^^That is what I want proof of. You claim that SJW racism is worse in quantity that far-right racism. Since you made the claim, the onus is on you to support it with evidence. And I would expect the same kind of high-quality evidence that you demand of others, not just some YouTube videos. Give me some reliable stats.
OK. I'm putting together a spreadsheet with all the incidents from 2016-2017 that I can find. It's going to be hard for one person to do alone but the weaponized autism of the combined internet can hopefully help me, so I've opened anonymous comments. I don't know what quantity of incidents it will take to convince you, but hopefully once I've got several hundred you'll concede that at least SOME violence has happened. Your failure to even present five incidents of premeditated, deliberate violence is obviously not proof to you that you're wrong about the extent of right wing violence, though, so I won't hold my breath.
You can see my progress here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HraLWe4H-Vaq97NCjR0hu18-u5RykRVg5PsUKo6JE2I/edit#gid=0
So the actions of far-right SJWs are justifiable, while the actions of left-wing ones are pure evil. Got it.
Sometimes the right's actions are justifiable, sometimes they're not. However, since you've failed to provide evidence of even five premeditated attacks by the far right, I'm not going to say that the far right's violence is at epidemic proportions.
Did I say that though? The reason why I dismiss your sources is that they do not support your claim that there is more left-wing SJW racism than far-right racism, and that the latter isn't a real problem
You dismissed them as "just youtube videos", even though some of those videos were OF ACTUAL VIOLENCE. Like, do I need to link to a news agency's website to show you a violent act occurring before you will believe it occurred? And I've seen many members of the forum dismiss Brietbart and other sources as "far right", so, if you could give me a list of publications you will accept an incident of violence from, that would be great.
Whataboutery is a logical fallacy. We are discussing smear tactics used by SJWs to silence opposition.
are discussing smear tactics, but I'm
trying to discuss how to end the riots and violence happening on the street and to get the people justifying that violence to stop doing that, because I don't give a fuck about people calling other people names as long as no one is hurting anyone over the name calling.
You asked me to name right-wing SJWs who use similar smear tactics to silence those who they don't agree with.
I had to scroll up to check; you're right. Sorry about that. I didn't notice that the conversation had been redirected from my original point:
I want to see an end to bomb threats being called into peaceful gatherings, police being shot, buildings being lit on fire, smoke bombs, and brawls on the street. I want an end to public character assassinations and crimes against ideological opponents.
So if we could get back to the topic of physical violence, that would be great.
If it was violent crime that you wanted to discuss, you should have said so and I would have brought better examples of far-right crime.
Sorry that wasn't clear to you. I do want to discuss violent crime and the people who are running ideological interference to justfiy acts of violence against people who are not committing acts of violence against you.
And I love how you water down dehumanising an entire group of people as scheming liars to merely "disagreeing" with them".
Everyone does it to everyone else anyway. And as I said,
I don't care if someone doesn't trust me as long as they don't then try to stab me.
I know what you are
, so make up your mind. Either racism against ethnic minorities isn't really an issue, or it is and you have experienced it first-hand. But stop contradicting yourself on the topic.
It exists, but it's not an issue as long as no physical violence results from it. Do you understand the difference between someone having an opinion you don't like and someone trying to physically assault you/kill you? Like literally do you understand the concept that I am trying to convey when I discuss the difference in scale between someone saying "if you see someone who thinks X, you should commit assault against them" and someone saying "I think X"? Do you understand the difference between someone having an opinion and someone trying to break someone's bones, destroy or otherwise deprive them of their property, kill them, or put them in danger of serious bodily harm? I'm asking this sincerely. I need to know if you can make the distinction. If you can't, then the conversation is over because there is no way to reach a reach a mutually agreeable solution and I'll probably download my comments and delete my account.
Plenty of us get drunk and do not go around hurling racist abuse at others. Alcohol lowers your inhibition, it doesn't mean that you are no longer responsible for your actions. You would have to be a racist to abuse random strangers like that, with or without alcohol.
However, neither of the two incidents you linked was of a premeditated assault where the party had knowingly decided to take a weapon and go to a place where a person or people they disliked was and cause them serious bodily harm, nor did the incidents involve an individual attempting to create a rational case for why such an assault is morally justifiable on the basis of the other person's perceived identity or beliefs. Which is what all my examples did show. Again, do you understand the concept I'm trying to convey about the difference in scale?
