Berkley

[Lagom]

Re: "Anyone who is angry at violent anarcholiberal protesters must have the same outrage for these people" - agreed.

The left and right both have a problem with their own extremists.  Neither the left nor the right condemn "their" fringe as much as they try to paint "the other" fringe as representative of the "the other" side.

Cool, so then we can all agree that we are all smart enough to know that both "sides" have a fringe element that is contemptible, and because we all know it, we are being disingenuous if we try to use those people as evidence of anything sweeping about the "other side"? Sounds like excellent common ground to me!

[MDM]

Re: "Anyone who is angry at violent anarcholiberal protesters must have the same outrage for these people" - agreed.

The left and right both have a problem with their own extremists.  Neither the left nor the right condemn "their" fringe as much as they try to paint "the other" fringe as representative of the "the other" side.

Cool, so then we can all agree that we are all smart enough to know that both "sides" have a fringe element that is contemptible, and because we all know it, we are being disingenuous if we try to use those people as evidence of anything sweeping about the "other side"? Sounds like excellent common ground to me!

Works for me....

[chad]

The UCB newspaper published several editorials defending the violence. Can we agree that the students who run that paper and published these editorials are therefore part of the lunatic fringe on the left?

My question is then: how did these lunatics get control of a major university newspaper? And where is the outcry against them?

Here are some of the relevant editorials:

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/plurality-tactics-contributed-cancellation-milo-yiannopoulos-event/

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/check-privilege-speaking-protests/

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/violence-helped-ensure-safety-students/

[iris lily]

The UCB newspaper published several editorials defending the violence. Can we agree that the students who run that paper and published these editorials are therefore part of the lunatic fringe on the left?

My question is then: how did these lunatics get control of a major university newspaper? And where is the outcry against them?

Here are some of the relevant editorials:

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/plurality-tactics-contributed-cancellation-milo-yiannopoulos-event/

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/check-privilege-speaking-protests/

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/violence-helped-ensure-safety-students/

It's Berkely. I would imagne that there is a stiff standard of left leaning anarchy for any student  in any position of power there.

I was more concerned about the incidents at Univ of CAli Davis that barred Milo from speaking be ause that is more like real life.

[chad]

Sure, it's Berkeley, the flagship of the University of California system, and one of the premiere research universities in the world. It has a student newspaper run by a violence-promoting lunatic fringe on the left, and that calls for those of us who are reasonable to be horrified, not dismissive or accepting at all. Right?

[iris lily]

Sure, it's Berkeley, the flagship of the University of California system, and one of the premiere research universities in the world. It has a student newspaper run by a violence-promoting lunatic fringe on the left, and that calls for those of us who are reasonable to be horrified, not dismissive or accepting at all. Right?

well dude, I dont like it and dont wish to see more of it, and I hate  the way the wildings clamp down on Milo's free speech, it but I grew up in the 60's and
I repeat, it is the
Berkely Way of Being.  It is hard to take them seriously.

Actually, I have a hard time taking much of California politics seriously at times.

[Lagom]

Sure, it's Berkeley, the flagship of the University of California system, and one of the premiere research universities in the world. It has a student newspaper run by a violence-promoting lunatic fringe on the left, and that calls for those of us who are reasonable to be horrified, not dismissive or accepting at all. Right?

Yes any such editorials are wrong on their premise because senseless violence is both illegal and indefensible. What exactly is your point here?

[iris lily]

Sure, it's Berkeley, the flagship of the University of California system, and one of the premiere research universities in the world. It has a student newspaper run by a violence-promoting lunatic fringe on the left, and that calls for those of us who are reasonable to be horrified, not dismissive or accepting at all. Right?

Yes any such editorials are wrong on their premise because senseless violence is both illegal and indefensible. What exactly is your point here?

That the depth of stupidity goes beyond "fringe."

[Lagom]

Sure, it's Berkeley, the flagship of the University of California system, and one of the premiere research universities in the world. It has a student newspaper run by a violence-promoting lunatic fringe on the left, and that calls for those of us who are reasonable to be horrified, not dismissive or accepting at all. Right?

Yes any such editorials are wrong on their premise because senseless violence is both illegal and indefensible. What exactly is your point here?

That the depth of stupidity goes beynd nd "fringe."

Were those editorialists committing violence themselves? Are there no right wing student editorials out there supporting bad behavior? Again, what grand point is being made here? I suppose I'll just come out and say it: chad's comment comes across to me as another strawman intended to instigate, but since the "argument" being implied is both pointless and irrelevant, I figured I might as well check if I'm missing anything else.

[chad]

I have two points, Lagom. First, I just wanted to see if you (and others like you) would condemn them. You have, and I find that comforting and heartening. It's really a bummer to see that some are flirting with violence in this way. Voices like yours are important, so I just wanted to hear what you and others like you would say about these examples.

Second, and probably more argumentatively, I guess it seems at least somewhat implausible to claim that these students are merely on the fringe of the left. This isn't some radical blog or an independent publication or something. This is the student newspaper of perhaps the most prestigious public university in the US. How did a violent, lunatic fringe get control of this paper, and why don't you think that reasonable leftists in a position to do something about this haven't stopped it?

[Lagom]

I have two points, Lagom. First, I just wanted to see if you (and others like you) would condemn them. You have, and I find that comforting and heartening. It's really a bummer to see that some are flirting with violence in this way. Voices like yours are important, so I just wanted to hear what you and others like you would say about these examples.

Second, and probably more argumentatively, I guess it seems at least somewhat implausible to claim that these students are merely on the fringe of the left. This isn't some radical blog or an independent publication or something. This is the student newspaper of perhaps the most prestigious public university in the US. How did a violent, lunatic fringe get control of this paper, and why don't you think that reasonable leftists in a position to do something about this haven't stopped it?

First, that's fair enough and I am far from alone. That is why I get so exasperated. The multiple millions of people that have been protesting over the past month have been 99.9%+ peaceful demonstrators and I doubt more than one or two % of those (at most) would do anything but condemn violence categorically. 

Second, I'm not claiming those students are on the fringe left, although it's certainly plausible. Lots of fringe people (liberal and conservative) attend/attended prestigious universities. More likely they are just immature wannabe revolutionaries (lots of those at Berkeley) but either way, they were not the ones committing violence, which is the subject of our debate. Editorials about an event are not relevant evidence to the main topics of this thread. If you want to make an argument that the protests against Trump (let's all be honest that this is the big picture here) are somehow invalid, it is disingenuous to focus on whatever small things you can find that are indefensible (violent anarchists and misguided teenagers who defend them) when you very well know that they in no way represent the protestors as a whole.

[Syonyk]

Given that so few "black clad anarchists" were arrested, how do you know they weren't involved?

[chad]

So you agree that non-fringe left-wing voices are defending violent action? I don't see that sort of thing from non-fringe right-wingers. I thought that part of what's come up in this thread is whether there's a distinction of this sort to be drawn between the two sides. In any case, that's the issue I"m interested in, and I don't see why this is a bad thread to discuss it in.

[trollwithamustache]

The Rioters really probably aren't students. The window smashing sport had been growing in popularity in the last few years. For the last few years League mostly plays in Oakland for Ferugusen stuff, and before that the odd BART cop not getting convicted. This has been going on for many years. Even the occupy movement had their share of window breakings and that's like so long about the kids learn about it in American History now right?

Fun Fact: the only riot I have ever accidentally attended was when the police tear gassed the crowds at a Berkeley protest of Ferguson and it got zesty. We had just finished dinner and were walking out. Had a very pleasant conversation with a SWAT guy with a pretty big rifle.

[Lagom]

I'll tell you what. If you guys openly acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of protestors (as in 99.9%+) in the various events over the past month have been completely peaceful and are expressing genuine concern about a variety of clearly defined issues related to the Trump administration and congress (not saying you need to agree with those concerns), I will engage with you on these tangents you keep trying to pull the thread into.

[chad]

I acknowledge that almost all of the protesters on the left in the recent past have not engaged in directly harming bodies or property, and would not believe in doing such a thing. I do think that there has been a lot of traffic blocking, and that can indirectly harm people who are for example trying to get to a hospital. I don't know how many of these folks support that kind of tactic, and I'm genuinely uncertain whether to call it violence. It's pretty crappy in any case, whether or not it is violent.

Is that good enough? I won't acknowledge that I've gone off on a tangent, since I think the things I've said are basically on topic. But that seems not worth arguing about. I do wish you'd believe that I'm arguing with you in good faith.

[Syonyk]

I do wish you'd believe that I'm arguing with you in good faith.

Unlikely - I expect, if you keep it up, you'll be labeled a "concern troll," which means "Someone I want to claim is on the other side who is pretending to be on my side so they can bring up a particular point to demonstrate a weakness" - or something like that.  It seems to mostly be used by people on the left to dismiss other people on the left as "really just conservatives" so they don't have to address them.

We're seeing a fascinating "circular firing squad" on the left in action lately - look at the hostility among the left in general, and you'll see it in action.

=========

Small minority of people or not, Obama's inauguration did not have people smashing windows, burning cars, and trying to block people from attending.  Trump's did.

I'm struggling to recall protests at universities to stop far-left speakers - communist, (proper) socialist, etc.

The protests paired with violence that is supported by non-fringe elements who are campus paper editors and such at large, well recognized schools, seems to be something that is fairly unique to the left, at least in the past two decades that I have been keeping track of things.

[Lagom]

I do wish you'd believe that I'm arguing with you in good faith.

Unlikely - I expect, if you keep it up, you'll be labeled a "concern troll," which means "Someone I want to claim is on the other side who is pretending to be on my side so they can bring up a particular point to demonstrate a weakness" - or something like that.  It seems to mostly be used by people on the left to dismiss other people on the left as "really just conservatives" so they don't have to address them.

We're seeing a fascinating "circular firing squad" on the left in action lately - look at the hostility among the left in general, and you'll see it in action.

=========

Small minority of people or not, Obama's inauguration did not have people smashing windows, burning cars, and trying to block people from attending.  Trump's did.

I'm struggling to recall protests at universities to stop far-left speakers - communist, (proper) socialist, etc.

The protests paired with violence that is supported by non-fringe elements who are campus paper editors and such at large, well recognized schools, seems to be something that is fairly unique to the left, at least in the past two decades that I have been keeping track of things.

Likely. Chad, I do believe you are arguing in good faith. Others very much have not been, hence my request. And I'll admit you're right that you are within topic, but until now it felt like you were just another person trying to paint all liberals with a broad brush because you dislike them on principle (Looking at you, Syonyk. Also, I am not a liberal which I must have repeated a hundred times now in various threads).

@ Syonyk, unlike you, when I disagree with someone I don't automatically assume they are like every stereotype of other people who share their views. Unlike you, I don't continue to hone in on irrelevant side notes to a big point I'm trying to make. But to throw you a bone, you're right, violence in protests seems to happen more often with left oriented protests than right oriented protests. Of course distilling the history of protest to that single data point is incredibly reductive. Also, it seems that murderous domestic terrorists are more likely to come from the right, but again, neither point really matters for the big picture here. So go ahead and continue feeling smug. I'll be here if you want to actually have a conversation with someone sympathetic to many conservative views that still believes critical thinking is a good thing.

Nevertheless, since chad is interested:

So you agree that non-fringe left-wing voices are defending violent action? I don't see that sort of thing from non-fringe right-wingers. I thought that part of what's come up in this thread is whether there's a distinction of this sort to be drawn between the two sides. In any case, that's the issue I"m interested in, and I don't see why this is a bad thread to discuss it in.

I mean, we're getting into semantics here. I agree that those editors, who are left wing, are defending violent action. As for "fringe?" It depends on how you define it. Just because they are at a major university does not make them mainstream. I would argue very few liberals would agree that sort of violence is ever justified, but it's still probably a minority with some level of representation. That said, I read plenty of right-wing individuals defending the federal building occupation mess in Oregon, for example, so if your point is this only happens on the left, I disagree and the evidence seems to support me.

Does it happen more often from the left? Maybe, but I don't think us linking articles at each other is going to answer that one. An actual study would be needed.

Edits for typos

[chad]

Right, I don't really care to figure out what 'fringe' means. Maybe a clearer question is whether the editors of this student paper are likely to go on to powerful positions in the media. And I think the answer is that they clearly are; the paper reports placing people at the NYT and other major news outlets on their website. So these folks are mainstream in the sense that they are in a position to affect the mainstream media in the near future, and to wield significant power.

Another observation worth making: I think that the UC Berkeley administration is a powerful and mainstream left-wing group of people. In tolerating this sort of thing at the school paper, they implicitly endorse it. So that's another example of powerful leftist endorsing violence (in this case implicitly).

So my takeaway is that a number of left-wing folks in positions of significant power are currently either implicitly or explicitly endorsing violence against political opponents. That's a problem.

You say you think it's a waste of time to provide examples of this on the right. If you'll indulge me, I don't think it's a waste of time. I'd be curious, since I am unaware of any example of such a violence-endorsing right-winger who has any power. I'm not talking about bloggers or random people on the internet, and I'm not talking about people who run fringe news sites. Can you give me someone who is likely to be employed by a major media outlet or who works in a powerful government position who advocates for violence on the right? Because I don't think you can, though I might be wrong.

[Lagom]

Right, I don't really care to figure out what 'fringe' means. Maybe a clearer question is whether the editors of this student paper are likely to go on to powerful positions in the media. And I think the answer is that they clearly are; the paper reports placing people at the NYT and other major news outlets on their website. So these folks are mainstream in the sense that they are in a position to affect the mainstream media in the near future, and to wield significant power.

Another observation worth making: I think that the UC Berkeley administration is a powerful and mainstream left-wing group of people. In tolerating this sort of thing at the school paper, they implicitly endorse it. So that's another example of powerful leftist endorsing violence (in this case implicitly).

So my takeaway is that a number of left-wing folks in positions of significant power are currently either implicitly or explicitly endorsing violence against political opponents. That's a problem.

You say you think it's a waste of time to provide examples of this on the right. If you'll indulge me, I don't think it's a waste of time. I'd be curious, since I am unaware of any example of such a violence-endorsing right-winger who has any power. I'm not talking about bloggers or random people on the internet, and I'm not talking about people who run fringe news sites. Can you give me someone who is likely to be employed by a major media outlet or who works in a powerful government position who advocates for violence on the right? Because I don't think you can, though I might be wrong.

OK, so I accept that the outcome you specify (those students going on to positions in major media outlets) is troubling, but I would think a history of questionable op-eds might hurt the prospects of an aspiring journalist, at least when it comes to the biggest players (NYT, CNN, etc. Obviously Fox News is out already).

Your second point is not something I can agree with. Stifling free speech (as in, you know, violently protesting Milo, as turdish as he may be) is not something to be done lightly. Berkeley did allow Milo to come on campus in the first place as well, and he has said things much worse than any of those student writers, so you really can't claim the administration is being overly biased here.

Your third point is assuming all of these students will end up in positions of power/influence, which is unsubstantiated. Show me evidence that a current NYT reporter wrote this sort of stuff as a student and I will take it more seriously.

Here is a very topical exmple of an nfluential right winger condoning violence: Milo Yiannopolous. He is very popular among a select (but not insignificant) subset of conservatives. Breitbart is fringe as far as I'm concerned, but it's a hell of a lot more popular than the Berkeley student newspaper. Sean Hannity and others on Fox News have regularly made approving comments of violence towards protesters (as opposed to by them), and they are even less fringe.

Finally, you are trying to compare a university student newspaper to major media outlets, which is silly. Give me some examples of professional left wing journalists explicitly defending violent actions if you want to make this claim. And it better be at least as many examples as I've given above. Worrying that some random students will eventually be there does not count. And when I say defending violent actions, I mean agreeing that they were a good decision. Lots of lefty journalists examine violence and reflect on the motivations behind it, but that is not the same as them saying "I'm glad those guys did what they did."

 

[chad]

I think that the authors of these pieces might (I hope!) be hurt by what they wrote. But I doubt very much that the editors who signed off on the pieces will be.

I'll withdraw the second point. I see that the newspaper is "independent", so presumably they don't really answer to the administration. It is annoying, however, that if similar right-wing extremism was coming out of that paper, the administration would probably make a statement condemning it. But I do withdraw my point, as I was wrongly assuming that the paper wasn't independent.

I do not say that all the students who run the Berkeley paper will end up in powerful positions. But some of them very likely will. And I think that this endorsement of violence is a new and stunning development, so there's no way to show that it's been going on for years or anything like that. This is new.

As for Milo Y., when has he condoned violence? I've never heard him do so, though I admit I don't follow him closely. Also, where has Breitbart advocated violence?

I would distinguish between advocating violence against political opponents because you hate them for their positions, on the one hand, and advocating violence against folks who burn cars and stores, block traffic, and break windows. I'm for the reasonable use of force against those people, as they're committing violent (or quasi-violent) crimes. I suspect that's the sort of thing that Hannity and the like call for. Even Trump at his rallies called only for violence against folks who wanted to physically assault him. That's different from calling for violence against the left for being on the left.

I have to go to bed now, but I'll post again tomorrow.

[Lagom]

Who on the left is calling for violence against the right just for being the right? Where are your examples of prominent, credible left-leaning journalists applauding/inciting violence? What evidence do you have that students at Berkeley who support violence will end up in powerful positions? You are just assuming they will but you have no facts to back up that assumption.

We already gave examples of Milo condoning violence in this thread (and he writes for Breitbart, so they are doing so by extension), he is low hanging fruit. He does so regularly while playing the victim card as a smoke and mirrors game. It's quite easy to verify and only his die-hard supporters refuse to acknowledge it.

