"essentially anti-fascists are arguing that, we want a political content to how we look at speech in society, which is drastically different from a liberal take, and that this entails shutting down the extreme manifestations of fascism and neo-Nazism".
"Under that specific banner, it's still relatively new and it’s finding its way, but a lot of anti-fascist or Antifa groups have formed in different cities around the United States. A lot of what they do is researching information on local white supremacists, who they are, where they live, where they work, sometimes pressuring their employers to get them fired, sometimes making sure that if they organize private events at local venues for white supremacists, they pressure the venue owner to try and cancel the event. So that research and coalition building with groups that are affected by various forms of fascists or white supremacist violence is a lot of what's done. What gets more of the headlines is when the demonstrations come out onto the street. And so, as I’m sure you and, and the number of listeners are well aware, there been high-profile instances recently, such as in Berkeley, of trying to physically shut down events that has raised the profile of anti-fascism."
"Yes, it is. It’s an illiberal politics – [laughter] - of social revolutionist applied to fighting the far right".
a state/group/person that rules their people by force; characterized by authoritarian policies and behavior. — VagabondSpectre
• An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
• Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant political views and practice.
• The term "Fascism" was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach. — dictionary definition
In Mark's view, fighting against what he perceives to be the dangerous sexism and racism of the "alt-right" and his political opponents is as justifiable as preventing a second holocaust. — VagabondSpectre
Fascism is therefore inherently opposed to free-speech (that is, any speech critical of the fascists) because it is the first line of defense against the implementation of it's political agenda, and so it becomes the first casualty at their hands. — VagabondSpectre
Well, one of the methods of the academic liberals (AcLibs) is to exaggerate. Construing a racist joke as tantamount to lynching, or a sexist joke as rape, and so on are exaggerations. Another method of the AcLibs is to reduce the colorful, nuanced world into black-and white, not even employing half-tones of gray. Black and white is of course much simpler than 1000 shades of gray. — Bitter Crank
But then, there are some fascists or crypto-fascists around. I'd label one of my brothers-in-law as one: he's extremely conservative; is a fan of the southern confederacy; he's pro-military (former submariner), doesn't like blacks, gays, or leftists; is rigid in his thinking; and so on. He isn't an unpleasant person (as long as you don't tangle with him on politics, religion, and the like). — Bitter Crank
Hear hear! Let's stop labeling absolutely everything fascist, or at least somehow make it distinguishable from anything "anti-progressive" in appearance. — VagabondSpectre
I want to freeze your in-law in carbonite and use him to repeatedly bludgeon the intellects of this crowd — VagabondSpectre
Hate-speech codes, safe spaces, trigger-word warnings, and all that are not highly compatible with "free speech". The politically correct AcLibs are maybe more interested in free speech than your typical fascists, but truth be told, people of all stripes dislike hearing too many dissenting opinions. Mostly we think we are obviously correct in our views, and other people who disagree with us are either stupid, crooked, or both — Bitter Crank
I'm not a political historian, but what I do know of Benito Moussilini's fascist regime is that it was created and maintained in part by very passionate and very violent action taken at the street level. By attacking or otherwise compromising their political rivals and detractors (individuals, homes, businesses, events, cities, etc..) early fascists knew that they could forcibly advance their own agenda (or party), and did so happily because in their eyes they were standing on the highest moral ground in sight.
I think anarchists and marxist rioters are being labelled academic liberals. I assume the position is the assumption that the anti-fascist movement is ironically committing the same aggressive advances of the Italian fascists that engender a moral supremacy to their own ideals. But the real question here is whether freedom of association and speech of any group - call them fascists or white supremacists - that endorses hate against particular races or the like, should be permitted.Well, one of the methods of the academic liberals (AcLibs) is to exaggerate. — Bitter Crank
But the real question here is whether freedom of association and speech of any group - call them fascists or white supremacists - that endorses hate against particular races or the like, should be permitted. — TimeLine
I think anarchists and marxist rioters are being labelled academic liberals. — TimeLine
And perhaps - being Australian - I am unable to ascertain the historical and certainly deep rooted influences that would enable people to burn crosses in front of an African-American families' home (R.A.V., Petitioner v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota) which is a clear symbol of hate, while criminalising some peculiar offences such as topless sunbathing and yet seems downright passionate about justifying obscene political messages by hiding behind the first amendment; for instance, in Ohio v. Wyant that confirmed the unconstitutionality of bias-related crimes. — TimeLine
Whoever places on public or private property, a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. [St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance]
So, do you think the protests are an outcome of your legislative failures? — TimeLine
Quantity has no bearing over the amount of noise a small group of anarchists and marxists can make, I can assure you. I have never been fond of the academic leftists and I have never appreciated the smug conservatives either as both appeal to methods of a peculiar kind that contributes unfavourably to rational progress. I was battered and beaten when studying graduate political science by marxists, conservatives and the academic leftists that tore my thesis design apart as I stood sandwiched between the tussle of the three attempting to convince me which method I should conform to. I ultimately dropped out mostly from the isolation I felt. The worst of the three, though, was the Marxist who constantly insulted and degraded 'me' when I opposed taking his suggested routes, even went so far as to ostracise me from conference funding and publically insulted me at graduate meetings. The academic leftists and conservatives are at least bearable.Anarchists and marxist rioters on the one hand, and academic liberals on the other are quite distinct. For one, the number of the former are very small. The latter are far more numerous and whatever they might say, they are upwardly mobile professionals who aren't going to put their lifestyle at risk by throwing rocks through bank windows. — Bitter Crank
This is the precise problem, though, the question of whether the Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance was - though unconstitutional - wrong? These questions have been pondered on the subject of international human rights laws and whether one can legislate core human rights instruments on subjects - such as cultural rights - without it paradoxically creating the very problems it seeks to avoid. In Australia, we have - rather appropriately in my opinion - avoided a Bill of Rights and instead adopted legislative changes that protect core human rights principles whilst at the same time enabled the judiciary the flexibility to remain fair through the separation of powers, something not done fairly in the USA.The contradiction between not prosecuting cross-burners and arresting nude sun bathers arises from unrelated sources. The problem with the ordinance in the cross-burning case was that it was overly comprehensive, forbidding protected political speech — Bitter Crank
From memory, there was more than one but nevertheless this is really diverting the argument from the point; whilst it may be considered an isolated incident, there are many other causal factors that need to be considered by such an act, including what led to it as much as the ramifications of it that would inevitably broaden the demographics. The US has a consistently high record of hate crimes, Bitter, as you are likely well aware.t isn't relevant to the law, but the "cross burning" was an extremely inept performance by 1 teenager, not a dozen adult Ku Klux Klaners doing a "proper" cross burning. — Bitter Crank
Sometimes people demonstrate on behalf of others, or engage in vicarious struggle, when they have no skin in the game. Such is the case when white, middle class and above... Allies are one thing, parasites are something else. — Bitter Crank
There is nothing inherently wrong with destruction of private property during a riot. BUT, it has to be for a good reason, and it has to contribute to a larger cause. — Bitter Crank
Milo did seem to get away with one interesting point: free-speech now appears to be a conservative value more than a liberal one (despite Trump and his thoughts on slander law). That some proponents of the left are so willing to turn on their own and "de-platform" them rather than actually come to consensus or clarification through discussion and debate is a pretty good example of what he meant by this. The obsession of some with political correctness is what I think largely creates the moral superiority complex these de-platformers appeal to in order to feel comfortable doing so. The group feelings based mentality that some use as an approach to progressivism is close to the heart of why serious political discussion has become so difficult of late. If someone gets hurt feelings then according to the PC crowd a crime has been committed, and are therefore they are unable to realistically discuss any controversial issues whatsoever. (unless, (for some reason), the controversy happens to lay at the feet of white-cis-straight-males).
(Wikipedia)The amendment affects nonprofit organizations with 501(c)(3) tax exemptions,[which are subject to absolute prohibitions on engaging in political activities and risk loss of tax-exempt status if violated.Specifically, they are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office. The Johnson Amendment applies to any 501(c)(3) organization, not just religious 501(c)(3) organizations.
CNA 2/6/17“Ah Francis, you’ve taken over congregations, removed priests, decapitated the Order of Malta and the Franciscans of the Immaculate, ignored Cardinals…but where’s your mercy?”
Quantity has no bearing over the amount of noise a small group of anarchists and marxists can make, I can assure you. I have never been fond of the academic leftists and I have never appreciated the smug conservatives either as both appeal to methods of a peculiar kind that contributes unfavourably to rational progress. I was battered and beaten when studying graduate political science by marxists, conservatives and the academic leftists that tore my thesis design apart as I stood sandwiched between the tussle of the three attempting to convince me which method I should conform to. I ultimately dropped out mostly from the isolation I felt. The worst of the three, though, was the Marxist who constantly insulted and degraded 'me' when I opposed taking his suggested routes, even went so far as to ostracise me from conference funding and publically insulted me at graduate meetings. The academic leftists and conservatives are at least bearable. — TimeLine
the question of whether the Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance was - though unconstitutional - wrong? — TimeLine
Comparatively, one can think that restricting hate speech is a type of affirmative action. What do you think? — TimeLine
"Hatred" here is a bit tricky, but more or less the hate speech laws are about protecting people from harmful hate speech, which specifically does not include something like mere ridicule or affronts to dignity. People like Milo who are excellent provocateurs certainly ridicule and affront the dignity of many individuals and groups, but what Milo has not done is actually advocate for any violence of any kind. For me a part of the whole issue is that people are asking questions like"is it moral to punch nazis in the face?" and "Ought we to permit white supremacists and other groups who do not share our moral values the right to public assembly and free speech?" as if the people they're actually talking about (Trump, Milo, et al.) are genuinely fascist or nazi or white supremacist, let alone the fact that they're preparing to throw democracy out the window by doing so. — VagabondSpectre
It is dangerous, yes, because not everyone can be like you and me where we could utilise the opportunity to dissect - perhaps psychologically or politically - the motivations that would compel a person to such ideological extremes. For most, hearing a bigot or fascist has greater ramifications as it can easily influence the ignorant who are politically compelled but have little learning just as much as it can fill people with fear and anger.Is hearing a bigot or fascist speak and seeing their ideology for what it is really so dangerous?
If we should censor opinions of white supremacists, why? And what else should we be censoring on those grounds as well? — VagabondSpectre
These rights can be readily upheld by straightforward law-enforcement. — Bitter Crank
I am quite confident that any crimes that may be constituted as 'bias-motivated' would fall into that category because of the clarity of the transgression. You were robbed at gunpoint by a wealthy teen from a ultra-religious cult who repeatedly harassed or followed you prior to the act and has information visible on social networking sites that he hates gay people. It is easy to try and excuse with poor examples but I assume that your intention perhaps lies in a covert fear that corruption could lead to the solidification of laws that may ultimately impact on many other freedoms that the amendments were created to afford. To a degree, this is certainly true and a risk with all laws unless there are adequate mechanisms that prevent corruption. Here in Australia, we recently enacted legislative changes that would distinctly prevent corruption from the executive branch, namely that all bills that pass through parliament must be independently assessed to comply with Human Rights principles. In a country like US where politics is heavily invested in the judicial system, corruption is a constant problem so I can see your worry."Bias motivation" is not necessarily clear from the start. Was I robbed and beaten at gun-point because I was gay, or was it because I looked like I might be worth robbing? Was the man shot because he was black, or because he seemed to behave in a dangerous manner? Was the woman raped because she was female, white, and alone, or was it because she was a communist, atheist, lesbian? — Bitter Crank
See, in Australia you can have both. If someone said to you, "I hate fags" in private, they can. If someone publically said "I hate fags" they would be liable. There needs to be a balance.I would rather live in a society where it is permissible to say "I hate fags" than live in one where it is illegal to say "I hate fags". I want to be free to express my opinions, and if I am free to say what I think, others should be similarly free. We have limits on free speech at the extreme edge: We are not free to encourage everyone who hates fags to get together and actually target and kill any gay men they might know of, or suspect. The limit here is on conspiring to kill people, not on hating fags. We are not free to engage in conspiracies to commit crimes--even ones involving no bias at all -- like robbing a bank — Bitter Crank
If someone says to woman "every time you bend over I get an erection" and she makes a complaint about it, saying "he didn't threaten to rape her" doesn't justify the original remarks that brought about fear and intimidation. Such hate speech can cause just as much damage in a variety of different ways including bullying, discrimination from and within employment, psychological harm to say a few. — TimeLine
It is dangerous, yes, because not everyone can be like you and me where we could utilise the opportunity to dissect - perhaps psychologically or politically - the motivations that would compel a person to such ideological extremes. For most, hearing a bigot or fascist has greater ramifications as it can easily influence the ignorant who are politically compelled but have little learning just as much as it can fill people with fear and anger. — TimeLine
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.