Who holds the blame for the events in Chicago?

[Alcon]

Frankly TJ, the fact that you're implicitly siding with Trump in going to great lengths to defend his God-Given Constitutional Right to speak at a Public University here goes a long way in explaining my disdain for #NeverTrump Republicans: your commitment is shallow. You've expressed a long-time fidelity to a party that has embraced xenophobia and race-baiting for decades. Now that social movements of the left are actively opposing Trump, your response is to side with the Presumptive Republican nominee rather than applaud the efforts of protesters. There's nothing noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of Donald Trump. We all know the legal arguments here and there has been no claim made that Trump lacks the right to host a rally at a public university. As a result, it's clear that you're making a different kind of argument, an argument that fits into the storied template of the right, in which students on the left are little more than wannabe authoritarians who must be thwarted by esteemable solons in positions of power.

You're arguing that there's nothing "noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of" people you think are bad (or dangerous or something?), and then bemoaning that he assumes that "students of the left" are "authoritarians"...?  eh?

I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here.  But I'm trying to figure out what substantive point you're making -- your post is more about the associations of what he's saying than the content itself.

[Alcon]

Frankly TJ, the fact that you're implicitly siding with Trump in going to great lengths to defend his God-Given Constitutional Right to speak at a Public University here goes a long way in explaining my disdain for #NeverTrump Republicans: your commitment is shallow. You've expressed a long-time fidelity to a party that has embraced xenophobia and race-baiting for decades. Now that social movements of the left are actively opposing Trump, your response is to side with the Presumptive Republican nominee rather than applaud the efforts of protesters. There's nothing noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of Donald Trump. We all know the legal arguments here and there has been no claim made that Trump lacks the right to host a rally at a public university. As a result, it's clear that you're making a different kind of argument, an argument that fits into the storied template of the right, in which students on the left are little more than wannabe authoritarians who must be thwarted by esteemable solons in positions of power.

You're arguing that there's nothing "noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of" people you think are bad (or dangerous or something?), and then bemoaning that he assumes that "students of the left" are "authoritarians"...?  eh?

I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here.  But I'm trying to figure out what substantive point you're making -- your post is more about the associations of what he's saying than the content itself.

alcon trynna rope me into an argument. he wants to beat me. he wants to win.

To be clear, I'm being a dick on purpose here. I want to make TJ think about the fact that he's more concerned about student protesters and his general dislike of liberal students than a dangerous quasi-fascist politician. I also want to vent. I think the substance of my argument is okay and I could defend that but I'll be honest instead because it's nearly 5 in the morning.

I really don't argue just to be competitive.  That can be a fun part of debating, but I'm genuinely concerned about what you might be arguing here. 

I'm not sure I've seen TJ said he's more concerned about student protestors (maybe I missed that?) and he's certainly been vocal about how awful he thinks Trump is.  Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to think that defending someone's free speech rights is a tacit defense of them, or indication that you don't think they're awful...which is a weird sentiment to express in a post where you complain people are accusing you and likeminded people of authoritarianism.

[Alcon]

Frankly TJ, the fact that you're implicitly siding with Trump in going to great lengths to defend his God-Given Constitutional Right to speak at a Public University here goes a long way in explaining my disdain for #NeverTrump Republicans: your commitment is shallow. You've expressed a long-time fidelity to a party that has embraced xenophobia and race-baiting for decades. Now that social movements of the left are actively opposing Trump, your response is to side with the Presumptive Republican nominee rather than applaud the efforts of protesters. There's nothing noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of Donald Trump. We all know the legal arguments here and there has been no claim made that Trump lacks the right to host a rally at a public university. As a result, it's clear that you're making a different kind of argument, an argument that fits into the storied template of the right, in which students on the left are little more than wannabe authoritarians who must be thwarted by esteemable solons in positions of power.

You're arguing that there's nothing "noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of" people you think are bad (or dangerous or something?), and then bemoaning that he assumes that "students of the left" are "authoritarians"...?  eh?

I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here.  But I'm trying to figure out what substantive point you're making -- your post is more about the associations of what he's saying than the content itself.

alcon trynna rope me into an argument. he wants to beat me. he wants to win.

To be clear, I'm being a dick on purpose here. I want to make TJ think about the fact that he's more concerned about student protesters and his general dislike of liberal students than a dangerous quasi-fascist politician. I also want to vent. I think the substance of my argument is okay and I could defend that but I'll be honest instead because it's nearly 5 in the morning.

I really don't argue just to be competitive.  That can be a fun part of debating, but I'm genuinely concerned about what you might be arguing here.  

