Violence vs. Free Speech

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
To be clear, I have no issue with you or anyone else speaking out against/condemning either group. What I am saying to you is that I disagree with your equation of Antifa and the KKK by removing the history of the KKK so that they become equals.
It's the same basic ideology, if you are not one of us you are one of them. Antifa hides behind anti-fascist slogans to mask their ideology, KKK and other white supremacy groups don't that's the only real difference.
 

Mally Dangerous

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Messages
2,203
Location
Atlanta
Would you agree that the KKK is not even remotely as big or as powerful as they used to be?
Yep! Still doesn?t excuse the historical actions of the group. And before we get into it-not saying you did excuse the actions.

If we're bringing historical white power and Nazism into the picture, then perhaps we should consider the communists of yesteryear as well?
Funny, I was going to mention communism in my original post about your retort because I know that it hits home with you. To answer your question, surely, you can consider communists and Nazis if you like. But I?m specifically talking about your Antifa/KKK equation.
 
Last edited:

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,964
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
What's your solution? Don't condemn either one?
You don't need to equate Antifa with KKK (I certainly won't) to disavow them their disgusting actions of free speech suppression, and yes, fascism. Just because one ideology doesn't involve a history of genocide or extermination does not mean it should be graded on a curve.
To echo something Mally said, you can condemn both without erasing the historical context. Context is crucial here. Lev, you can condemn both communists and nazis, but it's important to explain the reasons for each.

In this current context, when people compare the KKK and Antifa or say that there was "violence on both sides," it erases important distinctions, which in turn, have a detrimental effect on the situation. Specifically, when Trump denounced both sides because they were violent, David Duke tweeted to thank him for his unbiased position. When you say both sides are violent, each of them uses this to rationalize their use of violence as self-defense ("See, they are violent! We need to defend ourselves!"). It becomes a chicken and egg scenario, and the violence continues.

What we should do is condemn both by singling out each and explicating the reasons for the condemnation. What Trump should have said:

"I condemn the KKK and the neo-nazis because our nation is built on the principle of everyone being equal and born with certain inalienable rights, which include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The KKK and the neo-nazis violate this principle in their hatred of Jewish and African-American people. The KKK and the neo-nazis have no place in our civilized society. I also condemn the Antifascists, because their violent actions run against our founding ideals of freedom of expression and thought. I condemn their suppression of free speech and right to peaceful protest."

This places the violence in context, distinguishing the two groups in important ways, while denouncing both of them at the same time.
 

JimCorrigan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
4,119
Location
Pacific Rim
Car(s)
HMCS Velvet Glove; The Last Samurai
To echo something Mally said, you can condemn both without erasing the historical context. Context is crucial here.
Yes, but until corrected, you were perfectly happy to believe the rhetoric that Antifa are warriors against Naziism. Do you understand the false narrative that is (not) being played out in the mainstream media because of this? Finally, MSNBC and Washington Post shone a negative light only yesterday on these fascist piles of garbage. I hope they continue to do so.

As you now stated, you can be against all the various groups simultaneously, and for very different reasons.
 

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
4,004
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
UC Berkeley chancellor unveils 'Free Speech Year' as right-wing speakers plan campus events said:
Carol T. Christ, UC Berkeley?s 11th chancellor and the first woman to lead the nation?s top public research university, unveiled plans Tuesday for a ?Free Speech Year? as right-wing speakers prepare to come to campus.

Christ said the campus would hold ?point-counterpoint? panels to demonstrate how to exchange opposing views in a respectful manner. Other events will explore constitutional questions, the history of Berkeley?s free speech movement and how that movement inspired acclaimed chef Alice Waters to create her Chez Panisse restaurant.

?Now what public speech is about is shouting, screaming your point of view in a public space rather than really thoughtfully engaging someone with a different point of view,? Christ said in an interview. ?We have to build a deeper and richer shared public understanding.?

The free speech initiative comes after a rocky year of clashing opinions on campus. In February, violent protests shut down an appearance by right-wing firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos, prompting President Trump to question the campus? federal funding. A few months later, conservative commentator Ann Coulter canceled a planned appearance after the campus groups hosting her pulled out.

Yiannopoulos has announced plans to return next month to spend days in a ?tent city? in Berkeley?s iconic Sproul Plaza. Conservative author and columnist Ben Shapiro is scheduled to visit Sept. 14.

The free speech issue drew the biggest spotlight in the new chancellor?s daylong media interviews and welcoming remarks to 9,500 new students. Christ, dressed in blue ceremonial robes, told the new arrivals that Berkeley?s free speech movement was launched by liberals and conservatives working together to win the right to advocate political views on campus.

?Particularly now, it is critical for the Berkeley community to protect this right; it is who we are,? she said. ?That protection involves not just defending your right to speak, or the right of those you agree with, but also defending the right to speak by those you disagree with, even of those whose views you find abhorrent.?

She drew loud applause when she asserted that the best response to hate speech is ?more speech? rather than trying to shut down others, and when she said that shielding students from uncomfortable views would not serve them well.

?You have the right to expect the university to keep you physically safe, but we would be providing you less of an education, preparing you less well for the world after you graduate, if we tried to protect you from ideas that you may find wrong, even noxious,? she said.

Although everyone wants to feel comfort and support, Christ said, inner resilience is the ?the surest form of safe space.?

But she also emphasized that public safety also is paramount. At a morning news conference dominated by free speech questions, Christ said the February violence triggered by the Yiannopoulos event had underscored the need for a larger police presence. Only 85 officers were on the scene, she said, when a paramilitary group 150 strong marched onto campus with sticks, baseball bats and Molotov cocktails.

Under an interim policy that took effect this week, campus police will provide a security assessment for certain large events that could endanger public safety, and the hosting organizations will be responsible for basic costs. Such organizations will have to give advance notice, preferably eight weeks or longer, and provide detailed timetables ? and contracts with speakers may not be finalized until the campus has confirmed the venue and given final approval. The rules will be applied to all events, regardless of viewpoint.

Most of the rules already exist but have not been laid out in a unified, consistent policy known to all, Christ said. She said the student group hoping to host Coulter, for instance, offered her a date and time without checking with campus administrators that a venue was available; none was. Berkeley did not cancel the event, as has been reported, Christ said.

Campus spokesman Dan Mogulof said, ?We want to eliminate all gray areas ? and make sure there?s clarity about what people need to do so we can help support safe and secure events.?

The campus is accepting public comments on the interim policy until Oct 31.

Christ?s focus on free speech heartened Alex Nguyen, a sophomore studying molecular cellular biology. She said she took the issue especially to heart because her parents were born in Vietnam, where criticizing the government could lead to imprisonment.

?I want her to really protect free speech because there?s really high political tensions here,? Nguyen said of the chancellor. ?We?re at the university to learn new things and disprove our ideas.?
link

The part I emphasized was something I posed in the politics thread when the Berkeley rioting from Milo occurred. Glad to see the Chancellor bringing a reasoned approach to this.
 

kunedog

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
310
MSNBC following the President's lead:


If you only had a blind transcript of most of this segment, you'd think it was a panel of Gamergaters. No other candidate (on either side) if elected last year would have stood up to the press and called out the alt-left thugs.


Antifa - we hate nazis
Why even bother with the bait&switch at this point? We have repeated incidents and video evidence that they hate and are willing to violently attack anyone who disagrees with them (or merely gets in their way).



Okay, good - I agree with you here. But as I asked in the post above, is condemning both enough? We've been condemning the KKK for decades, but they still exist. Condemning both perpetuates the status quo and allows both to continue to act.
No, we allow both to continue to speak.
 

kunedog

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
310
link

The part I emphasized was something I posed in the politics thread when the Berkeley rioting from Milo occurred. Glad to see the Chancellor bringing a reasoned approach to this.
Publicly claiming to be reasonable and support free speech is nice, but talk is cheap. She'll have credibility when right wing speakers are able to hold their events as scheduled, the attendees are able to come and go unmolested, and the police don't "stand down" when the leftists show up to smash&burn the place and violently assault everyone.

[video=youtube;tmq-mTtmC_I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmq-mTtmC_I[/video]​
 

kunedog

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
310
http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/82917/

Nancy Pelosi said:
Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts. The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.
So that's a mainstream leftist TV show, comedy site (the Onion), and national politician condemning extremist violence on both sides. Some polling must have come back that most of America sides with Trump on this.

