Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Violence vs. Free Speech

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Violence vs. Free Speech

    New separate thread because it's not so random anymore (and really never was).

    The site of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement (i.e. Berkeley) has become the latest and most violent leftist protest of Milo Yiannopoulos' speaking tour of college campuses.
    http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/0...eech-movement/

    Backstory on Milo (basically a Deplorable Faggot):


    His initial great sin was being the first to report on the Gamergate journalism scandal, shattering the attempted news blackout and signaling the end of a corrupt leftist journo clique's ability to silence or spin such stories unopposed (even in a smaller corner of the news media like tech). Even worse, he helped open the eyes of non-corrupt leftists to what was happening.

    The regressive left hates him and wants him silenced, 1AM be damned:

    Originally posted by kunedog View Post
    Some backstory: Multiple campus administrations, instead of upholding their duty to the 1st Amendment, have sided against free speech and attempted to shut Milo down.

    The current favorite tactic is an exhorbitant "security fee" because of the threat of leftist violence. Even after the fee is settled, it might be jacked up by thousands of dollars only a few days in advance, long after the talk has already been agreed to and the schedule is set.

    IMO the fee is almost always a censorship tactic. In Depaul's case it was proven so, because even after the university was paid, protestors completely disrupted the event while security stood around doing absolutely nothing about it:

    http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/27537/




    What happened at UC Davis was even worse:




    That's right: Instead of ensuring the speaker's and listeners' safety by cracking down on the violent protestors, the university (and police) are trying to shift responsibility onto the students holding the event. So if you wonder why you've repeatedly seen protestors on campus assault people with impunity, it's because the campus admins don't want to stop it. The violence serves their short term (and shortsited) goals of censorship and ideological purity.

    At the University of Washington, a protester was shot after he attacked someone trying to attend Milo's speech:
    https://forums.finalgear.com/politic...1/#post2418892


    That brings us back to Berkeley, which did the same security fee dance:
    http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/1...-to-host-milo/

    Milo and others claim the police presence seemed passive in light of the obvious violence going down (and, surely, the expectations indicated by the high security fee, right?). Dunno how true that is; but as in previous events there's video of protesters destroying property and assaulting people with impunity.

    Originally posted by TC View Post
    Originally posted by ScarFace88 View Post
    Berzerkely gonna Berzerkely.

    #2
    Also relevant IMO:

    Originally posted by kunedog View Post
    For a couple years I've increasingly encountered a couple of disturbing (and surprisingly widely accepted) ideas (which put together, become even worse than their sum):

    1. Pre-emptive violence is OK when directed at racists/sexists/white supremacists/nazis/etc.




    2. Anyone I don't like is a racist/sexist/white supremacist/nazi/etc.


    This is what Social Justice does to you. It erases principles and individual rights (such as free speech), replacing them with an in-group/out-group dynamic. Once in that state, you're capable of incredible things, like denouncing "casual violence" and then advocating it without skipping a beat, all while being cheered on by a whole room full of like minded indiv- . . er, sorry . . . full of the collective in-group:

    Comment


      #3
      Another gem:



      HE WILL NOT DIVIDE US
      Correct, Shia. You did that yourself by assaulting one of your own supporters. Why? Because a) you think it's OK to violently attack the out-group and b) you thought he was part of the out-group.

      To top it off, they literally built a wall beside the camera:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP88fZwFx0E

      OK, a fence. Or more like a railing. Hey I know, let's just call the thing . . . wait for it . . . a DIVIDER.

      If a tenth of the irony dripping from this project were intentional, I'd consider Lebouf one Hell of an artist.

      Comment


        #4
        It's awesome when you are having a discussion with yourself. Then nobody else has to deal with you but yourself.

        So please, carry on!

        beautiful language - milk&water - baseball vs. football - best god in show

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Interrobang View Post
          It's awesome when you are having a discussion with yourself. Then nobody else has to deal with you but yourself.

          So please, carry on!
          His posts all came within one hour and at least in the US everyone's been asleep. Best of all, he's right to point out the mental abortion that is the SJW movement. Dumbest bunch of crybabies around and they've been turning more and more violent.
          "Men with guts attack those corners!" - Keiichi Tsuchiya
          2006 Acura TL and 1999 Mazda Miata

          Comment


            #6
            There've been quite a few incidents that fit the topic recently. And hey, if you have a different take or know of other events, then feel free to pitch in.

            If no one wants to reply, then I guess people will simply be informed about what happened, and that's the end of it.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by LeVeL View Post
              His posts all came within one hour and at least in the US everyone's been asleep.[...]
              You wanna build a wall around this forum?

              Joking aside, he could have fit all that into one post. That's what I wanted to convey. It's poor etiquette. That's all. It's not world-moving and I'm not calling the Pc-Police to deport him, don't worry

              Aaaaand Kunedog making it worse in 3,2, 1 ...
              Originally posted by kunedog View Post
              [...] If no one wants to reply, then I guess people will simply be informed about what happened, and that's the end of it.
              Start a blog, put it in your signature. This is a discussion forum not a one-way street for you to convey your views of the world.
              Last edited by Interrobang; February 2nd, 2017, 11:26 AM.

              beautiful language - milk&water - baseball vs. football - best god in show

              Comment


                #8
                Personally, I consider "freedom of speech"(FOS) to mean you have the right to say whatever you want without government interference. So long as he isn't being arrested for his views, I think the concept of FOS has been preserved. At least from a constitutional or legal perspective.

                It gets a bit blurry when we talk about FOS and society at large. If people get violent, they should be arrested. I can't say that protesting someone speaking at an event etc would be violating the individuals right to freedom of speech. Neither would a venue or private institution be violating that right if they refuse to have you. AFAIK, Berkeley is public hence him being able to speak there. I think there could be a case to argue that having an excessive security fee is a violation of FOS. But i'm sure they wanted the protection (let alone needed it).

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Interrobang View Post
                  You wanna build a wall around this forum?

                  Joking aside, he could have fit all that into one post. That's what I wanted to convey. It's poor etiquette. That's all. It's not world-moving and I'm not calling the Pc-Police to deport him, don't worry

                  Aaaaand Kunedog making it worse in 3,2, 1 ...

                  Start a blog, put it in your signature. This is a discussion forum not a one-way street for you to convey your views of the world.
                  This is a poor attempt at de-legitimizing an important issue, simply because Kunedog started it.

                  This matters. To follow up on Firecat's post, freedom of speech should not only allow Milo to speak on campuses, but the protesters also have a right to protest. Where they cross the line is by:

                  a) disrupting Milo's talks themselves
                  b) attempting to intimidate/prevent anyone wishing to go listen to Milo from attending
                  c) outright assaulting others simply for sharing a different viewpoint, and generally causing violence and looting, a la Berkeley last night.
                  Originally posted by tigger
                  The Lord spoke, "Let there be angry V8s, whistling turbos and big ass cams." And it was good.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I'm with Firecat and JimCorrigan, the freedom of speech is the freedom to be a cunt. I'd go even further than defending Milo, I'd also defend people who praise genocidal and bigoted groups like the Nazis, the KKK, and The Young Turks. Where I draw the line is actual violence.

                    If someone wishes to jump in here to say hate speech is violence, I have a question for them. Conservatively, over 60 million people have been killed by Communist governments and movements, should thus Marxist speech be banned?
                    Last edited by argatoga; February 3rd, 2017, 3:10 AM.
                    bogative ?

                    "Any car which holds together for a whole race is too heavy." - Colin Chapman
                    "If you think about it breast implants aren't much different than braces. Their main purpose is to improve one's appearance, at least that's how it was in my case." - KaJun
                    "So the [suspension's] spring seats fail every 2 years, so what? They cost less than $250 to fix. And if a person can't afford that every two years, than maybe he shouldn't own a car at all." - _HighVoltage_ on Volvos.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by JimCorrigan View Post
                      This is a poor attempt at de-legitimizing an important issue, simply because Kunedog started it.[...]
                      I have not attacked the content in any way or form. It is an important issue, I wouldn't argue otherwise. But I think a keeping a certain form helps discussions. Spamming Posts (you may say it were just 3 in a row, I would say it stopped it at 3 after I pointed it out) does not help a discussion. If someone just wants to produce text, it would be better to start his own blog - I mean that honestly, not out of spite. A Forum is a place for discussion, not spamming your own opinion.
                      And believe it or not - I would have criticised any other user that acts like this, regardless of his or her views. This matters to me. This sort of behaviour (in my experience) is exactly what destroys any chance of having discussions in the first place.
                      And what a coincidence that we're having this discussion about discussion-culture in a context where people kick discussion-culture with their feet ...

