Milo/UC Berkley protestors stop 'hate speech' by using violence and hate...

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/milo-yiannopoulos/

Despite being the alt-right’s mouthpiece, Yiannopoulos won’t say for certain if he’s one of them. Earlier that day, lounging on a couch in the living room of his apartment, located in a huge residential complex a good 45 minutes from Central London, he replaces Wagner with Chopin so he can talk more easily. He turns to Allum Bokhari, a 25-year-old half-Pakistani Oxford graduate, who used to work for a Liberal Democratic member of Parliament and now writes for Yiannopoulos at Breitbart, and asks, “Am I a member of the alt-right?”

“No,” says Bokhari, who wears a white dress shirt, gray blazer, and gray trousers to work at a desk next to a garment rack in Yiannopoulos’s living room. “Because they wouldn’t have you. You like Israel a lot more. Some on the alt-right would describe you as a degenerate.”


Yiannopoulos, wearing a pearl bracelet, a huge diamond in his ear, and a necklace with a gold dog tag, nods in agreement. His nods shake his blond extensions. He likes to brag that he’s a bottom for tall black men and that he used to hold a paint sample called Pharoahs Gold 5 to men at clubs to see if they were dark enough to have sex with. He wants to self-publish a Kindle e-book so he can go on television shows with the chyron “Author of Satisfying the Black Man Sexually,” though he’d need to alter the title slightly, because the book Satisfying the Black Man Sexually is already on his shelf. “That’s why I don’t like Planned Parenthood. They kill all those black babies. In 20 years, they could be my harem,” he says. He sees no room for white gay men in liberal parties anymore, because all white men, he says, are treated as enemies of multiculturalism. Plus, he says, being a gay Republican reinstates the illicitness that homosexuality has lost.

Sounds like a real white nationalist... loves Israel, loves black ****... hmm

Or maybe he's just rude, offensive and a bit of a **** at times - that doesn't make him a Nazi or a Facist though and the student Republican societies who invite him to college campuses are politically mainstream, unless Trump is now literally Hitler (I guess some on the left might think so but in reality it is just a crap attempt at crying 'racist', 'facist' at something you don't like in order to justify others taking violent action).
 
What on earth?

Expected me to just cave and not defend myself from your accusations? Not going to happen.

I suggest you take a step back as you are overthinking things.
You accused me of something. I defended myself, using reasoning and evidence. I think that's thinking, not overthinking.

I was asked to give an example of something he has said/done that i didnt agree with.
No. You were asked to give an example of something he has said that you think he didn't believe, since your position was that he's saying things he doesn't mean in order to make money.

You responded with an example of something he said that you disagreed with, which isn't the same thing at all.

I then linked to an article about how he got caught up in that twitter story by making rude , unnecessary and provocative tweets regarding the racial abuse that the woman was getting.
The article started with the start of the incident - the film review Milo wrote, in which he was harshly disparaging of that actor's acting in that film. Which might well have been the rudeness you referred to when quoting the article. You didn't say what you were referring to and the film review was Milo's main involvement in the issue, since he wrote it and it started the issue.

That is all there is to it. : /
If you want to withdraw your accusation against me, then do so. As publically as you made it. Here will do.

That is my position and it doesnt need defending.

I don't really know what your position on this even is.
That you were wrong to accuse me without reason.

I have no position on Milo's film review, since I haven't read it. My position on his "playing the victim" tweet has three parts. Firstly, it was rude. Secondly, it wasn't racial harassment or directing racial harassment and therefore not what it's claimed to be. Thirdly, Twitter is utter rubbish for giving any opinion about anything because it's so extremely limited by design.
 
Ones sides supporters believe in white supremacy, violence and give Nazi salutes, the other side is violent, and the only thing you can think is "political violence = Nazi"

Do you realise you're saying things that aren't true? I'm just curious as to whether it's propaganda or delusion. Well, it's obviously propaganda but I'm curious as to whether or not you believe it.

You have a photo of someone with their hand raised, which isn't exactly unheard of as a means of getting attention in an audience or responding to a point ("show of hands") in an unspecified event of some kind and an article about an unsubstantiated (and implausible) accusation being made by an unnamed person. You've no evidence that the photo is of a Nazi salute and if it is that it happened at any event where Milo et alia were speaking and if it did that they gave any support to it. You also have no evidence that the unsubstantiated and implausible accusation has any truth in it.

And that's the best you can do for "evidence".

As you well know, Milo doesn't believe in white supremacy and violence and isn't a Nazi. You're just making things up to justify your side's facism to yourself and fellow believers.

One side is authoritarian bigots who use violence and intimidation as tools to gain more power (but only when their victims don't have a chance to defend themselves because they're also cowards). They also vehemently campaign against dissent, advocate biological group identity ideologies along with the prejudice and discrimination that comes with such ideologies and are so dead set against Israel or Jews in general that they'll ally with Islamist groups who are opposed to them in almost every other way.

That's your side.

The other side is a bunch of libertarian free speech advocates who oppose violence as a political tool and welcome dissent. Some of them advocate biological group ideologies (though not as much as is required by your side) and some don't. Their most famous speaker is an anti-racist homosexual.

That's the other side.

Your side ticks the facism boxes far more than the other side. For example, out of the 14 properties of facism that Umberto Eco lists, your side fits at least 10. 1 can be enough for facism. 10 is plenty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

There is no clear definition of fascism, but your side fits the bill better than most ideologies described as fascist and far better than the libertarian side it opposes so strongly.
 
Last edited:
Expected me to just cave and not defend myself from your accusations? Not going to happen.

You accused me of something. I defended myself, using reasoning and evidence. I think that's thinking, not overthinking.

No. You were asked to give an example of something he has said that you think he didn't believe, since your position was that he's saying things he doesn't mean in order to make money.

You responded with an example of something he said that you disagreed with, which isn't the same thing at all.

The article started with the start of the incident - the film review Milo wrote, in which he was harshly disparaging of that actor's acting in that film. Which might well have been the rudeness you referred to when quoting the article. You didn't say what you were referring to and the film review was Milo's main involvement in the issue, since he wrote it and it started the issue.

If you want to withdraw your accusation against me, then do so. As publically as you made it. Here will do.

That you were wrong to accuse me without reason.

I have no position on Milo's film review, since I haven't read it. My position on his "playing the victim" tweet has three parts. Firstly, it was rude. Secondly, it wasn't racial harassment or directing racial harassment and therefore not what it's claimed to be. Thirdly, Twitter is utter rubbish for giving any opinion about anything because it's so extremely limited by design.

Once again, this isn't what happened...

I was asked to give an example of something he has done/said which I disagreed with/thought was disingenuous (granted I just wrote disagreed with in the post when I linked it but I thought Dowie would know what I meant seen is it was him I was having the conversation with). I then linked to this article -

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/twitter-bans-milo-yiannopoulos_uk_578f1644e4b046a0b6141139

It is entitled "Milo Yiannopoulos Banned From Twitter After Trolling Of Leslie Jones" and it is about his twitter posts. Just because there is a bit explaining how it started (the film review) does not mean that is what the article is about or what I was referring to. Again, if was talking about his film review I would have just posted a link to that, not to an article about his twitter posts....

You then waded in with

Have you read the film review he wrote?

Did you even know that's what he wrote? Or did you just unthinkingly believe the claims that he's responsible for things other people write?

I never once said he was responsible for what other people write or even alluded to it.

What makes you think that he didn't think any or all of the things he wrote in the film review? That was your position - that he says and writes things he doesn't think are true.

In that post you posted a link to an article about the film review he wrote, in which he was very disparaging about the film, including the acting in general and including the acting of that particular actor. You then said he was being rude to that actor. You did not at any point state that you thought the article you linked to was irrelevant to the post you made in which you linked to that article and cited it as an example of something Milo did that you disagree with. Obvously you thought it was very relevant, since you chose to link to it as an example.

.



Again, the article was not about the film review but about his twitter posts. You seem to have just assumed I was talking about his film review.

I will explain again just to clarify -

I was asked for an example of what he had done that I didn't agree with and thought was disingenuous.

I think his rude and unhelpful comments (seen by Twitter as trolling - no comment on that as that is whole other can of worms) directed towards that actress when she was being racially abused were not needed and also just a way to get himself in the limelight and cause further controversy.

I was not talking about his film review ( which is mentioned in just two lines of that whole article) and I do not "unthinkingly believe the claims that he's responsible for things other people write". . You just came up with those by yourself.
 
Last edited:
Hate speech isnt even a thing, theres free speech and then theres "stuff people say I don't like so i'll have a paddy"

Its been demonstrated time and time again on these forums that quite a few people here don't understand free speech, for eg the charlie hebdo attacks some on here were like "oh they shouldn't print that stuff then they wouldnt get killed"
 
8boc2pm961ey.jpg

One thing's for sure; these guys need to get better cartoonists.
 
I don't understand the motivation of some of these people

The motivation of many / most of the disempowered is to get even. If they identify as Left Wing, they want to get even what they see as entrenched power and social factions that they think have caused their disempowerment. It doesn't always matter if the narrative doesn't make sense - such as White teenagers calling Black cops racist against Blacks (technically possible, but not really something you should ever think to shout at some random Black person across a protest line). There's also the "cool" / empowerment side of being the one who goes further than others. You set a fire or throw something at a cop and because your group defines itself as fighting some enemy, nobody will really call you on it because supposedly you're doing the right thing and calling you on it will make the critic look weak / not as dedicated / whatever.

If the disempowered identify as Nationalist, they'll typically look to other factions to blame - immigrants for example. Though also the government. They too want to get even. They too gain status amongst their peers by acts of aggression / destruction. But the target is different.

Empowered Left Wing don't usually have the motivation of getting even and thus usually engage in far more reasonable and less destructive means of pushing their political views. Though they're not any more immune to wanting to look cool and edgy so you still get cases like that actor using their speech to advocate punching people with views you don't agree with. or cringe-inducing horror shows like Ashley Judd's speech at the "Women's March". (look it up on YouTube if you want to see one of the most awful, self-aggrandizing, egotistical and misguided speeches of your life).

Whilst you can and do get disempowered people who don't blame some outside group, they tend not to last very long as such because blaming yourself for your current state (also known as taking responsibility) tends to lead to being empowered fairly quickly.

Anyway, that's the motivation of many of the disempowered, regardless of "side". There are also reasonable people on both sides in their plenty, but much like I as a critic of Islam tend to get drowned out by more violent attitudes, so too do some on the Left who genuinely care about such issues get made to look like violent thugs by their own extreme groups. Watching those Berkley protests, I saw the entirety of America's independents and moderates take another step towards sympathy with Milo and Trump and others. Protestors like this are the reason Trump won.
 
Last edited:
[FnG]magnolia;30465113 said:
I don't condone violence but I dislike Milo as a person and as a proponent of far right ideology. His freedom of speech does not provide him freedom from consequence which I suppose he found out.

Freedom of Speech means exactly that - to be able to speak or write without being met with violence or state punishment for it. The latest thing I'm seeing doing the rounds is people promoting censorship saying "Hate Speech isn't covered by Free Speech." All speech is covered by Free Speech. That's the entire point. Nobody gets to say what speech is approved and which is banned.
 
Freedom of Speech means exactly that - to be able to speak or write without being met with violence or state punishment for it. The latest thing I'm seeing doing the rounds is people promoting censorship saying "Hate Speech isn't covered by Free Speech." All speech is covered by Free Speech. That's the entire point. Nobody gets to say what speech is approved and which is banned.

Exactly right. We need to rewind the clock further though. The right wing weren't the first to start being banned and throttled on social media, that was the Jihadi folk.
If we want true commitment to free speech, we need to let literally everyone speak their mind.
 
Freedom of Speech means exactly that - to be able to speak or write without being met with violence or state punishment for it. The latest thing I'm seeing doing the rounds is people promoting censorship saying "Hate Speech isn't covered by Free Speech." All speech is covered by Free Speech. That's the entire point. Nobody gets to say what speech is approved and which is banned.

Exactly right - freedom from consequence would be e.g. not being subject to libel/slander laws, not being punched in the face because some thug didn't like what you are saying.
 
Out of interest as I'm a little ignorant on some aspects of this, but how does something like "inciting violence" sit with UK laws on free speech? Is that perfectly acceptable providing no violence is committed by the person speaking?
 
Exactly right. We need to rewind the clock further though. The right wing weren't the first to start being banned and throttled on social media, that was the Jihadi folk.
If we want true commitment to free speech, we need to let literally everyone speak their mind.

I'm torn on this issue. On one hand I'm all for free speech no matter what is said on the other hand if someone is whipping up racial hatred or inciting people to riot or other forms of social unrest I'm not sure that should be allowed.

I guess the real test of free speech is this. If we could some how travel back in time to Germany in the 1920s and we knew what Hitler would become in the future would you allow him to say everything that he said knowing that the result would be 6 million Jews dead in the future or would you censor him?

Personally I think I'd censor him. People who want absolutely unrestricted free speech seem to think that speech can't hurt anyone. History has taught us that this just isn't true.
 
I'm torn on this issue. On one hand I'm all for free speech no matter what is said on the other hand if someone is whipping up racial hatred or inciting people to riot or other forms of social unrest I'm not sure that should be allowed.

I guess the real test of free speech is this. If we could some how travel back in time to Germany in the 1920s and we knew what Hitler would become in the future would you allow him to say everything that he said knowing that the result would be 6 million Jews dead in the future or would you censor him?

Personally I think I'd censor him. People who want absolutely unrestricted free speech seem to think that speech can't hurt anyone. History has taught us that this just isn't true.

Would censorship work?
Anti-Semitism was rife across Europe at the time, fascist views were a lot close to the mainstream than we like to acknowledge. Even then, Hitler didn't get an electoral majority without the use of state force. Upholding civil liberties and due process could well have been enough to let Hitler die on the fringe.
 
Exactly right. We need to rewind the clock further though. The right wing weren't the first to start being banned and throttled on social media, that was the Jihadi folk.
If we want true commitment to free speech, we need to let literally everyone speak their mind.

I agree. Do you suppose that you're highlighting some hypocrisy on my part or something? I just said - speech should not be met with force (violence, imprisonment). The only exceptions are not based on political views but on public / private lines. I.e. someone espousing a political view is protected by Free Speech. Someone giving out my bank details or libelling a person is not okay. Saying "Hate Speech is not Free Speech" as I'm starting to see, is wrong. I've been pretty clear on that.
 
Freedom of Speech means exactly that - to be able to speak or write without being met with violence or state punishment for it. The latest thing I'm seeing doing the rounds is people promoting censorship saying "Hate Speech isn't covered by Free Speech." All speech is covered by Free Speech. That's the entire point. Nobody gets to say what speech is approved and which is banned.

I agree and I'd go a bit further and say hate speech is arguably the key point of free speech. The key point of whether or not a person supports free speech is definitely whether or not they tolerate speech they disagree with and the more they disagree with it the more strongly the idea of free speech applies.
 
Back
Top Bottom