“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

Lost the book deal, disinvited from CPAC, and now resigns from Breitbart. I'm pretty sure this vindicates the protestors.

There are equivalencies to shouting fire in a theater. It's one thing that Fred Phelps is allowed to shout on a street corner. It's another if the campus Republican organizations want to put that crap on as an invited speaker. In the latter, protests are not squelching free speech, they are exercising theirs.
 
Last edited:
The ACU (CPAC), who were heavily pressured from within were happy to have his alt-right nonsense on stage but it seems we've finally found the line the conservatives won't cross in supporting the reprobates.

But they have great news! The not-at-all-hypocritical Donald J. Trump will be giving a speech on Friday.

Reminder: This is the same Donald J. Trump who tweet-threatened the defunding of Berkeley when they wouldn't let Milo speak. Is he now going to ask the room to stop contributing to the ACU? Boycott Simon & Schuster products? Stop reading Breitbart?

Those of you arguing that this was all about free speech, the unassailable right of every American: Are you re-thinking just how devoted to that the current POTUS is? And do you now see, as you sidle quietly away from Milo, that people draw their own lines. The hard right has drawn the line at sex with thirteen year olds. Others drew that line elsewhere.

In interviews this week, he sounds pathetic. His comments amount to his old Jew-Homo shield. Hey, I'm Jewish and I'm a homosexual so I get a pass and can say those things. He also said that if he'd known he was going to be famous he wouldn't have said those things! Not "I realize I shouldn't have said those things and they're wrong", but another Flynn-excuse... "Damn, they caught me. Wish they hadn't done that."

Sad that Milo is probably not in line for the gig he was made for... a red-carpet-interviewer on E!
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Lost the book deal, disinvited from CPAC, and now resigns from Breitbart. I'm pretty sure this vindicates the protestors.
Click to expand...

They needed no vindication, and even if you think they did, they were vindicated before they even started by the preceding long sequence of such events showing that anti-fascist resistance works.

Curiously the "muh free speech" and "muh non-violence" liberal crowd always seems to forget that again immediately when a new such event occurs.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Lost the book deal, disinvited from CPAC, and now resigns from Breitbart. I'm pretty sure this vindicates the protestors.

There are equivalencies to shouting fire in a theater. It's one thing that Fred Phelps is allowed to shout on a street corner. It's another if the campus Republican organizations want to put that crap on as an invited speaker. In the latter, protests are not squelching free speech, they are exercising theirs.
Click to expand...


Wasn't their participation irrelevant to the outcome?

caveman1917 said:
They needed no vindication, and even if you think they did, they were vindicated before they even started by the preceding long sequence of such events showing that anti-fascist resistance works.

Curiously the "muh free speech" and "muh non-violence" liberal crowd always seems to forget that again immediately when a new such event occurs.
Click to expand...

I would like to know what you mean by this? I think that violent resistance to people speaking on campuses is wrong and the no platforming created a bigger platform.
 
angrysoba said:
I would like to know what you mean by this? I think that violent resistance to people speaking on campuses is wrong and the no platforming created a bigger platform.
Click to expand...

What violent resistance exactly? Breaking a window or setting a light generator on fire isn't violence. Besides, do you have any evidence for thinking that "no platform creates a bigger platform"?
 
caveman1917 said:
What violent resistance exactly? Breaking a window or setting a light generator on fire isn't violence. Besides, do you have any evidence for thinking that "no platform creates a bigger platform"?
Click to expand...

You are contrasting it with "muh non-violence".

The evidence is that whereas some guy goes and talks to a couple of hundred people in a room, he becomes news and gets to be on TV to talk about how he is shut down.
 
caveman1917 said:
What violent resistance exactly? Breaking a window or setting a light generator on fire isn't violence. Besides, do you have any evidence for thinking that "no platform creates a bigger platform"?
Click to expand...

Lookit.... I'm probably closer to sympathetic with your views than most but this pedantry is unnecessary. "That's not violence!", doesn't cut it when dozens of people on these forums consider rioting, even against public property or private property to be "violence". You're getting into a No True Scotsman debate. If you like, call their actions something else and maybe you can get people to agree with you.

For now, suffice it to say that people saying "violence" mean "doing bad stuff to not humans but things".

Oh, and the evidence for "no platform >>> bigger platform"? Milo in the mainstream news for weeks, even prior to the headlines he's making. Maybe he was two inches on page 14 of Anarchy Times, but the rest of us couldn't avoid his light-bulb pate for several weeks.
 
caveman1917 said:
They needed no vindication, and even if you think they did, they were vindicated before they even started by the preceding long sequence of such events showing that anti-fascist resistance works.

Curiously the "muh free speech" and "muh non-violence" liberal crowd always seems to forget that again immediately when a new such event occurs.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? :confused:

I did not think the protesters needed anything, they were exercising their free speech. But the premise of the OP was that the protesters were suppressing Milo's free speech.
 
angrysoba said:
Wasn't their participation irrelevant to the outcome?
Click to expand...
By vindication I meant Milo was so extreme the protesters were not the only ones who didn't think he deserved a platform.


angrysoba said:
I would like to know what you mean by this? I think that violent resistance to people speaking on campuses is wrong and the no platforming created a bigger platform.
Click to expand...
Most of the protesters were non-violent.
 
angrysoba said:
You are contrasting it with "muh non-violence".
Click to expand...

True, but the people who tend to do the "muh non-violence" thing also tend not to not quite understand what it is. With bizarre results, such as them identifying setting a light generator on fire as "violence" (as if a light generator is self-aware or something) but will fail to identify as "violence" things like the illegal taking of political prisoners, such as happened just now to an anti-fascist in the "Netherlands".

The evidence is that whereas some guy goes and talks to a couple of hundred people in a room, he becomes news and gets to be on TV to talk about how he is shut down.
Click to expand...

Yeah, on Fox News. Doesn't seem very relevant.
 
marplots said:
Another outrageous gay pedophile forced back into the closet by societal bullying. When will we learn?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your message is here either. My issue with the guy before he went on about men and boys was the fact he went around spewing some pretty nasty insults at others, especially women.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
What are you talking about? :confused:
Click to expand...

Maybe it's a language issue, but doesn't "X is vindicated of Y" mean "X was suspected of Y and X is now cleared of Y"?

But the premise of the OP was that the protesters were suppressing Milo's free speech.
Click to expand...

Yes, and failing to accept that premise there is nothing to suspect them of, and hence they can not be vindicated of anything.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Lookit.... I'm probably closer to sympathetic with your views than most but this pedantry is unnecessary. "That's not violence!", doesn't cut it when dozens of people on these forums consider rioting, even against public property or private property to be "violence". You're getting into a No True Scotsman debate. If you like, call their actions something else and maybe you can get people to agree with you.
Click to expand...

I'll call their actions something other than non-violent when people stop using the notion of "non-violence" as an argument against those actions.

For now, suffice it to say that people saying "violence" mean "doing bad stuff to not humans but things".
Click to expand...

Yes exactly, "violent" merely seems to mean "whatever I don't like" to "non-violence" supporters.

Oh, and the evidence for "no platform >>> bigger platform"? Milo in the mainstream news for weeks, even prior to the headlines he's making.
Click to expand...

Do you have examples?

Maybe he was two inches on page 14 of Anarchy Times, but the rest of us couldn't avoid his light-bulb pate for several weeks.
Click to expand...

What effect did it have on the alt-right movement though?
 
caveman1917 said:
What effect did it have on the alt-right movement though?
Click to expand...

That wasn't the point being made, was it? It was whether shutting him down gained a larger pulpit/platform and it certainly did. The farkin' POTUS leapt to his defense. A viral annoyance was getting mainstream press and interviews, no doubt attracting the reprehensible sorts he is destined to attract. (Lookit one of our noted conservatives, conspicuously absent now, who tried to convince us this was all a bunch of exaggeration.)

The fact that he finally had it all blow up in his face is also the result of it, so ultimately I think he hurt the alt-right. But for a few weeks there they were walking on cloud 9.
 
Foolmewunz said:
That wasn't the point being made, was it? It was whether shutting him down gained a larger pulpit/platform and it certainly did.
Click to expand...

Well I'd like some examples. Merely talking about him isn't the same as giving him a platform.

The fact that he finally had it all blow up in his face is also the result of it, so ultimately I think he hurt the alt-right. But for a few weeks there they were walking on cloud 9.
Click to expand...

Were they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom