Support NeoGAF

[Cartman86]

Milo is a piece of shit who directly targets individual students and thus should not be given a platform wherever possible. Free speech doesn't even need to come into the conversation with him. This coming from a far left person who agrees that some of the choices by universities to cancel speaking engagements from people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali are wrong and the sees the hand wringing by people like Sam Harris and Bill Maher in comparing Milo's "Persecution" to these other people as maddening.

 

[Poodlestrike]

See, here's the problem, OP. Fascism, Nazism, all the stuff that the Berkley protests (and later riots) were standing against, it's not speech. It's not even a threat. It's a promise of violence. It's a solemn oath on the part of the speaker that, when they have the opportunity, they will kill whoever they want. Violence against fascists, against Nazis, by groups that they are promising to destroy, that's nothing less than self-defense.

What I don't approve of, though I do understand, is the kind of random lashing out that you get when protests turn spontaneously violent. It's too... unfocused. People who had nothing to do with it, or even people who agree with your cause, they end up getting hurt. Definitely less than ideal.

 

[FrostuTheNinja]

The pen truly is mightier than the swor...

*reads thread*

I'm amazed, but not even remotely surprised.

 

[PixelatedBookake]

I don't condone violence but I feel that if you're going to go out of your way to spread hate speech, you should expect that there will be people who will attack you. Do I sympathize with those people? No, but do I think those who wanted to hear Milo speak at UC Berkley should have been attacked? Absolutely not. I understand hitting Richard Spencer for spouting Nazi hate speech on the street somewhere, but physically attacking someone who supports people like Trump or Milo is unacceptable to me.

 

[Platy]

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.

What data ?
How can violence be exclusionary towards groups like women and the vulnerable ?

The Stonewall movement was full of women and vulnerable and that didn't stopped bricks from flying

 

[ant_]

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

This thread is about the trend of violence being supported to suppress free speech. It's about the sentiment becoming more common among the left.

I'm not debating that it was anarchists that invaded the protest. I'm aware of this.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Might wanna provide that data.

It's easy to find. Where is the data saying that "all students of history" know that "only ghandi achieved anything with non violence."

 

[hydrophilic attack]

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.

i agree

but the right-wing will use the failure of some to condemn violence in order smear the whole movement

or even as justification for their own violence

we shouldn't give them that ammunition

 

[G.O.O.]

also, nazis (or the alt-right if you will) don't want to exchange ideas. They want to fight. They see free speech as a form of war. They'll use every bit of it to gain ground but will not give away an inch.

There's one exception though : if you are a minority they hate and engage into a reasonable speech with them, they'll start thinking about their beliefs. Not all of them, sure, but some will.

That's all. For the rest, allowing them to talk and debate only leads to more violence against women, gays, minorities etc. Which is exactly what they want.

 

[Empyrean Heaven]

I agree with the Chancellor. The fact is, voices like Milo's are incredibly common in this day and age, people who spread hate and fear, but two wrongs don't make a right. Do people like Milo, Richard Spencer, etc. deserve to be punched in the face? Absolutely. But doing so gives legitimacy to his message that the left is the truly intolerant force.

The best way to beat someone like Milo? Beat him using his methods on your terms. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkrY6Ny7pMg Terry Moran of ABC News did a perfect interview with him, kept calm, and let Milo spew his bullshit, and when you're hearing it without a throng of cheering assholes, it really starts to stink. If a school wants to give him a pulpit, unfortunately, there's not much you can do. He thrives off of violence, heckling, and name-calling, and it just makes him stronger. The best thing you can do is stand by your arguments against his and the smattering of insults that he will pull in to try and get you off of your game. Milo is a misanthropic bully. He hates people with opinions that are not his own, and will go out of his way to insult them. And unfortunately, it's hard to get rid of people like him.

 

[Lonewolf_92]

I disagree, violence doesn't suppress free speech. You have the right to say anything you wish, but everyone else has the right to react to that speech. Many states have "fighting words" laws for a reason.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

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.

Racism and harassment are not points of view to engage. They are to be destroyed and eradicated. Milos isn't some persecuted minority who is facing oppression. He's a white supremacist that is inciting harassment and violence. He should never, EVER get a platform. The people who would join up with him where already racist assholes no better than him.

These people are. OT only wrong but misinformed and dumb. Germany had attacked American ships.

 

[RDreamer]

i agree

but the right-wing will use the failure of some to condemn violence in order smear the whole movement

or even as justification for their own violence

we shouldn't give them that ammunition

But largely "we" aren't.

Anarchists are.

How do we solve that problem?

 

[Frozenprince]

This thread is about the trend of violence being supported to suppress free speech. It's about the sentiment becoming more common among the left.

I'm not debating that it was anarchists that invaded the protest. I'm aware of this.

And this trend was successful in stymieing minority rights and discourse for centuries.

But now suddenly that the left is adopting a tactic of selective violence, it's not longer tenable?

 

[Got]

his fucking free speech wasn't suppressed

 

[hydrophilic attack]

also, nazis (or the alt-right if you will) don't want to exchange ideas. They want to fight. They see free speech as a form of war. They'll use every bit of it to gain ground but will not give away an inch.

There's one exception though : if you are a minority they hate and engage into a reasonable speech with them, they'll start thinking about their beliefs. Not all of them, sure, but some will.

That's all. For the rest, allowing them to talk and debate only leads to more violence against women, gays, minorities etc. Which is exactly what they want.

well this just means that violent protesting is giving them what they want

 

[Kemal86]

This thread is about the trend of violence being supported to suppress free speech. It's about the sentiment becoming more common among the left.

please see:

See, here's the problem, OP. Fascism, Nazism, all the stuff that the Berkley protests (and later riots) were standing against, it's not speech. It's not even a threat. It's a promise of violence. It's a solemn oath on the part of the speaker that, when they have the opportunity, they will kill whoever they want. Violence against fascists, against Nazis, by groups that they are promising to destroy, that's nothing less than self-defense.

 

[ModBot]

This is the fifth or six Milo/Berkley related thread. You had plenty of opportunities to make any argument you wanted in the last several. Quit making threads solely to make an argument about a topic that's been covered repeatedly.