Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2017, 09:12 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
There is a point at which it's appropriate to say no. Would they let neo-Nazis speak there ? No. There are no absolute rules.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
02-02-2017, 09:54 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(02-02-2017 08:38 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 08:02 PM)Impulse Wrote:  As for illiberal, why isn't "opposite of liberal" conservative? Consider

No, he means that calling them "liberal" is ironic, because they're not following liberal values, but rightwing/fascist values.

It's a form of the tu quoque argument.

My point is illiberal is not the opposite of liberal. It's meaning is not synonymous with liberal or conservative. It has it's own meaning, although somewhat useless if you ask me.

I'm not sure if you're referencing illiberals or the violent protestors with "they're", but if the latter, then my argument is they are acting violent for reasons not exactly known. Those could be political - although we can't know which political persuasion so that includes rightwing/fascist - or they might just be opportunists. Labeling them illiberal or left seems arbitrary.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Impulse's post
02-02-2017, 11:21 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(02-02-2017 03:21 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 03:16 PM)morondog Wrote:  Right to free speech is simply that government will not take steps to muzzle anyone, no matter what stupid or dangerous shit they spout. As long as no one is arresting the fucker simply for saying things, his right to free speech is not being violated.

This is not hard.

Slavery is only illegal when the government does it....it's not hard.
Unreasonable searches and seizure's are only illegal when the government...it's not hard.
Stopping the Freedom of the Press in only illegal when the government does it....it's not hard.

Sorry, just trying to find another Constitutional right this applied to, don't mind me...

Well you proved you don't understand shit about freedom of speech so I guess it is hard. Rolleyes All your quoted examples ARE fucking illegal, you twit. And government's job is to protect the rights of citizens. Which means that government protects you from anyone who infringes your freedom of speech, who enslaves you or you does any of that other shit. For example, someone who bombs a newspaper - that's criminal and the government will rightly shut that down. Someone being refused permission to speak at a particular place is *not* a freedom of speech violation unless that is explicitly a *public* space. So Milo and his merry friends can happily grab a soapbox and find the nearest public square, but they can also be kicked off any *not* public venue.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
02-02-2017, 11:24 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(02-02-2017 04:01 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 10:47 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Unless you describe yourself as 'illiberal left' it's not an insult to you.

Yeah, I'm still trying to parse this bit. So I had to google illiberable first so thanks for that (will you be my word chum? no seriously will you be my word chum?) Thumbsup, does it mean not liberal like illiterate mean not literate?

"opposed to liberal principles; restricting freedom of thought or behavior,intolerant, narrow-minded, unenlightened, conservative, reactionary" - (ref. someplace on the internet I can't be bothered to link)

So more like anti-liberal, got it. So in the US "illiberal left" would be anti-liberal Democrats. Okay, fair enough. I'm sure I could find plenty of those if I was curious enough. But it could also mean "intolerant Democrats" or "narrow-minded Democrats" or "unenlightened Democrats" or, and this one is my favorite, "conservative Democrats". Most I think would consider those to be intended as insults although it's not clear in the last case who it's directed towards.



illiberable, illiverable, illiberabl - sorry, it's how I remember words.

"Conservative Democrat" does not work for me because I don't care about political party. You could also be have no affiliation with any party, or Marxist, or Communist, or Socialist, Independent, or Progressive. Regardless of party affiliation, I mean, as you identified, people who are intolerant, who don't believe in the principles of classical liberalism, but are still on the left.

Is it an insult? Well, if you don't consider yourself to be illiberal then I wasn't talking about you, so no insult. If you do consider yourself to be be the type of person I am describing, and you don't like the negative connotations associated with being illiberal, then yes, you should be offended by my direct, honest description. And yes, you can absolutely be my word chum.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 11:29 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(02-02-2017 06:26 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 06:03 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  This thread hasn't been up more than 12 hours and it's already at 19 pages.
Jesus some shit must have gone the fuck down.

I learned what "illiberal" means. Thumbsup

Oh, I had another comment. The problem with these protests is that they are counterproductive, all they do is line the pocket of the "World's Biggest Dick" and galvanize his support even more so he can line even deeper pockets. Dick wants the press. Even better if it's sensational press. Which is another reason why the bad hombres could have been plants. It's what I'd do.
Really? I'm still trying to figure out what to so many people that like just tossing words like that around even interpret liberal to mean.

It reads like grouping opposed to being able to examine ideas piece by piece

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 11:35 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(02-02-2017 08:02 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 01:52 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Are you postulating they were apolitical? That seems more wrong than any possible alternative, so if not, what? Where on the spectrum do they lie? To me, they are clearly top-left on the standard compass, which is opposite of liberal (otherwise known as illiberal) and left. And so I, and others, would call them the illiberal left.

[Image: 543px-Political_chart.svg.png]
I'm saying no can know what their political persuasion is and it's beside the point anyway. They're just assholes.

As for illiberal, why isn't "opposite of liberal" conservative? Consider

You can be a Jesus-loving, oil tycoon who wants to end welfare or a vegan, pot-smoking hippie who runs a "free-store" and still believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press and so on. Similarly you can be Guy/Gal A and want to silence or shut down Guy/Gal B from talking about their views through whatever means necessary or vice versa. There is an X and Y axis.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 11:39 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(02-02-2017 05:49 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 05:29 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Where did I say directly anyone did and or how did I imply anyone did? I was just making a statement that is true for me 100% of the time.


Thanks for your replies.

You and a few others in this thread have suggested because of Milo's position on lots of issues, he shouldn't be allowed to speak at a university, in the first place. How does that not end up being the same thing? 'Mean liberal run university wants to silence our freedom of speech'. A good friend once taught me that there are excuses and reasons. The university used the violence as an excuse to uninvited him to speak and he used the protests and violence as a reason to silence him. Both aren't entirely wrong, but they're not entirely right either.

I struggle with this myself. My liberal sensibility agrees they shouldn't be allowed to speak. But then a rational part of me says that they already have a venue to speak mostly unfettered to their websites, blogs, Facebook groups, followers and the like, who knows if they erase comments from rational people and leave the whackadoo comments which further their cause...Let them speak and let others speak after them, refuting the claims they make and describing how divisive their rhetoric is.

Im not saying I have an answer to my personal quandary I'm just saying this where my head it -- and Safari on my laptop just sucks.

Because the university is under no obligation to allow people to speak at it. They don't have the obligation of honoring your freedom of speech. In the same way that I don't have to entertain Jehovah's witnesses that come knocking.

It's common for people to decry "free speech violations," but they're just patently wrong about it. For instance, it's not a free speech violation for the forum to decide that certain groups aren't allowed to post (if it so chose).

The university didn't decide to shut the speaker down because they didn't like his ideas. Violent illiberal thugs did, against the wishes of the people that owns and runs the property...

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 12:26 AM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
Listening to Inconservatives whine about how oppressed they are is pathetic. Sad.

Gotta love the irony that the chickenshit championing hatred and violence is complaining about being the recipient. I guess he only wants violence unto others, preferably at several steps removed from his spineless self.

I'm left wondering why Berkley ever agreed to host this piece of offal. He's pretty much the antithesis of what they stand for and I'd be willing to bet that their policies against discrimination and intolerance would have seen anybody else to the door so fast it would have blown their hat off.

Too bad the resident demagouge is a big fan of violence against protestors. Should Berkley have punched him in the face?

Lastly, it should be noted that your Constitutionally protected Freedom of Speech states only that the Government shall make no law and take no action that prevents you from expressing yourself. Nowhere does it say that you won't be called out for being a braying jack-ass, boycotted or protested. Nobody is required to provide a soapbox for you to parade your imbecility from. It has been stated that resorting to "Freedom of Speech" is the ultimate concession as it implies that the best thing that can be said in defense of your position is that the government cannot legally arrest you for stating it.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Paleophyte's post
03-02-2017, 01:02 AM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2017 01:08 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
I don't even get why Unconservatives buy into this guy's sales pitch about being suppressed, in the first place, let alone the notion that liberals want to muzzle this guy's right to speak because they supposedly can't argue with his points. Rolleyes

Seriously, what is it they think he's arguing that would be so difficult for us to address?

What is it about this little shit that we're supposed to find so intimidating?

His speeches are known to be full of outright lies and disingenuous representations... falsehoods.

He is a Breitbart writer and an open apologist for Alt-Right racist positions, though he does it in a joking way and spends most of his time trying to make a strawman of racism and leftist ideas about racism so he can claim the people who correctly point out that his positions are racist are just silly liberals.

He got owned by the internet for trying to make a "go make me a sandwich, bitch" joke while inventing the equally not-funny World Patriarchy Day.

Milo has admitted that he deliberately provokes people for more attention and coverage, and that he doesn't really care about free speech rights. (Edit: I highly recommend this article, if you read none of my other links. It also gets into detail about how Milo misrepresents facts, or simply doesn't present any evidence to back up his allegedly-unquestionable "truth".)

Basically, there's nothing this guy says that's worth a fuck. He's not an intellectual, except that he's an expert provocateur and propagandist, making bad ideas sound good to the uninformed. He's the modern equivalent of Ernst Röhm, promoting the SA's ideas, and blissfully unaware that this will eventually bite him in the ass. And not in the good way.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
03-02-2017, 01:54 AM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
I'm still trying to find anything that even resembles evidence of who the "black-clad protesters" actually were. This just smells too much like COINTELPRO to me.

The people arrested were not among them... they were separate, residents of the area who were not affiliated with the university but apparently felt it was okay to attack people in College Republican clothing.

I've been in an almost-fistfight with a half-dozen CRs at an Ann Coulter speech, where they started trying to physically intimidate a few women who were legitimately protesting AC, and I physically stood in their way in defense of those women, at the University of Kansas. My point here is that it's entirely possible that the people fighting with the CRs were not part of the "violent protest" but were fighting the CRs for unrelated reasons, if the CRs were being as hostile and agitating as they were back in 2005 when I saw them. I can only imagine they're even worse, now, with another decade of agitprop behind them and a recently-elected right wing demagogue in power.

I totally agree with Kyle's POV on this, if it really was some sort of "black mask" liberal operation... but I'm still highly skeptical that this was the action of "liberals" rather than a deliberate stunt on Milo's part, to enforce his own image/narrative and get his message onto the evening news at such a symbolic liberal center as Berkeley.




"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: