Support NeoGAF

[obeast]

That's why leftists breaking windows is far more alarming and worthy of a lot more spilled ink than alt-righters murdering Muslims and black Christians in their places of worship. Leftists represent a disruption in the balance of power, while right-wing extremists represent a minor glitch in the system working as intended. Bashing a Starbucks window in carries far more resonance to middle class types who want to preserve their comfortable life above all else, than piles of dead minorities.

This is an easy caricature that I doubt applies to many, if any, of the people wringing their hands about free speech issues. It gives you ample grounds for moral contempt, but I don't think it's either accurate or useful.

The reason they're not more upset about the lunatic in Canada and Dylann Roof is that such event are (thankfully) rare. No one is whistling on his way to work as he passes "piles of dead minorities" every day.

Ironically, it's precisely the same reason that Trump's refugee nonsense is so stupid - yes, some minuscule percentage of refugees might be terrorists, but terrorist attacks in the US, from Muslim refugees or others, are *rare*. They are simply not the problem that the xenophobes make them out to be.

On the other hand, public views on free speech issues and the appropriate uses of political violence -- and the widening chasm between liberals and conservatives in the US -- could be immensely consequential.

I say all of that as a person who doesn't think that Berkeley should have given this asshole a platform in the first place. Uncomfortable speech is one thing; attempting to ruin the lives of specific students is another, and it would seem well within the university's purview to defend those students from that sort of attack.

 

[legacyzero]

If that's how it is then I'll concede that. But it should not be acceptable, and those who would abuse their rights like that should absolutely have to fear for their safety.

Hate SPEECH is not he same as hate CRIME.

Nobody should fear for their safety because of speech. An alt-Reich asshole can talk that shit all they want. Just words. Now- when you're President is talking like that- freak the fuck out. I think that's our biggest conundrum right now.

Edit: oh, I read that again. You meant them. Yeah absolutely. Assholes get shown the door. Your 6th amendment protects you with a fair trial for punching a mother fucker in the face LMAO

 

[WhiskeyKnight]

Why do we have to keep bringing up the free speech thing when none of these people had their right to free speech revoked?

True, not by the government.

But there are many people in this thread advocating for violence in response to certain forms of speech. Part of free speech is being able to exercise it free from the threat of violence. That's why we have laws against assault, but not against holding odious opinions.

 

[RedAssedApe]

that guy's pants...

 

[Nirolak]

So I'm moving this thread to Off-Topic, but I want to be very clear that we're fine with political discussions in Gaming.

However, I'd like to draw a distinction here.

Political threads in Gaming should generally be about:
- Political issues in Gaming, like gender or minority representation, labor rights, etc.
- Official statements/donations/initiatives/etc from game companies about political topics.
- Discussions of how political figures/politics/regulations are impacting the game industry (most of our existing Trump gaming threads fall under this banner, like Insomniac talking about how an immigration ban might impact their ability to hire).
- The political messages of video games.

However, "Person who is a game developer, but is commenting on Trump/Milo/etc in a way that has no connection to the game industry" is a better fit for Off-Topic.

That said, feel free to just pick a forum if you're unsure. We can always move it if we feel it would fit better in the other.

 

[WhiskeyKnight]

Something being legal doesn't protect it from hostility lmao

Yes it does. The law protects people like Milo from being violently targeted for his opinions.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

No, not if it directly incites violence.

But according to the 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution, hate speech actually IS a right. Groups like the KKK and Westboro Baptist church regularly engage in hate speech, and the U.S. Supreme Court has continually upheld their right to gather, speak and demonstrate. This is very basic constitutional law. That fact that it is encountering so much hostility in this thread is alarming.

Are you actually defending the KKK and Westboro?

 

[SapientWolf]

No. It's actually pretty easy to sit behind a computer screen and lecture people for protesting too loud. What's hard is being a brown person out in the streets right now wondering when you're going to get shot by a cop or deported out of the country.

It's easy to make assumptions about people on the internet that you don't even know.

