What can be done to stop oppressive leftists?

[Mister Emu]

You're the one who made the claim, remember? I'm asking you to back it up.

I made no claim, I reported that Milo was giving to a political speech and you intimated that he was going to do something more. Support that he intended to do anything other than speak politically.

So no matter what the left does from here on out, the alt-right has already been provoked?

Well, the left could back down from organized violence.

The other day, a member of the alt-right shot up a mosque in Ste-Foy, Quebec. He killed 6 people. How should your concept of collective guilt apply to the rest of the alt-right movement in that case?

Was he part of a group activity? Was there any number of people there cheering him on and hiding him within their mass? No? Then my statements don't apply at all. Though, and I believe we've had discussions involving responsibility before and if I recall I ascribe responsibility more broadly, I do believe the alt right does have some collective responsibility as it was their ideas and rhetoric that inflamed an unhinged person to commit an atrocity.

Except those two issues are tied directly together.

As I said to Laika, I refuse to accede that even far leftists are of necessity bound to violent disagreement. To do so would require that I accept the only way to deal with them is overwhelming force.

All your posts in this thread have taken the approach of normalization

Well, I think the whole "normalization" thing is horse hockey. Anyone should be able to believe anything they want, and be able to advocate any non-violent action without fear of violent reprisal.

Your objection to the protest has been on that basis

Now who is conflating the protest writ large with violence?

I understand you correctly, you think it would have been wrong for the protesters to stop the speech even by completely legal means; at least, that's what I'm inferring. Is my understanding of your position right?

I'm curious what legal means you could employ to stop a willing guest speaker from speaking at a willing host. I support their right, and if they feel he is so evil their moral obligation, to protest his speech. As a matter of principle I disagree with no-platforming at public venues, I think government institutions and institutions that receive significant government funding shouldn't be in the business of saying what speech is acceptable. Private organizations should and do have free reign to pick their speakers.

 

[oldbadger]

Manchester. There are various problems with the laws in the UK. For example, there are problems with trans recognition and the legality of transition.

Absolutely.....
I totally acknowledge that there can be probs with trans recognition and legal aspects of transition.
But the UK's Equality Act 2010 is such a magnificent piece of legislation that its absence could only leave a hole so large as to swallow every minority, disability, age, etc into a pit so deep as to leave us in hell.
Most aspects that you mention are to do with civil, social and cultural aspects and we are working on that, very hard.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I


I'm curious what legal means you could employ to stop a willing guest speaker from speaking at a willing host. I support their right, and if they feel he is so evil their moral obligation, to protest his speech. As a matter of principle I disagree with no-platforming at public venues, I think government institutions and institutions that receive significant government funding shouldn't be in the business of saying what speech is acceptable. Private organizations should and do have free reign to pick their speakers.

I agree that anyone should be able to invite anyone to speak in a private venue. With the proviso that what they say is permissible under the law.
I also agree with the notion that any one can hold a lawful protest against such a meeting.
I would not differentiate between Public owned and Privately owned premises. we have no such distinction in the UK and it caused no special. problems.
If political expression is not allowed in Publicly owned and funded buildings where do politicians work and speak.?

 

[Mister Emu]

The remaining ways of raising political issues, include various stages of assembly, protest, marches and almost always lead to some degree of riotous behaviour when these are thwarted.

But, those aren't being thwarted, except by these violent leftists.

The result is inevitable. and will certainly pass from peaceful demonstration to violence.

So, what then? We all just succumb to violence and see who comes out on top of the pile of bodies?

It can not be brought to an end by counter violence, as that always stokes the fire even further.

People aren't just going to sit around accepting violence against them forever.

 

[suncowiam]

I see it all the time now. I am no longer surprised by the Left.

Your assumption is the faulty process of generalizing.

Should we then assume the right are racists hate mongers?

Or all cops are murderers.

You've attacked generalizing before in defending police. I guess its OK to generalize when it suits your goals...

 

[Laika]

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?


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


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


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?

How about we talk about why you feel persecuted by the "oppressive left"?

In what ways am I oppressing you?

 

[Mister Emu]

You seem to contradict yourself...

I don't see how.

Every sane person condemns political violence. Violent people can believe they have silent support. These are not mutually exclusive statements.

 

[Kirran]

Absolutely.....
I totally acknowledge that there can be probs with trans recognition and legal aspects of transition.
But the UK's Equality Act 2010 is such a magnificent piece of legislation that its absence could only leave a hole so large as to swallow every minority, disability, age, etc into a pit so deep as to leave us in hell.
Most aspects that you mention are to do with civil, social and cultural aspects and we are working on that, very hard.

Yeah, I mean the UK's not bad. It's way up there as regards human rights internally, by global standards (which aren't high). Although its Middle Eastern activities are deeply reprehensible.

 

[Mister Emu]

Much of this falls directly on Trumps shoulders.

I disagree, violence always falls only on the perpetrator.

 

[habiru]

Well, President Trump needs to put some of Obama's laws into effect.


I’m referring to the bill H.R. 347 that was signed by President Obama the other day, passed unanimously in the Senate, and 388-3 in the House. That’s nearly EVERY SINGLE lawmaker. The last time they agreed that closely on something, it was a bill raising monthly Congressional pay to include a box of Ding Dongs, two erotic cakes featuring Bonanza star Pernell Roberts, and a gentle yet inquisitive prostate exam every Tuesday.

What did this magical universally-loved bill say? Well some are calling it the anti-Occupy law and it allows the government to bring charges against Americans involved in many kinds of political protest at any location the secret service, quote, “is or will be temporarily visiting.” So basically if the government wants to shut down a protest, they just send a secret service officer down there to scratch his balls, and then they can start putting people in jail for a year or more.
Anti-Protest Law Passes Nearly Unanimously And Is Signed By The President | The Huffington Post

The fusion centers, created under President George W. Bush and expanded under President Barack Obama, consist of special teams of federal , state and local officials collecting and analyzing intelligence on suspicious activities throughout the country. They have been hailed by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano as “one of the centerpieces” of the nation’s counterterrorism efforts. Homeland Security 'fusion' centers spy on citizens, produce 'shoddy' work, report says


And so we should be thanking Obama for making it easy for President D.J. Trump.

And I did not see any protesters that were protesting against Obama during his administration. But in a video that Jesse Ventura had made, that there were protesters that were placed into these Fusion centers. The media never covered these protest, and I believe that they has killed them, because I haven't heard from any of these protesters talking about their stay at these fusion centers.

 

[Mister Emu]

I love how you cut my sentence off half way through.

I responded to the portion unquestionably deserving of the response.

You don't condemn rioters who beat bystanders with metal and wood poles, started a fire, and looted random businesses because someone you disagree with was going to speak at a university? Absolutely disgusting.

 

[Kirran]

I responded to the portion unquestionably deserving of the response.

You don't condemn rioters who beat bystanders with metal and wood poles, started a fire, and looted random businesses because someone you disagree with was going to speak at a university? Absolutely disgusting.

While I don't entirely disagree with your general thrust, I very much take issue with describing Milo simply as 'someone you disagree with' - that is normalisation of far-right rhetoric, and should not be accepted. It is not normal, it is not within the normal range of political discourse, and it should be rejected from it at every opportunity.

 

[oldbadger]

Yeah, I mean the UK's not bad. It's way up there as regards human rights internally, by global standards (which aren't high). Although its Middle Eastern activities are deeply reprehensible.

Ah ha! .......
So our elected governments produce delightful legislation at home, whilst our permanent office holders go out and commit the most dreadful acts of international crime, and as long as the two bodies keep their attentions diverted, then they can hold heads high in self-righteous judgement and huge hypocrisy..... yes?

Yes. The trouble is, it's not left or right, up or down, it's blooming human nature that's our enemy, and each one of us sees self as pure and decent, whilst all around is bad.

I told @Mister Emu in my first post, if this thread was about mob movements, loss of main object, and tendencies towards pillage/attack etc, then it would be a brilliant objective discussion, possibly helped by any anthropoligists who happen to be around, but as a contrived political agenda it just stinks...... very biased, subjective, unhelpful and of no cultural or social use.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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."

When a guy telling people they should be forced from their homes and removed from the country over no reason other than their skin color while he himself is sporting a racist symbol, it's begging bad things to happen.
Factually, you can only repress and kick people for so long until they retaliate, and we've already seen the rights of foreign-born citizens from a few countries have their rights grievously infringed upon by this administration. Can people really expect other groups who are being targeted by the King and his Court to not lash out when other groups have been so harshly targeted? It's like the riots as of late when a cop is acquitted after slaying an unarmed black man. Of course we could go on about personal choice and responsibility, but at the same time we must acknowledge scientific and historic fact, and that is that eventually the oppressed do get mad, they do get angry, they do act out, and they are very prone to resorting to violence - quite obvious this should be or otherwise Dr. King and Gandhi would not have obtained their positions of significance in society.
When you can see the world in a lens that isn't Liberal or Conservative, Left or Right, Republic or Democrat, or any other pop-politics label, America is not in a good place right now. Their are peculiar dynamics in both Liberals and Conservatives. One oddity I have noticed is that despite the fact Trump had such a marginal victory, both groups are denying this and accepting it as a massive defeat for the Left, even though Republicans can't call a Senate lead you can literally count on one hand any real sort of advantage or majority. The inauguration crowd is another issue, though this falls squarely on Trump supporters who are pulling all sorts of mental gymnastics to somehow believe Trump's crowd was much larger than it was and that it doesn't matter anyways, completely ignoring that it did matter when the King and his Court lied about and made accusations of "alternative facts."
Honestly, I do believe if Trump appoints a Supreme Court nominee that gets Obergefell v Hodges overturned then the LBGT community will be the next group to pick up violent protest.

 

[Kirran]

Honestly, I do believe if Trump appoints a Supreme Court nominee that gets Obergefell v Hodges overturned then the LBGT community will be the next group to pick up violent protest.

And they f*cking should, too.

 

[Mister Emu]

How about we talk about why you feel persecuted by the "oppressive left"?

Who said I feel personally persecuted? I am worried by the trends in the left because if the spread and escalation continues it will demand a response, and that response is likely to be retaliation.

I also am a right winger. I'm not overly concerned as I am capable of defending myself, but, as I've said before, I'm not completely mental so I don't relish the idea of having to defend myself.

In what ways am I oppressing you?

I don't believe I ever said you were. I was speaking specifically to this segment of the left who will not accept the existence of certain dissenting viewpoints.

 

[Underhill]

I disagree, violence always falls only on the perpetrator.

I see. So creating an atmosphere of hate has nothing to do with the current problems?

I don't claim these people are innocent. But Trump has played a huge part in creating this atmosphere. When you spend your first weeks in office by taking away rights, destroying innocent lives and doing it all in the name of fear and religious rancor you don't get to throw your hands up and complain about the after affects.

 

[Shad]

We must be careful not to demonize all a Berkeley.

We should consider all the people that stood around doing nothing as individuals decided to riot. I can hold them responsible for their apathy toward violence, their proximity to it, not separating themselves from it and those that do. All those students standing around those fires doing nothing. The inaction and apathy of all those students speaks volumes to me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't believe I ever said you were. I was speaking specifically to this segment of the left who will not accept the existence of certain dissenting viewpoints.

Some of those dissenting viewpoints should not be accepted. Creationism and abstinence only sex ed in school should not be tolerated. Telling people it's legally OK to discriminate against LBGT should not be tolerated, nor should it be tolerated the desire to encourage that group to seek a junk pseudoscience "therapy" that has been proven dangerous. Men dictating the health care policies of women should not be tolerated. People working full time but not making enough money to make ends meet should not be tolerated, nor should we tolerate the fact we have any hungry or homeless people at all. And we should not tolerate public policy that goes against established science.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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

I am surprised such a senior and well respected politician as Keith Vas would support a universal blasphemy law. It was discarded many years ago for very good reasons.. However I have no doubt at all that he knew perfectly well that it would have not a snowballs chance in hell, even if the Muslim Audience did not.

Ben Bradshaw's interview seemed to be well considered and fair minded so I have no problem at all with that.
What no one has mentioned, and I think could work on social media, is to colour code the messages as to the recognised stance of the contributor and their reliability as a news source. but let them be read.

For instance Un-reliable - Red ... Un known/ opinion - Orange.. Reliable-Green.... with the colours of their political parties attached.