“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

Argumemnon said:
Are felons, drug addicts and illegal immigrants a significant portion of Democratic voters?
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be significant to simply 'add up' to a decisive critical mass.

Regarding Felons - I was saying 'ex felons' - they can vote today, and make up about 25% of the black population. This seems like a very attractive demographic for white supremacists to decree unworthy of enfranchisement. Easy sell.

Regarding drug addicts - drug testing will catch a hundred casual users for every 'addict'. Depending on the test, there may be a high false positive rate. So: if policy is to administer it to 'suspicious' would be voters ("anybody who looks lefty"), if it has a 5% false positive rate, that will successfully disenfranchise 5% of that demographic. So many districts are <1% margin, this could be a game changer. And: it's an easy sell.

Regarding DREAMers - they represent a voting demographic when they come of age to apply for citizenship. Deporting them now slows the growth of that demographic and is another easy sell.


ETA: and also regarding DREAMers - nullifying the DREAM Act is another way to do it, but deportation is more tempting, because then they won't have anchor babies.
 
Last edited:
16427557_10158243838575074_4592958305845841132_n.jpg
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
[qimg]https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16427557_10158243838575074_4592958305845841132_n.jpg?oh=ab08ac233eddcdf0c89dd3399b9ba5bf&oe=5945C222[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Oh, that's good.

I was seriously wondering if I was going to get control of myself before I blacked out from lack of oxygen or not.

Damn that's good.
 
blutoski said:
It doesn't have to be significant to simply 'add up' to a decisive critical mass.

Regarding Felons - I was saying 'ex felons' - they can vote today, and make up about 25% of the black population. This seems like a very attractive demographic for white supremacists to decree unworthy of enfranchisement. Easy sell.

Regarding drug addicts - drug testing will catch a hundred casual users for every 'addict'. Depending on the test, there may be a high false positive rate. So: if policy is to administer it to 'suspicious' would be voters ("anybody who looks lefty"), if it has a 5% false positive rate, that will successfully disenfranchise 5% of that demographic. So many districts are <1% margin, this could be a game changer. And: it's an easy sell.

Regarding DREAMers - they represent a voting demographic when they come of age to apply for citizenship. Deporting them now slows the growth of that demographic and is another easy sell.


ETA: and also regarding DREAMers - nullifying the DREAM Act is another way to do it, but deportation is more tempting, because then they won't have anchor babies.
Click to expand...

I believe in almost universal suffrage. We should not deny the right to vote to any US citizen above the age of 18 including ex-felons or even convicts in prison. I do believe that convicts should vote in the election where they resided in before they were incarcerated as opposed to the community where the prison is at though. This idea that just because someone may have broken the law that they should be deprived of their voice is wrong in my book.
 
Mumbles said:
as far as these Black Bloc idiots go, I learned of them (here in Maryland!) when they showed up at the Sean Bell protests back in 2009 and started trashing things. The regular protestors, of course, hated them. IOW, the idea that this is something new for the Trump Era is a joke.
Click to expand...

As far as liberal middle-class idiots go, they never let a chance go to waste to show off their privilege and arrogance.
 
caveman1917 said:
As far as liberal middle-class idiots go, they never let a chance go to waste to show off their privilege and arrogance.
Click to expand...

I align with caveman on almost nothing.

But on this we can find common ground.

I have yet to meet a black bloc that was less than 90% young adult white males from the suburbs who wouldn't know oppression if it crushed their throat with a boot stomp.

After a hard day of putting their sacred lives and honor on the line in the grand struggle to 'liberate the public spaces', they will pile into their hand-me-down mid-size luxury sedans their parents gave them, go back to loft condos in gentrified neighborhoods (they moved their for 'the diverse culture' that they displaced upon arriving in it) paid for with mommy and daddy's trust fund money and complain about how 'ungrateful' the other protesters were to them.
 
Last edited:
sir drinks-a-lot said:
the real greatest threat to the US is the hysterical intolerance and dogmatism of the progressive left.
Click to expand...

This is a God-given signal! If this fire, as I believe, turns out to be the handiwork of Communists, then there is nothing that shall stop us now crushing out this murder pest with an iron fist.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
I have yet to meet a black bloc that was less than 90% young adult white males from the suburbs who wouldn't know oppression if it crushed their throat with a boot stomp.

After a hard day of putting their sacred lives and honor on the line in the grand struggle to 'liberate the public spaces', they will pile into their hand-me-down mid-size luxury sedans their parents gave them, go back to loft condos in gentrified neighborhoods (they moved their for 'the diverse culture' that they displaced upon arriving in it) paid for with mommy and daddy's trust fund money and complain about how 'ungrateful' the other protesters were to them.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Do you have evidence or just an over-active right-wing imagination?
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
Agreed. Progressive politicians need to reach out to these misguided individuals and harness their rage for the struggle to come. Properly deployed, these kinds of actions can do wonders for a resistance movement.
Click to expand...

Yeah. that'll work. :wink:
 
caveman1917 said:
Well there doesn't seem to be any evidence for this, and it's one of those standard right-wing myths about black blocs/anarchists being perpetuated.
Click to expand...

"so-called" right wing you mean?

Jeepers, for someone who got upset when people use the Black Bloc label on Black Bloc idiots, you certainly produce a lot of labels on your personal iPhone.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Well, you're the first anti-Milo poster in the thread to express such a sentiment. Even Puppycow, who is one of the most thoughtful and civil posters here, only expressed disapproval of the riot in terms of its practical effect rather than whether or not it was morally acceptable.
Click to expand...

Of course it's not morally acceptable either, and I thought I implied that, but maybe I wasn't explicit enough. Violence, except in self-defense, and vandalism is always wrong.



I will point out that it may be that the ones doing the violent acts were not UC Berkley students, but these "Black Bloc" anarchist thugs. Peaceful protesters should be wary of these interlopers, as they can turn an otherwise peaceful protest into a riot, which discredits the protesters. They are not your allies.
 
Puppycow said:
I will point out that it may be that the ones doing the violent acts were not UC Berkley students, but these "Black Bloc" anarchist thugs. Peaceful protesters should be wary of these interlopers, as they can turn an otherwise peaceful protest into a riot, which discredits the protesters. They are not your allies.
Click to expand...

Protesters should be wary of people who give this sort of "advice". They are not your allies. It's called the Stonewall riots after all and not the Stonewall candlelight vigils, and for a reason.
 
My favorite bunch so far got a group of activists to go along on a direct action that wasn't approved by the general assembly. They were going to 'reclaim' an old, abandoned highway/public works building to turn it into a community shelter/kitchen/library. Well, first of all, they didn't do their homework. Behind the building was another state property that had a guard post. So police were basically on the scene in minutes. Worse yet, the press was seconds behind that so the cameras record a bunch of people basically breaking into a building. There was no time to get set up and try to convince them to 'see what we're doing to the place.'

Even more fun, several weeks prior one of the antifa had weaseled their way onto the legal defense working group. Our resident anarchist contingent started making a stink about the camp being in a place the police 'approved for us' (takes a lot of effort to get a working understanding in place, let me tell you) and claimed they were going to set up at one of the homeless camps along the slopes of the hill on the outskirts of the downtown area. Fast forward again to the direct action. The legal working group needed to ask the general assembly for permission to devote funds to those arrested at the action (because it had not been approved). The GA did so. They go to get the funds and find the account nearly empty. Someone had racked up thousands of dollars on 2 hotel rooms (1 suite-of-rooms and 1 double queen room) for 9 days. We're not talking Residence Inn, either. We couldn't bail them out. Some were from out of town. This is another problem with actions that are not approved, there wasn't a serious discussion about risks (and they figured they were covered for bail, anyways). We never saw our little anarchist friend on the legal fund again.

Anyone want to take some guesses here?
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
Protesters should be wary of people who give this sort of "advice". They are not your allies. It's called the Stonewall riots after all and not the Stonewall candlelight vigils, and for a reason.
Click to expand...

Are you LGBT?

If not, are you in any demographic group targeted for abuse up to and including murder for how you were born?

Because I'd hate to think you just used someone else's struggle as an argument to excuse your behavior.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
My favorite bunch so far got a group of activists to go along on a direct action that wasn't approved by the general assembly. They were going to 'reclaim' an old, abandoned highway/public works building to turn it into a community shelter/kitchen/library. Well, first of all, they didn't do their homework. Behind the building was another state property that had a guard post. So police were basically on the scene in minutes. Worse yet, the press was seconds behind that so the cameras record a bunch of people basically breaking into a building. There was no time to get set up and try to convince them to 'see what we're doing to the place.'

Even more fun, several weeks prior one of the antifa had weaseled their way onto the legal defense working group. Our resident anarchist contingent started making a stink about the camp being in a place the police 'approved for us' (takes a lot of effort to get a working understanding in place, let me tell you) and claimed they were going to set up at one of the homeless camps along the slopes of the hill on the outskirts of the downtown area. Fast forward again to the direct action. The legal working group needed to ask the general assembly for permission to devote funds to those arrested at the action (because it had not been approved). The GA did so. They go to get the funds and find the account empty nearly empty. Someone had racked up thousands of dollars on 2 hotel rooms (1 suite-of-rooms and 1 double queen room) for 9 days. We're not talking Residence Inn, either. We couldn't bail them out. Some were from out of town. This is another problem with actions that are not approved, there wasn't a serious discussion about risks (and they figured they were covered for bail, anyways). We never saw our little anarchist friend on the legal fund again.

Anyone want to take some guesses here?
Click to expand...

More unsupported tales, who would've guessed.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Are you LGBT?

If not, are you in any demographic group targeted for abuse up to and including murder for how you were born?

Because I'd hate to think you just used someone else's struggle as an argument to excuse your behavior.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'd hate to think that. Not sure why you think the Stonewall riots are an argument to "excuse" my posting behaviour, or why my posting behaviour would require an "excuse". They are a good argument against liberal ******** though.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom