Back at Revleft as the far lefts major forum they had anarchist admins, so it does happen.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How to deal with Leftist Anarchists
- Thread starter Adramelek
- Start date
Back at Revleft as the far lefts major forum they had anarchist admins, so it does happen.
What would prevent an anarchist from moderating? It's a consensual space
Some people may say it conflicts with anarchist principles, but thats often based on misunderstanding anarchist socities as having no rules. I think I'm right in saying that for anarchists its about how the rules are enforced and whether its coercive or not?
Broadly, yeah! And where rules come from.
Augustus
…
Pretty sure the police are capable of dealing with a few middle class students smashing windows. Just arrest the perpetrators and charge them as per the law.
It's hardly the LA riots...
The ironic thing is that he's not really part of the 'alt-right', he's just a professional troll who would be completely inconsequential were it not for the people who hate him. They alone have given him a lucrative career.
If nobody had ever got angry at him, then none of us here would ever have heard of him.
These protests probably made him $1million. The protesters are the ones giving him money.
They are really, really stupid.
As a Leftist, I don't know the social protocol for replying to this so I'm just going to leave this video of kittens hugging and hopes it restore your faith in humanity with warm, happy feelings.
I mean you're an LHP being outraged at anarchists for property damage and want the government use military force to restore law and order.
you need to get a hold of yourself or else you'll start singing "coom by ah" and worshipping jesus. I wouldn't want that to happen to you as that would be serious. The world is scary enough without the LHPs going to the dark side.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Most of what has been reported have been peaceful Demonstrations. With an almost insignificant number of people taking advantage of the situation to create carnage.
This criminal element is present and taking advantage at all demonstrations, of almost any sort. anywhere in the world. Some are extremists who support the call for the demonstration. But by nature are violent and with out control.
Others are subversives, who are in opposition to the cause but are there to discredit the demonstrators.
Others still, are Normal demonstrators pushed over the edge and are reacting to the violence against themselves. either by the authorities or counter demonstrators.
A Fourth group are Criminal taking advantage of such situations to loot and steal. and score points against their enemies.
I have never heard of a demonstration that is violent at the start, or becomes so with out provocation.
It is very easy to provoke any large group to violence.
The present demonstrations are against Trump and his irrational decrees.
This criminal element is present and taking advantage at all demonstrations, of almost any sort. anywhere in the world. Some are extremists who support the call for the demonstration. But by nature are violent and with out control.
Others are subversives, who are in opposition to the cause but are there to discredit the demonstrators.
Others still, are Normal demonstrators pushed over the edge and are reacting to the violence against themselves. either by the authorities or counter demonstrators.
A Fourth group are Criminal taking advantage of such situations to loot and steal. and score points against their enemies.
I have never heard of a demonstration that is violent at the start, or becomes so with out provocation.
It is very easy to provoke any large group to violence.
The present demonstrations are against Trump and his irrational decrees.
tytlyf
Not Religious
The protesters aren't the ones who give him money. Whoever gives him money are the problem.
It's hypocritical of the Berkeley protesters to suggest that another group cannot have a forum while they force their platform.
Again, I don't agree with the alt right but if the only thing they're doing is talking then they have right to. I for one won't listen to them.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
I don't think the protesters are necessarily saying that the group cannot have a forum for expressing their hateful views, but rather that a public institution supported by their tax dollars and tuitions should not be providing the resources to offer this group that forum for their hateful ideas. Again, I don't agree with the protester's opinion, but I 100% agree with their right to express it.
You're really saying that the protests were resisting the normalization of free speech.
Nope, don't misrepresent me! They're resisting the normalisation of alt-right rhetoric. Limits on the public platforms provided to those preaching ideas that are very obviously damaging are perfectly reasonable.
What you're referring to concerning rhetoric and preaching is still considered speech.
Yeah, but it's mischaracterising what I'm saying to say it's about free speech as some totality. There are quite rightly restrictions on speakers who incite hatred, prejudice and violence. That is not a violation of the ideal of free speech, it's a sensible addendum.
Probing Question: Are there limits to freedom of speech? | Penn State University
"Many people are mistaken in their belief that offensive speech or hate speech is not protected," says Richards. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the notion that unpopular speech enjoys full First Amendment protection. As the late Justice William Brennan put it, in a case involving flag burning, 'If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.'"
With the following exceptions:
"The categories of speech that fall outside of its protection are obscenity, child pornography, defamation, incitement to violence and true threats of violence,"
I would have to say without hearing the speech, I can't categorize it in those exceptions. A catch 22...
I don't live in the USA, and restrictions are likely different between jurisdictions, but I would put alt-right rhetoric within 'incitement to violence', and I would also extend the categories of speech which should not be protected to include incitement to hatred and prejudice.