Turn on thread page Beta
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    No they didn't do good. Even if he was going to name undocumented students, that is public record, it's not confidential. And even if it is confidential and naming undocumented students is illegal, there is a legal procedure - you bring in the police to deal with that. If for whatever injustice that occurred, citizens took the matters in their own hands, it would be chaos (pun intended).
    These police now hound Muslims etc. The police will come for these people if they were named. I think they did good.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    These police now hound Muslims etc. The police will come for these people if they were named. I think they did good.
    If these people are undocumented and if there are no laws against naming them publically, Milo would have done nothing illegal or particularly immoral. I'm all for changing immigration laws to allow everyone who is peaceful and has no record to migrate anywhere so long as they can get a job to support themselves. But it can't be that people break the law - i.e. migrate illegally - and the police just sit there and do nothing.

    Laws are the only thing that keep a society from turning into a jungle. They must be respected even if they are unjust. In a democratic, open society, people should campaign for a change in laws not break them whenever they find them to be unjust (as I do - I find immigration laws both in the EU in which I'm a citizen and in the US to be absurdly strict but that doesn't mean I will do what I want without regard to the legality of it).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    Laws are the only thing that keep a society from turning into a jungle. They must be respected even if they are unjust.
    Anything that is unjust should not be respected.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    If these people are undocumented and if there are no laws against naming them publically, Milo would have done nothing illegal or particularly immoral.
    Legality does not equal morality.

    Even if it was legal to name those people I find it immoral and support the actions of the people who denied him a platform.

    This is the problem. I don't see why we should tolerate scum trolls like Milo if his actions are going to result in people getting ****ed over by the american state. It's all well and good defending the rule of law but what happens when you have people who use the law to persecute people. America has a big deep history of the state and it's henchmen oppressing large amounts of people.

    When it comes to breaking laws it boils down to morality and strategy in the right circumstances breaking laws is fine imo. The rule of law is ultimately about brute force anyway. It only exists because the state has a monopoly on violence.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    He was going to name undocumented students or something like that. Those students did good in protecting those people.
    'or something like that', and there you go, there's the problem, you've no idea, you're just going on what you've heard in media outlets that erronously call him a white supremacist, the vast majority of his critics don't seem to know anything about the guy apart from the fact they heard someone on twitter call him a Nazi. I'm guessing you're trolling now, but if you're not, there is absolutely nothing good about beating up people simply for wanting hear someone with some controversial views speak.

    And again, the problem with this whole 'it's okay to punch a Nazi' meme is that it's very ambiguous right now who, if anyone, can actually be considered a Nazi, everyone seems to have forgotten what the term actually means ffs.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    People should learn from history, violent protesting doesn't do anything good for the people protesting . . .

    Look what happened to the Suffragettes, when they attacked MPs, destroyed buildings, set churches on fire, stole from shops, that just made the men at the time not want to give them the vote even more. It was WW2 that give them what they wanted.

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigTraderBoi)
    The guy is an enemy of Muslims and other groups. He's a hateful man, depraved and unhinged. He has no business being in an environment of learning and peace.
    That may be so, but it still doesn't take away his right to free speech under the First Amendment of the US Constitution and needless to say I don't think there is anything in it about 'hate speech', what even is hate speech, can anyone actually properly define hate speech? Who should decide what constitutes hate speech and how can you be sure they're not selective in what they deem hate speech to suit their agenda?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Because extreme right wingers are so accepting and loving. Maybe both are just as bad as each other
    I missed all the Tea Partiers lighting **** on fire and assaulting people in the streets. Cut this moral relativism crap right out.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Because extreme right wingers are so accepting and loving. Maybe both are just as bad as each other
    Sure there are some vile right wingers who would happily kill blacks and gays but it is very few in the west.

    but the whole antifa and millitant left are more accepted.

    If a neo nazi goes "KILL ALL BLACKS" 99% of people will be against him.

    But some antifa going

    "DOWN WITH TRUMP" Will be more accepted, the hard left are far more and very violent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's usually those who preach tolerance on end that end up being the most intolerant of all.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IreneG)
    It's usually those who preach tolerance on end that end up being the most intolerant of all.
    They're past the point of even preaching tolerance hypocritically. They're out and out calling for intolerance and violence. More than calling for it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    They think they are some kind of freedom fighters, lets hope they get locked up.

    Even as a right winger I support Left wing people talking and having opinions, I mean I hate communists but I would never consider political violence (Bar in really extreme circumstances)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    Anything that is unjust should not be respected.
    Rednecks in the South regard anti-segretation laws as "unjust". A former friend of mine regarded laws against certain kinds of theft as unjust. If people simply disregarded the laws they consider "unjust", we'd live in chaos.

    This is a reply to both you and Butterfly since he hasn't in the least countered the concern that although you may consider something to be unjust, you ought to still abide by the law. You can and you should organise groups against it publically, speak against it publically and loudly, use the electoral system to support candidates that oppose it and so on. The Americans don't live in a dictatorship.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olie)
    'or something like that', and there you go, there's the problem, you've no idea, you're just going on what you've heard in media outlets that erronously call him a white supremacist, the vast majority of his critics don't seem to know anything about the guy apart from the fact they heard someone on twitter call him a Nazi. I'm guessing you're trolling now, but if you're not, there is absolutely nothing good about beating up people simply for wanting hear someone with some controversial views speak.

    And again, the problem with this whole 'it's okay to punch a Nazi' meme is that it's very ambiguous right now who, if anyone, can actually be considered a Nazi, everyone seems to have forgotten what the term actually means ffs.
    The media outlet thing's flip side is why should I believe all the outlets who defend milo?

    Milo is a troll who is a fellow traveller of racists for lols and to make money. I doubt he has any strong political beliefs other than his own self gain and scamming people out of money. His trollish behaviour has consequences however for people. Also he wasn't physically attacked as far as I am aware. He was just forced to not be able to give his lecture. This was a common tactic in the civil rights movement. Anti racist and pro civil rights movements would protest against certain individuals like racist politicians to the point where they couldn't speak in public. It's a tactic that can work and now the civil rights movement has had the cuddly liberal friendly history re writing which always happens when these movements win. It's the same with the suffragettes.

    You are right in that I am trolling the people who seem to prioritise the rights of racists over you know, black people. There was no tears shed over the anti-fascist who got shot by a racist. These things are often just a proxy for people to attack the left with which is especially annoying when it is not the left who have worryingly amounts of power right now.

    Spoiler:
    Show

    "These contributions to the story of our times tend to come from one of three quarters (see what I did there?). First, there is the contrarian so predictable he’s no longer a contrarian at all. Then there is the old, hard, nasty right who, I suppose, at least have the honesty of their poisonous convictions. And finally, in the third category, there are members of the self-styled heretic left who, though they protest their liberalism, haven’t written anything genuinely liberal – or even liberalish – in years. Because when all is said and done and when push comes to shove no hippy can be left un-kicked. And push must always come to shove."


    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/02...hey-are-right/


    Richard Spencer is a racists who invites us to consider the question of genocide. I don't really care if someone like him gets punched in the face beyond what results it has strategically (it can backfire).

    Generally I think the left is better using the approach of only using defensive violence where it can. So create your commune and use violence if it gets attacked. But where do you draw the line? What if you can't even make your commune without being attacked? What happens when intolerant people demand tolerance? They are not any simple answers and politics is matter of life or death a lot of the time. If you are someone who is at risk of being deported to a country which may well kill you what do you do?

    This is a good article on where I am coming from.
    https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-...376#.vmz59py5x
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    This is a reply to both you and Butterfly since he hasn't in the least countered the concern that although you may consider something to be unjust, you ought to still abide by the law.
    I agree up to a point. But there is a line that can be crossed and since we are talking about people who want genocide it seems apt to bring up the holocaust. One of the reasons that was so horrific is because of how "civilised" it was. Do you really expect me to say that if the law of a country facilitates genocide the citizens of that country are morally bound to defend it and play their part in it? There is a reason the USA has this big zeitgeist of protecting people from the government, governments can do horrendous stuff. The country didn't just spring out of anywhere either. Like all nations it's emergence is based on vielence, in this case the war of independence.

    Ultimately though I don;t view it how you do. It is all about where power lies and it is amoral. It is not some collective agreement made between people. The only reason I can not and don't just walk into a wood owned by someone is because I am worried the police will arrest me. Not because I agree to abide by the law. If I was braver and prepared for the hassle I would I would smash their gate down since no one should be able to own a forest.

    How do you account for how states act externally? There is no governing rule of law that accounts for that.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    If I was braver and prepared for the hassle I would I would smash their gate down since no one should be able to own a forest.
    Wow, someone's built up some resentment.

    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    the people who seem to prioritise the rights of racists over you know, black people.
    This is an idiotic way to look at it because this isn't how rights work. Everyone has the right to speak and to organise their own speaking events. Nobody has the right to punch somebody else for speaking or interrupt their events by behaving like the narcissistic thugs and general losers at the Berkeley incident.

    But, sorry, I guess keyboard militant over here wants to overthrow society, so maybe he'll remake it so that 'rights' refer to which identities you can claim rather than what you are doing. I'm sure much of the left would love that.

    Fyi this sort of thing is why the right is winning.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Wow, someone's built up some resentment.



    This is an idiotic way to look at it because this isn't how rights work. Everyone has the right to speak and to organise their own speaking events. Nobody has the right to punch somebody else for speaking or interrupt their events by behaving like the narcissistic thugs and general losers at the Berkeley incident.

    But, sorry, I guess keyboard militant over here wants to overthrow society, so maybe he'll remake it so that 'rights' refer to which identities you can claim rather than what you are doing. I'm sure much of the left would love that.

    Fyi this sort of thing is why the right is winning.
    The violence at Berkely was instigated by an anarchist group called Black Bloc.

    They have nothing to do with the student protesters.

    Fyi this is not why the right is winning.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    The violence at Berkely was instigated by an anarchist group called Black Bloc.

    They have nothing to do with the student protesters.

    Fyi this is not why the right is winning.
    I don't really care about the violence. I consider it a thuggish act to go into the street and yell about your opinions to try to disrupt someone else's event.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    The violence at Berkely was instigated by an anarchist group called Black Bloc.

    They have nothing to do with the student protesters.

    Fyi this is not why the right is winning.
    You shouldn't display your ignorance so proudly. The Black Bloc is a tactic of rioters, not a group. And at least one of the people in the Bloc was an employee of the University.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    I don't really care about the violence. I consider it a thuggish act to go into the street and yell about your opinions to try to disrupt someone else's event.
    I consider it a thuggish act to travel around the country inciting hatred.
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
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.