What can be done to stop oppressive leftists?

[Notanumber]

Did Madonna inspire her?

Or was it the herd mentality?

 

[Laika]

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.


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.

I am a leftist. Its an identity I share with many other people. Whether I love them or hate them- they are still "my" kind of people. So If you feel the need to retailate against "leftists" in general- people such as yourself will get to me eventually. I'd rather talk about this directly in terms of what personal changes you want from leftists so you- and others like you- don't feel the need defend yourself.

I don't relish the idea of defending myself either. So if perhaps we agree that we don't want any further escalation of the sort of tensions offline we can find ways to be constructive. It would be better if we can discuss them in a reasonable sort of way as two people having a conversation online- not just abstract identities.

If your ok with that- I'd like to know a few things just so I know what concerns you the most:

What trends from the left do you feel would necessitate a response?

In what ways are members of the left not accepting the existence of dissenting viewpoints?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I disagree, violence always falls only on the perpetrator.

Horse hockey. Demonstrators aren't mindless automatons who can switch their emotions off at a command. They're people with all the associated limits of patience & tolerance. If you spend your days peacefully protesting only to find that a) it's not working and you're left voiceless; b) you get tarred with the same brush as a small bunch of troublemakers who rioted (maybe not in this case, but in others) for the ****s then it becomes more & more irritating that the government is continuing to step on you. This was what happened when the Suffragettes split from the Suffragists to begin using violent methods. The Suffragists weren't succeeding because everybody in power was either ignoring them or paying attention only long enough to belittle them.

The biggest tragedy is that these people aren't directing their anger at the people who deserve it most.

 

[Notanumber]

Do not put the shark in the bathwater.

At least they were reasonably peaceful.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I made no claim,

Yes, you did.

I reported that Milo was giving to a political speech and you intimated that he was going to do something more.

No, I didn't.

Well, the left could back down from organized violence.

What "organized violence"?

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.

Since your guilt by association approach doesn't make sense to begin with, I can't really speak to your specific criteria.

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.

You mean like the ideas and rhetoric Yiannopoulos was preparing to deliver at UC Berkeley?

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.

Hang on one minute - we were talking about "propriety"; why did you jump from there to violent disagreement?

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.

So people should have free reign to shape the society we all live in, as long as they don't commit outright violence?

Now who is conflating the protest writ large with violence?

Come again?

I'm curious what legal means you could employ to stop a willing guest speaker from speaking at a willing host.

Off the top of my head:

- appeal to the Board of the college to not allow the event.
- rent out the venue yourself so that it's not available for the event.
- in other cases, use governmental power to deny the event its speaker (not really applicable in this particular case, but American Holocaust deniers have been turned away at the Canadian border after public outcry).

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.

This is nonsense, of course: even a public institution will - and should - deny permission for events that would reflect badly on the institution. They also have the right (as was pointed out by @Quintessence in the other thread) to deny events that would create security concerns. They also have a responsibility to abide by things like anti-discrimination laws, and some speakers wouldn't meet the high bar in that regard that a governmental agency has to meet.

... but if everything at a public university should be open to all, consider this: the event was spearheaded by the university's Campus Republicans. Should non-Republicans have the right to join this club en masse and use their voting power to railroad the club so that it doesn't try to put on events like this in future?

 

[Notanumber]

He is right.

We could use a few more like him to help restore some rational.

 

[Valjean]

The left has always moved further left and authoritarian for decades now. They have always been the beacon of racism, manipulation and fear mongering.

The right has always been stagnant and trying to endorse a society where people are judged by their individuality and the promotion of freedom.

Holy projection, Batman!
The left is not authoritarian. What planet are you living on? It's the right who are authoritarian.
The left has always supported abolitionism, women's suffrage, peace, tolerance, civil rights, worker's rights, gay rights. The right has always vigorously opposed these. It's the right that fears novelty and change. It's the right that's always endorsed hierarchy, inequality, regimentation, propriety and submission to authority.

To compare Nixon, Reagan and lump them with Eisenhower is truly showing a complete lack of knowledge of the political realm. Leftist economics advocate for top-down control and neither Reagan or Nixon practiced this in great degree. Then you have EIsenhower who is the most inactive president of all time perhaps; that was his greatest criticism. The guy literally let social matters stand on their own and be resolved by the people.

Leftists advocate government of, by and for the people; government as a co-op, government as family values writ large.
Reagan's trickle down economics led to 35 years of economic stagnation and a shrinking middle class, and Eisenhower's Republican party would clearly be considered far left by today's standards. Viral meme says 1956 Republican platform was pretty liberal

Us right wingers want free markets, minimized federal government, less regulation, and the decentralization of economic power. These have been or selling points and common practices. While leftists want more federal power.

So you want to transform the US into Somalia? You want to lower wages and safety regs so we can compete directly with Viet Nam?
Minimized government? The government is supposed to be us.
Less regulation? Read "less consumer protection." Here's what you'd get: Reuters finds lead levels higher than Flint’s in thousands of locales

Do you even understand the difference between left and right politics? Look at the complaints of Republicans and their political leanings in practice. Why do you think we want to thrust corporate powers to the free market? Because we know they can't survive with their shady practices.

I do: Left wing is of, for and by the people. Prosperity, job security, healthcare, &c.
The right = Gilded Age. Robber Barons, Banksters, dog-eat-dog competition and Devil take the hindmost; massive social stratification, with a handful of rich and a massive population of impoverished serfs. No social security, healthcare or consumer protection. No safety net. No social mobility or chance to improve one's lot.

 

[Valjean]

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.

It's a great recipe for driving the movement underground, insulating it from public discourse and generating radical extremists.

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

Wouldn't the best way to prevent a Hitler be to point out the political, historical and psychological parallels with 1930's Germany?

 

[Valjean]

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.

What should they have done?

 

[Mister_T]

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 definitely have an ultra-aggressive fringe growing in their ranks and left politicians need to do a better job of denouncing and distancing themselves from said fringe. However, censorship and violence is hardly something exclusive to the left.

I also believe there are more options available other than returning the favor or "blood in the streets." To insinuate those are the only available paths to dealing with such people is shortsighted at best.

 

[Kirran]

The Left definitely have an ultra-aggressive fringe growing in their ranks and left politicians need to do a better job of denouncing and distancing themselves from said fringe. However, censorship and violence is hardly something exclusive to the left.

Who are the most prominent left politicians, would you say? In the USA, for example.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

He is right.

We could use a few more like him to help restore some rational.

Angelina >>>>> John

 

[Mister_T]

Who are the most prominent left politicians, would you say? In the USA, for example.

Bernie is probably at the top. The Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, Corey Booker just off the top of my head.

 

[Valjean]

The Left definitely have an ultra-aggressive fringe growing in their ranks and left politicians need to do a better job of denouncing and distancing themselves from said fringe. However, censorship and violence is hardly something exclusive to the left.

I also believe there are more options available other than returning the favor or "blood in the streets." To insinuate those are the only available paths to dealing with such people is shortsighted at best.

This growth of special snowflakes, who can't tolerate alternative viewpoints is, indeed, worrisome. The left has traditionally been open to alternative lifestyles and philosophies. It's always supported the right of the KKK or Neo-Nazis to parade through town or speak in public. Suppressing ideas and putting your head in the sand are not what you'd expect from liberals.
A university is the one place that should encourage the airing of alternative viewpoints. After all, if you can't intelligently discuss all sides of an issue, how can you expect to have a valid opinion on it?

 

[Yerda]

Bernie is probably at the top. The Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, Corey Booker just off the top of my head.

The idiots in the uni protest movements would wear the denouncement from these people like a badge. Bernie aside, so would most people. Who listens to Nacy Pelosi?

It saddens me to say this, but the left in America and in campuses all over the developed world have completely lost the plot. I can't believe we have to have the argument over free speech again...

 

[Shad]

What should they have done?

Put out the damn fire for one. Not sit around with a group openly breaking the law nor treat the a riot like some damn party.... See decent people do not like hanging around violence and violent people. People that have no decency do not care about either. The lack of consistent values and acting according to those values is why some many on the Left are a joke.

 

[Valjean]

OK, fair enough.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The left has traditionally been open to alternative lifestyles and philosophies.

Since when has the left traditionally supported the right of the KKK and neo-Nazis to parade through town? Those aren't "alternative lifestyles and philosophies" in my book. I know far-leftists don't. They're far more likely to meet them with baseball bats and steel toed boots to the head. You mean centrist liberals, who are the first to capitulate when the fascists take over. Who was it fighting Nazi Brownshirts in the streets? Not liberals, that's for sure.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Good for them. I wouldn't want that trash on my campus, either.

 

[Valjean]

Since when has the left traditionally supported the right of the KKK and neo-Nazis to parade through town? Those aren't "alternative lifestyles and philosophies" in my book. I know far-leftists don't. They're far more likely to meet them with baseball bats and steel toed boots to the head. You mean centrist liberals, who are the first to capitulate when the fascists take over. Who was it fighting Nazi Brownshirts in the streets? Not liberals, that's for sure.

Perhaps I misspoke. By "support" I mean support for the right to demonstrate and speak their minds. I didn't mean to imply support for their views. However, one's unlikely to hold a valid opinion on an issue if unfamiliar with both sides, and what better venue for exploring opposing points of view than a college campus? As for physically fighting brownshirts or black bloc thugs on the street. You're trying to beat them at their own game. It's likely to look good for your side, no matter which side wins.