The Oh So Tolerant Hard Leftist SF Folk

[Jarlaxle]

Jarl--violence does not necessarily equate to shooting someone dead, it can take many forms; and, FWIW, I do not condone killing someone in nearly all circumstances.

Nor am I going to equate the violence of both sides; it is not hypocrisy to support the violence of the French Underground, yet decry the violence of the nazis. I think you can understand that. There are not always good people on both sides (where did I hear that before?).

In the end, all we can do is control what we are willing to do or not do. I'll make my choices based on my moral beliefs, and if someone chooses to criticize or attack me for that, so be it.

Impressive pretzel logic. Dishonest and hypocritical, but impressive.

[Jarlaxle]

I disagree. And agree. Preventing a speaker from speaking is exactly "suppression" and the ability of a minority to do so is far from indicating that the speaker's product is "crap" in the marketplace of ideas. The issue here was not "shouting down" but violent suppression. The speaker was not (AFAIK) advocating fascism and racism, merely a wrong-headed notion that "da media" squashes rightist opinion while promoting leftist opinion. If the offense of perceived ignorance is to be your recommended target of missiles and fists, then you must hate most citizens of the USA. Touche

Sue--certainly shouting down ideas is a time honored tradition (I recall many times standing and shouting "1-2 fuck you"to shout people down), but int he long run it is counterproductive (and it exactly why I personally started to avoid participating in demonstrations; I think the shouting down only makes the idea more compelling--why would someone not want me to hear something?).

I prefer mockery and heckling to mere shouting and noise. Like the guy who followed the neo-Nazis around with a sousaphone providing a comic soundtrack for their detestable parade. Or the literal clowns counter-demonstrating for "white flour" and "wife power." And nowhere did I suggest that violence was in fact appropriate for that event in San Francisco. But as Karl Popper pointed out, a tolerant society must be ready to claim a right to suppress intolerance, by force if necessary, in defense of tolerance; those who advocate for intolerance, or for values so far outside the norms of our society as to be incompatible with justice, must be considered to have placed themselves outside the law and the protections of that society.

I remember when liberals had actual PRINCIPALS.

Thankfully I am not a liberal, so I guess I still have principles.

Yes: you want to be able to physically attack people you disagree with. You want to simply declare people you don't like "outside the law" and, whether you will admit it or not (you won't), you would be absolutely fine with having the people in question murdered.

I suppose you're perfectly fine with these, then...

https://www.wmur.com/article/police-inv ... A-oYo4LbH4#

https://www.wbal.com/article/484131/3/k ... vNn13NWAiM

[MajGenl.Meade]

And nowhere did I suggest that violence was in fact appropriate for that event in San Francisco.

I argued that: "Silencing his protest by violent counter-protest is exactly the suppression of free speech and the ultimate expression of civic intolerance. IMO"

Your paragraph in response opened with: "I disagree"

It's not surprising that I interpreted your disagreement as total. Had "In the case of..." started a new paragraph, it would have been easier to see it as a new and separate idea.

I liked the cartoon although (IMO) it rather negates that warm and fuzzy "defend to the death his right to say it" thing.

[Big RR]

Jarl--violence does not necessarily equate to shooting someone dead, it can take many forms; and, FWIW, I do not condone killing someone in nearly all circumstances.

Nor am I going to equate the violence of both sides; it is not hypocrisy to support the violence of the French Underground, yet decry the violence of the nazis. I think you can understand that. There are not always good people on both sides (where did I hear that before?).

In the end, all we can do is control what we are willing to do or not do. I'll make my choices based on my moral beliefs, and if someone chooses to criticize or attack me for that, so be it.

Impressive pretzel logic. Dishonest and hypocritical, but impressive.

Can I get a beer for that pretzel? I may take away the sting out of being called hypocritical and dishonest by you.

[Sue U]

Yes: you want to be able to physically attack people you disagree with. You want to simply declare people you don't like "outside the law" and, whether you will admit it or not (you won't), you would be absolutely fine with having the people in question murdered.

It is certainly telling that the only type of "violence" or coercion that registers with you is murder. (Of course, you could have a penal code where the penalty for any infraction is death, but you should give some thought to why you fantasize such a rule.) And why do you pretend to know that what I *really* want is exactly the opposite of what I specifically said? Do you somehow think that "I prefer mockery and heckling" really means "I want to be able to physically attack people"? Are you not familiar with the concept of "outlaw"? Do you not understand the purpose of having rules for the operation of a society? Have you never heard of Karl Popper or The Paradox of Tolerance?

Why don't you try actually considering what someone has said rather than making ridiculous accusations based on some bullshit that you just made up?

It's not surprising that I interpreted your disagreement as total. Had "In the case of..." started a new paragraph, it would have been easier to see it as a new and separate idea.

I liked the cartoon although (IMO) it rather negates that warm and fuzzy "defend to the death his right to say it" thing.

My apologies for the ambiguity in the sentence and for my lack of use of "smilies" (sometimes I can't tell when they're actually needed). And as for "defending to the death etc.," I have always considered myself rather a free speech absolutist, but that presumes the speech is offered as argument in good faith. What I see lately, however -- particularly on the political far right -- is a lot of smirking disingenuousness in propagating actual racist and antisemitic tropes under the claim that a true liberal society must tolerate intolerance. The aim of the authoritarian right is to undermine the very principles of American democracy that protect their speech. They are not actually concerned with free speech other than as a tool for destroying the norms by which we distinguish good from evil, so that they can gain attention for their poisonous ideas by inciting reaction and then claiming to be the victims of censorship. It is a difficult issue, as line-drawing often is; I'm certainly no philosopher, but I think Popper was ultimately right in his conclusions.

[Big RR]

And nothing in the annals of free speech philosophy and jurisprudence command that any has to listen and/or refrain from comment and/or not interrupt or challenge it. The state is constrained from doing so,and that is an absolute in my book; but others can challenge, heckle, ridicule, or treat it with any contempt they choose. I mockery and humor can go a long way; I recall when the nazis marched in Skokie, I thought it would ave been a lot more effective if the people in the town dressed like Hitler and his henchmen and mocked them yelling fake German slogans rather than reacting with anger, showing them up for the fools they were. Humor can be a very effective weapon, Wavy Gravy understood that and many times used it well. As Sue said, they want to provoke a reaction they can bitch about, but bitching about mockery just makes them seem even more like assholes.

ETA: FWIW, there is nothing inherently liberal (or conservative for that matter) about being pro free speech. Many on both sides of the spectrum would rather censor speech and/or actions they do not agree with or are not comfortable with. If you doubt that, look how the right responded to taking a knee during the paying of the national anthem during football games--it went far beyond criticism, almost to the level of a religious fervor. But there are free speech absolutists in both camps.

[rubato]

"Conservatives staging free-speech rally" is as plausible as "Catholics stage reproductive choice rally".

yrs,
rubato

[dales]

rube, you just ejaculated a mouthful.

[Gob]

ETA: FWIW, there is nothing inherently liberal (or conservative for that matter) about being pro free speech. Many on both sides of the spectrum would rather censor speech and/or actions they do not agree with or are not comfortable with.....

.... But there are free speech absolutists in both camps.

Amen brother.

[Big RR]

Well rubato, it is generally the right leaning groups that oppose and demonstrate on campuses against restrictions on free speech, something which could involve state action depending on the university. Conservatives are also vocal in their opposition to hate crime laws. And many libertarians are staunch supporters free speech.

These are positions you may not agree with, but IMHO defense of free speech includes defending speech one does not agree with.

[Scooter]

Conservatives are also vocal in their opposition to hate crime laws.

Which are not in any way restrictions on speech, notwithstanding their vilification by the right as "thought crimes" (which they are not).

[Big RR]

Scooter--You are correct, most are not, they are just enhanced penalties for actual crimes. However, some prosecutors have tried to apply the the laws to apply hate speech alone being a crime, although the Supreme Court has not agreed. And some legislators have tried to enact laws against hate speech, with the opposition coming mainly from the right (along with some free speech absolutists on the left).

The point is that some on the right seek to protect an unrestricted right to free speech, which is what rubato pooh-poohed.

[Jarlaxle]

Well rubato, it is generally the right leaning groups that oppose and demonstrate on campuses against restrictions on free speech, something which could involve state action depending on the university. Conservatives are also vocal in their opposition to hate crime laws. And many libertarians are staunch supporters free speech.

These are positions you may not agree with, but IMHO defense of free speech includes defending speech one does not agree with.

Remember, this is Ozzie. Anything he says is THE TRUTH! Anything that contradicts THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH cannot be anything but HERESY!

[Jarlaxle]

Yes: you want to be able to physically attack people you disagree with. You want to simply declare people you don't like "outside the law" and, whether you will admit it or not (you won't), you would be absolutely fine with having the people in question murdered.

It is certainly telling that the only type of "violence" or coercion that registers with you is murder.

Horse shit. Murder is simply the logical endgame to people being physically attacked...and as I expected, you won't admit (even to yourself) that you are fine with it.

(Of course, you could have a penal code where the penalty for any infraction is death, but you should give some thought to why you fantasize such a rule.) And why do you pretend to know that what I *really* want is exactly the opposite of what I specifically said? Do you somehow think that "I prefer mockery and heckling" really means "I want to be able to physically attack people"? Are you not familiar with the concept of "outlaw"? Do you not understand the purpose of having rules for the operation of a society? Have you never heard of Karl Popper or The Paradox of Tolerance?

Irrelevant distraction.

It's not surprising that I interpreted your disagreement as total. Had "In the case of..." started a new paragraph, it would have been easier to see it as a new and separate idea.

I liked the cartoon although (IMO) it rather negates that warm and fuzzy "defend to the death his right to say it" thing.

That is because many people now are foursquare against that, and in fact PREFER to have their opponents' speech squelched by violent means.

[Jarlaxle]

And nothing in the annals of free speech philosophy and jurisprudence command that any has to listen and/or refrain from comment and/or not interrupt or challenge it. The state is constrained from doing so,and that is an absolute in my book; but others can challenge, heckle, ridicule, or treat it with any contempt they choose. I mockery and humor can go a long way; I recall when the nazis marched in Skokie, I thought it would ave been a lot more effective if the people in the town dressed like Hitler and his henchmen and mocked them yelling fake German slogans rather than reacting with anger, showing them up for the fools they were. Humor can be a very effective weapon, Wavy Gravy understood that and many times used it well. As Sue said, they want to provoke a reaction they can bitch about, but bitching about mockery just makes them seem even more like assholes.

ETA: FWIW, there is nothing inherently liberal (or conservative for that matter) about being pro free speech. Many on both sides of the spectrum would rather censor speech and/or actions they do not agree with or are not comfortable with. If you doubt that, look how the right responded to taking a knee during the paying of the national anthem during football games--it went far beyond criticism, almost to the level of a religious fervor. But there are free speech absolutists in both camps.

I have no problem with heckling. I have a serious problem with physically attacking anyone for speech.

I have no problem with a physical attack being responded to with immediate and overwhelming use of lethal force.

[wesw]

they don t understand, jarl.

they think that they will have an army of black men to fight their war, but half of the black men like trump

stop this talk of violence, you will cause a bloodbath

you will destroy us all.

no one will win.

stop it

please.

I want to die with the same number of bullets that I lived with

unless I see a fat rabbit, just begging for it...

[Bicycle Bill]

I want to die with the same number of bullets that I lived with

So far, I have managed to live 66 years without a single bullet.  Why do you think you need to have any?
A man doesn't buy condoms unless he thinks he's going to use them, either.

-"BB"-

[Gob]

A man doesn't buy condoms unless he thinks he's going to use them, either.

Wes has no use for condoms.

[MajGenl.Meade]

So you say

[wesw]

hey bill, I found a couple of those phat rabbits.....

worth a couple of my loads of #6 shot , I reckon.....https://www.bitchute.com/video/4m93shQxQQPM/