Political Violence

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I mean you wouldn't be the first, there are so many attacks on abortion clinics it's not even funny. But I don't want to debate the philosophy of abortion in this thread and you are welcome to make another thread if you wish to stretch the argument that far out.

The philosophy of abortion, no, HOWEVER...Violence against abortion clinics could fit into Political Violence.

 

The people attacking those clinics believe, in many cases, that abortion is a horrible thing. I don't agree and as said the philosophy isn't up for debate here...but you can't deny that to them abortion is an appalling and horrible act.

So, by your reasoning, which was that violence against those extreme bigots is okay because bigotry is wrong, would it not make sense for people who believe abortion to be morally repugnant and evil to use violence?

 

I don't condone the act but your own logic works against you here. Unless you believe violence only should be used against those you specifically disagree with in which case there's no reason to debate at all.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Because it's an attack on you by someone who'd never met you that is being validated by your peers simply because they don't understand the sheer absurdity of the situation and probably don't know you personally. Those who proposition it think of you as not a human and everyone around you either seems to agree or not care about this well, blatant political threat against your life personally that is undeserved.

 

That's a bit how watching people readily defend Richard Spencer/Alt-Right/The Proud Boys feels as a black person, personally. 

It's not an attack that bothers me? I think it's good that I can live in a country where even speech deemed hateful is allowed. There is no objective mesure for these kinds of things

 

"first they came from ____ and I said nothing"

The philosophy of abortion, no, HOWEVER...Violence against abortion clinics could fit into Political Violence.

 

The people attacking those clinics believe, in many cases, that abortion is a horrible thing. I don't agree and as said the philosophy isn't up for debate here...but you can't deny that to them abortion is an appalling and horrible act.

So, by your reasoning, which was that violence against those extreme bigots is okay because bigotry is wrong, would it not make sense for people who believe abortion to be morally repugnant and evil to use violence?

 

I don't condone the act but your own logic works against you here. Unless you believe violence only should be used against those you specifically disagree with in which case there's no reason to debate at all.

This

 

It's not hard to interpret abortion in a Nazist lens, and by proto's logic, it's a license to get violent 

[Proto]

It's not an attack that bothers me? I think it's good that I can live in a country where even speech deemed hateful is allowed. There is no objective mesure for these kinds of things

 

"first they came from ____ and I said nothing"

Sure, when you start getting jobs declined, denied housing and threats of violence against your life because of that decree your story changes.

It's not an attack that bothers me? I think it's good that I can live in a country where even speech deemed hateful is allowed. There is no objective mesure for these kinds of things

 

"first they came from ____ and I said nothing"

This

 

It's not hard to interpret abortion in a Nazist lens, and by proto's logic, it's a license to get violent 

 

 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Alright, it's different in these ways.

 

1. Pro-Choice is the key word, nobody's forced to get abortions and threatening a woman to get an abortion is a pretty common way to get sent to court.

 

2. Pro-Choice hasn't mandated that every woman needs to like have a set amount of abortions so the state can use their cells as medical research or whatever. The threat of a totalitarian regime is utterly different then an option. 

 

You can be a woman who's pro-life in a pro-choice world. You can vote with your wallet, make cases against it to individuals to reduce demand so abortion clinics more or less become defunct. Like, it's just a false comparison.

 

Bigotry appointed by government effects every living citizen no matter what. It is the totalitarian nature of enforcing these rules on citizens that makes it absolutely integral to put these things down. Giving people the option to "murder their kids" doesn't need to effect your life if you choose to copulate with another pro-life person. 

 

If you believe it's wrong fine, don't participate in it, cut yourself off from people that do, decry on your facebook that it's the largest evil ever done, you can even make some pro-life compound or something. Meanwhile if the state does something like revoke your citizenship or makes it illegal for you to buy property because of your skin color you kinda don't have any other option besides "attempt to seek asylum in another country".

Nobody is giving the kids any choice, and at a certain point, say 20 weeks, which the dems filibustered just this year, it's not even deniable. 

 

The Nazis executed people who they viewed as subhuman (fetus =/= human) or a drag on society (mothers can't work as much).

 

One could easy construct the argument even if you don't agree with it personally.

 

As for your idea about just keeping your distance from said people, couldn't you just likewise not interact with Nazis? Let them do their silly marches. Why are you getting worked up about it?

The bigger point here is it seems you're only ok with violence against groups you deem wrong...which isn't much of a standard. (This isn't about abortion per se, pretty sure Cow is a pro-choice Lib)

[Proto]

YCM funked my post proper but I'll try to recreate it.

 

When the government starts giving a birth limit, demands a dead baby quota or supports eugenics I'll be right with the dudes throwing fire at the clinics. However, what they are suggesting now is simply adding an option for women who are already likely to terminate their babies or mistreat them to deal with it medically.

I can't ignore the Nazis because people like Nelson Dias in the Republican Party have begun to think that it's a good idea to host rallies for them and endorse them. And when that's clear, that is risking my life as someone with only an American citizenship to my name when the people who currently control the Supreme Court, Presidency and Congress are sympathizing or at least not immediately detracting these people. The Republicans are overlooking and not doing background checks on who they're endorsing so the people need to act.
 

There is a far higher chance of Nazi influence getting into the Republican party and when that happens, my life is funked as well as every other minorities. 

If there is a eugenics/birth rate limit/dead baby quota group currently propositioning the Democratic Party I'd endorse violence against them too for their ideology is forcing something on people rather then offering options and it's doing it in a way that absolutely harms people.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

YCM funked my post proper but I'll try to recreate it.

 

When the government starts giving a birth limit, demands a dead baby quota or supports eugenics I'll be right with the dudes throwing fire at the clinics. However, what they are suggesting now is simply adding an option for women who are already likely to terminate their babies or mistreat them to deal with it medically.

 

I can't ignore the Nazis because people like Nelson Dias in the Republican Party have begun to think that it's a good idea to host rallies for them and endorse them. And when that's clear, that is risking my life as someone with only an American citizenship to my name when the people who currently control the Supreme Court, Presidency and Congress are sympathizing or at least not immediately detracting these people. The Republicans are overlooking and not doing background checks on who they're endorsing so the people need to act.

 

There is a far higher chance of Nazi influence getting into the Republican party and when that happens, my life is funked as well as every other minorities. 

 

If there is a eugenics/birth rate limit/dead baby quota group currently propositioning the Democratic Party I'd endorse violence against them too for their ideology is forcing something on people rather then offering options and it's doing it in a way that absolutely harms people.

You're completely ignoring the point, I just can't tell if you're doing it on purpose

[Proto]

Alright your point is "you just think that things that you think are bad can be solved by violence" and my point is "i think that things that are bad and that are going to be actively ENFORCED in spite of it negatively effecting a minority group  can be solved by violence."

 

Because that's... basically how uprisings work and how things get changed when the moderates don't want to do sheet about it?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Alright your point is "you just think that things that you think are bad can be solved by violence" and my point is "i think that things that are bad and that are going to be actively ENFORCED in spite of it negatively effecting a minority group  can be solved by violence."

 

Because that's... basically how uprisings work and how things get changed when the moderates don't want to do sheet about it?

A few things here

 

you dropped the "think" from your statement. Can you objectively prove that the things you deem bad are bad. You're stating it as a fact.

 

Also couldn't one argue that whites a minority group in the world and that's why they need an ethnostate.

 

Your argument just doesn't hold water in any objective measure 

[Proto]

Objectively's a really shitty word because everything philosophy wise is objective. As long as someone disagrees with me it's not objective, use a better word. I'm saying that if the government FORCES a group that does not have sufficient enough voting power in order to represent themselves properly under subjugation, then violence works to make people understand the severity of the situation and likely causes it to become addressed. It doesn't work with abortion because nobody's forced to get an abortion so people who are millitant enough to attack clinics are just seen as weirdos.

 

Sure, you can have one but you have what are essentially ethnostates already, Iceland, Poland, etc. You don't need to make America one just try to migrate there.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Objectively's a really shitty word because everything philosophy wise is objective. As long as someone disagrees with me it's not objective, use a better word. I'm saying that if the government FORCES a group that does not have sufficient enough voting power in order to represent themselves properly under subjugation, then violence works to make people understand the severity of the situation and likely causes it to become addressed. It doesn't work with abortion because nobody's forced to get an abortion so people who are millitant enough to attack clinics are just seen as weirdos.

 

Sure, you can have one but you have what are essentially ethnostates already, Iceland, Poland, etc. You don't need to make America one just try to migrate there.

The point on objectivity is you're declaring certain things as fact, like "racism is unequivocally bad"...which while I am inclined to concede to you in most cases is far from a universally accepted reality. And it is very much sublime. The travel ban polled in the green, you might consider that "racism" but the majority of Americans didn't. 

 

Well the victim party in the case of abortion really has no way to stand up for themselves. The government is forcing a certain group there to be deprived of their rights. Which is why half the country considers it as murder. So what action should be taken against a group that has no issue with it? By your logic, if violence works, that should be an acceptable outlet with results right?

 

I'm just saying shifting the sample can greatly alter the value "minority" so it's not really a great debate point

I could create a sample population and get just about any group a minority if I wanted to

[Proto]

The point on objectivity is you're declaring certain things as fact, like "racism is unequivocally bad"...which while I am inclined to concede to you in most cases is far from a universally accepted reality. And it is very much sublime. The travel ban polled in the green, you might consider that "racism" but the majority of Americans didn't. 

 

Well the victim party in the case of abortion really has no way to stand up for themselves. The government is forcing a certain group there to be deprived of their rights. Which is why half the country considers it as murder. So what action should be taken against a group that has no issue with it? By your logic, if violence works, that should be an acceptable outlet with results right?

 

I'm just saying shifting the sample can greatly alter the value "minority" so it's not really a great debate point

I could create a sample population and get just about any group a minority if I wanted to

Which is fine, but nothing actually comes to fruition if you use "objectivity" as a relative scale because that relies on people's interpretations. Nobodies philosophy or political  opinion is sound if you merely count "people disagreeing with you" as an actual point against it. By that factor voting isn't important in our demographic at all because 50-80% of us don't vote, yet it very clearly is important if we wish to influence the government. Discerning my approach to this solely off of whether everyone can agree with it is garbage.

 

You're going into abortion philosophy again which is, not something that's important in the slightest regarding this argument. If you value an aborted fetus as murder you open a whole basket of issues. Is not donating blood murder? Is not donating your kidney murder? Is indulging in activities associated with miscarriage such as smoking or drinking while pregnant murder? Is any woman over the age of 45 who gets pregnant a murderer because her miscarriage rate is 50% or over? Is doing any physical activity where you could potentially misstep or have an accident happen murder because you didn't consider the possibility of the child being injured?

 

Just a whole heap of rabbit holes here.

 

I'm not going to engage in your pedantry regarding minorities. I made it specific that if something specifically targeted ethnic minorities or other previously disenfranchised groups (the protected class list works for the sake of argument) then violence well, works. 

[Phantom Roxas]

It's not about changing anyone's mind, it's about figuring out where the real problems are and trying to fix those instead of just murdering each other. We need to address just why these beliefs make so much sense to people like him and why they think they can actually be striving for a greater good that isn't just a blanket assumption that they're delusional, horrible monsters.

 

My point is that violence for political ends doesn't deal with the actual underlying problems, and until you deal with those problems, they'll just keep coming back. Political violence is not only bad from a moral standpoint, it's straight up not pragmatic in the slightest, no matter the context.

 

I also think people here vastly underestimate just how powerful a victim narrative can be for strengthening a group no matter what the aims of the group are, but that's another matter entirely.

Again, Richard Spencer believes that white people need an ethnostate for a "safe space". A safe space from what? I understand the larger goal of figuring out where the real problems are, and that's why I see no value in talking with Richard Spencer, because he is personally advocating for those problems. The beliefs make sense to him because he is a Neo-Nazi. Acknowledging when someone is a Nazi has become something of a "boy who cries wolf" scenario. It's used as a way to describe someone when it may not be necessarily true, but it is absolutely true that Spencer fits the bill.

 

I've already seen enough to understand Spencer's motivations. He perceives Jewish people as a threat, and thinks that, as a white man, he is part of an oppressed minority. The problem is that his fears are completely irrational, and your suggestion operates on the assumption that when two people are arguing, there is a common problem that neither side is recognizing, but both sides could learn what this is. Except, for a white supremacist? They are the problem. I feel comfortable recognizing that they're delusional, horrible monsters because they have clearly presented themselves as the real problem, and we need to deal with the threat they represent, and banning them from universities to deny them a platform is perfect for them. Neo-Nazis can think they're striving for a greater good, but they're not. For say that Dad and I don't know what empathy is, but that's why I so fiercely oppose white supremacy; it comes from a lack of empathy.

 

The fact that "Neo-Nazi" is even a thing does perfectly display what you say about how people will just keep coming back until you deal with those problems, but, again, this implies that Hitler and Spencer's hostilities towards Jewish people are symptomatic of some other problem. There is no other problem that we should be looking towards instead. If you're a white supremacist, then you can play the victim all the like, but don't be surprised when people then turn around and perceive you as a threat in return. White supremacists can play the victim all they like, but when their very identity hinges on removing people of other races from America, if not murdering them outright, then that proves that they won't make any effort to fix any supposedly underlying problems. Why should I give them the benefit of the doubt that they believe their goals will achieve some greater good when their beliefs and actions inherently run counter to "the greater good"?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Which is fine, but nothing actually comes to fruition if you use "objectivity" as a relative scale because that relies on people's interpretations. Nobodies philosophy or political  opinion is sound if you merely count "people disagreeing with you" as an actual point against it. By that factor voting isn't important in our demographic at all because 50-80% of us don't vote, yet it very clearly is important if we wish to influence the government. Discerning my approach to this solely off of whether everyone can agree with it is garbage.

 

You're going into abortion philosophy again which is, not something that's important in the slightest regarding this argument. If you value an aborted fetus as murder you open a whole basket of issues. Is not donating blood murder? Is not donating your kidney murder? Is indulging in activities associated with miscarriage such as smoking or drinking while pregnant murder? Is any woman over the age of 45 who gets pregnant a murderer because her miscarriage rate is 50% or over? Is doing any physical activity where you could potentially misstep or have an accident happen murder because you didn't consider the possibility of the child being injured?

 

Just a whole heap of rabbit holes here.

 

I'm not going to engage in your pedantry regarding minorities. I made it specific that if something specifically targeted ethnic minorities or other previously disenfranchised groups (the protected class list works for the sake of argument) then violence well, works. 

Again, it's not about abortion at all...go read cowcows post

 

The rest of this post was just dishonest deflection. 

[Proto]

Again, it's not about abortion at all...go read cowcows post

 

The rest of this post was just dishonest deflection.

I've made my point as clear as day that your abstractions are absolute nonsense. I believe that violence is not only an option but sometimes is the ONLY option when it comes to dealing with policies that oppress a minority of the population forcefully. If you discount violence against oppressors as an option you see things like the Civil War never happening.

 

To quote Martin Luther King regarding peace and the unaffected moderate:

 

"First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

 

This is the doctrine I more or less follow. I will never be the white moderate that puts a time limit or methods to oppression. Because if you grant liberty and a helping hand to those who only seek to oppress you do nothing but play by their rules of engagement. Again, I believe oppression in some cases absolutely must be solved by action or violence. But abortion as instituted now is not oppressive and I refuse to acknowledge it in the same breath as literal neonazis being buddy buddy with Republicans.

 

Do you believe the slaves shouldn't have revolted and soke sometimes violent freedom against their masters?

[vla1ne]

alright, lot's happened, but starting from square one: just a heads up, I rushed this one out, and some of the quote parameters screwed up, so i'll be trying to separate them properly via lines
 

Seriously? The dude created Vice. He knows that broadly, broadcasting yourself as something we've literally gone to war against while claiming to be "pro-American" isn't good for business so he's trying to avoid the title while holding rather openly racist views. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. Also, pray tell how white nationalists plan to actually expel every single  minority from America without resorting to violence and how I should differentiate them in the slightest? Like picture what an actual white nationalist American rule would look like, then attempt to differentiate that with what the Nazis wanted.

What do you expect we're just gonna borrow enough money to PAY every black, brown, yellow, jewish and red person to leave? Nah. There's no feasible price for sending citizens back to a shithole. So basically they're totalitarians that advocate for the extermination of everyone who's not white, that's Nazi sheet. No reason to play by their name games.

He's a white nationalist, authoritarian, antisemite. The funk else do you need a swaztika tattoo? If you're gonna play this game literally nobody besides people who rock the hammer and sickles are communists.
Gonna drop the Spencer sheet because it's falling under viewpoint arguing and that's not gonna be productive for this already wall of text discussion. I don't judge people by their skin color, gender, sex or really anything besides being disingenious or lying. Also I'm not talking about this video when I said he made a video about "10 Things I Hate About Jews". Just merely, context for you to understand the full picture, the link below shows what he said before he censored himself to "Israel" after realizing that this video might get him in some bad water
____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

That's not a mark against him. Vice has some rather left and right leaning coverage. in fact, is among the more fair reporting sites, which lends more credence to my own points than to yours. That said, I will repeat it, he is not a white supremacist, and this is one of the issues i have with your own viewpoint. He doesn't fit inside your organized political bubble, so you, among others, decide to call him something he is not. fact is, he's not a white supremacist. Fact is, you have not even attempted to understand where he is coming from, and fact is, you don't even want to. Drop the topic. seriously. you're blatantly wrong.

 

What in the hell are you even on about here? I've explained it multiple times. he is not. he is only being painted as such because he's a white man speaking out against people who advocate racism against white men. end of story. you are viewpoint arguing for Gavin as well. he is nothing like Spencer, yet you attempt to place them in the same league. they might not hate each other, but they both disagree. stop it. it's disingenuous. and I have seen no argument for it that doesn't boil down to "He's a white supremascist only because he doesn't agree with me"

 

Yeah, again, that's people being funking stupid. Let me explain something to you, left wing people do not like him, and they take his views out of context. Israeli news, the most likely place to be offended, caught on to the joke. the only people who didn't, are the people who make a living off of getting outraged.

 

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/227053

 

seriously, drop it, you're just plain wrong here.

 

 

 

 

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/vice-co-founder-lists-the-10-things-he-hates-the-most-about-jews-1.5449718
 
 
Which is why you linked a video of Antifa by a guy who's whole video catalogue is just him provoking leftist protestors and continue to represent them solely as a violent mob when there have been far more non-violent rallies with dudes with black masks then not. Because you care so much about representing ideas fairly right? Even the most violent Antifa protest has about as many arrests as a rowdy football game (with about the same amount of violent crimes because we don't kill people). Yet, what do you choose to defend so vehemently? The racist guy because he wears a suit and he's conservative.  

Freedom of speech doesn't give you the freedom to not get punished for what you say and it doesn't even grant you an audience so to speak. You have your freedom to speak what you want, you don't have control over the audience, the protestors have every right to freely scream at your reporter dude yet you don't seem too inclined to dignify theirs yet when a guy comes with a suit and starts calling black people monkeys you immediately start thinking "what if there's more to this, obviously the media's crucifying him, this can't be true."

As listed before, he doesn't say how he hates jews in that video, he talks about it in another one that he re-titled 10 Reasons Why I Hate Israel.

I'm not looking for reasons to attack people, I'm stating what I already know about someone and proving that his influence is incredibly harmful for me personally and many others. I'm not labeling everyone a Nazi, I've never called you a Nazi once, I've never called Polaris a Nazi once, I didn't even call Melkor a Nazi I called him a fascist sympathizer because of the quote below. I'm just calling the white nationalist antisemetic authoritarian who believes that the holocaust is greatly exaggerated and that some "unknown forces" are controlling the media in order to make white people feel bad and go extinct.
 
Woo. He said he was joking later in that same conversation you're quoting me from but apparently that's all anyone needs to say to convince you that they're not something.
 
 
Funny how you link a hilariously partisan man who's job appears only to aggrievate protestors in order to make this comparison.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

They aren't arrested because the city is on their side. Take a look at Portland, where they blatantly obstruct traffic laws, cause property damage, and attack anybody who disagrees. If you call the cops not breaking them up, fair and balanced, then we have polar opposite views on the subject. You've been proven wrong on the Gaving thing already, leave it alone. Again, i don't support the proud boys. but unlike antifa, their entire shtick is that don't start the violence, they finish it. I still condemn them for seeking violence. but they are leagues better than the group that seeks and starts the violence. end of story.

 

it also doesn't give others the right to attack you. and the spirit of freedom of speech is an actual concept, that discourages attacking or "punishing" people. they don't have control over the audience, but unlike you and antifa, they know it already. they don't break into leftist rallies ant attack people, or try to get leftist rallies shut down half as often as antifa and other leftist groups. your side is the one attempting to control hte audience. days ago, they attempted to shut down a speech by Milo. When has Milo done that to them? he hasn't, because he has a better grasp of freedom of speech than they do. Don't project your views onto the left, you've advocated speech control in this very thread, you don't get to then attempt and project it onto your opponent.

 

And I've already BTFO'd that argument using the most Jewish site possible.

 

Yeah you are. You're taking  the views of others FAR out of context, and then claiming your warped opinion is justification for punishing those you disagree with. Stop it.

 

 

he may be partisan, but he is not violent, nor does he attempt, at any point to be violent. that's why i use him, to prove that point. no matter the opposing view, violence isn't the way to oppose it. debate is. could have used a leftist to push that point, but that's somewhat hard to find right now.

 

 

Okay, seriously, "black supremacist"? Explain to me how the heck that guy was a "black supremacist"?
 