                      beautiful language - milk&water - baseball vs. football - best god in show

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Attacking the post syntax sure helps discussion
                        "Men with guts attack those corners!" - Keiichi Tsuchiya
                        2006 Acura TL and 1999 Mazda Miata

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by LeVeL View Post
                          Attacking the post syntax sure helps discussion
                          I did no such thing.
                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax

                          Accusing me of things I haven't done sure helps the discussion.


                          Ok, so some english dictionaries don't just limit the term Syntax to languages. I shall hide behind not being a native speaker and my Ancient Greek being rusty.

                          But addressing the post seriously this time while I am at it - demanding a discussion be had in an orderly way is helping the discussion. It is enabling the discussion taking place in the first place. You know, a civilized discussion ... like the one they wanted to have at Berkeley ... which didn't happen because some people just don't care about that whole civilized discussion stuff? (I really have to rub your noses into it, do I?)
                          Last edited by Interrobang; February 3rd, 2017, 12:21 PM.

                          beautiful language - milk&water - baseball vs. football - best god in show

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by argatoga View Post
                            If someone wishes to jump in here to say hate speech is violence, I have a question for them. Conservatively, over 60 million people have been killed by Communist governments and movements, should thus Marxist speech be banned?
                            Hate speech is not necessarily violence, but it breeds it. As for "Marxist speech", yes, there must be consequences if the people in question call for violence such as the "extermination of the upper class" or similar.

                            Comment


                              #15


                              This insanity is really starting to be a serious concern. These people are delusional lunatics. But I suppose that is what happens when the media and hollywood stir people up into a frenzy using dishonest exaggerations and mischaracterizations and flat out lies.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Originally posted by calvinhobbes View Post
                                Hate speech is not necessarily violence, but it breeds it. As for "Marxist speech", yes, there must be consequences if the people in question call for violence such as the "extermination of the upper class" or similar.
                                So you think the BLM protesters who were chanting "pigs in a blanket, fry them like beacon", should be arrested?
                                bogative ?

                                "Any car which holds together for a whole race is too heavy." - Colin Chapman
                                "If you think about it breast implants aren't much different than braces. Their main purpose is to improve one's appearance, at least that's how it was in my case." - KaJun
                                "So the [suspension's] spring seats fail every 2 years, so what? They cost less than $250 to fix. And if a person can't afford that every two years, than maybe he shouldn't own a car at all." - _HighVoltage_ on Volvos.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by Interrobang View Post
                                  I have not attacked the content in any way or form. It is an important issue, I wouldn't argue otherwise. But I think a keeping a certain form helps discussions. Spamming Posts (you may say it were just 3 in a row, I would say it stopped it at 3 after I pointed it out) does not help a discussion. If someone just wants to produce text, it would be better to start his own blog - I mean that honestly, not out of spite. A Forum is a place for discussion, not spamming your own opinion.
                                  I should have clarified: I didn't intend to say that it was because Kunedog.... that you felt it was spamming. I was just invoking his name because it was his posts in this particular thread.

                                  Having said that, I stand by my previous assertion.... you never gave anyone a chance to respond before accusing this of being a one sided discussion.
                                  Originally posted by Interrobang View Post
                                  And believe it or not - I would have criticised any other user that acts like this, regardless of his or her views. This matters to me. This sort of behaviour (in my experience) is exactly what destroys any chance of having discussions in the first place.
                                  And what a coincidence that we're having this discussion about discussion-culture in a context where people kick discussion-culture with their feet ...
                                  I do not understand what this is supposed to mean.
                                  Originally posted by tigger
                                  The Lord spoke, "Let there be angry V8s, whistling turbos and big ass cams." And it was good.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by argatoga View Post
                                    So you think the BLM protesters who were chanting "pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon", should be arrested?
                                    If you can prosecute such acts without arresting them, no, otherwise, yes.

