|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 03 2017 03:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 03:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 03 2017 03:24 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 03:21 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 03:14 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 03:11 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 03:07 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 03:03 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:45 Logo wrote:
[quote]
Couldn't this back and forth be happening with the exact same words but 'SJW' (or someone in particular on the left) swapped in for Milo and the poster names reversed?
Not really. The key difference is that the Right isn't looking to end the conversation like the Left/SJW's do. So the numerous anti-protest bills being submitted by republicans in various states don't represent trying to end the conversation? Those are content-neutral law and order bills. Their effect is no where near as insidious as branding the opposition as racists, sexists, and homophobes. It's not about neutrality, it's about ending conversations. Plus you said you are very much a strict law an order type of person and pro free speech. Why so silent on the issue now? The exercise of free speech doesn't give you license to be an asshole who blocks traffic. There is no unequivocal right to protest anywhere at any time and adversely affect "civilians." These bills are content neutral and reasonable regulations on the right to protest. I don't think that they amount to the silencing of the opposition at all. Street-blocking laws are not the only protesting bills being introduced. http://www.twincities.com/2017/01/24/minnesota-house-committee-approves-bill-that-would-charge-protesters/ I see nothing wrong with that bill. Protesters conducting illegal activities or who pose a legal nuisance should be punished. They already are punished via arrest and associated charges, which can include fines. This is about directly charging them for the police response costs in addition to the crime committed (which is not even done for normal crimes, unless I'm mistaken). Basically it makes public assembly and protest specifically targeted unprotected types of crimes with additional punitive measures. So? I'm basically saying that I'm in favor of punishing unlawful protesters who cause a ton of collateral damage in their communities even more. Apparently the current laws on the books aren't enough to dissuade rioters, so let's fix that.
You don't see how making public nuisance and civil disobedience an anti-protected type of crime could have potentially negative consequences for exercise of free speech?
And if your paradigm is "current laws on the books aren't enough" we should be assessing fines based on police and state effort for any crime committed ever, not just nuisances.
Even if it ends up struck down (which it probably will) this is definitely about trying to "end the conversation" generated by these kinds of protests with new measures to shut them up.
Edit: The other pretty gross element here is that it makes it even less taxing for rich people to protest than poor people...which I hope we can agree is awful.
|
On February 03 2017 02:05 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 02:00 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 01:50 Trainrunnef wrote:On February 03 2017 01:36 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 01:29 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 03 2017 01:25 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 00:54 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 03 2017 00:38 Danglars wrote:
Case in point of tacit acceptance. If you want a return to a unified front against silliness like presidential tweeting, don't launch into the historical justifications for violence. You want to progress as a society in the future, don't regress today. The only response you then deserve is that the tweets are justified if only for bringing attention to inconvenient truths. And canceling the event would serve to discourage free thought; campuses are known liberal bastions so everybody knows what bent of free thought is disallowed through threats of violence. could you acknowledge that it wasn't just threats of violence, but actual violence, not by students or those affiliated with the college, but by antifa extremists? or is the narrative different in your head could you explicitly describe what you think the university administration should've done differently? Quote what I thought evoked tacit acceptance if you want to go further on that line. It's only the manner and substance of the quoted argument that shows acceptance, and not simply that there was a protest and it's all narrative from there. xDaunt already gave one sufficient idea. With better policing and foresight, we'd have the arrests and reports of "7 students arrested" or "55 students arrested" instead of eyewitnesses that likely couldn't recognize classmates under masks. You might understand that even if only a third of violent protestors at Berkeley were students, they have ample reason to conceal their identity from eyewitnesses. so overall youre mainly alleging negligence and bad foresight more than anything else? is that a reason to defund cal? I'll give you time to respond to the substance of former posts instead of taking the replies of other people's posts to be equal to my full argument going forward. I think one guy going too far in excusing violence and another basically spending an hour on why Milo deserves it for every fifteen minutes he notes that he's saddened by the overall situation. If you want to transition to defending or attacking Berkeley's abilities to protect unpopular opinions expressed at events on their campus, advance your take in a paragraph. If you want to talk about what the cultural crusader Trump-Bannon can do to support peaceful speakers and the free speech rights routinely violated on college campuses, I'm more interested in how much you've analyzed it and if ten more speeches with ten more masked arsonists would change your mind. If you are referring to me as the person who "went to far in excusing violence" I think you tried to infer a little too much from my original post, and completely missed my point. As I said before I dont condone violence at all, the fact that no one was arrested should be an embarrassment for the campus, and it is something that the parents of the students who attend should not accept. It's not the campus' job to arrest people, I'd assume so long as they had police and security on site the arrests (or lack of them) would be their call. Also this whole topic makes me sick about how many people incorrectly cite the first amendment. Free Speech as a societal value is a very important one, but it has nothing to do with the constitutional right granted by the first amendment. No one violated anyone's first amendment rights here. But it is their job to ensure the safety of their students, and if they knew someone as controversial as Milo was going (specifically when looking at the views of their own student body) they should have been better prepared, and ready to call in law enforcement to respond to any threats of violence. Does anyone know how long it took for police to respond? or campus safety for that matter? I haven't found anything about it yet.
I was there and the police were there hours beforehand the scheduled talk. Trust me, there were a lot of police officers. I took some blurry pictures of police in riot gear and gas masks.
They shot rubber bullets at those who starters to get rowdy (mostly people in masks). Also flashbangs and supposedly some tear gas.
There were police on the balcony of the building, with what looked like rubber bullet semi automatics. Probably like 10 or so up on the balcony.
There was a whole squad in gear inside the building (like 10-15, maybe more if I didn't see) in case people stormed the building. And down from Upper Sproul Plaza toward the Sather gate there seemed to be another 20-50, maybe more, police waiting just in case the protesters actually started to riot.
It actually wasn't as violent as reports make it out to seem. Most people were with their friends, taking pictures or selfies or videos. I took some pictures. I saw some masked people tagging up the bank with "kill trump". They also wrote "antifa-zone", "kill Milo", etc. Most of the violence happened as a result of these masked hooligans, the rest of the people watched on, some staying to see how it would go as it progressed down the street, and some, such as myself, seeing that there was a possibility of danger to ourselves, decided to leave, feeling unsafe.
The crowd was tightly packed, with mostly people holding signs, screaming chants, while masked people rode around on bikes or ran around causing mayhem. One good look at these people (the masked ones) and you realized they were up to no good.
I can see why the police withheld force. The masked agitators were vastly outnumbered by people such as me that were just passing by and trying to see what was going on. A majority of those passing by were other Berkeley students. As I said before, the crowd was tightly packed, so much so that shooting rubber bullets, or throwing flashbangs or tear gas will hit about 10 innocents or more for every actual violent agitator there.
|
On February 03 2017 03:29 RuiBarbO wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 02:22 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 03 2017 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 03 2017 02:03 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 01:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Why on earth would a university invite Milo? To give a lecture about online harassment, misoginy and hatred?
It's not like the guy ever did anything else.. Because Milo is a legitimate emerging media star and one of the most important counter-cultural figures of his generation. Whether you agree with him or hate his message is irrelevant. It's not that i disagree with him. It's that he has absolutely nothing to offer but hate and meanness. If people are into that, it's fine and i have no problem in him trolling at Breitbart and making biggoted alt right kids happy, but what was he supposed to talk about in a university? How to launch harassment campaigns on twitter? I mean, since when being a popular fascist is enough to give lectures in one of the most respected universities in america? With those criterias, they could invite david duke too, stormfront is doing great. Have you considered the possibility that you really don't understand Milo's message and that distilling it down to "hate and meanness" is incorrect? I have and the answer is no, although i am quite sure that some people struggle to distinguish deep thought and the mysogynic and racist bullshit speech from a sexually insecure young male talking to other secually insecure young males. Because let's be clear, that's all there is to Milo. I love this answer because it perfectly illustrates how ill-equipped that the Left presently is to deal with the ongoing assault from the Alt Right and its sympathizers like Milo. When I talk about the Regressive Left doubling down on its tactics in response to Trump, et al., Biff's statement above is precisely the kind of sentiment that I'm referring to. It doesn't even occur to these people that there's an underlying point to the "hate and meanness" of the Right. I feel like I see this a lot in this thread, where people respond to posts by placing the poster into the camp of either the Left or the Right (the implication being, it seems to me, that the poster is part of a monolithic group, and thus just parroting ideas inherited from the masses). Here xDaunt submits Biff's post as "precisely the kind of sentiment that I'm referring to" in his critique of the "Regressive Left." From where I'm standing, all that does is dismiss whatever legitimate point he may Biff trying (effectively or not) to make by drawing him into a group someone else came up with which he does not identify with. + Show Spoiler +not to imply that Biff is exempt from doing this same thing So when xDaunt says "It doesn't even occur to these people that there's an underlying point" - I suppose you're inviting people who DO realize that there's an underlying point and STILL don't like him to respond, but why would they when you've already caricatured them, regardless of their actual political affiliation, as part of the "Regressive Left." Even if they produced something more substantive, that doesn't do much to stop you from maintaining this same line.
You're not the only one to have noticed this. This xDaunt character is the most egregious of the bunch. Most of his responses implicitly lump the original poster into some nebulous 'Left' group. He then proceeds to insert some snide remark about the this 'Left' group as if they are all part of a group of clueless people that haven't caught on to some sort of grand message. It's almost as if he is committing the same crime he accuses the so-called 'Left' of doing - not trying to understand the other side and tarring them all with the same brush.
But rest assured, your post will go unnoticed. People will continue responding to his posts, and he continues to impose judgements on his own self-made categorisations, no real discussion occurs, and the cycle continues.
|
I find it funny that people are accusing the right of trying to "end the conversation" when they've been doing it for deacdes decrying anyone who opposes them as being sexist, racist, facist, bigoted, homopobic ect.
Trying to make sure that society functions normally and can't be held hostage by one group or another should be something good. That it beggars more on the poor could be applied to every fine and crime.
Someone who is in the minority side of the conversation grouping the people opposing him saves us all time. Stop complaining about stupid things people. This whole "your unnoticed.. no your unnoticed" BS is petty and childish.