It's pretty easy to feel cathartic about things that don't really help the big picture. Milo went from giving a speech to a few hundred Republicans on campus to giving interviews to national news networks after the whole thing blew up big. A tactical victory but a strategic loss. I don't think the anarchists are helping and I don't have to hold my piece when they do this stupid shit. And I really don't like when people present it as a pro Milo / anti anarchist false dichotomy.

 

[legacyzero]

Are you actually defending the KKK and Westboro?

Cmon son. That's not what he's doing. He's defending the right. Not the group.

 

[WhiskeyKnight]

I think we all know there's a difference between free speech and hate speech.

As far as the law is concerned, there is no difference. Speech is speech as long as it does not directly incite violence. Again, this is long-established legal precedent.

 

[SerTapTap]

Why do we have to keep bringing up the free speech thing when none of these people had their right to free speech revoked?

Because the entire premise of this argument, from Blow's own post, is flawed. "Look, one person did a bad thing. Now all people who vaguely agree with anything that person said is wrong".

There's no growing trend of violence nor is there suppression of speech. It's pretty common for a few bad actors to slip into a protest and that's really all it takes to fuck things up (it's honestly amazing how many protests have been had and kept totally peaceful).

 

[FaytesEnd]

Hate speech is just speech someone else doesn't like. It changes day to day.

It used to be hate speech to say:
~ the sun revolved around the Earth
~ Women are just as good as men
~ the Jews aren't evil
~ the king(priest/pope/rabbi/imam/prophet....) 'could' be wrong (not even was wrong!)
~ the enemy nation is made of people too
~ the capitalist/socialist/communist is wrong/right
~ party X is right/wrong
~ god is/isn't real

Imagine whats said today, will be seen as completely nuts in a few decades. Hate speech is relative and always changing. Thank god hate speech isn't a real thing, else science would never have gotten us even this far!

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

Cmon son. That's not what he's doing. He's defending the right. Not the group.

Sure they won't get arrested, but they don't have the right to have a platform or people to listen to.

 

[staticneuron]

Strange to be scared of people who disapprove of literal neo nazis in a time where places of worship are being burnt to the ground in trump's america.

I am really starting to believe that this isn't strange but some sort of spin aimed at deflecting the extreme personalities being opposed.

I'm not saying the Americans were passive to the final solution, but they did know of the mistreatment of the Jews in Germany (for example The Night of the Broken Glass/Kristallnacht). Even after that Jewish refugees still had difficulty gaining entry to America. I'm glad the Americans in part helped put an end to the Third Reich but the original comment was untrue, alternative fact, whatever. You said it yourself, the awful news came out after America entered the war so it was not to stop a genocide.

I should have used more context, my apologies.

I see what you mean. I understand and yes America wasn't concerned about the plight of any other country as far as civil unrest. Genocide though, normally tends to catch peoples attention no matter what country they live in.

Harassment and hate speech isn't free speech. That's not a right.

Au contraire! They are free speech but they are also crimes, which means you are free to do them or express them, you are not free from the consequence.

 

[The Kree]

As far as the law is concerned, there is no difference. Speech is speech as long as it does not directly incite violence. Again, this is long-established legal precedent.

The law is sometimes inadequate and agents of the state routinely disregard it depending on circumstances.

 

[jellies_two]

It's easy to make assumptions about people on the internet that you don't even know.

It's pretty easy to feel cathartic about things that don't really help the big picture. Milo went from giving a speech to a few hundred Republicans on campus to giving interviews to national news networks after the whole thing blew up big. A tactical victory but a strategic loss. I don't think the anarchists are helping and I don't have to hold my piece when they do this stupid shit. And I really don't like when people present it as a pro Milo / anti anarchist false dichotomy.

If Milo promises to be happy to speak to a few 100 "republicans on campus" then nobody would care, he WANTS to be widely infamous that's the whole point, the few hundred dipshits at the start were no more than a rung on a ladder. He doesn't want to be on a rung, he wants to be at the top protected by thugs while people fight.
Don't you get it?

