“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

Resume said:
That's kind of tough; if they're here illegally, that's a risk they take. I've seen friends and co-workers deported and it's very sad, but they knew it could happen. I hope as a country we can find a solution, but we currently have no amnesty or moratorium. If the law sucks, we need to change it, not pretend it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
What if we can't change it? The question is do you obey or resist a law that you find immoral and wrong?
 
Argumemnon said:
Several thoughts about this: first, how many have actually been deported?
Click to expand...

None, the event was cancelled, hence this thread.

Second, what's wrong with deporting those here (or there) illegally? Third, I consider freedom of expression, both the kind respected by the government and the kind respected by my peers, to be the foremost of our rights, so it'll take more than that for me to consider curtailing it.
Click to expand...

I'll count you in favour of handing them over? And you arrive at this by being what you call a "moderate"?
 
acbytesla said:
What if we can't change it? The question is do you obey or resist a law that you find immoral and wrong?
Click to expand...
That all depends. For example, I was very close to some folks who were "repatriated" but I wouldn't have hidden them in my basement. I have a family to consider, and they wouldn't have asked anyway.

Now, if I were hiding them from certain death a la Anne Frank, that might be different. It's all good to advocate a haughty principled stance, quite another to act on it responsibly.
 
logger said:
I wonder if another center left or leftist will agree with you?
Click to expand...
I prefer not to self-identify however I'll chime in: I agree wholeheartedly.

If it's true that Milo was intending to get students deported, as Caveman claims (though fails to adequately support), rather than violently shut down the event, people could be warned as they approach the venue.
 
Resume said:
Oh there's no question Coulter is a troll, as is Yiannopoulos, I just wish they'd admit they're doing schtick, even if they believe in some of it.

I like Hitchen's prose and find him more serious than these people, but he served up some turds too, and I don't just mean Iraq.
Click to expand...

Yes on all of it. I'm a 100 percent with Hitch on religion. He attacked Kissinger pretty hard and I thought he was over the top on his attacks on the Clintons and a weird defense of George W. But the man could write and he made me think. His books on Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine were excellent.
 
Resume said:
That's kind of tough; if they're here illegally, that's a risk they take. I've seen friends and co-workers deported and it's very sad, but they knew it could happen. I hope as a country we can find a solution, but we currently have no amnesty or moratorium. If the law sucks, we need to change it, not pretend it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I'll count you as in favour of handing them over? Would it be correct to state you arrive at this through liberalism? I'm going with liberalism here because of legalistic nationalism combined with approaching social & political questions by base emotional appeals ("it's very sad" or "Milo is a ****").

ETA: And all this assuming Milo even had this information, or that it would have any consequence.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, assume for the sake of argument.
 
varwoche said:
I prefer not to self-identify however I'll chime in: I agree wholeheartedly.

If it's true that Milo was intending to get students deported, as Caveman claims (though fails to adequately support)
Click to expand...

Fails to adequately support?

rather than violently shut down the event
Click to expand...

What violence?

people could be warned as they approach the venue.
Click to expand...

What would that have achieved?
 
caveman1917 said:
I'll count you as in favour of handing them over?
Click to expand...
Who? You haven't presented any facts.
Would it be correct to state you arrive at this through liberalism?
Click to expand...
No, pragmatism.

'm going with liberalism here because of legalistic nationalism combined with approaching social & political questions by base emotional appeals ("it's very sad" or "Milo is a ****").
Click to expand...
You may go by anything your self-righteous, self-important little heart desires; wouldn't make you correct.

Well yeah, assume for the sake of argument.
Click to expand...

You assume a lot of things.
 
Resume said:
That all depends. For example, I was very close to some folks who were "repatriated" but I wouldn't have hidden them in my basement. I have a family to consider, and they wouldn't have asked anyway.

Now, if I were hiding them from certain death a la Anne Frank, that might be different. It's all good to advocate a haughty principled stance, quite another to act on it responsibly.
Click to expand...

So clearly this is a subjective position. I think it is immoral not to provide a path to citizenship to long term illegal aliens because we are accomplices in them breaking our immigration laws.
 
acbytesla said:
So clearly this is a subjective position. I think it is immoral not to provide a path to citizenship to long term illegal aliens because we are accomplices in them breaking our immigration laws.
Click to expand...
Subjective in what way?

ETA: Subject to reality? Certainly.
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
None, the event was cancelled, hence this thread.
Click to expand...

Do you have reason to believe that deportation would've been the consequence of this event? Otherwise this is a hypothetical at best, and an attempt at shaming me at worst.

I'll count you in favour of handing them over?
Click to expand...

I notice you didn't answer the question. Do you think people should be able to come into the US and work or study without limits? Here in Canada you need a study permit to study when a visitor. It's not hard to acquire, and this isn't an unreasonable rule. Why break it and risk deportation?

And you arrive at this by being what you call a "moderate"?
Click to expand...

Yes. Last I checked, the definition of "moderate" doesn't include me agreeing with you on any topic, nor does it mean that I should tolerate everything that anyone does. This question by you seems to indicate that you think "moderate" means something entirely different than what is usually understood, so would you mind providing me with your definition? Not a set of criteria ("A moderate wouldn't think X") but a definition.
 
Resume said:
Some of his act (he calls it a show) is amusing, as is Coulter on occasion. Stewart and Colbert at least self-identify as comics, albeit with a bias, but comics none the less. I think this is an important distinction.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it shows how dishonest Stewart and Colbert are. Sure, they can be very funny (or at least Stewart can), but they are clearly very political people who use their celebrity status and platform to advocate for progressive policies. Both of them would certainly pass up a good joke (or make a bad one) for the "cause."
 
acbytesla said:
Methinks you are afflicted with cognitive bias. I don't think he's particularly articulate or funny. He's certainly not on a level with Jon Stewart or Christopher Hitchens may he rest in peace. He's not George Carlin, Lenny Bruce or Dick Gregory.
Click to expand...

Like I said...sunmaster supports Milo simply because his pisses off Liberals.
 
acbytesla said:
So clearly this is a subjective position. I think it is immoral not to provide a path to citizenship to long term illegal aliens because we are accomplices in them breaking our immigration laws.
Click to expand...

Oddly, I agree both with deporting them and giving them a path (in the sense that both options have good arguments and reasons in their favour). But I find your justification weird. I agree with the path idea because it's a good way to help these people become productive citizens rather than potentially break families apart and costing the state a bunch of money and workers in the process. Complacency by the state is no excuse.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Yeah, it shows how dishonest Stewart and Colbert are. Sure, they can be very funny (or at least Stewart can), but they are clearly very political people who use their celebrity status and platform to advocate for progressive policies. Both of them would certainly pass up a good joke (or make a bad one) for the "cause."
Click to expand...

Where's the dishonesty? The two aren't mutually-exclusive, and Stewart for one never denied having a political bias.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Huh?
Click to expand...

What "huh?"? You said that you think others dislike you because they can't refute your points. I'm pointing out the hubris of that statement. Maybe they dislike you because of your attitude, and absolutely can refute your points, but you can't see it because you can't refute their points and can't see through your bias, leading you to pretend like it's the other way around. Just maybe.

...or maybe we can stop trying to throw stones at each other and, you know, just argue the actual topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom