If We Can’t Unite Against Rioting, We Can’t Unite at All

[endicom]

National Review
David French
Feb. 2, 2017

Public officials should find riots more appalling than free speech.

In the United States of America, rioting to stop free speech is unlawful and reprehensible. Period. Full stop. It’s not “understandable.” It’s not excusable. There should be no tolerance and no sympathy for people who pepper-spray young women, beat bystanders senseless, and tear up property because they’re mad that another human being is speaking.

>

You’ll note that I’ve said nothing about Yiannopoulos or what he believes — in spite of the fact that my family has been subjected to an avalanche of hate from the very alt-right that he defends. That’s intentional. For the purposes of protecting free speech, his views do not matter. There is nothing — nothing — that he has said that justifies or excuses this violence, and public officials in California should treat the rioters exactly as they would treat, say, the KKK if it rioted to shut down speech public officials liked.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444544/berkeley-riots-milo-yiannopoulos-california-mayor-free-speech

[Taxcontrol]

My dad was fond of saying:

There is them you love,
There is them you hate,
And then there is them that just needs kill'n

[skeeter]

True, every word.

[Silver Pines]

I'm thankful that we are united against rioting...at least on the right.

[Silver Pines]

My dad was fond of saying:

There is them you love,
There is them you hate,
And then there is them that just needs kill'n

@Taxcontrol


It's good to see you over here.

[bigheadfred]

National Review
David French
Feb. 2, 2017

Public officials should find riots more appalling than free speech.

In the United States of America, rioting to stop free speech is unlawful and reprehensible. Period. Full stop. It’s not “understandable.” It’s not excusable. There should be no tolerance and no sympathy for people who pepper-spray young women, beat bystanders senseless, and tear up property because they’re mad that another human being is speaking.

>

You’ll note that I’ve said nothing about Yiannopoulos or what he believes — in spite of the fact that my family has been subjected to an avalanche of hate from the very alt-right that he defends. That’s intentional. For the purposes of protecting free speech, his views do not matter. There is nothing — nothing — that he has said that justifies or excuses this violence, and public officials in California should treat the rioters exactly as they would treat, say, the KKK if it rioted to shut down speech public officials liked.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444544/berkeley-riots-milo-yiannopoulos-california-mayor-free-speech

Good article. Thanks for posting.

 Polarization is the obama legacy.

[Frank Cannon]

Maybe we should all try uniting behind rioting?

[bigheadfred]

Maybe we should all try uniting behind rioting?

[EasyAce]

I'm thankful that we are united against rioting...at least on the right.

@CatherineofAragon

As we should be.

Rioting isn't free speech; it's vandalism and destruction.

I get that there remain those, in and out of government, who would obstruct another point of view
merely because it is another point of view. We on the right have spent decades skewering the left
for attempting (and, often enough, succeeding) to do just that. And there are those on the right who would
do likewise, even if it's painful for them to admit it. Free speech for me, but not for thee, the syndrome
is. (It is also the title of a remarkable book by the late Nat Hentoff.)

And I get that there is still---political correctness and the aforesaid syndrome notwithstanding---a
right to free speech, free expression, a right we do ill to undermine or erase, a right that includes any
and every citizen to criticise his or her government whenever he or she damn well feels like it, no matter
how "new" or how "untried" said government might happen to be. If people were within their rights to
criticise the regimes of His Excellency Al-Hashish Field Marshmallow Dr. Barack Obama Dada, President Lips
II, and Droopy-Drawers Clinton, and they certainly were no matter when or how soon, they are within
their rights to say or express anything they damn well please about Donaldus Minimus's regime.
Concurrently, if people were within their rights to applaud those regimes, they are likewise within their
rights to applaud Donaldus Minimus and his regime. One side can say the other side is wrongheaded,
and so long as it is only that, there is no offense, never mind that partisans of all the above argue otherwise.
So long as all they do is argue, they are harmless, even if they think those on the opposing side of
their view aren't.

But I did say say or express. They are not synonymous with rioting; nor is rioting petitioning
the government for a redress of grievances; it is vandalism, destruction, and essentially depriving other
people of their concurrent rights other than speaking or expressing. Against that we can and should
unite, regardless of our points of view otherwise.

[r9etb]

Rioting isn't free speech; it's vandalism and destruction.

And sometimes it's more than that.  Note that this was an organized thing, as it has been elsewhere.  There's a political end in mind here -- whatever it might be.

And note the complaisance of the media here: as French points out, if these had been Trump supporters we'd not hear the end of it. 

Instead, you'll note that -- somehow -- these rioters are somehow Trump's fault.

There are historical precedents for this sort of thing. 

[Jazzhead]

My dad was fond of saying:

There is them you love,
There is them you hate,
And then there is them that just needs kill'n

Boy did you miss the message of French's column!

[EasyAce]

And sometimes it's more than that.  Note that this was an organized thing, as it has been elsewhere.  There's a political end in mind here -- whatever it might be.

And note the complaisance of the media here: as French points out, if these had been Trump supporters we'd not hear the end of it. 

Instead, you'll note that -- somehow -- these rioters are somehow Trump's fault.

