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

Leadified on 03 February 2017
VGPolyglot said:
Leadified said:

Hold on a second, how do you define who is a "fascist"? There's a pretty big gap between someone like Milo and Hitler, if you start to shut down people from speaking then not only does that completely erode a free society but you're paving the way for an authoritarian state.

I wasn't referring to Milo in particular, I was speaking in general terms where many racists are allowed to speak and gain a large following. Anyways, here's one quote from him:

I believe in and love the populist, nationalist, antiglobalist rebellion happening all over the West

The part that concerns me the most is the nationalist part: fascism is basically nationalism on steroids.

Edit: Here's another quote of his that I found:

America's got to take a break from foreign wars, and take a break from immigration.

Now, I don't mind the first part, but the second part si very disturbing to me, as he seems to be a very nationalist person.

That's always the price with freedom of speech, however I have faith in our institutions opposed to top-down state control. We have limits on freedom of speech anyways, some of which is the subject of controversy, but in most places inciting violence or "hate" is already a criminal offence.

Even if I don't agree with what Milo has to say or believes in, I will oppose what he does not what he says.

ClassicGamingWizzz said:
Leadified said:

Hold on a second, how do you define who is a "fascist"? There's a pretty big gap between someone like Milo and Hitler, if you start to shut down people from speaking then not only does that completely erode a free society but you're paving the way for an authoritarian state.

Milo goes to these stages and attacks the students there, like that time when he attacked and humilliated a trangender, why would a university would let a guy inside campus to harass his students?

At the end of the day that is the responsibility of the university. I would imagine they can already control who is allowed to speak there.



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

Yeah, so what if I get put in a camp and gassed, who cares what happens to me? Do you see why I consider white supremacists as a threat, even though I myself am white? You complain how white supremacists shouldn't be prevented from committing hate speech, yet want to kill communists for the heinous crime of supporting a society where oppression, racism and sexism are discouraged.

Except communist regimes have historically been the most oppressive and murderous of all.

Once you say, "This guy's a Nazi, punch him in the face!" you don't have a leg to stand on to demand the freedom to promote your own objectionable ideology. And everyone's ideology is objectionable to someone, so...

Except they even admitted that they weren't communist, communism was only a goal, which was obviously a scam. I'm an anarcho-communist, I don't support the Leninist regimes, but even then if you studied them, you'd discover that they said that they were attempting to achieve communism, which means that they flat-out say that they were not at the point of communism. Now, I am well aware that the Soviet Union, Hungary, Poland, etc. were lyign when they said that they wanted to eventually reach communism, but it doesn't change the fact that they, even in a sea of propaganda, didn't even have the gall to say that they're communist.



VGPolyglot on 03 February 2017
Leadified said:
VGPolyglot said:

I wasn't referring to Milo in particular, I was speaking in general terms where many racists are allowed to speak and gain a large following. Anyways, here's one quote from him:

I believe in and love the populist, nationalist, antiglobalist rebellion happening all over the West

The part that concerns me the most is the nationalist part: fascism is basically nationalism on steroids.

Edit: Here's another quote of his that I found:

America's got to take a break from foreign wars, and take a break from immigration.

Now, I don't mind the first part, but the second part si very disturbing to me, as he seems to be a very nationalist person.

That's always the price with freedom of speech, however I have faith in our institutions opposed to top-down state control. We have limits on freedom of speech anyways, some of which is the subject of controversy, but in most places inciting violence or "hate" is already a criminal offence.

Even if I don't agree with what Milo has to say or believes in, I will oppose what he does not what he says.

ClassicGamingWizzz said:

Milo goes to these stages and attacks the students there, like that time when he attacked and humilliated a trangender, why would a university would let a guy inside campus to harass his students?

At the end of the day that is the responsibility of the university. I would imagine they can already control who is allowed to speak there.

Why do you have faith when the institutions obviously have their own motives? They are definitely not opposed to top-down state control, it's the president, one person, who is commander in chief, it's only a few hundred people in congress who legislate laws, and they are the ones who dictate what should happend. That is undeniably top-down state control.



Leadified on 03 February 2017
VGPolyglot said:
Leadified said:

That's always the price with freedom of speech, however I have faith in our institutions opposed to top-down state control. We have limits on freedom of speech anyways, some of which is the subject of controversy, but in most places inciting violence or "hate" is already a criminal offence.

Even if I don't agree with what Milo has to say or believes in, I will oppose what he does not what he says.

At the end of the day that is the responsibility of the university. I would imagine they can already control who is allowed to speak there.

Why do you have faith when the institutions obviously have their own motives? They are definitely not opposed to top-down state control, it's the president, one person, who is commander in chief, it's only a few hundred people in congress who legislate laws, and they are the ones who dictate what should happend. That is undeniably top-down state control.

Everything has a motive, that's not a reason not to have faith in it. One of your constitutional rights is to freedom of speech, if the government violates your rights, you can take them to court. They don't have much control if they can be challenged.



VGPolyglot on 03 February 2017
Leadified said:
VGPolyglot said:

Why do you have faith when the institutions obviously have their own motives? They are definitely not opposed to top-down state control, it's the president, one person, who is commander in chief, it's only a few hundred people in congress who legislate laws, and they are the ones who dictate what should happend. That is undeniably top-down state control.

Everything has a motive, that's not a reason not to have faith in it. One of your constitutional rights is to freedom of speech, if the government violates your rights, you can take them to court. You don't have much control if you can be challenged.

The problem is that the constitution was written by rich, white slave-owners who wanted to stay at the top. It's biased towards haves and against the have-nots. Also, court is not a viable option for most people because they either cannot afford the court costs or have to provide for their family are so desperate to get out that they enter a plea deal, forever cementing them with a criminal record.



Around the Network
NightDragon83 on 03 February 2017
badgenome said:

Legitimizing political violence is becoming awfully trendy. What could possibly go wrong?

Indeed. Next thing you know they'll start burning Milo and other conservative author's books as a protest against "fascism", all while having the irony of it all completely sail over their heads.



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

Puppyroach on 03 February 2017

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?



Leadified on 03 February 2017
VGPolyglot said:
Leadified said:

Everything has a motive, that's not a reason not to have faith in it. One of your constitutional rights is to freedom of speech, if the government violates your rights, you can take them to court. You don't have much control if you can be challenged.

The problem is that the constitution was written by rich, white slave-owners who wanted to stay at the top. It's biased towards haves and against the have-nots. Also, court is not a viable option for most people because they either cannot afford the court costs or have to provide for their family are so desperate to get out that they enter a plea deal, forever cementing them with a criminal record.

Can you provide some citations from the American constitution on what makes it so biased?



badgenome on 03 February 2017
VGPolyglot said:

Except they even admitted that they weren't communist, communism was only a goal, which was obviously a scam. I'm an anarcho-communist, I don't support the Leninist regimes, but even then if you studied them, you'd discover that they said that they were attempting to achieve communism, which means that they flat-out say that they were not at the point of communism. Now, I am well aware that the Soviet Union, Hungary, Poland, etc. were lyign when they said that they wanted to eventually reach communism, but it doesn't change the fact that they, even in a sea of propaganda, didn't even have the gall to say that they're communist.

And yet every "communist" revolution turns out exactly the same way. If I didn't know better I'd say that communism is impracticable, utopian nonsense that only has ever and only will ever result in tyranny.

But to my main point: if it's okay to punch fascists, why isn't it okay to punch communists?



VGPolyglot on 03 February 2017
Leadified said:
VGPolyglot said:

The problem is that the constitution was written by rich, white slave-owners who wanted to stay at the top. It's biased towards haves and against the have-nots. Also, court is not a viable option for most people because they either cannot afford the court costs or have to provide for their family are so desperate to get out that they enter a plea deal, forever cementing them with a criminal record.

Can you provide some citations from the American constitution on what makes it so biased?

Namely property rights: the fact that richer people have a lot more property and the fact that many workers do not own the means of production means that they are either forced to work in a capacity where they get a set amount of money and the owner gets all of the rest of the profits or they refuse and have to starve to death. There's also the amendment that ended slavery, except of course if it is for a crime. Rich people have better lawyers and more connections, so obviously they can avoid prison more easily than poorer people, which puts prisoners into slavery (not to mention as poorer people have less property they have less money and as they cannot afford to make ends meet they become desperate and commit theft, and the law ignores the circumstances: for example is a poor person stole $100 from Bill Gates to pay for food for his family he would get arrested, despite Bill Gates never needing that money at all).