|
snyprmag posted:I mean nobody gives a poo poo in that it will do you no good if our side loses. But mainly I disagree that being given a platform to speak at a University constitutes free speech. He's still free to say whatever the gently caress he wants, he just didn't get to do it a 2 places of higher learning. My "if" qualifier is a recognition of my own ignorance and not an equivocation regarding anything in particular Milo has said. I have not read Milo's speeches. I am accepting the characterization of posters in this thread, but at least one of those posters has shown a propensity for wildly mischaracterizing another poster's words, so I felt the need to include a qualifier. Regarding your other posts, I disagree that the media is an enemy to the left. The media loves themselves a hero/villain narrative, any sort of conflict they can breathlessly report on, and will happily attack the right-wing whenever doing so serves their only actual paramount interest (which is selling advertising). The police... yeah, much less so. I'm sure there are some "good cops" somewhere but they sure aren't prevailing. The police as an organization do still focus first and foremost on the preservation of their own power. They will ally with anyone that promises them more funding and toys, basically. The left needs to subvert the right's grip on the pro-law-enforcement narrative. It needs to couch massive reform of police power, organization, tactics, and oversight within a framework of support for the police themselves as a necessary and vital branch of government that deserves funding and attention. Finally: you are of course correct that the first amendment does not entitle anyone to speak at public universities. However, I feel that public universities best serve their students and the overall goal of higher education by promoting critical thinking and rejecting notions of ideological purity. And that mission is best served when the university creates a platform for free speech. I like that any campus group is entitled to invite any speaker they want to, because that seems like a system well designed to prevent any particular political ideology from successfully crushing the voice of any other faction. I think permitting someone to speak isn't the same as promoting or "legitimizing" their views, and that the correct response to someone with repugnant views being invited is an overwhelming tide of vocal rejection and ridicule. But not violence, and especially not violence towards other nonviolent attendees, irrespective of crimes other supporters of that speaker may have committed. That particular crime against protestors drew national attention and brought about actual change, though. The protestors were unequivocally sympathetic to the press, which contrasts very nicely to how violent student protests are presented.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
stone cold posted:no, good try tho oh I know Malcom X's philosophy on legal rights. None of it applies to your arguments really. If the police had tried to stop the protesters, then it would apply or a number of other situations where protesters rights were being curtailed or taken Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Being violent hasn't hurt the right-wing at all. Maybe you should think about that. I mean, it's the only reason we dislike the Nazis? First for violence in war and forever for violence against entire peoples.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:oh I know Malcom X's philosophy on legal rights. None of it applies to your arguments really. If the police had tried to stop the protesters, then it would apply or a number of other situations where protesters rights were being curtailed or taken no, you don't
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Being violent hasn't hurt the right-wing at all. Maybe you should think about that. I think it has, frequently. Trabisnikof posted:I mean, it's the only reason we dislike the Nazis? First for violence in war and forever for violence against entire peoples. Ehhh, we also hate their fascist ideology, and not only on the basis of its violence, unless you equate all forms of racism as violence and also equate subservience of individual freedom to the interests of the state (that is to say, nationalism) as a form of violence. Which maybe you do, in which case OK  but I don't think most people would.Anyway this has been great but I have to work so I'll catch up with the thread later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I think it has, frequently. What can I even say to this? It's delusional. They run the federal government, most of the states, are about to gut education and control the Supreme Court for a generation. There's nothing further to discuss. Let's all remember what non-violent protest at the UC system gets you:  The cop who did this got a nice fat settlement and lives on the tax payer dime, btw. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Feb 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:What can I even say to this? It's delusional. They run the federal government, most of the states, are about to gut education and control the Supreme Court for a generation. There's nothing further to discuss. They got that all peacefully not through direct violence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:What can I even say to this? It's delusional. They run the federal government, most of the states, are about to gut education and control the Supreme Court for a generation. There's nothing further to discuss. We go live to 1930's Europe and Non-Violent Protests Against Nazis
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
  This is the planned speech, it wasn't going to be a dialogue, it was going to be a speech to target immigrant students and spread racist garbage. The protest was effective at stopping it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:They got that all peacefully not through direct violence. reactionary white dominance of government and continued monopoly on power has zero to do with history, context a very smart take
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
If anyone honestly thinks we are gonna punch our way out of a Trump administration we might as well sit back for a Reagan-style 12-year reign of getting hosed over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
stone cold posted:reactionary white dominance of government and continued monopoly on power has zero to do with history, context There's a reason I said direct violence. But my entire thesis is based on the reality this is a very asymmetrical power environment (and we aren't on the powerful side) so this is a place we agree?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:My "if" qualifier is a recognition of my own ignorance and not an equivocation regarding anything in particular Milo has said. I have not read Milo's speeches. I am accepting the characterization of posters in this thread, but at least one of those posters has shown a propensity for wildly mischaracterizing another poster's words, so I felt the need to include a qualifier. I disagree that permitting him to speak doesn't legitimize him and I'm sure a lot of people felt the school administration was not doing enough to protect them by allowing him to speak. Universities best serve their students by keeping them safe from violence, which Milo and his ilk are against. Non-violence is a myth used to keep the left in check.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There's a reason I said direct violence. the state perpetuates direct violence on those who oppose right wing ideals all the time tho
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Leperflesh, it's really hard to take you seriously here when you keep coming back to "...And I think Milo should be given a platform to speak from even when he's using that platform to doxx innocent bystanders and tell his fans to harass them". It's not even consistent with everything else you're saying. You keep saying what he's doing is wrong and stuff, and yet you don't think he should be stopped from doing it and are mostly criticizing the way people respond to it. Like, he's not just spewing hate speech up there, he makes actual calls to violence against the students of the places hosting him, and you're saying they should allow that and anyone who has a problem with it needs to respond in an acceptable manner that does not include actually preventing him from harming people in the first place. It's like you think his victims should be used as pawns and held up to generate sympathy from the masses, instead of people proactively making sure he doesn't have victims in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
LanceHunter posted:If anyone honestly thinks we are gonna punch our way out of a Trump administration we might as well sit back for a Reagan-style 12-year reign of getting hosed over. I think you'll find these Nazis are cowards. https://twitter.com/jonnywaistcoat/status/825521837828403200
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:21
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Leperflesh, it's really hard to take you seriously here when you keep coming back to "...And I think Milo should be given a platform to speak from even when he's using that platform to doxx innocent bystanders and tell his fans to harass them". It's not even consistent with everything else you're saying. You keep saying what he's doing is wrong and stuff, and yet you don't think he should be stopped from doing it and are mostly criticizing the way people respond to it. 
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
stone cold posted:the state perpetuates direct violence on those who oppose right wing ideals all the time tho True and the right further cemented their control of state institutions of violence through the state doing the violence for them. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think you'll find these Nazis are cowards. Great, now they're going to have a "meeting hall protection detachment"
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:True and the right further cemented their control of state institutions of violence through the state doing the violence for them. so how does that gel with your claim that no actually they don't
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
stone cold posted:so how does that gel with your claim that no actually they don't The difference between "direct" and "indirect." Trump didn't need to have his supporters attacking Clinton rallies. Republican representatives don't need to have organizers murdered by the Pinkertons to keep the House.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The difference between "direct" and "indirect." he did Trabisnikof posted:Republican representatives don't need to have organizers murdered by the Pinkertons to keep the House. no they just need to prevent minorities from voting
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
stone cold posted:he did Really? Which Clinton rally got attacked by Trump supporters? quote:no they just need to prevent minorities from voting Exactly my point. One would be wrong to look at where the right wing is and declare open violence is how they got there. No, instead they used pernicious systems of oppression and the amalgamation of power to do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Really? Which Clinton rally got attacked by Trump supporters? oh that's my bad, i misread your post i meant trumpkins attacked clinton supporters at his rallies, carry on those systems were built on violence and reinforced by violence
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Voter suppression is also violence, hth
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
I did not vote for Donald Trump. In the CA primary as a registered independent I had to jump through a stupid hoop in order to vote for Sanders (because I was mailed an absentee ballot on which he did not appear as an option), and in the general election I voted for Hillary Clinton for president. Just making that clear for the bright bulb who gave me this lovely custom title.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Leperflesh, it's really hard to take you seriously here when you keep coming back to "...And I think Milo should be given a platform to speak from even when he's using that platform to doxx innocent bystanders and tell his fans to harass them". It's not even consistent with everything else you're saying. You keep saying what he's doing is wrong and stuff, and yet you don't think he should be stopped from doing it and are mostly criticizing the way people respond to it. I don't think universities should create ideological tests for who can speak. I think if Milo has broken the law by calling for violence, he should be prosecuted. My use of the "if" qualifier is because I am not familiar enough with his speech to know if he has done that. If you are correct that he has, then why isn't the protest focused on calling for his arrest and prosecution? More broadly, I am in favor of clearly criminalizing "doxxing" behavior when it is used to harass people. I disagree that banning him from speaking at a university accomplishes in any way the goal of preventing him from harming people by calling for violence or doxxing of students. I do not see how one particular stage somehow gives him powers to attack people that he doesn't already have from the other stages he can stand on and use. If this were literally his only opportunity to incite violence or call for people's harassment, that would be different, but it obviously isn't. So the argument goes back to "legitimizing" or something about "valid arguments" and I find those kinds of rhetorical devices to be vague. Finally, I want to reiterate that the violence at Berkeley was not used against Milo, but rather against other people present at the protests. No matter how despicable Milo himself is, I believe that using violence against other nonviolent civilians is clearly wrong. We're not even talking about attacking police who are oppressing protestors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:(because I was mailed an absentee ballot on which he did not appear as an option) God that was the worst. I had to get mine resent twice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
They weren't just some by-standers. They were Milo/Trump supporters and thus were fine with violence and only give a poo poo about non-violence or free speech is they can use it as a shield. You can argue that the optics aren't good, but you're going out of your way to down play their shityness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Guys, you're not supposed to pay for another red title for me until after I reflexively buy my normal title back. You're just fighting over who gets to brand me. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:#ATMLIVESMATTER lmao EDIT: For content, is Dianne Feinstein still voting alongside Republicans? I don't remember what page that link was on. GenderSelectScreen fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Feb 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Guys, you're not supposed to pay for another red title for me until after I reflexively buy my normal title back. You're just fighting over who gets to brand me. Well, at least it's... Well, not better, but not ableist like the last one. Jeez, all these fad avatars are horrible. Hitlers Gay Secret posted:lmao Mmmmmaaayyybeee? I don't know; she's spoken more forcefully and introduced two bills against the Muslim ban, but there's still reason to be worried she's going to vote for his nominees and stuff. She's terrible like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Guys, you're not supposed to pay for another red title for me until after I reflexively buy my normal title back. You're just fighting over who gets to brand me. weren't those those dumb ones some idiot bought for like the whole first two pages of uspol once? if you're gonna buy redtexts, you should be creative and funny, this is just sad i saw a great one that was pinochet and said "notice me augusto-senpai" or that one that is a long screed against wallpaper choices
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
quoting myself from the awful thread on the protestRaskolnikov38 posted:anyhow now that i'm actually at a computer i'm curious how many of you have actually heard what Milo actually has to say at these rallies. thankfully breitbart puts up transcripts of them which i will now summarize for those of you not wishing to read the transcript of a a roughly 30 minute speech:
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Reminder: America has always recognized that some speech is too dangerous to allow. Here's more evidence of that: https://twitter.com/ciccmaher/status/827292734532755458
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Reminder: America has always recognized that some speech is too dangerous to allow. Here's more evidence of that: Yeah, I was coming to post about this. He's got his stupid anti-immigrant movement thing he's starting and he was planning to project hte names and information of potential undocumented students while on stage while encouraging people to call ICE on anyone they suspect is undocumented. gently caress him, I'm glad his rear end was stopped. A few broken windows and a burned light and some dumbass getting her friend to fake pepper spraying her was well worth stopping this. Edit: [Warning: Breitbart link; I figured it coming from his own mouth was the best evidence though] He already encouraged people to call ICE on suspected immigrants, by the way. Not sure if he doxxed them that time, but word is he was definitely planning to do so last night. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Feb 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
This entire talking point revolves around the paradox of tolerance, something that was brought up and settled over 50 years ago. A free society that values, tolerates and permits freedom of expression has to be intolerant of speech and activity that undermines that value. Basically I disagree with you but I'll die for your right to be disagreeable only holds so long as that sentiment is reciprocal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
El Mero Mero posted:This entire talking point revolves around the paradox of tolerance, something that was brought up and settled over 50 years ago. A free society that values, tolerates and permits freedom of expression has to be intolerant of speech and activity that undermines that value. Roland Jones posted:Mmmmmaaayyybeee? I don't know; she's spoken more forcefully and introduced two bills against the Muslim ban, but there's still reason to be worried she's going to vote for his nominees and stuff. She's terrible like that. cheese fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Feb 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:No matter how despicable Milo himself is, I believe that using violence against other nonviolent civilians is clearly wrong. I can understand that "don't punish people for opposing your thoughts, you'll just make a silent majority" belief when it comes to something like pro-choice/life arguments. But you're making peace with people who will use that peace to grow in such numbers that they can eventually kill you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I can understand that "don't punish people for opposing your thoughts, you'll just make a silent majority" belief when it comes to something like pro-choice/life arguments. But you're making peace with people who will use that peace to grow in such numbers that they can eventually kill you. Yeah the central fascist tactic was and is to take advantage of liberal society's tolerance to accumulate power until they can destroy the liberal society. fake edit: for the record, before the election I think I would have probably been arguing on the side of Leperflesh ITT but the past few months and especially the past few weeks have made me rethink my position Shear Modulus fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Feb 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:Yeah the central fascist tactic was and is to take advantage of liberal society's tolerance to accumulate power until they can destroy the liberal society. I've blamed the black bloc for ruining liberal activism for the past couple decades, they avoid large masses of conservatives but turn any march against war or for minorities etc into a violent rat-gently caress. But at least for right now I like their choice in going after such niche awful conservatives that even Tea Party Nationwide or whatever can't be bothered to defend them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:Yeah the central fascist tactic was and is to take advantage of liberal society's tolerance to accumulate power until they can destroy the liberal society. I'm sorry that genuine adversity has led so many people to abandon their closely-held principles in the name of expediency. Craptacular! posted:I can understand that "don't punish people for opposing your thoughts, you'll just make a silent majority" belief when it comes to something like pro-choice/life arguments. But you're making peace with people who will use that peace to grow in such numbers that they can eventually kill you. I disagree that not physically attacking people is the same as making peace with them or tolerating their ideas. El Mero Mero posted:This entire talking point revolves around the paradox of tolerance, something that was brought up and settled over 50 years ago. A free society that values, tolerates and permits freedom of expression has to be intolerant of speech and activity that undermines that value. I disagree that choosing to oppose a destructive and despicable ideology through nonviolent means and/or the rule of law is synonymous with toleration of that ideology. This is a false premise: "we must violently attack them or else we're permitting them, there is no other option." Roland Jones posted:Yeah, I was coming to post about this. He's got his stupid anti-immigrant movement thing he's starting and he was planning to project hte names and information of potential undocumented students while on stage while encouraging people to call ICE on anyone they suspect is undocumented.oxxed them that time, but word is he was definitely planning to do so last night. To me this is different; the administration of the school can write and enforce a bright-line rule that they will not permit any speaker to break the law by inciting violence against named students. If the administration knew in advance that Milo intended to directly attack their students - not just promote an ideology of intolerance, but target individuals by name for attack - then it was inappropriate for them to still permit him to speak. That rule could be enforced against anyone of any ideology and is not a politicized stance. It is exactly the same as proactively preventing someone from shouting fire in a theater, an act which is well-established as illegal and not protected speech. I still don't think this justifies violence towards other nonviolent people who were present to support Milo, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 04:11
|
|