Man shot during protests of Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos’ speech at UW; suspect arrested.

a reply to: continuousThunder

And I love the way people presume the protestor was innocent and not instigating any attack that would have got him shot.

originally posted by: JAY1980
Is anyone on the left at all going to take a stand against this?
People are being assaulted daily and now shot trying to exercise their rights of free speech and assembly.
I thought liberalism came about to prevent these things not perpetrate them.

The guy is a provocateur and we are to be horrified if the hateful sob provoked someone?
It was the Republikkkans who set the tone for this insanity.
Can't have it both ways.
Any decent person is 'intolerant' of many things; of murder, or predation, or hateful inciting, or crapping on my foot, or people stealing from them...
To speak hatefully is already committing violence, if anyone is unfortunate enough to have hear it!
In Florida that's legal reason enough to shoot someone in self-defense!
Don't whine about the riot when you are the one inciting it!

a reply to: DBCowboy

And I love the way people presume the protestor was innocent and not instigating any attack that would have got him shot.

What, pray tell, would justify him being shot?

originally posted by: namelesss

It was the Republikkkans who set the tone for this insanity.

So if someone is threatened, then they should just accept it?

How authoritarian.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy

And I love the way people presume the protestor was innocent and not instigating any attack that would have got him shot.

What, pray tell, would justify him being shot?

Good question.

So in the fine tradition of the internet, we should all make base assumptions and either find guilt or innocence based on what we think.

a reply to: continuousThunder


Is that not clear by the news that a protestor was shot?
Actually, the protestor was shot by a protestor who was claimed to be defending what some say was a Trump supporter and himself(and the other person who turned themselves in).
Do you have a further update?

originally posted by: namelesss
Don't whine about the riot when you are the one inciting it!

And there it is. Daring to say anything that isn't approved by the Left is "hateful". Disagreeing with the Left justifies violence being visited upon you.

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: JAY1980
Is anyone on the left at all going to take a stand against this?
People are being assaulted daily and now shot trying to exercise their rights of free speech and assembly.
I thought liberalism came about to prevent these things not perpetrate them.

The guy is a provocateur and we are to be horrified if the hateful sob provoked someone?
It was the Republikkkans who set the tone for this insanity.
Can't have it both ways.
Any decent person is 'intolerant' of many things; of murder, or predation, or hateful inciting, or crapping on my foot, or people stealing from them...
To speak hatefully is already committing violence, if anyone is unfortunate enough to have hear it!
In Florida that's legal reason enough to shoot someone in self-defense!
Don't whine about the riot when you are the one inciting it!

You have a very, very watered down definition of what "violence" actually is, if you think words are violence. Then again, that seems to be the latest trend in SJW-speak: words are violence!

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: JAY1980
Is anyone on the left at all going to take a stand against this?
People are being assaulted daily and now shot trying to exercise their rights of free speech and assembly.
I thought liberalism came about to prevent these things not perpetrate them.

The guy is a provocateur and we are to be horrified if the hateful sob provoked someone?
It was the Republikkkans who set the tone for this insanity.
Can't have it both ways.
Any decent person is 'intolerant' of many things; of murder, or predation, or hateful inciting, or crapping on my foot, or people stealing from them...
To speak hatefully is already committing violence, if anyone is unfortunate enough to have hear it!
In Florida that's legal reason enough to shoot someone in self-defense!
Don't whine about the riot when you are the one inciting it!

Freedom of speech means freedom of all speech, even speech you don't like.

If you think freedom of speech means only speech that doesn't make someone feel bad and if it makes someone feel bad, then that person deserves to be threatened with a howling mob with pitchforks merely for daring to talk ... then you don't believe in freedom of speech.

Let me guess ... you believe that Larry Flynt is a free speech hero?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: JAY1980
Is anyone on the left at all going to take a stand against this?
People are being assaulted daily and now shot trying to exercise their rights of free speech and assembly.
I thought liberalism came about to prevent these things not perpetrate them.

The guy is a provocateur and we are to be horrified if the hateful sob provoked someone?
It was the Republikkkans who set the tone for this insanity.
Can't have it both ways.
Any decent person is 'intolerant' of many things; of murder, or predation, or hateful inciting, or crapping on my foot, or people stealing from them...
To speak hatefully is already committing violence, if anyone is unfortunate enough to have hear it!
In Florida that's legal reason enough to shoot someone in self-defense!
Don't whine about the riot when you are the one inciting it!

Freedom of speech means freedom of all speech, even speech you don't like.

