Wait, so you honestly don't think the non-violent civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s accomplished anything? What exactly did the Black Panthers accomplish?
Wait, so you honestly think that all the love-in peacenik stuff from the 60s and 70s accomplished anything? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, it was a little more complex than that and the varied forms of protest had a greater impact than some would suggest?
You seem to forget that there was plenty of violence during the civil rights movement. Just because one side did not initiate violence does not mean that side was not violent (that was kind of what Trump was trying to get at, but failed miserably). My point is, that you don't initiate violence, but you come prepared for violence, and with a plan to deal with violence. Because, as proven at Charlottesville, neo-Nazis have no interest in hugs.
You mean the one romanticized by white people who watched it happen from a safe distance right? Yeah that one was great. Ah the good old days when civil Rights movements were nonviolent and protesters accepted that sometimes you get the hose and a German Shepard.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
King used non-violence as tactic to gain sympathy in the face of oppression. He knew that images of abuse and violence would generate sympathy and support for the cause, so the non-violence marches were meant to antagonize and draw a response as much as show numbers.
Have a strategy and be prepared to execute it. Sometimes that includes taking a beating, and suing. Sometimes that means fighting back with an equal response. Sometimes that means a show of violence of your own.
Thank you for the image below.
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 08-22-2017 at 02:52 PM.
Wait, so you honestly think that all the love-in peacenik stuff from the 60s and 70s accomplished anything?
Is this a serious question? Tell me you're just striking a pose.
Though fact you cite the 70's for "peacenik stuff" suggests it may be ignorance. The major gains of the Civil Rights movement were made in the 50s to the 60s. By the late 60s and early 70s, more violent and revolutionary tactics took over. You can do your own research on which tactics led to genuine progress.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
27 cops were injured during that riot. Do you think they were hurt removing peaceful protesters from a sit-in?
You don't see the difference between peaceful protests intended to provoke a violent reaction and de-legitimize your opponents, and initiating violence as a way to silence them?
Let's cut to the chase Flash - do you think coordinating and initiating violence against police and neo-Nazis is a winning tactic for the left? Will it cowe the far right into submission? Walk me through how this strategy plays out, in your mind, and what tangible political accomplishments it achieves.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Yeah, no. This is wrong. They've confused the concept of freedom of speech with constitutional protections for speech. It's the nature of a constitution that's limited to restraints on government action, not something inherent to the concept of free speech itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexis De Tocqueville
If great writers have not at present existed in America, the reason is very simply given in these facts; there can be no literary genius without freedom of opinion, and freedom of opinion does not exist in America. The Inquisition has never been able to prevent a vast number of anti-religious books from circulating in Spain. The empire of the majority succeeds much better in the United States, since it actually removes the wish of publishing them.
True in 1835. The tyranny of the majority has always exerted that sort of suppressive effort, just to different things at different times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Let's cut to the chase Flash - do you think coordinating and initiating violence against police and neo-Nazis is a winning tactic for the left? Will it cowe the far right into submission? Walk me through how this strategy plays out, in your mind, and what tangible political accomplishments it achieves.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Is there anywhere in the world where free speech has existed in the romanticised (and what I believe to be a strictly philosophical) way you view it?
Because I'm pretty sure free speech in actual practice is exactly as illustrated. You can say whatever, and people will react accordingly. Do you think free speech exists on this message board? In Canada? North America? Anywhere in the world?
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Is there anywhere in the world where free speech has existed in the romanticised (and what I believe to be a strictly philosophical) way you view it?
I'm describing a concept, so this question makes no sense. Are you asking if there has ever been unlimited, unfettered free speech without any viewpoint-based suppression from majority opinion? No. Just as I'm not aware of any society that has ever existed where there's no murder.
It's also not as if I'm opposed to limits on free expression, either. I don't want you to be able to stand outside city hall and hand out instructions for making a homemade nuclear bomb.
I'm pointing out that free speech as a concept is a different thing from the First Amendment to the US constitution, or Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That comic is stupid because it suggests that as long as the government isn't arresting you, no free speech issue arises. This is simply not the case. Viewpoint-based censorship on Facebook, for example, is a free speech issue, it's just not a constitutional issue.
Quote:
You can say whatever, and people will react accordingly.
Yes, and whether that reaction is to explain a different viewpoint, drown you out with an air horn, or beat you over the head with a lead pipe matters from a free speech perspective. That's incredibly obvious.
Quote:
Do you think free speech exists on this message board? In Canada? North America? Anywhere in the world?
Most places in the world, to different degrees, and subject to different threats and limitations based in law or culture.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Is there anywhere in the world where free speech has existed in the romanticised (and what I believe to be a strictly philosophical) way you view it?
Because I'm pretty sure free speech in actual practice is exactly as illustrated. You can say whatever, and people will react accordingly. Do you think free speech exists on this message board? In Canada? North America? Anywhere in the world?
No ideal has ever existed in the real world. That's why they're called ideals. But there's an extremely strong correlation between the scope of speech and ideas that a culture tolerates and the progress of liberal society - especially for minorities.
It's difficult to express how bizarre it is to see the emergence of a political culture where freedom of speech is being championed more strongly by the right than the left. It's like watching rain fall upwards.
“People who would hamper free speech always assume that they’re designing a world in which only their enemies will have to shut up.” Lionel Shriver
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 08-22-2017 at 03:39 PM.
I guess I just wonder if there is a point to continuously talking about a theoretical concept of an idea that exists only in a philosophical sense when almost everywhere in the world has an actual, tangible example of a way it works (to varying degrees).
The cartoon pretty clearly illustrates the actual version of free speech that works in the real world. No, it does not describe the philosophical ideal, but that is generally better left to classrooms and books that look good on the shelf when you have mountains upon mountains of historical and current evidence that shows the philosophical "ideal" doesn't actually exist in practice.
Pretty sure most people talk about the real world application of key ideas when discussing matters that actually occur.
That's generally how we treat communism. Great theory, but the real world application makes the theory irrelevant, since we can actually see how it's applied when impacted by the human condition (hint: not like the theory!)
Is this a serious question? Tell me you're just striking a pose.
Though fact you cite the 70's for "peacenik stuff" suggests it may be ignorance. The major gains of the Civil Rights movement were made in the 50s to the 60s. By the late 60s and early 70s, more violent and revolutionary tactics took over. You can do your own research on which tactics led to genuine progress.
Why the refusal to acknowledge that the use of violence is not always based on who throws the first punch or fires the first shot? You may want to dig a little deeper into MLK's philosophy and use of "non-violence" to better understand the use of violence. MLK used the violence inherent in the system to work to his advantage, but as Captain pointed out, the restraint only lasted for so long, and tactically as it were. I think you're also ignoring the riots of the period and how they spilled over into affecting public opinion. I personally think you are either misrepresenting the "non-violence movement" or ignoring the violence that was so prevalent through out the movement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
It's difficult to express how bizarre it is to see the emergence of a political culture where freedom of speech is being championed more strongly by the right than the left. It's like watching rain fall upwards.
This kind of explains your interpretation of the non-violence movement. If you think the right is championing free speech, you're out of your mind. They are not championing free speech, they are championing their right to use hate speech without accountability. Massive difference.
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 08-22-2017 at 03:46 PM.
Where did the anti-nazi demonstrators initiate violence in Charlottesville against the police?
Where's the coordinated attacks against Nazis? From a source other than the Nazis thank you.
Try to follow the thread of conversation.
New Era said the approach to civil rights employed by MLK was ineffective.
I said it was more effective than the violent tactics employed later in the 60s and 70s. I cited the Freedom Riders as an example of protest that didn't initiate violence.
Flash implied that the violence that surrounded he Freedom Riders was initiated by the civil rights activists.
I asked him to clarify how he thinks initiating violence is a winning tactic for the left.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
You don't see the difference between peaceful protests intended to provoke a violent reaction and de-legitimize your opponents, and initiating violence as a way to silence them?
Let's cut to the chase Flash - do you think coordinating and initiating violence against police and neo-Nazis is a winning tactic for the left? Will it cowe the far right into submission? Walk me through how this strategy plays out, in your mind, and what tangible political accomplishments it achieves.
I'm merely posting to refute your ahistorical accounting of the history of the civil rights movement in the US.
The cartoon pretty clearly illustrates the actual version of free speech that works in the real world. No, it does describe the philosophical ideal, but that is generally better left to classrooms and books that look good on the shelf when you have mountains upon mountains of historical and current evidence that shows the philosophical "ideal" doesn't actually exist.
Yeah, no, you've missed the point. Maybe I wasn't clear. The cartoon does not describe "how it works in the real world". How it works in the real world is, sure, we have constitutions that limit government interference with free expression, but separate from that, we take it as one of our goals in liberal democratic societies to try to encourage the free exchange of ideas so as to determine what ideas are best.
That is why it makes sense to say that it is worse, when someone expresses a political view, if the response is that they're assaulted than if they're told why they're wrong. It's why it makes sense to say, "I don't think Calgarypuck should ban users just for saying they don't like the Hamonic trade". If free speech as a principle stopped at the government's end, there would be no basis for making those statements. There is, because we want people to be able to exchange ideas and sharpen their viewpoints. This is a good thing that we should strive for in life generally. It isn't just something we demand that the government live up to.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png)