                                    addendum: I consider the scream you quoted similar to shouting fire in a crowded theater. It is intended to provoke violence or even worse and as such, it should not be protected.
                                    Last edited by calvinhobbes; February 3rd, 2017, 9:59 PM.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by Interrobang View Post
                                      Joking aside, he could have fit all that into one post. That's what I wanted to convey. It's poor etiquette.
                                      I did deliberately do that, because I honestly thought it was better to separate the Milo stuff from the rest, just for organization. I didn't know it was poor etiquette. The Shia vid only came to mind later (and required a bit of explanation for why it fit). It didn't occur to me to edit it into the previous post but I agree I should have.


                                      Originally posted by Interrobang View Post
                                      Start a blog, put it in your signature. This is a discussion forum not a one-way street for you to convey your views of the world.
                                      No.

                                      When you start a thread, you can't know in advance if anyone will reply, what they'll say, whether they'll have interesting input, whether they can agree to disagree, or they'll be so put off that you'll have to walk away to avoid a flame war, or they'll agree so strongly that you'll only accomplish a circle jerk, or whatever.

                                      Yes, I want a discussion; that goes without saying here even if I don't end every post with a trite "Thoughts?"


                                      Originally posted by Interrobang View Post
                                      Spamming Posts (you may say it were just 3 in a row, I would say it stopped it at 3 after I pointed it out) does not help a discussion.
                                      Naw, there's plenty more, but nothing recent off the top of my head (those happened within the last week or so).


                                      Originally posted by Firecat View Post
                                      Personally, I consider "freedom of speech"(FOS) to mean you have the right to say whatever you want without government interference. So long as he isn't being arrested for his views, I think the concept of FOS has been preserved. At least from a constitutional or legal perspective.

                                      It gets a bit blurry when we talk about FOS and society at large. If people get violent, they should be arrested. I can't say that protesting someone speaking at an event etc would be violating the individuals right to freedom of speech. Neither would a venue or private institution be violating that right if they refuse to have you. AFAIK, Berkeley is public hence him being able to speak there. I think there could be a case to argue that having an excessive security fee is a violation of FOS. But i'm sure they wanted the protection (let alone needed it).
                                      The lack of arrests and any attempt to control the clearly violent and destructive mob is the most appalling part of it. Like I said, IMO this is intentional on the administration's part. It gives them an excuse to cancel the speech, and the lack of consequences for the rioters ensures that it happens again and again. No fucking way would they allow it to happen to a leftist speaker's event.

                                      You might be right about private colleges. Depaul told Ben Shapiro to fuck off and the only reason they could come up with is "It's private property":
                                      http://www.dailywire.com/news/10830/...-prestigiacomo

                                      Since they always claim a committment to free expression, it's good to challenge these administrations and demonstrate to everyone that they're full of shit:
                                      But I do think freedom of speech is a much bigger concept that the 1st Amendment (which is mostly what you're describing when you reference FOS). The ACLU has a blindspot a whole amendment wide, but when it comes comes to freedom of speech even they acknowledge the extent of the threat:

                                      https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship
                                      Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

                                      In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.
                                      The point is that there are cases of censorship, including on private platforms, where no crime has been committed, but are nevertheless a major threat to free speech (and probably constitute blatant hyprocrisy depending on the stated values of the platform).


                                      Originally posted by TC View Post
                                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuxKuXregpk&t=0s
                                      Of course she's a professor, just like Melissa "I need some muscle over here" Click. CNN and TYT put forward some ridiculous conspiracy theories that the Berkeley rioters were right-wingers in disguise. Yeah, as if it's really hard to believe young left-wingers would do this on campus, when there are classes that literally teach marxist activism. And when they gleefully celebrate the violence.

                                      Last edited by kunedog; February 4th, 2017, 2:13 PM.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by calvinhobbes View Post
                                        Hate speech is not necessarily violence, but it breeds it. As for "Marxist speech", yes, there must be consequences if the people in question call for violence such as the "extermination of the upper class" or similar.
                                        There is no such thing as hate speech, only speech you immensely dislike.
                                        ScarFace88 - "So you're a dildo?"

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X