Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    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

    16
    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

    13
    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.
    Offline

    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
    Offline

    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

    2
    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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    I consider it a thuggish act to travel around the country inciting hatred.
    Well if you disagree with someone then I guess it's totally okay for you to try to silence them and shout to the world about it.

    These animals are one step away from book-burning.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Well if you disagree with someone then I guess it's totally okay for you to try to silence them and shout to the world about it.

    These animals are one step away from book-burning.
    There are plenty of people I disagree with where I do not think "silencing them" is a good idea. In addition, I am not even for a ban - I just think it's good that many people come out and protest. Because it shows that they oppose the hatred.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Because there is no history of left wing authoritarianism and terror -.-
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wow I just found a goldmine of memes. These are amazing :rofl:

    http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/12235...-tolerant-left
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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