You asked for evidence of right-wing racist attacks (which is usually against ethnic minorities), as you believe that it's not a real issue. I provide you with examples and you attempt to defend almost all of them with "ah well, they were drunk". Are you for real?
I said two were drunk. The other two I said you didn't provide any evidence that they were right wing. Good job trying to obfuscate that.
Name one? Sure. Didn't Donald Trump say that he supported placing more people in Guantanamo Bay and that he supported torturing people who are put in those facilities "because they deserve it"?
After a few minutes of google searching, which is longer than I thought it would take to find an original source instead of speculative arguing three times removed from his own comments, I didn't find a direct source saying he wanted to send more people there. What I did find is an alleged leaked draft of an executive order to send ISIS fighters there. However, the latest of those articles is from February 9th. So it looks like if the executive order was being drafted, he has changed his mind and shelved the project, perhaps after having his advisers consult him and say that it was a bad idea. His comments that "they deserve it" come from a 2015 rally. Additionally, according to this article
, Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor and former Bush Justice Department official, “I am confident that the report that Trump gets from his top intelligence officials will advise him that a return to the bad old days [of torture] is not legally available,” adding that “I am also confident that if President Trump ordered waterboarding, neither the CIA Director nor the Secretary of Defense would carry out the order.” Tl;dr: he has expressed an opinion; this opinion, however, has not caused physical harm to anyone and it is unlikely to do so in the future..
Now, why exactly should I be buddies with such people in the name of tolerance? They are free to express their support for taking human rights away from others and I am free to criticise them for it.
I don't care if you hate him. I care if you incite or participate in violence. Similarly, I don't like him. However the facts are that he hasn't sent more people to Gitmo and is not authorizing torture. If torture was happening, I would protest and write my congressmen to complain. However, since I have no evidence that it is, Trump's personal feelings on the matter are not a priority to me.
The student was in the room at the time and had to watch as Milo mocked and bullied her while his supporters jeered.
My point is that he is no victim when others label him as a transphobe.
You're right. He's not. I labeled him a transphobe in this very thread. He IS a victim when people bring improvised explosives to his events, set fire to the building he is in, or physically assault him and his supporters. All of which have happened.
It doesn't make them "SJWs" or whatever it is you like to label left-wingers who you don't agree with. It's calling a spade a spade.
How is calling them a warrior for their personal sense of what constitutes justice in the social sphere, such as Milo not being allowed to voice his personal opinions without credible fear of assault, not calling a spade a spade?
Well, you appear to be advocating that those of us who you call SJWs (a term I would take with a grain of salt after seeing your list of offenders) should start being nice to them. I simply wanted to know why.
No, I'm advocating that you open a dialogue. I don't care that you hate them, I care that there's violence happening.
What exactly are you asking? Who gets called those names or who does the name-calling?
Who is violence being inflected by and upon?
So in your view, SJWs can only be left-wing while right-wingers with worse behaviour than those on your list with regards to silencing others are not?
What actions are they taking to silence their cirtics?
And I didn't ask who you would physically assault, I was pointing out that it is very hypocritical to call out left-wing SJWs for labelling people who oppose them as racist, sexist, homophobic and so forth, while simultaneously doing a similar thing when you labelled all of those people on the list you posted earlier on this thread as SJWs because they are liberals who you don't agree with.
Most of the people I listed have self-identified as an SJW (or at the very least as victims of anti-SJWs, which would make them SJWs using the simple logic of "if a = b, b = a") anyway, so it's not just me imposing a label.
Do you even know what a strawman is?
I don't care what you believe, I care that you are suggesting that we shouldn't be able to criticise those beliefs.
I never said that I don't want you to criticize them. I want you (collectively, as the far left, not you as individual) to stop the physical assault. I don't care if you still say "I hate this person and I think their opinions are wrong", but I don't want you to say "violence against this person is justified because he has opinions I don't like, so if you see him walking down the street, you should assault him", saying that you do not disagree with the people who are saying that about their having said that, or participating in actually assaulting people. Again, I really need to know whether or not you understand the difference.