Berkeley "liberals" contra free speech

[J842P]

We are not making caricatures of these people.

They have done that themselves.

They are loathed, because they have made themselves loathsome.

I am all for freedom of expression. I am also for freedom of association. If someone expresses vile ideas to the point where I don't want to associate with them, they can't say their freedom of expression shields them from this consequence.

And there comes a point when someone is so loathsome society will cease associating with them. Ultimately, this is the limit of freedom of expression.

What are the loathsome ideas of Milo?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

They did the responsible thing. Violence was occurring hours before the event. It would have been negligent for them to let it go on, unless they could reasonably guarantee everyone's safety.

And now we know that the way to get them to do what we want is to be violent. And it doesn't matter if it was students from the far left or people from the far right doing the violence. Either way, they won, and their violence was rewarded and will be more likely, not less likely, in the future.

- - - Updated - - -

We are not making caricatures of these people.

They have done that themselves.

They are loathed, because they have made themselves loathsome.

I am all for freedom of expression. I am also for freedom of association. If someone expresses vile ideas to the point where I don't want to associate with them, they can't say their freedom of expression shields them from this consequence.

And there comes a point when someone is so loathsome society will cease associating with them. Ultimately, this is the limit of freedom of expression.

What are the loathsome ideas of Milo?

I can think of a few, but I bet you 90% of the snowflakes who protested him couldn't name any.

 

[blastula]

And now we know that the way to get them to do what we want is to be violent. And it doesn't matter if it was students from the far left or people from the far right doing the violence. Either way, they won, and their violence was rewarded and will be more likely, not less likely, in the future.

Maybe, but so what, stopping it was still the right thing to do. You're rather reckless with other people's lives.

 

[Arctish]

And now we know that the way to get them to do what we want is to be violent. And it doesn't matter if it was students from the far left or people from the far right doing the violence. Either way, they won, and their violence was rewarded and will be more likely, not less likely, in the future.

- - - Updated - - -

We are not making caricatures of these people.

They have done that themselves.

They are loathed, because they have made themselves loathsome.

I am all for freedom of expression. I am also for freedom of association. If someone expresses vile ideas to the point where I don't want to associate with them, they can't say their freedom of expression shields them from this consequence.

And there comes a point when someone is so loathsome society will cease associating with them. Ultimately, this is the limit of freedom of expression.

What are the loathsome ideas of Milo?

I can think of a few, but I bet you 90% of the snowflakes who protested him couldn't name any.

Are you calling the 1500 peaceful protesters snowflakes, or do you mean the 100-150 masked rioters?

How did you determine they were snowflakes?

And what do you mean by 'snowflakes'? Please define the term. Sometimes it seems like you mean people who swoon and cry and have emotional meltdowns when faced with new concepts and challenges to their worldviews, but that doesn't describe either group.

ETA: I bet 90% of the peaceful protesters know why Yiannopoulis was banned from Twitter. The shit he posted was loathsome, and they had good reason to suspect his Dangerous Faggot speech was going to be more of the same.

 

[laughing dog]

It is unfortunate that his scheduled speech was cancelled because of violence. But that is not censorship since he can speak and say whatever he pleases in print and the internet and to who interviews him.

The OP equating these anarchists with "liberals" is an example of the alt-snowflake reactions.

BTW, if this speech had been permitted and if there was damage, would everyone agree that the isponsors (i.e. the College Republicans) should be held liable for damages since they had inadequate security?

No, the people who caused the damage should be held liable. This is mainly because they're the ones who did it.

And if you cannot catch them? Don't the sponsors have some responsibility for what happens? In this case, it is well know this guy is a provocateur - that is his schtick.

 

[laughing dog]

I can think of a few, but I bet you 90% of the snowflakes who protested him couldn't name any.

Just because you are a snowflake, why would you project your ignorance onto others?

 

[J842P]

And now we know that the way to get them to do what we want is to be violent. And it doesn't matter if it was students from the far left or people from the far right doing the violence. Either way, they won, and their violence was rewarded and will be more likely, not less likely, in the future.

- - - Updated - - -

We are not making caricatures of these people.

They have done that themselves.

They are loathed, because they have made themselves loathsome.

I am all for freedom of expression. I am also for freedom of association. If someone expresses vile ideas to the point where I don't want to associate with them, they can't say their freedom of expression shields them from this consequence.

And there comes a point when someone is so loathsome society will cease associating with them. Ultimately, this is the limit of freedom of expression.

What are the loathsome ideas of Milo?

I can think of a few, but I bet you 90% of the snowflakes who protested him couldn't name any.

Are you calling the 1500 peaceful protesters snowflakes, or do you mean the 100-150 masked rioters?

How did you determine they were snowflakes?

