The Berkeley Incident and Free Speech

[Conserative Morality]

Or rather, violent action as a form of self-defense against hate speech. In the case of speakers who would use their platform to endanger others by doxxing individual people or encouraging harassment and abuse towards entire groups, I could see the point in such an argument.

The individual op-eds are fairly nuanced and thoughtful. While I am unsure as to whether I could in fact agree with them, I can appreciate the fact that they are taking this seriously and are not speaking in bad faith, but out of genuine concerns.

All or nothing. These half-assed defenses of violence are pointless and cowardly.

[Liriena]

So apparently the Berkley paper published Op Ed's defending violence as a means of suppressing speech.

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/viol ... f-defense/

I saw that, bunch of violent extremist.

Writing an op-ed making a positive argument for black bloc actions as a tool for no-platforming a public figure with a history of doxxing private individuals with far less power and influence doesn't make you a "violent extremist". At most it makes you an apologist.

Side comment: the comments sections in the op-eds are predictably cancerous.

[Patridam]

So apparently the Berkley paper published Op Ed's defending violence as a means of suppressing speech.

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/viol ... f-defense/

Or rather, violent action as a form of self-defense against hate speech. In the case of speakers who would use their platform to endanger others by doxxing individual people or encouraging harassment and abuse towards entire groups, I could see the point in such an argument.

The individual op-eds are fairly nuanced and thoughtful. While I am unsure as to whether I could in fact agree with them, I can appreciate the fact that they are taking this seriously and are not speaking in bad faith, but out of genuine concerns.

I'm a bit concerned that there were 5 op eds in favor of political violence and against freedom of speech and none in opposition. Not sure if this is purposeful limitations of opinions by the newspaper, fear of retribution to be brought against any student even vaguely defending Milo (totally justified concerns given the assaults), or just the demographics of Berkely making nonleftist voices nonexistant. Probably a combination of all three, which is a truly terrifying portent of America's future.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm a bit concerned that there were 5 op eds in favor of political violence and against freedom of speech and none in opposition. Not sure if this is purposeful limitations of opinions by the newspaper, fear of retribution to be brought against any student even vaguely defending Milo (totally justified concerns given the assaults), or just the demographics of Berkely making nonleftist voices nonexistant. Probably a combination of all three, which is a truly terrifying portent of America's future.

They probably just don't want to soil their reputation as principled conservatives by defending an attention-whoring piece of shit like Milo.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

I saw that, bunch of violent extremist.

Writing an op-ed making a positive argument for black bloc actions as a tool for no-platforming a public figure with a history of doxxing private individuals with far less power and influence doesn't make you a "violent extremist". At most it makes you an apologist.

Side comment: the comments sections in the op-eds are predictably cancerous.

He has a history of Doxing people? From what I've heard he's outed one person who apparently wasn't very secretive about it if he managed to hear about it. It's not like the left is particularly clean on this issue either, back in Gamegate someone got ahold of his address and started sending him dead animals and syringes filled with liquid. More recently people opposed to his talked have posted the personal details of the College Republicans who invited him and labeled them Nazis.

If we're going for a game of who's worse it's hardly a contest.

Regardless, political violence is never acceptable. I don't care if you're a Republican or Democrat, it's counter productive.

[Patridam]

I'm a bit concerned that there were 5 op eds in favor of political violence and against freedom of speech and none in opposition. Not sure if this is purposeful limitations of opinions by the newspaper, fear of retribution to be brought against any student even vaguely defending Milo (totally justified concerns given the assaults), or just the demographics of Berkely making nonleftist voices nonexistant. Probably a combination of all three, which is a truly terrifying portent of America's future.

They probably just don't want to soil their reputation as principled conservatives by defending an attention-whoring piece of shit like Milo.

It should be possible to defend Milo's right to freedom of speech without having to be presumed to agree with him. That's what liberalism used to be, in fact.

And no one in California (let alone in the newspaper of an especially left leaning public college) has a reputation as a principled conservative, at least not in the eyes of the leftist majority. To them "conservative" and "principled" are mutually exclusive and opposite.

[Conserative Morality]

It should be possible to defend Milo's right to freedom of speech without having to be presumed to agree with him.

Nothing about being presumed to agree with him. Just no one wants to defend him because he's a piece of shit. Defending pieces of shit, even ones you agree with, is not a pleasant task.

That's what liberalism used to be, in fact.

And no one in California (let alone in the newspaper of an especially left leaning public college) has a reputation as a principled conservative, at least not in the eyes of the leftist majority. To them "conservative" and "principled" are mutually exclusive and opposite.

Glad to know you're hooked into the leftist hivemind. Welcome, by the way.

[Liriena]

Or rather, violent action as a form of self-defense against hate speech. In the case of speakers who would use their platform to endanger others by doxxing individual people or encouraging harassment and abuse towards entire groups, I could see the point in such an argument.

The individual op-eds are fairly nuanced and thoughtful. While I am unsure as to whether I could in fact agree with them, I can appreciate the fact that they are taking this seriously and are not speaking in bad faith, but out of genuine concerns.

All or nothing. These half-assed defenses of violence are pointless and cowardly.

*shrug*

I think that, at this point, it's pretty safe to say that leftist activists in American universities have been put in a very painful and difficult position. They're pretty much damned if they do and damned if they don't at this point when dealing with the contemporary far right.

[Patridam]

It should be possible to defend Milo's right to freedom of speech without having to be presumed to agree with him.

Nothing about being presumed to agree with him. Just no one wants to defend him because he's a piece of shit. Defending pieces of shit, even ones you agree with, is not a pleasant task.

Quite a large portion of the country seems to be defending Milo - if not his opinions, at least his right to express them - myself included. I was more concerned as to why this is in no way represented at Berkeley itself.

Glad to know you're hooked into the leftist hivemind. Welcome, by the way.

I'm part of the other hivemind, thank you very much.

[Conserative Morality]

Nothing about being presumed to agree with him. Just no one wants to defend him because he's a piece of shit. Defending pieces of shit, even ones you agree with, is not a pleasant task.

Quite a large portion of the country seems to be defending Milo - if not his opinions, at least his right to express them - myself included. I was more concerned as to why this is in no way represented at Berkeley itself.

It is. The previous link was only to 'violence as self-defence' op-eds.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

Nothing about being presumed to agree with him. Just no one wants to defend him because he's a piece of shit. Defending pieces of shit, even ones you agree with, is not a pleasant task.

Quite a large portion of the country seems to be defending Milo - if not his opinions, at least his right to express them - myself included. I was more concerned as to why this is in no way represented at Berkeley itself.

His books is a best seller on Amazon, was number one for a few days not sure if it still is.

[Liriena]

Or rather, violent action as a form of self-defense against hate speech. In the case of speakers who would use their platform to endanger others by doxxing individual people or encouraging harassment and abuse towards entire groups, I could see the point in such an argument.

The individual op-eds are fairly nuanced and thoughtful. While I am unsure as to whether I could in fact agree with them, I can appreciate the fact that they are taking this seriously and are not speaking in bad faith, but out of genuine concerns.

I'm a bit concerned that there were 5 op eds in favor of political violence and against freedom of speech and none in opposition. Not sure if this is purposeful limitations of opinions by the newspaper, fear of retribution to be brought against any student even vaguely defending Milo (totally justified concerns given the assaults), or just the demographics of Berkely making nonleftist voices nonexistant. Probably a combination of all three, which is a truly terrifying portent of America's future.

I am not fond of speculation. Just putting that out there.

Also... describing them as "against freedom of speech" is a bit unfair if you actually read what they said. As far as I can tell, the consensus is that they did not want the university to cancel Yiannopoulos' event because of a mere political disagreement, but because they feared that he would use the platform created by that event to target individual students at UC Berkeley for doxxing, much like he had done elsewhere in the past.

In fact, as far as I can see, pretty much every argument made in favor of no-platforming Yiannopoulos revolves around his history of doxxing private individuals, rather than him being right-wing.

If you believe that doxxing is something that should fall under the umbrella of freedom of speech, you have the right to hold and express that opinion, but I would not call it a self-evident truth.

[Patridam]

Quite a large portion of the country seems to be defending Milo - if not his opinions, at least his right to express them - myself included. I was more concerned as to why this is in no way represented at Berkeley itself.

It is. The previous link was only to 'violence as self-defence' op-eds.

I don't particularly feel like traversing through 850 op eds, but if the first page is anything to go by, they are 9 to 1 against the freedom of speech.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

So apparently the Berkley paper published Op Ed's defending violence as a means of suppressing speech.

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/viol ... f-defense/

Or rather, violent action as a form of self-defense against hate speech. In the case of speakers who would use their platform to endanger others by doxxing individual people or encouraging harassment and abuse towards entire groups, I could see the point in such an argument.

The individual op-eds are fairly nuanced and thoughtful. While I am unsure as to whether I could in fact agree with them, I can appreciate the fact that they are taking this seriously and are not speaking in bad faith, but out of genuine concerns.

It's fucking bullshit is what it is. Hate speech is free speech. As offensive as ones words are, violence is never justified against non-violent action.

[Conserative Morality]

I don't particularly feel like traversing through 850 op eds, but if the first page is anything to go by, they are 9 to 1 against the freedom of speech.

5-4, actually, but I understand alternate facts are all the rage right now.

[Liriena]

I'm a bit concerned that there were 5 op eds in favor of political violence and against freedom of speech and none in opposition. Not sure if this is purposeful limitations of opinions by the newspaper, fear of retribution to be brought against any student even vaguely defending Milo (totally justified concerns given the assaults), or just the demographics of Berkely making nonleftist voices nonexistant. Probably a combination of all three, which is a truly terrifying portent of America's future.

They probably just don't want to soil their reputation as principled conservatives by defending an attention-whoring piece of shit like Milo.

Funny story: Despite him trying very hard to pander to them, neo-nazis have been fairly vocal about how much they hate Yiannopoulos. They may both share a mutual disdain for women, Muslims and uppity LGBT people, but neo-nazis are predictably not enthusiastic about having a gay man with Jewish heritage and a fetish for black men trying to be friends with them.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

I'm a bit concerned that there were 5 op eds in favor of political violence and against freedom of speech and none in opposition. Not sure if this is purposeful limitations of opinions by the newspaper, fear of retribution to be brought against any student even vaguely defending Milo (totally justified concerns given the assaults), or just the demographics of Berkely making nonleftist voices nonexistant. Probably a combination of all three, which is a truly terrifying portent of America's future.

I am not fond of speculation. Just putting that out there.

Also... describing them as "against freedom of speech" is a bit unfair if you actually read what they said. As far as I can tell, the consensus is that they did not want the university to cancel Yiannopoulos' event because of a mere political disagreement, but because they feared that he would use the platform created by that event to target individual students at UC Berkeley for doxxing, much like he had done elsewhere in the past.

In fact, as far as I can see, pretty much every argument made in favor of no-platforming Yiannopoulos revolves around his history of doxxing private individuals, rather than him being right-wing.

If you believe that doxxing is something that should fall under the umbrella of freedom of speech, you have the right to hold and express that opinion, but I would not call it a self-evident truth.

But the claim that he was going to release illegal immigrants names was made up on twitter, no one bothered to fact check the claim.

[Conserative Morality]

Funny story: Despite him trying very hard to pander to them, neo-nazis have been fairly vocal about how much they hate Yiannopoulos. They may both share a mutual disdain for women, Muslims and uppity LGBT people, but neo-nazis are predictably not enthusiastic about having a gay man with Jewish heritage and a fetish for black men trying to be friends with them.

It's not neo-Nazis that are his supporters. It's the alt-right, which are like neo-Nazis, but more pathetic, somehow.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I am not fond of speculation. Just putting that out there.

Also... describing them as "against freedom of speech" is a bit unfair if you actually read what they said. As far as I can tell, the consensus is that they did not want the university to cancel Yiannopoulos' event because of a mere political disagreement, but because they feared that he would use the platform created by that event to target individual students at UC Berkeley for doxxing, much like he had done elsewhere in the past.

In fact, as far as I can see, pretty much every argument made in favor of no-platforming Yiannopoulos revolves around his history of doxxing private individuals, rather than him being right-wing.

If you believe that doxxing is something that should fall under the umbrella of freedom of speech, you have the right to hold and express that opinion, but I would not call it a self-evident truth.

But the claim that he was going to release illegal immigrants names was made up on twitter, no one bothered to fact check the claim.

And even assuming he did plan to do so... what is he guilty of? Whistleblowing?

[Conserative Morality]

But the claim that he was going to release illegal immigrants names was made up on twitter, no one bothered to fact check the claim.

Was it? It was a rumor, with supposed sources.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

Funny story: Despite him trying very hard to pander to them, neo-nazis have been fairly vocal about how much they hate Yiannopoulos. They may both share a mutual disdain for women, Muslims and uppity LGBT people, but neo-nazis are predictably not enthusiastic about having a gay man with Jewish heritage and a fetish for black men trying to be friends with them.

It's not neo-Nazis that are his supporters. It's the alt-right, which are like neo-Nazis, but more pathetic, somehow.

The Alt-right in my mind is just internet trolls, Milo speaks to them of course but most of his speeches are actually addressed toward libertarians, conservatives, and to a small extent Classical Liberals.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Or rather, violent action as a form of self-defense against hate speech. In the case of speakers who would use their platform to endanger others by doxxing individual people or encouraging harassment and abuse towards entire groups, I could see the point in such an argument.

The individual op-eds are fairly nuanced and thoughtful. While I am unsure as to whether I could in fact agree with them, I can appreciate the fact that they are taking this seriously and are not speaking in bad faith, but out of genuine concerns.

It's fucking bullshit is what it is. Hate speech is free speech. As offensive as ones words are, violence is never justified against non-violent action.

Not to be the contrarian asshole but: of course they are. Just look at everyone around you and tell me they wouldn't kick anyone's ass who got too verbal with them. If you are in a conservative town, call a cop, see what they tell you.

Just because in your opinion they are not justified, that doesn't mean people find it inexcusable. I've mostly avoided fights by knowing how to talk to people unless I was looking for a fight. So, no, they are justifiable depending on who you're talking to. We just like to pretend we would never get violent against someone talking shit.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

But the claim that he was going to release illegal immigrants names was made up on twitter, no one bothered to fact check the claim.

Was it? It was a rumor, with supposed sources.

Your source literally cites Milo saying that's not true...

[Conserative Morality]

The Alt-right in my mind is just internet trolls, Milo speaks to them of course but most of his speeches are actually addressed toward libertarians, conservatives, and to a small extent Classical Liberals.

Milo is the ur-example of the 'mainstream' portion of the alt-right.

[Conserative Morality]

Your source literally cites Milo saying that's not true...

TIL denials are all the proof you need. By the way, did you know that Dick Nixon is not a crook?

I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying there's a difference between 'rumor' and 'complete fabrication' until proven one way or the other.