Also if you think that you're somehow supposed to only argue reason and rationality you don't have much place in Us politics. Reason and rationality is most of the time the last thing people should consider in this thread.
|
Every fine, yes. Every crime, no. My understanding is that part of the point of having public defenders for all and jailtime/community service as penalties is that rich people do not in principle face a different justice and punishment system from poor people (though of course they do in actuality).
And, of course, the problem is not so much that there is any disparity (because removing it would require reworking society) but that furthering that disparity should come with a big payoff and minimal outside consequences.
|
On February 03 2017 04:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Every fine, yes. Every crime, no. My understanding is that part of the point of having public defenders for all and jailtime as a penalty is that rich people do not in principle face a different justice and punishment system from poor people.
Poor people are more inclined to crime in order to support their families and themselves. Rich people can already support themselves and their families or they wouldn't be rich. Thats why poor areas are crime ridden and rich areas are relativly safe.
I would say having public defenders for all would be to help prevent police overreach on the poor and in principle there is a different justice and punishment system for rich and poor. people being ignorant of the law after they've been charged is a moot point I'd think. Rich people doing crimes can afford to have a lawyer on retainer that they can as if something is legal or not and how to make sure they don't go to jail if it isn't legal.
|
On February 03 2017 03:29 RuiBarbO wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 02:22 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 03 2017 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 03 2017 02:03 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 01:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Why on earth would a university invite Milo? To give a lecture about online harassment, misoginy and hatred?
It's not like the guy ever did anything else.. Because Milo is a legitimate emerging media star and one of the most important counter-cultural figures of his generation. Whether you agree with him or hate his message is irrelevant. It's not that i disagree with him. It's that he has absolutely nothing to offer but hate and meanness. If people are into that, it's fine and i have no problem in him trolling at Breitbart and making biggoted alt right kids happy, but what was he supposed to talk about in a university? How to launch harassment campaigns on twitter? I mean, since when being a popular fascist is enough to give lectures in one of the most respected universities in america? With those criterias, they could invite david duke too, stormfront is doing great. Have you considered the possibility that you really don't understand Milo's message and that distilling it down to "hate and meanness" is incorrect? I have and the answer is no, although i am quite sure that some people struggle to distinguish deep thought and the mysogynic and racist bullshit speech from a sexually insecure young male talking to other secually insecure young males. Because let's be clear, that's all there is to Milo. I love this answer because it perfectly illustrates how ill-equipped that the Left presently is to deal with the ongoing assault from the Alt Right and its sympathizers like Milo. When I talk about the Regressive Left doubling down on its tactics in response to Trump, et al., Biff's statement above is precisely the kind of sentiment that I'm referring to. It doesn't even occur to these people that there's an underlying point to the "hate and meanness" of the Right. I feel like I see this a lot in this thread, where people respond to posts by placing the poster into the camp of either the Left or the Right (the implication being, it seems to me, that the poster is part of a monolithic group, and thus just parroting ideas inherited from the masses). Here xDaunt submits Biff's post as "precisely the kind of sentiment that I'm referring to" in his critique of the "Regressive Left." From where I'm standing, all that does is dismiss whatever legitimate point he may Biff trying (effectively or not) to make by drawing him into a group someone else came up with which he does not identify with. + Show Spoiler +not to imply that Biff is exempt from doing this same thing So when xDaunt says "It doesn't even occur to these people that there's an underlying point" - I suppose you're inviting people who DO realize that there's an underlying point and STILL don't like him to respond, but why would they when you've already caricatured them, regardless of their actual political affiliation, as part of the "Regressive Left." Even if they produced something more substantive, that doesn't do much to stop you from maintaining this same line.
I find it funny how so many of you get caught up in semantics. I invited Biff to give me his critique of Milo (ie I didn't presume what his critique was), and he gave me the exact cookie-cutter response that I would have expected from just about anyone on the Left. So how is it unfair for me to lump him in with them or to otherwise point out the obvious (and this is from years of watching him post around here) that Biff is on the Left politically? And more to the point, why does the label matter when my real point is about the idea held by the group whom I'm labeling?
And as to your point about my being dismissive of Biff's criticism of Milo, my response is: of course I was. Garbage in, garbage out, right? Notwithstanding that, his response still served to illustrate my larger point regarding how the Left is unprepared to deal with the current ideological assault from the Right.
On February 03 2017 04:07 buhhy wrote:
You're not the only one to have noticed this. This xDaunt character is the most egregious of the bunch. Most of his responses implicitly lump the original poster into some nebulous 'Left' group. He then proceeds to insert some snide remark about the this 'Left' group as if they are all part of a group of clueless people that haven't caught on to some sort of grand message. It's almost as if he is committing the same crime he accuses the so-called 'Left' of doing - not trying to understand the other side and tarring them all with the same brush.
But rest assured, your post will go unnoticed. People will continue responding to his posts, and he continues to impose judgements on his own self-made categorisations, no real discussion occurs, and the cycle continues.
And I'll say the same thing to you. Why are you so caught up in the semantics? My categorization of people is really besides the point. It's the ideas that matter.
As for the bolded/underlined comment of yours above, there's a critical difference between my categorization of people and what the Left does: I'm generally not imparting any judgment upon the other side with my categorization (I will admit that "Regressive Left" is a loaded term). Saying that someone is part of "the Left" is a fairly neutral label in the way that calling someone a "racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe" is not.
|
On February 03 2017 04:12 Sermokala wrote:
I find it funny that people are accusing the right of trying to "end the conversation" when they've been doing it for deacdes decrying anyone who opposes them as being sexist, racist, facist, bigoted, homopobic ect.