Perhaps you should read my post, again.
There is nothing personal about this.
My likes and dislikes are completely irrelevant to the point that I was making.
Rather than offer the redundant, perhaps you'll re-read my post.
I am not arguing your 'limited freedom of speech', I am pointing out the absurdity of expecting to exercise those 'rights/permissions' and not reap the consequences.

If you think freedom of speech means only speech that doesn't make someone feel bad and if it makes someone feel bad, then that person deserves to be threatened with a howling mob with pitchforks merely for daring to talk ... then you don't believe in freedom of speech.

Again, what I 'believe in' or not is irrelevant.
No, I do not believe in anything, much less the vain delusion of 'free' speech...
But that's another topic.

Let me guess ... you believe that Larry Flynt is a free speech hero?

Again, you personalize this...
Why?
An easy way to dismiss speech that 'you' don't like?
Besides, it seems to me that YOU would think Flynt a 'hero', considering that he was shot for that which you so fervently believe, exercising his 'freedom of speech'...
A martyr for the cause, no?

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: JAY1980
Is anyone on the left at all going to take a stand against this?
People are being assaulted daily and now shot trying to exercise their rights of free speech and assembly.
I thought liberalism came about to prevent these things not perpetrate them.

The guy is a provocateur and we are to be horrified if the hateful sob provoked someone?
It was the Republikkkans who set the tone for this insanity.
Can't have it both ways.
Any decent person is 'intolerant' of many things; of murder, or predation, or hateful inciting, or crapping on my foot, or people stealing from them...
To speak hatefully is already committing violence, if anyone is unfortunate enough to have hear it!
In Florida that's legal reason enough to shoot someone in self-defense!
Don't whine about the riot when you are the one inciting it!

You have a very, very watered down definition of what "violence" actually is, if you think words are violence.

Are you going to sit there and honestly tell me that no one has ever deliberately hurt you using words?
If you are old enough to type these words, the answer must be yes.
'Watered down'?
Odd that the deepest hurts that we endure are often from 'words'!
Can you be that ignorant of the human psyche?
That self-ignorant?
Or in denial?

Then again, that seems to be the latest trend in SJW-speak: words are violence!

That was a simple (and cowardly) way to dismiss anything I say, just group my words in with some 'evil' (in your mind) category, and dismiss.
The words that I speak are from me, unless otherwise attributed.
Deal with them!
You cannot support your feeble attempt to deny and dismiss what I said.
Words, as we all know, certainly can be violence!
Need I demonstrate?

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: namelesss
Don't whine about the riot when you are the one inciting it!

And there it is. Daring to say anything that isn't approved by the Left is "hateful". Disagreeing with the Left justifies violence being visited upon you.

And there it is, another failed attempt to emotionally derail, without actually addressing my point or post.
One more time for the Breit Bulbs from Breitbart;
Only a fool will expect to go out in public and run his hateful mouth, and not expect consequences.
I would have to be a fool to go down to South Central spewing racial hatred for blacks and browns, and not expect 'consequences'.
I'd probably be too ashamed for being a damned hateful fool to report or whine about it!
Talk about a 'snowflake'...

a reply to: JAY1980

To see a phalanx of police at a political lecture certainly says something about the speaker.

I suspect it would say rather a lot more about the protesters.

a reply to: namelesss

"The guy is a provocateur and we are to be horrified if the hateful sob provoked someone?"

Provocateur in what way? Inciting a riot? Trying to have a rational conversation? Keep in mind, he was invited to speak to a Republican Club. Folks that didn't like him or what he had to say could have stayed in their dorm or apartment.

"...Republikkkans..."

Seriously? And you wonder why people reply to you with snarky comments?

"Can't have it both ways."

Again, seriously? This seems like a completely hypocritical statement. First, you say Republicans set the tone (I have set to see multiple riots where people destroy property and assault others from the Right) then you say we can't have it both ways.

"Any decent person is 'intolerant' of many things; of murder, or predation, or hateful inciting, or crapping on my foot, or people stealing from them..."

Agreed

"To speak hatefully is already committing violence, if anyone is unfortunate enough to have hear it!"

No, speech isn't violence. You may not like it, it may be intolerable to you. But you ultimately have a choice to listen and have reasoned debate or you can walk away/turn the channel/pick a different station to listen to. But to attribute something someone says to "violence", you do a great disservice to the definition and begin to water it down.

"In Florida that's legal reason enough to shoot someone in self-defense!"

I beg you to look into Florida's legal term for self-defense. I do not think for one second that if someone says something you do not like, then you can shoot them and claim self-defense.

