View Single Post
Old 15th March 2017, 10:52 PM   #1659
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
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?
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top