And what do you mean by 'snowflakes'? Please define the term. Sometimes it seems like you mean people who swoon and cry and have emotional meltdowns when faced with new concepts and challenges to their worldviews, but that doesn't describe either group.

ETA: I bet 90% of the peaceful protesters know why Yiannopoulis was banned from Twitter. The shit he posted was loathsome, and they had good reason to suspect his Dangerous Faggot speech was going to be more of the same.

What was loathsome about his Tweets? That he called a celebrity ugly?

 

[Arctish]

And now we know that the way to get them to do what we want is to be violent. And it doesn't matter if it was students from the far left or people from the far right doing the violence. Either way, they won, and their violence was rewarded and will be more likely, not less likely, in the future.

- - - Updated - - -

We are not making caricatures of these people.

They have done that themselves.

They are loathed, because they have made themselves loathsome.

I am all for freedom of expression. I am also for freedom of association. If someone expresses vile ideas to the point where I don't want to associate with them, they can't say their freedom of expression shields them from this consequence.

And there comes a point when someone is so loathsome society will cease associating with them. Ultimately, this is the limit of freedom of expression.

What are the loathsome ideas of Milo?

I can think of a few, but I bet you 90% of the snowflakes who protested him couldn't name any.

Are you calling the 1500 peaceful protesters snowflakes, or do you mean the 100-150 masked rioters?

How did you determine they were snowflakes?

And what do you mean by 'snowflakes'? Please define the term. Sometimes it seems like you mean people who swoon and cry and have emotional meltdowns when faced with new concepts and challenges to their worldviews, but that doesn't describe either group.

ETA: I bet 90% of the peaceful protesters know why Yiannopoulis was banned from Twitter. The shit he posted was loathsome, and they had good reason to suspect his Dangerous Faggot speech was going to be more of the same.

What was loathsome about his Tweets? That he called a celebrity ugly?

That he posted fake tweets he pretended were from Leslie Jones so he could pretend to be shocked, SHOCKED, at the racist, homophobic, barely literate content, as part of a larger campaign of racist, sexist abuse he so gleefully endorsed.

 

[repoman]

And now we know that the way to get them to do what we want is to be violent. And it doesn't matter if it was students from the far left or people from the far right doing the violence. Either way, they won, and their violence was rewarded and will be more likely, not less likely, in the future.

- - - Updated - - -

We are not making caricatures of these people.

They have done that themselves.

They are loathed, because they have made themselves loathsome.

I am all for freedom of expression. I am also for freedom of association. If someone expresses vile ideas to the point where I don't want to associate with them, they can't say their freedom of expression shields them from this consequence.

And there comes a point when someone is so loathsome society will cease associating with them. Ultimately, this is the limit of freedom of expression.

What are the loathsome ideas of Milo?

I can think of a few, but I bet you 90% of the snowflakes who protested him couldn't name any.

Are you calling the 1500 peaceful protesters snowflakes, or do you mean the 100-150 masked rioters?

How did you determine they were snowflakes?

And what do you mean by 'snowflakes'? Please define the term. Sometimes it seems like you mean people who swoon and cry and have emotional meltdowns when faced with new concepts and challenges to their worldviews, but that doesn't describe either group.

ETA: I bet 90% of the peaceful protesters know why Yiannopoulis was banned from Twitter. The shit he posted was loathsome, and they had good reason to suspect his Dangerous Faggot speech was going to be more of the same.

What was loathsome about his Tweets? That he called a celebrity ugly?

That he posted fake tweets he pretended were from Leslie Jones so he could pretend to be shocked, SHOCKED, at the racist, homophobic, barely literate content, as part of a larger campaign of racist, sexist abuse he so gleefully endorsed.

There already was a thread on this in M&PC. The fake tweets he posted were kind of obviously parody (NO WAY would she post something anti-semitic like that) and if it was on a smaller account and with a different target it would likely have had no effect.

That link doesn't have the actual fake tweets (retweet?) from Milo, but from other people. But I do think he did retweet at some point, so no big deal.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

How is being a parody mutually exclusive to the points made?

 

[repoman]

How is being a parody mutually exclusive to the points made?

This is dicey, imagine that a nice, helpful person has it made to look like they tweeted heinous shit. Part of this could be to try and tar them or just to get the rush.

Now say a terrible person who has a record of nasty stuff has fake tweets made that are kind of in line with past actions or attitudes, but are also false.

I would say that it is NOT the same to fake tweets of a nice person compared to a jerk. But there are grey areas abounding.

So, for the nice person to ask for twitter or the poster to retract the fake tweet it is made clear that they are not at all like what the tweets said.

But if the asshole asks for a retraction, everyone is reminded that while he may not be that bad, he is still a piece of crap as past actions/quotes are dredged up.

I don't agree with all of Leslie Jones tweets, but almost none of them approached what the fake tweets said. It would not be a parody of her then. She did have some tweets that could have been fairly parodied.

I will have to look for again what exact fake tweets Milo posted.

 

[Arctish]

There already was a thread on this in M&PC. The fake tweets he posted were kind of obviously parody (NO WAY would she post something anti-semitic like that) and if it was on a smaller account and with a different target it would likely have had no effect.

That link doesn't have the actual fake tweets (retweet?) from Milo, but from other people. But I do think he did retweet at some point, so no big deal.

No big deal to you, perhaps. But a big deal to Ms. Jones and to the community of people who use Twitter. Also, loathsome.

I don't know what Twitter's EULA says but I'd bet impersonating a user in order to defame them, or re-tweeting a defamatory impersonation in order to harass and/or troll them, violates it.

Anyway, the point is Yiannopoulis engaged in loathsome behavior that got him banned from Twitter, and I bet that 90% of the people who were part of the peaceful protest remembered it.

I haven't gotten a definition of 'snowflake' yet. If the term doesn't mean sensitive, fragile, or prone to emotional meltdowns, what does it mean? Do you think the masked rioters are snowflakes?

 

[repoman]

ok, I found the archive link that I posted on the other thread:

http://archive.is/zDcto



Now, if as an example Leslie Jones was a follower of Farrakhan (even in the past) and had said anti-semitic things then this fake tweet would have been a parody. But I have not heard anything like that at all, so it is much closer to libel.

 

[repoman]

There already was a thread on this in M&PC. The fake tweets he posted were kind of obviously parody (NO WAY would she post something anti-semitic like that) and if it was on a smaller account and with a different target it would likely have had no effect.

That link doesn't have the actual fake tweets (retweet?) from Milo, but from other people. But I do think he did retweet at some point, so no big deal.

No big deal to you, perhaps. But a big deal to Ms. Jones and to the community of people who use Twitter. Also, loathsome.

I don't know what Twitter's EULA says but I'd bet impersonating a user in order to defame them, or re-tweeting a defamatory impersonation in order to harass and/or troll them, violates it.

Anyway, the point is Yiannopoulis engaged in loathsome behavior that got him banned from Twitter, and I bet that 90% of the people who were part of the peaceful protest remembered it.

I haven't gotten a definition of 'snowflake' yet. If the term doesn't mean sensitive, fragile, or prone to emotional meltdowns, what does it mean? Do you think the masked rioters are snowflakes?

This is a bit of a tangent, but how far crazy would a fake tweet of Richard Spencer or Louis Farrakhan have to be for you to say that it would be defamatory?

I don't like Spencer, but would a fake tweet of him advocating for death camps for non whites be defamatory?

-----------------

Read more opinions about Milo.

If had claimed straight faced that Jones had said these things, that would have been libel/slander.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We are not making caricatures of these people.

They have done that themselves.

They are loathed, because they have made themselves loathsome.

I am all for freedom of expression. I am also for freedom of association. If someone expresses vile ideas to the point where I don't want to associate with them, they can't say their freedom of expression shields them from this consequence.

And there comes a point when someone is so loathsome society will cease associating with them. Ultimately, this is the limit of freedom of expression.

His views may be loathsome, but they are interesting. Which is all that matters. Going and listening to a speaker doesn't mean you agree with them

 

[Arctish]

No big deal to you, perhaps. But a big deal to Ms. Jones and to the community of people who use Twitter. Also, loathsome.

I don't know what Twitter's EULA says but I'd bet impersonating a user in order to defame them, or re-tweeting a defamatory impersonation in order to harass and/or troll them, violates it.

Anyway, the point is Yiannopoulis engaged in loathsome behavior that got him banned from Twitter, and I bet that 90% of the people who were part of the peaceful protest remembered it.

I haven't gotten a definition of 'snowflake' yet. If the term doesn't mean sensitive, fragile, or prone to emotional meltdowns, what does it mean? Do you think the masked rioters are snowflakes?

This is a bit of a tangent, but how far crazy would a fake tweet of Richard Spencer or Louis Farrakhan have to be for you to say that it would be defamatory?

I don't like Spencer, but would a fake tweet of him advocating for death camps for non whites be defamatory?

It would depend on the rules at the site on which it was posted.

I was a moderator at IIDB back in its heyday. I was also a moderator at Talk Rational, and I was a member of Rants n Raves. All three had rules, with the rules at IIDB being the most detailed and strictly enforced and the ones at RnR almost non existent. At IIDB you could insult or defame anyone who wasn't a member. At RnR you could insult or defame anyone, period. At TR, you couldn't insult or defame other posters but you could parody them, as long as you made it clear what you were posting was a parody.

I don't use Twitter so I don't know their rules, but I'm pretty sure they have some strongly enforced rules about faking another person's tweets. I suspect faking Farrakhan or Spencer tweets is a no-no, if for no other reason than to protect Twitter as a place for genuine communication with others. If Twitter gets a reputation for circulating fake tweets their entire business model would be ruined.

 

[Arctish]

We are not making caricatures of these people.

They have done that themselves.

They are loathed, because they have made themselves loathsome.

I am all for freedom of expression. I am also for freedom of association. If someone expresses vile ideas to the point where I don't want to associate with them, they can't say their freedom of expression shields them from this consequence.

And there comes a point when someone is so loathsome society will cease associating with them. Ultimately, this is the limit of freedom of expression.

His views may be loathsome, but they are interesting. Which is all that matters. Going and listening to a speaker doesn't mean you agree with them

I agree.

I think Yiannopoulis is another Ann Coulter-type shit stirrer. He'll say anything to get a reaction from his critics and entertain his supporters, the more outrageous the better. I don't think he should be silenced. If the Young Republicans and Alt-right fanboys want to listen to him, fine, as long as he's not inciting the haters to commit acts of violence or harassment.

 

[DrZoidberg]

His views may be loathsome, but they are interesting. Which is all that matters. Going and listening to a speaker doesn't mean you agree with them

I agree.

I think Yiannopoulis is another Ann Coulter-type shit stirrer. He'll say anything to get a reaction from his critics and entertain his supporters, the more outrageous the better. I don't think he should be silenced. If the Young Republicans and Alt-right fanboys want to listen to him, fine, as long as he's not inciting the haters to commit acts of violence or harassment.

Definitely. He is one of the most well spoken they have on the alt-right, which makes him valuable. Since he then becomes a way in to understand them. A person like Michelle Bachmann or Trump who only spouts platitudes doesn't reveal why they think what they think. They're not intelligent enough to put words on their feelings or explain how they reason. It just comes out as "this just feels bad because the badness". Yianopolous is miles above those two.

 

[repoman]

I agree.

I think Yiannopoulis is another Ann Coulter-type shit stirrer. He'll say anything to get a reaction from his critics and entertain his supporters, the more outrageous the better. I don't think he should be silenced. If the Young Republicans and Alt-right fanboys want to listen to him, fine, as long as he's not inciting the haters to commit acts of violence or harassment.

Definitely. He is one of the most well spoken they have on the alt-right, which makes him valuable. Since he then becomes a way in to understand them. A person like Michelle Bachmann or Trump who only spouts platitudes doesn't reveal why they think what they think. They're not intelligent enough to put words on their feelings or explain how they reason. It just comes out as "this just feels bad because the badness". Yianopolous is miles above those two.

Milo is Alt-Right in the sense that 6-8 months ago it meant edgy, sarcastic, super "Ann Coulterish" and NOT white nationalist. The switchover is a strange thing that happened. Maybe it was so anti "anti-white" (by being anti-sjw) that white nationalists glommed onto it.

This video is from a guy who was alt-right a few months ago and left after it became White-nationalist associated:

 

[DrZoidberg]

Definitely. He is one of the most well spoken they have on the alt-right, which makes him valuable. Since he then becomes a way in to understand them. A person like Michelle Bachmann or Trump who only spouts platitudes doesn't reveal why they think what they think. They're not intelligent enough to put words on their feelings or explain how they reason. It just comes out as "this just feels bad because the badness". Yianopolous is miles above those two.

Milo is Alt-Right in the sense that 6-8 months ago it meant edgy, sarcastic, super "Ann Coulterish" and NOT white nationalist. The switchover is a strange thing that happened. Maybe it was so anti "anti-white" (by being anti-sjw) that white nationalists glommed onto it.

This video is from a guy who was alt-right a few months ago and left after it became White-nationalist associated:

Any representative of a political group is trying to cash in on it as a spring board to a career. Or as an actual career. Any political commentator has to be edgy to be relevant. As well and accurately gauge where the wind is blowing. And follow. That's the job. Hard to criticise them for that.

On the video. I found him incredibly hard to watch. His tourettes twitches got to me. But he puts a finger on something important. Labels are important and meaningful. But they are just labels. People put on labels when they're cool. And take them off when they're not. Each label represents many things. No label is a perfect fit. Switching sides doesn't have to mean any opinions have changed. But his whole thing about being surprised about how racist the alt right. Ehe.... Is he a complete moron? This should not have been news to anybody. Since racism became socially unacceptable, racists have employed newspeak. The alt-right are using all the newspeak words for good ol' traditional racism. Only an idiot can have missed that.