"Don't whine about the riot when you are the one inciting it!"

Again, if Trump or Yiannopoulos or anyone else on the right are "inciting" riots, don't you think there would be charges brought up? Could it be that there are some people on the left that cannot seem to control their emotional outbursts when confronted with an idea or thought that they may disagree with?

originally posted by: Ohanka
Seems like these riots (anyone who calls them protests is frankly lying) are really starting to get out of hand. Some pretty drastic measures will need to be taken to restore order if these destructive hate-inspired riots continue to escalate.

maybe trump can put them into concentra...uuuhhh...FEMA camps......they could wear a big yellow "D" on their clothing when they are out in public

originally posted by: bmullini
a reply to: namelesss

"The guy is a provocateur and we are to be horrified if the hateful sob provoked someone?"

Provocateur in what way?

I didn't make that up.
Didn't you read the article?
I think that he, himself, used the term.
That is why I used it.

Inciting a riot? Trying to have a rational conversation? Keep in mind, he was invited to speak to a Republican Club. Folks that didn't like him or what he had to say could have stayed in their dorm or apartment.

The mouth runs everywhere...
The words cause hurt and harm.
Some people have little tolerance for those who disseminate hate and harm to others.

"...Republikkkans..."

Seriously? And you wonder why people reply to you with snarky comments?

Not really sure that I care, but the 'humor' is certainly defensible.
Just read the news of another Breitbart joining Trump's merry band of Nazis...

"To speak hatefully is already committing violence, if anyone is unfortunate enough to have hear it!"

No, speech isn't violence. You may not like it, it may be intolerable to you. But you ultimately have a choice to listen and have reasoned debate or you can walk away/turn the channel/pick a different station to listen to. But to attribute something someone says to "violence", you do a great disservice to the definition and begin to water it down.

You would have a very difficult supporting such nonsense logically.
I KNOW that words have hurt you in the past, words designed/meant to hurt you, so your hypocrisy is starting to show.
That which one visits on another with the purpose and effect of causing hurt/harm, is violence!

"Don't whine about the riot when you are the one inciting it!"

Again, if Trump or Yiannopoulos or anyone else on the right are "inciting" riots, don't you think there would be charges brought up?

Your attempted deflection failed.
Because one is not charged with something is no evidence that 'wrong' was not committed.
Again, I say, because it's true, only a fool would open his hateful mouth, and not expect that hateful mouth to be destroyed (and good riddance!)!

Ultimately, statistically speaking, I'm going to guess that you are a Xtian.
If that were really so, you would understand about the Golden Rule;
"Do not do to others what you don't want done to you!", rather than fighting for your right to spread your hateful vitriol and ignorance.
So, I guess that you must not be a Xtian, after all...

a reply to: namelesss

"The mouth runs everywhere...
The words cause hurt and harm.
Some people have little tolerance for those who disseminate hate and harm to others."

I want you to remember this next time you insult someone.

"Not really sure that I care, but the 'humor' is certainly defensible."

I will agree here. I chuckled when I saw it, but I hope you understand that hardcore folks will have a very hard time digesting it or taking your arguments seriously.

"You would have a very difficult supporting such nonsense logically.
I KNOW that words have hurt you in the past, words designed/meant to hurt you, so your hypocrisy is starting to show.
That which one visits on another with the purpose and effect of causing hurt/harm, is violence!"

Yes, I have had terrible things said to me and I have said terrible things to others. But in your post, it was almost as if you agreed that physical violence bestowed up someone is okay if they use "violent speech" (which almost certainly can be warped to be defined as any speech one may disagree with). I am an adult now and fully understand that words are just words and doesn't require a retaliation of physical violence.

"Your attempted deflection failed."

No attempt at deflection. There are very specific parameters involved when someone incites a riot. The sheer fact of someone being invited to speak on a college campus that you may disagree with does not qualify as inciting a riot.

"Because one is not charged with something is no evidence that 'wrong' was not committed."

Agreed.

"Ultimately, statistically speaking, I'm going to guess that you are a Xtian."

Agreed.

"If that were really so, you would understand about the Golden Rule;
"Do not do to others what you don't want done to you!" "

I understand the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

"...rather than fighting for your right to spread your hateful vitriol and ignorance."

I am not fighting for hateful vitriol and ignorance. What I believe in is freedom of speech, which encompasses so called "hate" speech. There are good ideas and bad ideas and everyone should be able to say them without fear of physical assault or imprisonment so that we may have strident debate over what is right and what is wrong. To think that physical violence is a valid response to political speech you may disagree with puts you in the exact company of fascists.

"So, I guess that you must not be a Xtian, after all..."

Is this where you try to hurt me with your "violent" words? Nice try, but you know next to nothing about me except for what I have posted here or what is in my heart.

originally posted by: bmullini
a reply to: namelesss

"The mouth runs everywhere...
The words cause hurt and harm.
Some people have little tolerance for those who disseminate hate and harm to others."

I want you to remember this next time you insult someone.

Already we have a problem, aside from your attitude.
It has to do with insult.
Shall I assume that you have 'felt' insult from something that I have offered?
It has been my experience that, often, Blessings are first perceived as insults.

"Not really sure that I care, but the 'humor' is certainly defensible."

I will agree here. I chuckled when I saw it, but I hope you understand that hardcore folks will have a very hard time digesting it or taking your arguments seriously.

I think that you are right on the money!
It's about Perspective, where;

Every Perspective is unique every moment!

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - The First Law of Soul Dynamics

Seriously? There are many who don't find what I say to be coherent at all, much less to take it 'seriously'.
Even I do not believe anything that I say! *__-
Not that it isn't God's Honest Truth!!

I KNOW that words have hurt you in the past, words designed/meant to hurt you, so your hypocrisy is starting to show.
That which one visits on another with the purpose and effect of causing hurt/harm, is violence!"

Yes, I have had terrible things said to me and I have said terrible things to others. But in your post, it was almost as if you agreed that physical violence bestowed up someone is okay if they use "violent speech" (which almost certainly can be warped to be defined as any speech one may disagree with).

Not at all!
I am in no way personally condoning violence! For any reason! Period!
Neither, actually, am I condemning it.
But it is also Truth that we have no choice in the matter, that who and what we are, at the moment, will manifest, and sometimes we are the violent strong right arm of God!
And sometimes not... *__-

I am an adult now and fully understand that words are just words and doesn't require a retaliation of physical violence.

That's what Gandhi meant about "Being the change that you want to see!"
It comes naturally!
I think that there are more and more people slowly awakening.
It will not be a tsunami for a couple centuries, but the tree is fruiting as we speak!

"Your attempted deflection failed."

No attempt at deflection. There are very specific parameters involved when someone incites a riot. The sheer fact of someone being invited to speak on a college campus that you may disagree with does not qualify as inciting a riot.

Perhaps not to most folks...
What would you say if I could show you that one could whisper a single word into your newborn grandchild's ear, and that tiny seed will, in 43 years, grow into a multiple homicide?
Seeds are planted all the time, in utter ignorance...
That one whisper into that beautiful ear incited that murder as surely as if I handed that adult the guns when he was most vulnerable, and pushed him out the door!
A responsibility remains.

"Ultimately, statistically speaking, I'm going to guess that you are a Xtian."

Agreed.

"If that were really so, you would understand about the Golden Rule;
"Do not do to others what you don't want done to you!" "

I understand the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

You have fallen for a mistranslation.
If you think about that one, it makes no sense at all...

I am not fighting for hateful vitriol and ignorance. What I believe in is freedom of speech

Of course, but sometimes they are one and the same thing.
What does an 'ethical' person do in a situation when confronted by such violent speech?
Turn from it and walk away?
Turn the channel?
Shut one's mouth?
Not condone it by buying their products?
Perhaps when there is a sufficient 'tipping point' of 'ethical people' walking away from the haters, no longer giving them the attention...
Perhaps they'll have room to heal, not being so busy on stage, and all.

, which encompasses so called "hate" speech. There are good ideas and bad ideas and everyone should be able to say them without fear of physical assault or imprisonment

Again, I in no way condone violence!
And certainly not for what someone says.
Not that I will not physically assault someone because of what he says, someday, but, generally, I wouldn't condone it! *__-

To think that physical violence is a valid response to political speech you may disagree with puts you in the exact company of fascists.

As does requiring some speech to be okayed by the government propaganda machine before being allowed (if) to reach the public?
To attack anyone critical of you, and threaten lives?
Yes, there are many fascists in town these days...
But I'm not one.

"So, I guess that you must not be a Xtian, after all..."

Is this where you try to hurt me with your "violent" words?

First, I didn't know that you are a Xtian.
It was a lucky guess.
Second, there is that Blessing catching in your ego before you can digest it.
My words were not to hurt/harm you, but to, perhaps, point out that you are butting your head against a rock and, perhaps, hallucinating a 'spiritual life'.
That is always the first step to a real spiritual life.
But it always hurts at first.
It's an ego, thing.

