“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

sunmaster14 said:
The security for the event provided by Cal was woefully inadequate. Everybody could see that in advance. You can't get around the 1st Amendment by intentionally allowing a heckler's veto.
Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by "in advance." Reading the article, they cancelled the talk as soon as they knew it was moving in the direction of a riot. Proving malice aforethought would require showing intent by UC Berkeley.

It would also require them to have the resources to pre-manage things in a safe manner - not an easy thing to pull off. How have things gone at other Yiannopoulos events?
 
TragicMonkey said:
Exactly as I said: he doesn't tolerate others, therefore others don't tolerate him. That his opponents have chosen different tactics doesn't alter the root of the problem. If he wants to run crying to Mommy because people are tired of his crap and didn't confine their disapproval within bounds he's comfortable in, too bad. Actions have consequences. That's politics.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure Hitler said something similar when he sent out the Brownshirts to disrupt and intimidate opponents speeches.

Sad to see it put forward on this forum.

("different tactics" - nice euphemism for fascist bully boy violence)
 
sunmaster14 said:
How is that apposite? I don't even agree with the decision, since it seems the law was aimed at speech based on content.
Click to expand...

You are correct, I was attempting to refer to the discussion in the concurrence but note that the cite rather muddies the issues, and hence I have deleted it.
 
Think this needs to be put in perspective. I've not read much on specific numbers with BBC saying hundreds protesting and LA Times saying 1,500 protesting. Number of rioters numbered in the dozens to a couple hundred. UC Berkeley has 38,200 students enrolled for the year 2015, which is not to mention non-student population in the area. Or people from out of the local area showing up.

So would it be fair to say that at most 4% of Berkeley students were even interested enough to simply protest this event, with an even tinier percentage of those students causing trouble/rioting/burning **** etc. Assuming of course that all people participating are actually students there. Is that really a need for the pulling of federal funds?

Should we be setting behavior standards for the federal funds that are given? And who's going to set those standards for us..
 
I Am The Scum said:
Could you please provide some examples, preferably in text form (not video)?

If you'd prefer to do so in a new thread, that's fine.
Click to expand...

Here's a transcript of one of his speeches. I don't agree with all of it, but I think it's one of the best analyses of the election results.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Ok. I will tolerate your intolerance of my intolerance. Doesn't mean I won't point out that you're wrong though.
Click to expand...

One would think this viewpoint isn't altogether difficult to understand.

Guess I was wrong. So here goes:

You (general you) show intolerance to people based solely on race, religion, sexual orientation, or where they're from, and you're a bad person.

Period. That's all there is to it.

Being intolerant of people who show through their actions that they are bad people doesn't make you a bad person. It's simple common decency.

If I need to drop that to 140 characters, let me know.
 
The Big Dog said:
Evidence? My good man, you have not produced any evidence at all regarding this matter other than Jabba the Hutt style blathering from so called "IWW."

Here is the video where you can see the attacker assaulting the victim, who produced a personally owned firearm in self protection only:

http://patch.com/washington/seattle/video-shows-moments-shooting-uw-milo-yiannopoulos-protest
Click to expand...

What your video shows is an armed Milo supporter walking into a protesting crowd, getting blocked and pushed back[*] by a couple of people in the crowd, and then opening fire on someone.

* which seems a rational response given the history of armed extreme right-wingers and crowds of people who disagree with them (for example Breivik).
 
NoahFence said:
One would think this viewpoint isn't altogether difficult to understand.

Guess I was wrong. So here goes:

You (general you) show intolerance to people based solely on race, religion, sexual orientation, or where they're from, and you're a bad person.

Period. That's all there is to it.

Being intolerant of people who show through their actions that they are bad people doesn't make you a bad person. It's simple common decency.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with your definition of a "bad person." I also don't believe that you're qualified to judge what is intolerance or not. Not even close.

If I need to drop that to 140 characters, let me know.
Click to expand...

Well, that's ironic. Normally your posts would fit on twitter quite easily.
 
Eddie Dane said:
I sometimes suspect he invented his fetish for black dudes, as to give his opponents something extra to be conflicted about.

Trolling, trolling, trolling...
Click to expand...

He definitely provokes for the hell of it, but he sometimes has smart things to say. Listen, and separate the wheat from the chaff.
 
When "V for Vendetta" came out, I liked it a lot, too.

Still a great movie, don't get me wrong.

But it's that age-old problem: the worst thing that can possibly happen to something you're an enthusiast about is for it to get popular. Now these Guy Fawkes masks draped head to toe in black have to **** up every damn social movement they touch (and they make sure they show up every time).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom