|
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. |
15th March 2017, 08:38 AM | #1641 |
Just the right amount of cowbell
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
|
First, it's an ongoing problem in Africa to this day, so I'm not so quick to dismiss it as a 16th century problem.
Quote:
"a more visceral show of disagreement?" "extreme response?" "A step or so outside decency?" Were you not implying the use of force? As for 'suppression,' if the intent isn't suppression, then what is it? Catharsis?
Quote:
IMO, the whole witch thing is actually a good example of how things can go terribly wrong if this "Natural Law" attitude is accepted.
Quote:
ETA: or what Emily's Cat said. |
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt |
|
15th March 2017, 08:56 AM | #1642 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
What, exactly, is the "extreme position" of the fascist? When you are warranting your "extreme response", what exactly are you responding to?
And what exactly is the "extreme response" you are warranting, anyway? This thread was started to discuss a violent protest of a speaker at UC Berkeley. Your recent posts suggest that you are confused about the topic, or at least equivocating about your position. Can you take a moment to answer my questions? |
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
15th March 2017, 09:57 AM | #1643 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
|
|
15th March 2017, 12:18 PM | #1644 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
MostlyDead,
It seems (to me) as though you don't support attacking fascists, but because of their odious nature would not be upset if/when it happens? Which is how I feel about Richard Spencer being punched. That guy, whoever he is, should be prosecuted for assault if caught, but since it was Richard Spencer I still giggle a little bit when I think about it. |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
15th March 2017, 01:10 PM | #1645 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
|
Putting things you have no choice about..being born into a specific ethnic group...with things you choose to be..embrace a specific political philosophy.
IE;equating being Black or Chinese with being a Communist or Nazi. One you have no choice about, the other you choose to be. |
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein. |
|
15th March 2017, 02:10 PM | #1646 |
Disorder of Kilopi
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 17,621
|
Rare event, do not miss!
I agree the violent protesters on the left in the OP case are asshats, and that anyone should be allowed to speak, unless violating those few prohibitions against inciting to riot or similar. Moreover, I think universities are a place for debate, not a safe zone (not to countenance harassment, or forceful verbal challenge outside formal debate areas/classrooms). By the accounts I've read about (not a reliable sample, admittedly), the PC movement at many schools is beyond the pale. Yes, I'll go so far as to say what I've seen from time to time so far is intellectual cowardice and a public trouser drop denying the democratic credentials of those so acting. That said, as for some of those allowed to speak, may the allowable ridicule of ideas be withering, merciless and give no quarter. But stamping feet and plugging ears is ugly no matter who does it. /rare agreement event |
15th March 2017, 02:16 PM | #1647 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
Giggling is fine. I think this is more than just giggling, though. What I read MD saying, both in this thread and that one, is that they are happy to give away a little rule of law, if it means seeing a little violence done to "fascists"; and that they don't mind seeing violence used to suppress speech, if it's "fascist" speech.
Seeing a deserving jerk slip on a banana peel is satisfying. Seeing a deserving jerk punched in the face by a masked vigilante is even more satisfying--in a comic book. Seeing a jerk, no matter how "deserving", punched in the face by a masked vigilante in real life, and seeing that act of violence praised and defended by my fellow citizens, is far more disturbing to me than it is satisfying. I have fantasies about being Batman. But I know they are fantasies. I enjoy seeing fictional Batman carrying out fictional vigilante justice. I know that's not reality. MD and others seem to view the violence in Berkeley, and the violence against Richard Spencer, as if they were just another form of fantasy-fulfillment. As if they were not actually real things being done by real people in our real life society. Richard Spencer is not Adolf Hitler. Not even close. Milos Yiannopolous is not the Joker. These vigilantes are not Batman. This violence is not cathartic fantasy. |
15th March 2017, 02:33 PM | #1648 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
I see what you're saying. I'm not sure I see it as a fallacy in this particular case, but it's also not particularly material to the point I was trying to make. If it pleases you, go ahead and remove the "no choice" bits. So we're left with religion and politics at least. I can probably come up with others given a moment.
