“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[Eddie Dane]

Add to that, their blatant discrimination against an openly Gay individual (Homophobia). It's time to withhold all federal funds. Why should the taxpayers be forced to fund Berkeley's cesspool of hate and intolerance?

The anarchists are not part of the university.

But, as I said, I've seen a lot of despicable behaviour against conservative speakers before this riot. By students and student organisations.

It must be possible to listen to Ben Shapiro without fear that his ideas will cause people to become anti-Abortion, or lawyers, or Orthodox Jews. You can listen to people you disagree with (you should, even). Perhaps debate them. or counter their arguments in a blog or Youtube video.

I mean, I've listened to a couple of Richard Spencer podcasts and have gassed relatively few Jews this week.

 

[uke2se]

The anarchists are not part of the university.

But, as I said, I've seen a lot of despicable behaviour against conservative speakers before this riot. By students and student organisations.

It must be possible to listen to Ben Shapiro without fear that his ideas will cause people to become anti-Abortion, or lawyers, or Orthodox Jews. You can listen to people you disagree with (you should, even). Perhaps debate them. or counter their arguments in a blog or Youtube video.

I mean, I've listened to a couple of Richard Spencer podcasts and have gassed relatively few Jews this week.

I disagree. People like Milo and Spencer should not be listened to, and speaking engagements should be protested. Venues should be pressured to remove their appointments and visitors to the events should be pressured and harrassed. This is how we lay bare who's peddling neo-Nazism. That's what we are talking about when we say "better out in the open than hidden away". All of this falls under the first amendment.

What should not be done is committing violence against the audience* or destruction of private property.

* I have no issue with someone socking Spencer or Milo in the face.

 

[Mumbles]

The anarchists are not part of the university.

But, as I said, I've seen a lot of despicable behaviour against conservative speakers before this riot. By students and student organisations.

It must be possible to listen to Ben Shapiro without fear that his ideas will cause people to become anti-Abortion, or lawyers, or Orthodox Jews. You can listen to people you disagree with (you should, even). Perhaps debate them. or counter their arguments in a blog or Youtube video.

I mean, I've listened to a couple of Richard Spencer podcasts and have gassed relatively few Jews this week.

Eh, Shapiro's a bit different than Milo or Spencer. He's still a fool, but he at least tries to be consistent (eg. he's happy to note that Milo has repeatedly tried to silence others), and he's actually a good debater. In other words, there's some sort of excuse for bringing him in as an intellectual, unlike Spencer (the Neo-Nazi wannabe) or Milo (again, just a troll).

 

[sunmaster14]

Milo on Tucker Carlson last night. I've started it* Go to 4:30 where Milo makes an important point I'd like to emphasize, which is that hyperbolic attacks by liberals and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) on conservatives actually does facilitate a violent response. University administrators, government officials, and political pundits routinely call Milo's speech "hate speech" which is absurd:

Meh, use this link.

*For some reason, the usual methods for starting a Youtube video at a certain point don't work anymore. For example, adding &start=270 to the link should have done the trick. It used to work.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Add to that, their blatant discrimination against an openly Gay individual (Homophobia). It's time to withhold all federal funds. Why should the taxpayers be forced to fund Berkeley's cesspool of hate and intolerance?

Here we see the fruits of Breitbart's "see, we're totally not gay-bashers" strategy of having an openly Gay (sic) individual do their homophobic messaging. Then, when the LGBT community voices criticism, they can go 'hey stop being homophobic!'

But no really, why are gay and homophobia capitalized? :9

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Milo plays exactly the same role as Ben Carson: a token minority person, a fig-leaf to protect against a certain line of attack.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Eh, Shapiro's a bit different than Milo or Spencer. He's still a fool, but he at least tries to be consistent (eg. he's happy to note that Milo has repeatedly tried to silence others), and he's actually a good debater. In other words, there's some sort of excuse for bringing him in as an intellectual, unlike Spencer (the Neo-Nazi wannabe) or Milo (again, just a troll).

Shapiro is a boring mainstream conservative. He's basically a 1950's dad.
-Finish school
-Save money
-Embryos are people
-Don't have kids till you're married

Those are basically his talking points.

But despite that, I've seen livestream footage of rabid leftie students trying to physically block his audience from reaching his venue, and then locking him and his audience in the venue by keeping the doors locked. Shapiro had to be escorted out the backdoor by security. The audience was locked up and had to wait till the left-winged students got bored and ended their siege.

There is no room for diversity of thought in higher learning institutions and that is very dangerous.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Milo on Tucker Carlson last night. I've started it* Go to 4:30 where Milo makes an important point I'd like to emphasize, which is that hyperbolic attacks by liberals and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) on conservatives actually does facilitate a violent response. University administrators, government officials, and political pundits routinely call Milo's speech "hate speech" which is absurd:

Because for the 719th time there's a difference between criticizing someone for how they are born vesus criticizing someone for their completely free-will choice to be a twatwaffle.

 

[sunmaster14]

I disagree. People like Milo and Spencer should not be listened to, and speaking engagements should be protested. Venues should be pressured to remove their appointments and visitors to the events should be pressured and harrassed. This is how we lay bare who's peddling neo-Nazism. That's what we are talking about when we say "better out in the open than hidden away". All of this falls under the first amendment.

What should not be done is committing violence against the audience* or destruction of private property.

* I have no issue with someone socking Spencer or Milo in the face.

I disagree. That is not how things are supposed to work in the US. I realize Europe, and in particular Sweden, does not value free speech, but Americans do. At least most Americans do. If you don't like what I have to say, put me on ignore*, but don't try to stop me from posting.

*LOL.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I disagree. That is not how things are supposed to work in the US. I realize Europe, and in particular Sweden, does not value free speech, but Americans do. At least most Americans do. If you don't like what I have to say, put me on ignore*, but don't try to stop me from posting.

*LOL.

Free speech does not mean you must be provided with a venue or platform. Are you being imprisoned or murdered by the government for what you've said?

Case closed.

 

[sunmaster14]

Because for the 719th time there's a difference between criticizing someone for how they are born vesus criticizing someone for their completely free-will choice to be a twatwaffle.

I disagree. I have the right to speak out against c-sections if I want. There are probably too many as it is.

 

[sunmaster14]

Free speech does not mean you must be provided with a venue or platform.

No, but it does mean that people shouldn't be actively trying to take away a platform that you were freely provided by people who wanted to hear what you had to say. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association. All of that is in the bill of rights. More than that, they are core values of most Americans. Even if the city of Berkeley and the university (which is a government institution) hadn't failed in their duty to provide adequate security, it would still be wrong to shut down speech outside the government context. Not legally wrong, but morally.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

No, but it does mean that people should be actively trying to take away a platform that you were freely provided by people who wanted to hear what you had to say. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association. All of that is in the bill of rights. More than that, they are core values of most Americans. Even if the city of Berkeley and the university (which is a government institution) hadn't failed in their duty to provide adequate security, it would still be wrong to shut down speech outside the government context. Not legally wrong, but morally.

Is Milo in prison?

Is Milo dead from government forces?

Has Milo been fined by a court judgment?

Is Milo being repeatedly harassed with frivolous charges by a prosecutor?

Jesus Christ on a cracker and people think liberals need safe spaces?

SCOTUS says police are under no obligation to endanger themselves to protect life or property, by the way.

Something liberals have been getting reminded about for years only to get a shrug of the shoulder.

 

[sunmaster14]

Free speech does not mean you must be provided with a venue or platform. Are you being imprisoned or murdered by the government for what you've said?

Case closed.

Is there a qualitative difference between the government attacking you physically for what you say and allowing (inciting even) 3rd parties to attack you physically for what you say. Milo had to be smuggled out of the building, hidden in the back of a car and covered by a blanket. The Berkeley police are playing games and cutting things kind of close.

 

[sunmaster14]

Is Milo in prison?

Is Milo dead from government forces?

Has Milo been fined by a court judgment?

Is Milo being repeatedly harassed with frivolous charges by a prosecutor?

Jesus Christ on a cracker and people think liberals need safe spaces?

Do you even read my posts? It doesn't seem like you do. Or maybe you just don't understand them.

