By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Jonathan Blow Speaks Out For Free Speech

VGPolyglot on 03 February 2017
badgenome said:
VGPolyglot said:

"The Socialist Party`s strength was further sapped by 1920, because of government suppression and public disapproval during World War I. Such anti-socialist hysteria as the Red Scare, and internal factionalism aggravated by the presence of Communists, took their toll. Fears associated with the Bolsheviks` seizure of power in Russia, bombings in the United States, along with a series of labor strikes, led to the Red Scare in 1919. Suspected socialists and Communists were arrested and thrown into jail. In the end, of the 5,000 people who were given arrest warrants"

1920 was after WWI, so no it was not because of the draft.

Also, it's not like college-educated white cannot have problems. Many have problems finding employment after graduation and cannot pay off their student loans, sinking further and further into debt. The genius of the right is that they can take people's misfortunes and turn it from a class issue into a race issue so that they believe that it's immigrants that are screwing them instead of the rich.

IIRC, 1920 was the year that the Sedition Act was repealed, but even this doesn't claim that they were arrested simply for being socialist. And regardless, you're talking about things that happened a century ago when the US had markedly less free speech... seemingly as an argument against permitting free speech today.

Sure, college educated whites can have problems, but these are not people living in squalor or desperation. They're posting on Twitter all day, playing revolutionary and bragging about what they're going to do next.

If that's the genius of the right, I guess the genius of the modern, oligarchical left is getting would-be class warriors to waste their energy shutting down a flamboyantly homosexual gadfly instead of stringing them up.

You didn't ask for a specific time though, you said ever,which implied that I could give any examples in history. Even here in Canada the government has conducted raids against socialists, and even for a time stole all of the Communist Party's assets and banned then as a party, which was relatively recently. I also don't know what you mean by ologarchical left. Are you talking about centrists? The left are definitely against oligarchies.



Around the Network
Leadified on 03 February 2017
VGPolyglot said:
Leadified said:

I see, that's fine. Now I don't agree with the terminology here because I would say that theft would be slavery, since you are taking something away without consent and compensation. While undercompensation (or unfair) is different because you still receive something and you have to consent to a job. Theft is always criminal I don't think that undercompensation is necessarily criminal but instead the circumstances are a lot more complex.

Thank you. I hope that I don't come across as rude, it's just that I'm really passionate about it and I get really upset when I see so many people on here that seem to support beliefs that I find very dangerous and harmful.

It's alright, I'm not one to take offence unless I'm being flamed.



badgenome on 03 February 2017
VGPolyglot said:

You didn't ask for a specific time though, you said ever,which implied that I could give any examples in history. Even here in Canada the government has conducted raids against socialists, and even for a time stole all of the Communist Party's assets and banned then as a party, which was relatively recently. I also don't know what you mean by ologarchical left. Are you talking about centrists? The left are definitely against oligarchies.

Okay, but you're still ostensibly talking about the same World War I era law that I'd already mentioned. We don't know what specific charges these people was brought up on, and I'm not about to take a cursory mention on a questionable website as the gospel truth.

I mean, basically, the Democratic party establishment, the corporate media, tech moguls... if violence is so effective at bringing positive change then surely bashing Eric Schmidt's face in would do a world more good than bashing Milo's.



VGPolyglot on 03 February 2017
badgenome said:
VGPolyglot said:

You didn't ask for a specific time though, you said ever,which implied that I could give any examples in history. Even here in Canada the government has conducted raids against socialists, and even for a time stole all of the Communist Party's assets and banned then as a party, which was relatively recently. I also don't know what you mean by ologarchical left. Are you talking about centrists? The left are definitely against oligarchies.

Okay, but you're still ostensibly talking about the same World War I era law that I'd already mentioned. We don't know what specific charges each alleged socialist was brought up on, and I'm not about to take a cursory mention on a questionable website as the gospel truth.

I mean, basically, the Democratic party establishment, the corporate media, tech moguls... if violence is so effective at bringing positive change then surely bashing Eric Schmidt's face in would do a world more good than bashing Milo's.

I don't support the Democratic Party, nor the corporate media, nor the tech moguls, they're not leftists.



StarOcean on 03 February 2017
outlawauron said:
StarOcean said:
Unlike what I've been accused of, I am not part of the "left". But rather anti-Trump. And as the days go by more and more will join the cause against him -and I hope it continues to ramp up. And I'll be anti-Trump until he either a. resigns, b. gets assassinated, or c. gets impeached. Also, Trump is 100% a facist, not the other way around. Especially telling with him wanting to "destroy" the Johnson amendment among other things. His people will support him but nothing they or their "alternative facts" *cough*bullshitfakenewstheyuse*cough* say will change my mind

I would look up the definition of facist before you go on with that hyperbole.

The West is far too eager to label everything they dislike some sort of extreme pejorative term.

I'd consider him an emerging one with his current additude. I don't think this hyperbole is out of line with what others here post. Plus if I do feel as though he is one or becoming one, then I have every right to criticize him as one for having what I consider attributes of one. 

If Trump can use labels in order to get his way, it can used against him just as equally. 



Around the Network
badgenome on 03 February 2017
VGPolyglot said:

I don't support the Democratic Party, nor the corporate media, nor the tech moguls, they're not leftists.

I'm talking about these poor Antifa dears who are supposedly rioting out of desperation.



Qwark on 03 February 2017

For as far as I care the far right at least have arguments and statistics to back up their claims even though they are very flat. The extreme left lacks any form of logic and is pure emotionally fueled. I would rather face someone of the extreme right than the extreme left any day. Although both directions are too extreme.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

nuckles87 on 03 February 2017
Puppyroach said:
Wasn't it confirmed by both the police and the administration at Berkley that the demonstration was completely peaceful but that outsiders came specifically to cause a riot?

Yep.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/finger-pointing-after-milo-yiannopoulos-talk-at-uc-berkeley-scrapped-when-violence-breaks-out-at-peaceful-protest/

But it seems everyone is ignoring that to either tie the violence to protestors or advocate for political violence at protests. Not the first time this has happened at a protest either, to my understanding. 

The students protesting were just excercising their own free speech as well. Yeah, in our country Nazis allowed to say horrible hate speech. But you know what? Other people are allowed to protest that hate speech. A Nazi may have a right to say what he wants, but no one is obligated to give him a venue.

I don't support violence in political protests. But at least in this case, the protestors weren't the ones breaking and burning stuff.



rrrnearrr on 03 February 2017

All those rich white college liberals want to tell me what I am allowed to think and like and attack me if disagree? Where did I see this before?



VGPolyglot on 03 February 2017
coolbeans said:
VGPolyglot said:

As I said before, it's impossible to be peaceful against a violent enemy. The American state, the capitalist system, the patriarchy, etc. is inherently violent and if you try to be peaceful in your resisatance you'll either get nowhere or you'll get beat up yourself.

Considering the largest "anti-" group of the previous administration made a name for itself getting somewhere, that argument just doesn't pan out.  That "racist, gun-humping, ________" Tea Party movement literally earned its infamy between '08-'16 by resisting Obama via--dare I say it?--actually getting out and voting in more than just the primary in order to obstruct Obama's plans.  And while I'm not pretending all of those people were saints, or that there was no moments of violence invoked by individuals, the majority of stories showcased a bunch of Americans building a unique voting bloc, all while oftentimes trying to keep their rallies clean and not destroying public/private property in the process.  

But this conversation seemed to be taking a nosedive when this is being brought in.

And that's because the tea party was composed of far-right people, and had ideological leanings that benefit the rich and elite like lower taxes. Communism, on the other hand, is an idea that they're much more hostile towards because it advocates the redistribution of wealth and the elimination of capitalism. Obama is a neo-liberal, he'd much rather prefer the Tea Party than a communist movement. Though I do doubt that most of the people protesting are communists.