Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:people will put hours into digging up evidence to build narratives that forward the idea that overtly racist and fascist people are the victims.
Fortunately, free speech is granted to all, which includes those that you think are overtly racist or fascist. Who those people are that you wish to label as racist and fascist may be a point upon which we disagree, but their free speech is necessary and should not be violently suppressed.
Imagine what one could find spending half the time looking into how many people have been violently murdered by white nationalist or white socialist "activists." Has the Antifa killed anyone yet? If so, how many. On the flip side, how many people have been shot, stabbed, or killed by white supremacists in the last year? In Washington, Milo supporters recently shot people. Didn't hear of any Antifa doing that at Berkeley.
You've only mentioned one person who was shot. In a proper argument, people from opposing sides present evidence and maybe you're in a better position to do that for the side you're speaking for at the moment, to reveal to me and others in the discussion things they're not aware of, so go ahead and do so. Don't need any more clips of airhead blondes
Now, if you want to be intellectually honest, you would answer my question as to how many people have been killed by Antifa. Now, how many people have been killed by white nationalists and white socialists? Let's just look at the last decade or two. We don't even have to go back to Jim Crow.
Your question about the number of murders only made sense to me as a rhetorical one and just sounded like whataboutism. Comparing numbers of murders does not seem relevant to me. You're just using it to deflect the evidence at hand that contradicts your position that you support free speech. I do not know how many people Antifa or White Supremacists have murdered, it's just a leading question to avoid the point of this topic, but on video recently Antifa were recorded repeatedly attacking people in ways so violent and dangerous it could have led to fatalities. I condemned the shooting at Univ. of Washington, but you do not do the same in regard to Antifa's violence. I don't think you can have that and also say you support the free speech of people you lump in with Nazi's, because that's exactly the same rationalization Antifa uses to justify attacking peaceful people, such as the physical attack Felarca's group made against a lone, peaceful member of the Traditional Worker's Party caught on video last June in Sacramento.
I watched the two clips you provided and it's easy for me to acknowledge that the thing with Spencer looks disgusting, it's obviously been edited for a length, so I'd like to see the whole speech and be certain of what's going on. I watched an interview with Nathan Damigo (the guy who punched Moldylocks) in order to discover for myself if he deserves the reputation of a racist or whatever, but only made it 30 minutes of 60 before giving up from boredom because the interviewer was hopeless at getting to the point. Why don't you take a few minutes and look at the clips I've posted of extreme Antifa violence?
While simply "sticking to the timeline" might make things seem easier to digest, I am not at all convinced that talking about these events without the very context (historical, social, and emotional) that has created the backlash is at all accurate or useful. It just helps to forward the unnuanced "I'm right and you are wrong narrative."
That's fine. I'm not trying for an I'm right and your're wrong outcome. However, by refusing to respond directly to the worst of the violence I've referenced you really seem to be avoiding common ground.
this whole idea that the White Man is the under dog and that the fascist alt right are the victims is the exact opposite of either intellectual honesty or ability--take your pick.
I've never said that and I haven't seen that being said once by the proponents of free speech I've referenced. Not once.
The real underdogs are the poor, people of color, and other minoreties who are murdered by the worst of those you are supporting and marginalized (via voting and the implementation of prejudiced laws) by the very best of those you are supporting. All of the people you are supporting are disgusting, whereas only the fringe of the protesters are violent...
The way you frame this discussion is that
all of the people I'm supporting are disgusting and I am also supporting murderers. That's ridiculously exaggerated. Whereas you don't need to say anything about the obvious violence going on now because of murders that occurred in the past and your apparent belief that Antifa have not murdered anyone. They should add that to the logo on the concealable, credit card knives they sell, "We're not as murderous as White Supremacists!" I guess the blade's not long enough.
And the right doesn't seem to understand that the First Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to be given a venue to speak at any place they like.
Are you really that daft? Do you think you are constitutionally granted the right to go and give lectures at Harvard whenever you like? What a ridiculous notion.
You're jumping to conclusions, which seems to be a pattern of lumping everyone into the same category of those who disagree with you. No one has said that anyone had a 1st amendment right to speak in an authorized venue inside UCB and the lawyer who gave the press conference I posted answered this question in excellent detail.
Berkeley has its rules for authorized speakers, but the lawsuit charges that within these rules, conservative speakers are being denied the same access granted to liberal speakers. Coulter, Milo, Vicente Fox, Dalai Lama, etc., are qualified to speak there because they were invited by an authorized student organization.
The security concerns and monetary costs are real and my opinion is that Berkeley should have discretion about who is to pay for them. The lawyer said they charged $20,000 for the Dalai Lama and also gave some other examples.
This same lawyer said that inside an authorized Berkeley speaking arena is a "limited first amendment" venue, meaning that you have to be invited by an authorized body, but once invited you do have rights for equal treatment, etc. For an "unlimited first amendment" venue, an open area like Sproul Plaza is where you don't need any permission. I'm just quoting the lawyer who lives there as I've only been on campus once.
As I said, I think people should be given the right to speak, although I am not sure that Coulter deserves to be given a stage at a Universtity to spout her rhetoric without any challenge.
It was supposed to be an open forum with Q & A, just as Milo's were, so challenges were welcomed.
There is a lot of tension in the country right now, and the fact that the Right is enthusiatically embracing overt racism and even the Nazi Party of War era Germany does not help.
How would you deal with it? By violently attacking those labeled as Nazi's? The problem that's being addressed is how to prevent things turning violent when the problems we've both described are occurring. Politics and free speech mean you should remain non-violent, allow your political opponents the opportunity to speak, counter them with ideas and then reset after any conflict in order to prevent continual escalation. If the police won't keep the peace, that's another hurdle.
At present, a large number of people who consider themselves mainstream conservatives, centrists or right-of-center, feel that their free speech is being violently oppressed by Antifa. They do not see themselves as neo-nazis or alt-right and they're a large segment of the population, perhaps half the country—those who voted for Trump. How do we reduce the tension, avoid escalation and play politics instead of something worse?