6 ms·

I'd say those who claim that speech is violence (and therefore merits a violent response) would be a really good example.

zapita 7y ago
That’s pretty vague, can you be more specific? What issue do you have in mind? What is an example of someone claiming that “speech merits a violent response”?
- big_chungus 7y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/free-speech-social-media-violence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/free-speec... http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/NATL%20Undergrad%209-27-17%20Presentation%20(1).pdf http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/NATL%20Undergrad... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-sp... https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-ris... Those are just a few.
  - zapita 7y ago
    All I see is a hodge podge of opinion pieces and the raw results of a survey I know nothing about. One opinion piece says that Antifa is too violent. Another argues that threats of violence can be harmful. I don’t see any example of someone saying that “speech merits a violent response”, which is what I was requesting.
    - big_chungus 7y ago
      You asked who holds the opinion that speech can constitute violence; I answered. The answer is that a "hodge podge" of people hold that opinion. If you don't know anything about the survey, read the survey. I intentionally linked the results because I didn't want to present a biased synthesis as fact. Antifa holds that opinion, and believes violence is justified in return. From the Atlantic piece previously linked: > the parade’s organizers received an anonymous email warning that if “Trump supporters” and others who promote “hateful rhetoric” marched, “we will have two hundred or more people rush into the parade … and drag and push those people out.” > An article in The Nation argued that “to call Trumpism fascist” is to realize that it is “not well combated or contained by standard liberal appeals to reason.” The radical left, it said, offers “practical and serious responses in this political moment.” > Antifascists call such actions defensive. Hate speech against vulnerable minorities, they argue, leads to violence against vulnerable minorities. But Trump supporters and white nationalists see antifa’s attacks as an assault on their right to freely assemble, which they in turn seek to reassert. The result is a level of sustained political street warfare not seen in the U.S. since the 1960s. A few weeks after the attacks in San Jose, for instance, a white-supremacist leader announced that he would host a march in Sacramento to protest the attacks at Trump rallies. Anti-Fascist Action Sacramento called for a counterdemonstration; in the end, at least 10 people were stabbed. > A similar cycle has played out at UC Berkeley. In February, masked antifascists broke store windows and hurled Molotov cocktails and rocks at police during a rally against the planned speech by Yiannopoulos. After the university canceled the speech out of what it called “concern for public safety,” white nationalists announced a “March on Berkeley” in support of “free speech.” At that rally, a 41-year-old man named Kyle Chapman, who was wearing a baseball helmet, ski goggles, shin guards, and a mask, smashed an antifa activist over the head with a wooden post. Suddenly, Trump supporters had a viral video of their own. A far-right crowdfunding site soon raised more than $80,000 for Chapman’s legal defense. (In January, the same site had offered a substantial reward for the identity of the antifascist who had punched Spencer.) A politicized fight culture is emerging, fueled by cheerleaders on both sides. As James Anderson, an editor at It’s Going Down, told Vice, “This shit is fun.” Did you read all of those pieces in the eight minutes between my comment and yours? Your arguments suggest you don't. You can't ask for examples and dismiss them, refusing to read the things I link.
      - zapita 7y ago
        > You asked who holds the opinion that speech can constitute violence; I answered. I did not. > You can't ask for examples and dismiss them, refusing to read the things I link. If your goal was to answer my question (ignoring the fact that you misread my question in the first place), then a more effective approach would have been to write an answer. That answer could have included quotes from your material. It is customary to include links to the raw material backing up your quotes, as a footnote. Instead you just dumped links with no explanation or context. After a few minutes of skimming your material, a coherent point failed to magically appear. So no, sorry, I’m not going to invest an hour of my time doing research on your own material to produce an answer you couldn’t be bothered to articulate yourself.
- gnode 7y ago
  Antifa use physical violence to confront fascism. They regard free speech not to encompass hate speech.
  - aphextim 7y ago
    Antifa used physical violence to confront any idea they did not like. Silencing an opposing political opinion through violence is a definition of fascism.
    - WaxProlix 7y ago
      Politically motivated violence is not synonymous with fascism, it's an actual political movement/"philosophy" with hallmarks and such. Plenty of violence happens in the world, both in response to speech and not, without being 'fascism'.
      - aphextim 7y ago
        >Plenty of violence happens in the world, both in response to speech and not, without being 'fascism'. Politically motivated violence is not synonymous with fascism Correct we call that terrorism when it is to further your own political, religious, social, racial, or environmental views. Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism
    - ben_w 7y ago
      The ideas they believe they are opposing are genocide, ethnic cleansing, slavery, “women are property” levels of misogyny, and “they want our kids” levels of homophobia and transphobia. How correct they are about what they’re fighting is a separate question. As you have demonstrated, there are many different definitions of fascism. The Berlin Wall was described as the “anti-fascism protection wall” by the DDR. And, of course, “my opponent is literally Hitler” is widely dismissed as a melodramatic overstatement. However, if we presuppose that they are correct about who they are targeting — sadly plausible, given how many genocides followed the one in WW2 — then to say that Antifa as a movement is itself “fascist” is like saying that the Allied powers in WW2 were “fascist” for violently opposing the “political opinion” of Herr Adolf H. and Signore Benito M.
wolf550e 7y ago
I have seen multiple times from different people that conservatives care deeply about civility, vulgarity, tone. In my experience conservatives tend to believe that people who civilly discuss rolling back protections for non-male, non-white, non-christian, non-straight, etc. people cannot be guilty of anything, because they did not hit anyone, did not raise their voice, did not say a word that is prohibited on television. Thus, saying "fuck that" and being the first to "be vulgar" means you "lose the argument". I'm Jewish. I believe the correct response to people calmly suggesting killing Jews as a way to fix what ails the country is a punch to the face.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  You're clearly drawing paralells to nazi germany and the holocaust, but it's not as though it was years of peaceful planning followed by a sudden outburst of violence. A quick timeline: * Jan. 1933 Hitler took power * Feb. 1933 civil liberties of Jews "temporarily" curtailed. This is a key step. * Mar. 1933 Dachau created * May 1933 Books nazis disliked burned * Sept. 1935 Nuremberg Laws; gypsies and others sent to concentration camps * July 1938 Hitler tries to sell German Jews to the rest of the world at $250/head * Nov. 1938 Kristallnacht; Jewish kids kicked out of public schools * Dec. 1938 nazis seize Jewish businesses * Sept. 1939 Germany invades Poland * Oct. 1939 "euthanasia" starts * Dec. 1940 Mass murders at Treblinka Look at the timeline and tell me where you think we are. Then please point to the currently-elected American politician who is "calmly suggest[ing] killing Jews as a way to fix what ails the country". I get fed up with the argument that current leadership is "literally hitler". It's intentionally dis-ingenuous, put forth in bad faith, and designed to incite unrest with no reasonable backing of the points. Source: https://isurvived.org/cronology.html https://isurvived.org/cronology.html
  - zapita 7y ago
    We are somewhere between February 1933 and November 1938. The analogy to Nazi Germany is not perfect (no analogy is), but we are in fact witnessing a transition from democracy to xenophobic totalitarianism in the US, among other places. I invite you to question your own reaction. Why does it bother you so much that people make this comparison? How could making this comparison “incite unrest”? Would you recommend forbidding anyone from making this comparison?

