Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
I guess this is where we differ I support free speech until that freedom is used with the intent to stoke hatred promote violence by one group against another or attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation and thats where I separate my support for free speech when that speech's only function is ATTACK ...
Again, you demonstrate the problem in resorting to personal interpretation rather than accurately citing and understanding text. What speech by Milo intended to stoke hatred or promote violence? You might think his words could or would intentionally stoke hatred or violence, even though they don't specifically say to hate or be violent. But if there is no clear and concrete evidence that the speech intended hate or violence, you are fallaciously imposing your interpretation on the text.
And your printing the word "attack" in red and capitalizing it is vastly over-emphasizing some negative, violent connotation of the word. It comes across as a personal reaction which may not accurately describe the nature of what you call an attack. Milo has explained that the particular category of person whom he paints with provocative language is not the object/subject. The provocation is. From what little I've read or heard by him, he has no animosities against your listed categories, nor would he make a point of verbally abusing or "attacking" a categorical attribute. His provocations are against various attitudes and "memes" of what he calls the regressive left.
Milos post on twitter wasn't to promote an idea .. there was no bigger message from Milos or his followers it was all attack , humiliate and insult a singular person .. and thats just wrong no matter who its done to
|
I don't know the full scope, content, and context of his post, but singular persons do insult each other. Milo gets more than his share of "attacks" against him. That does seem to be a form of entertainment for most who read verbal battles. I would guess that forums like Twitter attract that sort of thing along with the colosseum like responses. Don't they have thumbs up and thumbs down icons?
If you want a fuller understanding of what he is about, read and listen to his explanations rather than what is said about him or rather than just personally interpreting and reacting.
I previously posted this link :
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/0...the-alt-right/
It will give you an insight from his perspective on his use of provocation.
And the video I posted as the subject of this thread paints a different portrait of him than what one might interpret from his provocative memes if they weren't familiar with his more serious commentary.
Neither you nor Spence have commented on that video. Instead, you've talked about perceptions and opinions that paint him as some vicious danger to society.
In the video, among a whole lot more, he says things like "the point of a civilized society is to live together in harmony despite differences." There is a lot of serious cultural, political, and societal meat to digest in the video. But it seems the provocative stuff from other sources is all that interest y'all. And the motivation and purpose of that stuff is not understood or is misinterpreted.