Others (on Fox News, etc.) are professionals who (usually) know better than to straight up say they condone violence. I don't read their site but do watch it semi regularly, so all I can say is that I have seen plenty of times where they have brushed off, or even celebrated violence towards protestors (and no, not just those breaking windows, see below). They also 100% of the time defend the police in a shooting controversy before any evidence has come out at all on whether the shooting was justified. And their definition of "justified" (e.g. the kid had a criminal record or was running away) is pretty pathetic from people who claim to value human life. To them, all force is reasonable. But that's a topic for another thread. I mean, it's all just media spin and MSNBC does the same, of course. But there is no evidence I've seen that the left is unusually bad about this and you have so far provided nothing to make that case more compelling other than your suspicions, which are not based on a set of cohesive objective facts.

I don't have time to put together a list, but here is one time I remember Sean Hannity condoning violence, regarding the UC Davis pepper spray incident. It sounds like he's being reasonable until he concludes by asking "did [the police] cross the line?" before emphatically answering himself "I don't think so." I may go find more later, but this one seems pretty clear cut to me:

http://mediamatters.org/video/2011/11/28/hannity-thinks-pepper-spraying-of-uc-davis-prot/169711

[Metric Mouse]

Who on the left is calling for violence against the right just for being the right? Where are your examples of prominent, credible left-leaning journalists applauding/inciting violence? What evidence do you have that students at Berkeley who support violence will end up in powerful positions? You are just assuming they will but you have no facts to back up that assumption.

We already gave examples of Milo condoning violence in this thread (and he writes for Breitbart, so they are doing so by extension), he is low hanging fruit. He does so regularly while playing the victim card as a smoke and mirrors game. It's quite easy to verify and only his die-hard supporters refuse to acknowledge it.

Others (on Fox News, etc.) are professionals who (usually) know better than to straight up say they condone violence. I don't read their site but do watch it semi regularly, so all I can say is that I have seen plenty of times where they have brushed off, or even celebrated violence towards protestors (and no, not just those breaking windows, see below). They also 100% of the time defend the police in a shooting controversy before any evidence has come out at all on whether the shooting was justified. And their definition of "justified" (e.g. the kid had a criminal record or was running away) is pretty pathetic from people who claim to value human life. To them, all force is reasonable. But that's a topic for another thread. I mean, it's all just media spin and MSNBC does the same, of course. But there is no evidence I've seen that the left is unusually bad about this and you have so far provided nothing to make that case more compelling other than your suspicions, which are not based on a set of cohesive objective facts.

I don't have time to put together a list, but here is one time I remember Sean Hannity condoning violence, regarding the UC Davis pepper spray incident. It sounds like he's being reasonable until he concludes by asking "did [the police] cross the line?" before emphatically answering himself "I don't think so." I may go find more later, but this one seems pretty clear cut to me:

http://mediamatters.org/video/2011/11/28/hannity-thinks-pepper-spraying-of-uc-davis-prot/169711

I'm confused by your argument? Is it that the fringes of right are more violent or more troubling than the fringes of the left?

[chad]

Metric Mouse, his argument used to be that only the fringe (on both sides) supports violence. But I provided an example--the student newspaper at the most prestigious public university in the country--of non-fringe leftists defending violence. So now he's claiming that more than the fringe on both sides supports violence, while also claiming that the non-fringe violence supporters on the right are far more prominent and powerful (Hannity and others especially on Fox News, curse their name!) than the student newspaper editors I have linked.

My response: I'm not clear on the details of what happened in the Davis pepper spray case that Lagom links. The police said that they had been surrounded by protestors and were not being allowed to leave. And I'd like to know how the police should have removed these protestors, who were breaking the law, from the premises. I think that the answer is going to be that the police were lying about being surrounded, and that they should have left the protestors alone, allowing them to break the law as they please. I disagree. But whoever is right about this, it should be possible to agree that there's a difference between using force against people who are breaking the (reasonable) law and refusing to comply with police, on the one hand, and people who are just smashing up the windows and burning the cars of the innocent because they are mad at their political opponents. These are different cases, and the latter is far less defensible than the former.

As for Milo, Lagom said that he "called for his opponents to be doxxed" and he says that Milo's fans have been violent in various ways. But Lagom linked a piece that just calls him a racist over and over again, and provides no evidence of that he himself has "condoned violence" of the sort that is objectionable (i.e., violence against folks who are guilty of nothing more than political speech, or even against innocent, uninvolved parties).

[Malloy]

Metric Mouse, his argument used to be that only the fringe (on both sides) supports violence. But I provided an example--the student newspaper at the most prestigious public university in the country--of non-fringe leftists defending violence. So now he's claiming that more than the fringe on both sides supports violence, while also claiming that the non-fringe violence supporters on the right are far more prominent and powerful (Hannity and others especially on Fox News, curse their name!) than the student newspaper editors I have linked.

My response: I'm not clear on the details of what happened in the Davis pepper spray case that Lagom links. The police said that they had been surrounded by protestors and were not being allowed to leave. And I'd like to know how the police should have removed these protestors, who were breaking the law, from the premises. I think that the answer is going to be that the police were lying about being surrounded, and that they should have left the protestors alone, allowing them to break the law as they please. I disagree. But whoever is right about this, it should be possible to agree that there's a difference between using force against people who are breaking the (reasonable) law and refusing to comply with police, on the one hand, and people who are just smashing up the windows and burning the cars of the innocent because they are mad at their political opponents. These are different cases, and the latter is far less defensible than the former.

As for Milo, Lagom said that he "called for his opponents to be doxxed" and he says that Milo's fans have been violent in various ways. But Lagom linked a piece that just calls him a racist over and over again, and provides no evidence of that he himself has "condoned violence" of the sort that is objectionable (i.e., violence against folks who are guilty of nothing more than political speech, or even against innocent, uninvolved parties).

Ok-so since we all agree on violence being bad and that fringe elements of both parties are not representative of the whole, are we now in some kind of Olympics to show whose supporters are more mainstream and more violent?  To what end?  I suspect that the end is to make the argument that all protest, no matter how peaceful, is invalid.  It's how to make moderates jump ship by injecting fear into to the discussion. 

I personally don't think a college newspaper editor is particularly mainstream or a powerful representative of a political party, but I guess I am somewhat old school.  Then again, in Trump's America, various unqualified people with barely more than college newspaper-level expertise in politics are now in the inner circle of the president, so what do I know?

[chad]

No, the point not to argue that all protest is invalid. That's obviously an absurd view. Peaceful protests, as routinely happen on both sides, are perfectly acceptable. The point is to illustrate that violence is gaining legitimacy specifically on the left (and so far not the right), so it's important for people on the left who continue to oppose violence to be aware of this stunning change and to vocally oppose it.

[davisgang90]

We just didn't realize that #LoveTrumpsHate would involve so much arson and assault.

[Malloy]

No, the point not to argue that all protest is invalid. That's obviously an absurd view. Peaceful protests, as routinely happen on both sides, are perfectly acceptable. The point is to illustrate that violence is gaining legitimacy specifically on the left (and so far not the right), so it's important for people on the left who continue to oppose violence to be aware of this stunning change and to vocally oppose it.

I agree, just like we didn't realize that Republican politics would involve so much white nationalism, which is gaining legitimacy specially on the right and so far not the left.  Which is why it's important for people on the right who oppose white nationalism to be aware of this stunning change and to vocally oppose it. 

[Lagom]

I'm confused by your argument? Is it that the fringes of right are more violent or more troubling than the fringes of the left?

Nope. I explicitly stated that I don't think what the fringes do is particularly important in the grand scheme. People who want to make that argument very often seem to want to make the point that either the left or the right is objectively worse because of their fringe, and I think that's silly. Pointing out right wing extremists is simply a way for me to note that there are horrible people all along the political spectrum.

Metric Mouse, his argument used to be that only the fringe (on both sides) supports violence. But I provided an example--the student newspaper at the most prestigious public university in the country--of non-fringe leftists defending violence. So now he's claiming that more than the fringe on both sides supports violence, while also claiming that the non-fringe violence supporters on the right are far more prominent and powerful (Hannity and others especially on Fox News, curse their name!) than the student newspaper editors I have linked.

Nope. I think those people on Fox are fringe. Just because they are part of a major news organization does not change that. I have been very consistent in my view that only the fringe supports violence while you seem to want to assign all sorts of motives to me without evidence. Your mention of the Berkeley Newspaper is not a logical argument just like me claiming Sean Hannity represents all conservatives is not a logical argument, although my example certainly resides closer to the mainstream that yours, but as you say, he is also more careful with his words because he is a professional. I brought up Fox News not because I think the right is worse, but to illustrate how silly it is to use those sorts of examples. You are being willfully obtuse here.

For these examples on either end to not be fringe you would have to have evidence that a significant percentage of the left supports those views, just as I would have to do the same for the right.  There are several notorious right wing extremists in the White House itself right now, which is as mainstream as it can get, but you don't see me using that as evidence that the right is more extreme overall because I don't believe that it is.

I reject you trying to splice hairs in defending violence. The Davis clip shows students sitting on the ground while a cop calmly douses them in pepper spray. That is unequivocally horrible and I question your motives here if you want to start defending it. It doesn't matter that they are ostensibly breaking the law. The punishment must fit the crime and this is explicitly enshrined in our constitution. Do you nevertheless reject that premise?

As for Milo, you clearly have not actually tried to research him and I'm not going to waste much time doing it for you. Here are two articles that took 30 seconds for me to find. If you're tempted to excuse these away, spend another a few minutes looking for more, read them carefully, and then come back and tell me Milo doesn't foment hate, racism, misogyny and violence. And don't you dare try to tell me "well he didn't literally tell his followers to do that."

Milo protester gets shot by a supporter, then the grad student that helped organize the (demonstrably peaceful) protest (among others) is horribly harassed:

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/01/27/24830371/uw-professor-gets-doxxed-after-milo-yiannopoulos-protests

The hate-filled circumstances leading to Milo's completely justified banning from Twitter:

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12226070/milo-yiannopoulus-twitter-ban-explained

ETA - by the way because I'll admit this was not made clear, I do agree that the fringe left is more likely to celebrate destructive violence than the right. Whether they are more likely to support physical violence is far more debatable. Whether they are more likely to support white supremacism is not, but again none of this really matters because most Americans are not terrible people and I prefer not to spend time dwelling on the ones that are when there is more important work to be done.

[Lagom]

No, the point not to argue that all protest is invalid. That's obviously an absurd view. Peaceful protests, as routinely happen on both sides, are perfectly acceptable. The point is to illustrate that violence is gaining legitimacy specifically on the left (and so far not the right), so it's important for people on the left who continue to oppose violence to be aware of this stunning change and to vocally oppose it.

I agree, just like we didn't realize that Republican politics would involve so much white nationalism, which is gaining legitimacy specially on the right and so far not the left.  Which is why it's important for people on the right who oppose white nationalism to be aware of this stunning change and to vocally oppose it.

Exactly this. Thank you for so succinctly summarizing the absurdity I have been wasting far too many words trying to illustrate. Both sides have unsavory elements and it is disingenuous and unproductive to claim otherwise.

[Malloy]

No, the point not to argue that all protest is invalid. That's obviously an absurd view. Peaceful protests, as routinely happen on both sides, are perfectly acceptable. The point is to illustrate that violence is gaining legitimacy specifically on the left (and so far not the right), so it's important for people on the left who continue to oppose violence to be aware of this stunning change and to vocally oppose it.

I agree, just like we didn't realize that Republican politics would involve so much white nationalism, which is gaining legitimacy specially on the right and so far not the left.  Which is why it's important for people on the right who oppose white nationalism to be aware of this stunning change and to vocally oppose it.

Exactly this. Thank you for so succinctly summarizing the absurdity I have been wasting far too many words trying to illustrate. Both sides have unsavory elements and it is disingenuous and unproductive to claim otherwise.

Yup.  Both sides have bad actors, but only one side has elevated those bad actors to senior advisor positions in the White House.  That's why it's weird to me that people on the left have to somehow be responsible for Antifa protestors and college newspaper editorials while Republicans whistle past Bannon and Miller.

[Lagom]

Yup.  Both sides have bad actors, but only one side has elevated those bad actors to senior advisor positions in the White House.  That's why it's weird to me that people on the left have to somehow be responsible for Antifa protestors and college newspaper editorials while Republicans whistle past Bannon and Miller.

I mean I'm with you, but first we have to all agree that it's possible for the right to originate undesirable behaviors. So far it seems there is only agreement in this thread that the left does this.

[chad]

I agree, just like we didn't realize that Republican politics would involve so much white nationalism, which is gaining legitimacy specially on the right and so far not the left.  Which is why it's important for people on the right who oppose white nationalism to be aware of this stunning change and to vocally oppose it. 

Wait a second, which mainstream, non-fringe Republicans are for "white nationalism"? And what is "white nationalism" anyway? I realize that the left have been hyperventilating about this since he won, but I honestly don't even know what it means.

Here, how about I help a little. The emergence of Trump, with his authoritarian rhetoric, is a stunning and alarming development on the right, and conservatives do need to be aware of the change and vocally oppose it. And I am aware, and have vocally opposed it.

[chad]

Nope. I think those people on Fox are fringe. Just because they are part of a major news organization does not change that. I have been very consistent in my view that only the fringe supports violence while you seem to want to assign all sorts of motives to me without evidence. Your mention of the Berkeley Newspaper is not a logical argument just like me claiming Sean Hannity represents all conservatives is not a logical argument, although my example certainly resides closer to the mainstream that yours, but as you say, he is also more careful with his words because he is a professional. I brought up Fox News not because I think the right is worse, but to illustrate how silly it is to use those sorts of examples. You are being willfully obtuse here.

Fox has mainstream journalists with millions of viewers, and in that sense it is not fringe. Fox reporters also have not supported violence in the way these Berkeley student reporters have.

I don't see that I've assigned any motives to you at all. You think that the student newspaper at the most prestigious public university in America is a fringe publication. I think it is not fringe, but that it's a mainstream source with important professional connections to even more widely respected media.

Obviously I don't think that the idiots who wrote and published these editorials represent all leftists. Where did I say such a thing? I've said that I'm trying to get you guys on the left who still have a sensible view to see that a specific problem is emerging on your side.

I didn't say that he was more careful with his words. You did. I didn't say that; rather, I said that the example he was addressing was relevantly different than the violence at the Milo event at UCB.

Pretty rich that you're calling me obtuse when you aren't reading what I wrote. Where we disagree at this point is that you think that the UCB newspaper is the equivalent of a right-wing self-published paper by some KKK members. I don't think that. I think the UCB paper is an important media outlet, as I have explained. If I'm right, then it's a good piece of evidence that a problem is emerging on the left. That's the issue I'm trying to address.

As I said in my last post, there are problems about the rhetoric coming from Trump. That is an emerging problem on the right, and deserves attention from those of us on the right. I'm trying to argue that a problem is also emerging specifically on the left--a problem about a sudden sympathy for violent political resistance.

Feel free to disagree with me, but stop acting like I am not on topic, or that I'm offering irrelevant evidence, or something like that. And try reading what I wrote.

As for the pepper spray incident, does it matter if the police were being surrounded by protesters and not allowed to leave? And how should they have removed the law-breaking protesters from the premises? (Note that I already asked this above.) Maybe you're right that this was a case of political violence. I am not convinced.

You have not provided any example of Milo doxxing or calling for violence, and I haven't been able to find any on my own, either. Some of his fans have behaved that way. I haven't denied that he has said a lot of hurtful things to lots of people. That's not the same as doxxing people or calling for violence, and I don't blame people for the actions of their fans.

Edit added: Also, I read that the cop who sprayed those folks had his career ended. Nobody has paid any price for the violence in UCB, and there has been no outcry against the UCB student paper as far as I can tell. That's obviously an important difference, insofar as I would not have any problem if there was a condemnation of the UCB editors for publishing that crap.

[bacchi]

I agree, just like we didn't realize that Republican politics would involve so much white nationalism, which is gaining legitimacy specially on the right and so far not the left.  Which is why it's important for people on the right who oppose white nationalism to be aware of this stunning change and to vocally oppose it. 

Wait a second, which mainstream, non-fringe Republicans are for "white nationalism"?

Is Bannon considered mainstream now?

And what is "white nationalism" anyway? I realize that the left have been hyperventilating about this since he won, but I honestly don't even know what it means.

Not sure if joking...

[chad]

Not joking. Maybe white nationalism is the view that there's a white sub-culture in America, that this sub-culture is superior to all others, and that the government should favor this sub-culture in its policies. Is that right? What evidence is there that Bannon believes any of these things? We have a guy in the WH who has literally said he wants to use government power to persecute the washington post. There's plenty of reason to be upset about these guys without making stuff up.

[Gin1984]

No, the point not to argue that all protest is invalid. That's obviously an absurd view. Peaceful protests, as routinely happen on both sides, are perfectly acceptable. The point is to illustrate that violence is gaining legitimacy specifically on the left (and so far not the right), so it's important for people on the left who continue to oppose violence to be aware of this stunning change and to vocally oppose it.

LOL, you have to be kidding me right?  Look in the past 10 years, or how about the last 50 or hell a 100.  Women were assaulted for wanting to vote.  African Americans, the same.  Civil rights activists, again assaulted.  LGBT, assaulted.  There is a history on the right of violence.  That some have decided to fight back is called self-defense.

[chad]

How absurd. I'm obviously not talking about 50 years ago. I'm talking about today.

[Gin1984]

How absurd. I'm obviously not talking about 50 years ago. I'm talking about today.

You may want to work on your reading ability. The violence from the right is here today as it has been for the last 10, 50, 100 years.  This is a constant. 

[Kris]

Not joking. Maybe white nationalism is the view that there's a white sub-culture in America, that this sub-culture is superior to all others, and that the government should favor this sub-culture in its policies. Is that right? What evidence is there that Bannon believes any of these things? We have a guy in the WH who has literally said he wants to use government power to persecute the washington post. There's plenty of reason to be upset about these guys without making stuff up.

Honestly, one would think there was no way of finding this out.

Look, it's easy to find information about what white nationalism is. Here's one source to get you started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism

And as for evidence that Bannon believes any of these things? Here's an article from The Independent. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/steve-bannon-white-house-white-nationalist-colleagues-books-donald-trump-chief-strategy-nsc-a7567336.html

Of course, Bannon has recently denied he is a white nationalist. But he has proudly said that Breitbart, which he used to head, was "a platform for the alt-right." 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/24/whats-the-alt-right-a-primer/?utm_term=.857120937676

[ariapluscat]

Right, I don't really care to figure out what 'fringe' means. Maybe a clearer question is whether the editors of this student paper are likely to go on to powerful positions in the media. And I think the answer is that they clearly are; the paper reports placing people at the NYT and other major news outlets on their website. So these folks are mainstream in the sense that they are in a position to affect the mainstream media in the near future, and to wield significant power.

Another observation worth making: I think that the UC Berkeley administration is a powerful and mainstream left-wing group of people. In tolerating this sort of thing at the school paper, they implicitly endorse it. So that's another example of powerful leftist endorsing violence (in this case implicitly).

So my takeaway is that a number of left-wing folks in positions of significant power are currently either implicitly or explicitly endorsing violence against political opponents. That's a problem.

You say you think it's a waste of time to provide examples of this on the right. If you'll indulge me, I don't think it's a waste of time. I'd be curious, since I am unaware of any example of such a violence-endorsing right-winger who has any power. I'm not talking about bloggers or random people on the internet, and I'm not talking about people who run fringe news sites. Can you give me someone who is likely to be employed by a major media outlet or who works in a powerful government position who advocates for violence on the right? Because I don't think you can, though I might be wrong.

does no one remember that time candidate trump suggested that the 2nd amendment people could take care of hillary clinton? or when he said he wished he could punch peaceful protestors in the face? or had his security remove black people who actually did support him? or when he said that in the good old days protestors were handled roughly and we should go back to that? like injuring them to the point they'd need a stretcher? or when he wouldn't disavow a known kkklansman?

┐(￣～￣)┌ we just... we just don't know of any mainstream conservatives/republicans who support or incite violence... it's just... where could that have happened? /sarcasm

[Malloy]

Some more info on Steve Bannon's ties to white nationalism.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/15/13625168/steve-bannon-explained

Also this GOP official said protestors should get shot a la Kent State.  He resigned, so that's something:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/michigan-gop-another-kent-state_us_589f47fce4b03df370d6c66a

But I do have to make a confession.  I looked within myself to ask if I was becoming tolerant of violence from the left, and I found an uncomfortable answer: I freaking love watching Neo-Nazi Richard Spencer getting punched set to music. So maybe Chad has a point.  Do you guys have a favorite remix of the video?  I am partial to the Gangnam Style one.

[trollwithamustache]

There are so many straw man arguments in this thread someone really needs to put up a NO SMOKING sign!

[Lagom]

Sorry chad, but my belief in your "good faith" has been severely eroded. I read what you wrote and your rabid fixation on tiny irrelevant details to ignore the larger points is as predictable as it is ineffective. Meanwhile you ignored what I wrote and I am not at all shocked you went to the "don't blame the man for his fans" defense (Indeed, Charles Manson shouldn't have been convicted either, right? ), while at the same time trying to paint an "emerging problem" in the left based on what some kids wrote in a university newspaper.

Everyone on the left in this thread has acknowledged that there is a fringe element to the left that condones violence. You have consistently refused to do the same for the right using the extremely weak reasoning that because no one on the right at such a prestigious and influential media outlet as the Berkeley student newspaper has supported violence in the one very specific way that you consider to be actually bad. Never mind that you are wrong even there, but even if you weren't that is some D+ level logical reasoning. Oh, but I forgot, these Berkeley kids are absolutely guaranteed to end up in major media outlets and say the same things once they are there. Never mind that you can't provide a single example of this ever actually happening. You define disingenuous. The worst part is that your takeaway from this post is going to be that I'm a close-minded lefty that can't see the truth in front of him. You can disagree with me if you want, but I don't really care any more. No point in me continuing to spit into the wind.

There are so many straw man arguments in this thread someone really needs to put up a NO SMOKING sign!

This is certainly true. This entire "argument" is a farce and has sufficiently distracted us all from issues that are actually important.

[prognastat]

To start I am left leaning to start. If it were up to me we would have a single payer system, free education all the way through college and serious regulations on pricing for both medical goods and services plus tuition and education costs. For a large portion of my life and even still currently I have concerns with plenty right wing people and beliefs.

However, it is only recently that I have started having some serious concerns about the left too. Though the violence itself is concerning it is true that these are generally Black Bloc/AntiFa/Anarchists not necessarily the peaceful protesters(though at the same time they are left and not plants), however what concerns me more is a tolerance of violence by a larger portion of the left. I see this in both the media with articles/opinion pieces either reveling in it or unwilling to denounce the violence perpetrated at such protests or things such as the punching of Richard Spencer(who does have abhorrent views, it's sad that I even have to specify this), but I also see it in my social media feeds including many of my friends, many of which are not fringe left, who have lost some serious respect in my eyes by actually being gleeful about political violence, something I find unacceptable no matter how abhorrent someone's views are.

Instead of these actions being called out for what they are and admonished, excuses are made or those perpetrating these actions are praised. They are Nazis, so they deserve it. They have horrible views, so they deserve it. They are advocating hate, so they deserve it. Etc Etc.

Then there is the slippery slope with people that say well punching Nazis/Fascists is ok. However then suddenly Milo Yiannopolous, a gay jew, has become a White Supremacist/Nazi according to many of the same people. Then Trump is a Nazi/Hitler. And so the scale slides until it is ok to enact violence on anyone that doesn't completely agree with you. And again I don't agree with the politics of many of these people Milo is a provocateur and says outrageous things to get attention, but has also denounced white nationalism and supremacism. I disagree with much of what Trump says and would not vote for him, however he is not a Nazi, not Hitler nor a White Supremacist/Nationalist, nor are the vast majority of people that did vote for him.

Another concern is also the much more mainstream activities in trying to shut down there peoples speech through things such as banning speakers at universities/colleges or even getting someone fired by either threatening to boycott or protest their place of employment. Though your free speech is only protected from the government, I feel this right has a far larger importance and should be held up even when under pressure from both companies, institutions and individuals.

The only time violence is permitted is when violence has either occurred or when it is about to occur(and not in the letting currently non-violent "Nazis" talk in any form will lead to potential violence in some nebulous future). Doing so in any other context only delegitimizes your beliefs and turns your victims in to martyrs.

Links:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/uc-berkeley-protest-raises-questions-around-use-violence/
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Anti-Milo-organizer-Window-smashing-Cal-protest-10915758.php
http://venturebeat.com/2017/02/02/punch-a-nazi-is-a-game-that-lets-you-wail-on-richard-spencer-milo-yiannopoulos-and-adolf-hitler/
http://kotaku.com/nazi-gets-punched-in-the-face-internet-celebrates-1791469552
https://mic.com/articles/168316/nazi-punching-video-games-wolfenstein-3d-pepes-punchout-thanks-to-richard-spencer#.ESbCViAq1
http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/27/neo-nazi-richard-spencer-got-punched-in-the-face-again-6409291/
http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/04/this-game-allows-you-to-punch-white-supremacist-richard-spencer-over-and-over-again-6427467/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/richard-spencer-punched-face-inauguration_us_588374a1e4b070d8cad2b1f0
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/nazis-punched-in-face-fash-bash-richard-spencer-a7571796.html
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2017/02/06/richard-spencer-patriots-super-bowl/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html?_r=1
https://thump.vice.com/en_us/article/richard-spencer-punch-sandstorm-alt-right

Not all of these may be mainstream media, but many are websites/blogs with substantial viewership among young left leaning people. Not only do many of them not decry this behavior to any degree while some revel in it, but you may want to check the comments for constant celebration of political violence.

Or even right here in this chat you can see Wexler admitting that he loves watching this political violence and takes amusement out of it.

[prognastat]

Not to say that I believe many of these people would be pro free speech if it wasn't theirs being stifled, but instead those they oppose. However, I will support it on either side and unfortunately currently a lot of it seems to be coming from the left which saddens me.

It just shows people only care for political expediency. For most when they are the suppressed minority they tout free speech and admonish those wishing to quell it, but when the roles are reversed suddenly these strongly held beliefs disappear.

Just a few decades ago it was the religious right that had the most control over politics and media advocating for censorship and it was the left attempting to fight for their free speech. Now the pendulum has swung and it is extreme progressives, communists and left-wing anarchists attempting to censor those they don't agree with while being many average left leaning people either look the other way or advocate this behavior.

It is mostly depressing to see so few people actually have any kind of real principles. A lighter form of this can be seen in how suddenly because everything Trump does is evil you have people fighting against causes they were celebrating until right before Trump took those positions and many on the right have hypocritically supported positions or made excuses for behaviors that Trump and other politicians have engaged in because it happens to be their team. It seems no matter what we try as human beings we can't shake of tribalism.

[chad]

I don't think you're closed-minded, Lagom. You're just kind of mean, and you're not fun to talk to. So I agree, let's stop.

[Kris]

What I find particularly frightening is when calls for violence or sanctioning violence comes from those in power. Someone mentioned Trump's calling for people to do physical harm to protesters, above. And then, there's the recent move in Republican-controlled legislatures in North Dakota and Tennessee to pass laws saying it's legal to hit protesters with your car.

Now, I'm absolutely sure that someone's finger is poised on the reply button to assert that these bills are to protect the poor drivers from inadvertently hitting protesters who are breaking the law!!!

Sigh. I'd believe that, too. If I hadn't seen the numbers of internet memes on conservative FB sites that literally advocate mowing down protesters on purpose. And the gleeful, horrific comments that those memes generate. I have never seen a conservative comment, "Uh, hey guys, that's not right. We shouldn't be advocating violence, even if a protester is blocking a road." What I see instead is people actually saying that they deserve to be hit and killed. To think that laws like this won't encourage that kind of irresponsible, reprehensible thinking is just... inconceivable to me. I'm not shocked by much anymore, but this sure as hell shocks me.

[Kris]

Not to say that I believe many of these people would be pro free speech if it wasn't theirs being stifled, but instead those they oppose. However, I will support it on either side and unfortunately currently a lot of it seems to be coming from the left which saddens me.

It just shows people only care for political expediency. For most when they are the suppressed minority they tout free speech and admonish those wishing to quell it, but when the roles are reversed suddenly these strongly held beliefs disappear.

Just a few decades ago it was the religious right that had the most control over politics and media advocating for censorship and it was the left attempting to fight for their free speech. Now the pendulum has swung and it is extreme progressives, communists and left-wing anarchists attempting to censor those they don't agree with while being many average left leaning people either look the other way or advocate this behavior.

It is mostly depressing to see so few people actually have any kind of real principles. A lighter form of this can be seen in how suddenly because everything Trump does is evil you have people fighting against causes they were celebrating until right before Trump took those positions and many on the right have hypocritically supported positions or made excuses for behaviors that Trump and other politicians have engaged in because it happens to be their team. It seems no matter what we try as human beings we can't shake of tribalism.

Not disputing this, but can you give a few examples?

[Lagom]

@chad, I'm sorry if I came across as mean. I know I can be dismissive/rude to people who are dismissive/evasive to me, and I'm working on it. I don't think you are a bad person or that you hate all of the left. I just think you are so convinced of the moral superiority of the right that you can't avoid seeing things through that lens.

I think all humans are flawed, but most are generally good. Fixating on one specific way one specific segment of the population appears to be misbehaving is intentionally missing the forest to wag your finger at an individual tree. I think there are horrible liberals and awful conservatives out there, and I condemn them all equally. But arguing on and on about which is worse is pointless when there are much bigger fish to fry.