“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

sunmaster14 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've seen this analysis in other venues. Here's the thing; white working class folks were never a franchise exclusive to the democrats, even in an urban environment.
 
Last edited:
rdwight said:
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..
Click to expand...

Given the size of the university, and the small number of people participating in the protest, it should have been a simple matter for the campus police to provide adequate security. Everybody knows that protests stay peaceful when there is reasonable ratio of police to protesters (1 to 5, say). Perhaps it was an honest mistake in planning, but I suspect the Cal administration wouldn't have made such a mistake if a controversial left-winger had come to speak.
 
Dumb All Over said:
Are you claiming he was shot by someone in opposition of their demonstration? Evidence?
Click to expand...

erm, yeah...

Guardian said:
The shooter was a Trump supporter who sent a Facebook message to Yiannopoulos asking for an autograph while waiting in line for the controversial event
Click to expand...

On what are you basing your claim that it was "one of their own"?
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
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..
Click to expand...

Well, that is certainly one "way' of looking at it.

What it actually shows is a solitary individual being swarmed by hoards of fanatics, with one running through the crowd and striking the victim, who protected himself the only way he could.

The fanatic chose poorly.
 
Resume said:
What the hell are you talking about? He speaks all over the place. He "powns" and "schools" fools and libtards on the youtubes all the doo-dah-day. His irresistible gayboy tour (or whatever he calls it) got cancelled on the last stop. He got paid, got his "message" (whatever that is) out, and will reap the PR rewards of this silly debacle for quite awhile.

We've spoken before on this issue and free speech doesn't mean you get to spew consequence free everywhere, all the time.
Click to expand...

It doesn't mean you will be free from consequences, it means you have the right to speak freely. The guy has been denied that right.
Chris B.
 
caveman1917 said:
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).
Click to expand...

This looks to be in a public space.

Do they have some justification for impeding this man being in a public space?

If not, then they shouldn't be impeding, physically initimidating, or assaulting people in a public space.

While I'm a rather strong advocate for incrementalism when it comes to escalation of force (I think the gun coming out was a bit hasty given the level of threat at that point), at the end of the day there is really only 1 step of escalation of force, which is the choice to use violence at all.
 
Argumemnon said:
Are you arguing that you can be a good person and a racist who actively hurts minorities?
Click to expand...

Where did this part come from? If you take that out, then the answer is yes. If you leave it in, then the answer becomes "it depends."
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
It doesn't mean you will be free from consequences, it means you have the right to speak freely. The guy has been denied that right.
Chris B.
Click to expand...
No he wasn't. This was a promotional speaking tour for which he was paid to speak at a number of venues. This engagement was cancelled. His "message" can be heard at the click of a mouse.


ETA: I don't know if this particular speaking engagement was paid for by the university so I remove that claim.
 
Last edited:
rdwight said:
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..
Click to expand...

I think that minimizes things a bit. Both from the population involved and the effect of the action in shutting down free speech. Imagine if it had been a little southern town of 38,000 rednecks and they responded to a black family moving in by having 1,500 KKK show up and burn a cross (albeit less than 1500 would actually be lighting fires)... we wouldn't be saying that it was 'at most 4% of the town turning up and even less burning stuff so there's no need for the Feds to take a look' - we'd be saying that it was a cesspit of hate and change is needed.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
This looks to be in a public space.

Do they have some justification for impeding this man being in a public space?

If not, then they shouldn't be impeding, physically initimidating, or assaulting people in a public space.
Click to expand...

A bit like: suppose an armed KKKer walks into a Black Panthers meeting, can he expect everything to go over smoothly?

While I'm a rather strong advocate for incrementalism when it comes to escalation of force (I think the gun coming out was a bit hasty given the level of threat at that point)
Click to expand...

Can you point out when exactly the gun came out?
 
I had never heard of Milo until videos of BLM closing down one of his talks started making the rounds on Youtube.

Milo comes off to me as a real life troll. He is entertaining at times, but I think I would still not know who he was if his talks did not draw such dramatic, violent protests.

I do not expect people who disagree with him to not protest his event, but the violent, obstructive protests that I see feel like an assault on first amendment rights. The protesters are making themselves (and the left by extension) look bad, and making Milo look important than he really may be.
 
Giz said:
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)
Click to expand...

You'd be horrified by my grandfather, then. He actually shot Nazis out of the sky, and dropped bombs on them. Such intolerance!
 
caveman1917 said:
A bit like: suppose an armed KKKer walks into a Black Panthers meeting, can he expect everything to go over smoothly?
Click to expand...

what a terrible analogy...

This was a public space. while it appears that certain Jar jar protesters think that they "own" the space, that is not how it works.

The gun came out after the lone individual was assaulted by the Jar jar protester who came bounding across the public space at him.
 
A bunch of people in black masks show up to a peaceful protest and start attacking everyone. Riot ensues. Liberals are blamed.

I can only blame the Liberals for allowing the provokers to succeed.
 
TragicMonkey said:
You'd be horrified by my grandfather, then. He actually shot Nazis out of the sky, and dropped bombs on them. Such intolerance!
Click to expand...

That makes sense as a retort if the USA was currently in an actual civil war. However, if we are in a society that aspires to make changes via debate, persuasion and laws, then your retort is moronic (unless you wish that democrats and republicans actually were shooting each other... which is also kind of moronic).
 
Resume said:
No he wasn't. This was a promotional speaking tour for which he was paid to speak at a number of venues. This engagement was cancelled. His "message" can be heard at the click of a mouse.


ETA: I don't know if this particular speaking engagement was paid for by the university so I remove that claim.
Click to expand...

What message did he deliver at Berkeley? I thought his event had been cancelled.
Chris B.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom