The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
You want to see conservatives riot? Check out what happened when judges issued stays on the Travel Ban EO. Oh what, we aren't going to listen to that court order. Civil disobedience, right?
Denying fascists a platform to speak is a moral act.
I think the point I'm trying to argue is that the protest did not need the violent element, not that he needed to have a platform. I'm glad he didn't show up. Not so happy that people got their faces bashed in.
in the eyes of the enemy, protests never had any legitimacy in the first place. they were all set up by george soros or something
so violence can't really delegitimise them
no amount of concessions will convince a fascist that you're a person whose opinion matters. why make any concessions at all?
i guess to appease the hypothetical swing voter, but that guy didn't care about right-wing violence so why would they care about left-wing violence
There's a flip side to this thinking: Conservatives don't block streets, conservatives don't throw rocks at the police, conservatives don't burn down the CVS - why maintain this standard if there's no way to sway a liberal to the other side?
but a lot of other people were swayed to that side. Enough to win an election and vote in Donald Trump. This was done through misinformation and other propaganda. And no one through a rock through a window to get those votes.
That's one election. I'm suggesting some here are taking for granted the fact that conservatives don't riot.
No, they just engage in terrorism instead. Shooting up mosques, bombing parades, murdering doctors. They're kind of bad at it, but so is the black bloc usually.
Terrorists are usually lone wolves or mentally unstable and not affiliated with a larger group.
That's an excuse and no I don't buy it. There is a reason every PP I go to has bulletproof glass and it's not because conservatives are all sweetness and light.
(PS you could apply the same excuse at the black bloc)
Hitler himself said that the only way to stop him was through force.
Denying fascists a platform to speak is a moral act.
Hitler got his power through non-violent means and then had to be stopped by violent means once he had tanks and a country of soldiers to command. I doubt even 1% of Milo supporters would die for his words.
Yes, denying fascists, hate groups, and the like are moral acts but there is a line between stopping them from speaking and burning cars, smashing buildings, and beating people.
Denying fascists a platform to speak is a moral act.
I think the point I'm trying to argue is that the protest did not need the violent element, not that he needed to have a platform. I'm glad he didn't show up. Not so happy that people got their faces bashed in.
I'm going to have to politely point out that this statement is unprovable. There's no way of knowing how a peaceful protest under the same circumstances would have panned out.
Hitler himself said that the only way to stop him was through force.
Denying fascists a platform to speak is a moral act.
Hitler got his power through non-violent means and then had to be stopped by violent means once he had tanks and a country of soldiers to command. I doubt even 1% of Milo supporters would die for his words.
Only 7% of the German public were members of the Nazi party at its peak. It doesn't take a whole lot to fuck shit up badly.
Hitler himself said that the only way to stop him was through force.
THANK YOU!
I think a LOT of people in this thread are under some severe misconceptions about what exactly the opposition here is. This isn't like protesting George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. This isn't 2004. The right we're up against is something far scarier and far deadlier than the one we grew up with.
I think you are trying to demonize actual human beings with differing political views as justification to string them up. And yea I do have a dog in this fight because I am a minority who has suffered racist actions and been called slurs. I don't know when they might come after my people, but I want to have a lot of allies when they do. And I know bricks and pipes don't look like honey to a lot of people.
You want to see conservatives riot? Check out what happened when judges issued stays on the Travel Ban EO. Oh what, we aren't going to listen to that court order. Civil disobedience, right?
There are dozens of stories, but the Trump administration has basically said they are going to keep on enforcing the ban without modifying the EO.
They don't have to break the windows and set cars on fire because it's liberal/multi-cultural society that they feel imprisoned by. They destroy that instead.
in the eyes of the enemy, protests never had any legitimacy in the first place. they were all set up by george soros or something
so violence can't really delegitimise them
no amount of concessions will convince a fascist that you're a person whose opinion matters. why make any concessions at all?
i guess to appease the hypothetical swing voter, but that guy didn't care about right-wing violence so why would they care about left-wing violence
But violence is not any more effective than non-violence (at least, not on the sort of scale we're talking about). The anarchists are not in command of the RAF, strategically bombing fascist industry to kill their war machine at great human cost - they're pitching stones through storefronts that have no connection to the fascists at all. What are the supposed gains here?
This isn't a matter of appeasement. Burning down the Reichstag was no more effective at ending Nazism than Chamberlain playing patty-cakes.
In recent history, non-violent protest is twice as effective as violent protest at achieving goals. Non-violent upheaval is also 15% less likely to result in relapse and more likely then not to result in democratic system.
This is inaccurate.
Non-violent protest by people like MLK or Gandhi or Mandela achieved a lot, to be sure. But they often existed parallel to groups that did engage in violence, or carried the implicit threat that violence might result if their demands were not met. This often gave the leaders of non violent protest movements a valuable bargaining chip: "You can deal with us or you can deal with them and we're at least willing to talk and be reasonable about this." Without the more extremist, violent factions on the street, they don't have that tool in their own kit.
Don't be too quick to dismiss black bloc style protests. They have their uses.
Their use is not in the middle of a protest that was intended to be non-violent.
Personally I think violence has it places. It's why we have police and armed forces. Sometimes we, as a species, require violence. It's been the way of it for thousands of years.
Noted racist getting clocked for being a noted racist?
I'm totally for that. Nobody is gonna convince me otherwise. That dude's suggesting the complete eradication of folks based on race. We should let people know that kinda talk doesn't go well for you.
Skinheads trying to fuck up your punk club? Brawling is fine.
Burning down random shit, destroying random businesses, and beating up random motherfuckers to try and make a statement?
Fuckin useless.
Violence is useful in small targeted doses where the circumstances can't be twisted.
A large nonviolent protest will always resonate better than a big angry mob.
Like eventually there's a point where uprising is required, but we aren't actually there yet. Till then all this blac bloc shit needs to go because it just gives the other side more to throw against the liberal agenda in general.
The thing about violence in protests is that it raises the stakes. This can be a voice amplification technique, but it's also risky. People react irrationally to violence, and if the other side is prepared for it that violence can cost you in terms of mindshare. Big time.
With the numbers we're putting up right now in terms of protest size, I'm not really convinced that this is the direction of escalation that makes sense. 60% of America approves of the Women's March. When reasonable questions are asked about the protests of the muslim ban we get similar numbers. Majority support does not necessitate violence. At least not until the other side escalates to that point themselves. It's not worth giving up the moral high ground yet.
Denying fascists a platform to speak is a moral act.
I think the point I'm trying to argue is that the protest did not need the violent element, not that he needed to have a platform. I'm glad he didn't show up. Not so happy that people got their faces bashed in.
I'm going to have to politely point out that this statement is unprovable. There's no way of knowing how a peaceful protest under the same circumstances would have panned out.
That's because it was never given the chance. Just like saying we don't know what the Women's March would have looked like had it became a riot and they stormed the White House. We can only guess to the cause and effect from past experiences.
Hitler himself said that the only way to stop him was through force.
Denying fascists a platform to speak is a moral act.
Hitler got his power through non-violent means and then had to be stopped by violent means once he had tanks and a country of soldiers to command. I doubt even 1% of Milo supporters would die for his words.
Only 7% of the German public were members of the Nazi party at its peak. It doesn't take a whole lot to fuck shit up badly.
Yeah, but 7% of Germans was still millions of soldiers. 7% of Milo supports (going off his YouTube Subscriber) is 33,000 people... still more than I was expecting but I doubt even all them would fight an actual war for him.
You want to see conservatives riot? Check out what happened when judges issued stays on the Travel Ban EO. Oh what, we aren't going to listen to that court order. Civil disobedience, right?
There are dozens of stories, but the Trump administration has basically said they are going to keep on enforcing the ban without modifying the EO.
They don't have to break the windows and set cars on fire because it's liberal/multi-cultural society that they feel imprisoned by. They destroy that instead.
Personally I think violence has it places. It's why we have police and armed forces. Sometimes we, as a species, require violence. It's been the way of it for thousands of years.
Noted racist getting clocked for being a noted racist?
I'm totally for that. Nobody is gonna convince me otherwise. That dude's suggesting the complete eradication of folks based on race. We should let people know that kinda talk doesn't go well for you.
Skinheads trying to fuck up your punk club? Brawling is fine.
Burning down random shit, destroying random businesses, and beating up random motherfuckers to try and make a statement?
Fuckin useless.
Violence is useful in small targeted doses where the circumstances can't be twisted.
A large nonviolent protest will always resonate better than a big angry mob.
Like eventually there's a point where uprising is required, but we aren't actually there yet. Till then all this blac bloc shit needs to go because it just gives the other side more to throw against the liberal agenda in general.
Pretty much this. Also part of diversity of tactics is not fucking up other people's protest. At least if you mean it and aren't just using it as a euphemism.
This might seem a bit at odds with the other posts I've made in this thread and there is a reason for that. Regardless of whether the protest is violent or not, or how violent it is, the right wing is going to try to make that the subject, not what was being protested. They will greatly magnify whatever happened, often to the point of ridiculousness. Don't let them.
Hitler himself said that the only way to stop him was through force.
Denying fascists a platform to speak is a moral act.
He wasn't talking about punch ups and disruption of meetings, there was plenty of those between the Communists and the Nazis at the time.
The Nazis came to power in a system where political violence was already pretty commonplace.
Note "came to power". Violence didn't stop them until it was backed with armored cavalry. Jumping to the fistfighting in the street phase doesn't have great historical precedent here.
It is for a variety of factors, but yes, public apathy was certainly one.
Does the Women's March look apathetic to you?
No, and that's fantastic. The thing I'm concerned about is that people are misunderstanding the mindset of the opposition. People thought fascism could be defeated in a debate. That was tried, it didn't work.
Anyhow, I think I should lay my PoV bare.
When it comes to human rights, violence is a last resort, but it should NEVER be off-the-table. When fascism is the point of contention, that makes a LOT of the non-violent options unworkable. Is this good? No. But it's hell of a lot better than the alternative.
Furthermore, as elaborated earlier, I don't really care that much about property damage. I believe our society puts way too much stock in property over human life. Freddie Gray was more important that the CVS that burned down.
If you want to debate the efficacy or necessity of what happened at Berkley, sure. I can dig that. But I do get concerned when people say non-violence is the only solution. It leads me to believe that some people might not understand how bad things can get.
It is for a variety of factors, but yes, public apathy was certainly one.
Does the Women's March look apathetic to you?
No, and that's fantastic. The thing I'm concerned about is that people are misunderstanding the mindset of the opposition. People thought fascism could be defeated in a debate. That was tried, it didn't work.
Anyhow, I think I should lay my PoV bare.
When it comes to human rights, violence is a last resort, but it should NEVER be off-the-table. When fascism is the point of contention, that makes a LOT of the non-violent options unworkable. Is this good? No. But it's hell of a lot better than the alternative.
Furthermore, as elaborated earlier, I don't really care that much about property damage. I believe our society puts way too much stock in property over human life. Freddie Gray was more important that the CVS that burned down.
If you want to debate the efficacy or necessity of what happened at Berkley, sure. I can dig that. But I do get concerned when people say non-violence is the only solution. It leads me to believe that some people might not understand how bad things can get.
This is #5 on Youtube Trending. Berkeley Rioters gave him this.
Well, clearly the solution is to call him a thin-skinned beta cuck. :P
The solution might be to do something close to that. Downvotes would actually help. Hell you could organize a forum wide downvoting ignoring and unsubscribe effort.
It is for a variety of factors, but yes, public apathy was certainly one.
Does the Women's March look apathetic to you?
No, and that's fantastic. The thing I'm concerned about is that people are misunderstanding the mindset of the opposition. People thought fascism could be defeated in a debate. That was tried, it didn't work.
Anyhow, I think I should lay my PoV bare.
When it comes to human rights, violence is a last resort, but it should NEVER be off-the-table. When fascism is the point of contention, that makes a LOT of the non-violent options unworkable. Is this good? No. But it's hell of a lot better than the alternative.
Furthermore, as elaborated earlier, I don't really care that much about property damage. I believe our society puts way too much stock in property over human life. Freddie Gray was more important that the CVS that burned down.
If you want to debate the efficacy or necessity of what happened at Berkley, sure. I can dig that. But I do get concerned when people say non-violence is the only solution. It leads me to believe that some people might not understand how bad things can get.
It is for a variety of factors, but yes, public apathy was certainly one.
Does the Women's March look apathetic to you?
No, and that's fantastic. The thing I'm concerned about is that people are misunderstanding the mindset of the opposition. People thought fascism could be defeated in a debate. That was tried, it didn't work.
Anyhow, I think I should lay my PoV bare.
When it comes to human rights, violence is a last resort, but it should NEVER be off-the-table. When fascism is the point of contention, that makes a LOT of the non-violent options unworkable. Is this good? No. But it's hell of a lot better than the alternative.
Furthermore, as elaborated earlier, I don't really care that much about property damage. I believe our society puts way too much stock in property over human life. Freddie Gray was more important that the CVS that burned down.
If you want to debate the efficacy or necessity of what happened at Berkley, sure. I can dig that. But I do get concerned when people say non-violence is the only solution. It leads me to believe that some people might not understand how bad things can get.
And you are jumping the gun. We don't need violence now. This asshat has less than 500k followers. The Women's March had 3 MILLION People who physically showed up. The state of the world isn't so bad that we need to grab our torches and pitch forks right now. Public perception was on the liberal side, for the most part. But this is going to hurt the cause and strengthen Milo. I can guarantee you that he'll get 500k+ followers before the week is out. He lives and breaths for this kind of reaction to his shit. On the internet, he would be a troll. And we know better than to feed the trolls.
It is for a variety of factors, but yes, public apathy was certainly one.
Does the Women's March look apathetic to you?
No, and that's fantastic. The thing I'm concerned about is that people are misunderstanding the mindset of the opposition. People thought fascism could be defeated in a debate. That was tried, it didn't work.
Anyhow, I think I should lay my PoV bare.
When it comes to human rights, violence is a last resort, but it should NEVER be off-the-table. When fascism is the point of contention, that makes a LOT of the non-violent options unworkable. Is this good? No. But it's hell of a lot better than the alternative.
Furthermore, as elaborated earlier, I don't really care that much about property damage. I believe our society puts way too much stock in property over human life. Freddie Gray was more important that the CVS that burned down.
If you want to debate the efficacy or necessity of what happened at Berkley, sure. I can dig that. But I do get concerned when people say non-violence is the only solution. It leads me to believe that some people might not understand how bad things can get.
And you are jumping the gun. We don't need violence now. This asshat has less than 500k followers. The Women's March had 3 MILLION People who physically showed up. The state of the world isn't so bad that we need to grab our torches and pitch forks right now. Public perception was on the liberal side, for the most part. But this is going to hurt the cause and strengthen Milo. I can guarantee you that he'll get 500k+ followers before the week is out. He lives and breaths for this kind of reaction to his shit. On the internet, he would be a troll. And we know better than to feed the trolls.
If they win whether you smash stuff or not, then at least smashing stuff makes sure universities lose money when they invite evil people. Attacking their wallets is much better than attacking them physically.
This is what succeeds in no-platforming Milo, too. Schools, otherwise bound by free-speech requirements, can get an out by saying that security for the event would cost the school too much, or that the event would pose too much of a risk to the student body.
My problem with no-platforming is that it's the same tactics that have been used against very good people in the past. Don't like what they're saying/doing? Show up, get mean, break stuff. Shades of the Little Rock Nine and the veritable white mob standing outside, not actively trying to kill them, but hooting and hollering and making a big ol' implicit threat.
My thought on protest is that if you're going to break the law, you should do it with a clear mind, go in knowing the potential consequences, but also if you're going to break the law it should only be for an action that makes an optimum statement. Protesting a fracking site? A human chain around the well-pad's fence would be good: disrupt the ability to use the site without doing anything more destructive (which would be very dangerous to human lives and also counterproductively damage the environment if you lobbed a molotov cocktail and blew the thing up).
If you're going to utilize illegal tactics, you should at least try to maintain the moral high ground in doing so: physical aggression against people is absolutely verboten, and property destruction should be limited, have a message-sending purpose, and tailored to not inconvenience the working Joes and Jills who will inevitably be tasked with cleaning up your mess. I know there's a group out there that vandalizes objectionable billboards, but uses paint that's pretty easy to remove and will leave a note explaining how to get it off easily to help the people who will be sent to clean it.
Likewise i'd say it's immoral to encourage illegal protests because 1) how easily things can go south when you start breaking the law and 2) impressionable people can get into it without really thinking of the consequences, leading to tragedy.
To tie this back to anti-Milo, one of his speaking engagements had people basically rush the stage. Not to attack him, but to stand in front of him and shout over him so that nobody could hear him and eventually he was forced to abandon it. Illegal, yes (or at least against the security rules of the venue), but it was not harmful and was designed to shut him down and go no further than that.
Even in fighting actual Nazis, having a righteous cause doesn't give you carte blanche to harm innocent bystanders.
Hitler himself said that the only way to stop him was through force.
Denying fascists a platform to speak is a moral act.
He wasn't talking about punch ups and disruption of meetings, there was plenty of those between the Communists and the Nazis at the time.
The Nazis came to power in a system where political violence was already pretty commonplace.
Note "came to power". Violence didn't stop them until it was backed with armored cavalry. Jumping to the fistfighting in the street phase doesn't have great historical precedent here.
Political violence is historically pretty commonplace in this country. It's just usually the state aimed at its minorities. Or giving tacit approval to those attacking minorities. It is usually separated from partisan politics (as in a party using violence to shut down the other party*), which may be more of your point.
*With the obvious exception of the Brooks Brother Riot.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
Riots engineered by an alliance of convenience between the NSDAP and the KPD in 1929 Berlin went a long way to shifting the city from a liberal stronghold to a Nazi one
smashing shop windows makes people look for someone who will haul off those window-smashers; this is true even if those promising said hauling are a party that also smashed a good few shop windows themselves. there's a lesson in primate psychology there, probably
This is #5 on Youtube Trending. Berkeley Rioters gave him this.
I still lay the blame at Berkeley for scheduling him in the first place, as he is a known provocateur.
This is pretty much my first time in D&D...but I just wanted to point something out: there was absolutely no way that Milo wasn't going to come out ahead in all of this. This was a perfect win-win situation for him. What do I mean by this? Let's look at the possible outcomes:
He gets to speak and energize his supporters, out the "othered" students, and agitate protesters.
Protests and/or riots happen, he doesn't get to speak, and he gets to play the victim card that the left is full of thugs and/or deviants who don't believe in the Bill of Rights since they silenced his right to free speech.
UCB doesn't let him talk...and he still gets to play the victim card that a university infringed on his first amendment rights to free speech.
This was a no-win scenario from the get-go.
edit - I'm embarrassed to say that I'm not certain of whether or not UC Berkeley is a state university...I have removed that wording and emphasis.
Erlkönig on
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
Berkeley is part of the public University of California system. The flagship school, in fact. If it's University of (State Name) or (State Name) State University, it's public.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
This is #5 on Youtube Trending. Berkeley Rioters gave him this.
I still lay the blame at Berkeley for scheduling him in the first place, as he is a known provocateur.
This is pretty much my first time in D&D...but I just wanted to point something out: there was absolutely no way that Milo wasn't going to come out ahead in all of this. This was a perfect win-win situation for him. What do I mean by this? Let's look at the possible outcomes:
He gets to speak and energize his supporters, out the "othered" students, and agitate protesters.
Protests and/or riots happen, he doesn't get to speak, and he gets to play the victim card that the left is full of thugs and/or deviants who don't believe in the Bill of Rights since they silenced his right to free speech.
UCB doesn't let him talk...and he still gets to play the victim card that a state university infringed on his first amendment rights to free speech.
This was a no-win scenario from the get-go.
3 is still best case scenario though. He gonna whinge no matter what, don't give him a platform.
This is #5 on Youtube Trending. Berkeley Rioters gave him this.
I still lay the blame at Berkeley for scheduling him in the first place, as he is a known provocateur.
This is pretty much my first time in D&D...but I just wanted to point something out: there was absolutely no way that Milo wasn't going to come out ahead in all of this. This was a perfect win-win situation for him. What do I mean by this? Let's look at the possible outcomes:
He gets to speak and energize his supporters, out the "othered" students, and agitate protesters.
Protests and/or riots happen, he doesn't get to speak, and he gets to play the victim card that the left is full of thugs and/or deviants who don't believe in the Bill of Rights since they silenced his right to free speech.
UCB doesn't let him talk...and he still gets to play the victim card that a state university infringed on his first amendment rights to free speech.
This was a no-win scenario from the get-go.
3 is still best case scenario though. He gonna whinge no matter what, don't give him a platform.
The only thing that makes 3 not-as-bad as 2 is the thugs and/or deviants inclusion (which, yes, is considerably worse)...but he was going to have a platform with or without it ("liberal intolerance" infringed on his free speech).
Berkeley is part of the public University of California system. The flagship school, in fact. If it's University of (State Name) or (State Name) State University, it's public.
Thank you for that. I tried looking it up and the Wikipedia page was pretty vague about it.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
You may have been thinking of the University of Southern California (aka USC aka those assholes with the shitty band), which is private and I'm not sure most people know that.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
They're more famously private though. And they're more a dickish band than a shitty one. They know more than one song. And song describes "Fight On" loosely.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
It is for a variety of factors, but yes, public apathy was certainly one.
Does the Women's March look apathetic to you?
No, and that's fantastic. The thing I'm concerned about is that people are misunderstanding the mindset of the opposition. People thought fascism could be defeated in a debate. That was tried, it didn't work.
Anyhow, I think I should lay my PoV bare.
When it comes to human rights, violence is a last resort, but it should NEVER be off-the-table. When fascism is the point of contention, that makes a LOT of the non-violent options unworkable. Is this good? No. But it's hell of a lot better than the alternative.
Furthermore, as elaborated earlier, I don't really care that much about property damage. I believe our society puts way too much stock in property over human life. Freddie Gray was more important that the CVS that burned down.
If you want to debate the efficacy or necessity of what happened at Berkley, sure. I can dig that. But I do get concerned when people say non-violence is the only solution. It leads me to believe that some people might not understand how bad things can get.
And you are jumping the gun. We don't need violence now. This asshat has less than 500k followers. The Women's March had 3 MILLION People who physically showed up. The state of the world isn't so bad that we need to grab our torches and pitch forks right now. Public perception was on the liberal side, for the most part. But this is going to hurt the cause and strengthen Milo. I can guarantee you that he'll get 500k+ followers before the week is out. He lives and breaths for this kind of reaction to his shit. On the internet, he would be a troll. And we know better than to feed the trolls.
Agreed. Do not feed the troll.
Ignoring him will only give him leeway in targeting vulnerable people. I thought we learned this in 2014.
This is #5 on Youtube Trending. Berkeley Rioters gave him this.
I still lay the blame at Berkeley for scheduling him in the first place, as he is a known provocateur.
This is pretty much my first time in D&D...but I just wanted to point something out: there was absolutely no way that Milo wasn't going to come out ahead in all of this. This was a perfect win-win situation for him. What do I mean by this? Let's look at the possible outcomes:
He gets to speak and energize his supporters, out the "othered" students, and agitate protesters.
Protests and/or riots happen, he doesn't get to speak, and he gets to play the victim card that the left is full of thugs and/or deviants who don't believe in the Bill of Rights since they silenced his right to free speech.
UCB doesn't let him talk...and he still gets to play the victim card that a state university infringed on his first amendment rights to free speech.
This was a no-win scenario from the get-go.
3 is still best case scenario though. He gonna whinge no matter what, don't give him a platform.
The only thing that makes 3 not-as-bad as 2 is the thugs and/or deviants inclusion (which, yes, is considerably worse)...but he was going to have a platform with or without it ("liberal intolerance" infringed on his free speech).
No, it's also the lack of a larger platform and the support of the school itself for his vile and dangerous views.
His platform now will be just to his own audience who want to hear him whinge about how mean the liberals are. No reason to help him make it bigger.
How does the process of having a speaker on a college campus work?
If it's not an academic talk: some campus group sponsors them, invites them, books a place for them to speak, pays any associated fees, stage the event.
College Republicans basically exist to piss off the liberals who make up the majority of students most places, so they pick assholes like Milo.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
How does the process of having a speaker on a college campus work?
Generally a student group will invite someone to speak on campus. In the case of controversial figures, those groups may be forced to pay for additional security surrounding the event, or restrict entry to students only.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Posts
Got a link?
I think the point I'm trying to argue is that the protest did not need the violent element, not that he needed to have a platform. I'm glad he didn't show up. Not so happy that people got their faces bashed in.
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
That's an excuse and no I don't buy it. There is a reason every PP I go to has bulletproof glass and it's not because conservatives are all sweetness and light.
(PS you could apply the same excuse at the black bloc)
Look at the scale of the force involved to stop Hitler if you're going to make that comparison.
Hitler got his power through non-violent means and then had to be stopped by violent means once he had tanks and a country of soldiers to command. I doubt even 1% of Milo supporters would die for his words.
Yes, denying fascists, hate groups, and the like are moral acts but there is a line between stopping them from speaking and burning cars, smashing buildings, and beating people.
I'm going to have to politely point out that this statement is unprovable. There's no way of knowing how a peaceful protest under the same circumstances would have panned out.
That's because people waited too late to do so.
Only 7% of the German public were members of the Nazi party at its peak. It doesn't take a whole lot to fuck shit up badly.
Steam: pazython
I think you are trying to demonize actual human beings with differing political views as justification to string them up. And yea I do have a dog in this fight because I am a minority who has suffered racist actions and been called slurs. I don't know when they might come after my people, but I want to have a lot of allies when they do. And I know bricks and pipes don't look like honey to a lot of people.
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/customs-border-protection-agents-trump-muslim-country-travel-ban
There are dozens of stories, but the Trump administration has basically said they are going to keep on enforcing the ban without modifying the EO.
They don't have to break the windows and set cars on fire because it's liberal/multi-cultural society that they feel imprisoned by. They destroy that instead.
Their use is not in the middle of a protest that was intended to be non-violent.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Personally I think violence has it places. It's why we have police and armed forces. Sometimes we, as a species, require violence. It's been the way of it for thousands of years.
Noted racist getting clocked for being a noted racist?
I'm totally for that. Nobody is gonna convince me otherwise. That dude's suggesting the complete eradication of folks based on race. We should let people know that kinda talk doesn't go well for you.
Skinheads trying to fuck up your punk club? Brawling is fine.
Burning down random shit, destroying random businesses, and beating up random motherfuckers to try and make a statement?
Fuckin useless.
Violence is useful in small targeted doses where the circumstances can't be twisted.
A large nonviolent protest will always resonate better than a big angry mob.
Like eventually there's a point where uprising is required, but we aren't actually there yet. Till then all this blac bloc shit needs to go because it just gives the other side more to throw against the liberal agenda in general.
With the numbers we're putting up right now in terms of protest size, I'm not really convinced that this is the direction of escalation that makes sense. 60% of America approves of the Women's March. When reasonable questions are asked about the protests of the muslim ban we get similar numbers. Majority support does not necessitate violence. At least not until the other side escalates to that point themselves. It's not worth giving up the moral high ground yet.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
It is for a variety of factors, but yes, public apathy was certainly one.
Does the Women's March look apathetic to you?
That's because it was never given the chance. Just like saying we don't know what the Women's March would have looked like had it became a riot and they stormed the White House. We can only guess to the cause and effect from past experiences.
Yeah, but 7% of Germans was still millions of soldiers. 7% of Milo supports (going off his YouTube Subscriber) is 33,000 people... still more than I was expecting but I doubt even all them would fight an actual war for him.
That's not rioting.
Pretty much this. Also part of diversity of tactics is not fucking up other people's protest. At least if you mean it and aren't just using it as a euphemism.
This might seem a bit at odds with the other posts I've made in this thread and there is a reason for that. Regardless of whether the protest is violent or not, or how violent it is, the right wing is going to try to make that the subject, not what was being protested. They will greatly magnify whatever happened, often to the point of ridiculousness. Don't let them.
This is #5 on Youtube Trending. Berkeley Rioters gave him this.
The Nazis came to power in a system where political violence was already pretty commonplace.
Note "came to power". Violence didn't stop them until it was backed with armored cavalry. Jumping to the fistfighting in the street phase doesn't have great historical precedent here.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I still lay the blame at Berkeley for scheduling him in the first place, as he is a known provocateur.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
No, and that's fantastic. The thing I'm concerned about is that people are misunderstanding the mindset of the opposition. People thought fascism could be defeated in a debate. That was tried, it didn't work.
Anyhow, I think I should lay my PoV bare.
When it comes to human rights, violence is a last resort, but it should NEVER be off-the-table. When fascism is the point of contention, that makes a LOT of the non-violent options unworkable. Is this good? No. But it's hell of a lot better than the alternative.
Furthermore, as elaborated earlier, I don't really care that much about property damage. I believe our society puts way too much stock in property over human life. Freddie Gray was more important that the CVS that burned down.
If you want to debate the efficacy or necessity of what happened at Berkley, sure. I can dig that. But I do get concerned when people say non-violence is the only solution. It leads me to believe that some people might not understand how bad things can get.
Well, clearly the solution is to call him a thin-skinned beta cuck. :P
Steam: pazython
The solution might be to do something close to that. Downvotes would actually help. Hell you could organize a forum wide downvoting ignoring and unsubscribe effort.
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
Yeah I think the obligatory response is to ask if he was triggered and needs a safe space to cry it out
And you are jumping the gun. We don't need violence now. This asshat has less than 500k followers. The Women's March had 3 MILLION People who physically showed up. The state of the world isn't so bad that we need to grab our torches and pitch forks right now. Public perception was on the liberal side, for the most part. But this is going to hurt the cause and strengthen Milo. I can guarantee you that he'll get 500k+ followers before the week is out. He lives and breaths for this kind of reaction to his shit. On the internet, he would be a troll. And we know better than to feed the trolls.
Agreed. Do not feed the troll.
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
This is what succeeds in no-platforming Milo, too. Schools, otherwise bound by free-speech requirements, can get an out by saying that security for the event would cost the school too much, or that the event would pose too much of a risk to the student body.
My problem with no-platforming is that it's the same tactics that have been used against very good people in the past. Don't like what they're saying/doing? Show up, get mean, break stuff. Shades of the Little Rock Nine and the veritable white mob standing outside, not actively trying to kill them, but hooting and hollering and making a big ol' implicit threat.
My thought on protest is that if you're going to break the law, you should do it with a clear mind, go in knowing the potential consequences, but also if you're going to break the law it should only be for an action that makes an optimum statement. Protesting a fracking site? A human chain around the well-pad's fence would be good: disrupt the ability to use the site without doing anything more destructive (which would be very dangerous to human lives and also counterproductively damage the environment if you lobbed a molotov cocktail and blew the thing up).
If you're going to utilize illegal tactics, you should at least try to maintain the moral high ground in doing so: physical aggression against people is absolutely verboten, and property destruction should be limited, have a message-sending purpose, and tailored to not inconvenience the working Joes and Jills who will inevitably be tasked with cleaning up your mess. I know there's a group out there that vandalizes objectionable billboards, but uses paint that's pretty easy to remove and will leave a note explaining how to get it off easily to help the people who will be sent to clean it.
Likewise i'd say it's immoral to encourage illegal protests because 1) how easily things can go south when you start breaking the law and 2) impressionable people can get into it without really thinking of the consequences, leading to tragedy.
To tie this back to anti-Milo, one of his speaking engagements had people basically rush the stage. Not to attack him, but to stand in front of him and shout over him so that nobody could hear him and eventually he was forced to abandon it. Illegal, yes (or at least against the security rules of the venue), but it was not harmful and was designed to shut him down and go no further than that.
Even in fighting actual Nazis, having a righteous cause doesn't give you carte blanche to harm innocent bystanders.
Political violence is historically pretty commonplace in this country. It's just usually the state aimed at its minorities. Or giving tacit approval to those attacking minorities. It is usually separated from partisan politics (as in a party using violence to shut down the other party*), which may be more of your point.
*With the obvious exception of the Brooks Brother Riot.
smashing shop windows makes people look for someone who will haul off those window-smashers; this is true even if those promising said hauling are a party that also smashed a good few shop windows themselves. there's a lesson in primate psychology there, probably
This is pretty much my first time in D&D...but I just wanted to point something out: there was absolutely no way that Milo wasn't going to come out ahead in all of this. This was a perfect win-win situation for him. What do I mean by this? Let's look at the possible outcomes:
This was a no-win scenario from the get-go.
edit - I'm embarrassed to say that I'm not certain of whether or not UC Berkeley is a state university...I have removed that wording and emphasis.
3 is still best case scenario though. He gonna whinge no matter what, don't give him a platform.
The only thing that makes 3 not-as-bad as 2 is the thugs and/or deviants inclusion (which, yes, is considerably worse)...but he was going to have a platform with or without it ("liberal intolerance" infringed on his free speech).
Thank you for that. I tried looking it up and the Wikipedia page was pretty vague about it.
Who also have a shitty band.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
They're more famously private though. And they're more a dickish band than a shitty one. They know more than one song. And song describes "Fight On" loosely.
Ignoring him will only give him leeway in targeting vulnerable people. I thought we learned this in 2014.
Steam: pazython
No, it's also the lack of a larger platform and the support of the school itself for his vile and dangerous views.
His platform now will be just to his own audience who want to hear him whinge about how mean the liberals are. No reason to help him make it bigger.
If it's not an academic talk: some campus group sponsors them, invites them, books a place for them to speak, pays any associated fees, stage the event.
College Republicans basically exist to piss off the liberals who make up the majority of students most places, so they pick assholes like Milo.
Generally a student group will invite someone to speak on campus. In the case of controversial figures, those groups may be forced to pay for additional security surrounding the event, or restrict entry to students only.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades