“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[Puppycow]

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.

Good grief.

First of all, I'll point out that I don't listen to either of them. I don't really know first-hand what their views are other than some second-hand information that gets reported in articles about them.

But first someone has to listen to them to even know that they shouldn't be listened to in the first place. And I am a skeptic, I do my own thinking, reach my own conclusions. I'm not going to take someone else's word for it because I prefer to think for myself. I should not be "pressured and harassed" for exercising my constitutional rights. Protesting is legitimate, "pressuring and harassing" is not, unless you also concede that they should have the right to "pressure and harass" you back. Do you concede that allies of Milo should be allowed to "pressure and harass" people?

Do you concede that they should be allowed to "punch in the face" people they don't like?

 

[Mumbles]

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.

Heh, I like your description of him. very accurate. And yes, I disagree that he's someone that requires protest and anger - although, again, college kids aren't known for being calm and measured.

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

I suspect that this has much less to do with "safe spaces", and much more to do with social media exposing people to the worst of humanity fairly quickly, as well as allowing people to organize rapidly. Shapiro still has a past connection with Breitbart, and that place is a cesspool of misogyny and white supremacy. It should be very easy to whip up anger when he shows up at a college campus, even if he's since walked away from Breitbart.

 

[Ziggurat]

How about you figure out the difference between illegal and unlawful and try again.

There basically isn't one. Perhaps you were trying to refer to the difference between unlawful and criminal, but I didn't say criminal.

The language you're using is not a legal argument

So what? The post I responded to wasn't a legal argument either. But as a matter of fact, "illegal immigrant" is a perfectly accurate description.

it's a rhetorical trick to get people to think 'criminal' when they see certain skin colors.

Like I said above, I never said criminal. Nor did I say anything about skin color. And you failed to address my point at all. Why is there a need to grant citizenship to illegal immigrants? There isn't. Even if you think they should be allowed to stay, and even if you think that they shouldn't be left in legal limbo, citizenship isn't the only way to accomplish that. So why citizenship and not legal residency? You haven't said. In fact, you've pretended that my post didn't even raise that question. Instead, you yourself merely resort to the rhetorical trick of insinuating I'm a racist, because you have no counter-argument.

 

[varwoche]

Fails to adequately support?

Yes. Once it was revealed your original citation was 200 proof crap, your second citation -- a big step forward -- showed that university officials were concerned Milo was trying to have students deported. There is no evidence, however, that the concern was founded in fact.

What violence?

I realize you're operating from an alt dictionary, which I'm disinterested in debating against.

What would that have achieved?

This is an incredibly complex concept. You may need to concentrate on the nuance:

Operating under your claim that undocumented attendees were at risk if they attended the event, if they were to be warned before they entered the venue, the risk would be mitigated. I know, it's hard to wrap one's mind around a tactic with this depth of complexity.

 

[Puppycow]

Here he is telling an audience why he postponed his planned speech about pizzagate.

I imagine the purpose of this speech was to explain that pizzagate was fake news. Right?

It's rather stunning that a lying conspiracy theorist such as Milo is held in such high esteem. Welcome to Trump alt-reality folks.

(Dangit, I was trumped by Resume)

Maybe him and Alex Jones both realized how ridiculous it is and decided he didn't want to embarrass himself?

http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/2...-firing-of-joe-biggs-have-the-internet-abuzz/

 

[dudalb]

If Milo was trying using his meetings to trap illegal aliens for deportation, it was one hell of a inefficient way to go about it.

 

[caveman1917]

This is an incredibly complex concept. You may need to concentrate on the nuance:

Operating under your claim that undocumented attendees were at risk if they attended the event, if they were to be warned before they entered the venue, the risk would be mitigated. I know, it's hard to wrap one's mind around a tactic with this depth of complexity.

 

[caveman1917]

If Milo was trying using his meetings to trap illegal aliens for deportation, it was one hell of a inefficient way to go about it.

What makes you think he was trying to trap them? Why would undocumented people show up to attend an alt-right event?

 

[dudalb]

Maybe him and Alex Jones both realized how ridiculous it is and decided he didn't want to embarrass himself?

http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/2...-firing-of-joe-biggs-have-the-internet-abuzz/

Jesus, I thought Alex Jones was incapable of embarrassing himself.....

 

[Graham2001]

Found a long video (1:33:08) on the CFI YouTube channel which is of a lecture by Dave Rubin, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Peter Boghossian at Portland University on Free Speech.

What is really interesting about it is the kind of videos that YouTube throws up as recommendeds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8kJ3SKiDj8

One of those videos was from the Portland University Student Newspaper, I clicked through to that video and found that the video linked above was not visible as a recommended, I find this kind of auto-censorship interesting. The Second video is below, look at their recommended list and compare with the first videos recommended list.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHFLgwoVR7o

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think in a way this blatant hypocrisy all around is hilarious. I'm a big believer in free speech and think I'm a hypocrite when I want this a-hole to shut it, but I also find it like being tolerant of Islam. Why should I be tolerant of people professing ideas that aren't the least bit tolerant and wouldn't hesitate to take away my fee speech?

It's one thing to accept that Fred Phelps can get on his soapbox on a street corner. It's quite another to expect no one to counter protest if the extracurricular Christian Club invites him to share his views on campus.

Free speech applies to counter protests as well.

Some people are just out to see how vile they can get away with and when they don't get away with it, they complain about being shut down because ... unfair.

 

[varwoche]

caveman1917.v1 ...

Milo was planning at his gathering to out undocumented students. These students could get into trouble with immigration authorities and possibly have to stop their education at UC Berkeley or even be deported...

Meet caveman1917.v2 ...

What makes you think he was trying to trap them? Why would undocumented people show up to attend an alt-right event?

 

[Foolmewunz]

That's ridiculous. There isn't a progressive pundit around who could hold a candle to Milo in a debate. He's a deeper thinker than any of them. Far more articulate. And funny as hell. He may be a troll part of the time (much of the time actually), but he's certainly not a paint-by-numbers troll.

Haw haw haw! I remember when "There's not a Dem/Liberal/Progressive around who could take Bill Buckley in a debate",.... just before Gore Vidal ripped him apart. How about "Oh, swift! O'Reilly is going to destroy anyone on the other side, he's Bill O'Reilly, man!"..... as Jon Stewart shredded him and his network in their staged debate.

You really think a guy with a mic and a prepared speech and no opposition is going to be a good debater? Milo is probably going to be doing E! Red Carpet Reports in three years. He's an attention whore. John Oliver, Colbert, Stewart? Hell, he couldn't even handle Joe Rogan. Even in a "friendly mic" show, he broke even in their tussle, at best. The big guns? They'd destroy him in a debate.

I find it curious that you feel that a person of such aberrant thinking is "deep". I'd qualify him as "confusing/confused".

 

[Noztradamus]

That sounds like The Douchiest Show on Earth.



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.

Yep. just like ******

 

[caveman1917]

caveman1917.v1 ...


Meet caveman1917.v2 ...

You do understand the difference between "outing" and "trapping" right?

 

[varwoche]

You do understand the difference between "outing" and "trapping" right?

I so knew that was coming. I almost added it as a spoiler to my post.

 

[phiwum]

Never would you consider that perhaps the things you can _can_ be refuted and that this has nothing to do with someone's hypothetical finding of you as a jerk?



Hopefully moderates on both sides will.

I agree. Protesting his speech is okay, violence that prevents his speech is not.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

There basically isn't one. Perhaps you were trying to refer to the difference between unlawful and criminal, but I didn't say criminal.



So what? The post I responded to wasn't a legal argument either. But as a matter of fact, "illegal immigrant" is a perfectly accurate description.

Only if you accept the idea that a person can be illegal. I find that concept terrifying in the extreme. Behaviors are illegal. A person is violating the law by being unlawfully present, not for 'being' illegal. If we can craft laws declaring people illegal, we're in deep ****.

Like I said above, I never said criminal. Nor did I say anything about skin color. And you failed to address my point at all. Why is there a need to grant citizenship to illegal immigrants? There isn't. Even if you think they should be allowed to stay, and even if you think that they shouldn't be left in legal limbo, citizenship isn't the only way to accomplish that. So why citizenship and not legal residency? You haven't said. In fact, you've pretended that my post didn't even raise that question. Instead, you yourself merely resort to the rhetorical trick of insinuating I'm a racist, because you have no counter-argument.

I know you didn't say criminal. The words you're using twist criminal and certain superficial traits together. Even if you personally don't believe that, parroting that phrasing keeps the message going. So you can unintentionally aid it even if you aren't.

Yeesh.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Here is ~15 minutes of Jon Stewart claiming he's just a comedian. He does this so often, it's referred to his "clown nose on, clown nose off" schtick.

"He does this so often" 'cuz right wing (unintentional) clowns like Tucker don't get it. The only way the mainstream suck-ups can justify their own horrid excuse for journalism is to point out that a comedian on a comedy show on COMEDY CENTRAL wasn't tough enough in his questioning?

So, yeah... he's making a valid point that Counterpoint and numerous other shows are staging an entertainment extravaganza and not pursuing honest debate. They're looking for sound bytes and ratings, and their best defense is "I know you are but what am I?" O'Reilly did it, Hannity did it, Carlson did it. As Stewart noted.... the network is called COMEDY Central and his lead-in show was puppets making crank phone calls. Fox is the Fox NEWS Network. CNN is "NEWS". It would be like having Will Smith on and criticizing him because the Fresh Prince never really criticized black-on-black crime.

 

[rdwight]

Officer safety has to be #1 because if an officer goes down you've got an officer to extract and less resources to do it with, plus the base problem you already had.

$100,000 damage vs. $100,000 and injured or slain officers.

Which is worse?

Don't think those are the only possible outcomes. Just my opinion but it would seem like there is middle ground from those outcomes and other more optimistic ones. As well as the possibility that inaction could cause civilian injuries or deaths.

The flaw in your thinking seems to be that the police escalation will go swimmingly. Almost as if there's a direct correlation between police responsiveness and resulting damage. It's not that simple.

I have been upfront that I am no expert in crowd dispersion/riot protocol but from your experience you have obviously seen different outcomes to different tactics used by police in these situations. Is non-intervention always the best method? And could a better planned police response before an event happens be a contributing factor?

I seem to be on the side that inaction and bad planning can cause more issues, while you seem to be of the view that police action to intervene could cause more trouble than it would solve. I don't think either of us are necessarily right or wrong since it would depend on the situation, but hopefully places that these actions are common place at can take a second look to see if policies that are in place are as good as they can be.

Don't think it something that requires federal funds being withheld to solve, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't question if there is anything that could be done better.