Off Topic > Off Topic
[NEWS] Violent UC Berkeley riots force cancellation of Milo Yiannopoulos event
Badspot:
--- Quote from: SeventhSandwich on February 02, 2017, 11:20:45 AM ---I don't think anyone disputes that though. Even in the most radical left-wing circles, you aren't going to find many people who want to actually legalize violent civil disobedience.
--- End quote ---
Did you miss LeisureSuit912's posts? Or #punchanational socialist?
--- Quote from: SeventhSandwich on February 02, 2017, 11:20:45 AM ---From a liberal perspective, the problem with the conservative mantra against violent protest is that they're usually exaggerating and over-generalizing the protestors as violent, and they're using it as a tool to make the issues illegitimate. Their mentality is basically, "A small percentage of BLM/Hillary supporters/whatever broke a window and flipped a cop car, so the stuff they're protesting about doesn't matter."
--- End quote ---
The issue is that a few hundred anarchists riot but the entire left side of the aisle cheers. Celebrities and the media openly speak out against democratic elections and free speech itself. No one even seems to be able to articulate what they're protesting, it's just "REEEE GET OUT national socialist".
--- Quote from: PhantOS on February 02, 2017, 12:03:27 PM ---I would justify violent protests in the 1800s if it was against slavery
--- End quote ---
We had that, it was called the American Civil War. No need to thank me for it.
PhantOS:
--- Quote from: Badspot on February 02, 2017, 12:11:08 PM ---The issue is that a few hundred anarchists riot but the entire left side of the aisle cheers. Celebrities and the media openly speak out against democratic elections and free speech itself. No one even seems to be able to articulate what they're protesting, it's just "REEEE GET OUT national socialist".
--- End quote ---
Speaking out against democratic elections is protected under our democracy. Encouraging violent protests is ethically wrong and considered provocation, but it's still considered freedom of speech. As far as accountability goes, however, people who encourage something to happen should be just as responsible as those who commit the action. This applies to both sides, left or right, black or white, male or female. If you openly encourage someone to assassinate the president, you aren't committing any crimes but you're enabling it to happen, and when it does happen, you're partially responsible.
I guess I'm trying to say that it must be legal to speak out against your government, but illegal to act against your government.
Ipquarx:
--- Quote from: Badspot on February 02, 2017, 12:11:08 PM ---Did you miss LeisureSuit912's posts? Or #punchanational socialist?
--- End quote ---
I'm gonna ask this just because I'm curious.
How do you feel about that time when Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel after being repeatedly harassed by him?
Corderlain:
--- Quote from: Ipquarx on February 02, 2017, 12:27:30 PM ---I'm gonna ask this just because I'm curious.
How do you feel about that time when Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel after being repeatedly harassed by him?
--- End quote ---
Chiming in, direct provocation between two people is a wholly different matter from a riot. Also, I'd wager badspot is for "fighting wprds" which is what I would classify calling Buzz a coward and a liar is.
Ipquarx:
--- Quote from: Corderlain on February 02, 2017, 12:30:41 PM ---Chiming in, direct provocation between two people is a wholly different matter from a riot.
--- End quote ---
Yes I'm aware, that's why I quoted the #punchanational socialist part.