SURFER Magazine Surf News, Fantasy Surfer, Photos, Video and Forecasting

Let's just say that we both consider each other intolerant fascists.

Still waiting for the quotes or actions in support of your allegation that Milo is a fascist.

Yes, and those particular emotional responses can frequently manifest themselves in violence. I guess it's a matter of where we draw the line. Fortunately, our constitution addresses that.

Again, I agree with that as well. Particularly the comment about where we would draw the line.

That article is weak, at best. In his view apparently, shutting down a university sanctioned speech with a violent protest is a tactical error, but he forgets it is also an infringement on the 1st amendment.

tl:dr - "This is precisely the reason the black-clad rioters among the protesters at Berkeley who prevented Yiannopoulos from speaking—the school cancelled the event, citing danger to the public—served his ultimate interests. It was a tactical error that ignored everything 2016 should have taught us. As with Trump, who treats every reasonable criticism of his Presidency as another nail in a crucifixion, and his electorate, which eagerly co-signs that sentiment, Yiannopoulos has emerged from Berkeley as both the putative victim and victor."

Milo didn't invent the use of flopping. When we acknowledged the use of flopping and wound-collection as a legitimate form of political agitation and activism all those years ago we validated its use by everyone. It's far too late to be protesting its use now.

For those who don't understand what Fascism philosophy entails (GDaddy), from the father of Fascism Benito Mussolini:

"...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absurd conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress.... "

Further:

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights:

Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need."


Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause:

The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.


Rampant Sexism:

The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.


Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts:

Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.


etc ...

Why would he speak at Berkeley?

He is a senior editor at a white supremacist publication.

He surrounds himself in the alt-right which is based in racism, bigotry... which is violence.

If you can't acknowledge the forest for the trees, why would that be? This is not a trial.

I don't know how is "violence" relevant here. It happened once by a small handful of people.

Milo has been shut down peacefully at many other venues and you also have Jeremy Scahill's thoughtful explanation of the boycott above.

That's called exercising the 1st amendment, not infringing upon it.

Milo has million other venues to continue to spew his bullshit. No rights infringed upon.

For those who don't understand, fascism has a political definition but it also has a non-political definition that also speaks to intolerance and authoritrianism.

Suffice it to say there is some disagreement among the academics about the premise that fascism is strictly a right wing ideology.

to say he is just evoking an emotional response is rather generous and purposely small minded. where are all the other emotions eg love, empathy, joy...

Threats of violence have caused several of those cancellations. A threat is an act, and the people who made those threats infringed on the rights of others.

It's 100% true that the 1A does not require anyone to provide a platform for speech they disagree with, and may that ever be so. But the use of violence and threats of violence to shut down events that were lawfully organized is not a peaceful form of protest. The student groups entered into contract with the universities and their rights per those contracts were subsequently violated.

LOL

Good one.

"ANTIFA" is an effect - not the cause.

Logic, learn it.

You'll have to look for other sources for those emotions.

Milo's schtick is trolling. We as a society (and I DEFINITELY include myself here, see the "Civil War or Collapse" thread) need to get better at ignoring the trolls. That doesn't mean staying quiet when people try to make troll ideologies into actual law, but the liberal social media response to Milo IS his platform.

Conduct is conduct. Labels are meaningless.

Logic. Learn it.

Well, violence is relevant because that is what shut down the speech in Berkeley, which is the subject of the article you cited. Preventing somebody from speaking at a sanctioned event is basically the definition of infringing upon their rights. That is a big deal.

But, you also need to consider the effects of this activity in the future. If you tolerate that sort of behavior now, you shouldn't oppose that sort of behavior later when the group doing it is a group you don't agree with in the future. Which would be stupid. Don't be that guy.