While backhandedly insulting you by continuing to state that nobody has informed him of anything.
But you said it so politely, I guess!
I would say that it’s probably easier to discuss things with a direct Gamergater, because at least they on some level understand what I believe before immediately disregarding it.
Not only were you the first to answer the question and promptly ignored, your appearance here in the late game was cherry picked to be listened to just to put down others. I just want to say I appreciate your logic and I did a worse job communicating similar points.
The cynic in me suspects this may be the truth behind the violence.
Considering how it should be clear that his followers will cause harm based on who he decides to mock, that’s the best single argument I’ve read.
I’m not so sure. Someone mentioned Manson earlier and we were able to get a conviction there. If the laws are not broken, perhaps the system of enforcement is.
My intention was to thank the lone reasonable voice in a sea of anger.
That is literally the truth behind the violence, and that has been pointed out here many, many times. It was a peaceful protest until black-clad anarchists showed up, just as they did with the inauguration. Whether this was intentional to make the peaceful protesters look bad, or just some asshats playing smashy is difficult to say.
I read one report that it was the Black Bloc and that’s probably true, but I’m cynical enough to think it may have simply been the police and the Black Bloc made for convenient fall guys.
He wasn’t “the only one;” but it’s very easy to only see what we want to see.
Sorry; but you’re not a “victim” here, simply because others don’t emphatically agree with your opinion.
Just so I’m clear, your theory is that the protests were rather meaningless gestures against a toothless provocateur who’s done nothing of substance to be angry about, and that the actual violence and destruction on campus was caused by the police smashing things to make anarchists look bad?
Umm, no. My position is that they took place and the violence was likely not part of the original protest. I have never said there was no substance behind the protests, I have never framed Yiannopoulos as a toothless provocateur. I have, on the other hand, compared him to a 13 year old lead paint victim which may have been a bit too subtle an insult.
[quote=“anotherone, post:298, topic:94219”]
I get that Milo has the moral compass of a 13 year old lead paint victim and I get that he mocks people. Both of these traits are found here are BB quite often.
Mocking a person is rude but certainly within the bounds of acceptable and tolerable speech. How does mocking a trans person become a hate campaign causing serious human harm, terror, or genuine harm on people. That’s the missing link for me. How can I enter in to a meaningful dialog with a right wing person about Milo deserving to be silenced when all I can say is that he is rude and some of his fans take it too far? After all, I will not condemn Islam for the actions of a handful of crazy people.
[/quote]
Responding to the anotherone quote: [quote=“emo_pinata, post:423, topic:94219”]
I get that Milo has the moral compass of a 13 year old lead paint victim and I get that he mocks people. Both of these traits are found here are BB quite often.
[/quote]
I like how he windmills his fists into the air, smacks everyone around then sneers at all those lesser people who throw their fists. It’s just their type, those people who insult others.
Is the paint 13 years old? The victim? The time spent eating the paint?
Today, we are all “13 year old lead paint victims” for responding.
Does it eat purple people or is it purple?
Perhaps you might want to work to persuade them that the issue is not so much that he’s rude, but something much more serious than that, since there’s no doubt that his impoliteness is the least of the reasons he’s dangerous.
There’s also the Nazism thing…
And the fact that his sole purpose in speaking on campuses is to be a hate-mongering racist agitator. The reason he’s not welcomed when he visits campuses is that he’s not a intellectual discussing ideas, he’s an agitator spinning and lying to promote fear and hate of women and minorities and occasionally target specific students for harassment.
I find the Nazi thing deplorable but I feel like going after someone for their personal political beliefs too Macarthy for my taste. Even if I dispise your beliefs, they are yours. The hate mongering on its own is bad but he’s far from alone in that. Hell, they made one President. What sets this man apart from any other racist soap box operator would be his knowledge of how his followers will react to him singling out people. That’s why the need to self censor seems the best position to take. Since he will not, there must be protests.
I suppose I should point out here that when I say "the view that he is rude and some of his fans take it too far " I am presenting not my personal view but that of many disinterested defenders on the right with whom I may engage in earnest.
Tolerate a Nazi at your risk. You’ll find that tolerance isn’t reciprocated when they have any power. This is a nice explanation of why tolerance isn’t a virtue, but an agreement which when violated requires a strong response.
https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376#.wo7ened90
I was looking at the video of “Eddy Brock” after he was attacked.
https://youtu.be/wHCFtp2aDZQ?t=6s
I’m a bit puzzled by his injury. Face and scalp wounds do bleed like the dickens, and there’s plenty of nice neat unsmeared blood, but I can’t really make out where the cut is, even when the hair is out of the way. Also, there’s no bruising or swelling anywhere. When someone is beaten up, I’m used to it looking more like this, obvious wounds, bruising, blood smeared:
Waiting in the queue is another alt-right video with someone with a very similar wound. (I haven’t found the spot in that video yet.)
Note that I’m not saying that it’s a faaake, just that it seems off and might be worth a closer look.
Interesting take even if it isn’t one I can subscribe to. Intolerance is one of the reasons I despise such world views. But to say “I will be intolerant because you are intolerant” doesn’t seem a moral argument. I’ll remain intolerant towards actions instead of dogmas. If you hurt someone I don’t really care what your personal world view is. I care that you hurt someone.
Tolerance is “we all have to get along here.” So long as everyone’s onboard, we’re all in good shape, and we can all be whatever religion/sexual preference/culture/race/gender identity/ideological adherent/etc. that we choose/are born into. Once anyone abdicates from choosing to get along, the truce is over, and the violators should be targeted with every tool in the toolbox to make it abundantly clear why we had the truce in the first place and press the violators drop the bullshit. Punching Nazis is important, it’s how we show what happens when people violate the truce. Tolerating intolerance is no tolerance at all, it’s letting aggressors get away with violating a truce.
Here’s what I don’t get; isn’t Yiannopoulos homosexual, and the child of immigrants?
How the hell does that fit in with traditional Nazi philosophy; he’s “cool” as long as he’s useful, and then afterward, he gets his own Pink Triangle and an appointment with a gas chamber?
Before anyone deigns to inform me of the existence of self hating individuals who always go against their own self interest, I am already well aware:
