Support NeoGAF

[capitalCORN]

I can tell who's been in a fight in their life in this forum or not. If you doubt the justice of fists, you are a coddled fringe of nerves who shrinks at hardships you've never had in life so far.

 

[Iztli]

Violence against freedom of speech is never justified. No question about it. My problem with with such people like Milo, alt-right, etc. is when ones rhetoric gains traction and leads to violence which creates a radical base which wants to oppress.. When should one stop such ideas that infect masses with hared?

 

[Saint Gregory]

The satire born from this living hell is the only thing keeping me going now.

 

[TenCentCoast]

okay

 

[Sai-kun]

i'm okay condoning it

punch away yall

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I find it telling that none of you are willing to engage with the arguments posed in the opinion piece. Instead, we post nazi-punching images and say, "Nah."

Using violence to suppress free speech does nothing but empower the movement you're trying to suppress. And that's been clear with the Milo incident. Milo arguably gained more followers and attention due to the violence at his event than he would have if the event was just held & peacefully protested. The violence brought him legitimacy and only strengthened his rhetoric.

This isn't about protest. It's about violence being used to suppress free speech.

The violence is to keep Milo from talking at campuses so he can't endanger people.

One of Milo's Nazi fans shot a protester literally one week before this event and a total of zero "concerned serious people" cared. Milo openly targets students in his speeches that are given to Nazis who then could go and try to murder these people. Milo's whole thing is violence and people who ignore that are stupid.

 

[rjinaz]

As a student of worldwide history you should know that Gandhi is famous because it was the ONLY TIME a pacific protest worked.

The USA started with a violent protest, Black history is filled with violent protests to gets shit done and the history of the LGBT movement started with a violent protest.

When people confure free speech with freedom to hate (xkcd.jpg) it makes people ANGRY with the system and angriness is best shown with violence, preferable against glass, walls and buildings...

I also feel like this isn't the same ball game that even MLK was dealing with. Segregation and Civil rights were a clear form of racism. The institutional racism that occurs now is much easier to ignore or deny which is what most do. This causes others to view the protestors as the real trouble causers because in their minds, racism is really over and it ended with civil rights.

I just don't think it's the same thing as it was and that also means the same conventions may not wield the same results.

 

[rec0ded1]

They can say whatever they want but providing a platform to incite shenanigans?...nah.

Peaceful protests are free speech, it's so shameful that people are against them. The republican students and milo should be understanding of the anxiety about fascism affecting these people. Being against peaceful protests is not how you change minds.Violent acts were done by black bloc agitators from out of state.

 

[EatinOlives]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the violence started by anarchists who infiltrated the otherwise peaceful protest? Why isn't this being acknowledged in that statement?

 

[Bronx-Man]

I find it telling that none of you are willing to engage with the arguments posed in the opinion piece. Instead, we post nazi-punching images and say, "Nah."

Using violence to suppress free speech does nothing but empower the movement you're trying to suppress. And that's been clear with the Milo incident. Milo arguably gained more followers and attention due to the violence at his event than he would have if the event was just held & peacefully protested. The violence brought him legitimacy and only strengthened his rhetoric.

This isn't about protest. It's about violence being used to suppress free speech.

So your idea is to let people with histories of harassment continue to harass people because actually doing something about it would empower them.

Yeaaaaah, I'm not a fan of this idea.

 

[LionPride]

Hey, i'll let you say whatever dumb shit you want. I may also punch you in the throat for it.

 

[Siegcram]

The violence brought him legitimacy and only strengthened his rhetoric.

Wrong on both counts. It only further legitimized him in the eyes of those already in agreement with him.

Nobody on the fence goes "Oh, there was a violent protest against a known instigator who has openly harrassed minorities at his previous talks? He must be doing something right."

 

[Magus1234]

I can tell who's been in a fight in their life in this forum or not. If you doubt the justice of fists, you are a coddled fringe of nerves who shrinks at hardships you've never had in life so far.

I can tell who has been in jail on this forum or not too...

 

[sphagnum]

I find it telling that none of you are willing to engage with the arguments posed in the opinion piece. Instead, we post nazi-punching images and say, "Nah."

Using violence to suppress free speech does nothing but empower the movement you're trying to suppress. And that's been clear with the Milo incident. Milo arguably gained more followers and attention due to the violence at his event than he would have if the event was just held & peacefully protested. The violence brought him legitimacy and only strengthened his rhetoric.

This isn't about protest. It's about violence being used to suppress free speech.

Not resisting them and allowing them an open platform is what let them get to this point.

 

[adamy]

Everything you're saying sounds stupid.

Excellent thought out post, please elaborate

 

[OniBarubary]

I find it telling that none of you are willing to engage with the arguments posed in the opinion piece. Instead, we post nazi-punching images and say, "Nah."

Using violence to suppress free speech does nothing but empower the movement you're trying to suppress. And that's been clear with the Milo incident. Milo arguably gained more followers and attention due to the violence at his event than he would have if the event was just held & peacefully protested. The violence brought him legitimacy and only strengthened his rhetoric.

This isn't about protest. It's about violence being used to suppress free speech.

Why should any of us waste our time to argue with someone who posts disingenuous arguments in every thread about Trump supporters, white supremacists, hate groups and the general shit of the world and how we're always dealing with them wrong and all about love yet never seems to come out when something shitty happens to all the victims of those people?

What's "telling" about nobody engaging with your arguments is that most people have caught on to your shit at this point and that your arguments don't stem from a genuine place of willing discourse.

 

[EdibleKnife]

I'm pretty sure that harassment exceeds the bounds of free speech. You don't get to target people for victimization and violence and then hide behind free speech protections.

This. People keep stopping their thought process at the fact that something someone was saying was free speech. Free speech isn't automatically neutral. It can be dangerous and harmful. You're free to say it but people shouldn't be surprised when speech filled with calls to harass someone, attack someone or eliminate an entire race is responded to as the danger that it is.

 

[Violence Jack]

Fuck that. If you're talking about killing or harming innocent minorities, that's not free speech, that's a fucking threat and I'll approach it like one

 

[capitalCORN]

I can tell who has been in jail on this forum or not too...

My hands are clean, my justice stands immaculate. Ever been bullied? Did shrinking behind rhetoric fix the situation?

 

[MattKeil]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the violence started by anarchists who infiltrated the otherwise peaceful protest? Why isn't this being acknowledged in that statement?

Because that isn't helpful to the narrative being pushed.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

The violence at these things has been largely from anarchists. It's not violence to suppress free speech, it's violence because that's what asshole anarchists do. And yes the left has had some fun at punching a guy that should probably have been punched much earlier in his life, but even that was done by an anarchist, wasn't it?

The vast, vast majority of the protests have also been non-violent free speech. I don't get why we keep lumping in what's probably 1 or 2% of people and letting them taint an entire movement, especially when there's large evidence those people aren't even part of that same movement but rather using the chaos for their own disphittery.

My own opinion is that whoever punches an asshole like Milo or Spencer should probably have consequences. We shouldn't legalize punching people. That said, I'm sure as fuck going to celebrate punching people like those two. Always. Bullies getting punched is just something I will always love.

because large portions of the non-violent 99% of the the movement refrains from condemning, or even condone, the violence

as demonstrated itt

 

[More Fun To Compute]

As a student of worldwide history you should know that Gandhi is famous because it was the ONLY TIME a pacific protest worked..

Really? Analysis of the data shows that non violent movements had 53% success rate while violent movements had 23% success rate. This continues to non violence being 2x effective at achieving goals partially. One of the major reasons why is that violence is extremely exclusionary towards to groups like women and the vulnerable.

 

[Frozenprince]

I find it telling that none of you are willing to engage with the arguments posed in the opinion piece. Instead, we post nazi-punching images and say, "Nah."

Using violence to suppress free speech does nothing but empower the movement you're trying to suppress. And that's been clear with the Milo incident. Milo arguably gained more followers and attention due to the violence at his event than he would have if the event was just held & peacefully protested. The violence brought him legitimacy and only strengthened his rhetoric.

This isn't about protest. It's about violence being used to suppress free speech.

Violence and the threat of violence has been used to keep people silent for centuries. It's why many minority groups still won't mobilize and speak out against injustice, they fear reprisal and a violent escalation from the police ostensibly there to protect their right to protest.

Riot cops sent into minority neighborhoods, SWAT teams sent in to cul-de-sacs, racist militias riding down the street or organizing marches and parades while armed to the teeth.

Violence and intimidation is a long, time honored tactic of the far right and those that either tacitly or implicitly support it. That the left is just now realizing en masse that violent retaliation is now on the table does not mean we should table it because some bigot got more Twitter followers for his echo chamber.

If a violent response to violent provocation is enough to make more peoplr endorse someone like that, they are not worth trying to turn to your avenue in the first place.

 

[Rembrandt]

So satisfying.

Lmaooo.

 

[RedHill]

We really gonna bring up Milo protestors when it's one of his own supporters that SHOT someone recently? You wanna talk about violence? There's your fucking violence, "peaceful" moderate

 

[rjinaz]

I find it telling that none of you are willing to engage with the arguments posed in the opinion piece. Instead, we post nazi-punching images and say, "Nah."

Using violence to suppress free speech does nothing but empower the movement you're trying to suppress. And that's been clear with the Milo incident. Milo arguably gained more followers and attention due to the violence at his event than he would have if the event was just held & peacefully protested. The violence brought him legitimacy and only strengthened his rhetoric.

This isn't about protest. It's about violence being used to suppress free speech.

Well personally I'm glad he is seeing success odd as that may sound. Let the nazis and nazi supporters come out in the open. I hope Milo becomes a god damn star. Because people like to deny this shit is real. It's harder to do when it's out in the open. And it's not that these people are being swayed by Milo by just being introduced to him. No the thoughts and feelings are there. They just see it out on the open and it emboldens them. Hard to fight oppression when it works behind closed doors and doesn't provide a target.

 

[Sweeney Tom]

 

[smokeandmirrors]

fascism 101: disingenuously embrace institution of free speech to get what you want and immediately strip that right from the undesirables once in power.

so in short ill condone what i want.

 

[capitalCORN]

We really gonna bring up Milo protestors when it's one of his own supporters that SHOT someone recently? You wanna talk about violence? There's your fucking violence, "peaceful" moderate

"Hugs 4 Bullets everyone!"

 

[BajiBoxer]

it's very disturbing if usa don't have hate speech laws to put a stop to stuff like that

With the political power Christian conservatives have, it would likely have been used to supress criticism of their religion.

 

[hie]

I remember how many people were delighted when this happened and were calling the cops heroes and whatnot.

I don't. He was fired and the students were awarded $1,000,000. It also sparked more protests.

 

[Oersted]

I find it telling that none of you are willing to engage with the arguments posed in the opinion piece. Instead, we post nazi-punching images and say, "Nah."

Using violence to suppress free speech does nothing but empower the movement you're trying to suppress. And that's been clear with the Milo incident. Milo arguably gained more followers and attention due to the violence at his event than he would have if the event was just held & peacefully protested. The violence brought him legitimacy and only strengthened his rhetoric.

This isn't about protest. It's about violence being used to suppress free speech.

If you think the conviction that there are lesser human beings based on their origin/gender/ sexual conviction can gain legitimacy due to the action of others, you are a lost cause.

The dignity of humans is not up to negotiation. Its thats simple. He opposes that.

 

[Elfotografoalocado]

The free speech of a Nazi is directed at silencing others and robbing them of their free speech, preventive measures of not giving them a stage are perfectly justified.
Nobody is preventing him from speaking, just not on their turf.

 

[How About No]

Using violence to suppress free speech does nothing but empower the movement you're trying to suppress. And that's been clear with the Milo incident. Milo arguably gained more followers and attention due to the violence at his event than he would have if the event was just held & peacefully protested. The violence brought him legitimacy and only strengthened his rhetoric.

If a white supremacist getting punched in the face is getting more people to come to the side of white supremacists...well...let's just say those people were never going to come to your side in the first place.

 

[BinaryPork2737]

It's true, the reactions to Milo's attendance were utterly disgusting and embarrassing. Goes against everything the free speech movement stands for which Berkeley started

You know what's utterly disgusting and embarrassing? People who allow others like Milo to publicly slander, disgrace, and humiliate others under the guise of free speech. The direct harassment of non-public figures, public figures being celebrities, politicians, and others within the public eye, is not protected under the first amendment.

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1325555

Milo and others like him can fuck right off. How about that instead?

 

[OniBarubary]

Really? Analysis of the data shows that non violent movements had 53% success rate while violent movements had 23% success rate. This continues to non violence being 2x effective at achieving goals partially. One of the major reasons why is that violence is extremely exclusionary towards to groups like women and the vulnerable.

Might wanna provide that data.

 

[Already Torn]

Excellent thought out post, please elaborate

Do you not understand what stupid is?

 

[Funkyhamster]

I can't believe we are still talking about an event where the speaker intended to get up in front of an audience and specifically target/identify innocent people over their immigration status. He had to be stopped.

Yeah, I don't get why college administrators keep framing the protests around Milo as an issue of censoring free speech. In general, I tend to agree with the idea that free speech is important, and that we shouldn't ban Condoleeza Rice from speaking just because she supported the Iraq War or whatever. And I acknowledge that the issue gets complicated when you start to consider speakers with offensive views that border on hate speech. But given that Milo has a history of targeting individual students, it seems like there shouldn't even be a question of whether his behavior constitutes free speech, and college administrators should easily be able to justify banning Milo from speaking as a matter of protecting their students from harassment.

 

[Frozenprince]

Milo has literally had hate mobs threaten people he's doxxed and harassed with death and bodily harm.

At a certain point, you cross a line from being a Rush Limbaugh, content to spew hate but never actively hunt people down, to someone that whom only violence and attack him back can repudiate his hatred.

 

[Kemal86]

I find it telling that none of you are willing to engage with the arguments posed in the opinion piece. Instead, we post nazi-punching images and say, "Nah."

Using violence to suppress free speech does nothing but empower the movement you're trying to suppress. And that's been clear with the Milo incident. Milo arguably gained more followers and attention due to the violence at his event than he would have if the event was just held & peacefully protested. The violence brought him legitimacy and only strengthened his rhetoric.

This isn't about protest. It's about violence being used to suppress free speech.

What's telling? Is it telling that we won't tolerate a Nazi who wants our friends and family members exterminated? Then fuck yeah, it is telling.

It's not about "violence being used to suppress free speech"

It's about using whatever means necessary to protect the disenfranchised and the vulnerable from being identified and physically harmed.

You keep saying "free speech" - first off, I'm not sure you know what that actually means, and second, that's not the point - at all.

The point is that Milo publicly identifies individuals, by name, and calls on his supporters to go after them. It's more than "rhetorical violence" - he incites his followers to attack people, he identifies those who do not wish to be identified.

If you want to stand back, arms folded, and take the "more high ground" while Milo and his supporters hunt down LGBT people and immigrants, that's your prerogative. If you can live with standing on the sidelines, go right ahead. The rest of us will be punching Nazis until every last one of them is terrified to step outside.

 

[ant_]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the violence started by anarchists who infiltrated the otherwise peaceful protest? Why isn't this being acknowledged in that statement?

He's addressed this previously. I believe Chancellor Dirks is just now addressing the trend as a whole; which is clearly becoming more normalized (see: this thread)

So your idea is to let people with histories of harassment continue to harass people because actually doing something about it would empower them.

Yeaaaaah, I'm not a fan of this idea.

No, you're misrepresenting nearly everything about this thread. It's not about non-protest, it's about non-violent protest. Violence degrades the movement. This is historically true. Non-violent movements have a much higher success rate.

Wrong on both counts. It only further legitimized him in the eyes of those already in agreement with him.

Nobody on the fence goes "Oh, there was a violent protest against a known instigator who has openly harrassed minorities at his previous talks? He must be doing something right."

If you'd like to simplify it like this, sure. That's not how the world works. Sentiments don't change immediately, they are slowly transformed over time. Initiating violence also causes the oppressor to react in-kind. As I said above - it's not about non-protest, it's about non-violent protest. Non-violent protest and civil disobedience are how to enact change.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

We really gonna bring up Milo protestors when it's one of his own supporters that SHOT someone recently? You wanna talk about violence? There's your fucking violence, "peaceful" moderate

Milo is a man whose only fans are armed Nazis and he goes around campuses telling Nazis about which people are degenerates who should be shot.

