Originally Posted by
Joe Random
I'd be curious to hear which of Milo's views move him into the category where it's acceptable to use violence/intimidation to silence him. Not 'keep him from enacting his ideas', but to actually silence him from expressing them. Since it's apparently a given for some in this thread that ideas/speech alone (and not action) are sufficient grounds to make sucker punches/Starbucks torchings acceptable responses, which specific ideas move him into the 'have at him' category, just so everyone knows where acceptable thoughts begin and end.
I'm genuinely curious : if some opinions sans action are odious enough to justify silencing, physical assault, and/or vandalism, which specific opinions of Milo (or any other 'Nazi/fascist/BadThink Person') are those which so justify?
To wit: I just checked back to the OP, and it says that the rioting continued and spilled out even hours after Milo's event was cancelled. Does this not seem like
it was never about Milo per se? (my contention all along)
And you say
opinions that justify silencing...who is suggesting that? I see a bunch of posts baldly asserting it, but why, oh why, is it assumed that anyone is actually trying to shut him up? As opposed to, say, offering a dissenting counterpoint?