With Love *__-

a reply to: namelesss

"Already we have a problem, aside from your attitude.
It has to do with insult.
Shall I assume that you have 'felt' insult from something that I have offered?
It has been my experience that, often, Blessings are first perceived as insults."

I promise you that I am not trying to show attitude or present a problem, merely a different perspective. I didn't feel any insult and I only posted in response to your very first post in the thread. Like I said earlier, it seemed that you were condoning some of the things that were seen on the video.

"Seriously? There are many who don't find what I say to be coherent at all, much less to take it 'seriously'.
Even I do not believe anything that I say! *__-
Not that it isn't God's Honest Truth!!"

Many times, I try to be an Affective Listener, or to listen with a purpose. Things are said for a reason. Sometimes they are from reflection or simply reaction. An affective listener can usually produce a much calmer and rational discussion when considering multiple factors. But there are many in this world that do not. Some speak from ignorance, some speak from regurgitation, some speak just to her themselves speak. I try not to be one of these persons.

"That's what Gandhi meant about "Being the change that you want to see!" "

Exactly!

"You have fallen for a mistranslation.
If you think about that one, it makes no sense at all..."

I would love to elaborate on this, but it should be in P2P or another thread.

"Of course, but sometimes they are one and the same thing.
What does an 'ethical' person do in a situation when confronted by such violent speech?"

Yes, free speech can sometimes be very nasty, but history has shown that when the government passes laws to censor speech critical to ideas, it becomes tyrannical and opposed to freedom. The same concept can be employed to the situation at UW. When we the people start condoning assault against a cameraman simply because they did not want Milo to speak on campus, we are losing focus of freedom.

"Ultimately, statistically speaking, I'm going to guess that you are a Xtian.
If that were really so, you would understand about the Golden Rule;
"Do not do to others what you don't want done to you!", rather than fighting for your right to spread your hateful vitriol and ignorance.
So, I guess that you must not be a Xtian, after all..."

When I broke down what you stated here, it wasn't about my ego. It was more of the premise that i wasn't a Christian if I believed people had the right to speak their mind. First of all, simply following the Golden Rule does not make one a Christian. Secondly, there is no correlation between my following the Golden Rule while also believing that people have the right to say sometimes stupid things. I don't necessarily fight for MY right, but EVERYONE'S right to speak their mind. And very often, as the case is nowadays, "vitriol and ignorance" are highly subjective terms.

originally posted by: bmullini
a reply to: namelesss
Like I said earlier, it seemed that you were condoning some of the things that were seen on the video.

Like I said earlier, I wasn't.

"You have fallen for a mistranslation.
If you think about that one, it makes no sense at all..."

I would love to elaborate on this, but it should be in P2P or another thread.

Anytime! My pleasure! *__-

"Of course, but sometimes they are one and the same thing.
What does an 'ethical' person do in a situation when confronted by such violent speech?"

Yes, free speech can sometimes be very nasty, but history has shown that when the government passes laws to censor speech critical to ideas, it becomes tyrannical and opposed to freedom. The same concept can be employed to the situation at UW. When we the people start condoning assault against a cameraman simply because they did not want Milo to speak on campus, we are losing focus of freedom.

So, are you suggesting that an ethical person would not do anything?
Merely 'keep walking'?
On reflection, yes, that seems one 'ethical' response.
That is what one would like the person who doesn't like what I have to say, to do.
Certainly not assault and batter me, or worse.
Nor pass laws against.
Perhaps this is one of those do nothing for long enough, and things will, naturally, 'change'!

no correlation between my following the Golden Rule while also believing that people have the right to say sometimes stupid things. I don't necessarily fight for MY right, but EVERYONE'S right to speak their mind.

It was meant as 'personal'.
An ethical Loving can certainly stand for anyone else saying anything at all, yet would not 'take advantage' of such latitude themselves.
I misunderstood when I thought that you were standing for your own 'right' for hateful/violent speech.

And very often, as the case is nowadays, "vitriol and ignorance" are highly subjective terms.

Yes indeed they are!
I suppose that there is a Perspective from which "I Love you!" is seen as 'vitriolic'!
"All 'value' (judgment/discrimination) exists in the 'thoughts/ego' of the beholder."

Okay, so there are those who would not impinge on 'hateful free speech' of others, but, again, one shouldn't be surprised when 'ignorant', unethical people (the vast majority) who are easily moved to emotionally fueled action, deliver a swift 'turnaround' of the goods launched!
No, I don't condone it, nor do I condemn it.
I see it diminishing, over time, until gone.
*__-