Soldato
Nope, I wasn't trying to find hypocrisy at all, I was merely extending your point, and I agree with your point on privacy completely.
Milo/UC Berkley protestors stop 'hate speech' by using violence and hate...
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Nope, I wasn't trying to find hypocrisy at all, I was merely extending your point, and I agree with your point on privacy completely.
Oh I'm well aware of antisemitism being popular in Europe at the time. Fascism was also popular in many places across Europe (as was Communism as well). Hitlers big win was the Wall Street crash where he could argue (not without good point it has to be said) that capitalism was failing and that the large banks were ruining the country. Hitler and many other people claimed that the banking system was run by the Jews and it was them that were trying to destroy Germany other western European countries.
Germany had massive hyper-inflation during 1929 and after it. It got so bad that you couldn't fit the amount of money it cost to buy a loaf of bread in a wheel barrow and it was this that caused Hitler to win the 1932 election.
But even having said all of that if Hitler had been stopped from saying what he said his rise to power at the very least would have been slowed and at the very best halted entirely. If people don't know about you they can't very well vote for you. People forget in today's world with social media and blogs and TV that in the 1930s if you were not in the newspapers or were not making public speeches it was very hard to get your message across to voters.
Man of Honour
So what if you're maced in the face by a violent protestor for saying that people who protest in a non-violent manner deserve respect? That isn't the government using force to suppress your speech, so it's not covered by the first panel in the cartoon you quoted.
That's not a random or hypothetical example. One of the anti-Milo protestors sprayed mace in the face of someone saying that.
It's already gone way beyond not hosting speech or not listening to speech.
Soldato
I would dispute the premise in this case. I'm unconvinced that censoring Adolf Hitler would either be effective or truly possible. They held rallies, distributed pamphlets by hand and fund-raised on the streets. The Nazis established themselves perfectly well without benefit of Twitter or Facebook. Dialogue and education are the means of defusing prejudice, imo.
You can ask me the question that if in principle hypothetically I would prevent someone from speaking in order to save six million lives, and I would say that in such a pure thought experiment I would probably agree. But I would then ask YOU to show that such a thing could occur in the real world. For example, could I actually censor someone effectively to prevent their message getting out and spreading? Being banned from Radio One guaranteed Frankie Goes To Hollywood a #1 selling record. Secondly, in what scenario am I just censoring one person? Hitler was one of many who espoused such views. In the real world you're not talking about locking away Hitler, but about locking away large numbers of people. The first thing most people would say if that happened would be "wow - there really is a Jewish conspiracy controlling everything!"
The fundamental flaw in general, imo, is the idea that there are Good Guys and Bad Guys and that things are justified by whether or not they are directed at the Good Guys or at the Bad Guys. I think this is false. There is good behaviour and bad behaviour and whether something is justified or not is determined by the methods and things they do. Two wrongs wont make a right. History doesn't stop at any given point and you sum up the scores. It just rolls on. If you create a society where some arbitrary group (self-appointed and undemocratic, I presume, as you haven't said who the body that censors Hitler is in your example and the Nazis were a popular political party) gets to censor and restrict speech then what you have achieved, is the turning of a society from one in which Free Speech exists, to one where it doesn't. Stripped of the idea that there are Good Guys in charge, that can only be viewed as a negative change to society. Your argument presumes there are Good Guys in charge using this power of censorship for good purposes. My knowledge of politics and history argues against such a premise being anything but a rare exception.
It is perfectly possible to express views that I disagree without resorting to hate speech.
Why do people think that in order for you to believe in free speech you have to support hate speech? Hate speech is like swearing a lot in public. It just shows you are not intelligent enough to come up with a reasoned argument or point.
I support people saying things I disagree with. In fact I go out of my way to read things I disagree with. I often read the Daily Mail website for instance. What I do not support is hate speech primarily because anyone using it is a retard who can't come up with a reasonable argument. It isn't because I disagree with hate speech so much (I am after all a white Welsh/Englishman who's family goes back over 500 years in this country so I'm as white as they come so racism and Islamophobia isn't really going to be directed at me) as that hate speech just shows the person using it as being a complete and utter idiot.
