Then it's a good thing I said fascist tactic. Wanting to force your view onto the world though force is fascist though.
I'm pretty sure the definition of fascism extends well beyond wanting to silence one particular viewpoint, i.e. a fascist one. Here is one of the more often relied upon lists of characteristics of fascism:
http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm
Summary:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3.Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections
Whatever definition you rely on, I'm pretty sure that fascism means a lot more than wanting to silence one viewpoint. You might say that the person doing the punching has a thing or two in common with the person he is punching, but equating the two the way you're doing is problematic.
Then it's a good thing I said fascist tactic. Wanting to force your view onto the world though force is fascist though.
Then it's a good thing I said fascist tactic. Wanting to force your view onto the world though force is fascist though.
hah! we are nazis for accepting the truth of nazis, and preventing them from assembling! remind me where I suggested that we send them off to gas chambers, first.
but whatever you do, your constant attempt to defend the indefensible goes laughably noticed.
Realibrad Defender of nazis. His great grandparents would be proud.
@realibrad would you be okay with a local ISIS chapter gathering in public to spread the good word of their movement? They aren't criminals until they actually commit an act of terrorism so it should be okay right? We should protect their freedom of speech and right to assembly despite their beliefs in using violence as a means to get their desired outcome of death to infidels.
The radical left is convinced that anyone not marching in lockstep with them IS Hitler, so anything they do is acceptable.I'm not sure which side you are trying to argue with this response. Hitler used violence to stop speech he didn't like.
Sadly, you see it as defending Nazis when the reality is I'm defending liberalism. Somehow the left forgot what it means to be in the left. Not you though, you are just stupid.
^ Says a prick I've witnessed here *MAKE UP* sob story excuses for people who declare themselves ISIS and eager to "kill a buncha folks." Jews especially.
"Nazi Fighters." LOL. Whatever, pussy leftists. Half you pricks are perfectly fine with fascist, genocidal maniacs and making up excuses for why it's everyone else's fault they've taken up a violent, hateful ideology, it's just the flags, symbols, made up sob stories, nationalities etc are different. Now quick, back to fighting make believe nazis hiding under your beds.
The radical left is convinced that anyone not marching in lockstep with them IS Hitler, so anything they do is acceptable.
^ Says a prick I've witnessed here *MAKE UP* sob story excuses for people who declare themselves ISIS and eager to "kill a buncha folks." Jews especially.
"Nazi Fighters." LOL. Whatever, pussy leftists. Half you pricks are perfectly fine with fascist, genocidal maniacs and making up excuses for why it's everyone else's fault they've taken up a violent, hateful ideology, it's just the flags, symbols, made up sob stories, nationalities etc are different. Now quick, back to fighting make believe nazis hiding under your beds.
The radical left is convinced that anyone not marching in lockstep with them IS Hitler, so anything they do is acceptable.
You have been worked over in this thread. You arent defending shit. You made up a lot of positions that everyone else has and selecta-quoted some shit.
Polling experts are raising red flags about a new survey that concluded that nearly 20% of American college students believe it’s appropriate to use violence to silence offensive speech.
The eye-popping results of the survey have been widely cited in conservative media outlets, including by the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, and were written up by an opinion columnist for the Washington Post.
The way the survey results have been presented are “malpractice” and “junk science” and “it should never have appeared in the press”, according to Cliff Zukin, a past president of the American Association of Public Opinion Polling, which sets ethical and transparency standards for polling.
John Villasenor, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of California Los Angeles, defended his survey as an important window into what he had called a troubling atmosphere on American campuses in which “freedom of expression is deeply imperiled”. Villasenor, a cybersecurity expert, said this was the first public opinion survey he had conducted.
However, his survey was not administered to a randomly selected group of college students nationwide, what statisticians call a “probability sample”. Instead, it was administered to an opt-in online panel of people who self-identified as current college students.
“If it’s not a probability sample, it’s not a sample of anyone, it’s just 1500 college students who happen to respond,” Zukin said, calling it “junk science”.
“It’s an interesting piece of data,” Michael Traugott, a polling expert at the University of Michigan’s Center for Political Studies, said. “Whether it represents the proportion of all college students who believe this is unknown.”
Villesenor said his survey had been inspired by the “increasing trend towards censorship on college campuses in recent years”, which included both outright censorship and “self-censorship”.
Like many other academics, Villasenor has remained concerned that university campuses are not sufficiently open to “reasonable perspectives”.
He secured funding from the conservative Charles Koch Foundation to survey students this August about their views on free speech. Rather than write an academic paper, he posted some of his results online this week, arguing that given “the timeliness of the topic, I believe it is important to get some of the key results out into the public sphere immediately”.
“A surprisingly large fraction of students believe it is acceptable to act – including resorting to violence – to shut down expression they consider offensive,” he wrote. His survey also found that college students had deep misunderstandings about the scope of the first amendment’s free speech protections
...
I don't believe in using force until there is no other reasonable option. I do not think we are at that point yet, so I cant back going around taking justice into my own hands. We have a society built around rules and logic and we should continue with that. Nazis have a proven track record of failure. Racism has a proven track record of failure. If people do not understand this, then punching will not solve anything as others will fill the void.
Think you're in the wrong thread sir.
Sadly, you see it as defending Nazis when the reality is I'm defending liberalism. Somehow the left forgot what it means to be in the left. Not you though, you are just stupid.
'Junk science': experts cast doubt on widely cited college free speech surve
Funded by the Kochs and not randomly sampled. So not randomly sampled, and answers given online by those who opted-in. No easy routes to abuse there.... More US right-wing propaganda for the drones.
^going by the number of posts you have made in this thread, you're the idiot that got duped.
Shocker: the right-wing's overseers are continuing an agenda of equivocation to pretend that the threat is really the left, not the neo-Nazis enabled by Trump's policies.
It's hilarious how the right screams "free speeeeeeech," but at the same time tries to exaggerate the threat from the left with a not-so-subtle hint that it would really, really like to silence all left-wing protest.