Yeah, maybe they learned something and were more worried about breaking it up and clearing the area, vs pics of kids getting thrown to the street and hand cuffed. Maybe. I admit that is 100% speculation, but it requires less of a conspiracy than say plants who were in league with the campus cops.
The protests moved out of campus and down town, according to CNN, and no arrests either. So, there’s that. It seems some times cops let broken windows get a pass because if they were to arrest them for relatively minor crimes, it is more likely to incite more violence from the crowd?
I’m not sure that the black-bloc types should be automatically added to the left’s violence ledger. They’d don’t really seem to have a purpose or cause other than doing their smashy smashy and melting back into the peaceful protest that they parasited. e.g.
Free speech does not mean another is required to host or listen to your speech. In the case of Milo, we have someone wanting to speak, someone wanting to listen, and someone willing to host them. When another party comes along and says this is unacceptable to them and tries to disrupt it, that is the attack on free speech.
My initial point was that some people will defend such a disruption saying the First Amendment only prevents the government from attacking speech, therefore it’s alright when they as individuals attack it. Legally they are correct but I believe in the moral wrong.
I’m sorry, I’m getting really tired of having words put in my mouth in this discussion. Can you please quote where I suggested we appease anyone?
I said explicitly that punching Nazis in the face is a bad tactic for fighting back. I’m an advocate for fighting back. I just think your tactics are bad.
Somehow you ended up quoting me saying something I never said. Unlike most people in this thread, though, I think you did it my
In my previous post I gave an example of speech that is already illegal: “I will pay $10,000 for the head of Milo Yiannopoulous.” That would be a totally illegal thing to say. You can call that pre-crime because maybe no one will act on it. Do you know what the rest of us call it? Crime, because there is a criminal law against it:
Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony … solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be imprisoned …
Some speech is criminal. Everyone knows it, you included. So I’m not interested in science fiction horror stories about what happens when you let your government outlaw certain speech. Every democratic government I’m aware does outlaws certain speech. The French and Germans say, “Why the fuck would we want to allow holocaust denial?” and outlaw that. The USA says, “We’d better allow people to deny the holocaust!” That’s not a fundamental ideological schism, it’s a difference of opinion about how bad it is to deny the holocaust.
I think Milo’s speech is plainly criminal because when he speaks ill of someone they get death and rape threats (another criminal form of speech) and I believe he intends for that to happen and “endeavours to persuade” people to do it. Of course I don’t know that he intends that, and I can imagine a criminal case could be difficult to make against him. I see that as a failure of a criminal justice system ill equipped to deal with this kind of crime, in which a person induces violence without knowing who they are inducing to commit the violence.
I may have told this story here before. In elementary school I was never the kid that would “pants” the guy talking to a group of girls. I was the guy that mentioned how funny it would be if that happened. Somebody else always took the bait, and then the two guys would get in a fight. They both got detention for fighting and I sat back and laughed about it.
In retrospect I was the biggest asshole in the scenario. I should have been the one in detention for creating the scenario.
Being a rude smartass isn’t explicitly against community standards (though, I suppose it may cross Rule 1), but here’s a second shot at this. Fuck respectability politics.
Your claim that leftists perpetrated a majority of violence in 21st century USA is simply false. The vast majority of violent crimes are not ideological in nature. However, some are; White Supremacist Dylan Roof and his act of terror against a black church, the Colorado Abortion Clinic Killer and his murderous crusade against women’s healthcare, etc etc. To arrive at your conclusion one must attribute all nonpolitical crimes to leftists, and also count the actions of the Black Bloc as the actions of the left. This is the equivalent of calling every church pastor a Nazi. A fundamental logical fallacy has been committed on your part.
I do not follow them but I would appreciate anything you can point me to where he has asked, ordered, or suggested violence towards another person. Seriously, I really would like something to toss back at his supporters who say he is being wronged.
If the only defense of your speech is that it is not illegal, maybe don’t be surprised if you anger a lot of people and get to hear their free speech too.
