thanks bud i have a degree in MS paint and powerpoint

B1rd wrote:

Liberals have never been tolerant against people of the other side

You don't tolerate intolerance. That's how tolerance dies. Intolerance should not be tolerated under any circumstance.

You don't protest free speech with free speech, that's how free speech dies. Attempting to deny free speech should not be tolerated under any circumstance.

e; this is a reference to the berkely milo riots :-D

big suck wrote:

then again.. who am I to banter over a bunch of idiots. this board is for the "not so logical discussions" afterall

So, you called us a bunch of idiots, yes I would say that was an insult and yes I would say you are acting triggered. What lies am I hiding behind? Are you actually gonna add something useful to the conversation or are you going to leave like you said you would?

Dawnsday wrote:

Well done, I see your 10,000 hours in MS paint has paid off.[/quote]

You're lying by saying I am "triggered" never once did I express being in the act of "triggered" so really what my point im getting at here is that you have nothing to stand on to try an gather people against me.


Also that is a lovely photo <3

hey thanks bud

Dawnsday wrote:

You don't protest free speech with free speech

Yes you do
That's literally the point of free speech

B1rd wrote:

I never thought it was possible to change the status quo through voting. And if all choices are bad, then there's not much reason to vote. In Australia voting is mandatory, which is pretty shitty because it just forces uninterested and uninformed people make uninformed choices.

Making voting mandatory is stupid, but it should be a right regardless. People have the right to throw away their rights, so I can't exactly do anything about it but except have an opinion on their character. Unfortunately, there's always going to be all kinds of misinformed people who are gonna vote, but we can't exactly throw democracy out of the window because of that.

Mahogany wrote:

B1rd wrote:

Liberals have never been tolerant against people of the other side

You don't tolerate intolerance. That's how tolerance dies. Intolerance should not be tolerated under any circumstance.

Out of curiosity, but why do you keep quoting one sentence out of an entire paragraph and make an argument out of that, instead of just answering to the paragraph itself?

Dawnsday wrote:

That's some good stuff

Using the RIGHT to your free speech to deny someone else's RIGHT to free speech is uh. No that's not quite how it works

Dawnsday wrote:

Using the RIGHT to your free speech to deny someone else's RIGHT to free speech is uh. No that's not quite how it works

i mean since it's free speech, we all can just assume anything applies, since it's FREE.

Mahogany wrote:

Dawnsday wrote:

You don't protest free speech with free speech

Yes you do
That's literally the point of free speech

You missed the

Attempting to deny free speech should not be tolerated under any circumstance.

Dawnsday wrote:

Using the RIGHT to your free speech to deny someone else's RIGHT to free speech is uh. No that's not quite how it works

The right to free speech applies to the government, not to private entities
If the college wants to shut down mr snowflake's hateful speeches, they can absolutely do that for any reason they want. Perfectly acceptable
If trump says people can't protest, or starts threatening them with defunding, THAT is an attack on the right to free speech, because now the government is influencing what people say. Which he did, by the way - much more serious than anything the college or protesters ever did.

Free speech never came into the berkley situation at all. The alt-right just wants an excuse to spread hate, and then cry "muh rights" when it doesn't even apply to them.

As always, xkcd explains this better than I ever could

Maybe we're skimming over the fact the talk Milo was going to give was not boycotted, it was outright destroyed. Riots took place, Communist propaganda was spread, Free speech boundaries were crossed.

As always Sargon of Akkad explains this better than me because my english is too shaky to give a /full/ speech here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyC80feMcgU

Mahogany wrote:

The right to free speech applies to the government, not to private entities
If the college wants to shut down mr snowflake's hateful speeches, they can absolutely do that for any reason they want. Perfectly acceptable
If trump says people can't protest, or starts threatening them with defunding, THAT is an attack on the right to free speech, because now the government is influencing what people say. Which he did, by the way - much more serious than anything the college or protesters ever did.

Free speech never came into the berkley situation at all. The alt-right just wants an excuse to spread hate, and then cry "muh rights" when it doesn't even apply to them.

What? The only reason why Milo was in UC Berkeley is because the university was ok with him coming by. They had it to shut down because the riots were getting out of hand. Even the chancellor of the university defended Milo and his right to free speech. It wasn't the university that drove him out, it was the students themselves. How could he possibly get an event there if the university didn't even want him, as you claimed lmao

Also, I'm pretty sure the right to free speech also applies to private entities, or we must have pretty different ideas about "free speech".

big suck

Dawnsday wrote:

Maybe we're skimming over the fact the talk Milo was going to give was not boycotted, it was outright destroyed. Riots took place, Communist propaganda was spread, Free speech boundaries were crossed.

