What can be done to stop oppressive leftists?

[Kirran]

US law is based on the "imminent lawless action" doctorine to distinguish between advocacy of illegal action and advocacy in the abstract. I looked it up a while back as RF is under US law.

Imminent lawless action - Wikipedia

I suspect I'm inclined to take it a little further! Hateful rhetoric can be very damaging, without being inciteful of imminent lawless action. Thanks for the link though dude!

 

[Sunstone]

I suspect I'm inclined to take it a little further! Hateful rhetoric can be very damaging, without being inciteful of imminent lawless action. Thanks for the link though dude!

I believe criminalizing hateful rhetoric is a great recipe for oppression. In practice, it would work to the advantage of the powerful, and against the interests of the less powerful.

 

[Underhill]

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?

Much of this falls directly on Trumps shoulders. When a leader wins by such a minuscule margin, and then continues to intentionally alienate the opposition, he is asking for such behavior.

I do not condone such behavior but it is the direct result of his behavior. He can try to clamp down, but realistically that will not have the effect he would hope for.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A private person or entity can put whatever restrictions it wants on Choudhary's speech on their property. A government cannot, unless his speech incites to violence, etc.

That's not true. Even public universities will put restrictions on the events they're willing to host, out of recognition that allowing an on-campus event can be seen as endorsement of the speakers by the university. This is still the case even if there's no risk of violence. It's why you don't see many "psychic expos" on university campuses, for instance.

 

[Revoltingest]

Much of this falls directly on Trumps shoulders.

While Trump has caused his share of trouble, it still takes two to tango.
The left has done its part to make unreasonable inflammatory accusations,
thereby riling up the violent element on the left. Make him out to be Hitler,
& crazies will react as they would to Hitler.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

While Trump has caused his share of trouble, it still takes two to tango.
The left has done its part to make unreasonable inflammatory accusations,
thereby riling up the violent element on the left. Make him out to be Hitler,
& crazies will react as they would to Hitler.

On the other hand I would no wish to encourage him to become a Hitler

 

[Revoltingest]

On the other hand I would no wish to encourage him to become a Hitler

Is there anyone we would want to encourage to become Hitler?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Is there anyone we would want to encourage to become Hitler?

Therein lies the problem. If he is opposed and thwarted enough that is what he will become.

 

[Notanumber]

The person most concerned about fake news is TRump he is also the one who make most use of it.

Fake news and information is the lifeblood of social media.
Not all of it is malicious.
Most is quite harmless and the result of people confusing opinion with fact.
Many youtube skills videos on how to do things teach extremely dangerous methods of working.
And Wiki contains as much misinformation as truth.
The main Broad sheet papers used to separate news facts from opinion. This has not been the case for some years now.

Social media is not giving us any better or more or less accurate information. It has simply made it much harder to discern which is which.

People are grossly misinformed most of the time and have no way of discerning the truth.

This is what a British politician wants

Labour MP Ben Bradshaw: 'Democracy under threat' due to fake news

This is what another British MP would be prepared to vote for in parliament.

‘Bring back blasphemy laws, apply them equally to all faiths’ - Labour MP

He said, “It should apply to all religions. If we have laws, they should apply to everybody.”

However, he failed to mention Sharia Laws.

For once, I agree with the French.

I don’t remember there being uproar over this, but then it isn’t about Islam.

Film banned for blasphemy to be released after two decades

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On the other hand I would no wish to encourage him to become a Hitler

Is there anyone we would want to encourage to become Hitler?

FWIW, if we're going with the Nazi analogy, I'd say that Milo is closer to Goebbels than to Hitler.

 

[Underhill]

While Trump has caused his share of trouble, it still takes two to tango.
The left has done its part to make unreasonable inflammatory accusations,
thereby riling up the violent element on the left. Make him out to be Hitler,
& crazies will react as they would to Hitler.

No question about it. But the right did the same with Obama. The difference was, he didn't look like 'Hitler'.

 

[Revoltingest]

Therein lies the problem. If he is opposed and thwarted enough that is what he will become.

Whuh?

 

[Mister Emu]

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.

I do not accede that even far leftist ideology demands violent response to dissent. If they believe/are taught their views legitimise violence, then that is the exact failure I am trying to get to the heart of. Whence the belief? And more pertinent, how do we effect a dissociation of the belief in legitimate political violence from the ideology?

A fascist is someone who not only advocates violence but practices it. If your dealing with a full blown fascist, violence is necessary

That is a self fulfilling prophecy if I've ever seen one. As well, a very communist definition of fascism.

That holds true unless you are in a situation where the "free competition of ideas" is perverted and its not a fair fight.

It is only unfair if you aren't allowed to reach people.

The value of ideas is not wholly determined by whether people like them or accept them but whether they are true.

I'm hesitant to ascribe "truth" to purely political ideas. Especially ones based on principle as opposed to the practical. To put in useful terms, is building a wall true or untrue? Is that a coherent question? Or is the value in the political proposition to build a wall found in the desirability?

 

[Mister Emu]

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.

Absolutely disgusting.

 

[Revoltingest]

No question about it. But the right did the same with Obama. The difference was, he didn't look like 'Hitler'.

Duh!
That's because he's a Kenyan Muslim.

 

[Kirran]

I believe criminalizing hateful rhetoric is a great recipe for oppression. In practice, it would work to the advantage of the powerful, and against the interests of the less powerful.

I suspect I am roughly in agreement with you as regards criminalisation. I find societal responses to be more relevant though.

Nevertheless, I'd like to ask, why do you think criminalising hateful rhetoric will work against the interests of the less powerful - do you refer to the far-rightists?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is only unfair if you aren't allowed to reach people.

The fact that he was invited to speak at a university campus in the first place suggests that he has been very successful at reaching people.

 

[buddhist]

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

How so?

 

[buddhist]

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 have no problem lumping them in with the "authoritarian" group, which is why my first post you quote indicated both leftists and rightists.

Any group who wishes to disavow themselves from such acts should do so; any who don't, I expect to be complicit.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Absolutely disgusting.

Not nearly as disgusting as calling for the peaceful ethnic cleansing of black people which is similar rhetoric as to what led to the Holocaust. I love how you cut my sentence off half way through. Here's the complete sentence with the part you omitted highlighted:

"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."