What can be done to stop oppressive leftists?

[Shadow Wolf]

Classifying financial critics and corporate dissidents as terrorists is right wing propaganda.

It's very rare for them to do more than sabotage labs and equipment and blow some stuff up, but yet some do take more drastic measure. However, there are far fewer of them and it tends to take provocation rather than offending their god.

The Sierra Club is not a terrorist organization.

I never claimed they are. To the contrary, I actually just renewed my membership.

but I take exception to designating the radical, environmentalist pacifists and animal rights 'extremists' you mentioned as terrorists.

The only one I specifically call terrorists were eco-terrorists. I never called pacifists terrorists or radical. Though there are fewer than the Right, there are indeed some among these who take far more drastic measures than petty sabotage and demolition.

 

[Valjean]

I hate to say it but leftist politics has become so Marxist in its approach the only thing that is viewed as a moral guidelines for sociopolitical action is aggression. When you make violence your central tool it is near impossible to make peace your main goal

What leftist politics are you talking about? The political mainstream has been moving steadily to the right for decades. Reagan and Nixon would today be considered far left radicals, and Eisenhower a virtual commie.

No, the left has always advocated peace, tolerance, social justice, civil rights, &c. It's the right wing that's fearful, reactionary, intolerant and authoritarian. The left may be disorganized, even chaotic, but its the right where you'll find most of the violence.

 

[Curious George]

If these hooligans and anarchists are not genuine leftists, then wouldn't you agree that the genuine leftist leaders should condemn and disavow them?

If they do not condemn and disavow, then they are implicitly giving their approval, even if they don't fully acknowledge them as part of the nice, tolerant left.

Wasn't this the same rhetoric that led to calling for a ban on muslims?

 

[Sunstone]

People who resort to violence should be prosecuted, whether of the right or the left. It is especially important to do this when free speech is at stake, because free speech is a cornerstone right -- almost all other rights depend on it.

As for condemning such violence, that's routinely done by prominent leftists. Prominent leftists like Amy Goodman or Thom Hartman are not to be confused with center right people Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton, who are left only in the self-interested imaginings of the right.

 

[Laika]

I hate to say it but leftist politics has become so Marxist in its approach the only thing that is viewed as a moral guidelines for sociopolitical action is aggression. When you make violence your central tool it is near impossible to make peace your main goal

By Marxist standards rioting is not even the pre-school of ideologically motivated violence. Ideologically, they're basically still in diapers and throwing a poorly planned and ineffectual tantrum within the cot of constitutional protections of bourgeois democracy.

Rioters break windows, set fire to force cancellation of Breitbart editor's UC-Berkeley talk

We do all agree that we cannot allow political speech to be threatened in such a manner, correct? No one wants to see similar actions towards leftists, or, the grace of god forefend, blood in the streets. Yet, it seems those are the only places this can go, if allowed to continue.

I'm not saying stop people from protesting, be we can't let "protest" turn into this kind of wild anti-speech activity.

Where are we missing out on injecting respect for the political process and the sanctity of political speech into the ideologies of these young leftists?

the "left" are now slavish apologists for capitalism who think that they can acomodate minorities to a system of oppression and exploitation by getting people to shut up and pretending problems don't exist. They are weak appeasers who simply surrender discussions to far right narratives by refusing to engage with their concerns as "racist" that fuel support for such movement rather than championing the causes of the white working poor based on class solidarity.

They lack the self-respect to know that protest is a futile and empty gesture and depends on the ruling classes giving a dam. You don't need to instill respect for the political process- they already are under the dellusion that protesting will made Donald Trump a kind and decent human being who will listen to their concerns and "play nice" at being a fascist dictator.

What the **** is wrong with these people?

 

[Valjean]

It's very rare for them to do more than sabotage labs and equipment and blow some stuff up, but yet some do take more drastic measure. However, there are far fewer of them and it tends to take provocation rather than offending their god.
We respect life; property... not so much.

Valjean said: ↑
The Sierra Club is not a terrorist organization.

I never claimed they are. To the contrary, I actually just renewed my membership. Understood. I was referring to the FBI, actually.
"Terrorism" is being redefined. Economic obstructionists, political protestors and environmental activists are being reclassified as terrorists. New restrictions are being implemented and draconian penalties for dissidents are being enacted.

The only one I specifically call terrorists were eco-terrorists. I never called pacifists terrorists or radical. Though there are fewer than the Right, there are indeed some among these who take far more drastic measures than petty sabotage and demolition.

Elves (ELF= Earth Liberation Front) aren't terrorists. They don't hurt people or animals. They're mostly a bunch of vegetarian, hippie pacifists. The only threat they pose is economic.

