Mind Shuttering of the Alt Right

[civver_764]

Nahhh...you can speak all you want.

I am in favor of taking action to stop a self professed troll with a record for instigation of mob actions against innocents from addressing people who apparently want to be part of such a mob though.

I have been googling and googling trying to find this "instigation of mob actions against innocents" and can't find ANYTHING. Can you please cite an example?

Milo is hardly in much of a position to scold others for being "a jerk".

I'm sure this is a logical fallacy of some sort.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I have been googling and googling trying to find this "instigation of mob actions against innocents" and can't find ANYTHING. Can you please cite an example?

No, because if you have been "googling and googling" and haven't found anything it can only be because you really seriously don't want to, and I see no point in trying to force you to see what you don't want to see.

 

[Lexicus]

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/...an-repeats-lie-milo-outing-illegals-berkeley/

I found this. Using the heuristic that everything found on Breitbart is a lie, we can conclude that what they call a lie is actually the truth.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm sure this is a logical fallacy of some sort.

It's not. It's simply a question of applying standards consistently. If "being a jerk" is intolerable, then Milo is intolerable. If Milo is tolerable, then being "a jerk" is tolerable. Unless you wish to define "jerk" more rigorously, and somehow do so in a way which favours Milo, you have to pick one or the other.

 

[Broken_Erika]

And expecting people to have consistent standards.

 

[civver_764]

It's not. If "being a jerk" is intolerable, then Milo is intolerable. If Milo is tolerable, then being "a jerk" is tolerable. It's simply a question of applying standards consistently.

But surely there's different levels of jerkness. Saying mean stuff on the internet is at a much lower level than getting a group of people together to try and obstruct someone from giving a speech. True? Furthermore, being a jerk is related to individual actions that a person makes, not the whole "person". For example, if someone obstructs someone from speaking, that is intolerable. But that doesn't make it ok to prevent that person from speaking at a later date, the action itself is still intolerable.

 

[Traitorfish]

But surely there's different levels of jerkness. Saying mean stuff on the internet is at a much lower level than getting a group of people together to try and obstruct someone from giving a speech. True? Furthermore, being a jerk is related to individual actions that a person makes, not the whole "person". For example, if someone obstructs someone from speaking, that is intolerable. But that doesn't make it ok to prevent that person from speaking at a later date, the action itself is still intolerable.

Perhaps there are levels of jerkness, but that wasn't contained in the original premise, that "jerk" behaviour should be, if not prohibited, then avoided. If you want to introduce qualifications, you have to actually introduce them, not just appeal to a suspicion that they may exist.

 

[Lexicus]

Saying mean stuff on the internet is at a much lower level than getting a group of people together to try and obstruct someone from giving a speech.

Yes, and outing people as trans and undocumented is on a much higher jerk level than obstructing a speech.

 

[civver_764]

Perhaps there are levels of jerkness, but that wasn't contained in the original premise, that "jerk" behaviour should be, if not prohibited, then avoided. If you want to introduce qualifications, you have to actually introduce them, not just appeal to a suspicion that they may exist.

Damn man you're like a lawyer.

OK, look at it this way -- whether I condemn Milo online actions or not, that is irrelevant to his giving a speech. Giving a speech on cultural appropriation is not being a jerk, so my standard of "jerkness" does not apply to that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But surely there's different levels of jerkness. Saying mean stuff on the internet is at a much lower level than getting a group of people together to try and obstruct someone from giving a speech. True? Furthermore, being a jerk is related to individual actions that a person makes, not the whole "person". For example, if someone obstructs someone from speaking, that is intolerable. But that doesn't make it ok to prevent that person from speaking at a later date, the action itself is still intolerable.

This flatly stinks of the example I already provided.

The three guys looking for the lone target may be displaying the same action as the mob that beats them down...or if the mob outnumbers them five to one instead of three to one you might say "so the mob is worse!!!" But civilized people recognize that there is a difference between organizing an assault pack and mutual defense.

