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

You're talking about different things now -why apologise? Well it caused a **** storm and hurt him financially, maybe he thought it was good PR as his choice of words weren't good.

But I don't quite understand your point re: his ardent critics not fitting your Nazi criteria. There have been plenty of stories that check off most of your boxes on that list posted.
 
hurfdurf said:
lol ok mate defend the guy who tried to justify and normalise pedophilia :D
Click to expand...

Except he hasn't. Just repeating that he's a Nazi or a Paedophile supporter doesn't make it true. It requires you to selectively ignore all the evidence to the contrary and simply rely on your own personal dislike of him + out of context quotes.
 
Tunney said:
As the result of a student campaign? From what I can gather online, he was forced to resign by the university with very little outside influence.
Click to expand...

well rather a lot of outside influence - the media **** storm... and yes that was an example of this PC culture currently being pushed by SJWs
 
hurfdurf said:
Nazi's want to eradicate certain races, their use of violence is already well documented, fighting back and making them feel unsafe already runs the risk of fighting with them. Don't be scared Mr StriderX. Sometimes good people have to fight bad, and tell good people might get hurt. You can stay at home with your feather in your hat though, denouncing all the violence.
Click to expand...

Yet again, what does any of this have to do with Nazis?

When has Milo called for the eradication of certain races?
 
I'm still not sure how that makes him a Nazi or how any rather broad set of rules that apparently do make him a 'Nazi' don't equally apply to quite a few of his critics who are happy to throw unsubstantiated claims like 'white supremacist' at him.
 
datalol-jack said:
The set of criteria, outlined in the two original sources, being far more robust and comprehensive than the summary for GD is there to be applied, and is far from broad, is for a fascist;
Click to expand...

It is pretty broad - I really don't see how Milo is a 'Nazi' and I could quite easily see those criteria fitting various main stream media critics, I'm not talking about his far right critics here.
 
B&W said:
Stop getting fixated with the word Nazi. People often use it to mean far right.

He probably isn't far right but he supports and hangs around with them, speaks in events organised by them. So why are you so surprised why people call him that?
Click to expand...

I don't follow him but have watched some clips on youtube as far as I could tell he mostly speaks at Student Republican events - can you give some examples of far right events he's spoken at and/or example where he's supported a far right group?
 
Yadda said:
Second rule of the alt-right, and the far-right for that matter:

"Define the xxx-right then!"
Click to expand...

Are you ever capable of justifying/backing up your statements? It seems your go to retort to criticism is just to claim that others are simply bigots. It is a bit lazy, it's almost as if you're incapable of thinking or presenting an argument and can merely resort to throwing insults around.
 
robgmun said:
That gives no information or evidence as to who was shutting down debates. As mmj_uk said, most left-wing speakers i've seen have been shut down by even futher left-wing groups. A good example is Germaine Greer, a feminist icon being shut down by Trans-activists.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/mps-back-students-who-tried-14464265
Click to expand...

There are details but yeah it does seem that the vocal/disruptive protestors trying to shut stuff down would be from the left and that example is indeed left vs left.

The list does provide details but includes stuff like a petition being signed as a failed attempt to shut down a speaker, whereas this thread was about people using physical violence to attempt to achieve that aim.

If everyone just signed petitions and most of them failed because the reasons for wanting the speaker pulled were weak then this sort of stuff wouldn't really be newsworthy in the first place.

I guess the main exception re: trying to ban event's/speakers is perhaps the American right and anything to do with abortion being a potential trigger for them.
 
Monkeymatt said:
You have a few valid points that get lost in your bias. You haven't got a chip on your shoulder, you've got a rock.

As for the whole "The left is anti-Semitic" nonsense, it doesn't take a genius to work out that this rhetoric is being peddled out so people ignore the right's Islamophobia.
Click to expand...

antisemitism is actually one of the main cited reasons in the document for wanting to stop the left wing speakers they've listed
 
Monkeymatt said:
Every time there's a protest the right doesn't like, such as Kaepernick or the recent Climate Change protest where Mark Field restrained a protestor, they spout the same excuses... You're allowed your freedom of speech, just not anywhere public where people might be able to a really hear your completely wrong, left loony, opinion.
Click to expand...

You're conflating rather different things here - getting angry at Kaepernick isn't the same as trying to stop someone from speaking at a university. IF Kaepernick were to go and speak at a university and people upset over the kneeling issue tried to get that speech banned then you'd have something comparable.

Trying to stop someone from speaking in front of a group of people who want to attend the event the speaker is booked for is rather different.

In fact the survey posted has conflated speaker events where the audience is there to see the speaker and others just want to silence them with broader events such as commencement addresses to the student body as a whole - where there is perhaps a more legitimate reason for wanting controversial speakers removed.
 
Caracus2k said:
Spencer is a Socialist.
[...]
Just one that beleives the socialism he advocates for should only be for one racial group in its own nation. If said nation existed he could correctly be described as 'National socialist'.... Anyone remember any other groups who used such a term?
Click to expand...

The BNP are/were (national) socialists too. People seem to forget that there was a whole segment of the Nazi party that were rather keen socialists and that the party wanted to win over from the communists, it wasn't just in the name for marketing purposes initially and some of that ideology, Strasserism, still influences "far right" groups today.

Authoritarian and liberal would perhaps be more useful descriptors than left/right in this context as far right seems to indicate these people have heightened versions of the beliefs of conservatives when they're basically the polar opposite of the likes of say Boris or Cameron and have more in common with the likes of Corbyn's socialist and marxist buddies - albeit he's seemingly not fond of nationalism (unless it is Irish nationalism) and racism (unless it is antisemitism).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom