[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

I have strong doubts that this was a legal protest. I did not see anything saying they had a permit. Even if they did, the police saying they were a threat was enough to make it illegal and cause to disperse them. If they were legally obeying a permit then the restrictions on the permit would have insured the speakers safety. Ideally the police should have taken what ever steps necessary to insure the speakers right to speak. Rationally, I understand their decision but it does encourage similar actions since they were allowed to be successful.
The right to protest does not include the right to prevent others from speaking.

So let me get this straight: if an isolated group of people in a protest takes it too far, that means that the whole protest is illegal? Doesn't that mean that I could go to a conservative protest and start acting out and it would be considered illegal as well? Also what do you say about right wingers who bring assault rifles to protests? Isn't the threat of mass violence more dangerous than isolated violent incidents, since the latter is not sanctioned by most protestors but the former is out and out accepted by conservative protestors?

[One Degree]

So let me get this straight: if an isolated group of people in a protest takes it too far, that means that the whole protest is illegal? Doesn't that mean that I could go to a conservative protest and start acting out and it would be considered illegal as well? Also what do you say about right wingers who bring assault rifles to protests? Isn't the threat of mass violence more dangerous than isolated violent incidents, since the latter is not sanctioned by most protestors but the former is out and out accepted by conservative protestors?

You seem to be trying very hard to justify this group denying free speech to another. This is the real basis of censorship that started this conversation. You think it is okay. You see no problem because you disagree with what he wanted to say. How would you and the media react if he was a civil rights speaker and the group were violent conservatives? This is the crux. You are arguing that it is okay to be hypocritical about free speech and you believe you have a right to decide who should enjoy it and who should not. You have a man who just wants to talk and you have violent protesters and you think the violent protesters rights are more important. This thinking is the censorship that many Americans are rebelling against. We can argue all the hypotheticals you mentioned, but the bottom line is what liberals really feel and do. They censor the opposition. I am using the royal 'you'.

[SolarCross]

You seem to be trying very hard to justify this group denying free speech to another. This is the real basis of censorship that started this conversation. You think it is okay. You see no problem because you disagree with what he wanted to say. How would you and the media react if he was a civil rights speaker and the group were violent conservatives? This is the crux. You are arguing that it is okay to be hypocritical about free speech and you believe you have a right to decide who should enjoy it and who should not. You have a man who just wants to talk and you have violent protesters and you think the violent protesters rights are more important. :?: This thinking is the censorship that many Americans are rebelling against. We can argue all the hypotheticals you mentioned, but the bottom line is what liberals really feel and do. They censor the opposition. I am using the royal 'you'.

To be fair to the protestors, freedom of speech is an ideal that is reached for as a weapon and as a shield by anyone including conservatives when it helps them win and dropped when it doesn't. Those protestors would indeed be bleating on about their right to free speech if someone was trying to prevent them spreading propaganda even while in another instance when they are trying shut down a perceived enemy they don't care a hoot about it. I don't know for sure that liberals are worse for that than conservatives. If they were then the liberals would tend to win and winning would make them right and conservatives wrong.

In the movies the good guys win, whereas in reality winning makes you a good guy.

[One Degree]

In the movies the good guys win, whereas in reality winning makes you a good guy.

I think you summed it up pretty well. We now have the situation where the 'good guys' are being challenged as having the moral high ground and being the 'good guys' makes them blind to true equality. I agree that the opposite would probably be true.

[Whocares386]

I always say that; if there aren't any qualified voters, democracy won't work! There are only 2 ways for the democracy to work as intended. You either educate people successfully or allow only the eligible people to vote.

there is an article about ''vote certification''. You should read it:

http://thinkandsay.net/democracy-and-th ... tion-test/

[One Degree]

I always say that; if there aren't any qualified voters, democracy won't work! There are only 2 ways for the democracy to work as intended. You either educate people successfully or allow only the eligible people to vote.

The ignorant do not cause problems for democracy. It is pseudo intellectuals who believe they know what is right for everyone who create the catastrophes. Ignorant Joe did not decide to invade Iraq. Extremely educated people did. Ignorant Joe is not interested in what is going on in Iraq. Who is the wiser?

[Pants-of-dog]

You seem to be trying very hard to justify this group denying free speech to another. This is the real basis of censorship that started this conversation. You think it is okay. You see no problem because you disagree with what he wanted to say. How would you and the media react if he was a civil rights speaker and the group were violent conservatives? This is the crux. You are arguing that it is okay to be hypocritical about free speech and you believe you have a right to decide who should enjoy it and who should not. You have a man who just wants to talk and you have violent protesters and you think the violent protesters rights are more important. :?: This thinking is the censorship that many Americans are rebelling against. We can argue all the hypotheticals you mentioned, but the bottom line is what liberals really feel and do. They censor the opposition. I am using the royal 'you'.

So you think protests against intolerance are the same as censorship.

So in order to prtect free speech, we need to silence protests aginst intolerance. We should not allow people to say things like "that's racist". That would be somehow be the opposite of censorship.

[One Degree]

So you think protests against intolerance are the same as censorship.

So in order to prtect free speech, we need to silence protests aginst intolerance. We should not allow people to say things like "that's racist". That would be somehow be the opposite of censorship.

We covered all this. Free speech ends where violence begins. That is not my opinion. It is the law.
You can protest without preventing another from speaking.
I do appreciate you being so obstinate because it demonstrates my point that you will use whatever means to justify silencing those that oppose you. One insignificant point after another simply to justify an illegal act that you wish was legal. Unfortunately, you currently have the establishment behind your misguided views, but hopefully that will soon change.

[Pants-of-dog]

We covered all this. Free speech ends where violence begins. That is not my opinion. It is the law.

Then the protest being discussed was still free speech, as there was no violence.

You can protest without preventing another from speaking.
I do appreciate you being so obstinate because it demonstrates my point that you will use whatever means to justify silencing those that oppose you. One insignificant point after another simply to justify an illegal act that you wish was legal. Unfortunately, you currently have the establishment behind your misguided views, but hopefully that will soon change.

And now you think I am censoring you by replying to your posts. Lol.

What illegal act do I supposedly wish to justify?

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

You seem to be trying very hard to justify this group denying free speech to another. This is the real basis of censorship that started this conversation. You think it is okay. You see no problem because you disagree with what he wanted to say. How would you and the media react if he was a civil rights speaker and the group were violent conservatives? This is the crux. You are arguing that it is okay to be hypocritical about free speech and you believe you have a right to decide who should enjoy it and who should not. You have a man who just wants to talk and you have violent protesters and you think the violent protesters rights are more important. :?: This thinking is the censorship that many Americans are rebelling against. We can argue all the hypotheticals you mentioned, but the bottom line is what liberals really feel and do. They censor the opposition. I am using the royal 'you'.

Wrong. The basis of this conversation is that I don't think that Milo's free speech is being denied. I also think it's wrong when protests turn violent, but I don't think the actions of a small minority justify stripping the vast majority of their own free speech rights. And it's not about liberal or conservative, either. The fact is that conservatives never really engaged in non-violent protest against the civil rights movement, they tried to use the arm of the state to shut down protests. That is wrong. If people were trying to use the police itself as a way of stifling Milo, that would be different. That's not what happened, however: the police chose to shut it down because they couldn't guarantee safety. The police, remember, not the protestors.

[One Degree]

Wrong. The basis of this conversation is that I don't think that Milo's free speech is being denied. I also think it's wrong when protests turn violent, but I don't think the actions of a small minority justify stripping the vast majority of their own free speech rights. And it's not about liberal or conservative, either. The fact is that conservatives never really engaged in non-violent protest against the civil rights movement, they tried to use the arm of the state to shut down protests. That is wrong. If people were trying to use the police itself as a way of stifling Milo, that would be different. That's not what happened, however: the police chose to shut it down because they couldn't guarantee safety. The police, remember, not the protestors.

You are attempting to over ride reality with arguments that support your position, but were not actual events.
The protesters were violent or the police would not have told the speaker he was in danger. Their actions caused him not to speak.
Since we are going around in circles here, let me try a different track.
Do you agree hate laws were passed by those who support the liberal agenda?
Do you agree more right wing people are arrested using those laws?
Does this not restrict the free speech of the opponents of liberalism?
Do you doubt this was their intent?

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Hate speech laws or hate crime laws or laws against discrimination?

You are attempting to over ride reality with arguments that support your position, but were not actual events.
The protesters were violent or the police would not have told the speaker he was in danger. Their actions caused him not to speak.

No, I never said none of the protestors were violent, I said the vast majority were not violent, which is confirmed I believe in the article that you yourself provided. Don't be mad at reality when it doesn't support your position.

[One Degree]

Hate speech laws or hate crime laws or laws against discrimination?

It does not really matter. My only purpose for asking was to lead to my following comment. We can logically justify any one event to fit our ideology. What we fail to do is step back and look at the cumulative effect of these acts. Each individual action may be for the right reasons but they may still lead down the wrong path. We are restricting free speech and it should scare all of us. I see the Liberal side calmly accepting this as if it will have no consequence. They should know better. I just want them to take a serious look at the long term consequences.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please note that the police said that the protest was not violent.

[The Immortal Goon]

@The Immortal Goon
Okay I don't know about that, I'll believe it when I see it.

One thing you say that I think is a bit worth quibbling over and even tangentially related to this thread, is when you say "the right always.. ". How long is always? and who and what makes a rightwing person and also necessarily who or what makes a left wing person?

The left/right praxis is useful because it works in degrees instead of absolutes. Stalin was a moderate within the Bolshevik Party, but routinely sided with the right wing of the party. The right wing of the Soviet Union, of course, was well to the left of the left wing in most countries.

You know of course how this spacial metaphor first came to be applied to ideological discords. During the French revolution, some people were for the King and by extension the "ancien regime" of which he was head and other people were for the more revolutionary republican point of view. Representatives of these two opposing factions sat in the National Assembly and it so happened that the King's men sat on the right hand side of the president and the others sat on the left. So the right then were monarchists and the left were republicans. Those on the left broadly came from what in feudal times were called the third estate, the men of commerce. The kind of people that up until the fall of the berlin wall we are encouraged to call capitalists and "rightwing" with the "leftwing" being those that wanted to destroy them, hamper them or just shake them down.

And it keeps going. The Fuelliants that constituted the left wing above, became right wingers in the time of La Montagne; and they were soon to the right of the Jacobins; and the Jacobins were to the right of the Enrages.

The left/right dynamic works because it's a sliding scale like this.

The left vs right shit fight of say the cold war was a discord of a distinctly different one to that of the french revolution and even it doesn't even apply anymore because since the fall of the Soviet Union that discord basically fizzled out.

It certainly works, and is still soused routinely for this reason. We are not so special and unique to have developed in some new way that can't be explained.

The current discord is over political correctness: how rude people are allowed to be in public and to whom. (Well there are other related issues like for europeans immigration is the bigger question.) Over the political correctness discord those that are for a certain brand of it have taken the label "left", (much to the annoyance of coldwar lefties like Decky), while those spitting their dummies out over not being able call a spade a spade have taken the title right wing.

I would be curious if you could find anybody that openly advocates, "political correctness." I'm not sure that I've ever heard anybody say anything nice about the concept, let alone claim it as their own.

So what ties right with right throughout the ages?
What does a Dragoon loyal in his service to the King have in common with a merchant banker of thatcher's britain or with a 4chan bad boy of the 21st century? Nothing really.

Typically the right in parliamentary democracies correspond roughly toBurke. That is to say, a focus on perceived notions of personal liberty and responsibility. but because it's a sliding scale, this isn't always true.

So what ties the left with the left throughout the ages?
What does a jewish jacobin wool merchant have in common with a sulky trade unionist of Thatcher's Britain or with a latte slurping social justice warrior of the 21st century? Nothing really.

In each of your cases they oppose imperialism and strive for greater equality. Typically in a parliamentary system you might think of Gladstone.

The measures keep shifting as different disagreements eclipse others in importance. With this in mind are marxists even leftwing anymore given that republicanism was once left wing but now is not?

Yes, we are still left wing. Just as the Enreges were. The measure shifting is the whole point as to why it's a useful system.

Going back to before the French rev, how would the left vs right spacial metaphor fall down around the catholic vs protestant shit fight? Would catholics be right wing or left wing? What of the protestants? Left or right?

In the context of the French Revolution, the Catholics tended toward the right. If you wanted to call the Cult of the Supreme Being Protestant, I guess they'd be to the right.

But we only know that because of their interaction in the political world. Since, again, the left/right description is used to convey where something is in relation to something else, one cannot say Catholics are innately right wing; any more than one can say Bukarin was a ringwinger in every circumstance.

[Hong Wu]

So Project Veritas' new sting video appears to show an Anti-Fa group (Fascists of the future) planning to sabotage the sprinkler system at Trump's inauguration and get it to spray a stink bomb chemical over everyone there. Their meeting was held in Comet Pizza (of Pizzagate fame) in Washington DC.

As the guy in this video says, these people are retarded and it borders on an act of terrorism since such an action at a crowded event could possibly cause panic, injuries and death.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

And what does that have to do with this thread?

[Tewodros III]

Since when do Fascists(who are already anti-american in the first place) cares about terrorism in America? If anything Fascists condone terrorism against the US government, they interfere against fascists plans of white separatism/enclaves. They love nothing more than causing chaos(so do we though).

[The Immortal Goon]

So Project Veritas' new sting video appears to show an Anti-Fa group (Fascists of the future) planning to sabotage the sprinkler system at Trump's inauguration and get it to spray a stink bomb chemical over everyone there. Their meeting was held in Comet Pizza (of Pizzagate fame) in Washington DC.

As the guy in this video says, these people are retarded and it borders on an act of terrorism since such an action at a crowded event could possibly cause panic, injuries and death.

1. Obviously this is juvenile and stupid. If the antifa want to make a substantial difference, they should be organizing workers and doing everything they can to build a substantial movement based upon the people, not upon these juvenile tactics. It's talking to people, it's writing, it's agitating for basic rights. It's explaining how things work.

In every factory, in each guild, in each company, in each tavern, in the military hospital, at the transfer stations, even in the depopulated villages, the molecular work of revolutionary thought was in progress. Everywhere were to be “What’s the news”? and from whom one awaited the needed words. These leaders had often been left to themselves, had nourished themselves upon fragments of revolutionary generalisations arriving in their bands by various routes, had studied out by themselves between the lines of the liberal papers what they needed. Their class instinct was refined by a political criterion, and though they did not think all their ideas through to the end, nevertheless their thought ceaselessly and stubbornly worked its way in a single direction. Elements of experience, criticism, initiative, self-sacrifice, seeped down through the mass and created, invisibly to a superficial glance but no less decisively, an inner mechanics of the revolutionary movement as a conscious process. To the smug politicians of liberalism and tamed socialism everything that happens among masses is customarily represented as an instinctive process, no matter whether they are dealing with an anthill or a beehive. In reality the thought which was drilling through the thick of the working class was far bolder, more penetrating, more conscious, than those little ideas by which the educated classes live. Moreover, this thought was more scientific: not only because it was to a considerable degree fertilised with the methods of Marxism, but still more because it was ever nourishing itself on the living experience of the masses which were soon to take their place on the revolutionary arena. Thoughts are scientific if they correspond to an objective process and make it possible to influence that process and guide it. Were these qualities possessed in the slightest degree by the ideas of those government circles who were inspired by the Apocalypse and believed in the dreams of Rasputin? Or maybe the ideas of the liberals were scientifically grounded, who hoped that a backward Russia, having joined the scrimmage of the capitalist giants, might win at one and the same time victory and parliamentarism? Or maybe the intellectual life of those circles of the intelligentsia was scientific, who slavishly adapted themselves to this liberalism, senile since childhood, protecting their imaginary independence the while with long-dead metaphors? In truth here was a kingdom of spiritual inertness, spectres, superstition and fictions, a kingdom, if you will, of “spontaneousness.” But have we not in that case a right to turn this liberal philosophy of the February revolution exactly upside down? Yes, we have a right to say: At the same time that the official society, all that many-storied superstructure of ruling classes, layers, groups, parties and cliques, lived from day to day by inertia and automatism, nourishing themselves with the relics of worn-out ideas, deaf to the inexorable demands of evolution, flattering themselves with phantoms and foreseeing nothing-at the same time, in the working masses there was (taking place an independent and deep process of growth, not only of hatred for the rulers, but of critical understanding of their impotence, an accumulation of experience and creative consciousness which the revolutionary insurrection and its victory only completed.

To the question, Who led the February revolution? we can then answer definitely enough: Conscious and tempered workers educated for the most part by the party of Lenin. But we must here immediately add: This leadership proved sufficient to guarantee the victory of the insurrection, but it was not adequate to transfer immediately into the hands of the proletarian vanguard the leadership of the revolution.

In some sense, the liberal state knows this, which is why with such care it has (and continues to) systematically destroy any vestige of real leftism that may exist.

They ignored this in the fascists, however, and so we get the fascists organizing on the internet and penetrating activist groups and whatnot with far greater ease than the communist boogieman that the liberals have so helpfully helped them create.

2. A stink bomb is hardly terrorism. Half of the boys in my Middle School should be in Gitmo if this were the case.

3. Only a right winger could be so butthurt as to make this claim. You had actual domestic terrorists go free, with the GOP lining up to blow a movement based on a rancher that decided he didn't feel like paying you to use your land, and that he should have it instead, and the government back down and let him do it.

Then related armed militants from another state take over a community, which very much did not support these people, and the government bent over backward to make sure that they got off (the Federal Judge, for instance, did not let only the "government employees were intimidated" charge be used, but did not allow government employees to testify to being intimidated); and then these same right wingers get their choice for president elected.

Result? They want us to feel like they're victims because some kid on the internet said he was going to drop a stink bomb at a rally.