I'm not sure I've seen TJ said he's more concerned about student protestors (maybe I missed that?) and he's certainly been vocal about how awful he thinks Trump is.  Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to think that defending someone's free speech rights is a tacit defense of them, or indication that you don't think they're awful...which is a weird sentiment to express in a post where you complain people are accusing you and likeminded people of authoritarianism.

Basically Alcon, I don't like your pearl-clutching about the evils of left-wing students, nor do I like TJ's pearl-clutching about the evils of left-wing students. I don't think they pose any sort of threat to the freedom of speech or the freedom of association nor do I think the disruption of this event is particularly troubling, especially in light of the fact that there hasn't been a "popular" response to Trump but, instead, a response by anemic elites.

I don't think left-wing students are "evil" and I'm not "pearl-clutching" except in the sense that I vehemently disagree with behavior/beliefs and clearly explain why I'm concerned by them

Is this basically a fancy way of saying that you don't like that I and TJ are concerned about something you aren't, but you want to criticize us for being concerned without actually arguing with us?

[Alcon]

To be even more transparent: I'm a human being, not some sort of automaton and I'm a Mexican one at that. As a result, this election has #rattled me and I feel angry and irritated all of the time. Because I spend a lot of my time reading and writing high-falutin publications, I feel the need to express myself using bigger words and such and to make my statements appear more meaningful. This leads to polemics that are mostly just vitriol. I'm letting off steam.

I'm not particularly pleased that I have to bear the burden of being Mexican this election cycle

I appreciate your honesty on this and it's no big deal to vent.  There's nothing wrong with writing an entire post just to vent.  I can only imagine it becomes exhausting to constantly be in a position where you're, like, the de facto spokesman, but you also can't totally reject that role because it's something you care about a lot.  You totally don't need to fake meaning.

and feel irritated that other people are more concerned about FREE SPEECH and muh liberal freedoms than millions of families being separated or a current of xenophobia that's sweeping the West, yes. Are you surprised? Did you really have to make these posts to unearth this fact? Come on man! It's not that complex. Frankly, I'm irritated that you guys can afford to be "reasonable" because, ultimately, xenophobia and general hostility towards racial minorities has no affect on your existence.

Look, why do you think I care about pluralism and freedom of speech?  You act like it's some abstract ideal.  You're like "guys, why are you concerned about pluralism and free speech when authoritarianism is taking root?".  I'm concerned about pluralism and free speech because of the prospect of authoritarianism.  I'm concerned about it because people tend to resort to authoritarianism and oppression when they are scared -- not because they are evil, not because they're sadists, but because they're scared and think they're protecting themselves, their livelihood, their identity, whatever.

I care about this sh**t because I think "this is no time to bother with free speech or pluralism when society is too endangered for that -- don't worry about it, we're the good guys" is a terrible argument to entertain, even if I'm sympathetic to the people making it.

Also, I can (very vehemently) argue against this stuff while not thinking that it's the most important thing in the world.  I do think this is very important, but I don't devote argument in exact proportion to how important things are, and neither do you.  I also don't avoid criticizing sh**t I think is dangerous just because it's done by people whose goals I might agree with or sympathize.  The fact that you think that's a petty concern is pretty screwed up to me, and I've articulated why clearly...so I'm not sure (besides the fact that you don't like anything that vaguely "defends" people you don't like) you keep objecting to it.

Hopefully that rant helps you understand where I'm coming from better.

[Alcon]

Man.

Most days I'm pretty optimistic about the possibility that people mostly have the capacity not to be sadistic and/or oppressive toward people just for disagreeing with them.  This is an internet thread and doesn't change that.  But I've definitely hit my quota.  I'm disappointed in even some of the more "reasonable" voices in the last few pages.

I'm out.

That is what happens when the social norms are trampled upon. Some people did not like "political correctness" and wanted "straight talk". Well, they will get what they wanted.

Getting otherwise reasonable people to engage in the sort of pointlessly pseudo-sadistic behavior which, considering you can't actually hurt him, serves only to make him feel justified and make you look crazy?

Again, ugh, this thread.

As a rapist,... or possibly a good man, as I have been defined since the beginning of this campaign, I can hardly be resposible for the tone of this conversation. If you wonder, if I consider these guys personal enemies, do not keep wondering: I do.

Oh, well, here I was thinking it's kind of crazy to be pseudo-sadistic to people over the Internet to prove to them a point about how bad sadistic authoritarianism is (?!).  But, by all means, if you consider them personal enemies!