zapita 7y ago

That’s pretty vague, can you be more specific? What issue do you have in mind? What is an example of someone claiming that “speech merits a violent response”?

big_chungus 7y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/free-speech-social-media-violence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/free-speec... http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/NATL%20Undergrad%209-27-17%20Presentation%20(1).pdf http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/NATL%20Undergrad... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-sp... https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-ris... Those are just a few.
- zapita 7y ago
  All I see is a hodge podge of opinion pieces and the raw results of a survey I know nothing about. One opinion piece says that Antifa is too violent. Another argues that threats of violence can be harmful. I don’t see any example of someone saying that “speech merits a violent response”, which is what I was requesting.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    You asked who holds the opinion that speech can constitute violence; I answered. The answer is that a "hodge podge" of people hold that opinion. If you don't know anything about the survey, read the survey. I intentionally linked the results because I didn't want to present a biased synthesis as fact. Antifa holds that opinion, and believes violence is justified in return. From the Atlantic piece previously linked: > the parade’s organizers received an anonymous email warning that if “Trump supporters” and others who promote “hateful rhetoric” marched, “we will have two hundred or more people rush into the parade … and drag and push those people out.” > An article in The Nation argued that “to call Trumpism fascist” is to realize that it is “not well combated or contained by standard liberal appeals to reason.” The radical left, it said, offers “practical and serious responses in this political moment.” > Antifascists call such actions defensive. Hate speech against vulnerable minorities, they argue, leads to violence against vulnerable minorities. But Trump supporters and white nationalists see antifa’s attacks as an assault on their right to freely assemble, which they in turn seek to reassert. The result is a level of sustained political street warfare not seen in the U.S. since the 1960s. A few weeks after the attacks in San Jose, for instance, a white-supremacist leader announced that he would host a march in Sacramento to protest the attacks at Trump rallies. Anti-Fascist Action Sacramento called for a counterdemonstration; in the end, at least 10 people were stabbed. > A similar cycle has played out at UC Berkeley. In February, masked antifascists broke store windows and hurled Molotov cocktails and rocks at police during a rally against the planned speech by Yiannopoulos. After the university canceled the speech out of what it called “concern for public safety,” white nationalists announced a “March on Berkeley” in support of “free speech.” At that rally, a 41-year-old man named Kyle Chapman, who was wearing a baseball helmet, ski goggles, shin guards, and a mask, smashed an antifa activist over the head with a wooden post. Suddenly, Trump supporters had a viral video of their own. A far-right crowdfunding site soon raised more than $80,000 for Chapman’s legal defense. (In January, the same site had offered a substantial reward for the identity of the antifascist who had punched Spencer.) A politicized fight culture is emerging, fueled by cheerleaders on both sides. As James Anderson, an editor at It’s Going Down, told Vice, “This shit is fun.” Did you read all of those pieces in the eight minutes between my comment and yours? Your arguments suggest you don't. You can't ask for examples and dismiss them, refusing to read the things I link.
    - zapita 7y ago
      > You asked who holds the opinion that speech can constitute violence; I answered. I did not. > You can't ask for examples and dismiss them, refusing to read the things I link. If your goal was to answer my question (ignoring the fact that you misread my question in the first place), then a more effective approach would have been to write an answer. That answer could have included quotes from your material. It is customary to include links to the raw material backing up your quotes, as a footnote. Instead you just dumped links with no explanation or context. After a few minutes of skimming your material, a coherent point failed to magically appear. So no, sorry, I’m not going to invest an hour of my time doing research on your own material to produce an answer you couldn’t be bothered to articulate yourself.
gnode 7y ago
Antifa use physical violence to confront fascism. They regard free speech not to encompass hate speech.
- aphextim 7y ago
  Antifa used physical violence to confront any idea they did not like. Silencing an opposing political opinion through violence is a definition of fascism.
  - WaxProlix 7y ago
    Politically motivated violence is not synonymous with fascism, it's an actual political movement/"philosophy" with hallmarks and such. Plenty of violence happens in the world, both in response to speech and not, without being 'fascism'.
    - aphextim 7y ago
      >Plenty of violence happens in the world, both in response to speech and not, without being 'fascism'. Politically motivated violence is not synonymous with fascism Correct we call that terrorism when it is to further your own political, religious, social, racial, or environmental views. Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism
  - ben_w 7y ago
    The ideas they believe they are opposing are genocide, ethnic cleansing, slavery, “women are property” levels of misogyny, and “they want our kids” levels of homophobia and transphobia. How correct they are about what they’re fighting is a separate question. As you have demonstrated, there are many different definitions of fascism. The Berlin Wall was described as the “anti-fascism protection wall” by the DDR. And, of course, “my opponent is literally Hitler” is widely dismissed as a melodramatic overstatement. However, if we presuppose that they are correct about who they are targeting — sadly plausible, given how many genocides followed the one in WW2 — then to say that Antifa as a movement is itself “fascist” is like saying that the Allied powers in WW2 were “fascist” for violently opposing the “political opinion” of Herr Adolf H. and Signore Benito M.

wolf550e 7y ago

I have seen multiple times from different people that conservatives care deeply about civility, vulgarity, tone. In my experience conservatives tend to believe that people who civilly discuss rolling back protections for non-male, non-white, non-christian, non-straight, etc. people cannot be guilty of anything, because they did not hit anyone, did not raise their voice, did not say a word that is prohibited on television. Thus, saying "fuck that" and being the first to "be vulgar" means you "lose the argument". I'm Jewish. I believe the correct response to people calmly suggesting killing Jews as a way to fix what ails the country is a punch to the face.

big_chungus 7y ago
You're clearly drawing paralells to nazi germany and the holocaust, but it's not as though it was years of peaceful planning followed by a sudden outburst of violence. A quick timeline: * Jan. 1933 Hitler took power * Feb. 1933 civil liberties of Jews "temporarily" curtailed. This is a key step. * Mar. 1933 Dachau created * May 1933 Books nazis disliked burned * Sept. 1935 Nuremberg Laws; gypsies and others sent to concentration camps * July 1938 Hitler tries to sell German Jews to the rest of the world at $250/head * Nov. 1938 Kristallnacht; Jewish kids kicked out of public schools * Dec. 1938 nazis seize Jewish businesses * Sept. 1939 Germany invades Poland * Oct. 1939 "euthanasia" starts * Dec. 1940 Mass murders at Treblinka Look at the timeline and tell me where you think we are. Then please point to the currently-elected American politician who is "calmly suggest[ing] killing Jews as a way to fix what ails the country". I get fed up with the argument that current leadership is "literally hitler". It's intentionally dis-ingenuous, put forth in bad faith, and designed to incite unrest with no reasonable backing of the points. Source: https://isurvived.org/cronology.html https://isurvived.org/cronology.html
- zapita 7y ago
  We are somewhere between February 1933 and November 1938. The analogy to Nazi Germany is not perfect (no analogy is), but we are in fact witnessing a transition from democracy to xenophobic totalitarianism in the US, among other places. I invite you to question your own reaction. Why does it bother you so much that people make this comparison? How could making this comparison “incite unrest”? Would you recommend forbidding anyone from making this comparison?