Trying to make sure that society functions normally and can't be held hostage by one group or another should be something good. That it beggars more on the poor could be applied to every fine and crime.
Someone who is in the minority side of the conversation grouping the people opposing him saves us all time. Stop complaining about stupid things people. This whole "your unnoticed.. no your unnoticed" BS is petty and childish.
Decades ago American society was much more sexist, racist, bigoted and homophobic than it is today. Our society has made strides in those areas by opening those conversations up, and decrying the voices of those who oppose equality. BLM is a modern day example of trying to open the conversation about police brutality against African Americans, while at the same time combating those who refuse to acknowledge it as a problem.
To open a conversation, sometimes it's necessary to shut one down as well if you want to make progress.
One area I would say the Left has gone a bit awry is not acknowledging or playing down Jihadism as a threat specific to Islam. The right is trying to have their voice heard in that regard and is largely being shot down as discrimination because they typically paint too broad a brush of all Muslim's being dangerous. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone opposed to vetting refugees or immigrants, but when you shut down the borders, again, too broad a brush.
|
On February 03 2017 04:12 Sermokala wrote:
I find it funny that people are accusing the right of trying to "end the conversation" when they've been doing it for deacdes decrying anyone who opposes them as being sexist, racist, facist, bigoted, homopobic ect.
Trying to make sure that society functions normally and can't be held hostage by one group or another should be something good. That it beggars more on the poor could be applied to every fine and crime.
Someone who is in the minority side of the conversation grouping the people opposing him saves us all time. Stop complaining about stupid things people. This whole "your unnoticed.. no your unnoticed" BS is petty and childish.
grouping doesn't work well if you incorrectly group them, as happens sometimes. it's quite common for people to group all the distant others into the same group, even though those people do not consider themselves part of the same group. differences are more apparent and notable the closer you are to someone.
also, which people tried to end the conversation decrying anyone opposing them as one of those insults?
specify the people. it's a very vague assertion which may not hold up well under scrutiny, or only apply to some people, while the bulk of the people were being reasonable. it seems more like a case of, as usual, focusing on the unreasonable "others" while ignoring the reasonable others, and ignoring the unreasonable people on your own side, that you don't consider to be on your own side.
and are there not people on the right who do the same thing? using some slur, insult, or categorization to brand those opposed to them? it's a basic political and rhetorical tactic, so it should be fairly common in general. also note that in some cases an insult is applied correctly, and the person is in fact one of those things.
|
On February 03 2017 03:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 03:03 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:45 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:33 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:29 Scarecrow wrote:
I love how xDaunt just condescendingly craps on Biff's seemingly legitimate criticism of Milo without saying why the left is ill-equipped, or what the underlying point is beyond hate speech and trolling. How is distilling Milo down to "hate and meanness" a legitimate criticism? It's more legitimate than the hot air your blew in return. And yes, having read/listened to Milo that's honestly a good summary. It might as well be his slogan. No, it's not a legitimate criticism because it completely misses the underlying cultural argument within Milo's message. Sure, Milo's bombastic (or, if you prefer, an asshole), but underneath the presentation is a real message. Couldn't this back and forth be happening with the exact same words but 'SJW' (or someone in particular on the left) swapped in for Milo and the poster names reversed? Not really. The key difference is that the Right isn't looking to end the conversation like the Left/SJW's do. So the numerous anti-protest bills being submitted by republicans in various states don't represent trying to end the conversation? Those are content-neutral law and order bills. Their effect is no where near as insidious as branding the opposition as racists, sexists, and homophobes.
Unlike the government, people have the right to call the opposition nasty names. The government is bound by the 1st amendment.
|
On February 03 2017 04:37 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 03:07 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 03:03 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:45 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:33 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:29 Scarecrow wrote:
I love how xDaunt just condescendingly craps on Biff's seemingly legitimate criticism of Milo without saying why the left is ill-equipped, or what the underlying point is beyond hate speech and trolling. How is distilling Milo down to "hate and meanness" a legitimate criticism? It's more legitimate than the hot air your blew in return. And yes, having read/listened to Milo that's honestly a good summary. It might as well be his slogan. No, it's not a legitimate criticism because it completely misses the underlying cultural argument within Milo's message. Sure, Milo's bombastic (or, if you prefer, an asshole), but underneath the presentation is a real message. Couldn't this back and forth be happening with the exact same words but 'SJW' (or someone in particular on the left) swapped in for Milo and the poster names reversed? Not really. The key difference is that the Right isn't looking to end the conversation like the Left/SJW's do. So the numerous anti-protest bills being submitted by republicans in various states don't represent trying to end the conversation? Those are content-neutral law and order bills. Their effect is no where near as insidious as branding the opposition as racists, sexists, and homophobes. Unlike the government, people have the right to call the opposition nasty names. The government is bound by the 1st amendment.