You seem to be conflating general opposition to white supremacy with Antifa. Richard Spencer is a Nazi, and he also participated in Unite the Right, which did result in murder. He's banned for his views because they explicitly advocate for murder, genocide, and slavery. This isn't about attacking people who "might" be Nazis. This is about pushing back against people who are Nazis. You should expecting nothing less from universities, because banning Nazis is the appropriate course of action.
 

I can post several other examples from this thread alone. Proto's use of "fascist" is hardly any different from the utter disdain with which you constantly use "leftist", so you can stop pretending that you're not into labels.
 

 

He advocated blacks needing their own safe spaces within the nation, among other parallels to Spencer, and has been known to promote violence against whites. arguably, that places him under the black supremacist label. i don't care too much to argue the label though. I could easily be wrong about what label he fits under, as it's been a while since i've seen the debate, and the debate itself seems to have been scrubbed from youtube, while google's hiding the site i used to find it last time(gonna try searching via bing later on after work, but likely same problem will occur),  

 

he's not a nazi, he's a white supremacist. the two are related, but not the same. unite the right was not a violent event inherently, it just had the misfortune of actual white supremacists appearing to screw everything up. very few people actually liked the way that event went down, as it ruined the optics for both sides, on both sides. you can argue back, but when you support attacking, as many here have, you are on another level of disagreement. not it's not. universities were once places you could encounter and debate opposing views, while understanding the opposing points. if they ban that ability, then they they fail themselves and their students.

 

I use leftist to describe leftist. notice i don't address people who's views don't seem to paint them as such. If you aren't a leftist, then please tell me as much and i'll retract the statement. 

[Phantom Roxas]

He advocated blacks needing their own safe spaces within the nation, among other parallels to Spencer, and has been known to promote violence against whites. arguably, that places him under the black supremacist label. i don't care too much to argue the label though. I could easily be wrong about what label he fits under, as it's been a while since i've seen the debate, and the debate itself seems to have been scrubbed from youtube, while google's hiding the site i used to find it last time(gonna try searching via bing later on after work, but likely same problem will occur),  

 

he's not a nazi, he's a white supremacist. the two are related, but not the same. unite the right was not a violent event inherently, it just had the misfortune of actual white supremacists appearing to screw everything up. very few people actually liked the way that event went down, as it ruined the optics for both sides, on both sides. you can argue back, but when you support attacking, as many here have, you are on another level of disagreement. not it's not. universities were once places you could encounter and debate opposing views, while understanding the opposing points. if they ban that ability, then they they fail themselves and their students.

 

I use leftist to describe leftist. notice i don't address people who's views don't seem to paint them as such. If you aren't a leftist, then please tell me as much and i'll retract the statement. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2017/nov/06/gary-younge-interviews-richard-spencer-africans-have-benefited-from-white-supremacy

 

Where did he advocate for blacks needing their own safe spaces? At most, he argued that if Africans had not been forcibly removed from their home country, they could have done more to benefit their home nation. Cite your sources that he promotes violence against whites if you want to bring Gary Younge down to Spencer's level.

 

Richard Spencer engages in Nazi rhetoric, uses Nazi salutes, and specifically quotes Nazi propaganda in his denouncement of Jews. If he walks like a Nazi, talks like a Nazi, and salutes like a Nazi, guess what? He's a Nazi. I recognize that white supremacists and Nazis are not always one and in the same, but both apply to Richard Spencer. Unite the Right was using tiki torches in a march, claiming that Jews would not replace them. It was not that the appearance of white supremacists screwed it up, because that assumes that white supremacists appeared after the fact and somehow co-opted the event, but the rally itself was organized by white supremacists. It was inherently designed to promote white supremacy.

 

Universities have no obligation to teach students that Nazi rhetoric is worth debating. By the point students reach the university level, they have long been taught that Nazis committed countless war crimes, including genocide. We shouldn't suddenly decide that we should seek rational debate with Nazis, especially when Nazis are founded on white supremacy and ethnic cleansing as their first options. That's not failing themselves or their students; that's protecting their non-white students from a belief system that revolves around those students being inferior and therefore should be murdered.

 

My comment about labels was directed at Winter. I don't think you have a particular statement to retract regarding that.

[Proto]

alright, lot's happened, but starting from square one: just a heads up, I rushed this one out, and some of the quote parameters screwed up, so i'll be trying to separate them properly via lines

 

 

That's not a mark against him. Vice has some rather left and right leaning coverage. in fact, is among the more fair reporting sites, which lends more credence to my own points than to yours. That said, I will repeat it, he is not a white supremacist, and this is one of the issues i have with your own viewpoint. He doesn't fit inside your organized political bubble, so you, among others, decide to call him something he is not. fact is, he's not a white supremacist. Fact is, you have not even attempted to understand where he is coming from, and fact is, you don't even want to. Drop the topic. seriously. you're blatantly wrong.

 

What in the hell are you even on about here? I've explained it multiple times. he is not. he is only being painted as such because he's a white man speaking out against people who advocate racism against white men. end of story. you are viewpoint arguing for Gavin as well. he is nothing like Spencer, yet you attempt to place them in the same league. they might not hate each other, but they both disagree. stop it. it's disingenuous. and I have seen no argument for it that doesn't boil down to "He's a white supremascist only because he doesn't agree with me"

 

Yeah, again, that's people being funking stupid. Let me explain something to you, left wing people do not like him, and they take his views out of context. Israeli news, the most likely place to be offended, caught on to the joke. the only people who didn't, are the people who make a living off of getting outraged.

