The Berkeley Incident and Free Speech

[Liriena]

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.

I'm not interested in what others did. We're talking about Yiannopoulos' actions, and we should judge them in their own right. Whether other people did similar things at some point is irrelevant as to whether what he did was acceptable or tolerable.

With that said, even if the person in particular was openly trans, which they were, Yiannopoulos still used his influence and power as a public figure to publicly single out that person for harassment.

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

I'm a pacifist, and fairly idealistic, but even I have to acknowledge that saying "violence is never acceptable" and that it's inherently "counter productive" is rather naive and ahistorical. Liberal democracy was built largely on mass political violence, as were many aspects of modern life that we who live in contemporary liberal democracies may take for granted.

We should certainly strive for a society in which violence is utterly unnecessary and rejected by everyone, but it is not utterly unnecessary today.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

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.

You still go to jail if you kill someone who offended you with words.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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.

Considering your source says "reportedly" with out ever citing the source that "reported it" TIL you can perpetuate unsubstantiated nonsense as long as there's a web page perpetuating this unsubstantiated nonsense.

[Conserative Morality]

Considering your source says "reportedly" with out ever citing the source that "reported it" TIL you can perpetuate unsubstantiated nonsense as long as there's a web page perpetuating this unsubstantiated nonsense.

You *do* realize there's a reason journalists often keep sources anonymous, right? I'll give you a hint: it's not because the evil media machine wants to tear down your favorite heroes.

[Wickedly evil people]

a 1/2 million dollar vandalism tantrum to shut down an idiot? how effective that must be, probably drove clicks to the 100s of thousands on his website...

UC Berkley admins should all be fired for allowing the riot, proves their incompetence.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

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.

An anonymous source from the opposing side isn't trustworthy.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You still go to jail if you kill someone who offended you with words.

Of course, but "roughing someone up" per se because they offended you was perfectly okay in the "good ol' times", and it seems perfectly okay now, and it will keep seeming perfectly okay in the future. So there's no need to say "it's never justifiable", because it is, it's just not advisable by more reasonable types is all.

More reasonable people would try to de-escalate the situation when they see the other person getting angry, for one. Secondly, they would know that someone talking shit is not worth their time. But that doesn't mean people don't beat other people out of simply talking.

[Conserative Morality]

An anonymous source from the opposing side isn't trustworthy.

I don't necessarily disagree. But as I said, there's still a difference between a rumor and a complete fabrication prior to being proven one way or the other.

[Corrian]

a 1/2 million dollar vandalism tantrum to shut down an idiot? how effective that must be, probably drove clicks to the 100s of thousands on his website...

UC Berkley admins should all be fired for allowing the riot, proves their incompetence.

Like they can magically just stop a riot.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

You still go to jail if you kill someone who offended you with words.

Of course, but "roughing someone up" per se because they offended you was perfectly okay in the "good ol' times", and it seems perfectly okay now, and it will keep seeming perfectly okay in the future. So there's no need to say "it's never justifiable", because it is, it's just not advisable by more reasonable types is all.

Only in the movies.

[Conserative Morality]

Like they can magically just stop a riot.

Anytime there's a riot in a major city, we should fire the entirety of the police force and have snap elections for municipal offices.

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

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.

If we're looking at the same page, its 7-2. One of the articles just calls for empathy, not siding with one or the other.

"Berkeley students should organize protest against Milo Yiannopoulos" is pretty obvious.

"Check your privilege when speaking of protests" seems to be condemning those who condemn the violence.

"Violence helped ensure safety of students" is easy.

"Black bloc did what campus should have" is more of the same.

"Condemning protesters same as condoning hate speech" makes me cringe.

"Plurality of tactics contributed to cancellation of Milo Yiannopoulos event" essentially says "fuck you campus Republicans and you're events".

"Campus needs to empathize after tumultuous protests" is something that doesn't go one way or the other.

"Students should take responsibility for violence" makes the score 6-1.

"Milo Yiannopoulos and Free Speech on the Berkeley campus" makes it 6-2.

"The counterargument to Milo Yiannopoulos at UC Berkeley" is pro-"fuck everyone who doesn't agree with me", i.e. Milo and the ilk.

Final tally is 7-2.

[Conserative Morality]

Only in the movies.

You kidding me m80?

Violence is less common than it was, but violence in the form of 'talk shit get hit' is still widely perceived as acceptable in many regions of the country.

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

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.

Because Milo is exactly the type of person to deny that he was going to be a dick *nods*

[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.

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.

Whether hate speech is free speech is debatable. While there are no hate speech laws in the United States, there are laws that would penalize certain forms of hate speech that would also fall under the umbrellas of intimidation, incitement, fighting words, etc. And if we were speaking in a more global scale, the claim would become all the more debatable.

As for whether violence is ever justified against non-violent action, this might be true legally, but on a moral level it's another can of worms, particularly given that, to some, certain forms of hate speech can be described as violent. If the UW-Milwaukee student that Yiannopoulos doxxed had punched him in the face for what he did, would it have been justified? Legally, perhaps not. But morally, I personally could not have condemned the student, given the nature of Yiannopoulos' offense.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Of course, but "roughing someone up" per se because they offended you was perfectly okay in the "good ol' times", and it seems perfectly okay now, and it will keep seeming perfectly okay in the future. So there's no need to say "it's never justifiable", because it is, it's just not advisable by more reasonable types is all.

Only in the movies.

Of course

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

Only in the movies.

You kidding me m80?

Violence is less common than it was, but violence in the form of 'talk shit get hit' is still widely perceived as acceptable in many regions of the country.

It's still illegal, although some don't end up pressing charges for whatever reason.

[Conserative Morality]

It's still illegal, although some don't end up pressing charges for whatever reason.

For many reasons, including, very often, social pressure and the reluctance of the local police and judiciary to take the assaulted seriously. Technically speaking it was illegal some fifty years ago too. Doesn't mean it wasn't commonplace.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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.

By all means be contrarion. It's a favorite past time of mine, Id be hypocritical to deny it to others.

However, no. Just because seeing violence done to those with opinions we find deplorable might make be a cathartic experience, it doesn't make it right or practical. Asserting so creates a might makes right fallacy, in which one justifies the use of force against dissenting opinion, and thus equivocates and advocates such use of force. The standard of nonviolent discourse doesn't just protect dissidents, it protects ourselves. There's no telling when we might find ourselves on the dissedent side, and thus opening ourselves up to political violence. By tacitly approving violence, we abandoning reason for tyranny. And no longer does one'a argument stand on its own merits, but rather on the amount of violence one can commit in defense of said position.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Considering your source says "reportedly" with out ever citing the source that "reported it" TIL you can perpetuate unsubstantiated nonsense as long as there's a web page perpetuating this unsubstantiated nonsense.

You *do* realize there's a reason journalists often keep sources anonymous, right? I'll give you a hint: it's not because the evil media machine wants to tear down your favorite heroes.

Of course not, as long as you're not required to supply your sources, nobody can hurt them,... nor can they prove they don't exist. It's a double edged sword.

[Liriena]

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.

The claim was made by a professor at Drexel University based on what he claimed to be reliable sources.

[Conserative Morality]

By all means be contrarion. It's a favorite past time of mine, Id be hypocritical to deny it to others.

However, no. Just because seeing violence done to those with opinions we find deplorable might make be a cathartic experience, it doesn't make it right or practical. Asserting so creates a might makes right fallacy, in which one justifies the use of force against dissenting opinion, and thus equivocates and advocates such use of force. The standard of nonviolent discourse doesn't just protect dissidents, it protects ourselves. There's no telling when we might find ourselves on the dissedent side, and thus opening ourselves up to political violence. By tacitly approving violence, we abandoning reason for tyranny. And no longer does one'a argument stand on its own merits, but rather on the amount of violence one can commit in defense of said position.

Despite being against violent action in opposition to nonviolent political speech, the bolded is true and has always been true. It just so happens that at the moment people who believe in freedom of speech hold the reins of a massive machine of violence.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

It's still illegal, although some don't end up pressing charges for whatever reason.

For many reasons, including, very often, social pressure and the reluctance of the local police and judiciary to take the assaulted seriously. Technically speaking it was illegal some fifty years ago too. Doesn't mean it wasn't commonplace.

It's usually taken seriously, especially if it was motivated by a characteristic of the person, ie race, gender, sexuality, etc.

The only time I can think of it not being taken seriously is if the individual was piss drunk and the beater escapes without leaving a means of identification. Than it's more of a matter of charges not being possible in the first place.

[Liriena]

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

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

I don't consider him to have much credibility.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

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.

The claim was made by a professor at Drexel University based on what he claimed to be reliable sources.

He made the claim on twitter with an anonymous source.