American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS (Archive)

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

No one will give credence to your cause, whatever it may be, if you're assaulting people, and destroying property.

Totally.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Okay, great, they earned sympathy. BFD. The Occupy Movement was a total failure and anything it accomplished temporarily has since been largely erased.

Yeah, but that's because they had no actual argument. That's the part of OWS that was a failure. There was no coherent position. If you asked anyone what they were fighting for, they couldn't string together a sentence that made any sense. One hopes that if you ask someone at the Women's March, they'll tell you why they support a woman's right to control her own reproductive system, in complete sentences. Once you get people paying attention to you, you still have to have something compelling to say to them.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Totally.

Are you suggesting they next take up armed revolution?

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by peter12

I am not a fan of Milo, and I think that there is an honest to goodness reason to peacably protest anytime he shows up to s***-disturb. Those protests were disgusting, and certainly pushed me farther away from the so-called "resistance" movement of thugs and fellow travelers that is forming in response to Trump.

What percentage of the protesters were thugs would you say?

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Totally

I mean, if you think accruing a felony assault charge is sticking it to the man, or civil disobedience, then go nuts. Again, I wonder what the end game is here. Stifling free speech, having no dissenting political opinions for the echo chamber, or what?

Like that dude that shot Gabby Giffords in the face. He was just trying to enact real change, amirite?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, but that's because they had no actual argument. That's the part of OWS that was a failure. There was no coherent position. If you asked anyone what they were fighting for, they couldn't string together a sentence that made any sense. One hopes that if you ask someone at the Women's March, they'll tell you why they support a woman's right to control her own reproductive system, in complete sentences. Once you get people paying attention to you, you still have to have something compelling to say to them.

Manifestos don't count?

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...lmay-manifesto

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I have literally never seen that before. Ever. I suspect 99% (see what I did there) of the protestors never read it either. I recall lots of interviews and articles quoting people in the streets whose completely incomprehensible responses to why they were protesting could be summed up, if at all, as "we don't like that there are really rich people and we're not rich". Not to re-litigate OWS or anything.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

I mean, if you think accruing a felony assault charge is sticking it to the man, or civil disobedience, then go nuts. Again, I wonder what the end game is here. Stifling free speech, having no dissenting political opinions for the echo chamber, or what?

Do you really think this what about stifling someone's free speech? Milo has a history of being a serial harasser, misogynist, etc., etc. This wasn't a protest about what Milo was saying, it was about who Milo is as a person. Put someone up there with the same political beliefs, minus the bullying baggage and do you think the same thing happen?

Like that dude that shot Gabby Giffords in the face. He was just trying to enact real change, amirite?

I'm not even sure what this has to do with anything. Are you trying to say that property damage is equivalent to attempted murder?

[edslunch]

Hasn't it been established that the violent thugs were part of a local anarchist group and not affiliated with the legitimate protest? (I'm not talking false flag accusations, just that they were there to stir shi7 up).

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm not even sure what this has to do with anything. Are you trying to say that property damage is equivalent to attempted murder?

Not to speak for him, but one of the arguments that surrounded the whole thing with Richard Spencer getting punched in the face was, if that's okay, where's the line? If it's okay to sucker punch him in the jaw, is it okay to break his arm? Throw a brick at him? Shoot him in the head? Does the degree to which you can inflict violence on him without culpability depend on exactly how Nazi-like his beliefs are?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Does the degree to which you can inflict violence on him without culpability depend on exactly how Nazi-like his beliefs are?

Maybe? Isn't that generally how we measure our responses to bad things, by the degree to which they're bad?

Hasn't Spencer written pieces about black genocide (I'm not completely familiar with him)? If someone is openly advocating violence against a certain group or individual, do they leave themselves open to retaliatory violence from the other side?

EDIT: I don't think I would openly advocate hitting the dude but I'm certainly not going to shed any tears for him.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yeah, I'm not shedding tears for him, either. He's an a-hole. More for the state of public discourse that reflects what you just wrote - that physical violence constitutes a proportional form of retaliation to someone writing things we don't like.

[2Stonedbirds]

What's funny is the reasons being made for justification for these violent protests, are essentially verbatim of what the young turks were just spouting off about.

"Hey, that guy is a bully! I'll show em, how bout a bicycle chain upside the head?"

Way to enact change.

Violence begets violence. I don't think a violent uprising causing a revolution stemming from cities that border the ocean is a good idea for our masked friends.

In a way I agree with you rubecube, your average run of the mill protest isn't all that effective. Agreed. But voting certainly is. Yes, I do think this is about shutting down free speech; if Milo wasn't there to speak, there wouldn't be a problem, no? Thats all this was about, was shutting down a viewpoint that many on the campus disagree with. Acting out in violence to perceived bullying doesn't make you right, it makes you a hypocritical asshat and everyone sees that.

Was this protest aimed at the govt? If not, who is responsible for enacting the change that the groups that set fires and beat the hell out of people are seeking?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, I'm not shedding tears for him, either. He's an a-hole. More for the state of public discourse that reflects what you just wrote - that physical violence constitutes a proportional form of retaliation to someone writing things we don't like.

I think it goes further than just "things we don't like." If someone is advocating killing off your entire race, that person is technically a threat to you.

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

In a way I agree with you rubecube, your average run of the mill protest isn't all that effective. Agreed. But voting certainly is. Yes, I do think this is about shutting down free speech; if Milo wasn't there to speak, there wouldn't be a problem, no? Thats all this was about, was shutting down a viewpoint that many on the campus disagree with. Acting out in violence to perceived bullying doesn't make you right, it makes you a hypocritical asshat and everyone sees that.

Let me put it to you this way, if a student on campus was actively harassing another student over social media and engaging other students to do so as well, should the school takes steps to remove the offending student? Most school policies say yes they should. So how is it consistent with those policies to allow someone on campus, at the expense of the students, who engages in that type of behaviour? That's what I would be protesting if I was a student at the university.

This isn't a "marketplace of ideas" issue, it's a "that guy is a raging ####### who treats people like garbage" issue. I'm not saying brick the guy in the head, but as a student you absolutely are in the right to protest his presence at the university.

[PsYcNeT]

This thread has a weird idea that AntiFa are supposed to be representative of all protesters.

You guys are pretty narrow-minded I gotta say.

[bc-chris]

i had my little guy at the library yesterday for 'baby-time' and there are always a bunch of display books put up around library. this one caught my eye and i can only wonder if trump will decree that it gets reprinted... ha!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, I'm not shedding tears for him, either. He's an a-hole. More for the state of public discourse that reflects what you just wrote - that physical violence constitutes a proportional form of retaliation to someone writing things we don't like.

So this a$$hole got punched in the face. Big whoop.

He advocates ethnic cleansing and white power violence. When you lead a movement hell-bent on deporting or killing citizens to build a white utopia, you're going to piss a lot of people off, and a punch in the face is pretty tame.

[ResAlien]

Punching Nazis is fine by me. Give 'er.

[puffnstuff]

So is making them jump into the river.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Let me put it to you this way, if a student on campus was actively harassing another student over social media and engaging other students to do so as well, should the school takes steps to remove the offending student? Most school policies say yes they should. So how is it consistent with those policies to allow someone on campus, at the expense of the students, who engages in that type of behaviour? That's what I would be protesting if I was a student at the university.

Milo isn't enrolled there, he was invited. If the school takes steps to ban him, that would be their prerogative, which they would certainly be challenged on. But they didn't do that. Who from Berkeley was specifically targeted by Milo's bullying? Pretty sure Milo doesn't charge for his speaking events, so how is it at the expense of the students? The expense of their feelings? The group that brought him in paid for the security fees, not the school. Who pays for all the busted/firebomed junk?

This isn't a "marketplace of ideas" issue, it's a "that guy is a raging ####### who treats people like garbage" issue.

So?

I'm not saying brick the guy in the head, but as a student you absolutely are in the right to protest his presence at the university.

Then what was all "need to enact civil disobedience" crap about? By all means protest, but do not destroy property and assault others. Whats so hard to understand here? It wasn't a protest, it was a riot. "Oh the guy said mean things on the interwebs, lets start the place on fire." Come on man, Milo doesn't deserve respect but these violent #######s certainly do not, and they are not collecting favor with their peers. Unless of course, they consider their peers to be the young turks and their ilk. They think its awesome and justifiable.