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.

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

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.

It actually is, it's called for in the Communist Manifesto.

All your other points are solid, though.

johnmedina999 wrote:

It actually is, it's called for in the Communist Manifesto.

All your other points are solid, though.

Oh, my mistake, sorry. I haven't read Marx's stuff yet, but I assumed that a violent takeover wouldn't exactly be necessary if the majority voted for Communism to be the country's economic system, since that's how democracy works

You guys never tire of political back and forth, I'm almost impressed, since you've never reached a consensus. In other news, how is everyone?

Faust wrote:

You guys never tire of political back and forth, I'm almost impressed, since you've never reached a consensus. In other news, how is everyone?

I tried to change topic

Thanks Faust for support

A consensus will never be achieved, let's face it.

No one's willing to change the topic either anyway, so..

Lets change the topic to what type of potato do you think you're. I think I'm Pringles.

Faust wrote:

You guys never tire of political back and forth, I'm almost impressed, since you've never reached a consensus.

I'll never stop fighting bigotry and fascism, even in such an insignificant place as these forums. I don't expect to reach a consensus with them, either.

In other news, how is everyone?

Pretty good actually
I've noticed I'm a lot better at expressing myself, and am also feeling much less sick right now.

Blitzfrog wrote:

Lets change the topic to what type of potato do you think you're.

I am THE potato. Ireland

Re: B1rd asking why I have a burning disdain for DJT supporters -- just saw these two tweets that express my general sentiments about them:
"DT supporters are not going to come around. What they love about him is their own character flaw: never admitting you made a mistake."
"A lot of us are spending way too much time trying to appeal to the empathy of people who do not value empathy. We gotta back up on that."

Let's just disregard social issues, all the "PC police" talk, etc. for the time being, because if I didn't, this post would be five times as long. They don't care that he just reauthorized the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline, built by a company whose previous pipelines were responsible for 69 spills in the past 2 years, or that legislation preventing coal companies to dump their waste into rivers was just blocked. All because Trump, McConnell, etc. and a good portion of their voting base have some fetish for keeping coal mining relevant in a world where literally every other developed country is moving to other forms of generating energy. They don't care that they're destroying their own country's environment because "MUH FOSSIL FUEL JOBS." Hell, they probably don't know this even happened because the only news sources they listen to didn't report on it. Why? It all goes back to the first tweet I mentioned.

I don't see the first tweet as true for all Trump supporters, though. The supporters complaining about his repeal of the ACA (not just the people who thought Obamacare and the ACA were separate things), the few protests to Trump's travel ban that cropped up in red states, etc. show that not all of his supporters worship him like a messiah like I see everywhere on social media. But the ones that do, the ones that always rub it in your goddamn face on Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, and presumably Facebook too, and can never formulate an argument beyond "LOLOLOL WE WON, LIBERALS BTFO" are the ones that piss me off to no end. (P.S. When I said yesterday, in my blind haste, that I "don't wanna see any Trump supporters happy ever again," those people are who I was talking about.)

Madvillain wrote:

A consensus will never be achieved, let's face it.

No one's willing to change the topic either anyway, so..

We just need Kisses to post another asian girl who he considers "perfection" tbh

are we still going on with the political debate in here

Tae wrote:

Madvillain wrote:

A consensus will never be achieved, let's face it.

No one's willing to change the topic either anyway, so..

We just need Kisses to post another asian girl who he considers "perfection" tbh

We won't get a consensus there either, js

I wish the mafia subforum wasnt so dead

Raspberriel wrote:

We won't get a consensus there either, js

Well, that's true tbh. At least there'd be a more agreed view there.

Tae wrote:

Raspberriel wrote:

We won't get a consensus there either, js

Well, that's true tbh. At least there'd be a more agreed view there.

and we'd all get to look at something better than political debates

Dawnsday wrote:

I wish the mafia subforum wasnt so dead

We got lives

Hika wrote:

Dawnsday wrote:

I wish the mafia subforum wasnt so dead

We got lives

Do not.

any discussion is good discussion