There are historical precedents for this sort of thing.

Too many such precedents. I sometimes think that behind every riot you can find an organiser, whatever the cause
and whomever the target.

[bigheadfred]

And sometimes it's more than that.  Note that this was an organized thing, as it has been elsewhere.  There's a political end in mind here -- whatever it might be.

And note the complaisance of the media here: as French points out, if these had been Trump supporters we'd not hear the end of it. 

Instead, you'll note that -- somehow -- these rioters are somehow Trump's fault.

There are historical precedents for this sort of thing.

@EasyAce

Fascism/Antifacism has the old jingle "My dog is better than your dog" running through my head.

[EC]

Too many such precedents. I sometimes think that behind every riot you can find an organiser, whatever the cause
and whomever the target.

Not always. You don't always need an organiser - once a crowd becomes a mob, all you need is a spark. That spark can be absolutely anything. Seen a gust of wind turn a noisy demonstration into a riot in a few heartbeats.

An organiser is good at turning the crowd into a mob - but isn't essential there, either. Mob seems to be the default state when more than about 100 people get together.

[Smokin Joe]

Not always. You don't always need an organiser - once a crowd becomes a mob, all you need is a spark. That spark can be absolutely anything. Seen a gust of wind turn a noisy demonstration into a riot in a few heartbeats.

An organiser is good at turning the crowd into a mob - but isn't essential there, either. Mob seems to be the default state when more than about 100 people get together.

The chief reason I don't like--and never have liked crowds is that any crowd is only a spark away from being a mob, whether roaring with rage, reeling with fear, or trampling one another to get to or from whatever is their object.
Less that ever in my life am I comfortable in the presence of large numbers of people I do not know, no matter what cause they claim because their actions have become less bound by principle and more energized with emotion than ever.

[EasyAce]

@EasyAce

Fascism/Antifacism has the old jingle "My dog is better than your dog" running through my head.

Lots of things in the past couple of decades can put that jingle into someone's head.

[bigheadfred]

Lots of things in the past couple of decades can put that jingle into someone's head.

That is true but only for well-informed individuals.

[EasyAce]

That is true but only for well-informed individuals.

We don't have enough well-informed individuals. If we did, we couldn't possibly have had the presidential choices
we had in 2016.

[bigheadfred]

We don't have enough well-informed individuals. If we did, we couldn't possibly have had the presidential choices
we had in 2016.

One of the things that concern me is the big rise in fake news. Not so much the fake news itself because 'we' have had those rags you see at the checkout stands. I see a nefarious agenda behind it. And this "Black Bloc" as one of its elements. The propaganda machine moving into high gear.

[Smokin Joe]

One of the things that concern me is the big rise in fake news. Not so much the fake news itself because 'we' have had those rags you see at the checkout stands. I see a nefarious agenda behind it. And this "Black Bloc" as one of its elements. The propaganda machine moving into high gear.

False 'Leaks' ultimately discredit those who report them to the public and serve to reduce the credibility of those not intimately tied in with official sources. That could be handy in controlling who is believed later, regardless of the truth. Like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, there will come a point where vital information is ignored or delayed because the person or persons who report it have been discredited.

[EasyAce]

One of the things that concern me is the big rise in fake news. Not so much the fake news itself because 'we' have had those rags you see at the checkout stands. I see a nefarious agenda behind it. And this "Black Bloc" as one of its elements. The propaganda machine moving into high gear.

I don't doubt for a moment that a fair volume of actual fake news has an agenda. But I do think another
volume of it isn't agenda driven so much as it's ignorance driven.

[bigheadfred]

I don't doubt for a moment that a fair volume of actual fake news has an agenda. But I do think another
volume of it isn't agenda driven so much as it's ignorance driven.

@Smokin Joe

This has existed for a long time. Probably since the beginning of people. Or history as it is written. It is the concerted drive towards that ignorance that bothers me. As an admixture of censorship>apotheosis>culmination. The little paranoid me sitting on my shoulder, whispering in my ear, has put on some weight.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

This has existed for a long time. Probably since the beginning of people. Or history as it is written. It is the concerted drive towards that ignorance that bothers me. As an admixture of censorship>apotheosis>culmination. The little paranoid me sitting on my shoulder, whispering in my ear, has put on some weight.

There is a war on, Fred, for what people will believe and who will control the information which determines that.
Censorship is not necessary, only the control of who is believed in the battle for the thoughtspace, the battle ground of ideas, memes, internet gossip, rumors, lies, and even a dash of the truth. Lies of omission and commission, leaked information--both true and false, distortions of reality, images falsely represented as something they are not (hijacked from other events or created out of whole cloth through anything from photoshop to generated graphics) are used to create an emotional and unthinking response and, like Pavlov's Dogs, so seriously embed that response pattern it becomes instinctive and reflexive.
The thoughtspace is up for grabs and the battle is enjoined. It would not surprise me that someone is leaking false information and the occasional tidbit of truth to impair those not marching in lockstep with them. What better way to control who becomes the source for information and opinion?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Conservatives need to learn how to sue.


If the police are looking the other way, then sue.


We wouldn't accept it if black students were being abused.