I don’t know what groups the mayor of Berkeley supports. I posted it to share one theory that’s out there for the behavior the question asked about. It’s probably closer to humorous than insightful.
Can someone tell me where anyone who self-identifies as Antifa says they will cause violence to Ann Coulter?
What makes me upset about this is the idea it’s about “speech they find upsetting.” I hate this euphemism crap that the right uses. It’s not about things I disagree with or things I find upsetting. It’s about evil. Things are evil regardless of how I feel about them or whether I agree or disagree with them.
The example of a neo-Nazi is racism. This isn’t some idea I’ve never been exposed to that I’m trying to shut out. It’s an idea I already know is wrong, and thus have no reason to listen to someone who is going to be trying to convince me that they are right. Even if they succeed, what they are saying is still evil.
Does that mean we shouldn’t learn rhetoric, and study how people convince people of things in class? No. But it does mean that I have a reason to shut out these people from directly trying to influence me.
When it comes to not allowing them on campus, there is another reason. Sure, I know that what they say is wrong. I can anticipate that. But they are trying to convince people, and the end result at best is that on one is convinced, and more likely that some are. So the end result is a net negative.
When it comes to particularly bad issues like racism, where we all pretty much agree it is evil, there is no reason to have that on campus. There is no reason to have us listen to them, and thus allow them to convert people.
Does that mean that some people go too far? Yes, of course. They’re college students. They are all about extremes at that point in their life. But saying “no neo-Nazis can speak at our school unopposed” is not in my mind a bad thing.
You want to teach kids how to spot the lies in that stuff? Do it in class, with recorded speeches and a teacher there to undermine the evil message.
There is just a huge difference between racism/sexism or other forms of evil and things that bother us or things that we disagree with. That is the Right’s framing of the issue.
I don’t merely disagree with a neo-Nazi or feel bad when they speak. They are objectively promoting evil. And there are reasons to say, “that crosses the line and is too far.”
“Antifa” is not the name of an organization; it’s an adjective, not a noun.
See the link I provided in post #4-the OP has said that he is referring to the U.S. branch of this group, I believe.
As for the question of whether Anne Coulter is a neo-Nazi? No. Not by any reasonable definition of a term. A neo-Nazi is basically openly racist. They may deny the term, but they flat out advocate that some races of people are inferior.
That’s not to say that Coulter is some normal guy who sometimes runs into racist stuff. No, she has problems with racism. But not the blatant kind that neo-Nazis have.
I could see allowing Anne Coulter to speak. I would, however, also support any protesters trying to keep her from speaking. I support the college deciding that they’d rather not have her speak, even after students protested to convince them of this. I also support her being allowed to speak but having a code of conduct. I support only allowing her to speak as long as there’s someone else to rebut what she says.
She is not a neo-Nazi, and thus is not objectively evil. I do personally think her ideas are evil, but she doesn’t cross the line to objectively evil.
nevermind
Berkeley Protestor Recounts Being Sucker Punched
~CBS Los Angeles
Anti-Fascist Protestor Targeted By Trolls…
~NYT
Woman Seen Getting Punched In Viral Video Speaks Out
~MSN
Shall I go on?
Do you think Milo Yiannopoulos is a neo-Nazi (his speech was the other target of violent protests at Berkeley that I’m aware of)? What about Trump himself? Are either of those people ones you’d call “objectively evil” that warrant being banned / prevented from speaking in public?
During one of his presentations, Milo projected a huge overhead photo of a trans woman who was actually present at the event, thus outing her to everyone on campus, made a joke about not wanting to fuck her and a bunch of other hostile remarks while she was sitting the fucking audience. Prior to that, he already had a history of harassing students at his events. He should not be permitted to speak on any campus again.
Using “Antifa” as their name (which it actually isn’t) lets them claim ownership of the whole concept. You guys generally don’t forget the difference between “a republican” and “the Republican Party”, to pick just one similar word, even if you do tend to forget that “republican” means different things in different countries.
The problem is that there’s a certain contingent of leftist culture that classifies less obvious examples of racism - say Trump’s dog whistles to white nationalists, or the pervasive use of ‘‘urban’’ to replace ‘‘black people’’ in disparaging political commentary – and conflates it with balls-to-the-wall crazy overtly racist garbage we call objectively evil. The former, which I firmly believe to have racial connotations, is nonetheless grounded in some political ideology beyond racism and affords the speaker a much higher level of plausible deniability. When we treat these two extremes as equivalently bad, we dilute the power of the protest and lose credibility in the eyes of those who don’t see the same injustices that we do.
I think Anne Coulter is a piece of shit, but she’s a different, less dangerous piece of shit than Milo Y. It bothers me when young people can’t see the difference. Just like they can’t see the difference between Donald J. Trump and the people who voted for him.
Then you should talk to the OP to see which specific group he is upset about.
Disclaimer: I’ve never been to one of Milo’s speaking events.
Would it have been acceptable for him to do it in a city park, or on the street corner? Was it something about that specific location, being on campus, that made it so objectionable that it should be prohibited? Or is his speech so completely over the line and “objectively evil” (to borrow BigT’s formulation) that he should prevented from speaking in public altogether?
It wouldn’t have been ethically acceptable in either case. But universities have a direct responsibility to the protection of their students and we all know that while they can’t control what happens on a random street corner, they can control what happens on their property. It’s not even the first time the administration failed to protect this woman. This statement from the admin says it all…
If they had any doubt at all that individuals would be targeted, the event should have been canceled.
If you’re asking whether I’d be in favor of banning Milo from harassing individuals whether he is on campus or not, I’d rather let the legal system handle it. I think the current exception to free speech, inciting people to violence, is probably the only one there should be. But if I were that woman, I would sue the pants off of him. Maybe I’d be in favor of laws that made it easier to prosecute for this sort of thing - as I would be in favor of prosecuting anyone who doxes or participates in the doxing of someone on the internet. I feel this is a great ethical wrong and there should be consequences for endangering other people, but I acknowledge it doesn’t quite rise up to the ‘‘inciting violence’’ level that would warrant banning speech. I say the victims should have the opportunity to demonstrate harm and obtain some kind of legal redress if such harm was founded.
The only antifa I’ve encountered was a Youtube video of a bunch of antifa protesters knocking the shit out of a tough guy nazi wannabe, which was wrong, they were wrong to do it, and it was hysterically funny to watch.
I live in Berkeley and I’ve scarcely heard of Antifa and then only very recently. Had to do a search to refresh my memory and figure out who exactly HurricaneDitka was referring to. In fact I see it popping up in papers more as a general descriptor ( “antifa groups” ) than a specific organization. Specific groups/loose associations like Black Bloc and By Any Means Necessary tend get the press around here when it comes to violent, vaguely left* demonstrations. It’s just not a name you hear bandied about much up until really very recently, hence I think the parade of blank looks.
- Vaguely for Black Bloc, who seem to have the primary ideology of breaking shit.
[INDENT]How 4Chan /pol/ FOUND The ANTIFA BIKE LOCK ATTACKER - The WHOLE STORY in 2 Minutes
This is interesting. The antifa protester is going to be in trouble.
I’m guessing you’re not a member or supporter of the ACLU. “The real test of your commitment to free speech is how you react to threats against the speech of those you hate.” You have defined racism and sexism as a distinct form of “evil” and seem to support violence against those who vocally support those evils. Am I misrepresenting your point of view? If not, why are you afraid of the marketplace of ideas when it comes to racism and sexism and not for other forms of evil? Why would you be afraid of the marketplace of ideas at all?
(clarification of identity added) So it is not possible to be “objectively evil” unless one is a neo-Nazi? Can you clarify for us what the difference is between “objectively evil” and having evil ideas?
You draw various lines of moral badness, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but I don’t suppose you really expect that national consensus or policy is likely to be based on that.
No way, I didn’t see Big T supporting violence in any way. He was supporting the right to protest the presence of hate groups on campus.
I don’t know that I agree that is the best route. But it won’t do to mischaracterize his argument.