“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[Emily's Cat]

If fascism were universally abhorred, then it would have no supporters and there would be no need to debate how to best oppose it.

 

[Thermal]

I don't understand your distinction here. Are you saying that violent suppression of a fascist's speech is unacceptable but forgivable?

I don't say anything about unacceptable per se, nor anything about speech (I do not consider the OP to have anything to do with free speech). Assault is usually illegal (barring self-defense etc) and an assailant would have to face the music if charged. But I think that fighting a fascist is an extenuating circumstance, as opposed to fighting for other reasons, so to answer your question: no, as 'suppression', 'acceptable', 'speech' and 'forgivable' are not any part of what I said.

 

[sadhatter]

I do not. But I would consider an altercation between them to have some pretty extenuating circumstances, leaning heavily in favor of the anti-fascist. Often to the point of excusing the attack, a la jury nullification.

You just want to have your cake and eat it too.

If you take any action you wouldn't if the person wasn't a "fascist" you are providing support for the attack. You don't get to just let others do your dirty work for you then claim because it wasn't your knuckles hitting the face that you don't support the attack.

Wait a second, elitist cowards who let uneducated thugs do their violence for them. ...sounds like a certain group that was known for some pretty nasty things a while back.

 

[Emily's Cat]

True enough. But gays are not universally abhorred; they are only so to homophobes. And the gay agenda does not include openly acknowledging taking rights away from others. So maybe still a little special.

Jewish people were cast as universally abhorred by a pretty solid chunk of german citizens. How well did that turn out?

FFS, throughout history, all kinds of people have been classified as "universally" abhorred. Heathens and infidels, gay people, black people, jewish people (repeatedly), Japanese and Korean (depending on which side of the sea you're on). Communists. Socialists. Colonialists. The list goes on and on.

 

[dudalb]

Maybe the living memory of what it was like to live under a Fascist/Nazi regime dies off, a revival of Fascism becomes more likely. Maybe we have a new generation,that did not grow up with family members who could tell them how bad it was,who are more likely to fall for fascism.

 

[dudalb]

Jewish people were cast as universally abhorred by a pretty solid chunk of german citizens. How well did that turn out?

FFS, throughout history, all kinds of people have been classified as "universally" abhorred. Heathens and infidels, gay people, black people, jewish people (repeatedly), Japanese and Korean (depending on which side of the sea you're on). Communists. Socialists. Colonialists. The list goes on and on.

Uh, can someone else see the fallacy here?

 

[Mycroft]

True enough. But gays are not universally abhorred; they are only so to homophobes. And the gay agenda does not include openly acknowledging taking rights away from others. So maybe still a little special.

Not so much anymore, but a few decades ago? Even today there are still people who think it's okay to beat the crap out of someone of the wrong gender who makes a pass at you.

 

[theprestige]

Very valid points when someone is trying to find the line, but the universal abhorrence of the fascist puts them in their own category. Gays, Republicans etc may be seen as 'bad', but none present a demonstrable and acknowledged threat to the rights and freedoms of others; I think that makes a difference.

People who use violence to suppress speech present a demonstrable and acknowledged threat to the rights and freedoms of others.

Also, appeal to popularity? Really?

 

[theprestige]

Yes, but I had said a few posts ago fascism is abhorrent to anyone but other fascists. Prob should have included that in the comment.

Including that wouldn't have saved your error; I'm not a fascist.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Uh, can someone else see the fallacy here?

I'm not seeing it, but given that I made the argument, I'm probably inclined to be blind to it. Please clue me in on what fallacy you believe I've fallen prey to?

 

[Thermal]

Christianity: Suffer not a witch to live, crusades, heretics... etc. No religion is free of its own bigotry.

Agreed. Sidebar- are we down to talking about the rights of...witches...now?

It's not islamaphobia to recognize that the quran includes the concepts of jihaad against infidels, nor to recognize the risk to our way of life presented by adherents to sharia law. It's just as valid a presumption as claiming that all fascists are a threat. Or more to the point, just as *invalid*.

Ok. Then the Nation of Islam, with one voice, has declared jihad against us infidels? I hadn't noticed that (small percentage of extremists excluded). Fascists, by definition (see below) are all against democracy, and by extension American ideals and principles of freedom and equality. By analogizing them, you suggest that all Muslims, by definition, are against American ideals? You sure about that?

Why don't you back up your claim? Please empirically demonstrate that fascism is a universal threat. Once you've accomplished that, please provide us with a perfect method for identifying a fascist, without the risk of any false positives.

I don't think the definition of a fascist is in dispute, but for clarity:

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete...and having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens

Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Every ideal and principle the U.S. is founded on is antithetical to fascism, so in context a universal threat to an American. Regarding providing a 'perfect method': if you are looking for perfection in anything, you're on the wrong planet or just not arguing seriously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Criticism_of_fascism

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

 

[Thermal]

But some believe it does, so when out yardstick is belief how do you differentiate? Other than " I'm right because you are wrong" which is nothing more than a school yard squabble.

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

 

[Thermal]

Jewish people were cast as universally abhorred by a pretty solid chunk of german citizens. How well did that turn out?

FFS, throughout history, all kinds of people have been classified as "universally" abhorred. Heathens and infidels, gay people, black people, jewish people (repeatedly), Japanese and Korean (depending on which side of the sea you're on). Communists. Socialists. Colonialists. The list goes on and on.

Not people...philosophies. In this case, one which seeks to obliterate our Nation's bedrock principles. If a philosophy threatens to eradicate this, it can be called universally abhorrent. Unless ya don't care much for freedom and all in the first place, I guess.

 

[Thermal]

Not so much anymore, but a few decades ago? Even today there are still people who think it's okay to beat the crap out of someone of the wrong gender who makes a pass at you.

Sure, some people will always hate others. No argument here.
Did the gays openly pledge to undermine and eradicate the very principles your country was founded on? Maybe not so comparable as it first seems?

 

[Thermal]

People who use violence to suppress speech present a demonstrable and acknowledged threat to the rights and freedoms of others.

Agreed, but AFAIK we are not talking about using violence to suppress speech.

Also, appeal to popularity? Really?

An appeal to popularity is that idea is true because it is widely held. That is not at all what I am saying. And I think you know that.

Including that wouldn't have saved your error; I'm not a fascist.

That was not about you, I was referencing my earlier comment. Didn't mean to suggest you were a fascist, apologies if it came across that way.

 

[dasmiller]

Agreed. Sidebar- are we down to talking about the rights of...witches...now?

Yes. Something like 40,000 of them have been killed. I (and hopefully others) feel that their killing was not justified, despite the abhorrent practices of which they were accused.

 

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster
Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Every ideal and principle the U.S. is founded on is antithetical to fascism, so in context a universal threat to an American.

You support forcible suppression of fascism by a democracy because forcible suppression is antithetical to democracy?

 

[Thermal]

Yes. Something like 40,000 of them have been killed. I (and hopefully others) feel that their killing was not justified, despite the abhorrent practices of which they were accused.

Agreed. But...wait for it...we are in the 21st century. Are you suggesting that a 16th century mindset is comparable to this discussion? Perhaps we could compare the political musings of cavemen while we're at it?

You support forcible suppression of fascism by a democracy because forcible suppression is antithetical to democracy?

I don't recall supporting forcible suppression of anyone by anyone else. Or suppressing speech. Or any other words put in my mouth.

ETA: witches- I would opine that that was a different issue altogether, what with the accused not actually having done what they were being accused of. You know, witches not actually existing and all. Do you mean to analogize fascists with fictitious creatures here? Or are you saying fascists don't exist and are victims of...witch hunts?

ETA again: You assert more than once that I support forcible suppression of speech and/or people. May I ask what you are talking about? In context of the OP, I see the events as more of a mutual fight between natural enemies, and the anarchists jumping in because it's kind of their thing to bust **** up. I don't actually think anyone was suppressing Milo or his speech.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not people...philosophies. In this case, one which seeks to obliterate our Nation's bedrock principles. If a philosophy threatens to eradicate this, it can be called universally abhorrent. Unless ya don't care much for freedom and all in the first place, I guess.

I don't think your argument holds any water. It's special pleading. You've decided that "fascism" is such a threat to what you view as the US way of life, that you feel preemptive violence against US citizens is justifiable and excusable. Then all you have to do is proclaim that a person is a "fascist" and you feel that attacking them with violence is A-Okay.

No matter how you church it up, you've taken a stance that *some* US citizens should be denied their rights as US citizens, and that violence should be enacted against them because of their beliefs.

YOU are a threat to the US way of life.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't recall supporting forcible suppression of anyone by anyone else. Or suppressing speech. Or any other words put in my mouth.

You've supported the use of preemptive violence against people that you've decided are fascists. Not based on what they've done, but on what they've said. You have supported and lauded aggression and assault as an appropriate response to speech in order to stop "those people" from engaging in "that sort of" speech.

What do you think your stance is? Please clarify.


ETA: I'm basing my responses on these posts of yours:

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.
+++++

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.

+++

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

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.

I do not. But I would consider an altercation between them to have some pretty extenuating circumstances, leaning heavily in favor of the anti-fascist. Often to the point of excusing the attack, a la jury nullification.

I don't say anything about unacceptable per se, nor anything about speech (I do not consider the OP to have anything to do with free speech). Assault is usually illegal (barring self-defense etc) and an assailant would have to face the music if charged. But I think that fighting a fascist is an extenuating circumstance, as opposed to fighting for other reasons, so to answer your question: no, as 'suppression', 'acceptable', 'speech' and 'forgivable' are not any part of what I said.

All of these boil down to "Attacking people is wrong, unless you're attacking a 'fascist', then it's ok".