ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Alt-Right

Reply
Old 17th September 2019, 07:17 AM   #201
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,377
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
That's a lofty aspiration. You are grossly underestimating how much of an impediment 1A will be to such a goal.

Deplatforming works great in the general sense, but not that well when it comes to government funded institutions. Twitter can kick off Milo any time it wants, but the government cannot.

These schools that try to apply some "hate speech" standard for speakers on their campus will lose almost every time. There is no 1A consistent way to prevent people like Ben Shapiro from appearing on campus.
Then civil disobedience - deplatforming in person - seems to be the only way to fight the assault on Democracy. Antifa needs to keep turning up to these gatherings, make trouble and make sure the person cannot be heard. Fair? No. But free speech is being used as a weapon against Democracy. Being fair is a loser's ticket.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se 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
Old 17th September 2019, 07:19 AM   #202
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
...and you're back to lying. Good talk, see ya around.
Then actually care about the times non nazis got successfully deplatformed for the same thing. But go back to saying how great it is for our colleges to spend their money on this while adjuncts are on food stamps. No one expects those who teach college to be above the poverty line after all. As long as the nazis get their subsidised platforms the system works, no matter who gets deplatformed by them.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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
Old 17th September 2019, 07:20 AM   #203
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,377
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And when it is a guest who cancels because of mere death threats is still all good. I mean why waste money protecting scum like Black Lives matter?

https://woldcnews.com/1530110/say-wh...death-threats/ That is the system worked as designed.

Or if they are a feminist that works too

https://www.theverge.com/2014/10/14/...rkeesian-visit


Really it is only the nazis who need this special protection, everyone else is on their own. As the first amendment requires.
Death threats work for the extreme right as a deplatforming tool. Maybe the left should start using it as well.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se 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
Old 17th September 2019, 07:21 AM   #204
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Death threats work for the extreme right as a deplatforming tool. Maybe the left should start using it as well.
But you can't deplatform the nazis that is wrong, but it's fine when they do it.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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
Old 17th September 2019, 07:21 AM   #205
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 85,393
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
...and you're back to lying. Good talk, see ya around.
'Back'?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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
Old 17th September 2019, 07:23 AM   #206
SuburbanTurkey
Master Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 2,113
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Then civil disobedience - deplatforming in person - seems to be the only way to fight the assault on Democracy. Antifa needs to keep turning up to these gatherings, make trouble and make sure the person cannot be heard. Fair? No. But free speech is being used as a weapon against Democracy. Being fair is a loser's ticket.
I think deplatforming efforts are better spent at venues where 1A rights do not guarantee a platform. Private venues are much more susceptible to this kind of public pressure. Shaming advertisers, social media companies, big business, etc, are much more fruitful avenues.

I am opposed to the general principle of the heckler's veto, but I am also skeptical of it's effectiveness in this case. Having a meltdown and getting arrested might as well be a giant Streisand effect for these trolls. Speaking to a room full of Campus Republican dweebs is not noteworthy. It's probably happening right now, and no one cares or knows.

Making front page news because a dozen antifa folks got arrested for pulling fire alarms and throwing bottles is going to get Ben Shapiro or some other troll national attention. In fact, I doubt people like Shapiro would even bother for these small engagements if not for the likelihood of a ruckus.

How many students are Berkeley are going to be radicalized by some right wing loser speaking for the Campus Republicans. You could probably fit all the Berkeley republicans in a single lecture hall. We're letting the tail wag the dog.

There's been a bit of a lull in this kind of crap, probably because the campuses are tired of losing lawsuits. Expect it to start ginning back up around election time. Don't be a sucker and play into their hands. Not all rage is useful.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 17th September 2019 at 07:25 AM.
SuburbanTurkey 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
Old 17th September 2019, 07:24 AM   #207
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,517
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Then actually care about the times non nazis got successfully deplatformed for the same thing. But go back to saying how great it is for our colleges to spend their money on this while adjuncts are on food stamps. No one expects those who teach college to be above the poverty line after all. As long as the nazis get their subsidised platforms the system works, no matter who gets deplatformed by them.
I have openly cheered U Fla for deplatforming Spencer, outwitting him and gaming. I have defended antifa for almost all of their activities, except roughing up the wrong guy in Portland and the like.

I'm sick to death of you personalizing the argument, and your endless lying.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
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
Old 17th September 2019, 07:26 AM   #208
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I think deplatforming efforts are better spent at venues where 1A rights do not guarantee a platform. Private venues are much more susceptible to this kind of public pressure. Shaming advertisers, social media companies, big business, etc, are much more fruitful avenues.

I am opposed to the general principle of the heckler's veto, but I am also skeptical of it's effectiveness in this case. Having a meltdown and getting arrested might as well be a giant Streisand effect for these trolls. Speaking to a room full of Campus Republican dweebs is not noteworthy. It's probably happening right now, and no one cares or knows.

Making front page news because a dozen antifa folks got arrested for pulling fire alarms and throwing bottles is going to get Ben Shapiro or some other troll national attention. In fact, I doubt people like Shapiro would even bother for these small engagements if not for the likelihood of a ruckus.
Oh the plus side at least they kept black lives matter out, that is a win for moral deplatforming. And as such things don't fit the narrative of liberal colleges they get ignored as the violation of the first amendment that they are. Win win for the nazis really.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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
Old 17th September 2019, 07:27 AM   #209
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I have openly cheered U Fla for deplatforming Spencer, outwitting him and gaming. I have defended antifa for almost all of their activities, except roughing up the wrong guy in Portland and the like.

I'm sick to death of you personalizing the argument, and your endless lying.
So why not go after the universities that fail to live up to their first amendment responsibilities for non nazi speakers?

And your U Fla victory was pretty expensive at 500K. Looks like a great way to bankrupt colleges.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

Last edited by ponderingturtle; 17th September 2019 at 07:31 AM.
ponderingturtle 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
Old 17th September 2019, 07:35 AM   #210
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,517
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
So why not go after the universities that fail to live up to their first amendment responsibilities for non nazi speakers?

And your U Fla victory was pretty expensive at 500K. Looks like a great way to bankrupt colleges.
Make you a deal: go ten posts without lying, and I'll respond.

Till then,

pt;dr
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
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
Old 17th September 2019, 07:49 AM   #211
SuburbanTurkey
Master Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 2,113
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
So why not go after the universities that fail to live up to their first amendment responsibilities for non nazi speakers?

And your U Fla victory was pretty expensive at 500K. Looks like a great way to bankrupt colleges.
What are you referencing here?
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey 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
Old 17th September 2019, 07:53 AM   #212
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,720
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I think Universities, etc in the States have tried that, and failed, except by claiming incitement to riot or other unprotected content. U of Alabama tried to saddle Milo up with his own security detail costs and was promptly slapped with a 1A reprimand.
Surely a university can say all speakers have to pay for their security, was it not that they singled out someone?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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
Old 17th September 2019, 07:59 AM   #213
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,737
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I am opposed to the general principle of the heckler's veto, but I am also skeptical of it's effectiveness in this case. Having a meltdown and getting arrested might as well be a giant Streisand effect for these trolls. Speaking to a room full of Campus Republican dweebs is not noteworthy. It's probably happening right now, and no one cares or knows.
I think the dilemna is that, if white supremacists etc. are speaking at universities unchallenged, then they get to build up a veneer of respectability.

They're spreading their message through a few avenues. We're in this weird reality where people supporting the current President and the party that until the last election controlled all of congress stake out a position where they are both established and anti-establishment. And they play both angles.

I don't think the kind of demonstration and response that's involved in a lot of deplatforming is the best thought out plan, for exactly the reasons you mention. You've got a lot of college kids whose main thought is that when something is bad you've got to yell against it. And that does give fuel to the spin that their opponents are irrational/anti free speech etc.

But without having a much better plan myself, I do have a strong feeling that leaving such events unresponded to empowers them as well. They gain ground on either fork of their strategy. Either they are in opposition to those crazy screaming liberals, or they are the high credibility serious ideas seen in university talks and news programs. Either way helps their strategy.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster 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
Old 17th September 2019, 07:59 AM   #214
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,517
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Surely a university can say all speakers have to pay for their security, was it not that they singled out someone?
There was a 1A ruling on that back in the '60s (?) that it constitutes de facto censorship to saddle a controversial speaker with heavy security details. It allows the host to theoretically use heavy security costs to stifle speech, essentially economic coercion.

Really unfair to the host, but it's one of our catch-22s.

eta: the logic was that conventional speakers posed no unreasonable security risk. A controversial one does, so it appeared to be singling out the bad apple
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

Last edited by Thermal; 17th September 2019 at 08:01 AM.
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
Old 17th September 2019, 08:04 AM   #215
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
What are you referencing here?
Thermal cited University of Florida as a success against Richard Spencer.

the bill of course being

"The Sun has estimated the event's total cost at about $793,000. Spencer and his group paid $10,500. "

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...329-story.html

This was a great success apparently instead of some kind of pyrrhic victory.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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
Old 17th September 2019, 08:07 AM   #216
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
There was a 1A ruling on that back in the '60s (?) that it constitutes de facto censorship to saddle a controversial speaker with heavy security details. It allows the host to theoretically use heavy security costs to stifle speech, essentially economic coercion.