Sure, but this is irrelevant to my underlying point regarding what the Regressive Left does. I'm not challenging the right of the Regressive Left to call people nasty names.
|
On February 03 2017 04:36 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 04:12 Sermokala wrote:
I find it funny that people are accusing the right of trying to "end the conversation" when they've been doing it for deacdes decrying anyone who opposes them as being sexist, racist, facist, bigoted, homopobic ect.
Trying to make sure that society functions normally and can't be held hostage by one group or another should be something good. That it beggars more on the poor could be applied to every fine and crime.
Someone who is in the minority side of the conversation grouping the people opposing him saves us all time. Stop complaining about stupid things people. This whole "your unnoticed.. no your unnoticed" BS is petty and childish. grouping doesn't work well if you incorrectly group them, as happens sometimes. it's quite common for people to group all the distant others into the same group, even though those people do not consider themselves part of the same group. differences are more apparent and notable the closer you are to someone. also, which people tried to end the conversation decrying anyone opposing them as one of those insults? specify the people. it's a very vague assertion which may not hold up well under scrutiny, or only apply to some people, while the bulk of the people were being reasonable. it seems more like a case of, as usual, focusing on the unreasonable "others" while ignoring the reasonable others, and ignoring the unreasonable people on your own side, that you don't consider to be on your own side. and are there not people on the right who do the same thing? using some slur, insult, or categorization to brand those opposed to them? it's a basic political and rhetorical tactic, so it should be fairly common in general. also note that in some cases an insult is applied correctly, and the person is in fact one of those things.
It doesn't matter if it works well or not it matters if its more beneficial or not for the group. People don't say CIS gendered male all the time because its inconvenient to do it ever. If you consider a spectrum you have to admit that hes right in grouping the majority of the posters in the thread to being to the left of him. Differences are more apparent and noticeable the further you are from someone that the whole concept of what a difference is.
People ending the conversation because people don't want to be labeled those hateful words by the people around them for even slightly disagreeing with the lefts norms means that the conversation never happens. Ergo whats the difference between someone whos willfully ignorant and unwillfully ignorant when you just call them a hateful word to label them in a group that opposes you. Don't tell me that both groups wouldn't be labeled the same by the left.
Just because both sides do it means that its acceptable to both sides. you can't paint one or the other with such a brush and consider yourself the moral or reason high ground like you and other left spectrum leaning people from me have done.
In many more cases an insult is applied incorrectly and people need to be aware of that and change their behavior because of that. The problem with labeling people that and ending the conversation is that the person doing that is giving up all hope or pretext to benefit themselves or anyone around them by trying to change someone or educate someone in good faith to improve society by ending general hate. Instead labeling people as racist or homophobic ends up increasing hate and making things worse.
Isn't preaching love and tolerance but practicing hate and division the exact thing atheist and religious people are both hated so much for?
|
On February 03 2017 04:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 04:37 Acrofales wrote:On February 03 2017 03:07 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 03:03 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:45 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:33 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:29 Scarecrow wrote:
I love how xDaunt just condescendingly craps on Biff's seemingly legitimate criticism of Milo without saying why the left is ill-equipped, or what the underlying point is beyond hate speech and trolling. How is distilling Milo down to "hate and meanness" a legitimate criticism? It's more legitimate than the hot air your blew in return. And yes, having read/listened to Milo that's honestly a good summary. It might as well be his slogan. No, it's not a legitimate criticism because it completely misses the underlying cultural argument within Milo's message. Sure, Milo's bombastic (or, if you prefer, an asshole), but underneath the presentation is a real message. Couldn't this back and forth be happening with the exact same words but 'SJW' (or someone in particular on the left) swapped in for Milo and the poster names reversed? Not really. The key difference is that the Right isn't looking to end the conversation like the Left/SJW's do. So the numerous anti-protest bills being submitted by republicans in various states don't represent trying to end the conversation? Those are content-neutral law and order bills. Their effect is no where near as insidious as branding the opposition as racists, sexists, and homophobes. Unlike the government, people have the right to call the opposition nasty names. The government is bound by the 1st amendment. Sure, but this is irrelevant to my underlying point regarding what the Regressive Left does. I'm not challenging the right of the Regressive Left to call people nasty names.
To summarize, "they're bad people because they call people mean names".
Well, not those mean names that are anti-PC to say, mean names that hurt feelings.
|
On February 03 2017 04:56 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 04:36 zlefin wrote:On February 03 2017 04:12 Sermokala wrote:
I find it funny that people are accusing the right of trying to "end the conversation" when they've been doing it for deacdes decrying anyone who opposes them as being sexist, racist, facist, bigoted, homopobic ect.
Trying to make sure that society functions normally and can't be held hostage by one group or another should be something good. That it beggars more on the poor could be applied to every fine and crime.