 

[YmirGF]

Milo must be absolutely thrilled with all the attention he is getting because of this. The protesters don't seem to understand that they are empowering him because it is to him the media will go, not them. I'm still trying to wrap my head around why so many hate Milo with an unhinged passion. He is often hilarious, often intelligent and always outrageously fabulous. Campuses used to be places where all kinds of speakers hung out and got to speak. It's not like people are forced to listen to him, for pity sakes.

 

[YmirGF]

the "left" are now slavish apologists for capitalism who think that they can acomodate minorities to a system of oppression and exploitation by getting people to shut up and pretending problems don't exist. They are weak appeasers who simply surrender discussions to far right narratives by refusing to engage with their concerns as "racist" that fuel support for such movement rather than championing the causes of the white working poor based on class solidarity.

Can't say I agree with much of the above. From my perspective it's practically the opposite.

They lack the self-respect to know that protest is a futile and empty gesture and depends on the ruling classes giving a dam. You don't need to instill respect for the political process- they already are under the dellusion that protesting will made Donald Trump a kind and decent human being who will listen to their concerns and "play nice" at being a fascist dictator.

I do, however, seriously agree with this. Other than concerns about his physical safety I'm pretty confident that Milo doesn't give a rat's hindquarters about what most people think about him. This isn't perhaps the best way to get their message across.

What the **** is wrong with these people?

Beats me. I blame their parents and the education industry. They are getting these stupid ideas of what is permissible from someone.

 

[oldbadger]

Rioters break windows, set fire to force cancellation of Breitbart editor's UC-Berkeley talk

We do all agree that we cannot allow political speech to be threatened in such a manner, correct? No one wants to see similar actions towards leftists, or, the grace of god forefend, blood in the streets. Yet, it seems those are the only places this can go, if allowed to continue.

I'm not saying stop people from protesting, be we can't let "protest" turn into this kind of wild anti-speech activity.

Where are we missing out on injecting respect for the political process and the sanctity of political speech into the ideologies of these young leftists?

So you think that only oppressive leftists can be so violent and uncontrolled? You're wrong.

If your OP title was something like 'What can be done to stop out-of-control-mobs?' then I'd have really got excited about that scientific objective approach to a subject that probable needs to reach back to early mankind..... anthropology.

Right wing controllers have exerted extreme pressure on police forces to do exactly the same, only wrecking bodies, muscle, tissue and brains? The UK incidents of police cavalry charges upon miners in the early 80's, and the unnecessary death toll at Hillsborough stadium might serve.

No ........ in my experience when mid and upper class right wingers feel angry, they can be very very violent, they just don't seem to congregate in such large flocks........

The objective subject matter is, in fact:- What causes mobs to lose control of their main objective, and turn to riot and pillage?

 

[Curious George]

Rioters break windows, set fire to force cancellation of Breitbart editor's UC-Berkeley talk

We do all agree that we cannot allow political speech to be threatened in such a manner, correct? No one wants to see similar actions towards leftists, or, the grace of god forefend, blood in the streets. Yet, it seems those are the only places this can go, if allowed to continue.

I'm not saying stop people from protesting, be we can't let "protest" turn into this kind of wild anti-speech activity.

Where are we missing out on injecting respect for the political process and the sanctity of political speech into the ideologies of these young leftists?

This is a good question. I think you are witnessing frustration and fear. I imagine we can find a whole host of reasons. Politicians disrespecting and abusing the politiCal process. Fear mongering by both media and politicians. Echo chambers convincing groups of people that their position is right and normal whilst the "others" are wrong and extreme. Mass information too great to sift allowing for consistent confirmation bias, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, or confusion. Elevation of far-fetched conspiracy theories on a platform equal to that of reasonable explanations.

I am not sure where it started. I can see many points along the way. The creation of the Internet. The creation of social media. Right wing obstructionism. JFK's covert actions in Vietnam. Revolving door politics. Clinton foundations ties to monies for lectures for bill and the special audience granted to the then secretary of the state Hillary. Nationalism. The collection of data of u.s citizens exposed by snowden. Fake wars, fake news and fake politicians with fake promises. The rise of the police state. The rise of the military industrial complex. The rise of the prison industrial complex. The school to prison pipeline. Experimentation on U.S. soldiers and citizens. CIA covert operations in South and central America. The creation of nuclear weapons. McCarthyism. And that is to name a few.

We now live in a world where we don't trust politicians, we don't trust media, we don't trust science, we don't trust religion, and we certainly don't trust each other. Further, we live in a time where power has reached heights never before realized and complete annihilation is a real possibility. We witness the most basic rights being compromised and we even trade these for empty promises of security. You ask where have we neglected some instruction of trust and respect to leftists, I suggest we have failed to earn the respect and trust of both people on the left and right.

 

[Augustus]

Leaders need to be held accountable for the lawlessness of their minions. Trace and stop those who supply the money which funds them. Enforce the law against all acts of trespass and violence.

Unless times have changed from my youth, they tend not to have 'leaders' or have sugar daddies who fund them as they are usually various groups of friends loosely coordinated with other groups of friends.

At 2 bit events like this, anarchists tend to be the posh equivalent of football hooligans who like the buzz of violence but grow out of it later. I knew quite a few back when I used to promote raves/free parties and a large proportion were insufferable, self-righteous *****.It's pretty pointless to lump them in with the generic 'left', just like it's pretty pointless to lump in violent racist gangs with the generic 'right' because they are tiny groups of outliers.

I do dislike millenial progressives wanting to 'deplatform' everyone they disagree with though. As @YmirGF mentioned, it is counterproductive as it simply grants them free publicity, it is like 'crying wolf' so it acts as a cover for ideas that are genuinely harmful, and it really functions like a political 'blasphemy' regulation.

 

[Notanumber]

Milo must be absolutely thrilled with all the attention he is getting because of this. The protesters don't seem to understand that they are empowering him because it is to him the media will go, not them. I'm still trying to wrap my head around why so many hate Milo with an unhinged passion. He is often hilarious, often intelligent and always outrageously fabulous. Campuses used to be places where all kinds of speakers hung out and got to speak. It's not like people are forced to listen to him, for pity sakes.

I hadn’t heard of him before they publicised him.

 

[Notanumber]

Boris Johnson bought some water cannon from the Germans when he was mayor of London. That is what was needed in this case. They should be sprayed with an indelible dye for identification purposes.

 

[Mister Emu]

I see a few implicit ideas in what you're saying that are worth closer examination:

- the visit by Milo Yiannopoulos represents political speech and nothing more.

Provide evidence that Milo intended to do anything other than speak politically before you claim it is "worth closer examination".

- the alt-right will not be violent unless provoked by the left.

They've already been provoked. They are just waiting to retaliate until full force will be reasonably justified. One of these days some antifa retard is going to brain someone with a stick the wrong way, and they will die. No one will like what happens after that.

- because of the actions of those who set the fire, broke the windows, etc., the entire protest was an "anti-speech activity."

That is what happens in group actions, the group activity takes responsibility. I don't care how many were passive participants. The protest turned violent and dangerous to shut someone up. They don't want responsibility? Stop thug antifa, redundant there, from ruining it. Or leave when they get violent so the thugs don't have the safety of a crowd to hide in. Lots of options besides tacit support.

 

[Mister Emu]

As for condemning such violence

This thread wasn't intended to be about "x doesn't condemn its radicals". I'm sure they do. Everyone, except the ******** that want violence, does.

It was about finding where we are failing this segment of the youth of the left in this specific regard, respect for freedom of political speech. We don't have roving gangs of right wingers showing up at venues and rioting to stop leftists from speaking.

Is it in their education? Is it at home? Is it the lack of congenial social interaction between left and right? Is it that they believe they have the silent support of other leftists? Is it incendiary rhetoric that makes them think this is a special case that makes it okay? I'd rather this doesn't continue in spread and escalation. I neither want to find myself in the midst of such a situation getting brained, nor do I relish using my firearm in self-defense. Especially not against some young idiot who's high on "revolution".

 

[Mister Emu]

They are weak appeasers who simply surrender discussions to far right narratives by refusing to engage with their concerns as "racist" that fuel support for such movement rather than championing the causes of the white working poor based on class solidarity.

This isn't about what is in their ideologies, but where is the failure in instilling propriety in presenting theirs and opposing that of others.

They lack the self-respect to know that protest is a futile and empty gesture and depends on the ruling classes giving a dam.

Clarification, are suggesting they didn't go far enough? Either way, this statement rings hollow in the face of the election.

You don't need to instill respect for the political process-

Everyone presenting their ideas and the people of the varied states choosing which ideas are best, that is the political process. If you lose, you understand that it was a failure of yours to provide the necessary desirability of your ideas and that you come back with better ideas or better explanation. Or you accept that your ideas, even if perfectly understood, aren't wanted.

 

[Notanumber]

They cannot bare the fact that they have lost the argument.

This is why they want to shutdown anyone that talks some sense.

 

[Laika]

This isn't about what is in their ideologies, but where is the failure in instilling propriety in presenting theirs and opposing that of others.

This is about whats in their ideologies because its how the legitimise the attack on free speech by using a semi-legal manner of protest to intimidate people into silence. That is a problem of regressive leftist ideology as an attack on classical liberal conception of free speech as a universal right- including for those views we despise.

Clarification, are suggesting they didn't go far enough? Either way, this statement rings hollow in the face of the election.

A fascist is someone who not only advocates violence but practices it. If your dealing with a full blown fascist, violence is necessary because its the only thing that actually will stop them (assuming all other options have been exhausted). This is NOT an instance where that holds true.

I do not believe that Milo is a fascist and I do not believe that there should be any violence directed against him because he hasn't done any to others.

What I think is that the protesters have wildly lost perspective and can't tell the different between a professional ******* who uses controversy to make a living and an actual threat. Its pitiful really.

Everyone presenting their ideas and the people of the varied states choosing which ideas are best, that is the political process. If you lose, you understand that it was a failure of yours to provide the necessary desirability of your ideas and that you come back with better ideas or better explanation. Or you accept that your ideas, even if perfectly understood, aren't wanted.

That holds true unless you are in a situation where the "free competition of ideas" is perverted and its not a fair fight. The value of ideas is not wholly determined by whether people like them or accept them but whether they are true. If the truth is being silenced- then simply accepting "failure" is just taking abuse as if it were deserved by a "might is right" ideology. The fact a majority believes something doesn't make it true.

I would say that I actually favour Milo at this point as using the protests to shut down the event as a form of intimidation. It is the tactics of fascists and gutter leftists who are too wretched to actually debate someone in a fair fight because they think they will lose. For me- this sort of thing is the masochism of the leftwing defeatists chanting love and peace whilst they throw molotov cocktails. Its wasting peoples time and helps the opposition by showing we can't rise above a temper tantrum. Its exactly what left wing politics does not need right now.

 

[Kirran]

the "left" are now slavish apologists for capitalism who think that they can acomodate minorities to a system of oppression and exploitation by getting people to shut up and pretending problems don't exist. They are weak appeasers who simply surrender discussions to far right narratives by refusing to engage with their concerns as "racist" that fuel support for such movement rather than championing the causes of the white working poor based on class solidarity.

They lack the self-respect to know that protest is a futile and empty gesture and depends on the ruling classes giving a dam. You don't need to instill respect for the political process- they already are under the dellusion that protesting will made Donald Trump a kind and decent human being who will listen to their concerns and "play nice" at being a fascist dictator.

What the **** is wrong with these people?

You seem to be missing what is in practice the primary function of protests and rallies, which is to get people together, get them confident, get them networking with each other and increase awareness. It's more about spreading the movement and inspiring the people who come, the people they know and sympathisers than it is about getting the latest member of the elite sitting in the White House or 10 Downing Street to pay attention.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

They cannot bare the fact that they have lost the argument.

This is why they want to shutdown anyone that talks some sense.

But what does this have to do with the alt-right? You've got people like Richard Spencer *****ing about how his free speech is being compromised while he calls for the 'peaceful' ethnic cleansing of black people. Sorry but no matter how many 'peaceful's you attach to that it's still an inherently intolerant & violent process - and free speech does not cover hate speech. I love how people in the 'alt-right' hark back to the good ol' glory days of their grandparents when society was more conservative & white than it is now and people shot Nazis but now it's all 'oh, we're not being tolerated for our racist & oppressive views and I find that offensive'. Sorry, but if you're calling for the removal of an entire ethnic group from society or if you hold politics sympathetic to this position then a few punches is the absolute least of what's due to you. I don't condemn the rioters in any way. They should not have to sit back and pretend the prattlings of yet another white supremacist should be allowed to pass unchallenged.

Neo-nazi & other white nationalist views need to be kept on the fringes where they belong and can do as little damage as possible. Irrational, intolerant politics like the 'alt-right' deserve only an intolerant response and I've lost too much patience with Western politics to be able to pretend otherwise any more. It's because of people like Milo and Spencer being allowed into the mainstream that minorities are going to face the biggest attacks on the rights they've fought for decades to gain - after people on the right have spent years whining like spoiled little brats because they've had the legal option to discriminate taken away from them and they can't face another day not being able to deprive other people of their rights.

EDIT: This isn't just true in America, it's true elsewhere. It's because of groups like Britain First that a British MP was murdered for her political views during the run up to our referendum on EU membership - her killer is in a picture posing with a Britain First banner. And back to America, now Trump has removed white nationalist - sorry, 'alt-right' groups - from the Counter Violent Extremism program despite the fact white supremacist and other far-right 'patriot' groups are responsible for waaaay more terrorist attacks on American soil than Islamic groups.