“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[sadhatter]

You've got to be kidding. What sense of entitlement are you under that you ignore questions posed to you but make catty comments about not repying? I have answered your questions; how about you show the same freaking courtesy starting with post #1612?

So no reply then?

 

[Thermal]

This might be an excellent opportunity for you to step back, take a moment, and just restate your position and beliefs in their entirety.

Ok. Please narrow down what position and beliefs you want me to restate in their entirety. The events of the OP, something broader, what?

If I were alone in reading your positions this way, what you say regarding bias might have merit. But I'm not. Several people in this thread have interpreted your arguments in exactly the same way I have.

Oh, I get it. You are saying that your interpretation is accurate because others interpret it that way, too. Or that an idea is true because it is widely held? I hear there is a logical fallacy with that definition.

If you feel that ALL of these interpretations are incorrect, then it appears that you are failing to communicate effectively. Please try again.

Oh, no you don't. You (and others) put words in my mouth. That is not my failure to communicate. For example, I have asked you clearly and repeatedly to quote where I have advocated preemptive violence, as you repeatedly claim. Please do so. That might help to establish whether the problem is my communicating or your bias. If you in fact just made it up, a really great question would be: why?

 

[Thermal]

So no reply then?

Guess you think this one is some kind of stumper. Happy to oblige:

I post in #1615:

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.

And you post in #1620:

But some believe it does, so when ou(r) 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.

Since gays are not universally abhorred and do not advocate taking others' rights away, but fascists do, what 'yardstick of belief' are you talking about? It is about a person/group's declared philosophy. To answer your question as best I can: I differentiate based on what they declare themselves to be and whether it poses a naked threat and challenge to those who value the principles that the Constitution protects . Gays do not desire to take my freedoms away, and fascists unabashedly do.

Does that suffice in explaining how I differentiate?

 

[sadhatter]

Guess you think this one is some kind of stumper. Happy to oblige:

I post in #1615:

And you post in #1620:

Since gays are not universally abhorred and do not advocate taking others' rights away, but fascists do, what 'yardstick of belief' are you talking about? It is about a person/group's declared philosophy. To answer your question as best I can: I differentiate based on what they declare themselves to be and whether it poses a naked threat and challenge to those who value the principles that the Constitution protects . Gays do not desire to take my freedoms away, and fascists unabashedly do.

Does that suffice in explaining how I differentiate?

Not at all. Fanatics on the opposite side of the political spectrum state the exact same thing. If you both have your way it becomes a night makes right scenario, and despite your delusions we lose if that happens.

Your stance is hypocritical and tactical garbage.

 

[Thermal]

Not at all. Fanatics on the opposite side of the political spectrum state the exact same thing. If you both have your way it becomes a night makes right scenario, and despite your delusions we lose if that happens.

Your stance is hypocritical and tactical garbage.

Can you explain how? I am curious how you can be misunderstanding what I am saying so dramatically.

ETA: For clarity: the short version of my stance is that I think street fighting, if both concede, is ok although illegal. Further, I think that if fascists are basically telling others that they deserve to have their rights taken away, they are provoking/inciting a conflict to some degree. Don't add-on a bunch of baggage you carry to the argument.

You say hypocritical. How so? Specifically. It sounds like you are just lobbing random criticism.
You say tactical garbage. That phrase doesn't actually mean anything, and I have not talked about tactics at all.

 

[caveman1917]

I am charging them with un-American political philosophies that they acknowledge (and per definition posted earlier, racial superiority and authoritarian control over citizens).

Genocide, slavery, apartheid, imperialism and a love for right-wing dictatorships...how is that un-American? We are talking about the same America here, right?

 

[Thermal]

Genocide, slavery, apartheid, imperialism and a love for right-wing dictatorships...how is that un-American? We are talking about the same America here, right?

Yes we are. America has done disgraceful things, like many have. Some of us love her anyway, and trust that we can steer her away from wrongdoing by piping up when she is wrong.

 

[Mycroft]

I want televised cage matches where proponents of extremist ideologies can battle it out for glory and valuable prizes. That way anarchists and neo Nazis can have an outlet for their aggression that doesn't bother the rest of us, and also provides entertainment.

 

[Joe Random]

I want televised cage matches where proponents of extremist ideologies can battle it out for glory and valuable prizes. That way anarchists and neo Nazis can have an outlet for their aggression that doesn't bother the rest of us, and also provides entertainment.

... and nor a window nor Starbucks were harm'd that day

 

[theprestige]

Yes we are. America has done disgraceful things, like many have. Some of us love her anyway, and trust that we can steer her away from wrongdoing by piping up when she is wrong.

Seems reasonable enough. Broadly speaking, the question being debated in this thread is whether it is beneficial to our society when the "piping up" takes the form of violent outbursts in response to "fascist" speech.

You seem to be equivocating a lot on this point. You seem to approve of using violence to steer expression, but when pressed on this you insist that you mean simply that you forgive violence as a response to expression.

Which is it? Do you trust that America can be steered away from fascism by piping up with violence whenever fascists speak?

 

[Mycroft]

Genocide, slavery, apartheid, imperialism and a love for right-wing dictatorships...how is that un-American? We are talking about the same America here, right?

Things that are only bad when associated with the United States. When socialist nations do it, it's not so bad. [emoji14]

 

[Thermal]

Seems reasonable enough. Broadly speaking, the question being debated in this thread is whether it is beneficial to our society when the "piping up" takes the form of violent outbursts in response to "fascist" speech.

'Beneficial' is a bit slippery. It is certainly not the ideal, so not directly beneficial. But it is certainly instructive/informative, so a benefit is gained. There were end benefits to the violence of the civil rights movement in 1960's America, would you agree? Even though it would have been ideal for things to have gone down more peacefully.

You seem to be equivocating a lot on this point. You seem to approve of using violence to steer expression, but when pressed on this you insist that you mean simply that you forgive violence as a response to expression.

Approve and forgive I think are overly judgemental terms; I prefer 'accept', if that makes it clearer. I don't think it's a good idea to get rowdy (and have said that I generally wouldn't do so myself), but I accept (a shade of difference from approving) that others may do so and in some circumstances excuse it (a shade of difference from 'forgiving'). also, I look at relevant law as more of an academic point, rather than the guiding principle of behavior, if that helps to clarify why my POV is not so absolute in terms of right and wrong.

Which is it? Do you trust that America can be steered away from fascism by piping up with violence whenever fascists speak?

America sometimes needs to be loud to be heard, and ideally, words would be enough. In the OP, I really don't think the events had anything to do with Milo's individual speech. An article posted earlier by an eyewitness writer said that Red Hats were out in force, taunting and rolling out a Pepe banner. This seems to me an Us v Them clash, not thugs trying to silence Milo. So fascists can certainly speak, it is a guaranteed freedom they have. Protesters can bark back. Another freedom. Ideally, it should end there. But I accept that sometimes it doesn't, and that the two sides are stepping onto a figurative (literal?) battlefield in a situation like this. Both sides had (or should have had) a reasonable expectation of hostilities, hence my opinion that this was closer to a street brawl than a suppression of poor Milo's freedoms.

 

[fuelair]

Returning to the thread late and it has moved on, but wanted to answer the above.

In saying that there are beliefs so offensive/damaging/whatever that it is appropriate to abandon the rule of law in expressing opposition to them you [generic] have empowered any group to use those same extra-legal tactics against views you and I would both support.

Examples I've used before in the 'punch a Nazi' thread:

Trump was duly elected according to the Constitution and laws of this country. Those saying his presidency is illegitimate and who protest him are attacking the fundamental roots of our Democracy (the non-violet (noted for comment on post, best, fuelair) transition of power based on the expressed will of the people). Therefore we are justified in punching people in pussy hats, or setting fire to cars near a 'He Will Not Divide Us' installation (for the record, HWNDU is silly beyond words, IMO), because they're attacking not just [bloviating gassbag dickhead] Trump, they're attacking the very fundamentals of our democratic society!

Pro-choice activists want to make it legal, and to a varying degree sponsored by the state, to MURDER UNBORN CHILDREN! No one in their right mind could possible support the murder of unborn children. Hell, I don't think even Hitler thought it would be okay to murder unborn babies! Ergo any and all means to shut down a pro-choice rally is justified. Punch a Planned Parenthood worker if you love little babies.

This is the important bit : if some of the views of these purported 'fascists' were put into action, I'd be right there with others opposing them, even risking my personal physical safety. I've had ... colorful run-ins with anti-abortion activists in the past, and will gladly continue to do so where needed, for instance. But while the views are still just words and rhetoric, the rule of law serves we who would see people treated fairly and not sent off into camps or thrown off buildings for having WrongThink. Abandoning the rule of law merely because it feels so damned good to punch a neo-fascist or aim our car at an anti-abortion protester (yes, I can speak from experience here, I'm ashamed to say) only weakens the protections against those views we support, since we've now said there are times when <Southern Comfort> "You have to abandon principles and do what's right!" </Southern Comfort>.

There are many civil rights which don't apply to me, but for which I'd be willing to risk physical safety to guarantee for others should they become outlawed. But while the rights we seek to uphold still fall within the remit of the rule of law to protect, stepping outside that rule because we feel "it's justified in this case" only serves to weaken the defenses provided against all those other things we want to protect. Carried to its extreme and it's nothing more than 'might makes right' (since the rule of law is now subject to the "but I really want to hit him" test), which has never worked out well in the end for anyone. Not even Lord Humungus.

Bill Maher dug into liberal colleges and their problems with free speech last night!!!!! Well done Bill!!! And, no it doesn't justify the attacks in all cases - but it does show it is past time to break the power of the Electoral College and comparatively empty states!!!!! re: my FTFY above where author meant violent!!!!!

 

[Mycroft]

Something I found that applies to this discussion, a quote from actual anarchists:

"Instead of attacking impersonal symbols of justice, we think that it is very important to transpose our hostilities to the personal environment of the enemy, their homes, offices, hangouts and vehicles. We know that to authority ”nobody is irreplaceable” but we also know that a personal hit against one of them would instill fear in another 100. "

https://insurrectionnewsworldwide.c...lls-of-fire-nemesis-project-an-open-proposal/

Hooboy! Doesn't that just make you ache to live in a world of their creation?

 

[Eddie Dane]

I want televised cage matches where proponents of extremist ideologies can battle it out for glory and valuable prizes. That way anarchists and neo Nazis can have an outlet for their aggression that doesn't bother the rest of us, and also provides entertainment.

Same with soccer hooligans.

They want a piece of each other and reality TV is a thing. Not sure why it hasn't happened yet.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Something I found that applies to this discussion, a quote from actual anarchists:

"Instead of attacking impersonal symbols of justice, we think that it is very important to transpose our hostilities to the personal environment of the enemy, their homes, offices, hangouts and vehicles. We know that to authority ”nobody is irreplaceable” but we also know that a personal hit against one of them would instill fear in another 100. "

https://insurrectionnewsworldwide.c...lls-of-fire-nemesis-project-an-open-proposal/

Hooboy! Doesn't that just make you ache to live in a world of their creation?

They must be completely deluded about what backlash that would bring.

Some of these Neo-nazi groups are stockpiling automatic weapons. The German secret service is busy disarming about 700 of them that have legal guns.

Once these guys start doxing Antifa members, they'll have to move to Argentina. Which is Ironic, really.

 

[Thermal]

Something I found that applies to this discussion, a quote from actual anarchists:

"Instead of attacking impersonal symbols of justice, we think that it is very important to transpose our hostilities to the personal environment of the enemy, their homes, offices, hangouts and vehicles. We know that to authority ”nobody is irreplaceable” but we also know that a personal hit against one of them would instill fear in another 100. "

https://insurrectionnewsworldwide.c...lls-of-fire-nemesis-project-an-open-proposal/

Hooboy! Doesn't that just make you ache to live in a world of their creation?

Yikes. I think these guys may be anarchists in the sense that the Islamic State are Muslims or the Klan is Christian, though. They seem more like extremist terrorists than Starbucks window-rearrangers.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ok. Please narrow down what position and beliefs you want me to restate in their entirety. The events of the OP, something broader, what?



Oh, I get it. You are saying that your interpretation is accurate because others interpret it that way, too. Or that an idea is true because it is widely held? I hear there is a logical fallacy with that definition.



Oh, no you don't. You (and others) put words in my mouth. That is not my failure to communicate. For example, I have asked you clearly and repeatedly to quote where I have advocated preemptive violence, as you repeatedly claim. Please do so. That might help to establish whether the problem is my communicating or your bias. If you in fact just made it up, a really great question would be: why?

MD, I started with a pile of quotes from you on which I was basing my inference. Those quotes appear to imply the position that I have interpreted. I'm not putting words in your mouth - I'm telling you what I am interpreting your words to mean.

If you think that I (and several other people) are misinterpreting, fine. Acknowledge that you aren't being clear, and take advantage of this opportunity to restate what it is you are trying to say.

 

[Emily's Cat]

ETA: For clarity: the short version of my stance is that I think street fighting, if both concede, is ok although illegal. Further, I think that if fascists are basically telling others that they deserve to have their rights taken away, they are provoking/inciting a conflict to some degree. Don't add-on a bunch of baggage you carry to the argument.

With respect to this restatement...

1) What do you think constitutes street-fighting?

2) Do you think that someone using words alone and expressing an opinion is considered "provoking" to an extent that you believe justifies using violence against them?

 

[Thermal]

MD, I started with a pile of quotes from you on which I was basing my inference. Those quotes appear to imply the position that I have interpreted. I'm not putting words in your mouth - I'm telling you what I am interpreting your words to mean.

If you think that I (and several other people) are misinterpreting, fine. Acknowledge that you aren't being clear, and take advantage of this opportunity to restate what it is you are trying to say.

A few others posed questions, I responded and they seemed satisfied (or at least questioned no further). I think it's just you that interprets that I 'advocate denying rights of *some* American citizens' among other things that I absolutely do not say. Although there's an excellent chance that they don't give a fat rat's patootie one way or the other.