Dawnsday wrote:

i dont think they were given much choice

Dawnsday wrote:

The peaceful protestors did nothing to denounce this at the time

Dawnsday wrote:

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

Dawnsday wrote:

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

Dawnsday wrote:

Peaceful protest would just be not going

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

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.

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.

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

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 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.

"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"

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:

They DID the mayor literally told the police to stand down

Dawnsday wrote:

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

Dawnsday wrote:

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

Dawnsday wrote:

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

Dawnsday wrote:

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

Dawnsday wrote:

sadly

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.

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

Dawnsday wrote:

is it ethical to punch a nazi

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

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.

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.

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.

Dawnsday wrote:

Islam explicitly incites violence

Dawnsday wrote:

Islam explicitly incites violence

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.

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.

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

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

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.

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.

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.

johnmedina999 wrote:

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

All your other points are solid, though.

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?

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?

Blitzfrog wrote:

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

Madvillain wrote:

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

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

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

Raspberriel wrote:

We won't get a consensus there either, js

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.

Dawnsday wrote:

I wish the mafia subforum wasnt so dead

Hika wrote:

Dawnsday wrote:

I wish the mafia subforum wasnt so dead

We got lives

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

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.

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?

B1rd wrote:

I have founds lots and lots of anecdotal evidence, women being raped multiple times in different occasions, Rotherham, people working with new immigrants and giving account of how violent they, "no-go zones" where police are too afraid to patrol, etc. It's just hard to find 'official' statistics that give a link, because of reasons like: the studies are hidden behind paywalls, the evidence going against the official agenda. You know that the study you cited was made with the agenda of 'dispelling myths' about immigration and crime. Hardly unbiased. I mean it is somewhat more plausible that people from Mexico aren't that bad, but how can you really think that people from hardcore Muslim countries, countries with a completely different culture, with a low IQ, lots of human rights abuses, most of whom aren't even literate in their own language, do you really think these people would be an boon to Western countries?

I'm talking about communism because you seem intent on unfairly labeling Nazism as the worst political ideology. I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency of your position. Of course communism is violent, it's not like 100% will voluntarily hand over their property to the state. As I've already said, you can call lots of political ideologies violent. But instead of using "directly incites violence" as a basis for why it Nazism should be excluded from free-speech, you've basically shifted the goalposts and now you're saying "I think it's bad, therefore it should be excluded". That's not how free speech works, you combat words with words, and violence with violence. Your reasoning is little different from Antifa, who because they label Milo or Richard Spencer as 'nazis', gives them justification to use violence to stop them talking.

I think Islam is violent, and I think that people who advocate for unrestricted Muslim immigration are arguing for something that will cause violence and disorder in our society. Does that give me justification to use violence against anyone arguing for immigration?

Brian OA wrote:

pic

FuZ wrote:

muslims should be removed from earth

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

I just feel like a lot of alt-right politics are generally based on "feels" instead of actual statistics.

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

The real world often doesn't match expectations. I think most people would assume immigrants commit more crime, but if data repeatedly shows that they don't, then that's just a fact that people will have to accept. Statistics are the most important thing when it comes to policymaking outside of a simple race to get the most votes, which I think is something that should be avoided in a proper democracy.

Brian OA wrote:

Agreed. Honestly, I'm kind of bothered there hasn't been a bigger buzz about reforming the electoral process.

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

I imagine the electoral college is probably gonna be looked at after Trump, at least.

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

Brian OA wrote:

Agreed. Honestly, I'm kind of bothered there hasn't been a bigger buzz about reforming the electoral process.

I imagine the electoral college is probably gonna be looked at after Trump, at least. I was looking into gerrymandering and it's pretty infuriating how much of the electoral process has been messed up from such a simple concept.

B1rd wrote:

but there is nothing wrong with the central idea behind the electoral college

Brian OA wrote:

Does it matter who's doing the gerrymandering

Raspberriel wrote:

Brian OA wrote:

Does it matter who's doing the gerrymandering

well if the party doing it routinely accuses the other of rigging elections, then yeah

B1rd wrote:

There is definitely flaws in the US election system, but there is nothing wrong with the central idea behind the electoral college. It's not fair that California and New York dominate the elections. Voter fraud is also something that needs to be looked into.

Raspberriel wrote:

okay, gonna sit this one out

I've already had this debate here

Raspberriel wrote:

Brian OA wrote:

Does it matter who's doing the gerrymandering

well if the party doing it routinely accuses the other of rigging elections, then yeah

B1rd wrote:

I've heard that the "if 3 million illegals voted" claim has some substance. Don't just write something off without evidence.

And really, it's not the Republican's fault that one or two extra steps required to vote disproportionately affects the Democrat's voter base. I hear that rain disproportionately affects minorities' chances of voting as well. I don't think that the Republicans wouldn't use dirty tricks to get more votes, but I don't think that the Democrats wouldn't try and get illegals and dead people to vote for them either. Preventing manipulation and vote tampering is quite an important thing. I hope that electronic voting machines will stop being used.

Raspberriel wrote:

okay, gonna sit this one out

I've already had this debate here

Seems convenient that you decide to sit out when I present evidence that the Democratic party aren't the saints you make them out to be.

B1rd wrote:

And really, it's not the Republican's fault that one or two extra steps required to vote disproportionately affects the Democrat's voter base. I hear that rain disproportionately affects minorities' chances of voting as well. I don't think that the Republicans wouldn't use dirty tricks to get more votes, but I don't think that the Democrats wouldn't try and get illegals and dead people to vote for them either. Preventing manipulation and vote tampering is quite an important thing. I hope that electronic voting machines will stop being used.

Kisses wrote:

@Mahogany

At what age did you first jack off to a picture of a pony?

Zain Sugieres wrote:

Friendly reminder there are only 2 genders

Kisses wrote:

@Mahogany

At what age did you first jack off to a picture of a pony?

B1rd wrote:

Seems convenient that you decide to sit out when I present evidence that the Democratic party aren't the saints you make them out to be.

Zain Sugieres wrote:

Friendly reminder there are only 2 genders

Mahogany wrote:

friendly reminder that you don't have to identify your gender in a binary manner

Erlkonig wrote:

I checked I had a swinging dong down there which makes it kinda hard to identify myself a woman or agender or a fox.

Kisses wrote:

I just want to know whether someone has a penis or not

Brian OA wrote:

But who is to say what makes one a dude or not, or even what 100% dude/dudette entails?

Kisses wrote:

I just want to know whether someone has a penis or not

Blitzfrog wrote:

If you accept gays, you should accept pedophiles too. Just a heads up, they deserve freedom too.

Blitzfrog wrote:

If you accept gays, you should accept pedophiles too. Just a heads up, they deserve freedom too.

lol wrote:

fuck off blitzfrog

Hika wrote:

what kinda logic ^

Foxtrot wrote:

Blitz you should probably work on your bait game if you want the same amount of attention as before

Raspberriel wrote:

Deez nuts on your chin

[youtube]JUST the video ID here (the characters that come after ?v=)[/youtube]

Raspberriel wrote:

Because people seem to have trouble lately with YouTube embedding:

[youtube]JUST the video ID here (the characters that come after ?v=)[/youtube]