Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    People who go to 'protest' other people's events either do so to silence them, which is absolutely unacceptable, especially on a university campus, or just to be trendy and join in with yelling about their opinions in public, in which case they are depressing losers who need to find something productive to do with their time.

    They are such unbearable narcissists. They are also apparently very stupid. To go out and protest the fact that people are sharing ideas which are different from yours is pathetic and wrong in itself, but given they presumably opposed Milo's ideas being widely shared perhaps doing this and catapulting him into the mainstream national media spotlight was also just strategically ridiculous.
    That is your opinion, I am of the opinion that intolerance cannot be met with tolerance. I would apply this to Milo as much as to Islam.

    I personally would not go to protest, just for that reason, it's what he actually wants. But I can certainly see why others would feel strongly that a hate preacher is coming to their campus.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    I see, so you have never ranted against them, nor has anyone else on this forum sharing your general political view?
    Just like they can say what they want so can I, people have the right to speak out if they disagree with me and I can when I disagree with them, free speech isn't about agreement.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    Have you got a sensible response?
    You were accusing others of protesting and denying free speech just because they oppose in views, and now you are dismissing me as not sensible just because you don't agree.

    btw, you can youtube it, there are multiple people who are actually social commentators and not like me just some random guy on an internet forum, who think very similarly about Milo.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    I have no problems with neo-Nazis being punched.

    If the Nazis were in power, they'd do a lot worse than punch a few people...
    This is the problem what happens when you lose the power you have given your opponents the rights needed to attack you.

    Be consistent with your views is it ok to attack people you disagree with?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    That is your opinion, I am of the opinion that intolerance cannot be met with tolerance. I would apply this to Milo as much as to Islam.

    I personally would not go to protest, just for that reason, it's what he actually wants. But I can certainly see why others would feel strongly that a hate preacher is coming to their campus.
    So you are intolerant of different opinions
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Just like they can say what they want so can I, people have the right to speak out if they disagree with me and I can when I disagree with them, free speech isn't about agreement.
    No, it's not. But neither is it about hate.

    If Milo wants to talk to his worshipers, let him rent a private place and they can come and celebrate. Misusing campuses for his propaganda will inevitable draw opposition.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    That is your opinion, I am of the opinion that intolerance cannot be met with tolerance. I would apply this to Milo as much as to Islam.
    Okay, so you regard Milo as intolerant. Many people regard those on the left, whom Milo speaks against, as intolerant. Shall we all just protest each other's events, so that nobody can speak? Does that sound productive to you?

    There has to be room for people to be able freely to express views which other people strongly disagree with. Otherwise (a) you stifle thought on either side of any given argument and (b) ratchet up hostilities between the sides, as this protest and others like it have.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BusyStarGazing)
    I've always been fascinated by the concept of free speech personally, I am totally for people being able to rise up and use their voice to help create change. Some of the great civil rights have been made by our ability to speak up in anger.

    But you are a fool if you wouldn't accept that many heinous and vile things have been done because people have abused this right... free speech can and will always incite hatred, whether this is a good thing is up to you to decide
    If you would limit speech where would you draw the line knowing that you will eventually lose power and have made your oppression possible?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    So you are intolerant of different opinions
    No, read properly, I am intolerant of intolerance.

    You seem to be under the impression that "words" should magically be something holy, irreproachable. And only actions are wrong.

    Why?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    I never said it was but if someone wants to try it should they be stopped? This is in line with my position on drugs and euthanasia which I think should be legal.

    You want to share the video of Richard spencer being punched while giving an interview in the street?

    Did the salute actually hurt anyone? I think it is stupid but who did it physically hurt? I have no problem if these rioters stand there protesting that is their right and I can disagree and call them stupid but when it turns into physical violence that is where the problem begins.

    Was it ok when Richard Spencer got punched? Is political violence acceptable?
    Your views are hardly in line with mainstream conservative beliefs though, i.e. Trump's administration includes supporters of 'Gay conversion therapy' but opponents of the decriminalisation of drug use, euthanasia, and abortion. What happened to 'if they want it why can't they try it?' when it comes to contraceptive rights, which Republicans plan to defund?

    Richard Spencer getting punched is obviously wrong, but let's not act like physical violence is the only wrong thing here. Preaching a doctrine of White Supremacy- hatred towards all those who don't happen to be born White is clearly an example of intolerance, as is Trump's comments concerning the Mexican judge and poorly implemented ban on immigration from predominately Muslim nations (whilst allowing Christian refugees in purely because they're not Muslim).

    You've shifted the goalposts here by moving from intolerance (which the right is obviously guilty of as well), towards physical violence. Whilst it is very clear physical violence in any form, be it against Richard Spencer or among the Berkeley protestors, is something which should be condemned, let's not pretend that i) Physical violence is a norm among the Left, rather than the actions of a tiny minority ii) that the Right is not guilty of intolerance in many forms and iii) Richard Spencer's comments are merely 'stupid' and not hateful or intolerant towards non-whites.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    No, it's not. But neither is it about hate.

    If Milo wants to talk to his worshipers, let him rent a private place and they can come and celebrate. Misusing campuses for his propaganda will inevitable draw opposition.
    So you do not support the 1st amendment and article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Okay, so you regard Milo as intolerant. Many people regard those on the left, whom Milo speaks against, as intolerant. Shall we all just protest each other's events, so that nobody can speak? Does that sound productive to you?

    There has to be room for people to be able freely to express views which other people strongly disagree with. Otherwise (a) you stifle thought on either side of any given argument and (b) ratchet up hostilities between the sides, as this protest and others like it have.
    I regard them intolerant, too. As I said they are both extremes that are ridiculous.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    I regard them intolerant, too. As I said they are both extremes that are ridiculous.
    This is what I meant when I referred to narcissism. It doesn't matter what you think. The fact is a lot of people hold each opinion, and, as I said, if everyone protests everyone else, rather than letting them speak, what you have is a worse situation, not a better one.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Percypig17)
    Your views are hardly in line with mainstream conservative beliefs though, i.e. Trump's administration includes supporters of 'Gay conversion therapy' but opponents of the decriminalisation of drug use, euthanasia, and abortion. What happened to 'if they want it why can't they try it?' when it comes to contraceptive rights, which Republicans plan to defund?

    Richard Spencer getting punched is obviously wrong, but let's not act like physical violence is the only wrong thing here. Preaching a doctrine of White Supremacy- hatred towards all those who don't happen to be born White is clearly an example of intolerance, as is Trump's comments concerning the Mexican judge and poorly implemented ban on immigration from predominately Muslim nations (whilst allowing Christian refugees in purely because they're not Muslim).

    You've shifted the goalposts here by moving from intolerance (which the right is obviously guilty of as well), towards physical violence. Whilst it is very clear physical violence in any form, be it against Richard Spencer or among the Berkeley protestors, is something which should be condemned, let's not pretend that i) Physical violence is a norm among the Left, rather than the actions of a tiny minority ii) that the Right is not guilty of intolerance in many forms and iii) Richard Spencer's comments are merely 'stupid' and not hateful or intolerant towards non-whites.
    Well argue against my views instead of someone else's.

    What do you mean contraceptive rights? If you mean killing a human at the early stages of human development yes I'm against that except in very limited circumstances.

    what do you think of the intolerance of the protesters behind him? They were holding a sign saying "white lives matter too much" would you play it down if they were assaulted for being intolerant?

    I disagree with what trump said

    The nations that do not have stable governments and that makes it hard to vet: as long as the new system is in place by the time this freeze is over then ok if it takes longer then I will not be happy.

    Where in the executive order does it say let christians in because they are Christians?

    I never said I was talking about intolerance it was always violence, you have the right to be intolerant but you do not have the right to stop people using those rights on public property
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    This is what I meant when I referred to narcissism. It doesn't matter what you think. The fact is a lot of people hold each opinion, and, as I said, if everyone protests everyone else, rather than letting them speak, what you have is a worse situation, not a better one.
    But everyone doesn't protest everyone else. There are no protests against political opinions that aren't hateful.

    Milo wants to piss people off, people get pissed off and you are like "omg, what's going on".
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Is Nazism a valid political view?
    Yes all political views are valid, it doesn't mean it should be mainstream but it doesn't give you the right to punch people you disagree with.

