would they be? Every pair of things is comparable in some ways and incomparable in other ways. You have to actually show that these things are comparable in a relevant way.

What makes them incomparable for this situation?

In all cases, facsism/islam/christianity threaten the ideals and ways of life of other people. Why does fascism get special pleading? What justifies the preemptive use of violence to silence the beliefs of one and not the others, if the justification for that violence is that it threatens the ideals and ways of life of other people?

 

[Emily's Cat]

No that's not the right question. The right question is, do Christians and Muslims when they demonstrate publically use it to assault minorities and other undesirables? Are these events used to further increase such assaults with the goal of working towards enacting genocide?

Yes, they do.