Someone who is in the minority side of the conversation grouping the people opposing him saves us all time. Stop complaining about stupid things people. This whole "your unnoticed.. no your unnoticed" BS is petty and childish. grouping doesn't work well if you incorrectly group them, as happens sometimes. it's quite common for people to group all the distant others into the same group, even though those people do not consider themselves part of the same group. differences are more apparent and notable the closer you are to someone. also, which people tried to end the conversation decrying anyone opposing them as one of those insults? specify the people. it's a very vague assertion which may not hold up well under scrutiny, or only apply to some people, while the bulk of the people were being reasonable. it seems more like a case of, as usual, focusing on the unreasonable "others" while ignoring the reasonable others, and ignoring the unreasonable people on your own side, that you don't consider to be on your own side. and are there not people on the right who do the same thing? using some slur, insult, or categorization to brand those opposed to them? it's a basic political and rhetorical tactic, so it should be fairly common in general. also note that in some cases an insult is applied correctly, and the person is in fact one of those things. It doesn't matter if it works well or not it matters if its more beneficial or not for the group. People don't say CIS gendered male all the time because its inconvenient to do it ever. If you consider a spectrum you have to admit that hes right in grouping the majority of the posters in the thread to being to the left of him. Differences are more apparent and noticeable the further you are from someone that the whole concept of what a difference is. People ending the conversation because people don't want to be labeled those hateful words by the people around them for even slightly disagreeing with the lefts norms means that the conversation never happens. Ergo whats the difference between someone whos willfully ignorant and unwillfully ignorant when you just call them a hateful word to label them in a group that opposes you. Don't tell me that both groups wouldn't be labeled the same by the left. Just because both sides do it means that its acceptable to both sides. you can't paint one or the other with such a brush and consider yourself the moral or reason high ground like you and other left spectrum leaning people from me have done. In many more cases an insult is applied incorrectly and people need to be aware of that and change their behavior because of that. The problem with labeling people that and ending the conversation is that the person doing that is giving up all hope or pretext to benefit themselves or anyone around them by trying to change someone or educate someone in good faith to improve society by ending general hate. Instead labeling people as racist or homophobic ends up increasing hate and making things worse. Isn't preaching love and tolerance but practicing hate and division the exact thing atheist and religious people are both hated so much for?
in ansewr to the last questoin, NO. it's the thing a small but vocal subset are hated for, not the general groups are. since the general groups aren't like that.
otherwise i'm unclear on much of your points, in that they don't seem to be on point to what I was discussing. your points may be sound and valid, but they just don't seem relevant, or they're talking about something else.
To solve this would require much more precisely isolating the claims we're making, most especially the original claims, since otherwise we're both at step 10 of very different proofs on different topics, and hence it makes no sense.
do you want to do that rigorous isolation of claims? or is it not worth it?
as to high ground, I only claim it for myself, and perhaps a select few others, based on long observation of rigor and care.
it feels like some of your arguments are not addressed to me or the points I made; as if you're arguing against someone who isn't here.
|
On February 03 2017 04:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 04:42 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 04:37 Acrofales wrote:On February 03 2017 03:07 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 03:03 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:45 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:33 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
How is distilling Milo down to "hate and meanness" a legitimate criticism? It's more legitimate than the hot air your blew in return. And yes, having read/listened to Milo that's honestly a good summary. It might as well be his slogan. No, it's not a legitimate criticism because it completely misses the underlying cultural argument within Milo's message. Sure, Milo's bombastic (or, if you prefer, an asshole), but underneath the presentation is a real message. Couldn't this back and forth be happening with the exact same words but 'SJW' (or someone in particular on the left) swapped in for Milo and the poster names reversed? Not really. The key difference is that the Right isn't looking to end the conversation like the Left/SJW's do. So the numerous anti-protest bills being submitted by republicans in various states don't represent trying to end the conversation? Those are content-neutral law and order bills. Their effect is no where near as insidious as branding the opposition as racists, sexists, and homophobes. Unlike the government, people have the right to call the opposition nasty names. The government is bound by the 1st amendment. Sure, but this is irrelevant to my underlying point regarding what the Regressive Left does. I'm not challenging the right of the Regressive Left to call people nasty names. To summarize, "they're bad people because they call people mean names". Well, not those mean names that are anti-PC to say, mean names that hurt feelings.
The mean names are used to discredit the person and their ideas as backwards and inferior. I don't think it's about feelings.
edit: the point being that the name-calling is a tactic that some use, but it is not a valid argument against the ideas of the other party.
|
On February 03 2017 05:06 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 04:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2017 04:42 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 04:37 Acrofales wrote:On February 03 2017 03:07 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 03:03 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:45 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:33 Scarecrow wrote:
[quote]
It's more legitimate than the hot air your blew in return. And yes, having read/listened to Milo that's honestly a good summary. It might as well be his slogan. No, it's not a legitimate criticism because it completely misses the underlying cultural argument within Milo's message. Sure, Milo's bombastic (or, if you prefer, an asshole), but underneath the presentation is a real message. Couldn't this back and forth be happening with the exact same words but 'SJW' (or someone in particular on the left) swapped in for Milo and the poster names reversed? Not really. The key difference is that the Right isn't looking to end the conversation like the Left/SJW's do. So the numerous anti-protest bills being submitted by republicans in various states don't represent trying to end the conversation? Those are content-neutral law and order bills. Their effect is no where near as insidious as branding the opposition as racists, sexists, and homophobes. Unlike the government, people have the right to call the opposition nasty names. The government is bound by the 1st amendment. Sure, but this is irrelevant to my underlying point regarding what the Regressive Left does. I'm not challenging the right of the Regressive Left to call people nasty names. To summarize, "they're bad people because they call people mean names". Well, not those mean names that are anti-PC to say, mean names that hurt feelings. The mean names are used to discredit the person and their ideas as backwards and inferior. I don't think it's about feelings.
So basically like calling someone retarded then.
Point being that xDaunt is only complaining about the supposed "left" calling people names because they're names that actually make him upset.
|
On February 03 2017 04:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 04:37 Acrofales wrote:On February 03 2017 03:07 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 03:03 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:45 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:33 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:29 Scarecrow wrote:
I love how xDaunt just condescendingly craps on Biff's seemingly legitimate criticism of Milo without saying why the left is ill-equipped, or what the underlying point is beyond hate speech and trolling. How is distilling Milo down to "hate and meanness" a legitimate criticism? It's more legitimate than the hot air your blew in return. And yes, having read/listened to Milo that's honestly a good summary. It might as well be his slogan. No, it's not a legitimate criticism because it completely misses the underlying cultural argument within Milo's message. Sure, Milo's bombastic (or, if you prefer, an asshole), but underneath the presentation is a real message. Couldn't this back and forth be happening with the exact same words but 'SJW' (or someone in particular on the left) swapped in for Milo and the poster names reversed? Not really. The key difference is that the Right isn't looking to end the conversation like the Left/SJW's do. So the numerous anti-protest bills being submitted by republicans in various states don't represent trying to end the conversation? Those are content-neutral law and order bills. Their effect is no where near as insidious as branding the opposition as racists, sexists, and homophobes. Unlike the government, people have the right to call the opposition nasty names. The government is bound by the 1st amendment. Sure, but this is irrelevant to my underlying point regarding what the Regressive Left does. I'm not challenging the right of the Regressive Left to call people nasty names.
Ok, I guess we can ignore the whataboutism of the protest bills, because they are irrelevant to the original point. How is the alt-right not trying to shut down any conversation? Their appeal to their god-given right to discriminate is no less of a conversation stopper than calling them bigots is. It's about as useful as insisting that a 9/11 truther is trying to open up discussion about what happened on 9/11. We are starting from completely different premises that we cannot agree on. So until we can have an honest discussion about the premises, there's no point in discussing it.
And I guess that's something Biff was trying to tell you: Milo's message is completely lost on us, because he starts from something we consider just plain incorrect and builds a big mean spiteful monstrosity on top of it.
The good thing about Western culture is that there *should* be space for both opinions to coexist quite peacefully. I can happily think that gays have a right to wedding cakes, and you can happily think that bakers shouldn't have to bake cakes for events that oppose their core values. What is dangerous is that recent events are overruling common sense and good citizenship. It isn't your god given right to get a wedding cake from Baker X, and it also isn't your god-given right to deny your employees birth control methods in their health plan. We threw the fundaments of society out the window when we started treating conflicts like this as something we need to *win*, rather than something that needs to be *resolved*.
|
Jesus Christ, so xDaunt spent the last ten pages or so arguing that the right has far fewer violent extremists than the left*, that the left just wants to end conversations, and that calling people racist, sexist, and xenophobic is anti-free speech.
For starters we just had an entire election in which we were perpetually told the right can't be generalized by their more extreme supporters. Looking at the fucking meme monsters of 8chan calling themselves Nazis and worshipping Donald Trump as Fuhrer we were supposed to say "oh, well, you know, not everybody on the right is like that, some of them are just upset about outsourcing or something." Now an unknown number of possibly-students at Berkeley start some riots and we're supposed to write off the entire left?
If we're gonna start holding political leaders responsible for the actions of some of their worse supporters Donald Trump has a fucking lot to answer for. If we're not, then stop trying to generalize the entire left by some stupid fuckers that punched somebody at a protest or something. The left doesn't want to shut down conversation, which is why they're doing so much talking right now.
Almost unrelated, but calling someone's position "racist," if used correctly, is supposed to be a substantive criticism of their position. The position conflicts with a generally agreed-upon belief that different races are equal and should be treated equally. Considering how many stupid fucking names conservatives have come up with for liberals over the years to marginalize them (Feminazi, blame-America-firster, SJW to name a few), this self-righteousness about branding opponents to marginalize them rings awfully hollow to me. Hell, that's basically Trump's signature move.
*citation very needed
|
On February 03 2017 04:02 JungleTerrain wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 02:05 Trainrunnef wrote:On February 03 2017 02:00 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 01:50 Trainrunnef wrote:On February 03 2017 01:36 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 01:29 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 03 2017 01:25 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 00:54 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 03 2017 00:38 Danglars wrote:
Case in point of tacit acceptance. If you want a return to a unified front against silliness like presidential tweeting, don't launch into the historical justifications for violence. You want to progress as a society in the future, don't regress today. The only response you then deserve is that the tweets are justified if only for bringing attention to inconvenient truths. And canceling the event would serve to discourage free thought; campuses are known liberal bastions so everybody knows what bent of free thought is disallowed through threats of violence. could you acknowledge that it wasn't just threats of violence, but actual violence, not by students or those affiliated with the college, but by antifa extremists? or is the narrative different in your head could you explicitly describe what you think the university administration should've done differently? Quote what I thought evoked tacit acceptance if you want to go further on that line. It's only the manner and substance of the quoted argument that shows acceptance, and not simply that there was a protest and it's all narrative from there. xDaunt already gave one sufficient idea. With better policing and foresight, we'd have the arrests and reports of "7 students arrested" or "55 students arrested" instead of eyewitnesses that likely couldn't recognize classmates under masks. You might understand that even if only a third of violent protestors at Berkeley were students, they have ample reason to conceal their identity from eyewitnesses. so overall youre mainly alleging negligence and bad foresight more than anything else? is that a reason to defund cal? I'll give you time to respond to the substance of former posts instead of taking the replies of other people's posts to be equal to my full argument going forward. I think one guy going too far in excusing violence and another basically spending an hour on why Milo deserves it for every fifteen minutes he notes that he's saddened by the overall situation. If you want to transition to defending or attacking Berkeley's abilities to protect unpopular opinions expressed at events on their campus, advance your take in a paragraph. If you want to talk about what the cultural crusader Trump-Bannon can do to support peaceful speakers and the free speech rights routinely violated on college campuses, I'm more interested in how much you've analyzed it and if ten more speeches with ten more masked arsonists would change your mind. If you are referring to me as the person who "went to far in excusing violence" I think you tried to infer a little too much from my original post, and completely missed my point. As I said before I dont condone violence at all, the fact that no one was arrested should be an embarrassment for the campus, and it is something that the parents of the students who attend should not accept. It's not the campus' job to arrest people, I'd assume so long as they had police and security on site the arrests (or lack of them) would be their call. Also this whole topic makes me sick about how many people incorrectly cite the first amendment. Free Speech as a societal value is a very important one, but it has nothing to do with the constitutional right granted by the first amendment. No one violated anyone's first amendment rights here. But it is their job to ensure the safety of their students, and if they knew someone as controversial as Milo was going (specifically when looking at the views of their own student body) they should have been better prepared, and ready to call in law enforcement to respond to any threats of violence. Does anyone know how long it took for police to respond? or campus safety for that matter? I haven't found anything about it yet. I was there and the police were there hours beforehand the scheduled talk. Trust me, there were a lot of police officers. I took some blurry pictures of police in riot gear and gas masks. They shot rubber bullets at those who starters to get rowdy (mostly people in masks). Also flashbangs and supposedly some tear gas. There were police on the balcony of the building, with what looked like rubber bullet semi automatics. Probably like 10 or so up on the balcony. There was a whole squad in gear inside the building (like 10-15, maybe more if I didn't see) in case people stormed the building. And down from Upper Sproul Plaza toward the Sather gate there seemed to be another 20-50, maybe more, police waiting just in case the protesters actually started to riot. It actually wasn't as violent as reports make it out to seem. Most people were with their friends, taking pictures or selfies or videos. I took some pictures. I saw some masked people tagging up the bank with "kill trump". They also wrote "antifa-zone", "kill Milo", etc. Most of the violence happened as a result of these masked hooligans, the rest of the people watched on, some staying to see how it would go as it progressed down the street, and some, such as myself, seeing that there was a possibility of danger to ourselves, decided to leave, feeling unsafe. The crowd was tightly packed, with mostly people holding signs, screaming chants, while masked people rode around on bikes or ran around causing mayhem. One good look at these people (the masked ones) and you realized they were up to no good. I can see why the police withheld force. The masked agitators were vastly outnumbered by people such as me that were just passing by and trying to see what was going on. A majority of those passing by were other Berkeley students. As I said before, the crowd was tightly packed, so much so that shooting rubber bullets, or throwing flashbangs or tear gas will hit about 10 innocents or more for every actual violent agitator there.
Thanks for filling in the information! It's really good to hear first hand accounts; mainstream coverage of protests leave a lot to be desired.
|
On February 03 2017 05:17 ChristianS wrote:
Jesus Christ, so xDaunt spent the last ten pages or so arguing that the right has far fewer violent extremists than the left*, that the left just wants to end conversations, and that calling people racist, sexist, and xenophobic is anti-free speech.
For starters we just had an entire election in which we were perpetually told the right can't be generalized by their more extreme supporters. Looking at the fucking meme monsters of 8chan calling themselves Nazis and worshipping Donald Trump as Fuhrer we were supposed to say "oh, well, you know, not everybody on the right is like that, some of them are just upset about outsourcing or something." Now an unknown number of possibly-students at Berkeley start some riots and we're supposed to write off the entire left?
If we're gonna start holding political leaders responsible for the actions of some of their worse supporters Donald Trump has a fucking lot to answer for. If we're not, then stop trying to generalize the entire left by some stupid fuckers that punched somebody at a protest or something. The left doesn't want to shut down conversation, which is why they're doing so much talking right now.
Almost unrelated, but calling someone's position "racist," if used correctly, is supposed to be a substantive criticism of their position. The position conflicts with a generally agreed-upon belief that different races are equal and should be treated equally. Considering how many stupid fucking names conservatives have come up with for liberals over the years to marginalize them (Feminazi, blame-America-firster, SJW to name a few), this self-righteousness about branding opponents to marginalize them rings awfully hollow to me. Hell, that's basically Trump's signature move.
*citation very needed
As I've mentioned before, these arguments make a lot more sense if you substitute the words "left" and "right" with "people I like" and "people I don't like".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