And those disguised attackers are despicable.

Doesn't change the fact that the peaceful protestors have a point, and it was the uni's choice to shut it down based on reaction. Yes, it was a boycott/complaint type of "we don't want to listen to you".

Foxtrot wrote:

What? The only reason why Milo was in UC Berkeley is because the university was ok with him coming by.

Clearly they weren't in touch with the student body.

Foxtrot wrote:

Also, I'm pretty sure the right to free speech also applies to private entities, or we must have pretty different ideas about "free speech".

If the right to free speech applied to private entities, you couldn't get banned from any forum, for example. This place bans users. Reddit bans users. Even 4chan bans users. Private entities absolutely don't have to uphold the right to free speech.

Foxtrot wrote:

How could he possibly get an event there if the university didn't even want him

He didn't get an event there though, precisely because the university didn't want him. They outright protested his talk.

Do you have anything to disprove my point other than rhetoric of what you think free spech means?

winber1 wrote:

big suck

cuck

>unis choice

i dont think they were given much choice, it was a state of "if this goes ahead we will continue to loot, assault and generally be a nuisance to not only the university but the outside communities"

The peaceful protestors did nothing to denounce this at the time, Antifa and the "peaceful protestors" as far as I am concerned, are one and the same. The university was given no choice. The police were told to stand down.


Peaceful protest would just be not going, in fact the ENTIRE logical approach from libs to this situation should've been, not going and not caring, it would have been a place where Milo spoke to roughly 100 people, instead it broke national (and international) news and now Milo's book is a bestseller, the protest was a failure and was counterlogical

Dawnsday wrote:

i dont think they were given much choice

Yes they were.
They could've said no
They could've called in police
But they're smart enough to realize that the student body is what makes up the school's identity, not the management decisions, and they realized their school did not want to hold such hateful speeches

Dawnsday wrote:

The peaceful protestors did nothing to denounce this at the time

They didn't take part, for one. Don't you think if they agreed, they'd have joined in?
Trump didn't denounce the quebec shooter after it became known they weren't muslim. Does that automatically mean trump supports the shooting of muslims? As much as I hate the man, no, it doesn't mean that, and it's a stupid argument to make.

Dawnsday wrote:

Antifa and the "peaceful protestors" as far as I am concerned, are one and the same.

"These two things are the same because I say they are"
Hey - you don't get to decide this, buddy. Otherwise, I can turn around and say "All trump supporters are the same as that quebec shooter and want to exterminate all muslims"

Dawnsday wrote:

The university was given no choice. The police were told to stand down.

They could have not told the police to stand down. They could have done nothing. They had plenty of choices, and they made one. Which was, in my opinion, the right choice.

Dawnsday wrote:

Peaceful protest would just be not going

That's a boycott, not a protest. There was a sizable peaceful protest going on, with a separate rogue element doing their own thing.

Dawnsday wrote:

it would have been a place where Milo spoke to roughly 100 people, instead it broke national (and international) news and now Milo's book is a bestseller, the protest was a failure and was counterlogical

"Hey guys ignore it and it'll go away"
Inaction is the entire reason Trump got elected, you dolt. I don't give a shit if this gives Milo attention, nor should anyone else. He's drawing attention to the worst side of the alt-right, and sabotaging his own movement - which is great. I hope he keeps doing his thing, people keep protesting him, and he keeps getting shut down, like the rest of his shitty movement.

This is not what free speech is about, and has nothing to do with free speech. Great job showing that you're absolutely clueless as to what that means.

Jesus, why do you have to make it so hard to reply to you. Is this another tactic of yours

Mahogany wrote:

Foxtrot wrote:

What? The only reason why Milo was in UC Berkeley is because the university was ok with him coming by.

Clearly they weren't in touch with the student body.

But by your logic, private entities don't apply to free speech. So if the university wanted him there for a conference, the students had no right to be opposed to that.

Mahoganyt wrote:

If the right to free speech applied to private entities, you couldn't get banned from any forum, for example. This place bans users. Reddit bans users. Even 4chan bans users. Private entities absolutely don't have to uphold the right to free speech.

Yeah, they ban users because it's within their right, but just because a ban is gonna make you stop going to a certain location, it doesn't mean people are gonna stop having their own ideas

But they're smart enough to realize that the student body is what makes up the school's identity, not the management decisions, and they realized their school did not want to hold such hateful speeches

They also rely on the students financially, so yeah, no shit they'd follow their best interest.