Here's a similar example. The Supreme Court ruled that US flag burning was protected under the 1st Amendment. One Florida town's response was to propose a law that reduced the penalty to that of a parking ticket for people accused of assaulting another person who was in the act of burning a US flag. Do you think that law would have passed Constitutional muster?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Is there a qualitative difference between the government attacking you physically for what you say and allowing (inciting even) 3rd parties to attack you physically for what you say. Milo had to be smuggled out of the building, hidden in the back of a car and covered by a blanket. The Berkeley police are playing games and cutting things kind of close.

I know of no 'government incitement' to physically attack Milo.

If by "3rd parties" you mean private citizens acting on their on inclinations, they are not Constitutionally bound government institutions. If they engage in a criminal act, they should be arrested and given appropriate punishment.

But those are 2 distinct questions and that cannot be overstated.

Sounds like the Berkeley police, despite being under no obligation to risk themselves to protect him did so.

That you want to make this into something to be upset about is your issue to resolve with yourself.

Be upset about criminal behavior all you want, I even agree. But at this point now you're weaving us towards conspiracy la-la land where UCB, the city, the police, and whoever else are all complicit in some way.

Dumbass kids broke laws. You're trying to write the script for a whodunit over here.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Do you even read my posts? It doesn't seem like you do. Or maybe you just don't understand them.

Here's a similar example. The Supreme Court ruled that US flag burning was protected under the 1st Amendment. One Florida town's response was to propose a law that reduced the penalty to that of a parking ticket for people accused of assaulting another person who was in the act of burning a US flag. Do you think that law would have passed Constitutional muster?

No. There is a compelling governmental interest in prevention of violence. To obviate itself from that interest in a curiously narrow way like that creates a prior restraint on another right.

Law is tough for you. That's fine. Not everyone has the chops to be a Constitutional scholar. You can let other folks handle it because it seems to be well beyond you.

 

[theprestige]

Is there any actual proof that the people in masks inflicting violence and destroying property were liberal or progressive? These could just be thrill-seekers wishing for a purge night.

Their choice of time and place kind of gives it away.

 

[sunmaster14]

I know of no 'government incitement' to physically attack Milo.

Well, here's a tweet by Berkeley's mayor shortly before the event and protest:

Using speech to silence marginalized communities and promote bigotry is unacceptable. Hate speech isn't welcome in our community.

If by "3rd parties" you mean private citizens acting on their on inclinations, they are not Constitutionally bound government institutions. If they engage in a criminal act, they should be arrested and given appropriate punishment.

It should not have been hard for police to contain 150 troublemakers. Nor should it have been difficult to arrest at least a few of them. It seems the police backed off very quickly. Perhaps they were outmanned, and it was the sensible thing to do, but why were they outmanned? It wasn't even that big a protest by Berkeley standards.

But those are 2 distinct questions and that cannot be overstated.

Sounds like the Berkeley police, despite being under no obligation to risk themselves to protect him did so.

You have claimed this twice. What do you mean that the Berkeley police had no obligation to risk themselves to protect him. Of course they did. The level of obligation might drop as the risk goes up, but if police don't have to lift a finger to protect an innocent person from a criminal attack, then what's the point of being granted the arrest power? Nobody is demanding that a police officer jump in front of Milo to take a bullet, but you can't seriously suggest that the police don't have an institutional obligation to keep order. Can you?

That you want to make this into something to be upset about is your issue to resolve with yourself.

Yes, I'm working out some of my issues from childhood here.

Be upset about criminal behavior all you want, I even agree. But at this point now you're weaving us towards conspiracy la-la land where UCB, the city, the police, and whoever else are all complicit in some way.

Dumbass kids broke laws. You're trying to write the script for a whodunit over here.

I'm trying to justify Trump's threat to withhold funding (pending an investigation of course). I agree with him.

 

[Mumbles]

Milo on Tucker Carlson last night.

That sounds like The Douchiest Show on Earth.

Here we see the fruits of Breitbart's "see, we're totally not gay-bashers" strategy of having an openly Gay (sic) individual do their homophobic messaging. Then, when the LGBT community voices criticism, they can go 'hey stop being homophobic!'

But no really, why are gay and homophobia capitalized? :9

I've said before that far too many people see "racist" as an insult, when it's really a description. This may be true of "homophobe" as well. Having a single, obviously hateful, gay guy on staff won't help them in the slightest.