This is free speech, not violence #ModerateRepublican

 

[RDreamer]

because large portions of the non-violent 99% of the the movement refrains from condemning, or even condone, the violence

as demonstrated itt

Oh my fucking ass. Have you polled the people walking in the street? This thread isn't a direct representative sample at all, and even on this forum we have a ton of people not condoning the violence. Why the fuck do 99% of people have to try and demonstrate to you that they don't condone it? What exactly do they have to do to satisfy you? You know what I think shows what they really intend? The fact that they're peacefully demonstrating and not being violent themselves. That should be good enough.

 

[sphagnum]

Wrong on both counts. It only further legitimized him in the eyes of those already in agreement with him.

Nobody on the fence goes "Oh, there was a violent protest against a known instigator who has openly harrassed minorities at his previous talks? He must be doing something right."

Exactly. Whenever we see this argument pop up, we need to think "who is it that is being pushed over to Milo's side by the actions of the protestors?" Because I don't think we're seeing many black or Hispanic or Muslim or Jewish or trans people suddenly going "Hm, maybe I should give Milo or Spencer a listen since he's more civilized then those protestors".

There's only one group in this country who would think like that on a large scale, and it's the people already privileged enough to think that there might be something to right wing beliefs: white people. And obviously there's also a lot of white people happy to see fascists get shut down too. So this just reveals how many whites were already susceptible to such right wing rhetoric in the first place.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Wrong on both counts. It only further legitimized him in the eyes of those already in agreement with him.

Nobody on the fence goes "Oh, there was a violent protest against a known instigator who has openly harrassed minorities at his previous talks? He must be doing something right."

THANK YOU. If violence or protesting against a harasser legitimizes their point in your eyes, then you're a terrible fucking person and probably would have agreed with them either way. Someone who disagrees with Milo isn't going to be pushed into agreement because of something like that. That's a ridiculous, stupid, unfounded idea

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

Do not enable Nazis to build their ovens in the name of peaceful politics.

Berkeley protestors were right and it's only going to escalate.

 

[Dongs Macabre]

This is not about free speech. It's about Milo harassing minorities and inciting violence.

Framing it as shutting down free speech is incredibly misleading.

 

[Bronx-Man]

No, you're misrepresenting nearly everything about this thread. It's not about non-protest, it's about non-violent protest. Violence degrades the movement. This is historically true. Non-violent movements have a much higher success rate.

This WAS a non-violent protest until anarchists decided to get involved.

 

[Palette Swap]

If allowing and subjecting students to rhetorical violence (something we have video evidence of, in Milo's case) is something your community stands for, then your community is frankly worthless.

Yeah, it's disingenuous to frame this as only a free speech issue, while ignoring the precedents his interventions have set (singling out a trans student and opening them to harassment? Someone getting shot?)

At the very least, people who make these grand proclamations about violence vs free speech could address the violence these speakers bring with them.

 

[Sir Abacus]

An essay about conservatives complaining about liberal "intolerance"

The progressive liberal agenda isn’t about being nice. It’s about confronting evil, violence, trauma, and death. It’s about acknowledging the ways systemic power, systemic oppression, systemic evil, work in our world around us. I’m not fighting for diversity. I’m not fighting for tolerance. I’m fighting to overturn horrific systems of dehumanizing oppression.

When liberals storm the cities’ streets to protest, rally, and yes, riot, in response to a Trump election, conservatives cry foul. They cry double-standard. Liberals expect conservatives to accept election results they don’t like; why won’t the liberals accept election results that didn’t go in their favor? Why won’t the liberals be relativists, like we want them to be, and treat all outcomes as equally valid?

Because all political decisions aren’t equally right. Aren’t equally moral. Aren’t equally recognizing of human dignity and justice and freedom. Because liberals recognize that there are wrong and right decisions, because they parse good and evil, contrary to what my church taught me about them.

Because democracy isn’t the only value we hold. We don’t accept the 51% enslaving the 49% by popular vote. We believe in human rights. We believe in the Bill of Rights. Because we balance the will of the people with the sanctity of each individual life. And no, your right to not sell flowers doesn’t outweigh someone else’s right to get married. Because not all rights are equal.

We fight for what's right. I don't apologize for that. At least, not anymore.