I can make an argument against Islam without resorting to hate speech. I can make an argument against illegal immigration without resorting to hate speech. Idiots can't.
So if I see hate speech I instantly dismiss the speaker as someone who can't come up with an intelligent argument.
Soldato
There's a gross flaw in the above. It holds to a world view where the government is the most powerful force and the effects and infringement of censorship come from the State. This is no longer true. By far the largest public forums are privately owned. Drop someone from Facebook, from Twitter, from online forums, and you censor them far more effectively than the government deciding you can't publish a book.
Censorship is wrong because preventing people expressing their views is wrong. Dodging that by sending someone into the outer darkness of obscure channels of communication or sitting in the corner of a pub whilst supporting the people you agree with get to reach an audience of billions is not less anti-Free Speech.
I think the difference between us is that I say it is perfectly possible to have free speech while disallowing hate speech while your point seems to be that if someone censors hate speech you some how don't have free speech.
I can't think of a single argument that requires hate speech to make. Therefore if hate speech is entirely optional in any argument then removing the right to express hate speech simply means you no longer have that option. You are still perfectly free to make the original argument just without using hate speech. It might make for a slightly more boring speech I have to give you that but apart from that you are still free to make the argument.
Soldato
Soldato
You seem to be defining Hate Speech as just basic insults such as ethnic or racial slurs, and equating it with uninformed or unreasoned statements. You contrast it with how you can make an intelligent and informed critique of Islam if you wish that wouldn't be Hate Speech. The problem is that you don't get to decide what Hate Speech is. This whole discussion is taking place around protests against Milo's speech - I've watched a couple and disagree with much of what he says (well, where he talks about women) but he argues and supports his arguments (wrong though he is). Yet many would define his words as Hate Speech. How are you going to define Hate Speech exceptions to Free Speech in any helpful way? Intelligent misogynists like Milo are allowed but idiot ones are censored? Even if you take the most basic and seemingly safe of approaches such as banning ethnic slurs you soon come a cropper. Sure, you might one year put the n-word on your banned words but then the next year you find you've banned 80% of rap artists. And where do you account for degrees of sensitivity. If I called you (as a Welsh person) "taffy" would I be arrested the same as if I called a Black person a racial term? If not, why not? If yes, why? Maybe I know you well and we can joke about it. Maybe I hate you and your entire leek-loving race and am expressing genuine contempt as I turn you down for a job. What if I also was Welsh (thankfully am good Yorkshire-stock
). Would it become okay for me to use because it was "our" word? In which case you're now making legal double-standards based on race. Which are not good because now Uncle Tom has immunity from prosecution for racist behaviour whilst a White person would be prosecuted for things half as serious.The reason that people hold the All or Nothing view to Free Speech is, imo, that really you have to. Short of the Public Interest / Privacy aspect of Libel, breaking confidentiality, etc., which are qualitatively different things, you can't start making Free Speech a matter of degrees. It doesn't work and you open the immediate question of "Well, who gets to decide?".
That's the argument, anyway.
EDIT: Yes to your second post. That IS the difference between our views. I think the above will serve as an answer as to why I think so as well as being a response to your earlier post.
Last edited:
You seem to be defining Hate Speech as just basic insults such as ethnic or racial slurs, and equating it with uninformed or unreasoned statements. You contrast it with how you can make an intelligent and informed critique of Islam if you wish that wouldn't be Hate Speech. The problem is that you don't get to decide what Hate Speech is. This whole discussion is taking place around protests against Milo's speech - I've watched a couple and disagree with much of what he says (well, where he talks about women) but he argues and supports his arguments (wrong though he is). Yet many would define his words as Hate Speech. How are you going to define Hate Speech exceptions to Free Speech in any helpful way? Only intelligent misogynists like Milo are allowed but idiot ones are censored? Even if you take the most basic and seemingly safe of approaches such as banning ethnic slurs you soon come a cropper. Sure, you might one year put the n-word on your banned words but then the next year you find you've banned 80% of rap artists. And where do you account for degrees of sensitivity. If I called you (as a Welsh person) "taffy" would I be arrested the same as if I called a Black person a racial term? If not, why not? If yes, why? Maybe I know you well and we can joke about it. Maybe I hate you and your entire leek-loving race and am expressing genuine contempt as I turn you down for a job. What if I also was Welsh (thankfully am good Yorkshire-stock
The reason that people hold the All or Nothing view to Free Speech is, imo, that really you have to. Short of the Public Interest / Privacy aspect of Libel, breaking confidentiality, etc., which are qualitatively different things, you can't start making Free Speech a matter of degrees. It doesn't work and you open the immediate question of "Well, who gets to decide?".
That's the argument, anyway.
EDIT: Yes to your second post. That IS the difference between our views. I think the above will serve as an answer as to why I think so as well as being a response to your earlier post.
I've never once in this thread said I would censor Milo so please don't say I did.
Hate speech is very easy to spot. Let me give you some examples of what I think is and is not hate speech.
"I disagree with what Israel is doing in Palestine and we should campaign and protest against their actions" = not hate speech
"I disagree with what Israel is doing therefore we should attack Jews until they stop" = hate speech
"I disagree with illegal immigration and we should work together to campaign and protest against it" = not hate speech
"I disagree with illegal immigration therefore we should attack illegal immigrants until they go home" = hate speech
"Radical Islam is a threat to this country and we should do everything in our legal power to protect ourselves against terrorists and those who would do us harm" = not hate speech
"Radical Islam is a threat to this country and we should attack mosques and Muslims in order to protect ourselves" = hate speech
So it is very easy to see the difference between the two arguments I have presented. Both argue against the same thing but one takes a reasonable line which doesn't use hate speech and one uses hate speech. There is absolutely no need to use the hate speech arguments I have said above.
Soldato
That's incitement to violence, covered by a different law.
Another flawed cartoon...
He had a platform at the university - he wasn't able to speak thanks to a violent mob. Free speech laws in the US are supposed to protect against that and law enforcement is supposed to stop that sort of violence. That is why the westboro baptist loons can get away with all their nonsense - the police turn up and protect their constitutional right to free speech. It is, after all, not speech that everyone likes which needs to be protected - the whole point of having laws protecting free speech is to protect dissenting, alternative, 'controversial' speech.
"I think all Jews should burn in the ovens" - Free speech?
"lets gather up all the Jews into the ovens" Free speech?
Now, they are extreme examples, but Milo has previously used his stage to incite violence towards not just transgendered people, but to a very specific transgender student for filing a Title IX complaint about bathroom access.
It was talked about that Milo was this time going to target immigrant students and name them.
His audience is known for throwing the Nazi salute.
The Fash will be get bashed.
Soldato
I didn't.
Looking at what you consider "easy to see the difference," I'll note a few things. One dividing line for you seems to be whether it advocates violence. That's already covered by existing laws under incitement to violence. I consider it a separate issue as does the law but let's examine it as I don't like relying on the law for evidence of whether something is right or not. So that actor who recently used an awards ceremony to advocate Nazis be punched in the face and encourage people to go out and do it - is it Hate Speech? It's advocating violence towards a group for their beliefs. It also commits the second general distinction you make as well because many people are called Nazis who refuse the term themselves. So is it Hate Speech? What if I genuinely believe that Islam is a homophobic, misogynist primitive belief system that should be got rid of and that countries like Qatar, Saudi Arabia et al. need to be Westernised (I do, btw)? Is that Hate Speech? Should I be censored from saying so?
OK. You make a good point about the difference between hate speech and incitement to violence. Obviously I am not a lawyer so I'm not aware of where one ends and the other begins.
If you attempt to get a person or a group of people to attack another person or a group of people based on their beliefs then I would call that hate speech and I would consider it wrong.
Someone can hold some pretty awful beliefs and still not be guilty of any crimes. Anyway people should be free to hold whatever beliefs they want. It would be a sad day in this country is we ever ended up with thought crime from the book 1984. Just because someone disagrees with their beliefs doesn't give them the right to attack them only the right to argue with them in a debate.
I agree that Islam is a dangerous faith. I'm against all religions including Christianity and Judaism. So I agree absolutely with you about Islam. The world would be a much better place if everyone was an atheist or at the very least an agnostic. But just because I believe that doesn't give me the right to attack people because of their beliefs. How do you suggest we combat Islam? Nuke all the Muslim countries? Invade them? Make Islam illegal? All we can is voice our opinion on the subject and hope that people change their minds. Getting people to attack Muslims though is wrong and I would not be in favour of that.
I should point out that I am a somewhat spiritual person I just don't believe in any higher power which makes me an atheist but I still follow some religious morality and practices just without the worship of a god.
They're made up examples so rather irrelevant, no one is saying there are absolutely no limits on free speech. Inciting violence, making death threats, shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre etc... but being rude and un-pc isn't an exception.
So you're basing an argument on a rumour of what people think he might have possibly been planning to say? Also naming a tranny who made a big public display of gaining access to a female locker room isn't 'inviting violence' nor does it make someone a 'facist'.
Yet they're not facist and you're just making stuff up, you posted a picture from a completely different speaker's event - that is just dishonesty on your part, you can't base an argument off a fabrication.
Aside from posting cartoons you haven't been able to present anything credible to suggest Milo is a facist, I've found myself defending him even though I dislike him. Your attempt so far has been to fabricate things by posting a crowd picture from an event that has nothing to do with him, if that is the best you can do then your argument is incredibly weak.
No, the arguments based on how he has acted in the past towards disenfranchised minorities.
And your use of the word Tranny shows where your feelings lie.
If he had previously "named a n*****r who made a big public display of gaining access to a White's locker room" and the room was full of racists isnt acceptable to you, but you haven't come that far when it comes to transgendered people, that's understandable, but lol if you think the Anti-fa are going to let you say those kinds of things and not get bashed?!
And the liberals can cry their liberal tears about violence.
Transexuals using what would have been their previous opposite gendered toilet isn't as simple as giving black people equalised liberty, or females the vote.
Because amazingly the majority straight, "kinda doesn't want men (this is after all a contentious issue) in their private places" woman, has a right to feel a bit unsafe considering the very "liberally" lauded rape culture we seem to live in.
Having gender-neutral toilets would end this issue, but would still end up having an unsafe atmosphere without a major change in social etiquette or having guards at every toilet.
Because amazingly the majority straight, "kinda doesn't want men (this is after all a contentious issue) in their private places" woman, has a right to feel a bit unsafe considering the very "liberally" lauded rape culture we seem to live in.
Having gender-neutral toilets would end this issue, but would still end up having an unsafe atmosphere without a major change in social etiquette or having guards at every toilet.
Yet another person ignorant about what liberalism truly is. Come back when you've found out.
Antifa organisations are a joke. They censor people because they are unable or unwilling to have a decent debate with them. I have no respect for people like that.
And another person who equates liberalism with social justice warriors. The whole rape culture thing is a load of rubbish. The only reason people think we live in a rape culture now is because it is reported more by the press and on social media. In other words people have far greater access to information these days which makes it sound like rapes happen more these days when in fact that is not the truth.
Edit: Just read some interesting crime statistics from government websites about things like violence against women.
"In common with previous years, fewer women were the victim of violent
crime in 2009/10 than men. Overall, 4.2% of men and 1.8% of women had
been a victim of violent crime.7
Men accounted for two-thirds (66.6%) of all
incidents of violence; women for one-third (33.3%)."
and more interestingly when talking about intimate violence (rape, sexual assault etc)
"Trends in the prevalence of intimate violence in the last year remained
stable compared with 2008/09. Longer term trends since 2004/05 (when
the questions were introduced), showed a decrease for all categories of
intimate violence for all adults."
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ata/file/217824/statistics-women-cjs-2010.pdf
Last edited:
Nah the argument you presented was quite clearly based on what it was presumed he would say. If he'd done the same thing in the past then you'd have cited it.
So yet more 'what if he said x'.
Face it, you've got no credible basis to call him a facist - you've so far posted cartoons, you've tried a fabrication by using a photo from a different event and different speaker and after that dishonesty how can we take you seriously. Now you're arguing against him on the basis of what some people think he might have been planning to say and what if he'd said x etc...
What a joke, why not attempt to construct an argument using what he's actually done.