"It always astounds me how Americans view free speech. You'd defend the right of someone to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre over the right of the theatre-goers not to get trampled."
The first reflex of everyone who finds free speech "astounding," it seems, is to laud Schenck vs. United States. As I'm sure you know, Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes made that spurious analogy in order to justify locking up people protesting against American involvement in World War I. One person was locked away for ten years for protesting. These protesters were, I suppose you'd say, "weakly affiliated" German supporters. Certainly that was the excuse at the time.
An existence proof is sufficient for documentation of the fact that Antifa's aims are much broader than intimidating fascists: At Berkeley, Antifa people attacked people simply for supporting Trump. Again, I suppose they're "weakly affiliated" fascists. By now, about half the people who voted last year are "fascists."
People with violent aims always try to reassure people that their aims are narrow, Some put on an articulate front. I'll give you points for that. But we've seen time and time again that the more they get away with, the more they go after.
I think most people are opposed to violence as a political tactic. Unfortunately, more and more they're being intimidated into silence, not by threats of physical violence, but merely by the threat of disapproval by thugs. This is a large part of what has allowed dictators to get into power: Good people staying silent.
In this scenario, there are generally two sides, superficially opposed to each other but both hating freedom and wanting to suppress it. Each side feeds off the other, gaining the appearance legitimacy from the other side's adoption of similar methods. In the end, though, only one hand can wield the Ring.
I'm so glad to hear that you support unconditional free speech. I can only assume that you've come out loudly in support of the right of ISIS to mobilize its foreign recruits online, that you're lobbying your various officials against legislating bans against Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, and that you are participating in BLM protests, from blocking highways from taking the knee at football games!
Had you shown this sort of solidarity and consistency from your first comment, I might have had a little bit more respect for your position!
Or is it just antifa enacting our "right" to free speech that is giving you the vapours?
(Oh yes, those ardent free speech supporters always seem to take issue with counterprotests. Fascists must not only be free to spew their hatred, but enabled by the media and protected by cops in order for speech to be truly free, but if anyone tries to protest them—thus exercising the "right" to free speech themselves—this is fascism, and we are secretly trying to take over the world.)
The scare quotes, of course, because you have nothing approaching the right to free speech in America, unless you are a wealthy white man. Perhaps I'm giving you too much credit to assume you realize this.
I would be wary of sensationalist reports about Berkeley, particularly when most of the eyewitness reports are coming from cops and people with the extreme right. Also, it's Berkeley. Regardless, large crowds tend to contain a handful of people out for kicks—witness sports riots and Black Friday sales. It is a very far logical leap from four or five people perhaps taking it too far at a protest at a university that sees a lot of action on campus to an organized antifa conspiracy to take over the fucking world.
But yes, I'd say that about half the people who voted last year have very strong fascist leanings, or at least susceptible to it. You seem to think that fascism arises because of a small cadre of strong leaders.
I think most people are opposed to violence as a political tactic. Unfortunately, more and more they're being intimidated into silence, not by threats of physical violence, but merely by the threat of disapproval by thugs. This is a large part of what has allowed dictators to get into power: Good people staying silent.
That's pretty funny, because short of a smattering of actual pacifists (I disagree with them, but I respect consistency), almost every single American is perfectly fine with violence as a political tactic. What would you call police shootings of unarmed black people? Drone strikes in Pakistan? ICE rounding up little girls awaiting lifesaving surgery and imprisoning them? Armed vigilantes on the Mexican border using desperate migrants for target practice? Travel bans on Muslims and bathroom bans on trans people? A prison system that incarcerates more people than China and Russia? Most Americans seem to be perfectly fine with political violence...as long as it's not aimed at them.
Dictators get into power because good people enable them. Quite often, it seems, through the vote.
In this scenario, there are generally two sides, superficially opposed to each other but both hating freedom and wanting to suppress it.
Yup. You got me. I absolutely hate freedom.
In the end, though, only one hand can wield the Ring.
It's rad how you seem to think that you're Aragorn in this scenario but you're actually Wormtongue.
Edited (rogue italics) Date: 2017-11-03 11:44 am (UTC)
Sure, I grew up thinking the Marketplace of Ideas was enough and bad ideas would just naturally lose because reasonable people would see through hatred/fear/idiocy.
(no subject)
"It always astounds me how Americans view free speech. You'd defend the right of someone to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre over the right of the theatre-goers not to get trampled."
The first reflex of everyone who finds free speech "astounding," it seems, is to laud Schenck vs. United States. As I'm sure you know, Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes made that spurious analogy in order to justify locking up people protesting against American involvement in World War I. One person was locked away for ten years for protesting. These protesters were, I suppose you'd say, "weakly affiliated" German supporters. Certainly that was the excuse at the time.
An existence proof is sufficient for documentation of the fact that Antifa's aims are much broader than intimidating fascists: At Berkeley, Antifa people attacked people simply for supporting Trump. Again, I suppose they're "weakly affiliated" fascists. By now, about half the people who voted last year are "fascists."
People with violent aims always try to reassure people that their aims are narrow, Some put on an articulate front. I'll give you points for that. But we've seen time and time again that the more they get away with, the more they go after.
I think most people are opposed to violence as a political tactic. Unfortunately, more and more they're being intimidated into silence, not by threats of physical violence, but merely by the threat of disapproval by thugs. This is a large part of what has allowed dictators to get into power: Good people staying silent.
In this scenario, there are generally two sides, superficially opposed to each other but both hating freedom and wanting to suppress it. Each side feeds off the other, gaining the appearance legitimacy from the other side's adoption of similar methods. In the end, though, only one hand can wield the Ring.
(no subject)
Had you shown this sort of solidarity and consistency from your first comment, I might have had a little bit more respect for your position!
Or is it just antifa enacting our "right" to free speech that is giving you the vapours?
(Oh yes, those ardent free speech supporters always seem to take issue with counterprotests. Fascists must not only be free to spew their hatred, but enabled by the media and protected by cops in order for speech to be truly free, but if anyone tries to protest them—thus exercising the "right" to free speech themselves—this is fascism, and we are secretly trying to take over the world.)
The scare quotes, of course, because you have nothing approaching the right to free speech in America, unless you are a wealthy white man. Perhaps I'm giving you too much credit to assume you realize this.
I would be wary of sensationalist reports about Berkeley, particularly when most of the eyewitness reports are coming from cops and people with the extreme right. Also, it's Berkeley. Regardless, large crowds tend to contain a handful of people out for kicks—witness sports riots and Black Friday sales. It is a very far logical leap from four or five people perhaps taking it too far at a protest at a university that sees a lot of action on campus to an organized antifa conspiracy to take over the fucking world.
Meanwhile, only one side has actually killed people, or attacked civilians without provocation.
But yes, I'd say that about half the people who voted last year have very strong fascist leanings, or at least susceptible to it. You seem to think that fascism arises because of a small cadre of strong leaders.
I think most people are opposed to violence as a political tactic. Unfortunately, more and more they're being intimidated into silence, not by threats of physical violence, but merely by the threat of disapproval by thugs. This is a large part of what has allowed dictators to get into power: Good people staying silent.
That's pretty funny, because short of a smattering of actual pacifists (I disagree with them, but I respect consistency), almost every single American is perfectly fine with violence as a political tactic. What would you call police shootings of unarmed black people? Drone strikes in Pakistan? ICE rounding up little girls awaiting lifesaving surgery and imprisoning them? Armed vigilantes on the Mexican border using desperate migrants for target practice? Travel bans on Muslims and bathroom bans on trans people? A prison system that incarcerates more people than China and Russia? Most Americans seem to be perfectly fine with political violence...as long as it's not aimed at them.
Dictators get into power because good people enable them. Quite often, it seems, through the vote.
In this scenario, there are generally two sides, superficially opposed to each other but both hating freedom and wanting to suppress it.
Yup. You got me. I absolutely hate freedom.
In the end, though, only one hand can wield the Ring.
It's rad how you seem to think that you're Aragorn in this scenario but you're actually Wormtongue.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)