I agreed with your answers minus her being able to use deadly force in retaliation. I just didn't think they were that interesting of questions though. You've had 100 better gotcha/hypotheticals on here in the past.

Nope sorry dude, you still haven't explained to me how you can lose an election and win it.

Thats analgolous. :eyeroll:

Btw what you described isn't even a good analogy to the definition of a hecklers veto. Not sure what you're trying to do really?

It's not an analogy, it's the same damn thing. Neither of which are 1stA violations. "Heckler's Veto" is a legal term of art, it's not a matter of putting "veto" and "heckle" together... so I don't know what you are doing. Other than that, keep on keeping on being wrong, I guess.

No they can't. If you see such a thing you can report it or bring it to my attention in a moderation thread

Dan, why the concern trolling or guilt lobbed at all liberals in this forum/online any time a Trump supporter gets pepper sprayed or anything bad happen to them? We don't expect Trump supporters to own every act of violence from the right. It's a poor double standard.

It isn't every little random act of violence though.

I take issue with openly calling for violent tactics that results in physical violence against someone that is not engaged in an activity that calls for that level of response. I take issue with labeling every dumb Trump voter a racist and a fascist and the mentality that just because someone is a dumbass, or a deplorable, that the proper response is physical violence.

I am morally opposed to spitting on some super religious pro-lifer because they voted for Trump. I am morally opposed to pepperspraying a young woman.

I do not like to see people on "my side" of a two-party system calling for such methods of "resistance".

Of course I condemn such actions from those that are on the opposing side as well, but I am more disappointed when it comes from the "home team".

And all of that is just the moral argument and not even considering whether or not such actions are a tactical mistake.

Preach Jesus!

Its almost like you believe all people are entitled to civil rights and basic decency. Truly novel concepts right now.

Also I just want to say I have no doubt that agent provocateurs are going to be involved at some point and at some degree in some of these 'protest turned violent' situations.

How do I know? Sadly because it will be highly effective. In that link I posted of the various videos, there is a comment section that is full of completely insane right-wingers saying wild things. They are galvanized, they are pissed, and they feel a sense of moral high ground, and a fair lot of them are crazy.

While simultaneously if you read the discussion going on across the liberal digital sphere, there is dissension between those condemning violent protests and those condoning it. That is what losing looks like. That is what playing into the hands of people that wish to divide the common man looks like. Hate, division, confusion, all leading towards authoritarianism and an overall crackdown on a free and open and equal society.

So it is going to happen. Sadly, with people on the left advocating for violent tactics, such agent provocateurs are not even particularly necessary. Fake liberals or fools? Probably a bit of both.

It's just the spectrum of humanity. You cant have so many people ready to protest without a small percentage who want to be violent - not even when it's overwhelmingly a group of thoroughly decent people. It only takes a few to get all the headlines.

While it would be a disaster if they were the mainstream, it's also better than if there were no people on the fringe. Those few add to the stakes and cost considerably.

Chezlaw,

I disagree. "Anonymous" violent protest is a tool of the authoritarian for a number of reasons. It is a heavily exploitable strategy that runs counter to the stated goals of those who are morally justifying violence as opposed to peaceful protest.

The stakes and costs are high enough, and I have no interest in giving a tool to my enemy when it is a hard enough battle. Then again some would say the common decent man has already lost.

I agree. it's vital that most of us oppose those who want to be violent. None the less we are being a but blind if we don't recognise that the full spectrum is probably better than if everyone shared our views.

It seems contradictory but it's the same sort of thing as believing that sometimes we should both support a law and support it being broken.

Okay, let's talk about Islam ...

I'll say this much, Ol' Dan gets an A for effort with these subtleties. Look at this MAGAgirl just minding her own business!

The whole point of the alt-right was to have a white ethnonationalist supremacist movement without a tainted brand association.

I'll let you two boys settle this yourselves.

LOL because you ****ing voted for him and now you scared.

The rest of us are also scared, to be clear. But I'm afraid of what the Trump administration will do to my fellow citizens(it'll take forever before they get to the middle class white guys). You're afraid of what your fellow citizens might do to you, because if you can't even maintain the fiction that you're a progressive in anonymous online interactions, there's no ****ing way you pull it off in real life.

The point is that you preach tolerance of one group with questionable views and protect their rights to free speech. (muslims)

And you preach zero tolerance of another group with questionable views and seek to shut them down. (Milo)

These two stances are contradictory.

My stance on this is perfectly clear, I am for free speech. There are no contradictions in that stance.

Your stance is compromised.

Is this ****ing dude even ****ing serious right now?


You know who I don't preach tolerance for? Muhammad Jones. He's this Muslim neighbor of mine. He's a total jerk. And dumb. He thinks James Harden should win the MVP over Russell Westbrook, and is a total prick when you try to reason with him about it. Beastbrook is averaging a triple double, are you ****ing kidding me?

True, but the goal of a lot of the groups is not to protest or voice their opposition but to physically shut down and stop the event from happening. If your encouraging the physical shut down of the event or preventing people from attending in an unlawful manner, then your escalating the confrontation and you really can't hide behind the gee 80% did not actually throw anything or I am shocked it happened.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/speech-br...033717924.html



Los Angeles (AFP) - US President Donald Trump threatened Thursday to withdraw federal funds from UC Berkeley after violent overnight protests against a planned appearance by a controversial editor of conservative news website Breitbart.

Hundreds of students and other protesters chanting "shut him down" smashed windows at the University of California campus, set wooden pallets on fire and threw fireworks and rocks as police in full riot gear responded with tear gas.

I think the MSM misspelled riots though

Them turnovers though....nah I love Westie you are correct.

Bull****, you've got mongosoass leaving racist jokes all that other thread and did nothing about it. You've left racist cartoons up in the forum. The only reason you haven't left up anti-semitic posts is that they haven't been made yet.

Well, as long as they aren't protesting a Trump rally or trying to flee from persecution in their home land.

My dude that you drew the analogy between Islam as a religion and a single specific racist and sexist internet troll is pretty much my whole argument against you, so that was very convenient of you. Saved us some time.