weird

Okay, well, I didn't see evidence in the video she supports Trump, so feel free to give yours and I'll concede that point. If you say supporting free speech is supporting Trump, then your argument is invalid, unless you think the ACLU supports fascism.

The rest of your argument, while perhaps consistent, is clearly an illustration of the way illiberals are justifing attacking fascists who aren't actually fascists at all, like Milo or Trump supporters, or Trump (so far). I hope you are not making that leap. Trump supporters are, repeat after me: people with different political opinions than you, and they have every right to express themselves publicly without threat of violence.

speaking of dishonesty... it's customary to put a "fyp" when trolling people's posts like that.

Her?

Yes, and I've been asking you to further disambiguate them. The loud crazy online social justice crowd are not being illiberal when they get offended over non-bigoted statements or pictures. They might be wrong, but being wrong isn't illiberal. If they claim that the state should ban racist pictures, then they are being illiberal. You can argue about penumbra cases where people's free speech comes in conflict. But liberalism doesn't have any anti-shaming rule to it. Suggesting that it does weakens the case for liberalism as it causes people on both the left and right who want to use shame to motivate their preferred moral systems to oppose liberalism for that reason.

Be clear about this. Shaming people is allowed in liberal societies. Many liberals enjoy tolerant and diverse cultures, and so associate liberalism with those values. But liberalism can be a way of managing homogeneous and high shame societies as well. For instance, Japan abolished their lese majeste laws in 1947, and today has perhaps the most thriving newspaper culture in the world. However, the shame-based social norms governing reporting or conversation about the Emperor are still very strong and still govern how people talk and write about the Imperial Family. That's fine. As long as the government isn't intervening, and is preserving the right of people to object to these norms, then liberals concerned about free speech can be satisfied. They can object to those norms on the basis of their other values, but that isn't a matter of liberalism.

Yeah, they aren't obvious to me either. However, I still think bullying is wrong and bullies should stop bullying other people.

Yes her. I see nothing in that video other than her red hat (and the assumption of the youtuber) that indicates she's a Trump supporter. I doubt the guy who pepper sprayed her did either. Hence, he sprayed her for wearing a red hat.

I have a red hat that says "Make Donald Drumpf Again" and I am clearly not a Trump supporter; I might have gone to such a rally with that hat on to protest Milo's views on transgender rights, and then if the protesters turned violent or attempted to block the doors, I would defend his right to free speech.

By forcing a discussion about definitions and ideas concerning the term you are legimtizing it. What next, are you going to force a discussion about yelling the word "******" at black people?

Of course, most people are not going to go along with your legimitization of the word. It is not generally in use by intelligent adults over 25. who are not sympathetic to the far right.

Come the **** on, man.

https://twitter.com/kiarafrobles?ref...Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Where did I say shaming was illiberal? I use illiberal left to describe illiberal actions like shutting down speech, among other illiberal things, and I use loud crazy online social justice crowd to describe people who try to shame Ellen, among other crazy things.

I disagree with shaming in most cases for the reasons we've been over and over. Making convincing arguments is much more long lasting, shaming only puts emotional pressure on people, but rarely does anything but bully them into submission.* This spawns quite a few unhelpful reactions, and it why everyone hated Catholic school. Yes, everyone. And there's a good reason our societies got away from the pillory.

* you can sometimes pull off the good cop, bad cop routine, but just realize who the bad cop is, k?

Couple of long (but very interesting articles), imo, that might help make the case for tolerating others takes on morality and attempting continued persistent convincing and open dialogue rather than the ever-tempting drive to get outraged and start arm wrenching.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23...-civilization/

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30...-the-outgroup/

So the pepper sprayer must have stalked her on twitter first? Or did he spray her because she was wearing a red hat, like I said?

This is how we know you are disingenuous. What changes have been made to the current vetting system? The current system has been 100% effective how will we know if the new system is better?

First it was punching Spencer. Now you've got lunatics pepper-spraying people wearing red hats. And pepper-spraying is just as much a violent assault as punching someone by the way.

Looks a lot like a slippery slope too me.

Ask someone who supports Donald Trump. I am just accurately reporting the information in a non-partisan way.

Fair enough. If you don't think shaming someone for being racist, even if you are wrong and unreasonable about them, is illiberal, then we are in agreement.

Your dishonesty know no bounds.

She is a trump supporter. She was on camera deriding the protesters and supporting Milo. She did stay in the area after Milo was cancelled, effectively counter protesting. We don't know happened off camera.

But, you're gonna go with the wild assumption that there's just no way the pepper sprayer knew she was a pro-trump protester? Ok bro.

See this is the problem with the dishonesty, it leads to people like this drooling ****ing idiot to start regurgitating it:

The problem is that if an issue is localised, then blows up due to some orchestrated social media campaign, the only thing anyone not involved will know is that Person X has been attacked for being a racist / sexist / whatever.

That's the only thing then that you know about them.

Is Steve Bannon *REALLY* a white nationalist? Like, I don't know, maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but honestly, I haven't read his stuff or looked into it.

Is even someone like Milo *REALLY* a white nationalist? Again, I only know the rep, I don't know the detail because I don't sit around watching his content.

Do you understand what I'm saying? We get a lot of things second hand.

Once someone is branded with a label, then it can stick, regardless of whether or not it is true.

No, I made the comment that she was pepper sprayed for wearing a red hat. The sprayer assumed she was a supporter, but he was only right by accident. She could have very well been on his "side", and simply standing up for free speech. And of course, he was wrong to attack her for it either way. This is what happens in here every day.

Exactly. Whether she was a Trump supporter or not is irrelevant. It was assault.

The person that did it should be charged.

Chez, I understood that these sort of abusive personal attacks are not allowed in content threads.

Is that correct?

It doesn't apply to the "tolerant left".

I would support personal attacks of that nature being moderated more stringently.

That's you, still doing it.

So why the need for all the dishonesty then?

It's ****ing pulling teeth to get to square 1: trump supporter.

This is why the term SJW and this thread exist.