Support NeoGAF

[Tigress]

I agree with this. Milo Y. has no right to speak at Berkeley. He was granted permission to do so by the school, and that's their decision. But it's not an infringement of free speech to tell him he couldn't speak at the school. Free speech doesn't extend to "I can also go wherever I want to deliver my speech".

He has the right to speak, though. That doesn't mean he has the right to force people to hear him.

This is how I feel. He has a right to speak. He does not have a right to a platform. And if some one else owns a platform they have the right to allow him or not to allow him. And other people have the right to campaign and protest to convince the platform owner to not allow him.

I don't condone violence in the protest but as people said, the violent people were a third group coming in who just like to cause trouble. So it wasn't even the protestors so it's kinda a moot point.

The most effective peaceful protests involve self sacrifice as in you are willing to deal with bad effects the oppposing side might do to you. Trolling the side you dislike in a way to make you look innocent and cause them to display the behavior you are protesting. Which may mean they use that behavior against you (but in this way it makes them look evil and your cause more right). Ghandi and those protestors were cause they got to make the British government look bad through their own actions when reacting to the protestors. While they just looked like they were doing nothing wrong really. The idea is to get people to sympathize with you and more supporters (from people who may not have as strong an opinion. I've heard people argue these people just don't care but the point is to show them why they should care and to get them to care cause you have more chance of change if more people want it). Not just those who already agree with you (and to get those more supporters to along with you pressure the people you are protesting to stop when they get outnumbered).

I'm curious though, has there been cases of violent protests actually being effective (and we're not talking going outright to war. At that point everything has broken down into just settling it in who can cow the other side by show of force)?

 

[A Link to the Past]

To your post? That was your reasoning why you said Blow was wrong. That Milo promotes violence in his speeches.

Yes, I did point out that Blow was wrong to attack protesters because a small number of outsiders caused riots and destroy property in response to Milo's intent to cause harm to people.

 

[Ferrio]

last time I checked wasn't threatening violence/using actual violence to silence people you don't agree with the attitude you're supposed to be against?

It's an ideal, which means it's something we'd like to strive for but acknowledge it's not always the answer.

 

[Angelus Errare]

I'm sure everyone against protesting and the like aren't fans of America in general really; at the very least agree with the British circa revolutionary war.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

I'm curious though, has there been cases of violent protests actually being effective (and we're not talking going outright to war. At that point everything has broken down into just settling it in who can cow the other side by show of force)?

December 1941 when the US violently protested the Nazis by forcibly invading them to prevent them from murdering the Jewish population of the entire world.

 

[WhiskeyKnight]

I think you need to put some more thought into this one...

I've actually put a lot of thought into this.

My views, which I would classify as free speech fundamentalism, have been heavily influenced by the:

• Neuroscientist Sam Harris
• Social Psychologist John Haidt
• Clinical Psychologist Jordan Peterson
• Biologist Richard Dawkins
• Writer Christopher Hitchens
• Cognitive Scientist Paul Bloom
• Activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali
• Blogger Andrew Sullivan
• Comedian George Carlin
• Talk Show Host Bill Maher
• Pornographer Hugh Hefner
• Economist Glenn Loury
• Social Critic Camille Paglia
• Philosopher Peter Singer
• Journalist Douglas Murray
• Filmmaker Stanley Kubrick

And that's just the contemporary influences. I won't even begin to list the number of long dead writers that have influenced my thinking on this topic.

 

[Teeth]

You think he isn't talking about UC Berkley and you think he is implying its anarchists and not students? What did dimension are you living in? If this wasnt about protests and students then why is he mentioning milos and why is he tslking about an institution of higher learning? Why isn't he speaking directly towards anarchists while highlighting how peaceful it was before hand? Why is he talking about Richard Spencer and Nazi punching?

You're just looking the other way.

I think he's looking at his Facebook and Twitter feed full of people agreeing with punching Nazis and the advocating the necessity of violent protest to prevent monsters from speaking and saying that he believes both situations are wrong.

He is talking about the events that happened at UC Berkley, but if it was just a bunch of "boisterous but otherwise peaceful protests" he wouldn't have said shit.

If you are going to classify the people who performed the "violent" protests as anarchists, then yes, he is speaking directly to those people. He is also speaking to people who support those people. It couldn't be any clearer in his post. He doesn't mention the other protestors because he isn't speaking to the other protestors or those exclusively advocating for peaceful protest.

 

[MotionBlue]

I don't agree with violence. I can agree on the protest. So I guess the crux is if protesters should be held accountable for violence or damages that occurred during or in part with their protest.

 

[excelsiorlef]

The emboldening and enabling of hate speech and the wave that elevated Donald Trump to President has substantially alarmed the world and rightfully so. What is frustrating is the blatant misinformation that accompanies the hate speech is seemingly impervious to calm, factually-based responses. In fact, the demonification of the media along with an all out assault on fact and reason has left people feeling threatened and backed into a corner by the bullying perpetrators of this new alternate fact state. Enter Milo, a proud and evil monster, into a campus forum associated with a history of discourse and protest over government abuse that was at its peak during the Nixon years. He was more than glad to set fire to a powder keg of tensions for many reasons. And he got precisely what he and Bannon wanted - riots on a "liberal" campus that would predictably struggle with the decision to allow or disallow a scumbag like Milo to speak. Make no mistake, violence was not the right response here. However, not because it was unjustified, but because it served the very people it was meant to defeat.

I mean violence wasn't the response... literally a third party came in a fucked things up.

 

[Tain]

maybe the structure of the democratic primary isn't the best way to pick a candidate. even the party is recognizing that with the changes they're making to superdelegates.

"but the rules" is the lib mantra, even when trying to combat rule-ignoring fascists

 

[shark sandwich]

Couldn't agree with him more. It is really disgusting what liberals have become nowadays.

I remember when "liberal" used to mean that you listened to all sides and used reason to reach a conclusion. That you believed the cure for a bad argument is a better argument.

Now it pretty much means that you attempt to shame and silence anybody who goes against mainstream liberal thought.

Congrats, liberals. The alt-right got their money shot of a bunch of college kids rioting and shutting down a non-liberal. This is exactly the kind of shit that makes folks on the right want to vote for someone like Trump.

I despise everything Trump stands for, but I'm bitterly disappointed in the way liberals are responding to the alt-right movement. I thought we were supposed to be the good guys.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

I mean violence wasn't the response... literally a third party came in a fucked things up.

People should stop assuming that the "third party" was completely and utterly absent of any locals or Berkeley students.

 

[Ferrio]

I don't agree with violence. I can agree on the protest. So I guess the crux is if protesters should be held accountable for violence or damages that occurred during or in part with their protest.

I don't think I've seen anyone advocate that the people who did this damage should not be punished. I think we can all safely agree that yes they broke the law and should be punished.

 

[Get Buff]

Yeah he's such a swell guy when he publicly harasses a black actor for being in a Ghostbusters movie or harasses a trans woman at her own school as part of a power point presentation, what a rapscallion.

I wouldn't be talking to anyone about child logic.

The "public harassment of a black actor" has been accurately debunked about a million times by now and (in my opinion) did not constitute willful incitement, but I absolutely do not condone the outing of a trans woman. That was awful.

Do you think Milo has received death threats or threats of violence? If so, do you agree with those?

 

[Koh]

Sometimes I'm scared when I read these types of threads. I fully expected a long chain of people to be saying that the riotous behavior is counterproductive to the purpose of the protest. Instead I'm often reading justifications, deflections, marginalization, and suggestions that this is the way it has to be in the "new" world.

Prior to this, the news cycle was overwhelmingly negative towards the immigration executive orders, which receive criticism nearly across the board. It's taken a back seat to a more partisan discussion of protests vs riots, and that's the message making it to moderate America. Seems like a loss to me.

Politics is still a war of the minds and a war of words. To think a single presidential vote was the tipping point between the efficacy of words and violence is silly. The popular vote went to the opposition, and the opposition was quite frankly a poor selection that will easily be remedied come the next cycle.

Keep up the protests, keep confronting the policies, but condemn the extremists and destructive events within the group. They detract from the cause as is clearly evident from Blow's post.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

He doesn't mention the other protestors because he isn't speaking to the other protestors or those exclusively advocating for peaceful protest.

He directly and I quote says

"What's happening at Berkley is a breaking of that social comtract"

Tell me in plain words, if the administration, eye witnesess and the police say that the violence was caused by people who were not students or apart of the peaceful assembly, how is he justified in that statement? How is he not speaking directly to the students?

And again. I do not care what he is reading on fb. There is no epidemic of Nazi punching. Its god damn concern trolling to tell me people not feeling bad a guy that promotes genocide and a world without black people getting punched now means we live in a lawless world where we exercise violence on people we disagree with. No we god damn do not. It's not scary people agree that one bully got punched in the face for spouting white supremacy and genocide is deserved.

The literal only thing of note that haopened at UC Berkley is a group of people dressed in black descended on to a crowd and destroyed shit. Whether people agree with rioting is a complex issue but UC Berkley is not an example of anything. Te students have not broken any social contract.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

Couldn't agree with him more. It is really disgusting what liberals have become nowadays.

I remember when "liberal" used to mean that you listened to all sides and used reason to reach a conclusion. That you believed the cure for a bad argument is a better argument.

Now it pretty much means that you attempt to shame and silence anybody who goes against mainstream liberal thought.

Congrats, liberals. The alt-right got their money shot of a bunch of college kids rioting and shutting down a non-liberal. This is exactly the kind of shit that makes folks on the right want to vote for someone like Trump.

I despise everything Trump stands for, but I'm bitterly disappointed in the way liberals are responding to the alt-right movement. I thought we were supposed to be the good guys.

You spent 60 years + trying to be some enlightened centrist moderate and this practice has failed repeatedly. The US State has swung further and further to the right with each passing year and your elitist pacifism has resulted in the complete collapse of the social safety net, stagnation of wages, and now we have an Extreme Right Wing monopoly on the US government.

Self Righteous Liberals should stop lecturing people on how to combat the Extreme Right. You've failed in monumental fashion and you obviously don't know how to tackle problems.

 

[Tigress]

I agree with this. Milo Y. has no right to speak at Berkeley. He was granted permission to do so by the school, and that's their decision. But it's not an infringement of free speech to tell him he couldn't speak at the school. Free speech doesn't extend to "I can also go wherever I want to deliver my speech".

He has the right to speak, though. That doesn't mean he has the right to force people to hear him.

This is how I feel. He has a right to speak. He does not have a right to a platform. And if some one else owns a platform they have the right to allow him or not to allow him. And other people have the right to campaign and protest to convince the platform owner to not allow him.

I don't condone violence in the protest but as people said, the violent people were a third group coming in who just like to cause trouble. So it wasn't even the protestors so it's kinda a moot point.

The most effective peaceful protests involve self sacrifice as in you are willing to deal with bad effects the oppposing side might do to you. Trolling the side you dislike in a way to make you look innocent and cause them to display the behavior you are protesting. Which may mean they use that behavior against you (but in this way it makes them look evil and your cause more right). Ghandi and those protestors were cause they got to make the British government look bad through their own actions when reacting to the protestors. While they just looked like they were doing nothing wrong really. The idea is to get people to sympathize with you and more supporters (from people who may not have as strong an opinion. I've heard people argue these people just don't care but the point is to show them why they should care and to get them to care cause you have more chance of change if more people want it). Not just those who already agree with you (and to get those more supporters to along with you pressure the people you are protesting to stop when they get outnumbered).

I'm curious though, has there been cases of violent protests actually being effective (and we're not talking going outright to war. At that point everything has broken down into just settling it in who can cow the other side by show of force)?

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

The "public harassment of a black actor" has been accurately debunked about a million times by now and (in my opinion) did not constitute willful incitement, but I absolutely do not condone the outing of a trans woman. That was awful.

Do you think Milo has received death threats or threats of violence? If so, do you agree with those?

http://college.usatoday.com/2016/07/25/the-whole-leslie-jones-twitter-feud-explained/

You're blatantly lying.

 

[PeterGAF]

I'm sure everyone against protesting and the like aren't fans of America in general really; at the very least agree with the British circa revolutionary war.

I don't think anyone is against protesting. Some people are against violence in protests, and some others might take issue with throwing the world "nazi" around, but I don't think anyone in this thread has an issue with protesting. Nor should they. Protesting is part of your first amendment rights and it's one of the better, non violent ways of getting your voices heard. And voices need to be heard in a time like this when people are genuinely concerned about the direction their country is headed.

But violence and overreaction tends to hurt a message more than it helps.

 

[Koh]

You spent 60 years + trying to be some enlightened centrist moderate and this practice has failed repeatedly. The US State has swung further and further to the right with each passing year and your elitist pacifism has resulted in the complete collapse of the social safety net, stagnation of wages, and now we have an Extreme Right Wing monopoly on the US government.

Self Righteous Liberals should stop lecturing people on how to combat the Extreme Right. You've failed in monumental fashion and you obviously don't know how to tackle problems.

Obama was just in office and he won in a landslide. You are overreacting. It's one vote, not a trend.

 

[trh]

Sometimes I'm scared when I read these types of threads. I fully expected a long chain of people to be saying that the riotous behavior is counterproductive to the purpose of the protest. Instead I'm often reading justifications, deflections, marginalization, and suggestions that this is the way it has to be in the "new" world.

It's only in this "new world" that fascism and oppression is supposed to be met with conversation and well mannered protests.

Obama was just in office and he won in a landslide. You are overreacting. It's one vote, not a trend.

It's a trend when you look outside of the US, toward other western civilizations. Right wing fascism is quite clearly on the rise.

 

[RevolverRoden]

Hasnt read milo... Calls him a scumbag... Writes an essay on why people should let him speak... Hahahah what??? Am I missing something here.

The whole "replace fascist with another word" thing is really stupid. I get his point, but it's wrong. But the word "fascist" is not the same as "Muslim" or "black people" or whatever hes implying we replace "fascist" with and see how hypocritical these people are. Scum should be afraid. That is not the same as saying Muslims should be afraid.

Yeah milo has the right to say whatever he wants, but people also have the right to tell him to fuck off (especially if what he's saying is hate speech).

His point about nonviolence is true I guess. The US is a civilized country because of it's nonviolence. People may not realize that, but look at countries like Syria (where the government killed thousands of people for protesting) and you'll see why. Property destruction is pointless especially when the people who's property you're destroying have nothing to do with anything (and may even be on your side, not that that should be relevant).

Oh yeah and the "this is why trump won" thing is still bullshit and will always be bullshit.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

Obama was just in office and he won in a landslide. You are overreacting. It's one vote, not a trend.

And now Obama is gone and the temporary pumping of the brakes on the Right Wing monopoly has now resulted in the complete cutting of the brake line.

Anything Obama accomplished, which was very little, has been or will be rolled back with the stroke of a pen.

You'll still be debating the merits of liberalism while the far Right roll back health care, minimum wage, access to unions, women's access to healthcare, etc. Your self righteous debate does nothing for them, it only serves to make you feel better about yourself.

Yeah milo has the right to say whatever he wants, but people also have the right to tell him to fuck off (especially if what he's saying is hate speech).

If you say something vile and racist and someone reacts to it through violence, they're not prosecuted for violating one's free speech, they're prosecuted for breaking the public peace and assault.

At no point is violating someone's speech considered in the prosecution, because an individual can not violate your right to speech.