There is a distinction, and the distinction is intent.

Milo, who is openly proud of trampling on the rights of others, deserves to have no one respect his.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Damn man you're like a lawyer.

Presenting factually based arguments in pursuit of making a point? Wow, he IS like a lawyer.

 

[christos200]

I mean, aside from anything else, you're on the record as support the Colonel's Regime, so, I mean, unless your political position has undergone a real spinaroo...

This is false. I do not support the Colonel's Regime; in my opinion it was a failed authoritarian regime. Personally, I am a Minarchist Libertarian and as such I stand opposed to big government and authoritarianism. I am a firm believer in limited constitutional government.

 

[civver_764]

Some more leftist bullies


Link to video.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, once disturbances are actually used to shut down a speaker, it's disrespecting more than the speaker. It's violating people's rights to assemble. It's violating people's rights to use their own property. It's also a slippery slope.

If your words aren't actually better than their words, then you're hardly showing that you're wiser than the speaker by using might to stop him.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Some more leftist bullies

Nothing says "I've lost this argument" quite like throwing in a random off topic video. I accept your surrender.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, once disturbances are actually used to shut down a speaker, it's disrespecting more than the speaker. It's violating people's rights to assemble. It's violating people's rights to use their own property. It's also a slippery slope.

If your words aren't actually better than their words, then you're hardly showing that you're wiser than the speaker by using might to stop him.

Unfortunately MIlo is not interested in your "contest of words."

Back in the day I was sometimes called on to present the case for nuclear power. I was well educated and had a lot of experience in the field...and was well aware that if I got in a "contest of words" with an idiot shouting "radiation, contamination, death" over and over I would lose even though he couldn't even define two out of the three words he was using. This is because there IS no "contest of words" when dealing with crowds, there is just a contest of emotions.

MIlo wants to have a contest of emotions, and the stakes of his contest are the rights, and potentially the physical security, of innocents. As far as I'm concerned by choosing that contest he puts his own rights and physical security at stake, and I am in favor of him losing. I feel the same way about the people who want to assemble with him.

 

[Ryika]

Do you think it was also okay to shout down Jordan Peterson in the video that was linked above?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Do you think it was also okay to shout down Jordan Peterson in the video that was linked above?

I have no opinion on Jordan Peterson. If he is known for organizing mob action against innocents then shouting him down would be the least among what I would consider appropriate, which is how I feel about Milo and his alt right minions that are looking to do his bidding.

 

[Ryika]

If he is known for organizing mob action against innocents

No, that's not at all what he's known for. Jordan Peterson is a psychologist and professor who is known for refusing to abide by a law that would force him to use pronouns that students ask him to use. He has very much focused the discourse on the law itself, and what impact it has to free speech if he can be fined, potentially be sent to jail, just because he refuses to use the words others want him to use. Even when confronted by outraged individuals, he has always remained calm and tried to stay on the facts of the issue, not make it about individuals.

Surely, he does not deserve having his opportunity to speak about an issue he thinks is important taken away from him by this kind of mob action.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, that's not at all what he's known for. Jordan Peterson is a psychologist and professor who is known for refusing to abide by a law that would force him to use pronouns that students ask him to use. He has very much focused the discourse on the law itself, and what impact it has to free speech if he can be fined, potentially be sent to jail, just because he refuses to use the words others want him to use. Even when confronted by outraged individuals, he has always remained calm and tried to stay on the facts of the issue, not make it about individuals.

Surely, he does not deserve having his opportunity to speak about an issue he thinks is important taken away from him by this kind of mob action.

If that's his shtick I generally agree with his right to say so. Of course I also think that if someone tells me "I want you to call me this" and I then directly call them something else they are completely within reasonable bounds if they punch my face in, so I don't do that and certainly wouldn't be interested in this jerk's justifications on the subject either. Thus I also have no problem at all with people exercising their right to free speech in an equally obnoxious way and shouting him down.