Is Offensive Political Violence Ever Justified?

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

I have enough faith in society to believe that, in an open marketplace of ideas, the good will rise to the top while the bad are embarrassed and destroyed.

If the above were true, no way would Donald Trump, an intellectual amoeba without any sort of coherent platform, be President today.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

But do you think that they think the government should have a hand in preventing this?

I guarantee you that the vast majority don't. Those who do shouldn't be listened to - they're missing the point, too.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Preventing what? I'm genuinely not sure what your beef is regarding this issue.

I feel like you're doing the "people are saying" thing, only I don't know who is saying what it is you claim they are saying, certainly not anyone in here. Unless I missed something, I don't see anyone saying Milo should be in jail, they are pointing out that, 1) he says vile things to get attention, 2) he gets attention from the people he has targeted for offense (women, transgendered, Muslims), as well as the people who rejoice when someone is "brave" enough to use genuine bigotry to troll in the name of white grievance and then is extolled as some kind of champion of free speech, 3) what goes around comes around, and Milo has been financially punished by market forces and public opinion, not the government.

So ... what is the point here?

[Salome]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

The government has no role in saving Milo's book deal or saving him from censorship.

But when that SNL writer made some joke about Barron Trump and got canned, I fumed. I don't want to live in a society where, instead of combatting bad ideas with good ideas, or first mode of recourse is to attempt to silence the bad ideas.

I have enough faith in society to believe that, in an open marketplace of ideas, the good will rise to the top while the bad are embarrassed and destroyed.

I have no desire for the government gets involved. The government clearly believes in free speech. When I complain about a lack of support for free speech, I'm simply asking the society to believe in the power of it, too.

Maybe you will complain about my reading comprehension too, but I have no idea how any of what you posted before is linked to this. Or at least not how any of us were supposed to make this connection.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

The government has no role in saving Milo's book deal or saving him from censorship.

But when that SNL writer made some joke about Barron Trump and got canned, I fumed. I don't want to live in a society where, instead of combatting bad ideas with good ideas, or first mode of recourse is to attempt to silence the bad ideas.

I have enough faith in society to believe that, in an open marketplace of ideas, the good will rise to the top while the bad are embarrassed and destroyed.

I have no desire for the government gets involved. The government clearly believes in free speech. When I complain about a lack of support for free speech, I'm simply asking the society to believe in the power of it, too.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Ok, this is great and all, but I don't see how it pertains to your post earlier which I was commenting on?

You know, the one about almost guaranteeing only one side gets it?

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

Thoughtful rebuttal: achieved. You've proven to me that you're quite likely to get things. I'm in awe. No more doubt from me, Headache - this has proven you to clearly be my intellectual superior


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I thought you alt right guys liked the meme humor?

You see... The subtleties of the 2nd Amendment, what it does and does not cover, were not the point of that tweet I posted.

The point was that you can't bitch and moan about immigrants and refugees not having constitutional rights in regards to the Muslim ban and the ICE raids, and then throw a hissy fit over Milo's freedom of speech being infringed upon, as Milo is not an American citizen, and thus by your side's arguments last week, has no protection under the second amendment.

[Hollow Island]

Nobody's free speech is being curtailed. This is an insane conversation. Yanninopoloussy can and does say whatever he wants, including encouraging his troll followers to destroy people's lives. That doesn't mean he is immune from the consequences of his words. His employer and publisher have the right to not work with an apologist for pedophilia. If only they were as concerned about Islamophobia, transphobia, misogyny, racism, and so on.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Hollow Island

Nobody's free speech is being curtailed. This is an insane conversation. Yanninopoloussy can and does say whatever he wants, including encouraging his troll followers to destroy people's lives. That doesn't mean he is immune from the consequences of his words. His employer and publisher have the right to not work with an apologist for pedophilia. If only they were as concerned about Islamophobia, transphobia, misogyny, racism, and so on.

i think the implication is that there has been a failure of "the Left" -- specifically the writers of Salon and HuffPo -- to not speak out loudly in support of Milo after he was canceled from CPAC and lost his book deal.

this failure is evidence of hypocrisy on "the Left" -- along the lines of "these people who say they're for tolerance sure aren't tolerating my racism and transphobia."

[Hollow Island]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

this failure is evidence of hypocrisy on "the Left" -- along the lines of "these people who say they're for tolerance sure aren't tolerating my racism and transphobia."

thank you for placing it on the continuum of nonsense for me

[Caleb8844]

Someone pointed out how protests and deplatforming weren't violations of free speech.

I pointed out how, while they're not violations of the FIRST AMENDMENT'S RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, they're anathema to the principle of free speech.

i.e. I don't think people should attempt to deplatform ideas that they don't like - I think they should try to shut them down with better ideas instead of trying to shut them down.

By explaining this, I am explaining why it's a bit daft to keep rebutting arguments for free speech with "BUT NO1 FREE SPEECH BEING CURTAILED HE CAN TALK OTHER PLACES IF PEOPLE WANNA PROTEST TO SHUT HIM UP THAT'S THEIR FREE SPEECH"

yes, that's their legal free speech. that said, it flies in the face of the principles underlying why we want free speech. you can disagree with me on this, but when you question the logic on display here... I don't know where the confusion arises, and this is where I begin to quite reasonably reassess the audience's comprehension skills.

Also lol of course after just complaining about constantly having my views represented, I'm called alt-right. I hate the alt-right, and have said so in this very thread. I can't even parody you at this point.

Even if I were, though, I wouldn't have appreciated your memes - subpar, Kek would frown upon you.

[Hollow Island]

protests are expressions of "better ideas" and an expression of the right of free speech, and freedom of assembly

"deplatforming," wft what an awful word. Institutions have the right to pick who speaks in them, and they have the right to rescind an invitation. No rights are being violated. They are simply exercising theirs. If somebody loses their invitation they can to yell at passers by on a street corner.

It's about time Milo was told to fuck off, should have happened a long time ago. Everyone who has given that troll a platform can go to hell.

I fail to see how people saying "shut up and go away, you're a hateful fool" violates the principles of free speech. That right doesn't grant you a platform from an institution. Milo used his free speech to destroy his career and reputation, as loathsome as it was.

As for violence, yeah in his case it would be justified. He tries to destroy people's lives.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

My heart aches at your inability to parody me. Truly. It hurts.

Apologies for the brain fart on saying 2nd Amendment.

Let me ask you this... Does the Executive Order banning immigrants on the basis of religion violate their Constitutional rights, or does the Constitution not apply to them because they are not citizens, thus making the EO legal?

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

yes, that's their legal free speech. that said, it flies in the face of the principles underlying why we want free speech.

Is it not quite reasonable to assume that most people here disagree with you on the importance of having Milo spew his verbal diarrhea all over the place? That maybe we don't see our society as poorer for having him "deplatformed" and that we also don't see said "deplatforming" as some sort of affront to healthy free speech in society?

The protesters also exercised their socially-constructed free speech. Maybe theirs was just more persuasive?

Or is your argument that institutions, private businesses (Breitbard, Simon & Schuster), organized bodies (CPAC) have an obligation to have Milo speak? Is that not curtailing their free speech?

I think that you have an extreme view of what free speech should be, the free speech of Milo apparently should trump that of everybody else?

[PhilsFan]

There are people who do not deserve platforms and they do not have a right to those platforms. If we can't agree on that, then I do not know what we are doing here.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

There are people who do not deserve platforms and they do not have a right to those platforms. If we can't agree on that, then I do not know what we are doing here.

Yeah I think this really stinks of the "we have to present both sides!" no matter how offensive or damaging one side may be.

Caleb flat out said "it (meaning deplatforming) flies in the face of the principles underlying why we want free speech" as if "we" all agree on what the spirit of free speech should be.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Milo has ever right to say whatever he wants, and we have every right to tell him to shut the fuck up and/or to protest those who will give him a soapbox to stand on. That's kinda how this thing works.

The right to say what you want does not come without consequence, and a global platform to spew your hateful shit is not protected by the Constitution.

[Caleb8844]

Is no one reading

Why am I still being presented arguments about what is or isn't presented in the Constitution

EDIT: will address my actual views on what defines free speech and whether Trump's EO is constitutional when I get a minute

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BVS]

Ok, then there, fixed:

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Milo has ever right to say whatever he wants, and we have every right to tell him to shut the fuck up and/or to protest those who will give him a soapbox to stand on. That's kinda how this thing works.

The right to say what you want does not come without consequence, and a global platform to spew your hateful shit is not protected by societal free speech.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

To quote our right leaning friends...

[cobl04]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Milo has ever right to say whatever he wants, and we have every right to tell him to shut the fuck up and/or to protest those who will give him a soapbox to stand on. That's kinda how this thing works.

The right to say what you want does not come without consequence, and a global platform to spew your hateful shit is not protected by the Constitution.

Word.

Is it not free speech for the rest of us to protest against Milo, Caleb? or should we all just shut up and let him say whatever the hell he wants?

[Bluer White]

I'm wondering if the thread on Offensive Political *Violence* should be re-named to something more appropriate to the discussion here on the First Amendment/free speech.