It was a question. Read closely! Or a bit more honestly. And the question stands.
Counterspeech of course is a right. IMO, at least. Effective counterspeech is careful.
You must not have watched it. And debating someone is not enabling bigotry. What’s up with the delicateness? How are we descended from the people who fought the Nazis and nuked the Japanese?
Damn you’re dumb. Another person who can’t, or more accurately chooses not to, read in context.
Once upon a time there was a flamboyant troll who made a whole shtick out of hateful rhetoric and obvious bullshit. And while most people even on his side of the fence were able to see him for the reprehensible shit-stirrer that he was, his small, confused band of supporters lapped it up like sweet cream because he hated all the same people they hated and he validated their worst instincts.
Those with functioning brains and/or souls didn’t take him very seriously. His supporters would be overwhelmed by the sensible opposition, we said, reason would prevail, and the troll would lapse back into relative obscurity, spewing spittle at the kids’ table while the adults were talking.
As we can see, that went well.
Never again. Assholes don’t go away just because they’re assholes. The war on bullshit can’t be a cold war; it needs boots on the fucking ground.
Violence was used, in this case, against a non-violent protester. Your “And if… why shouldn’t…” question structure is traditionally, in English as I understand it, used for a rhetorical question in which the questioner supports the proposition. If you meant it otherwise, then I apologize but I’d love to understand that you’re actually against this instance of violence against a non-violent protester.
I watched it, and Maher barely debated him. It was a love-fest, relatively speaking, which is pathetic when one is engaging an advocate and spreader of bigotry. He barely challenged him at all, far more often asking him about the subset of whiny liberals which they both appear to despise.
Wouldn’t it be logical to assume that if I’ve consistently advocated free speech, even on taboo subjects, and argued against violence directed at speakers that I’m not advocating violence against peaceful and law abiding people now?
Are you advocating violence to suppress speech?
So you agree that these violent right wingers should have had violence perpetuated against them?
Next time, the anarchists should be armed, and shoot anyone that interferes with their demonstration?
If you say so.
Did the police do their job in this case instead of standing around with their thumbs in their butts?
If the anarchists were exercising their rights legally then they shouldn’t be violently interfered with. And they should be able to defend themselves. Everybody, on the right and the left, needs to put on their big boy pants and control their emotions. We’re controlling ourselves here in the pit. Having a reasonable conversation with no shots fired isn’t so hard, is it?
No, since people are large and contain multitudes. Contradicting one’s self is incredibly common, both in real life and on this board.
The anarchist were legally exercising their rights.
The violent right wingers illegally used violence to silence them.
No arrests were made, in this case of violent right wingers using violence to suppress the speech of those they disagree with, so no, I would say that the cops did not do their jobs.
Are you on medication for your serious case of autism?
No please continue to try to debate me I’m sure it will end well for you.
Nope, that wouldn’t be logical. You’re a partisan who dodges and weaves inelegantly in order to remain defending the right at nearly every turn. You’re a hypocrite, and not a very adroit one at that. When you ask a clear rhetorical question, everyone can see it’s a clear rhetorical question.
Things settle this way: you approve of the speech of a hateful troll like Milo. You correctly condemn folks who coercively disrupt his speeches. You twist like a fuckin Gumby doll to excuse the behavior of those who shoot guns at nonviolent protestors. When called on it, you give a “Who, L’il Ole Me?” shrug that fools precisely nobody.
…I never claimed you said “that people here hate him for being gay” you pedantic twonk. I asked you to “Name one person who hates him because of his “flamboyantly gay persona.””
I didn’t make up jack shit. I’m being intellectually honest. Are you going to be intellectually honest? Where are these people that don’t like Milo because he is saying things that a “gay man isn’t supposed to be saying?”
No, I got the context. You said it was fine to shoot non-violent protestors because protesters in the past have gotten violent. Those were your words.
Wait…is the context I missed that it was a peaceful left-wing protester who got shot? Was his political affiliation the context I missed?
Well, to be fair, right wing extremists are so violent and so numerous that they are a bigger threat to this country than ISIS (and we require the military to deal with ISIS).
If the police started arresting violent right-wing extremists they probably wouldn’t have the resources to arrest any other kind of criminal.
Welll…I wouldn’t say I hate him because of his flamboyantly gay persona. But I do think it’s a shitty part of his act, to deliberately minstrel himself up in order to sell tickets. He wouldn’t be so popular among straight homophobes if he didn’t put on the act for them.
You could free up a lot of police resources by broadly legalizing drugs. Just saying.
Now you’re just lying.
You’re lying too. Sad!
Normally I would shake my fist at you for making me read a Sam Kriss article, but I thought this one was on point.