@ghug
"There are violent protestors on both sides. There are a lot more on Trump's, so I already confident you're arguing in bad faith, which is heavily disappointing to me as someone who remembers you getting worth discussing with."
i'm going to need a citation for the MORE violent Trump supporters. I haven't heard of many left-wing speakers being shut down to violence when right wing protestors make threats against their life.
Trump rallies were violent only when protestors were there, so that's a difficult and subjective measure.
Antifa meanwhile have been very violent, although there has been a lot of violence on the right. I'm wondering what evidence you have to support the claim that the left has been less violent than the right.
"Beyond that, protesting and condemning shitty racist opinions is in no way contrary to the first amendment."
So conservative commentators like Ben Shapiro, Jewish and VERY anti-white supremacist (#1 target of anti-semitism in 2016 according to the ADL) gets some of his talks cancelled due to threats on a public university campus... that's considered good for the 1st amendment? And for him specifically needing to pay tens of thousands of Dollars to Berkley most recently for the Police to make sure protests didn't turn violent, THAT isn't contrary to the 1st amendment?
you can protest what someone has to say, but when you threaten and incite violence, you are then infringing upon their rights.
"What you fail to recognize (and I'm sure that this isn't true universally, but it is true with most)"
citation needed. You have none? well as Hitchens said, 'claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence' (a slight paraphrasing i believe)
"is that someone can listen to the opinions of someone like Milo or Richard Spencer and decide "this person isn't worth mine or anyone else's time, and their being given a platform is only harmful"."
sorry but that's not how the 1st amendment works bud. also, you're not GIVING them a platform, EVERYONE is allowed to exercise their first amendment rights to free speech, regardless of how much one personally hates it. the idea of "not giving them a platform" is fine if a university doesn't want to book a speech, but when a university does book a speech, and protestors turn violent: you're not "not giving them a platform," you're attacking them (using violence) for them already having a platform.
"Some people's opinions are so immediately and obviously indefensible as to not be worth being heard as "the other side". Others' aren't, and are worth listening to. Propping the former up and defending them only does a disservice to the latter." "
and who, pray tell, gets to decide which opinions are indefensible and which aren't? What you might find indefensible might be VERY different from what some college kid finds indefensible. I point out the mere statistical fact that blacks in this country are likely to per capita commit a higher number of crimes, and @brainbomb had an aneurism it seemed.
the REASON the founders allowed for freedom of speech, was so that the UNPOPULAR opinions could be told. the speech nobody opposes doesn't NEED legal protection, since it is entirely unopposed!
i've heard the "it's indefensible" argument before, but the point of free speech isn't to resort to violence when something "indefensible" is said: it means that the opposition must logically, soundly and intellectually dismantle the "indefensible" arguments. Violent censorship of any idea is bad. Perhaps even worse: it's lazy. It helps perpetuate the echo chambers. People scream "punch a nazi" en masse... truly believing that the majority of Trump's base are Nazis. we're not a country that allowed mob rule to determine what is and what is not indefensible. I don't like white supremacism, but i'll debate one and dismantle their arguments: it's more effective (and legal) than punching them.
"I think it's also worth noting that painting "the left" with this broad brush of irrational fools who won't listen accomplishes exactly the same thing as you're accusing them of doing."
In an ironic turn of events... you've been generalizing yourself. but i agree. precision is better, although @PresidentEden is referring to the Left as a fixed core ideology.
now, we can discuss the extent people subscribe to Eden's definition of the left, although he would *not* be generalizing by referring to "the left" if this is in fact what he is doing.