 

[staticneuron]

Alt righters, Nazis etc. Talk about inflicting violence upon minorities, foreign countries etc. They have gained significant popularity worldwide so their message is suceeding.

Sitting down and trying to talk it out with these kinds of people is ridiculous because they aren't burdened by decency.

And also a strong point to mention is that they are basically labeling themselves. It is not some third party grasping at straws.

 

[Screaming Meat]

Look in the mirror. Exactly what is it about Nazis that puts them in a special class beyond all other people that says they shouldn't be allowed to express their views?

Spoiler

And no, they're not the only ones that have committed atrocities in history, but they are one of the ones that exist explicitly on a platform of oppression and extermination.

Anyone who thinks genocide is a logical conclusion or grand end game doesn't deserve to be given a platform.

Why is a Nazi's freedom to express their hateful views more important than the well being of those they seek to oppress/exterminate?

 

[Mr. X]

Why white people continue enabling racism and white supremacy?

 

[capitalCORN]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/617220/EU-migrant-crisis-Merkel-Germany-rise-neo-Nazism-refugees

http://www.newsweek.com/neo-nazi-activity-rise-europe-316465

https://www.opendemocracy.net/david-volodzko/modern-rise-of-nazi-chic

Obviously just a trend.

 

[cartographer]

Why white people continue enabling racism and white supremacy?

Fragility.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

Why white people continue enabling racism and white supremacy?

Because they see what the consequences are for people who openly spout racism and fear retribution for their deep rooted but unstated classist beliefs.

 

[mckmas8808]

I feel like a lot of people need to be reminded of Skokie. Remember, when the ACLU defended Nazis because it was better than letting free speech be destroyed?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/remembering-the-nazis-in_b_188739.html

This is different than wanting them to speak on your campus. Nobody is asking for Milo to be jailed.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

Spoiler

And no, they're not the only ones that have committed atrocities in history, but they are one of the ones that exist explicitly on a platform of extermination. Anyone who thinks genocide is a logical conclusion/end game doesn't deserve to be given a platform.

Why is their ability to express their hateful views more important than the well being of those they seek to oppress?

People demanded we "debate" the fascists in the 30s and that resulted in the liquidation of tens of millions of people.

Hitler himself stated as much, that debate would never have stopped their movement.


Both Stalin and the US begged my ancestors to not openly confront the Japanese while the Japanese were steadily murdering us by the hundreds of thousands.

 

[Spaghetti]

I always have to wonder why the onus is on liberal society to engage with fascists when they have no interest of doing the same, and would prefer to see the opposing side crushed under their heel.

These College talks are recruitment tours.

 

[excelsiorlef]

The "public harassment of a black actor" has been accurately debunked about a million times by now and (in my opinion) did not constitute willful incitement, but I absolutely do not condone the outing of a trans woman. That was awful.

Do you think Milo has received death threats or threats of violence? If so, do you agree with those?

Debunked?!

Oooook moving on...

He made up fake tweets and tweeted them out to his followers to incite them to flood her... and then got banned forever from the place that lets Richard Spencer still tweet.

Oh you're gone... I see... bye.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

There is nuance to this situation that Blow is missing. We should absolutely support free speech, even the allowance of hate speech, but if hate speech crosses the line to political action, action which seeks to enshrine that unjustifiable, evil hatred in the form of denying civil rights via legally enforceable laws, we must resist by any means necessary, and that includes violence as a last resort. Otherwise, what is the point of progression in civil society towards egalitarianism as as ideal? If we allow fascism and autocracy to happen in our reluctance to defend the actual rights of people with force, maintaining support for the idea of freedom of expression winds up being nothing more than lip service covering for a fox in the hen house.

That is what frustrated good people are trying to articulate when they say we should punch Nazis in the face. A batman type of justice (beat down to disarm but don't stoop low by killing) when everything else has gone to shit.

 

[onadesertedisland]

The alt-right nazis depend on the left and moderates to not act against them under the premise of promoting free speech. Given the opportunity, the alt-right would brutally suppress free speech, protests, and any show of opposition. The alt-right must understand that freedom of speech is not something the public owes anyone, but a point made by our constitution for the government to not infringe. They are just testing the waters to see how much they can get away with. Say what you will, but understand there will be consequences.

 

[platakul]

I've actually put a lot of thought into this.

My views, which I would classify as free speech fundamentalism, have been heavily influenced by the:

• Neuroscientist Sam Harris
• Social Psychologist John Haidt
• Clinical Psychologist Jordan Peterson
• Biologist Richard Dawkins
• Writer Christopher Hitchens
• Cognitive Scientist Paul Bloom
• Activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali
• Blogger Andrew Sullivan
• Comedian George Carlin
• Talk Show Host Bill Maher
• Pornographer Hugh Hefner
• Economist Glenn Loury
• Social Critic Camille Paglia
• Philosopher Peter Singer
• Journalist Douglas Murray
• Filmmaker Stanley Kubrick

And that's just the contemporary influences. I won't even begin to list the number of long dead writers that have influenced my thinking on this topic.

Youd be better off just listening to cum town

 

[Teeth]

He directly and I quote says

"What's happening at Berkley is a breaking of that social comtract"

Tell me in plain words, if the administration, eye witnesess and the police say that the violence was caused by people who were not students or apart of the peaceful assembly, how is he justified in that statement? How is he not speaking directly to the students?

And again. I do not care what he is reading on fb. There is no epidemic of Nazi punching. Its god damn concern trolling to tell me people not feeling bad a guy that promotes genocide and a world without black people getting punched now means we live in a lawless world where we exercise violence on people we disagree with. No we god damn do not.

The beginning of that paragraph talks about property damage and how it affects real people. He then says "what I'm seeing at Berkley"...which means the events that happened at Berkley that involved property damage. Every preceding paragraph of his statement starts by referencing property damage and violence and how he doesn't like how people in a group he used to classify himself as a part of advocating or back patting for those things and he disagrees with it.

If you want to classify it as some dog whistling, anti-protest screed, I would disagree.

I would classify it as status quo, non-violence-above-all supporting rhetoric.

It's not concern trolling to think that advocating punching Nazis is something he doesn't agree with. It's something he doesn't agree with based on his own principles and he doesn't like that a lot of members of his previous allegiance did advocate it. People had and are saying that punching Nazis is the right thing to do. There is not a campaign for it, but people are specifically saying they are okay with it and would continue to applaud it if it happened more. Some are outright saying that it should happen more. He doesn't agree with that and states why he thinks so.

I don't know where you're getting the rest of this from.

 

[Man Called Aerodynamics]

"Be polite. Don't say mean things. Stay home. Don't protest. Don't march. Engage with their ideas."

Nope. We're way past that. People are out in the streets demanding justice. If you don't like that, too goddamn bad.

 

[MrGerbils]

last time I checked wasn't threatening violence/using actual violence to silence people you don't agree with the attitude you're supposed to be against?

There's a difference between disagreeing with someone, and someone saying the holocaust was good.

This isn't a blurry line or a slippery slope. It's a literal nazi.

There is no "Well who are you to decide who is and isn't a nazi?" These dudes say they're nazis. They heil Hitler at their meetings. They purposefully style themselves after the Hitler youth. They wear swastikas.

There's no, "Well first it's nazis, but next it could be anyone else you disagree with." No. There's people who want the extermination of entire races, and then there's people I disagree with. That is a hard and firm line that is easy to distinguish.

We aren't saying "punch republicans." We aren't saying "Punch people who support Trump." People are saying "Punch Nazis."

 

[staticneuron]

Obama was just in office and he won in a landslide. You are overreacting. It's one vote, not a trend.

Really?

After Obama's second election.. 300 hate groups were formed. Militia groups went from 149 to 1360.



The thing about this is numbers. Groups have been tracking the growth of them in the states. The media reports shows the growth outside of the states as well.

and....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/617220/EU-migrant-crisis-Merkel-Germany-rise-neo-Nazism-refugees

http://www.newsweek.com/neo-nazi-activity-rise-europe-316465

https://www.opendemocracy.net/david-volodzko/modern-rise-of-nazi-chic

Obviously just a trend.

Thanks capitalCORN. This has been going on alot over the past few years and has led to some very interesting reports and political stances and elections.

 

[JeTmAn81]

Spoiler

And no, they're not the only ones that have committed atrocities in history, but they are one of the ones that exist explicitly on a platform of oppression and extermination.

Anyone who thinks genocide is a logical conclusion or grand end game doesn't deserve to be given a platform.

Why is a Nazi's freedom to express their hateful views more important than the well being of those they seek to oppress/exterminate?

I'll see you that picture of Nazi atrocities and raise you one of American atrocities in the Phillippines. I'm linking it because how about we don't randomly shove pictures of dead bodies at everyone?

https://espressostalinist.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/jolomassacre1906.jpg

I guess Americans should all have their free speech rights arbitrarily removed as well, huh?

 

[Koh]

It's only in this "new world" that fascism and oppression is supposed to be met with conversation and well mannered protests.


It's a trend when you look outside of the US, toward other western civilizations. Right wing fascism is quite clearly on the rise.

Are you not expecting to not have a presidential vote in 2020? Do you really think that Trump is going to become a dictator? If not, then absolutely the way to defeat Trump is to get the hearts and minds of the people.

Policies enacted will have impacts that people can see and respond to (we already see this, find a moderate that supports the immigration order). You're off the deep end if you think destruction and fear is the effective way to convince people to go against fascism (which uses the same things).

 

[Mass Effect]

Look in the mirror. Exactly what is it about Nazis that puts them in a special class beyond all other people that says they shouldn't be allowed to express their views? Do you think the Nazi party was the only one to perpetrate horrors in history?

Is this... is this a serious question?

Stalin killed millions. Should we keep communists from speaking their opinions as well?

Have you heard of McCarthyism?

Also, you can't compare the general ideology of communism to Nazism. What you're looking for is Stalinism.

 

[APF]

Are you not expecting to not have a presidential vote in 2020? Do you really think that Trump is going to become a dictator?

There is a far greater than non-zero chance of both of these. Arguably, many people are already disenfranchised irt their rights to vote and already the donald has been in direct defiance of the judiciary.

 

[eot]

There is a far greater than non-zero chance of both of these.

get a grip

 

[Mr. X]

Are you not expecting to not have a presidential vote in 2020? Do you really think that Trump is going to become a dictator? If not, then absolutely the way to defeat Trump is to get the hearts and minds of the people.

Policies enacted will have impacts that people can see and respond to (we already see this, find a moderate that supports the immigration order). You're off the deep end if you think destruction and fear is the effective way to convince people to go against fascism (which uses the same things).

If they gerrymandering and enact their laser targeted goter id laws, a lot of people won't be able to or it won't matter.

 

[mckmas8808]

While I agree that Milo is trolling (he admits as much), I think implying that literally every single stupid thing that comes out of his mouth is just hot air is a bit naive.

How do you actually know he's trolling and doesn't really believe this stuff?

 

[Dick Jones]

December 1941 when the US violently protested the Nazis by forcibly invading them to prevent them from murdering the Jewish population of the entire world.

Fairly revisionist history there. The Americans really only gave a shit about fascism after Pearl Harbour. No fucks were given by the American people to the Jewish population up to then. In fact during the 1930s the US had no qualms about sending Jewish refugees packing.

 

[AzaK]

Blow is conflating the concepts of fascists and "people i don't like". The two are generally very, very different.

Maybe he's too comfortable in his life now to bother with fighting anything, but almost nothing ever gets changed in a society without physical resistance of some sort. And people who spread hate and promote violence should expect such physical resistance to their ideals.