"Alt-left" Parading Ignorance, Stupidity, Malice, Etc.

[pErvinalia]

Well that's an entirely different issue, of course.

But, the first answer to that is that we have a fundamental human right of freedom of speech, as an outgrowth of fundamental rights of freedom of conscience and freedom of thought.

Natural rights of man. Yawn. Stopped reading at that point.

I also explained the key difference between a law against speeding and a law against speaking. They aren't the same thing, as harm is not caused by the act of expressing opinions,

Harm can demonstrably occur from the act of expressing opinions. That's why rhetoric and propaganda are some of the favourite tools of dictators the world over.

What you (and the Seth's of the world) are really saying here is that you've drawn a line. On one side of the line you have said that certain types of harm are acceptable. On the other side of the line they aren't. That's all that's happening here. There's no deep philosophy underpinning this shit. It's simple an arbitrary line. That's not to say it can't be a good place to have a line. It's just all the philosowibble that accompanies it that makes it utter bullshit.

There aren't accidents that occur because someone expresses an opinion.

I hate to bring up the usual example, but shouting "BOMB" in a theatre or in a packed football crowd can actually lead to unintended, but direct, harm.

The harm that is suggested with speech is that people may be offended by it or have their feelings hurt, or that people may take violent action as a result of hearing certain kinds of speech. The former is not a harm the law protects in contexts like speeding - it's about physical harm, not hurt feelings. And the latter is different from the kind of harm speeding causes. We don't have speeding laws because someone else might speed too. We have speeding laws because of the danger of accidents at high rates of speed.

It's still a law restricting people's freedoms.

On the other point, I don't really want to go down this path, because it will become ridiculous, but psychological harm is a real thing. Again, you are just drawing an arbitrary line. That's fine, just don't pretend it's something grander than that.

And hate speech laws (and other sort of general restrictions on freedom) aren't about "hurt feelings" or even that people might get violent as a side-effect. It's more concerned with how society plays out as a system. No one is born racist/sexist/whateverist. They are moulded that way by society. The role of government is to manage society. If they aren't doing that in an effective way, then what's the point of them? And turning us all into faceless economic units isn't a valid role.

Also, its' a function of equal treatment under the law. The government is not the arbiter of truth or of the value of opinion, particularly political opinion.

This is just more philosowibble, and a false dichotomy to boot. Do you realise that this is just your opinion. It's not a fact. A government is a body elected by the people to do whatever it is they were elected to do.

[pErvinalia]

Explainer: what is antifa, and where did it come from?

Anti-fascist action, more popularly known as “antifa”, can be best described as international socialism on amphetamines. Driven by progressive ideology and “workers’ rights”, it has adopted violence and intimidation as a tactic to quash conservatives and nationalists – in Australia, Europe and, most recently, the US.

Antifa, or militant progressives, have always existed and flourished in democracies. Militant progressives were part of the the 1960s and 1970s counter-culture, and were active during the anti-globalisation protests of the 1990s and 2000s.

It is difficult to accurately state when antifa began. It is more of an evolution of progressive militancy than a birth.

What does it fight for?

Anti-fascist movements can be traced back at least to the 1920s and 1930s. Today, the ideological collective known as antifa evokes the historical struggles of the 20th century against fascists in Italy and Nazi Germany to explain its 21st-century existence.

Antifa believe if anti-fascists had mobilised and crushed fascism before it took root in Europe during the early-to-mid-20th century, then many of that period’s tragedies may have been avoided.

In some ways, antifa’s existence also relies on the political environment of the time. There must be a conservative government in power for it to have traction.

Antifa is a product of progressive thought struggling against conservative or capitalist governments. Without them, it would not enjoy its current prominence. Instead, it would have to content itself on countering the activities of radical nationalist fringe groups.

Antifa ideology features a pro-multicultural agenda, the protection of social and ethnic minorities, and the socialisation of government. The majority of its platform is rather mainstream for contemporary society, and can also be found in the policy platforms on the left of the ALP or the Greens.

http://theconversation.com/explainer-wh ... from-82977

This is just garbled nonsense. It's just a lame "red scare". Antifa, is largely politically anarchist. Does the clown who wrote this understand the difference between socialism and anarchism? It seems not. Either that, or he is engaging in propaganda (the obvious hint there is the mention of the ALP and the Greens). And looking at his mini bio, I see he is from The University of Podunk, Desertville, Australia. Probably not a surprise..

Seems quite cogent and factual to me, but why accept facts when you have a job to do as an Anarchist provocateur eh?

I'm an "anarchist provocateur" now??! The hyperbole out of you lot just gets more and more ridiculous by the day.

[pErvinalia]

I guess that is why America is such a shit place

[Hermit]

we're not saying that "Nazi's" can't have their speech restricted, we're saying "people" can't have their speech restricted. Because it's not just Nazis as a special class of people whose speech could be restricted. All people would be subject to the same restriction.

That is what you are saying. I am saying, and it's safe to assume I am not the only one, that all people have freedom of speech - as long as they do not advocate policies that deny the same freedom everyone else has to Jews, African Americans or any other ethnicity. Advocacy of, say ethnic cleansing, even if that is supposed to be executed by "peaceful means", is such a denial.

In America, at least, the incitement you speak of has to be 'imminent' for the speech to be non-protected.

Yes. I am aware of that. Now, what is so imminent about travelling at 100 miles per hour along a straight on a dual carriageway marked with a speed limit of 75 miles per hour at two on a Tuesday morning in a late model Porsche and a police car equipped with a radar parked on the shoulder? Yes, you guessed right. It's a speeding fine. No chance of anyone getting killed or injured. Unless the driver is an African American of course.

[Forty Two]

Well that's an entirely different issue, of course.

But, the first answer to that is that we have a fundamental human right of freedom of speech, as an outgrowth of fundamental rights of freedom of conscience and freedom of thought.

Natural rights of man. Yawn. Stopped reading at that point.

I also explained the key difference between a law against speeding and a law against speaking. They aren't the same thing, as harm is not caused by the act of expressing opinions,

Harm can demonstrably occur from the act of expressing opinions. That's why rhetoric and propaganda are some of the favourite tools of dictators the world over.

Describe the harms you're talking about and you'll illustrate the difference. Driving a car runs a risk of crashing and running over pedestrians, etc. Speaking does not run that kind of harm. Unless you're talking about making so much noise it hurts someone's eardrums, etc., it's not the same kind of harm. But, there ARE laws about how loudly one can talk, and time/place/manner restrictions on demonstrations to allow for safety concerns to be addressed. Those kind of rules are like speeding rules. But, silencing someone is not like speeding rules. Silencing someone would be like a ban on traveling altogether.

What you (and the Seth's of the world) are really saying here is that you've drawn a line. On one side of the line you have said that certain types of harm are acceptable. On the other side of the line they aren't. That's all that's happening here. There's no deep philosophy underpinning this shit. It's simple an arbitrary line. That's not to say it can't be a good place to have a line. It's just all the philosowibble that accompanies it that makes it utter bullshit.

That's not what I'm doing, and you can't lump me in with Seth because I hardly ever agree with him, nor do I suspect that i agree with his argument on this issue.

Of course this is an exercise in line-drawing, as is everything. Should people be treated equally under the law? Why? It could easily be opined that people should be treated by the law in accordance with their merits and their quality, by some standard or another, and that equal treatment under the law is bullshit. But, a rational argument is made which results in the notion of equal protection of the law or equal treatment of the law - it's not entirely "arbitrary," and neither is the idea of freedom of speech.

There aren't accidents that occur because someone expresses an opinion.

I hate to bring up the usual example, but shouting "BOMB" in a theatre or in a packed football crowd can actually lead to unintended, but direct, harm.

Of course, but that's an entirely different kind of harm than results from crashing because one is driving too fast. Moreover, inciting an incident like that, by shouting "bomb" in a theater is, in fact, an example of something that will get one prosecuted. That's not what free speech is, and bears no resemblance to the political opinions of nazis , commies or antifas. Nobody is talking about their right to shout "bomb" in a theater. What's at issue is their right to express opinions like "Jews are subhuman," or "capitalists are running dogs and should be deprived of their property and hanged from the nooses they'll sell us..." or "anyone who supports trump supports neonazis and white supremacists and needs to be punched..."

We start the argument talking about shutting Nazis up (i.e., making sure they can't publicize their Nazi viewpoints) and then when someone says that they should have a right to free speech, the response is "free speech is bullshit, because what about staying "bomb" in a theater and inciting a riot?" A better rebuttal would involve explaining why the neonazi can't publish Mein Kampf or can't march down main street announcing Nazi slogans. Why?

The harm that is suggested with speech is that people may be offended by it or have their feelings hurt, or that people may take violent action as a result of hearing certain kinds of speech. The former is not a harm the law protects in contexts like speeding - it's about physical harm, not hurt feelings. And the latter is different from the kind of harm speeding causes. We don't have speeding laws because someone else might speed too. We have speeding laws because of the danger of accidents at high rates of speed.

It's still a law restricting people's freedoms.

Just about every law is a law restricting some kind of freedom. You might as well be arguing that we can't have individual liberty of religion or lack thereof, because we have other laws restricting other things. We still have the right as individuals to our own consciences, and to be able to follow and practice a religion or no religion. By the logic you are expressing, you'd not be able to argue against the government imposing a religion on atheists by law. After all, the government makes other laws, restriting other freedoms, doesn't it?

On the other point, I don't really want to go down this path, because it will become ridiculous, but psychological harm is a real thing. Again, you are just drawing an arbitrary line. That's fine, just don't pretend it's something grander than that.

Nobody said psychological harm was not a real thing. But, that doesn't mean we prohibit everything that can cause psychological harm. The lefties of today say that Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn cause psychological harm to black people. Does that justify censoring them

[Animavore]

Interesting. Our interlocutors, still struggling to point out an "alt left", are now talking about free speech.

If we start sectioning out the discussion on Antifa, free speech, and other, unrelated topics (there still hasn't been a related topic, related to what?) to their own threads I'd imagine this thread would be rather thin.

[Animavore]

Still, at 23 pages it has nearly caught up with the Alt Right thread. Y'know, the real and actual shower of violent, dangerous thugs.

Looks like the Alt Right's deflection plan is working rather well.

[Hermit]

Driving a car runs a risk of crashing and running over pedestrians, etc. Speaking does not run that kind of harm.

Yes it does, and it has. You keep saying that the risk of speeding resulting in a crash is worth enforcing a law against speeding, but the risk of of advocating fascist policies resulting in the deaths of millions of Jews is not worth enforcing a law against advocating fascist policies. It's a double standard, no matter how you choose to spin it.

[pErvinalia]

What you (and the Seth's of the world) are really saying here is that you've drawn a line. On one side of the line you have said that certain types of harm are acceptable. On the other side of the line they aren't. That's all that's happening here. There's no deep philosophy underpinning this shit. It's simple an arbitrary line. That's not to say it can't be a good place to have a line. It's just all the philosowibble that accompanies it that makes it utter bullshit.

That's not what I'm doing, and you can't lump me in with Seth because I hardly ever agree with him, nor do I suspect that i agree with his argument on this issue.

You both trot out the "natural rights" argument, apparently.

Of course this is an exercise in line-drawing,

So why wibble about "inherent rights"? It's clearly not an exercise in line drawing in your mind.

There aren't accidents that occur because someone expresses an opinion.

I hate to bring up the usual example, but shouting "BOMB" in a theatre or in a packed football crowd can actually lead to unintended, but direct, harm.

Of course, but that's an entirely different kind of harm than results from crashing because one is driving too fast. Moreover, inciting an incident like that, by shouting "bomb" in a theater is, in fact, an example of something that will get one prosecuted. That's not what free speech is, and bears no resemblance to the political opinions of nazis , commies or antifas. Nobody is talking about their right to shout "bomb" in a theater. What's at issue is their right to express opinions like "Jews are subhuman," or "capitalists are running dogs and should be deprived of their property and hanged from the nooses they'll sell us..." or "anyone who supports trump supports neonazis and white supremacists and needs to be punched..."

More arbitrary line-drawing... ✔

We start the argument talking about shutting Nazis up (i.e., making sure they can't publicize their Nazi viewpoints) and then when someone says that they should have a right to free speech, the response is "free speech is bullshit, because what about staying "bomb" in a theater and inciting a riot?" A better rebuttal would involve explaining why the neonazi can't publish Mein Kampf or can't march down main street announcing Nazi slogans. Why?

'Because millions wound up dead last time that happened', could be a starting point.

The harm that is suggested with speech is that people may be offended by it or have their feelings hurt, or that people may take violent action as a result of hearing certain kinds of speech. The former is not a harm the law protects in contexts like speeding - it's about physical harm, not hurt feelings. And the latter is different from the kind of harm speeding causes. We don't have speeding laws because someone else might speed too. We have speeding laws because of the danger of accidents at high rates of speed.

It's still a law restricting people's freedoms.

Just about every law is a law restricting some kind of freedom.

Bingo!

On the other point, I don't really want to go down this path, because it will become ridiculous, but psychological harm is a real thing. Again, you are just drawing an arbitrary line. That's fine, just don't pretend it's something grander than that.

Nobody said psychological harm was not a real thing. But, that doesn't mean we prohibit everything that can cause psychological harm.

Another arbitrary line drawn... ✔

The lefties of today say that Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn cause psychological harm to black people. Does that justify censoring them

It would depend on what sort of case they could mount to defend their position. I thought your stance was that everything (more or less) is open to discussion. You appear to be carte blanche ruling something out. So illiberal...

[pErvinalia]

Still, at 23 pages it has nearly caught up with the Alt Right thread. Y'know, the real and actual shower of violent, dangerous thugs.

Looks like the Alt Right's deflection plan is working rather well.

[Jason]

What is Antifa?

(CNN)After protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned violent on Saturday, leaving one person dead and dozens injured, the world is still grappling with what happened, who was involved and why.

Hundreds of white nationalists took to the streets over the weekend to protest the removal of a Gen. Robert E. Lee statue. But members of a controversial opposing group, known as Antifa, also showed up to condemn hate and racism.
Here's a closer look at Antifa protesters, who have become more visible in the past year.
What is Antifa?
Antifa is short for anti-fascists. The term is used to define a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform. The group doesn't have an official leader or headquarters, although groups in certain states hold regular meetings.

Antifa positions can be hard to define, but many members support oppressed populations and protest the amassing of wealth by corporations and elites. Some employ radical or militant tactics to get their message across.
Scott Crow, a former Antifa organizer, says the "radical ideals" promoted by Antifas are starting to be adopted by liberals. "They would never have looked at (those ideals) before, because they saw us as the enemy as much as the right-wingers."
The majority of Antifa members don't fall into a stereotype. Since the election of President Donald Trump, however, most new Antifa members are young voters.

How did the group start?
The exact origins of the group are unknown, but Antifa can be traced to Nazi Germany and Anti-Fascist Action, a militant group founded in the 1980s in the United Kingdom.
Modern-day members of Antifa have become more active in making themselves known at public rallies and within the progressive movement, said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino.
"What they're trying to do now is not only become prominent through violence at these high-profile rallies, but also to reach out through small meetings and through social networking to cultivate disenfranchised progressives who heretofore were peaceful," Levin said.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-i ... index.html

An old story, but another worth reading to get a handle on the dangerous organization that is Antifa.

[Jason]

Interesting. Our interlocutors, still struggling to point out an "alt left", are now talking about free speech.

If we start sectioning out the discussion on Antifa, free speech, and other, unrelated topics (there still hasn't been a related topic, related to what?) to their own threads I'd imagine this thread would be rather thin.

Antifa has infiltrated the left all around the world. It's a cancer that needs to be excised.

[Cunt]

Is anyone actually standing firmly behind the 'punch a neo-Nazi' position?

[Jason]

Still, at 23 pages it has nearly caught up with the Alt Right thread. Y'know, the real and actual shower of violent, dangerous thugs.

Looks like the Alt Right's deflection plan is working rather well.

Separate the antifa and free speech discussion into its own thread, they're related and should stay together, if you like. It would be a moral victory to separate them from the left, even if it's only on a forum.

[Jason]

Is anyone actually standing firmly behind the 'punch a neo-Nazi' position?

On this forum? Ani and pErvin, maybe others.