 

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/227053

 

seriously, drop it, you're just plain wrong here.

 

They aren't arrested because the city is on their side. Take a look at Portland, where they blatantly obstruct traffic laws, cause property damage, and attack anybody who disagrees. If you call the cops not breaking them up, fair and balanced, then we have polar opposite views on the subject. You've been proven wrong on the Gaving thing already, leave it alone. Again, i don't support the proud boys. but unlike antifa, their entire shtick is that don't start the violence, they finish it. I still condemn them for seeking violence. but they are leagues better than the group that seeks and starts the violence. end of story.

 

it also doesn't give others the right to attack you. and the spirit of freedom of speech is an actual concept, that discourages attacking or "punishing" people. they don't have control over the audience, but unlike you and antifa, they know it already. they don't break into leftist rallies ant attack people, or try to get leftist rallies shut down half as often as antifa and other leftist groups. your side is the one attempting to control hte audience. days ago, they attempted to shut down a speech by Milo. When has Milo done that to them? he hasn't, because he has a better grasp of freedom of speech than they do. Don't project your views onto the left, you've advocated speech control in this very thread, you don't get to then attempt and project it onto your opponent.

 

And I've already BTFO'd that argument using the most Jewish site possible.

 

Yeah you are. You're taking  the views of others FAR out of context, and then claiming your warped opinion is justification for punishing those you disagree with. Stop it.

 

 

he may be partisan, but he is not violent, nor does he attempt, at any point to be violent. that's why i use him, to prove that point. no matter the opposing view, violence isn't the way to oppose it. debate is. could have used a leftist to push that point, but that's somewhat hard to find right now.

Woo, you said you only took a little time with this one and it funking shows mate.

 

I attempted to see where he was coming from numerous times bro, I wasn't always left-wing. It wasn't until the right started being ok with fascism. His points are rooted in nothing.

 

Well, he founded Vice which means he knows about marketing, that's the only real point I had there yet you extrapolated so much from it. He doesn't have his mark on Vice CURRENTLY because he left in 2007 to pursue far more heavily right wing shows such as Redeye. I only used it as a point to push out that hey, this guy knows how to brand.

 

Alright, you say that he's a white nationalist, he's proven himself to be authoritarian with his policies and has been on record saying things like: “I love being white and I think it’s something to be very proud of. I don’t want our culture diluted.” So I decided, hey, he's trying to get some steam with his group, he's meeting with the Republicans, lets imagine a world where he's in power what would that look like. What's the difference between policies of a "white nationalist" and "Nazis". 

 

Also you said he's a white nationalist, which is a political ideology that entails being a nationalist, but only for white people, you specifically did not defend him as just being someone who "defends from people being racist to white people" which is a hilarious backpedal.

 

Sure, you got one news source who was sympathetic to him, and I pose a question regarding that though, if it was just a bit of edgy comedy, why'd he feel the need to take it down? I can't find the initial video anywhere. And considering there are far more racy subjects on youtube I have to wonder why he'd decided to do such a thing.

 

He's related to Spencer because he's promoted the Alt-Right (which Spencer coined), had Spencer on his show and was going to be at Spencer's rally Unite the Right before he realized that was a little too stupid, stop pretending that the two had nothing to do with eachother. Also, I'm fairly certain that Spencer uses the "white nationalist" descriptor on him instead of a supremacist tag as well. As does Jared Taylor hell even DAVID DUKE, former grand wizard of the KKK has said this: "I’m often called, so often called in the media, it’s like a part of my name “white supremacist” or whatever. I’m not one. I don’t want white people to be supreme. I don’t believe, in fact, that we should even have bases in 65 countries of the world I don’t think we should be in Iraq."

 

It's just a classic way of deflecting in the media to avoid the tag of being openly racist. Why do you think "white pride worldwide" is the stormfront ad skinhead tagline? It's to be able to show that hey, I'm a racist, I'm just a racist that knows how to market. 

 

Don't start the violence eh? Here's a video of good ol' Gavin starting a fight with an Antifa just because they're an Antifa.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btmCaxSr8l8 

 

Additionally, he mentions in his interview with metro that the only way to reach the highest in Proud Boys rankings which is fourth degree which entails having a major fight for the cause and possibly going to jail. So the Proud Boys aren't made up of people who just, exist and happen to be attacked by antifa, fighting them is a part of their culture. Link to the interview below.

 

https://www.metro.us/news/gavin-mcinnes-speaks-out-after-nyu-protest-cancels-event/zsJqbh---FxD2szu1meZg

 

For Milo? Here's a video of him performing America the Beautiful to a bunch of Nazi saluting white supremacists, including the boy Richie Spencer! So he is, very much in bed with these folk.

Yet after this came out he tried to backpedal, saying he "didn't see" the salutes and that he disavowed Richard Spencer. Totally not just him covering his ass, right?

 

Out of context? I'm quoting videos that he deleted and interviews mate. What's keeping things in context only using their lies?

 

I'm not going to debate a group that's mobilizing murderers mate. What do you wanna keep on talking about? White extremists had already doubled the amount of islamic terror attacks in the US and that number is rising every day. Gavin's whole proud to be white and narratives of THE MEDIA demonizing the white race is what leads to the people literally walking into synagogues and shooting them up. White extremist murders have gone up incredibly since the 2016 election, doubling amount of deaths by the islamic terror groups in the USA in 2017 and it's suspected to be even higher as we hit the tail end of 2018. Something NEEDS to be done about this sheet.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/07/21/what-it-takes-to-get-banned-from-twitter/?utm_term=.12fe1bcc1d82
 
Milo was banned from Twitter after he rallied his supports to harass Leslie Jones.
 
http://www.dailycal.org/2017/09/21/uc-berkeley-students-harassed-after-milo-yiannopoulos-publicly-identifies-them/
https://www.thecut.com/2016/12/milo-yiannopoulos-harassed-a-trans-student-at-uw-milwaukee.html
 
He also openly mocked a transgender woman during his visit to Berkeley.
 
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/instagram-finally-block-milo-yiannopoulos-hailing-bombs_us_5bd238dde4b0d38b58819b9d
 
He lamented that the bombs targeting Democrats did not go off. Time and again, he has incited harassment and advocated for violence. He will openly violate the rules against specific behaviors, and when he is punished for breaking those rules, he laments that it's a "mob rule". He plays the victim, which is no better than Richard Spencer sob stories. Except it's difficult to empathize with their victim complexes when they've gone out of their way to make other people into victims. If they will not extend any sympathy towards other minorities, why should I make the effort to empathize with Milo or Richard? They had their chance, and they utterly squandered it.
 

days ago, they attempted to shut down a speech by Milo. When has Milo done that to them? he hasn't, because he has a better grasp of freedom of speech than they do.

 
Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences, and he is punished after he has abused his privilege to harass people. Freedom of speech only prevents Congress from passing laws that would restrict the freedom of speech. The First Amendment does not prevent Twitter or universities from banning Milo as punishment for his past behavior. There is nothing to suggest that he has a better grasp of freedom of speech, only that he thinks he should be allowed to say whatever he pleases without consequence.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm a little confused why people people (mostly on the left) want certain companies regulated to maintain freedoms, but become libertarians when it's speech they don't like

[Proto]

I actually don't understand your point there, it sounded like you tried to make an argument but misworded it, please clarify. @

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I actually don't understand your point there, it sounded like you tried to make an argument but misworded it, please clarify. @

Just noting democrat tendency to support of government intervention to protect rights, but only when convenient for their current agenda

 

It's not hard to make a case that big internet sites like FB should be public forum

 

https://www.alec.org/article/supreme-court-to-hear-free-speech-case-that-may-impact-technology-companies-and-social-media-platforms/

 

Tangent though. Make a topic on it if you wish

Basically scotus has agreed to hear if FB etc should be considered a public forum, which if affirmed would negate Roxas pt. 

[Phantom Roxas]

I'm a little confused why people people (mostly on the left) want certain companies regulated to maintain freedoms, but become libertarians when it's speech they don't like

 

Asking for harassment to be punished in all its forms does not suddenly make me a libertarian. If you claim to be against labeling, then I would ask that you refrain from resorting to a label that serves no purpose other than to grossly misrepresent my position.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Asking for harassment to be punished in all its forms does not suddenly make me a libertarian. If you claim to be against labeling, then I would ask that you refrain from resorting to a label that serves no purpose other than to grossly misrepresent my position.

What makes you a libertarian is suddenly being ok with private platform harassment under the guise that 1A doesn't cover them when the internet clearly is a public forum these days

[vla1ne]

late, but still.

Reactionary violence is still violence all the same. (Self-defense is different.) Even if Antifa starts these fights and PB only ends them, like you say, that doesn't make Proud Boys neccesarily "better" than Antifa, just "not as bad". (I like to think there's a difference.) I'm glad you cleared up you support neither, but I still don't agree that one is better than the other. If a person was put in a room and asked to choose between PB and Antifa, no matter how worse one is than the other, the best option is still to walk out the door and not choose either, because the way I see it, anyone who engages in violence for any reason, is not worth my time.

Never said it wasn't. I agree with you that neither should be supported, and i agree that neither should be chosen if you had to pick a side, but i'm not siding with them. You can defend a group from incorrect accusations, and still condemn their actions. I've done it so far for Antifa, Proud boys, Gavin, Spencer, and others. I consider all of them to be wrong in their choices, and disagree GREATLY with two out of the four, but i Understand why they're doing what they do. that's one of the reasons i argue so strongly against Antifa. because their actions are not so terrifying as their worldview. proud boys motive is to "attack the attacker" it is reactionary violence, but as it only reacts to physical violence, they are harmless to the average joe. Antifa's motive is "bash the fash" among others. this means they have selected a certain worldview to attack, and anybody who they believe falls into that scope is a perfectly fine target. this is exceptionally dangerous, as it means that anybody who so much as disagrees with Antifa, is an acceptable target. They use mob mentality to decide on who they attack. anybody who openly disagrees with the mob, is then considered to be in support of the mobs opposition, thus even if you're an average joe, if you happen to think that discussing things with the opponent is better than attacking them, and decide to display this view to Antifa, you will be attacked. It has happened time and again. there are degrees of violence, and different motivators as well. Proud boys are wrong, but they don't attack if you don't. Antifa on the other hand, will attack if you object to their views, which is leagues worse on the scale, no mater how you look at it. we've seen in this thread alone, the amount of people who support this kind of violence, by placing their opponents in neat little boxes. but by now i'm rambling.
 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2017/nov/06/gary-younge-interviews-richard-spencer-africans-have-benefited-from-white-supremacy
 
Where did he advocate for blacks needing their own safe spaces? At most, he argued that if Africans had not been forcibly removed from their home country, they could have done more to benefit their home nation. Cite your sources that he promotes violence against whites if you want to bring Gary Younge down to Spencer's level.
 
Richard Spencer engages in Nazi rhetoric, uses Nazi salutes, and specifically quotes Nazi propaganda in his denouncement of Jews. If he walks like a Nazi, talks like a Nazi, and salutes like a Nazi, guess what? He's a Nazi. I recognize that white supremacists and Nazis are not always one and in the same, but both apply to Richard Spencer. Unite the Right was using tiki torches in a march, claiming that Jews would not replace them. It was not that the appearance of white supremacists screwed it up, because that assumes that white supremacists appeared after the fact and somehow co-opted the event, but the rally itself was organized by white supremacists. It was inherently designed to promote white supremacy.
 
Universities have no obligation to teach students that Nazi rhetoric is worth debating. By the point students reach the university level, they have long been taught that Nazis committed countless war crimes, including genocide. We shouldn't suddenly decide that we should seek rational debate with Nazis, especially when Nazis are founded on white supremacy and ethnic cleansing as their first options. That's not failing themselves or their students; that's protecting their non-white students from a belief system that revolves around those students being inferior and therefore should be murdered.
 
My comment about labels was directed at Winter. I don't think you have a particular statement to retract regarding that.

again, the debate i was going to use as evidence was scrubbed clean off of youtube. I can't run with this argument, because the purest form of argument, AKA debate forum, was erased. gotta give this arugement up before it starts.
 
yeah, he's playing around with it. I do it to. I did a heil hitler at the card shop days ago to a blackwing player using german cards. Am i a nazi now? of course not. spencer has gone on record saying he's not, denouncing them, and all manner of other things. but by your standards he's also a furry, a crossdresser, and all manner of other things, since he's played around with those groups too. but to put it simply, Spencer, like milo, is a provocateur. he pisses people off, get's free publicity, and goes home smiling. Nazi salutes do this the fastest. ask pewdiepie, the man's coverage skyrocketed after that one video he did with the swastika and salute. 
 
they have no obligation to teach them that, but they have no right to shut down speeches either simply because they think somebody is a nazi. in fact, the fastest way to break down the nazi argument is to give them a platform and argue them down. They don't have to advertise, but they don't have to censor either. two way street. that's why i call it exposing them to ideas. their whole life they're told one thing, true or not, they have a right to encounter the idea itself.
 
 

Milo

Is a provocateur. he literally does this sheet because there's people he knows will get pissed off. he is using the 1A to the fullest, because he beleives nobody in the world should be censored. he does not support nazis, but unlike those who engage in violence, he trolls them and others, because what he does, is go around popping sheet to prove that freedom of speech is a vital part of american (canadian and european as well) rights. twitter banning him means nothing. they banned NPC accounts and images as well. they've got a trigger finger on anything even remotely right leaning.

[Phantom Roxas]

again, the debate i was going to use as evidence was scrubbed clean off of youtube. I can't run with this argument, because the purest form of argument, AKA debate forum, was erased. gotta give this arugement up before it starts.

 

yeah, he's playing around with it. I do it to. I did a heil hitler at the card shop days ago to a blackwing player using german cards. Am i a nazi now? of course not. spencer has gone on record saying he's not, denouncing them, and all manner of other things. but by your standards he's also a furry, a crossdresser, and all manner of other things, since he's played around with those groups too. but to put it simply, Spencer, like milo, is a provocateur. he pisses people off, get's free publicity, and goes home smiling. Nazi salutes do this the fastest. ask pewdiepie, the man's coverage skyrocketed after that one video he did with the swastika and salute. 

 

they have no obligation to teach them that, but they have no right to shut down speeches either simply because they think somebody is a nazi. in fact, the fastest way to break down the nazi argument is to give them a platform and argue them down. They don't have to advertise, but they don't have to censor either. two way street. that's why i call it exposing them to ideas. their whole life they're told one thing, true or not, they have a right to encounter the idea itself.

 

 

Is a provocateur. he literally does this sheet because there's people he knows will get pissed off. he is using the 1A to the fullest, because he beleives nobody in the world should be censored. he does not support nazis, but unlike those who engage in violence, he trolls them and others, because what he does, is go around popping sheet to prove that freedom of speech is a vital part of american (canadian and european as well) rights. twitter banning him means nothing. they banned NPC accounts and images as well. they've got a trigger finger on anything even remotely right leaning.

 

Richard Spencer has not actually denounced Nazis. He simply denies being one, except he hasn't made any significant effort to condemn Nazism as an idea. At best, he thinks it's a loaded term. This isn't just him "playing" with those groups. He is the one who coined the term "alt-right", which basically allows him to be a Nazi in all senses of the word without actually using "Nazi" as the exact descriptor. You just admitted that he's a white supremacist. Why is it acceptable to call him that, but somehow pointing out that he's a Nazi is a step too far? Yes, he's a provocateur, and he pisses people off because he is acting on what he genuinely believes.

 

Universities reserve the right to shut him down because they know he's a Nazi. Why give them a platform to argue them down when history is founded on how Nazi ideology revolved around genocide? They deserve to be banned from campuses, and should be censored. Allowing them onto a campus isn't "exposing people to ideas" in any positive manner. It's telling them that they should be allowed to listen to people who want them dead. Why should we give a platform to death threats?

 

Milo isn't "using the 1A to the fullest." Look up what the actual text of the 1A is, because it's Milo lying about what it actually is, just to play the victim. Twitter does not have a trigger finger against anything even remotely right leaning, because every single day I see people lamenting that Twitter does not do enough to ban Nazis, punish harassment, and in fact Jack Dorsey is often criticized because of his leniency towards anything right leaning.