Having to do a full reponse in 2017

alright let's do it

Yes they were.
They could've said no
They could've called in police
But they're smart enough to realize that the student body is what makes up the school's identity, not the management decisions, and they realized their school did not want to hold such hateful speeches

They DID the mayor literally told the police to stand down

They didn't take part, for one. Don't you think if they agreed, they'd have joined in?
Trump didn't denounce the quebec shooter after it became known they weren't muslim. Does that automatically mean trump supports the shooting of muslims? As much as I hate the man, no, it doesn't mean that, and it's a stupid argument to make.

You at the time DEFENDED antifa and said it was their free speech (even though they were destroying shit lmao), Not one leftist said "wow this is wrong what the fuck is going on here??", You all held your tongues because antifa's views aligned with yours.

"These two things are the same because I say they are"
Hey - you don't get to decide this, buddy. Otherwise, I can turn around and say "All trump supporters are the same as that quebec shooter and want to exterminate all muslims"

Missing the point. By a mile. You all held your tongues, there was no peaceful protest of "let's all just put up signs of "stop milo"", all that happened was people sat idly by and egged on Antifa as Antifa rampaged through center street.

They could have not told the police to stand down. They could have done nothing. They had plenty of choices, and they made one. Which was, in my opinion, the right choice.

No, the mayor told them to stand down. Eventually the choice was changed and the police forcibly dispersed everyone with rubber bullets and teargas, sadly the event was already cancelled by this point.

Lol.

hey all merry christmas

is it ethical to punch a nazi

Thanks.

Dawnsday wrote:

They DID the mayor literally told the police to stand down

Ahh, so the mayor is the smart one. Credit to them

Dawnsday wrote:

You at the time DEFENDED antifa and said it was their free speech

Nah fam I denounced the violent rioters as much as the next guy. The peaceful protestors were fine tho

Dawnsday wrote:

Not one leftist said "wow this is wrong what the fuck is going on here?

I did, and that proves your shit wrong right there

Dawnsday wrote:

Missing the point. By a mile. You all held your tongues

I didn't. I voiced my opposition to the violence, you fucking dolt. Don't speak for shit you can't prove, or don't even know about.

Dawnsday wrote:

there was no peaceful protest of "let's all just put up signs of "stop milo""

There were, you dolt. There were both peaceful and violent contingents. I stand fully against the violent ones, and fully behind the peaceful ones.

Dawnsday wrote:

sadly

thats an odd way to spell "thankfully"

Foxtrot wrote:

But by your logic, private entities don't apply to free speech. So if the university wanted him there for a conference, the students had no right to be opposed to that.

The students are what make up the university. A university isn't "just" the management, students are an important part of the school identity. So yea, they had plenty of right.

Also, the uni could've just ignored them, too. That'd have been fine.

Foxtrot wrote:

Yeah, they ban users because it's within their right, but just because a ban is gonna make you stop going to a certain location, it doesn't mean people are gonna stop having their own ideas

You outright admit you were wrong yet you keep spouting bullshit about how you still feel justified
why are you so delusional

You two don't even begin to understand the very basic concepts of free speech and it's honestly embarassing. People like yous are part of the problem with democracy

Dawnsday wrote:

is it ethical to punch a nazi

If he's actively pushing Nazism i.e. in a speech then... eh? It's not THAT bad- it's forcibly stopping him from spreading hate speech-, although I'd prefer him to just get arrested. Vigilantism is a dangerous road, and hate speech is illegal already, so.

If he's just existing in the street? Fuck no, get out


btw Mahogany PLEASE stop doing the line-by-line quote responses please. Just respond normally, it allows much better conversation than splitting everything into easier-to-argue-against quotes.

good advice thank you

Mahogany wrote:

Foxtrot wrote:

Yeah, they ban users because it's within their right, but just because a ban is gonna make you stop going to a certain location, it doesn't mean people are gonna stop having their own ideas

You outright admit you were wrong yet you keep spouting bullshit about how you still feel justified
why are you so delusional

Jesus christ.

I'm comparing those forums to the way businesses have their right of free speech. For example, they can deny service to any customer they want, for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean that the denied clients stop having that right as of that moment. That's the point I was trying to make because you said private entities shouldn't uphold right of free speech. And besides, businesses are also private entities, and so are forums, but that's another point.

The students are what make up the university. A university isn't "just" the management, students are an important part of the school identity. So yea, they had plenty of right.

Also, the uni could've just ignored them, too. That'd have been fine.

Kind of hard to ignore riots.

Dawnsday wrote:

Missing the point. By a mile. You all held your tongues, there was no peaceful protest of "let's all just put up signs of "stop milo"", all that happened was people sat idly by and egged on Antifa as Antifa rampaged through center street.

You're wrong here. If you watch any videos of the violence, you'll see plenty of people shouting at the antifa extremists to stop, and that violence is wrong. There were plenty of lawful peaceful protesters doing fine.

Also, it's not actually bystanders' responsibility to intervene when stuff like that happens, generally.

Fuck anyone who was encouraging or participating in those actions though. They're cowards.

By no means is there a separate type of speech called "hate speech" that isn't covered under free speech. Is someone inciting violence? Then that is not covered under free speech, which is rather for the exchange of ideas. But simply giving a speech advocating for Naziism is not something that isn't protected by free speech.

B1rd wrote:

By no means is there a separate type of speech called "hate speech" that isn't covered under free speech. Is someone inciting violence? Then that is not covered under free speech, which is rather for the exchange of ideas. But simply giving a speech advocating for Naziism is not something that isn't protected by free speech.

"There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Nazism explicitly incites violence, so it's not protected by free speech, iirc.

It's definitely banned here and elsewhere in Europe, although I'm not entirely sure about America. Legality of stuff over there seems pretty random

Islam explicitly incites violence

Dawnsday wrote:

Islam explicitly incites violence

We're not talking about Islam

Dawnsday wrote:

Islam explicitly incites violence

Don't even.

There is nothing about National Socialism that inherently advocates for violence. You can't just say that it does in some vague, disconnected sort of way and then claim that it is justification to shut down that entire political scene. Using that justification you could shut down pretty much any political group, or even pastors giving a sermons because the Bible 'incites violence' in some passages, therefor the entire religion does.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuesti ... n/ddbrmny/

In Islamic faith, it is not believed that Quran was given to Muhammad in entirety like Ten Commandments. Rather, it was gradually told by God to Muhammad over many years in response to the situations he and his followers were facing at the moment. It is, to make an analogy, a collection of case laws rather than a constitution. However, this collection often only has the verdicts, not the whole proceedings.

There is an entire field of study dedicated to learning the history of Arabia at the time, understating the context at which a ruling was made and got included in Quran, and trying to figure out how it applies to the situations one can face today. Quran verses in isolation don't mean much. You have to consider which enemy they were at war with at the time the verse was added to Quran and what had they done to make God so angry to understand the ruling. At least that is the Islamic tradition followed by most Muslims. Contextual interpretation as opposed to literal. And that is why the Islamic world does not agree with ISIL's interpretation, which is basically trying to follow ancient case laws instead of interpreting and adapting them to a modern setting.

For example, there are more than five categories of kafir, and the only way to know which one a verse is referring to is to know its context. More progressive clergymen have interpreted that this word in the above verses refers to a category (kafir mo'aned harbi) that basically means those who are currently at war with Muslims because of their (Muslims') religion. Even conservative ones generally do not believe that it refers to all non-muslims.

This seemed pretty legit to me

B1rd wrote:

There is nothing about National Socialism that inherently advocates for violence. You can't just say that it does in some vague, disconnected sort of way and then claim that it is justification to shut down that entire political scene. Using that justification you could shut down pretty much any political group, or even pastors giving a sermons because the Bible 'incites violence' in some passages, therefor the entire religion does.

I mean, what do Nazis do? What do neo-Nazis do?

Any ideology that claims racial superiority is dangerous and leads to genocide or other forms of oppression. They're violent.

I'm surprised to hear defense of Nazism from an ancap who thinks that fucking taxation is a form of violence.

it was a bait mom

I'm pretty sure b1rd is stupid enough to actually believe what he's saying there

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

I'm surprised to hear defense of Nazism from an ancap who thinks that fucking taxation is a form of violence.

He has zero values and he's already proven this. He sounds like he's been indoctrinated into a cult or something, or his parents are/were horribly abusive.

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

I mean, what do Nazis do? What do neo-Nazis do?

Any ideology that claims racial superiority is dangerous and leads to genocide or other forms of oppression. They're violent.

I'm surprised to hear defense of Nazism from an ancap who thinks that fucking taxation is a form of violence.

They believe in racial superiority, that's true. Genocide and oppression has happened under a Nazi government, but it's not intrinsically linked to Nazism itself. They're violent? Maybe some are, doesn't mean they all are or that it is inherently linked to the ideology. Honestly, I'm really sick of Nazism being brought up in every single political discussion and being treated as the boogeyman of political ideologies. Communism has killed far, far more people than Nazism did. It also advocates for the violent takeover of private property, and we have seen communists being violent both in the past and present. So does that mean that advocacy for Communism should be banned as well? I can even easily argue that our current system is based on violence, since it is, taxation and all that is enforced through the threat of violence. Do you see now how you're being inconsistent? Nazism has been specifically targeted as the worst political ideology to ever exist, when in reality it isn't a far different or any worse than a lot of others.

We actually have a precedent of this happening. There was a National Socialist party in America for some time that held some public speeches. I believe they were attacked by violent Jews, and the leader was eventually assassinated. No, I don't think that is justified.

And the racial superiority part has some truth to it, we have an abundance of evidence that makes it clear that some races are superior in certain areas to others. It's just the conclusion that one draws when looking at things empirically, with no bias. We've had a big discussion about this in ITT. Though the Nazis took that way too far with lots of pseudo-science. I think Hitler believed he could just walk over Russia because they were inferior slavs, and ignore America because it was full of jews and blacks.

But, in a lot of countries, talking about something like the race-IQ relationship would be classified as 'hate speech'. Realise that when I say people like Nazis shouldn't be attacked for speech, it's not because I'm advocating for Nazis. Blind and irrational hatred for anything just contributes to anti-rationalism and an anti-intellectual society.


P.S. About what you asked me about before; I did go searching for proof and data, but since good sources like that are hard and tedious to find I never finished getting enough to put up a post.

B1rd wrote:

They believe in racial superiority, that's true. Genocide and oppression has happened under a Nazi government, but it's not intrinsically linked to Nazism itself. They're violent? Maybe some are, doesn't mean they all are or that it is inherently linked to the ideology. Honestly, I'm really sick of Nazism being brought up in every single political discussion and being treated as the boogeyman of political ideologies. Communism has killed far, far more people than Nazism did. It also advocates for the violent takeover of private property, and we have seen communists being violent both in the past and present. So does that mean that advocacy for Communism should be banned as well? I can even easily argue that our current system is based on violence, since it is, taxation and all that is enforced through the threat of violence. Do you see now how you're being inconsistent? Nazism has been specifically targeted as the worst political ideology to ever exist, when in reality it isn't a far different or any worse than a lot of others.

We actually have a precedent of this happening. There was a National Socialist party in America for some time that held some public speeches. I believe they were attacked by violent Jews, and the leader was eventually assassinated. No, I don't think that is justified.

And the racial superiority part has some truth to it, we have an abundance of evidence that makes it clear that some races are superior in certain areas to others. It's just the conclusion that one draws when looking at things empirically, with no bias. We've had a big discussion about this in ITT. Though the Nazis took that way too far with lots of pseudo-science. I think Hitler believed he could just walk over Russia because they were inferior slavs, and ignore America because it was full of jews and blacks.

But, in a lot of countries, talking about something like the race-IQ relationship would be classified as 'hate speech'. Realise that when I say people like Nazis shouldn't be attacked for speech, it's not because I'm advocating for Nazis. Blind and irrational hatred for anything just contributes to anti-rationalism and an anti-intellectual society.


P.S. About what you asked me about before; I did go searching for proof and data, but since good sources like that are hard and tedious to find I never finished getting enough to put up a post.

By saying that genocide and oppression have happened under Nazism (in the only time Nazism has ever been tried), you're basically admitting that Nazism causes this dangerous shit, no? I bet you don't let Communists have the same excuse (oh, REAL Communism has never been tried.). You bringing up death tolls under Communism helps prove that.

Not to mention Hitler was one of the founders of Nazism and so you can say that his actions are representative of the ideology in action. Marx wasn't in charge of the Communist revolution.
I also think that defenders of Stalinist Communism, i.e. Stalin apologists, are just as bad as Nazi apologists. They shouldn't be allowed near politics either, they're crazy and advocate for dangerous fascism.
Violent takeover of property isn't necessarily advocated in Communism either btw, if people vote themselves into that position then it's just a change in property law.

We also weren't talking about Communism in the first place, so I don't see why you're changing the subject and turning it into a rant about how Nazis are unfairly targeted for having an evil, dangerous ideology.

It also makes sense that Jews would violently resist Nazism since they'd be defending themselves from an ideology that oppresses them. Would it surprise you if black people violently resisted the KKK coming back and getting more powerful? It shouldn't, they'd be the ones most terribly affected by it.

I understand your point that free speech should let you say pretty much anything, but exceptions do need to be made for a reason. Ideologies like Nazism aren't good enough for humanity.

also, I just asked for evidence that immigrants commit more crime than natives. It shouldn't be hard to find if it's true. The opposite seems to be true, though, like I said.