I don’t see how “students and allies are entitled to throw fireworks and smash things until the trolls run away.” is anything but an endorsement of violence, unless your dictionary has some novel definition for “entitled”.
Dude’s a Twat. He’s a troll that screams “Free Speech” after every terrible thing he says. Just because you CAN say something, doesn’t mean you SHOULD.
I don’t agree with the campuses not letting him speak, but I’m so glad he’s had this recent misfortune of his.
Because you keep leaving out the full sentence, for some reason. Here it is again:
They are marching to say [snip] students and allies are entitled to throw fireworks and smash things…
She’s reporting what these protesters believe. She didn’t endorse it. This was clear to me the first time I read it. Are you deliberately misreading it and leaving off the full sentence, or is this an accident?
](The Sad Truth About Milo Yiannopoulos)I thought this was an excellent essay because it gets right to the heart of the matter and because I think this applies to so many people on the right: Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, etc.
I properly attributed the origin of the quoted text.
You may pretend not to understand that by chopping up a sarcastic comment you deliberately changed its meaning, but you are just compounding your dishonesty.
You’ve already had it explained to you once [ETA: twice] how your selective quoting misattributes the quoted statement. But since you seem to need it explained again, here’s the full context:
I was about to explain it to Ale all over again; thanks for saving me the trouble.
If you tried reading for context, you would see that she was summing up the student’s position, not advocating it.
If you keep pulling quotes out of context, then you will keep being confused. That’s a rough way to go through life, man. You are getting triggered on stuff that you don’t even understand.
Context Ninja’d
Obviously we read it differently, I don’t think she is as much reporting things as she is injecting her own thoughts into the events, in any case in the next paragraph she makes it quite clear that she thinks the violence was justified.
If you want context here it is in full:
*"Rewind two weeks. It’s a wet night in Berkeley, California, and Yiannopoulos is running away from the left. He was scheduled to speak at the University of California–Berkeley, but the event has been shut down. It was shut down because thousands of anti-racist and anti-fascist protesters decided that there should be no platform for what they called white supremacy. They are marching to say that free speech does not extend to hate speech, that the First Amendment should not oblige institutions to invite professional trolls to spout an auto-generated word-salad of Internet bigotry just for fun, and that, if the institutions disagree, students and allies are entitled to throw fireworks and smash things until the trolls run away. Which is exactly what has happened.
Five minutes after I arrive on campus, klaxons are blaring in the event space and the entire team on his “Dangerous Faggot Tour” has been obliged to make what might generously be termed a tactical retreat. Police in full riot gear are everywhere, and the whole place is evacuated because of the real possibility of everyone inside getting a serious — and arguably deserved — kicking. Whatever the rights and wrongs of punching fascists, if people of good faith and conscience are publicly debating whether or not you deserve a smack in the mouth, it’s probably time to have a think about your life."*
As I say, my reading of it seems to be different from yours, in full context I think I am correct; she advocates for violence, in the first paragraph she “reports” the thoughts of the rioters, in the second she outright says that the threat to Yianopoulos and his entourage safety is justified.
No. She is saying that it is debatable, or arguable, whether the “fascists” deserve violent treatment.
I think that is a pointless and inflammatory diversion, because the key issue is that nonviolent protest is in the long run the only kind that’s really effective (not to mention legal), irrespective of what the targets of the protest may or may not “deserve”. But nonetheless, it’s not the same as actually advocating for violence.
In the full context, this, and your own last paragraph of this post, supports that she was reporting the beliefs of the protesters. The “arguably deserved” aside was silly and she should have left it out, but it doesn’t change the fact that she was reporting, entirely accurately, the beliefs of the protesters who turned violent in the prior paragraph.
This is also entirely different than your previous defense which only focused on the snipped part of the sentence starting with “entitled”. Either you were totally confused before or you’re not being honest.
Meaning an argument can be made that it is deserved.
That is not saying that it is justified. Then she even says that if people are actually debating whether its justified to smack you, that should make you think a little bit about your life choices that got you to this point.
Your claim that she outright says that the threat was justified is false. You are reading it differently by reading it wrongly. You take out the word arguably, which alters the meaning of the quote and makes it easier for you to make your case.
You really believe that? Let’s assume you do. Why should a parent’s behavior determine what rights a child has? The concept of original sin seems to be a silly superstition. Shouldn’t policy be based on rationalism and not mythology?
And what’s wrong with being a whore?
Then don’t engage. I still don’t think any topics are too taboo to debate and those doing the debating shouldn’t be demonized by the low IQ or the dishonest.
I don’t know what “too taboo to debate” means, exactly, but I am totally fine with anyone advocating for discrimination, oppression, violence, genocide, and the like, being “demonized”, if “demonized” means harshly criticized, challenged, mocked, and insulted. Do you really believe it’s wrong to “demonize” David Duke for the things he’s said and continues to say?