Conservative Speaker Attacked at UMKC

[Kowani]

Tu quoque. Doesn't change anything about the fact that speech, if used in a malevolent fashion to create canards and falsehoods designed to defame a particular minority group, does aid in reducing social acceptance for said minority if let unchallenged which in turn increases the rate of transphobic/homophobic/anti-semitic/anti-muslim/anti-black/anti-foreigner/anti-native attacks against said minority. It's not rocket science.

It can. And the best way to counter that is not by taking physical action, but using speech to refute these falsehoods.

Here’s the thing-In this case, it worked.

[Zizou]

Words can lead to violence. And the best way to combat words the incite violence are words that refute what the people advocating violence are saying.

Sure, which is the basis of the concept of free speech.

Indeed

But it doesn't do anything effectively stop violence either. What would be effective is actually speaking out against what he is saying.

Both are effective. Direct action has destroyed whatever meaning regarding transphobia that Knowles was trying to convey in this case; all we have left is this discussion about lavender oil and how otherwise the normalization of hatred leads to violence, because of that.

Direct action just means that it isn't the primary topic of discussion. It hasn't done anything to refute the transphobia that he is spreading.

[Scomagia]

So basically saying things you don't like leads to violence because you say it does.

*Yawn*

Strawman fallacy again. I never said that, Scomagia. I was merely stating the fact that normalizing denial of someone else's self (Which was the case in this scenario) and typical transphobic canards is the perfect recipe to decrease the level of social acceptance and support for them, which in turn increases the rate of violence committed by thugs or paranoid wingnuts against them, thus making any form of longterm solution to their plight unlikely and difficult. Hope that was clear as possible, so you won't twist my words into something I never said.

You understand that you can use that standard for really any speech that's slightly inflammatory, right? Pretty shit idea, really. Honestly, I'm afraid that your words are increasing the climate of hate against me. Better stop, you're inciting violence thirty steps removed.

[Torrocca]

Sure, which is the basis of the concept of free speech.

Indeed

Both are effective. Direct action has destroyed whatever meaning regarding transphobia that Knowles was trying to convey in this case; all we have left is this discussion about lavender oil and how otherwise the normalization of hatred leads to violence, because of that.

Direct action just means that it isn't the primary topic of discussion. It hasn't done anything to refute the transphobia that he is spreading.

Sure, the direct action hasn't refuted the transphobia, I agree there, but it has completely stifled its effectiveness and spread by shifting the entire discussion away from it toward the act of direct action itself.

[Zizou]

It can. And the best way to counter that is not by taking physical action, but using speech to refute these falsehoods.

Here’s the thing-In this case, it worked.

It's also good not to create a norm where the de facto method of refutation is physically confronting someone.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia]

Tu quoque. Doesn't change anything about the fact that speech, if used in a malevolent fashion to create canards and falsehoods designed to defame a particular minority group, does aid in reducing social acceptance for said minority if let unchallenged which in turn increases the rate of transphobic/homophobic/anti-semitic/anti-muslim/anti-black/anti-foreigner/anti-native attacks against said minority. It's not rocket science.

It can. And the best way to counter that is not by taking physical action, but using speech to refute these falsehoods.

Won't the following quote pose a problem though? Especially as if you improperly attempt to refute a myth, it may in fact reinforce it in their heads that they are telling the truth, and even leads some to develop a "galileo complex", which may be spread onto their audiences if they mastered the art of gish galloping their opponent with a horde of arguments nearly impossible to debunk all at once.
"If you are forced to explain, you are already losing." - Ronald Reagan (Don't like that guy by far, but he was particularly right about this specific strategy a wingnut uses in order to avoid being forced to a defensive. Always be on the offense with easy to digest "gotcha!" arguments, never let the opponent gain momentum)

[Liriena]

And we'd probably be technically correct. Nobody can escape from their own culture.

Yet they were brightest minds of their age...hmm.

1. I find the constant deification of the Founding Fathers increasingly creepy.

2. A person can be absolutely brilliant in some respects and a prejudiced idiot in others. Lovecraft had some interesting ideas but was also a genuinely bigoted person. Marx was one of the most brilliant minds of the 19th century... and he also had some preconceptions about non-white peoples that haven't aged well. Many of the Founding Fathers thought owning other people and criminalizing "sodomy" was totally reasonable. Many philosophers of the Enlightenment only seemed to reject slavery on paper, but not in the actual practice of it. And Theodor Adorno hated jazz.

[Telconi]

It can. And the best way to counter that is not by taking physical action, but using speech to refute these falsehoods.

Here’s the thing-In this case, it worked.

Yes, his entire audience believes that a person acting like a shithead disproves his point about trans people being shitheads.

[Zizou]

Indeed


Direct action just means that it isn't the primary topic of discussion. It hasn't done anything to refute the transphobia that he is spreading.

Sure, the direct action hasn't refuted the transphobia, I agree there, but it has completely stifled its effectiveness and spread by shifting the entire discussion away from it toward the act of direct action itself.

It will also, at least to some people, reinforce the stereotype that trans-people are somehow "snowflakes" and that they "support free speech until they don't like what people have to say."

[Scomagia]

But violence doesn't normalize violence, eh?

Lavender oil doesn't normalize violence nearly as much as the very literal uptick in murder, assault, and battery.

Swing and a miss, love. We're talking about a particular situation in which one person used words and someone else used violence and you are defending the latter because the former "normalizes violence", despite the fact that nothing normalizes violence more than, you know, violence. Stay on track.

[Liriena]

Words can lead to violence. This isn't an insane thing to say and in fact has been true throughout history. The link between those words and violence sometimes isn't direct and immediate, but it's there.

Trans people are one of the most actively denigrated groups, and a lot of the hateful rhetoric hurled at them (that they are "predators", "perverts" and "deceivers") is often cited in court by those who go on to inflict physical violence upon them. The "trans panic" defense, which is still allowed in most American states, relies on the idea that it is justified for a straight man to become violently upset if they were having any sort of romantic or sexual interaction with a person and suddenly discovered that that person was trans.

Yes but "words can lead to violence" is a universal truth. So are we to universally permit the assault of people saying things we find offenseive?

Not necessarily.

[Socialist Workers Combine]

It can. And the best way to counter that is not by taking physical action, but using speech to refute these falsehoods.

Feel free to hold a phone bank, we have one where I live.
Personally I don’t have any stories to tell.

[Kowani]

Here’s the thing-In this case, it worked.

It's also good not to create a norm where the de facto method of refutation is physically confronting someone.

You’d need to show a relationship between the two.

[Zizou]

It can. And the best way to counter that is not by taking physical action, but using speech to refute these falsehoods.

Won't the following quote pose a problem though? Especially as if you improperly attempt to refute a myth, it may in fact reinforce it in their heads that they are telling the truth, and even leads some to develop a "galileo complex", which may be spread onto their audiences if they mastered the art of gish galloping their opponent with a horde of arguments nearly impossible to debunk all at once.
"If you are forced to explain, you are already losing." - Ronald Reagan (Don't like that guy by far, but he was particularly right about this specific strategy a wingnut uses in order to avoid being forced to a defensive. Always be on the offense with easy to digest "gotcha!" arguments, never let the opponent gain momentum)

And yet, physically responding to what the person is saying will also reinforce negative stereotypes the speaker may have perpetrated against the group in question.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia]

Strawman fallacy again. I never said that, Scomagia. I was merely stating the fact that normalizing denial of someone else's self (Which was the case in this scenario) and typical transphobic canards is the perfect recipe to decrease the level of social acceptance and support for them, which in turn increases the rate of violence committed by thugs or paranoid wingnuts against them, thus making any form of longterm solution to their plight unlikely and difficult. Hope that was clear as possible, so you won't twist my words into something I never said.

You understand that you can use that standard for really any speech that's slightly inflammatory, right? Pretty shit idea, really. Honestly, I'm afraid that your words are increasing the climate of hate against me. Better stop, you're inciting violence thirty steps removed.

Except that I don't lower myself to use typical canards based on your ethnicity, political stances, sexual orientation, gender, or the religion you believe in to attempt to debunk your arguments, which is what I was talking about above. Disagreement and debunking =/= Hurling canards and ad hominems against someone based on their XYZ.

[Telconi]

It can. And the best way to counter that is not by taking physical action, but using speech to refute these falsehoods.

Won't the following quote pose a problem though? Especially as if you improperly attempt to refute a myth, it may in fact reinforce it in their heads that they are telling the truth, and even leads some to develop a "galileo complex", which may be spread onto their audiences if they mastered the art of gish galloping their opponent with a horde of arguments nearly impossible to debunk all at once.
"If you are forced to explain, you are already losing." - Ronald Reagan (Don't like that guy by far, but he was particularly right about this specific strategy a wingnut uses in order to avoid being forced to a defensive. Always be on the offense with easy to digest "gotcha!" arguments, never let the opponent gain momentum)

You're absolutely right. And what has this person done? They've forced a change from transphobes being forced to explain why transphobia is good, to trans activists being forced to explain why assault is good.

[Scomagia]

So basically saying things you don't like leads to violence because you say it does.

Words can lead to violence. This isn't an insane thing to say and in fact has been true throughout history. The link between those words and violence sometimes isn't direct and immediate, but it's there.

Trans people are one of the most actively denigrated groups, and a lot of the hateful rhetoric hurled at them (that they are "predators", "perverts" and "deceivers") is often cited in court by those who go on to inflict physical violence upon them. The "trans panic" defense, which is still allowed in most American states, relies on the idea that it is justified for a straight man to become violently upset if they were having any sort of romantic or sexual interaction with a person and suddenly discovered that that person was trans.

Again, Knowles never advocated for hate or trans panic or any other bullshit. You're accusing him of normalizing violence about thirty steps removed from actual violence. Meanwhile, someone actually did something to his body without consent which, to a reasonable person, would appear to normalize violence much more.

[Telconi]

Yes but "words can lead to violence" is a universal truth. So are we to universally permit the assault of people saying things we find offenseive?

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily what? Words either can or cannot lead to violence.

[Kowani]

Won't the following quote pose a problem though? Especially as if you improperly attempt to refute a myth, it may in fact reinforce it in their heads that they are telling the truth, and even leads some to develop a "galileo complex", which may be spread onto their audiences if they mastered the art of gish galloping their opponent with a horde of arguments nearly impossible to debunk all at once.
"If you are forced to explain, you are already losing." - Ronald Reagan (Don't like that guy by far, but he was particularly right about this specific strategy a wingnut uses in order to avoid being forced to a defensive. Always be on the offense with easy to digest "gotcha!" arguments, never let the opponent gain momentum)

And yet, physically responding to what the person is saying will also reinforce negative stereotypes the speaker may have perpetrated against the group in question.

Only if the respondent is a member of said group.

[Zizou]

It's also good not to create a norm where the de facto method of refutation is physically confronting someone.

You’d need to show a relationship between the two.

If such a method "works" as you put it, and isn't condemned, what's to stop people from applying it in every situation in which they disagree with what someone is saying?

[Liriena]

Words can lead to violence. This isn't an insane thing to say and in fact has been true throughout history. The link between those words and violence sometimes isn't direct and immediate, but it's there.

Trans people are one of the most actively denigrated groups, and a lot of the hateful rhetoric hurled at them (that they are "predators", "perverts" and "deceivers") is often cited in court by those who go on to inflict physical violence upon them. The "trans panic" defense, which is still allowed in most American states, relies on the idea that it is justified for a straight man to become violently upset if they were having any sort of romantic or sexual interaction with a person and suddenly discovered that that person was trans.

Again, Knowles never advocated for hate or trans panic or any other bullshit.

And what would you say he advocated for?

[Scomagia]

You understand that you can use that standard for really any speech that's slightly inflammatory, right? Pretty shit idea, really. Honestly, I'm afraid that your words are increasing the climate of hate against me. Better stop, you're inciting violence thirty steps removed.

Except that I don't lower myself to use typical canards based on your ethnicity, political stances, sexual orientation, gender, or the religion you believe in to attempt to debunk your arguments, which is what I was talking about above. Disagreement and debunking =/= Hurling canards and ad hominems against someone based on their XYZ.

But he didn't do any of those things, either. Thanks for playing.

[Kowani]

You’d need to show a relationship between the two.

If such a method "works" as you put it, and isn't condemned, what's to stop people from applying it in every situation in which they disagree with what someone is saying?

Escalation.

[Liriena]

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily what? Words either can or cannot lead to violence.

You asked me "are we to universally permit the assault of people saying things we find offensive?"

My answer is "not necessarily". I don't think assaulting those who cause offense is universally necessary and, thus, I don't, in principle, advocate for some sort of general legalization of political violence or its broad, indiscriminate use.

[Socialist Workers Combine]

It's also good not to create a norm where the de facto method of refutation is physically confronting someone.

If it’s a debate rather than a speech I have no issue with that.

Was it?