EDIT: More Nazi-hating caught on film!
 
Last edited:

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,964
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
So that's a mainstream leftist TV show, comedy site (the Onion), and national politician condemning extremist violence on both sides. Some polling must have come back that most of America sides with Trump on this.
No, it does not, because of the reasons outlined before. You can and should condemn both, but without equating the two as equally bad. Each of them is bad for specific reasons that need to be explicated.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
[video=youtube;2-4B3d2m-x0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-4B3d2m-x0[/video]
 

kunedog

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
310
No, it does not, because of the reasons outlined before. You can and should condemn both, but without equating the two as equally bad. Each of them is bad for specific reasons that need to be explicated.
I think you overestimate the number of people who care about a group's stated political aims once they've seen it get preemptively, premeditatively violent. That goes for its enablers too; it's why Trump also called out the press for its misleading (or just missing) coverage. IMO most Americans have zero tolerance for political violence, and they're (rightly) shocked and appalled that any group in this country can somehow regularly go out and attack the public while the police and press look the other way.

Pelosi herself's probably on board with you, and a more truthful statement of her reasons would sound like "I denounce Antifa in the strongest possible terms because if I don't, the GOP will rake us over the coals in the 2018 midterms for unaccountably appearing to support obvious neo-brownshirts. Coming so late (and seemingly coordinated with other leftist outlets), this condemnation is clearly an act of calculated damage control rather than conscientiousness . . . that is, unless you are willing to believe I have the awareness of a pro-wrestling referee, having somehow missed (all year long) dozens or more videotaped assaults and multiple deplatformings across the country, in addition to two previous riots in Berkeley, right across the bay from my home district. Oh and Black Lives Matter, because I guess we're gonna wear that violent, racist albatross to the grave."
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,266
You can and should condemn both, but without equating the two as equally bad. Each of them is bad for specific reasons that need to be explicated.
What?? Members of both are pieces of human waste and the world would be better off without them... but for different reasons. Happy?
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,266
Did you explicate the different reasons? No.
Why does that matter? If I hate both Coke and Pepsi, why does it matter why? Here, on the right you have violent assholes with stupid ideas, and on the left you have violent assholes with stupid ideas. I feel like you're trying to subtly defend antifa by saying "yeah they aren't great BUT THE OTHER GUYS ARE WORSE!!11!". Stop that.
 

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,964
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
Why does that matter? If I hate both Coke and Pepsi, why does it matter why? Here, on the right you have violent assholes with stupid ideas, and on the left you have violent assholes with stupid ideas. I feel like you're trying to subtly defend antifa by saying "yeah they aren't great BUT THE OTHER GUYS ARE WORSE!!11!". Stop that.
Correct me if I am remembering wrong, but in the past you rejected comparisons between Trump and Hitler, because despite some similarities in their governing styles, the historical context was important. Same here, when you equate the two groups as if they are Coke and Pepsi, you are erasing the historical context of the KKK and the nazis.

As usual, you and I are failing to see eye to eye. Anything I say, you perceive as a subtle defense of antifa and/or a claim that they are not as bad as the KKK. Similarly, anything you say, I perceive as a normalization and nonchalant dismissal of the history of the KKK and the nazis.

We can keep arguing about this, but I think we are already at an impasse.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,266
The two aren't exactly the same, they're obviously different groups. Sure, the two even have different histories and believe different things (although arguably their beliefs are similar in numerous ways). In 2017 both are violent j tolerant assholes and both need to be condemned by all sides so when Trump denounced both for being violent, he was absolutely correct.

I'm not sure I even understand the point you're trying to make. Do you condemn both sides in this, yes or no?
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Did you explicate the different reasons? No.
I'm kind of with Lev here why does it matter? It's like hating killers and rapists, sure they are different but do I really have to bother explaining that?

I don't think there are any people in the developed world who are not aware of history of KKK or the nazis.
 

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
4,004
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
I'm kind of with Lev here why does it matter? It's like hating killers and rapists, sure they are different but do I really have to bother explaining that?
In your examples of rapists vs. killers, the nuance matters when it comes to punishment. One can apply similar logic as to how one deals with antifa vs. the alt-right, they're both bad sure but they deserve different responses.
 
Top