    I disagree with some of your views should I be allowed to punch you in the face?

    You have to apply your beliefs to everyone not just groups you would like to oppress.

    Here is what an ethicist has to say about punching nazis
    No. You don't get to punch people in the face, even if their ideas are odious. You don't. We want a civil society, where ideas are met with other ideas. We don't want a society that encourages thuggish behavior, where if someone has politics different from yours, you get to beat them up. Aside from it just being morally wrong in itself to assault people, there's the practical consideration that in a society where ideas are met with fists, one is as likely to be the punched as the puncher, and it's no fun to be punched in the face.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    But everyone doesn't protest everyone else. There are no protests against political opinions that aren't hateful.

    Milo wants to piss people off, people get pissed off and you are like "omg, what's going on".
    Again, your problem is that you can't see anything outside your own opinions. Whether you personally regard Milo's ideas as 'hateful', they are just ideas. There is no incitement to any action. It is better for everyone if people do not silence those whose ideas they disagree with, and all we are talking about here is an idea which you personally disagree with, however you dress it up. If they're really as wrong as you think that ought to come out better in an environment in which people can express ideas and disagree with each other than in one in which mindless thugs go around closing down other people's functions. I've already explained the consequences if you shut people down: you attract others to their cause and make both sides more stubborn.

    Milo doubtless includes an element of trolling in his performances to generate media attention, as these unspeakable Berkeley morons have helped him to do, but that doesn't come close to justifying this kind of behaviour.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    If you would limit speech where would you draw the line knowing that you will eventually lose power and have made your oppression possible?
    Freedom of speech is a freedom that should be seen in retrospective to other freedoms we posses. For example nothing in theory is preventing you from walking into a shop and stealing, although yes there are laws that give us consequences, we are technically free to do that.

    Therefore similar to free speech we are technically free to say what we want, we should use this liberty to engage ourselves in mature ways. Not only this but we can easily abuse this power, and if you claim that for example racism is free speech then you clearly don't understand that calling a black person for example a ****** is verbal abuse, and therefore consequences should be enabled.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    One has to laugh at all the authoritarian ideological communo-fascists on here on the left; free speech is a human right in Europe and a constitutional right in the US, attempting to limit it in either of those is CRIMINAL, that's what you leftists are, criminal sympathisers.

    All public universities that are paid for by taxpayers money that perpetuates Orwellian newspeak and "safe spaces" should have said funding revoked, I don't give a **** and neither does a majority of the population if some attention seeking gender fluid diversity studies undergrad special snowflake gets offended by Milo Yiannopoulous, facts don't care about your ****ing feelings.

    As for the "protestors" - what absolute cowards, wearing masks to hide their putrid anarchcunt faces; if I ever came into contact with an anarchist protest the first thing I'd do is rip one of those masks straight off and piss myself at the anorexic/obese (delete as appropriate) neckbeard lying underneath.

    #FREESPEECHMATTERS

    "But I don't want comfort. I want the opportunity to believe in god, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness, I want sin." - Aldous Huxley, 'Brave New World'
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Again, your problem is that you can't see anything outside your own opinions. Whether you personally regard Milo's ideas as 'hateful', they are just ideas. There is no incitement to any action. It is better for everyone if people do not silence those whose ideas they disagree with, and all we are talking about here is an idea which you personally disagree with, however you dress it up. If they're really as wrong as you think that ought to come out better in an environment in which people can express ideas and disagree with each other than in one in which mindless thugs go around closing down other people's functions. I've already explained the consequences if you shut people down: you attract others to their cause and make both sides more stubborn.

    Milo doubtless includes an element of trolling in his performances to generate media attention, as these unspeakable Berkeley morons have helped him to do, but that doesn't come close to justifying this kind of behaviour.
    I disagree with plenty of others ideas and do not support silencing them.

    Again your problem is that you seem to think your opinion is logically flawless and counts for more than that of others.

    What your problem is, too, that you still don't realize who these "morons" were that carried out the violence. It wasn't the Berkely students but anarchists known as Black Bloc.

    No doubt you will come up with some other "explanation" but I won't engage anymore. Quite ironic you were not just talking about narcissism, but then talking about what you were meaning about it.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.