Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Y'all need to consider the intended audience of this article.
This is an explanation of why the revolutionary far left are not allies of the progressive left. They are, in fact, a movement willing to use violence to silence their adversaries. They are not committed to free speech as a principle - and as for the rule of law, they jettisoned that a long time ago.
The actions of the antifa/black bloc demonstrators don't interest me nearly as much as the arguments used to justify their violent tactics that appear in the article.
I'm similarly interested in arguments used to justify denying someone the ability to speak at an event. No-platforming someone isn't an act of violence, but it is generally understood to be an infringement on their right to free speech. The author of the above-linked article even says it amounts to such, and goes on to disdain the bourgeois nature of free speech.
As you say ![]()
&
, shutting down the event was the explicit purpose of the peaceful (non-antifa) demonstrators and it was accomplished successfully. Do you think this is a violation of the speaker's rights or do you think it's something else?
edited 4th Feb '17 11:43:10 PM by Gault
yey![]()
![]()
That's exactly what I didn't want to hear.
I had a part I deleted from my previous post that read: I'm sure the reason's better than, "I just don't like those guys," but I'm compelled to ask just to make sure.
Welp, I am disappoint.
As someone who recognizes that the concept of rights is the single most significant development in the field of Human society and civilization in the last 400 years, I have to figure people have got to have some pretty good fucking reasons for throwing them out- even in the case of Nazis.
Is it really just, "Fuck Nazis?" for you? Not even a, "If these people don't believe in the rights of non-whites, then there's no reason why I should believe in their rights"?
edited 5th Feb '17 12:05:24 AM by Gault
yeyHe has doxxed people in the past in his speeches, I'm sure he will again. I totally understand violent opposition to his inclusion. He brings violence wherever he goes, it's perhaps time he got some of his own.
Why? The only response to fascist ideologies is vigorous opposition. Sometimes that requires violence.
edited 5th Feb '17 12:07:10 AM by Lanceleoghauni
"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"The former is really just a more concise version of the latter. It's obviously rooted in that sentiment.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."![]()
![]()
![]()
That's another argument I hear. And, while it is a better argument than, "Fuck those guys," I can see in it the potential for a kind of free-speech-only-in-theory. There's an easy test for this- take what you believe and put it in the same position. If no public institution would willingly grant you a platform to extol your opinions, would you consider it to be fair and not an impediment to your right to free speech? There are many historical circumstances I can think of when the prevailing opinions of society were hard-set against the efforts of progressive social movements. If the right to free speech does not imply a "right to be heard", what would this have meant for them?
I'm aware that that's probably the case with most people, and I agree with the general sentiment, but that doesn't mean it's a good argument. It's an awful argument, and people should stop using it. What's more, I think it's generally bad intellectual practice to assume that somebody who happens to share the same opinion as you has reached that opinion through the same intellectual process that you have. They might have a completely different motivation and rationale, and you'd never know it until you asked them to explain it. I think this is quite important.
edited 5th Feb '17 12:15:29 AM by Gault
yeyI think the issue you're running into is somehow conflating "Maybe Black People Are Actually People" and "Jews Belong In Ovens". They are not the same thing, regardless of social opinion on them in their time period.
"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"![]()
There are almost always going to be avenues for people with those kinds of views to speak their mind though. All you really need is some money and you can get a website or whatever to say what you like. Places like stormfront and breitbart have not been outlawed.
If anyone will listen to what you have to say is another story. Even when it comes to opinions i agree with, im not going to strong-arm anyone into hearing me or anyone else out.
edited 5th Feb '17 12:37:50 AM by Draghinazzo
The right to free speech is just the right to say it without the government getting all up in your face about it and possibly arresting you for things like criticizing the government. Now, this has limits as you can be investigated for things such as threats and the like, but that's beside the point.
Being able to say what you want to doesn't necessarily guarantee that anyone will be interested in listening to you, nor should you be able to force them to listen, as many alt righters seem to think should happen.
![]()
With sites like tumblr and wordpress and facebook, you don't even need money to pay for a webspace, just be able to afford a computer and get an email to sign up. And it's hard as shit to actually get booted even if you're behaving badly on a lot of social media websites.
edited 5th Feb '17 12:30:32 AM by AceofSpades
Quite simply said, he brings nothing to the table beyond justification for on-campus pogroms. The only thing keeping it legal is Brandenburg v. Ohio.
As much as I don't care for the Black Bloc, persistent actions like this can and have driven up the security fees campuses require to allow him to speak there. Well, once you figure out how smashing the windows of an on-campus Amazon store is tied to that.
Online neo-Nazis go hysterical at the sight of a tumblr URL. Social media is their safe space because there is no way for you to get permabanned there for being a neo-Nazi unless you post a picture of a racially pure female nipple.
edited 5th Feb '17 12:39:10 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
You're right, and I know that. The nature of these two movements are polar opposites. But the argument is the same. That's the problem.
That can't be. If you hold a particular scheme of reasoning to be correct, then it must be correct in every situation. There are no double-standards.
For example, in this case the scheme of reasoning would be something like: "Free speech guarantees someone only the right to speak their opinions, it doesn't guarantee them the right that those opinions will be heard by anyone."
This is the general principle that the aforementioned argument holds to be true. Given that there are no double standards, it must therefore apply to all peoples equally in all cases and at all times. It has to remain true for everyone, no matter what the specific opinion is or the movement that it's attached to.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
That doesn't help. It just shifts the argument slightly from, "free speech doesn't guarantee you the right to be heard," to "free speech doesn't guarantee you the right to be heard so long as nobody stops you from making a website". Can you see the problem with this yet?
If I was an active participant in a social movement- say the fight to secure LGBTQ people full rights- and I was effectively relegated to some obscure internet blog because the preponderance of public opinion weighed against me such that I could not secure even one speaking event at a public venue, but technically my freedom of speech rights were not being infringed because no one stops me from running my blog, that would not fill me with a great deal of confidence regarding the practice of freedom of speech rights in the country. This is not a good argument.
![]()
![]()
That's flat-out wrong. Private groups are perfectly capable of infringing on a person's freedom of speech, it doesn't only refer to actions taken by the government to suppress criticism by the public. If a private citizen hears me arguing against homophobia and decides to get all up in my face about it, he or she would have exactly the same right to shut me up as the government does- none whatsoever. You are entirely correct in saying that freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you. That would violate peoples' freedom of conscience. But forcing someone to believe what you're telling them is different from having a platform.
![]()
I have no illusions whatsoever about the kind of person Milo is. Unethical, sensationalist, juvenile. A disgrace to the profession of journalism. I can honestly not remember a single thing I've read or heard him say that I did not vehemently disagree with. But that's besides the point. A bad argument is a bad argument. The person speaking at the event could be Gandhi or Hitler. The presence of neither could turn a bad argument into a good one.
I'm assuming you mean that groups that advocate violence have no business being given a public platform to advance themselves politically? That's a definite position, though I wonder whether those Black Bloc folks would agree with you.
edited 5th Feb '17 12:54:52 AM by Gault
yeyI say that Milo and any given Neo-Nazi like him does not deserve the chance to vomit his dysfunctions and views over the students.
If you have these utopic ideals, such that they just have to be given the same rights, well, I'm more in favor of European style Hate Speech laws.
That, and I totally lack any sort of such ideals.

Then the next day you can point and blame.
Your momma's so dumb she thinks oral sex means talking dirty.