He doesn’t have to order it directly. He has to persuade people to do it intentionally. If my dog attacked someone every time I said “Go!” then yelling “Go!” at my dog would be criminal assault even though I didn’t say, “Dog, please maul that person”. Milo’s got lots of dogs.
I find it very hard to believe that many people, including his supporters, actually doubt he intends for people to be threatened and harassed at his mention of them. I think a lot of his supporters are probably gleeful about it. But if you are looking for “proof” then you aren’t going to find it in a country where a videotape of a cop shooting a black man in the back isn’t even proof of an error in judgment.
I’m not against renewable energy. I’m against the fantasy that we can replace fossil fuels with renewable energy without giving up any aspect of our fabulous, decadent urban cosmopolitan lifestyles.
I’m not pro fossil fuels. I’m against taking crutches away from someone who can’t stand without them.
Frankly, the fact that you consider yourself a leftist makes me think maybe I should stop identifying as a leftist. People might judge me by the company I keep.
That’s two individuals who engaged in political violence. I agree that both of these are horrible, but notice that no one came out in the media and said that Dylan Roof did the right thing. There were some disgusting apologetics and downplaying of the fact that white nationalism was his primary motivation, though. As for the abortion clinic killer, if you look hard enough you’ll find people praising him, but no mainstream voices are apologizing for or justifying his actions.
Contrast this with the four links I’ve already provided: large groups of protesters destroying property and attacking fellow citizens. Not only this, but many voices in the media seem very eager to apologize for or justify this rioting.
And those four examples were just the OP and the first three google results for “trump protest violence”. I could get many more examples if you were worth the effort (you’re not).
Against that you give me two examples of lone wolfs with no institutional support and no apologists in the mainstream press? Weak sauce!
Besides that, you already said this was unverifiable. Have you changed your mind about that now?
It is, however, extensively documented and easy to find with search engines. “East end riots 1936” immediately gets Wikipedia and a Time article on the first page, on which every single entry refers to it. Even Al-Jazeera has a long and detailed article.
When someone on here refers to an historical event I haven’t heard of, my immediate reaction is to search. That’s because my default assumption is that I have something to learn, not that someone else has made something up.
I’ve noticed that the loudest concern trollies on that particular thread have yet to offer anything in the way of alternatives to protesting and holding demonstrations.
And as another member noted, the most vocal one keeps ‘Othering’ everyone who tries to engage it in good faith:
“You’re not helping your cause…”
Whatever its actual purpose here is, the protests will not cease, regardless; and the people will NOT stop resisting.
from a friend’s Facebook:
“Did the Black Bloc at Berkeley just prove Milo right?
No. No, they didn’t.
Milo’s supporters have claimed that they’re vindicated no matter how the Left responds to his appearances. If you go across campus and have a separate event, you’re a “snowflake” in a “safe space”. If you protest, you’re a “shrill SJW” who “doesn’t want dialogue”. If you riot and shut his event down, you’re a “leftist goon”. Debate? Milo didn’t come to debate- and if you give him a debate partner, the next stop he’ll still be claiming that the left is “afraid to debate him”.
If the Berkeley protesters had stood there peacefully chanting, they would still be accused, today, of hating free speech. Milo, a vocal supporter and sycophant of an administration that put a gag rule on scientists and defames the press, doesn’t get accused of hating free speech. The ongoing defunding and censorship of left-wing curriculum and groups on college campuses doesn’t get called an attack on free speech. That’s because this isn’t about an abstract right to free speech- it’s about power, and challenging speech that upholds and defends the status quo (which is what Milo is about, whatever his ramblings about the “liberal establishment”) is always seen as a threat to free speech, while censorship imposed by the wealthy and powerful never is.
At least in Berkeley, the accusations of censorship come the morning after a victory, not a defeat.”
Oh, for fuck’s sake. While american churches sponsor violence against LGTBQ* in Uganda, you cannot claim that right wing institutions are not engaged in violence. You’re about as left wing as a toad is a bird. White America has historically used violence as a tool of oppression; race riots and lynchings in the 1900s-1970s, sanctioning police as a tool of brutality (Rodney King to Eric Gardner) etc. Institutional violence by white right wing is systemic.
My phone is running low in battery, but a few words about energy: fuck oil. Between renewables (wind, tidal, solar) and modern Nuclear power plant designs, we can safely and effectively replace 100% of consumer energy. Agriculture will remain reliant on the now plentiful and virtually unlimited cheap oil, pollution will plummet, and all will be healthier and happier.
The Reverend Ian Paisley in Northern Ireland used to say things like “I oppose violence. But if you were to allow your just resentment at the evils perpetrated by the Roman Catholic Church to cause you to carry out acts of violence I would not be able to restrain you.”
See, if the Warsaw Jews had just invited Hitler over for tea I’m absolutely certain he would have seen the error of his ways. Fascists and racists are well known for being reasonable people who prefer polite conversation.
Depends what you mean by “other party.” It’s not like the protesters were trying to shut down someone speaking at a privately owned white nationalist compound. The people staging the protest were mostly students furious that their own University would allow that kind of hateful speaker on their campus.
Less “we don’t think this speech should be legal or possible under any circumstances” than “we refuse to stand by while our own University helps sponsor such an event.”
It’s anecdotal evidence. It does not show a trend. It may be possible to show a trend, but I’m afraid you have not.
I was asking you to back up your statement about the left becoming more violent. I did this because I was genuinely interested if this could be proved to be a thing. I have not been trying to make any counter claim. You seem to think that I have been arguing the opposite of you. The only argument I have been making here is that the proof of your claim is inadequate. In this situation, it is not up to me to provide the evidence.
My apologies again for things getting momentarily heated.
As stated in number 1, your evidence fails to prove a trend. I have moved no goalposts. It is not my fault that you have repeatedly not proved your claim.
provide evidence of similar riots or coordinated group violence on the right.
This would be violence from the right.
This has already been posted once in this thread. How did you miss it?
Your example is not speech that is illegal. It’s an act to solicit, with intent. Offering to pay a prostitute is an act of solicitation, not a restriction on speech.
As an example, you did say the words “I will pay $10,000 for the head of Milo Yiannopoulous.” But, you said it without actual intent. It’s not an act of solicitation therefore the words are not illegal. It is only illegal if it is an act to solicit. The act is illegal not the speech.
Let’s use a real example. Paraphrasing, Madonna said she thought of blowing up the white house. She didn’t get arrested because there was no intent nor was there an act of solicitation. Blowing up the White House is surely illegal. Under your proposal, Madonna would be arrested, along with Milo. I think she was making a point and I think she should be allowed to do so, even if Milo can say his thing too.
UC Berkeley officials had warned the organizers of the speech that to the best of their knowledge, Milo Y was planning on using his speech to kick off a campaign to target and out individual undocumented students and doxx them.
The school and a group of its students are most definitely two different parties. If they weren’t then the protest would not be necessary as in that case they would be protesting themselves. Furthermore, I don’t think the first amendment generally allows UC Berkely, as a public university, to deny a speaker based on the content of their speech anyway. If that is the case then the protesters are literally protesting freedom of speech itself.
In the end they are trying to prevent other people from saying and hearing things they disagree with. You fight ‘bad’ speech with more speech not less. These people’s actions are, to me, indefensible.
Given the very recent history of Milo fans shooting people outside his venues and the knowledge that Milo was going to use this event to expose individual students, I think it was more of “hey, let’s save some fucking lives.”