 

[onadesertedisland]

No, not if it directly incites violence.

But according to the 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution, hate speech actually IS a right. Groups like the KKK and Westboro Baptist church regularly engage in hate speech, and the U.S. Supreme Court has continually upheld their right to gather, speak and demonstrate. This is very basic constitutional law. That fact that it is encountering so much hostility in this thread is alarming.

I don't advocate violence against Milo, just like he doesn't advocate violence against the people he hurls insults and slurs against. ;-) I am expressing my freedom of speech to say I that the country would be better off if he could not speak any more. How this is accomplished is left to the imagination. But remember, I'm not advocating violence against him. Because, that would be wrong.

 

[Glass Shark]

No, not if it directly incites violence.

But according to the 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution, hate speech actually IS a right. Groups like the KKK and Westboro Baptist church regularly engage in hate speech, and the U.S. Supreme Court has continually upheld their right to gather, speak and demonstrate. This is very basic constitutional law. That fact that it is encountering so much hostility in this thread is alarming.

The Constitution isn't immutable, that's why there are Amendments.

 

[Kinsei]

Hate speech is just speech someone else doesn't like. It changes day to day.

It used to be hate speech to say:
~ the sun revolved around the Earth
~ Women are just as good as men
~ the Jews aren't evil
~ the king(priest/pope/rabbi/imam/prophet....) 'could' be wrong (not even was wrong!)
~ the enemy nation is made of people too
~ the capitalist/socialist/communist is wrong/right
~ party X is right/wrong
~ god is/isn't real

Imagine whats said today, will be seen as completely nuts in a few decades. Hate speech is relative and always changing. Thank god hate speech isn't a real thing, else science would never have gotten us even this far!

Hate speech is definitely a thing. America is just ass backwards and doesn't have laws against it.

 

[FinalStageBoss]

did someone just say hate speech isnt a real thing? lmao


im done, im fucking done

 

[WhiskeyKnight]

Are you actually defending the KKK and Westboro?

Absolutely!

I totally disagree with both groups philosophically, but they are DEFINITELY protected by the first amendment.

 

[eot]

His point is fucking simple, I don't get the shitstorm here.

"Don't punch people" is not a controversial statement. We don't have an opinion police who decides which persons it's okay and which persons it's not okay to punch.

 

[Glix]

I have been doing a lot of thinking on this.

I have a friend who is very smitten with certain aspects of Milo and we have been discussing and occasionally arguing.

Strangely it was the news story of the cop with the nazi tattoo that made everything fall into place for me.

I thought about Milo giving a speech at the college I went to, to a room full of people like that cop. I thought about his talking about how the Jews at the school had infiltrated the administration and were "causing trouble" and "pushing their liberal agenda". Then I imagined him putting a picture of me up on that screen (I'm a Jew) while he was saying it.

Yeah, FUCK THAT.

That is not discussing a political opinion. That is giving people a target. And its not okay. Never has been. Never will be.

As to the "free speech" stuff - A different friend of mine argues very strongly "its above and beyond the government, its a cornerstone of a democratic society". I have trouble disagreeing with that, yet I have no tolerance for Milo's speeches.

 

[SapientWolf]

If Milo promises to be happy to speak to a few 100 "republicans on campus" then nobody would care, he WANTS to be widely infamous that's the whole point, the few hundred dipshits at the start were no more than a rung on a ladder. He doesn't want to be on a rung, he wants to be at the top protected by thugs while people fight.
Don't you get it?

Whelp, he's on been on the news non stop since this happened so mission failed on that one.

No one is saying that he should be welcomed with open arms. The protesters did everything the right way and I actually feel bad that their efforts were undermined by a small group of dingbats.

 

[legacyzero]

Sure they won't get arrested, but they don't have the right to have a platform or people to listen to.

Says who. You?

They have ever right if the platform is offered to them, or they're on public property.

Look , it's shitty, I agree. But the 1st isn't designed for YOU to like it or not. It's designed for EVERYONE to like it or not lol

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

Absolutely!

I totally disagree with both groups philosophically, but they are DEFINITELY protected by the first amendment.

There are literally dozens of court cases that back me up on this. Many of the brought by the American Civil Liberties Union -- not exactly a bastion of far right fascism.

Do you think they have the right to a platform and people to listen to? Do you think protesting at Vets funerals saying that god hates them is okay? Those are not protected under the first amendment.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

who advocate for violence against oppressed groups on an idealogical level (i.e. milo)

That is not what violence means.

 

[onadesertedisland]

His point is fucking simple, I don't get the shitstorm here.

"Don't punch people" is not a controversial statement. We don't have an opinion police who decides which persons it's okay and which persons it's not okay to punch.

Sure, don't hit people. But also, don't say shit that is indefensible, hate-filled, and intended to incite violence. And if you do express yourself that way, well, don't get mad about getting punched, cause you lost me with the bigot, nazi shit.

 

[Trigonometrize.]

Hate speech is just speech someone else doesn't like. It changes day to day.

It used to be hate speech to say:
~ the sun revolved around the Earth
~ Women are just as good as men
~ the Jews aren't evil
~ the king(priest/pope/rabbi/imam/prophet....) 'could' be wrong (not even was wrong!)
~ the enemy nation is made of people too
~ the capitalist/socialist/communist is wrong/right
~ party X is right/wrong
~ god is/isn't real

Imagine whats said today, will be seen as completely nuts in a few decades. Hate speech is relative and always changing. Thank god hate speech isn't a real thing, else science would never have gotten us even this far!

You're right. We should operate off a hypothetical future's standards instead of today's because there's a chance it might be different.

Also, some of that isn't even really hate speech?

 

[MBison]

Good for Jonathan Blow. Love his games and glad he has the balls to speak out against what was a horrific sight. Innocent people beaten with shovels, a girl pepper sprayed in the face. Disgusting.

 

[Chazprime]

Everyone here seems to agree that Nazis are bad but how the hell are we supposed to win hearts and minds when they have successfully villainized 'the left' in the eyes of half of the country?

Rational, reasoned discourse. Fewer comparisons to nazis and Hitler. If conservatives are the ones looking less crazy and emotional, that's a huge problem for liberals.

Where do we go when criticizing someone for saying something hateful is seen as fascism or censorship?

Focus on the real villains: the current chief executive and his shit-show of cabinet nominees. Go to the LGBT march in DC in June or find a protest in your area. Get out on the street and on the news.

Yiannopoulos is a clown that no one should take seriously. Sending anger and attention in his direction is exactly what he wants: making liberals look stupid.

 

[BinaryPork2737]

Hate speech is just speech someone else doesn't like. It changes day to day.

It used to be hate speech to say:
~ the sun revolved around the Earth
~ Women are just as good as men
~ the Jews aren't evil
~ the king(priest/pope/rabbi/imam/prophet....) 'could' be wrong (not even was wrong!)
~ the enemy nation is made of people too
~ the capitalist/socialist/communist is wrong/right
~ party X is right/wrong
~ god is/isn't real

Imagine whats said today, will be seen as completely nuts in a few decades. Hate speech is relative and always changing. Thank god hate speech isn't a real thing, else science would never have gotten us even this far!

None of that was ever considered hate speech though? Hate speech is usually defined as speech that threatens or slanders groups based on nationality, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, religion, or other traits. The Catholic Church didn't keep Galileo confined to his house because they believed he was promoting hate speech lol

 

[WhiskeyKnight]

Hate speech is definitely a thing. America is just ass backwards and doesn't have laws against it.

America is not ass backwards! At least not on this. The right to free speech is a fundamental building block of our republic and the single best product of the Enlightenment.

This quote is the reason we, as a highly-diverse society, can sort out our differences by talking to each other instead of killing each other:

 

[Afrodium]

Protests and riots are much more prevalent this election comparef to when Bush Jr cheated his way into office. I'm curious what changed.


It is a very serious allegation that gets thrown around far too easily lately. Same thing is happening to the word 'fascist'.

I don't how anyone who didn't spend 2016 in a coma would not be able to tell the difference between the 2000 and 2016 elections. A lot has changed in the last 15 years - 9/11 happened, the US went to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the internet took off in a big way, a black man was elected president of the United States twice, the US healthcare system was reformed, gay marriage was legalized nationwide in the US, mass shootings began happening on an almost weekly basis, a spotlight has been put on police brutality, Britain voted to leave the UK and authoritarian and isolationist views are gaining popularity in the western hemisphere - and those are just the highlights!

 

[TeddyShardik]

Nothing is getting done about this shit by being "polite" and turning the other cheek.
The people you are trying to educate with discussions are not willing to listen.
One party speaking while the other is tightening the noose around that partie's neck is not a dialogue or a base for civil discussion.

 

[Kinsei]

America is not ass backwards! At least not on this. The right to free speech is a fundamental building block of our republic and the single best product of the Enlightenment.

This quote is the reason we, as a highly-diverse society, can sort out our differences by talking to each other instead of killing each other:

Can you? It sure doesn't look that way to the rest of the world.

 

[Afrodium]

Rational, reasoned discourse. Fewer comparisons to nazis and Hitler. If conservatives are the ones looking less crazy and emotional, that's a huge problem for liberals.

The party who just got voted out of power is always considered the hysterical one. What do conservatives have to complain about now? We're just used to 8 years of Republicans losing their shit.

 

[legacyzero]

Do you think they have the right to a platform and people to listen to? Do you think protesting at Vets funerals saying that god hates them is okay? Those are not protected under the first amendment.

YES. IT IS.

He LITERALLY just mentioned ACLU cases that defended shitty people's Civil Rights, which is TRUE.

Perhaps you need to go look again at the First Amendment.

 

[GurgleBot20]

Are we still at the point where we believe that outing a trans student and attempting to get undocumented students deported is simply a political belief?

Say what you will about violent protests (it's been repeatedly pointed out that this instance of rioting was instigated by a third party), but given what's happening in the country currently, it should be low on the list of things to be concerned about.

 

[ZeroGravity]

America is not ass backwards! At least not on this. The right to free speech is a fundamental building block of our republic and the single best product of the Enlightenment.

This quote is the reason we, as a highly-diverse society, can sort out our differences by talking to each other instead of killing each other:

Yup. I miss the days when it was pretty universally agreed upon this was a very important quote to live by.

 

[FaytesEnd]

You're right. We should operate off a hypothetical future's standards instead of today's because there's a chance it might be different.

Also, some of that isn't even really hate speech?

All of this speech could land you in trouble with authorities at one point, It was 'hate' against prevailing social norms and was treated as such. People went to jail and were persecuted for it.

 

[LegendofLex]

Hate speech is just speech someone else doesn't like. It changes day to day.

It used to be hate speech to say:
~ the sun revolved around the Earth
~ Women are just as good as men
~ the Jews aren't evil
~ the king(priest/pope/rabbi/imam/prophet....) 'could' be wrong (not even was wrong!)
~ the enemy nation is made of people too
~ the capitalist/socialist/communist is wrong/right
~ party X is right/wrong
~ god is/isn't real

Absolutely not.

Hate speech is speech designed to deliberately threaten, insult, or harass people based on their sex, race, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, disability, or other identity characteristic.

None of the things you described above come even close to hitting that standard.

Do you think they have the right to a platform and people to listen to? Do you think protesting at Vets funerals saying that god hates them is okay? Those are not protected under the first amendment.

People have a right to protest almost anywhere they want.

But the vet's family shouldn't be forced to let the protesters come up before the funeral congregation and say something after the eulogy.

You're totally missing the nuance, there.

 

[Joeku]

As to the "free speech" stuff - A different friend of mine argues very strongly "its above and beyond the government, its a cornerstone of a democratic society". I have trouble disagreeing with that, yet I have no tolerance for Milo's speeches.

Plenty of countries that have stronger democracies than America have hate speech laws. The belief that "absolute free speech absolutely no matter what* is part what makes america the best country on earth" is misguided. *=

Spoiler

though even then there are caveats so it's not absolute

America is not ass backwards! At least not on this. The right to free speech is a fundamental building block of our republic and the single best product of the Enlightenment.

This quote is the reason we, as a highly-diverse society, can sort out our differences by talking to each other instead of killing each other:

Should someone ever say that ethnic cleansing might be a solution to anything I'll not give a word to defend them, much less my life.

 

[Inferno313]

Do you think they have the right to a platform and people to listen to? Do you think protesting at Vets funerals saying that god hates them is okay? Those are not protected under the first amendment.

Yes, as much as I hate, hate, HATE Westboro baptist. The SCOTUS reaffirmed their right to do the nasty shit they do with an 8-1 vote only a couple of years ago.

 

[onadesertedisland]

America is not ass backwards! At least not on this. The right to free speech is a fundamental building block of our republic and the single best product of the Enlightenment.

This quote is the reason we, as a highly-diverse society, can sort out our differences by talking to each other instead of killing each other:

Sure, unless you're a minority, or have a different sexual orientation, or "other", you can discuss things.

 

[Glix]

Hate speech is just speech someone else doesn't like. It changes day to day.

It used to be hate speech to say:
~ the sun revolved around the Earth
~ Women are just as good as men
~ the Jews aren't evil
~ the king(priest/pope/rabbi/imam/prophet....) 'could' be wrong (not even was wrong!)
~ the enemy nation is made of people too
~ the capitalist/socialist/communist is wrong/right
~ party X is right/wrong
~ god is/isn't real

Imagine whats said today, will be seen as completely nuts in a few decades. Hate speech is relative and always changing. Thank god hate speech isn't a real thing, else science would never have gotten us even this far!

There is a MASSIVE difference between hate speech and restricted speech

This post is utter nonsense.

 

[JackDT]

The big problem I have with this characterization is that somehow the 'Left' is a bunch of doucebags wearing black facemasks... and not the *millions* of leftists who made up the biggest protest in history -- the Woman's March -- that took place as far I know without any arrests or violence of any sort, and included children in the crowds, etc.

 

[cwmartin]

"replace fascist with anything else and see how it sounds"

Why is this being parroted as some kind of argument? The reason people are upset is because fascist is accurate to the current climate and its fucking heartbreaking. People have a right to be mad and angry as much as anyone else has a right to spew hateful bullshit.

 

[Cipherr]

The big problem I have with this characterization is that somehow the 'Left' is a bunch of doucebags wearing black facemasks... and not the *millions* of leftists who made up the biggest protest in history -- the Woman's March -- that took place as far I know without any arrests or violence of any sort, and included children in the crowds, etc.

Seriously, the Women's March was only days ago. Massive, peaceful, bigger than pretty much any other modern country-wide protests in decades.

And a few dozen guys at a comparatively small protest on one college campus undermines the entire concept of leftist politics.

The fuck?

Cherry picking. And everyone knows the intentions behind it. They were probably watching the march too, hoping some shit would happen but it didn't.

 

[eot]

If it was a genuine perspective, he'd also be talking about the guy who got shot by a Milo supporter, or the six dead Muslims from just days ago.

Instead he's building a case against the left, and only the left, giving cover to people who seek to do harm themselves.

So he had an opinion about the left, but he needs to talk about some other fucked up crime too? He's talking about the left because they're the people whose side he wants to be on, but he's finding himself alienated from them and believes they're hurting their own cause. It's not about who's worse, some other hate crime has got nothing to do with it and he's not implicitly condoning that by not mention it.

This thread is proving his point, that someone like him can't even make (in my opinion) a quite level headed criticism without being crucified for it. You can't kill discussion like that, it's toxic.