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

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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.

If the line at which we suppress someone's speech is advocating genocide, I think I'm more or less okay with that. I think the state should be doing it though, and certainly not private citizens. More than that, though, I'm worried about the inevitable broadening of the category of "people whose views are odious enough to us that we can attack them just for thinking the way they do". I've said it before, that doesn't end well at all, for anyone.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

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?

Not sure how clubs are managed at Berkeley but at most universities the clubs receive funding from the SU, which receives its money from SU fees, so yeah, the students are paying for it either way.

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.

I've already said I thought these particular protests were stupid in a previous post. That doesn't mean I can't be in favour of civil disobedience as a general principle in other situations. I was mostly pointing out its effectiveness in this situation. And, as I noted earlier, it's hard to come down morally against property destruction as a political statement when the country glorifies it as part of its origin mythology.

Also, are you really going to trivialize the type of crap that Milo was pulling on Twitter or the type of garbage he spouts on a consistent basis like that? This is part of the reason, IMO, the left has begun to escalate things more in the last 4-5 years.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

If the line at which we suppress someone's speech is advocating genocide, I think I'm more or less okay with that. I think the state should be doing it though, and certainly not private citizens. More than that, though, I'm worried about the inevitable broadening of the category of "people whose views are odious enough to us that we can attack them just for thinking the way they do". I've said it before, that doesn't end well at all, for anyone.

Yeah, I guess what I always go back to is that denying someone an audience isn't the same as suppressing their speech. I kicked a dude out of a party I was hosting a few years ago because he went off on an anti-semitic tirade. If I tell him he can't come back to future events at my house because of his anti-semitic views, I'm not suppressing is right to speak. I'm invoking my right not to listen to him.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, I guess what I always go back to is that denying someone an audience isn't the same as suppressing their speech. I kicked a dude out of a party I was hosting a few years ago because he went off on an anti-semitic tirade. If I tell him he can't come back to future events at my house because of his anti-semitic views, I'm not suppressing is right to speak. I'm invoking my right not to listen to him.

I'm guessing your level of understanding of his schtick was a lot less than Berkley's understanding of Milo's when they invited him though no?

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Not sure how clubs are managed at Berkeley but at most universities the clubs receive funding from the SU, which receives its money from SU fees, so yeah, the students are paying for it either way.

All I can find is that $7000 was paid for by the Republican Party club at Berkeley to have security. No speaking fees. Near as I can tell, the students that paid for it are the ones who wanted him there. In the end, its kinda funny there are issues with cost of having him, yet none of those concerns seem to be directed at what the school has incurred due to the riot. In fact, they are turned away as mere glorification of material things.

I've already said I thought these particular protests were stupid in a previous post. That doesn't mean I can't be in favour of civil disobedience as a general principle in other situations. I was mostly pointing out its effectiveness in this situation.

Of course it was effective, the place was on fire.

And, as I noted earlier, it's hard to come down morally against property destruction as a political statement when the country glorifies it as part of its origin mythology.

Morals have nothing to do with being against destruction of property. Didn't we just have a muppet run for president who was rallying against the rising costs of post secondary? There is no justification for this, whatever your idealistic take on the morality surrounding property, because in the real world it's gonna cost someone. Amazing to be concerned with the cost that may be associated with having Milo speak at their campus, yet the cost of property? Pffft who cares. Being a petulant, brainless victim of group think is the only justification here. No one asserts moral value to objects, however in the end someone pays for it. The students. Brilliant. So why do it? Acting out on primal urges? Its akin to a baby throwing his dish because he doesn't like whipped peas.

Also, are you really going to trivialize the type of crap that Milo was pulling on Twitter or the type of garbage he spouts on a consistent basis like that? This is part of the reason, IMO, the left has begun to escalate things more in the last 4-5 years.

I cant control his speech, and it's not up to me to denounce it nor have I trivialized it. For every useless, baiting, divisive post you can find on the right, I can just as easily find some quote of someone with left leaning ideologies saying kill white men, ect. I think we could both agree that both sides of differing political ideology need to take a serious 5. Meet in the middle people, its a happy place. It's warm, and we have snapple.

Lets use another example of divisive political speech. Justin Trudeau said Canada belongs to Quebec. Do you know how offensive myself and others find that statement? Do you see people showing up at town halls starting fires and hitting liberals in the head with bike chains? No. Thicker skin. Perspective. The alt-left could use both.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

So is making them jump into the river.

I hate Illinois nazis.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

All I can find is that $7000 was paid for by the Republican Party club at Berkeley to have security. No speaking fees. Near as I can tell, the students that paid for it are the ones who wanted him there. In the end, its kinda funny there are issues with cost of having him, yet none of those concerns seem to be directed at what the school has incurred due to the riot. In fact, they are turned away as mere glorification of material things.



Of course it was effective, the place was on fire.



Morals have nothing to do with being against destruction of property. Didn't we just have a muppet run for president who was rallying against the rising costs of post secondary? There is no justification for this, whatever your idealistic take on the morality surrounding property, because in the real world it's gonna cost someone. Amazing to be concerned with the cost that may be associated with having Milo speak at their campus, yet the cost of property? Pffft who cares. Being a petulant, brainless victim of group think is the only justification here. No one asserts moral value to objects, however in the end someone pays for it. The students. Brilliant. So why do it? Acting out on primal urges? Its akin to a baby throwing his dish because he doesn't like whipped peas.



I cant control his speech, and it's not up to me to denounce it nor have I trivialized it. For every useless, baiting, divisive post you can find on the right, I can just as easily find some quote of someone with left leaning ideologies saying kill white men, ect. I think we could both agree that both sides of differing political ideology need to take a serious 5. Meet in the middle people, its a happy place. It's warm, and we have snapple.

Lets use another example of divisive political speech. Justin Trudeau said Canada belongs to Quebec. Do you know how offensive myself and others find that statement? Do you see people showing up at town halls starting fires and hitting liberals in the head with bike chains? No. Thicker skin. Perspective. The alt-left could use both.

Did you just make up the "alt-left"?

I'm a white man and have yet to hear anyone call for me to be murdered. Where would I have to look to find that kind of talk? I don't remember many "heil Trudeau" chants either, incidentally.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Did you just make up the "alt-left"?

No, it's a thing.

I'm a white man and have yet to hear anyone call for me to be murdered. Where would I have to look to find that kind of talk?

Twitter.

I don't remember many "heil Trudeau" chants either, incidentally.

Can't say I do either.

[driveway]

"Alt-left" is a term invented by conservatives with which to brand those they disagree with.

This makes it fundamentally different from "Alt-right" which was a term purposefully chosen BY the members of that group in order to have a term other than "White-nationalist" to which they could claim allegiance.

In other words, it's totally not a thing.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by duffman

what percentage of the protesters were thugs would you say?

2-10%

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by 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).

Yes, but why let facts get in the way.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by driveway

"Alt-left" is a term invented by conservatives with which to brand those they disagree with.

This makes it fundamentally different from "Alt-right" which was a term purposefully chosen BY the members of that group in order to have a term other than "White-nationalist" to which they could claim allegiance.

In other words, it's totally not a thing.

Exactly. This is a term created by the extreme right to do what the do best -project and build false equivalence. No one embraces this term except the racists and extremists on the right, and the only reason they use it is to give impression of there being a balancing perspective to their horse####. When you see terms like this leaking into conversations you really begin to gain insight as to where people get their information and what they themselves believe in.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by peter12

2-10%

"peter12: Professional Estimator"

This Fall on Fox! Count on him to count your AntiFa!

[PsYcNeT]

"Only the truth counts!"

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Punching Nazis is fine by me. Give 'er.

Madness.

As time ticks along, we seem to be forgetting the lessons of history. We don't understand why we have the freedoms and laws we have. We fail to see the terrible peril in suppressing speech and and tolerating political violence.

Read about the ACLU defence of the Nazi march through Skokie, a Jewish neighbourhood full of holocaust survivors. This analysis of the court decision that upheld the right to march outlines why it's intolerable in a liberal democracy to prevent marches and meeting of that kind:

Making First Amendment rights turn on judgments about a speaker’s subjective intent is a dangerous business, because intent is very elusive and police, prosecutors and jurors are very prone to attribute evil intentions to those whose views they despise.

Third, the village argued that if the Nazis were permitted to march there would be uncontrollable violence. But is this a reason to suppress speech? Isn’t the obligation of the government to protect the speaker and to control and punish the lawbreakers, rather than to invite those who would silence the speech to use threats of violence to achieve their ends? If the village of Skokie had won on this point, then southern communities who wanted to prosecute civil rights marchers in Selma, Montgomery and Birmingham could equally do so, on the plea that such demonstrations would trigger “uncontrollable violence.” Moreover, once government gives in to such threats of violence it effectively invites a “heckler’s veto,” empowering any group of people who want to silence others to do so simply by threatening to violate the law.

Too many people today fail to recognize how tolerating institutional suppression of speech they hate could (and inevitably will) be turned around to suppress their own speech. If it's okay to punch a Nazi, how about punching a Marxist? After all, they're defending an ideology responsible for the deaths of tens of millions. Their aim of mandating an even distribution of property and wealth has only ever been achieved at the end of a gun. So I guess the next time some campus Marxist opens her mouth about equality of outcome, the grandson of a Lithuanian massacred in the bloodlands of Eastern Europe should punch her in the face. That's where we're headed.

Stop being children. Read some history. The struggle of the 20th century that culminated in World War Two wasn't just a struggle between fascists and anti-fascists. It was a struggle for liberal* democracy to survive when under assault from both the far right and the far left. The left's response to fascism was as bad as the disease, and where liberal democracy was weak or failed, the war between the fascism and communism shed rivers of blood and left the victor of each struggle as a totalitarian state ruling with contempt for liberal democratic values.

Part of me wonders if subconsciously a lot of people really do want an open, violent struggle to sort out politics today. Us against Them. Left vs Right. Fight to the finish, with only one group left standing. Because that's where this type of encouragement of political violence leads us. Think polarisation and political hatred are bad today? It can get worse. Much, much worse.

* The etymological root of liberal is "freedom." Liberalism is hard. It means trading away security in exchange for freedom. It means never really getting your way. Never living in a society where everyone shares your values. It means being exposed to people and ideas and speech that you despise. It means overcoming your instincts to silence those people and figuring out a way to share a society with them. It means being strong enough to let your intellect master your emotions.

It's tremendously hard. But the alternatives are worse. We don't have speculate about that - we know what they are. If we can be bothered to remember our history.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by peter12

2-10%

So, 2 - 10 % of the crowd, who weren't students are representative of the whole crowd?

[DuffMan]

If you're going to preach hate speech and you're not expecting to get punched in the face, you might be in the wrong business.

[DuffMan]

Trump sure hates people that he thinks lie. I can see why with his standard of always telling the truth.

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump

Sen.Richard Blumenthal, who never fought in Vietnam when he said for years he had (major lie),now misrepresents what Judge Gorsuch told him?
4:57 AM · Feb 9, 2017

This could get really good, who will the judge defend?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Draft dodger lectures on who is and isn't a war hero. Gotta wonder how many of those undecideds who broke late for Trump wish it was 4 months ago and they could do it over. Surely those people convinced themselves he would stop this ####, and that's part of why they decided he was acceptable. Oh well (and again....why the long breaks between tweets?)

[DuffMan]

Trump has been busy with the crazy this morning, awesome.