Really unfair to the host, but it's one of our catch-22s.

eta: the logic was that conventional speakers posed no unreasonable security risk. A controversial one does, so it appeared to be singling out the bad apple
And of course it also helps to have speakers who don't care vs say the black lives matter one who agreed to cancel the speeches because of the cost. This is why psychopathy is a winning trait. When you don't care about collateral damage it really helps your free speech rights.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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
Old 17th September 2019, 09:22 AM   #217
SuburbanTurkey
Master Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 2,113
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Thermal cited University of Florida as a success against Richard Spencer.

the bill of course being

"The Sun has estimated the event's total cost at about $793,000. Spencer and his group paid $10,500. "

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...329-story.html

This was a great success apparently instead of some kind of pyrrhic victory.

This tactic is generally an unsolved problem with fringe groups. They show up and count on a rabid response. Patriot prayer is doing this in Portland, but others have done it in the past. Westboro baptist church is often just baiting for a lawsuit at their demos, and the same can be said for other intentionally inflammatory groups. They can sue the state if they are prohibited, and they can incur huge police costs because they know that these organizations want to prevent any riots. There is a playbook that allows for them to be very expensive, litigious nuisances. Not sure how you deal with that without trampling over very important 1A law.

What was your reference to BLM about? You seem to be suggesting that these universities are playing one-sided with allowing controversial speakers on campus. There's nothing to stop some campus progressive group from inviting whatever controversial speaker they like, and they regularly do. Much of this law was settled when it was the leftists getting censored by the state during the Civil Rights era with their controversial ideas.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey 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
Old 17th September 2019, 09:31 AM   #218
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
This tactic is generally an unsolved problem with fringe groups. They show up and count on a rabid response. Patriot prayer is doing this in Portland, but others have done it in the past. Westboro baptist church is often just baiting for a lawsuit at their demos, and the same can be said for other intentionally inflammatory groups. They can sue the state if they are prohibited, and they can incur huge police costs because they know that these organizations want to prevent any riots. There is a playbook that allows for them to be very expensive, litigious nuisances. Not sure how you deal with that without trampling over very important 1A law.

What was your reference to BLM about? You seem to be suggesting that these universities are playing one-sided with allowing controversial speakers on campus. There's nothing to stop some campus progressive group from inviting whatever controversial speaker they like, and they regularly do. Much of this law was settled when it was the leftists getting censored by the state during the Civil Rights era with their controversial ideas.
The death threats worked in this case I cited above.

https://woldcnews.com/1530110/say-wh...death-threats/

"A lecture at Webster University in Missouri was cancelled due to death threats against BLM co-founder Alicia Garza and other activists, says the New Webster Journal News. This harassment were also made against Opal Tometi and Patrisse Cullors and international movement ambassador Janaya Khan. "

To bad unlimited security is something only nazis get.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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
Old 17th September 2019, 09:44 AM   #219
SuburbanTurkey
Master Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 2,113
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
The death threats worked in this case I cited above.

https://woldcnews.com/1530110/say-wh...death-threats/

"A lecture at Webster University in Missouri was cancelled due to death threats against BLM co-founder Alicia Garza and other activists, says the New Webster Journal News. This harassment were also made against Opal Tometi and Patrisse Cullors and international movement ambassador Janaya Khan. "

To bad unlimited security is something only nazis get.

I don't see how these cases are comparable. The speakers agreed to cancelling the event. The university didn't prevent them from coming, they chose not to because they received death threats. Maybe that was the right call, but it was the speaker's decision.

If they wanted to go through with it, the University wouldn't have been able to cite security concerns as a reason to cancel the event.

i am assuming Richard Spencer receives quite a few death threats before, after, and during all of his little nazi rallies.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey 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
Old 17th September 2019, 09:48 AM   #220
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I don't see how these cases are comparable. The speakers agreed to cancelling the event.
Exactly, that is why psychopaths win over people with foolish emotions like empathy. Why should financial hardship and risk of harm deter people from getting their message out? That is a strongly anti-first amendment stance right there. That the college even asked shows a contempt for the first amendment.
Quote:
The university didn't prevent them from coming, they chose not to because they received death threats. Maybe that was the right call, but it was the speaker's decision.
And the college would be legally obligated to spend any amount to make them safe.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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
Old 17th September 2019, 09:55 AM   #221
SuburbanTurkey
Master Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 2,113
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Exactly, that is why psychopaths win over people with foolish emotions like empathy. Why should financial hardship and risk of harm deter people from getting their message out? That is a strongly anti-first amendment stance right there. That the college even asked shows a contempt for the first amendment.


And the college would be legally obligated to spend any amount to make them safe.
The college would be legally obliged to spend on security the way the would for any other event of similar scale. They can't and have no obligation to guarantee safety.

If these kinds of events become more frequent, they may have to question how they spend on security. I don't think there would be a 1A problem if they limited how much security they would provide for all events on a content neutral basis. Richard Spencer might get stabbed to death because there are only a couple cops to deal with a few hundred angry counterprotestors, but such is life.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey 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
Old 17th September 2019, 10:02 AM   #222
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
The college would be legally obliged to spend on security the way the would for any other event of similar scale.
So the colleges shouldn't have bothered spending all the money to try to make Spencer safe and just let what happens happens. These over half a million dollar bills are just ridiculous.

Of course it isn't really the speakers who the security is for, having a bunch of dead students who got shot by spencers followers because they managed to hit something this time would look pretty bad.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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
Old 17th September 2019, 10:46 AM   #223
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,025
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
The college would be legally obliged to spend on security the way the would for any other event of similar scale. They can't and have no obligation to guarantee safety.

If these kinds of events become more frequent, they may have to question how they spend on security. I don't think there would be a 1A problem if they limited how much security they would provide for all events on a content neutral basis. Richard Spencer might get stabbed to death because there are only a couple cops to deal with a few hundred angry counterprotestors, but such is life.

Except that in those cases, as the event is on university property, the university would be directly liable for any injuries and deaths resulting from the event, if they can be seen as failing to provide adequate security. This has happened in the past, which is why the BLM organizers agreed to cancel their event, and also why Spencer insisted on pushing forward with his.

Neo-Nazis and other fascists like Spencer are not really all that interested in getting their message out to a university crowd. They are well aware that a university crowd is going to be heavily stacked against them; and that social media platforms are far more effective recruiting grounds. This is entirely about causing violence, and causing serious inconvenience and expense for the universities. It's a two-pronged attack -- create a huge security expense for the venues, because if the university fails to provide adequate security and they are injured, they can sue the university for damages; if the university cancels the event due to the cost of security, they can then sue for "censorship" and force the event (and the expense) to happen anyway, while scoring a PR win. Either way, the university is greatly inconvenienced both financially and socially. And, of course, if a serious fight does break out, that's also a big PR win for them; as they get to paint themselves as innocent victims of the violent left. Or, as an alternative, they can expect the universities to prohibit or limit protests instead, in order to save themselves the insane costs of security, thus allowing the fascists to spread their propaganda unopposed, thus tacitly legitimizing the fascists' messages.

No matter the outcome in this scenario, it's a win for the fascists; as long as they can keep framing their incitement as a 1st Amendment free speech issue, and convince enough centrists and extremists to continue to buy into that assertion and not look too closely at what the actual practices and goals of these groups are.

And that's the big problem here. Laws and principles like the 1st Amendment are predicated on the belief that people invoking them are acting in good faith. The fascists are not acting in good faith; there has been ample demonstration of that. They are engaging in trolling on a large scale; it's their desire to incite and inflame, not to inform. They want violence and pushback, anything that they can spin to make themselves into victims. Charlottesville was a prime example of that; and even the ACLU has stopped automatically defending their right to assemble because of that incident, and become more selective about what events and groups it will support and defend based on the groups' past actions and high probabilities that they are not acting in good faith.

So that's where we are now. One side is acting in good faith and trying to support principles, while the other side is not acting in good faith and merely trying to incite violence, while weaponizing said principles as tool for suppressing their opponents. Many on the left understand what the fascists are doing, and why 1st Amendment protections don't necessarily apply; but centrists apparently do not yet understand this, or are too busy hand-wringing about free-speech to actually help come up with a workable solution to the problem. Which leaves little alternative to opposing them aside from protesting en masse and attempting to deplatform elsewhere through sheer force of numbers; which will invariably be spun by the conservative media and their centrist useful idiots as censorship and the radical left trying to destroy our freedoms.

Once we recognize the actions of the fascists as clearly and obviously incitement rather than protected speech, then the problem becomes a lot clearer and easier to solve.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:06 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.