So then... Does casting a particular religion as being "universally" abhorrent justify physical assault and violence toward those people on the basis of what they believe? |
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian |
|
15th March 2017, 02:34 PM | #1649 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
|
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian |
|
15th March 2017, 05:35 PM | #1650 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,083
|
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? |
15th March 2017, 06:02 PM | #1651 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,083
|
Returning to the thread late and it has moved on, but wanted to answer the above. In saying that there are beliefs so offensive/damaging/whatever that it is appropriate to abandon the rule of law in expressing opposition to them you [generic] have empowered any group to use those same extra-legal tactics against views you and I would both support. Examples I've used before in the 'punch a Nazi' thread: Trump was duly elected according to the Constitution and laws of this country. Those saying his presidency is illegitimate and who protest him are attacking the fundamental roots of our Democracy (the non-violet transition of power based on the expressed will of the people). Therefore we are justified in punching people in pussy hats, or setting fire to cars near a 'He Will Not Divide Us' installation (for the record, HWNDU is silly beyond words, IMO), because they're attacking not just [bloviating gassbag dickhead] Trump, they're attacking the very fundamentals of our democratic society! Pro-choice activists want to make it legal, and to a varying degree sponsored by the state, to MURDER UNBORN CHILDREN! No one in their right mind could possible support the murder of unborn children. Hell, I don't think even Hitler thought it would be okay to murder unborn babies! Ergo any and all means to shut down a pro-choice rally is justified. Punch a Planned Parenthood worker if you love little babies. This is the important bit : if some of the views of these purported 'fascists' were put into action, I'd be right there with others opposing them, even risking my personal physical safety. I've had ... colorful run-ins with anti-abortion activists in the past, and will gladly continue to do so where needed, for instance. But while the views are still just words and rhetoric, the rule of law serves we who would see people treated fairly and not sent off into camps or thrown off buildings for having WrongThink. Abandoning the rule of law merely because it feels so damned good to punch a neo-fascist or aim our car at an anti-abortion protester (yes, I can speak from experience here, I'm ashamed to say) only weakens the protections against those views we support, since we've now said there are times when <Southern Comfort> "You have to abandon principles and do what's right!" </Southern Comfort>. There are many civil rights which don't apply to me, but for which I'd be willing to risk physical safety to guarantee for others should they become outlawed. But while the rights we seek to uphold still fall within the remit of the rule of law to protect, stepping outside that rule because we feel "it's justified in this case" only serves to weaken the defenses provided against all those other things we want to protect. Carried to its extreme and it's nothing more than 'might makes right' (since the rule of law is now subject to the "but I really want to hit him" test), which has never worked out well in the end for anyone. Not even Lord Humungus. |
15th March 2017, 08:18 PM | #1652 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
Special pleading is citing something as an exception to the rule, without justification. I am taking time to provide justification, although you clearly do not agree or understand (I think the latter- you are reading too much in and assuming elements I do not assert).
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
15th March 2017, 08:32 PM | #1653 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
Again with 'preemptive', strawmanning the argument. And pretending that I decided anyone to be anything.
Quote:
Quote:
|
15th March 2017, 09:25 PM | #1654 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
Fair point. But I don't dismiss the problem, I suggest that it is a different one than the thread topic. No one is accusing fascists of supernatural alliances that do not exist. I am charging them with un-American political philosophies that they acknowledge (and per definition posted earlier, racial superiority and authoritarian control over citizens).
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
15th March 2017, 10:03 PM | #1655 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
Of course, always have and always will.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A question for you, if you don't mind: How, specifically, am I equivocating? What double meanings am I using, and where? |
15th March 2017, 10:13 PM | #1656 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
|
15th March 2017, 10:22 PM | #1657 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
Agreed, 100%. I hope I would have tried to stop the Spencer-puncher, but I would not help or hinder him being brought to justice, beyond my legal requirements.
ITT, though, I see it as a clash of ideologies, gang-style, more than a suppression of speech issue. I am more inclined to accept the violence in this OP because I don't see it as people protesting Milo, but as rival political/social factions squaring off together. |
15th March 2017, 10:42 PM | #1658 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
Can you really not understand that from another point of view, this is simply not about speech? Their speech is understood, and they are given free reign to proclaim it. Actions taken are a response, not a desire to suppress. While you clearly don't agree, can you not even understand this?
Quote:
|
15th March 2017, 10:52 PM | #1659 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
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? |
16th March 2017, 04:50 PM | #1660 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
This might be an excellent opportunity for you to step back, take a moment, and just restate your position and beliefs in their entirety. If I were alone in reading your positions this way, what you say regarding bias might have merit. But I'm not. Several people in this thread have interpreted your arguments in exactly the same way I have. If you feel that ALL of these interpretations are incorrect, then it appears that you are failing to communicate effectively. Please try again.
|
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian |
|
16th March 2017, 05:07 PM | #1661 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
|
|
16th March 2017, 08:33 PM | #1662 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
Ok. Please narrow down what position and beliefs you want me to restate in their entirety. The events of the OP, something broader, what?
Quote:
Quote:
|
16th March 2017, 08:59 PM | #1663 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
Guess you think this one is some kind of stumper. Happy to oblige:
I post in #1615: And you post in #1620: Since gays are not universally abhorred and do not advocate taking others' rights away, but fascists do, what 'yardstick of belief' are you talking about? It is about a person/group's declared philosophy. To answer your question as best I can: I differentiate based on what they declare themselves to be and whether it poses a naked threat and challenge to those who value the principles that the Constitution protects . Gays do not desire to take my freedoms away, and fascists unabashedly do. Does that suffice in explaining how I differentiate? |
17th March 2017, 05:36 AM | #1664 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
|
|
17th March 2017, 05:45 AM | #1665 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
Can you explain how? I am curious how you can be misunderstanding what I am saying so dramatically.
ETA: For clarity: the short version of my stance is that I think street fighting, if both concede, is ok although illegal. Further, I think that if fascists are basically telling others that they deserve to have their rights taken away, they are provoking/inciting a conflict to some degree. Don't add-on a bunch of baggage you carry to the argument. You say hypocritical. How so? Specifically. It sounds like you are just lobbing random criticism. You say tactical garbage. That phrase doesn't actually mean anything, and I have not talked about tactics at all. |
17th March 2017, 06:32 AM | #1666 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
17th March 2017, 06:43 AM | #1667 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
|
17th March 2017, 08:18 AM | #1668 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
I want televised cage matches where proponents of extremist ideologies can battle it out for glory and valuable prizes. That way anarchists and neo Nazis can have an outlet for their aggression that doesn't bother the rest of us, and also provides entertainment.
|
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
17th March 2017, 10:38 AM | #1669 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,083
|
|
17th March 2017, 11:08 AM | #1670 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
Seems reasonable enough. Broadly speaking, the question being debated in this thread is whether it is beneficial to our society when the "piping up" takes the form of violent outbursts in response to "fascist" speech.
You seem to be equivocating a lot on this point. You seem to approve of using violence to steer expression, but when pressed on this you insist that you mean simply that you forgive violence as a response to expression. Which is it? Do you trust that America can be steered away from fascism by piping up with violence whenever fascists speak? |
17th March 2017, 12:58 PM | #1671 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
|
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
17th March 2017, 09:11 PM | #1672 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
'Beneficial' is a bit slippery. It is certainly not the ideal, so not directly beneficial. But it is certainly instructive/informative, so a benefit is gained. There were end benefits to the violence of the civil rights movement in 1960's America, would you agree? Even though it would have been ideal for things to have gone down more peacefully.
Quote:
Quote:
|
18th March 2017, 01:25 PM | #1673 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
Bill Maher dug into liberal colleges and their problems with free speech last night!!!!! Well done Bill!!! And, no it doesn't justify the attacks in all cases - but it does show it is past time to break the power of the Electoral College and comparatively empty states!!!!! re: my FTFY above where author meant violent!!!!!
|
19th March 2017, 12:46 PM | #1674 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
Something I found that applies to this discussion, a quote from actual anarchists:
"Instead of attacking impersonal symbols of justice, we think that it is very important to transpose our hostilities to the personal environment of the enemy, their homes, offices, hangouts and vehicles. We know that to authority ”nobody is irreplaceable” but we also know that a personal hit against one of them would instill fear in another 100. " https://insurrectionnewsworldwide.co...open-proposal/ Hooboy! Doesn't that just make you ache to live in a world of their creation? |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
19th March 2017, 03:23 PM | #1675 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,681
|
|
__________________
Death to Videodrome! Long live the new flesh! |
|
19th March 2017, 03:28 PM | #1676 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,681
|
They must be completely deluded about what backlash that would bring.
Some of these Neo-nazi groups are stockpiling automatic weapons. The German secret service is busy disarming about 700 of them that have legal guns. Once these guys start doxing Antifa members, they'll have to move to Argentina. Which is Ironic, really. |
__________________
Death to Videodrome! Long live the new flesh! |
|
20th March 2017, 06:39 AM | #1677 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
|
20th March 2017, 03:19 PM | #1678 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
MD, I started with a pile of quotes from you on which I was basing my inference. Those quotes appear to imply the position that I have interpreted. I'm not putting words in your mouth - I'm telling you what I am interpreting your words to mean.
If you think that I (and several other people) are misinterpreting, fine. Acknowledge that you aren't being clear, and take advantage of this opportunity to restate what it is you are trying to say. |
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian |
|
20th March 2017, 03:22 PM | #1679 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
|
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian |
|
20th March 2017, 08:28 PM | #1680 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
A few others posed questions, I responded and they seemed satisfied (or at least questioned no further). I think it's just you that interprets that I 'advocate denying rights of *some* American citizens' among other things that I absolutely do not say. Although there's an excellent chance that they don't give a fat rat's patootie one way or the other.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|