“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

caveman1917 said:
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"?

Yes, and failing to accept that premise there is nothing to suspect them of, and hence they can not be vindicated of anything.
Click to expand...

No offense but I find that a bit of a pedantic interpretation of my post.
 
caveman1917 said:
Well I'd like some examples. Merely talking about him isn't the same as giving him a platform.



Were they?
Click to expand...

Do you get out much? See any news programs? Read any papers. Milo got ink in newspapers, interviews on network news shows and the true sign of instant fame - was joked about on the talk shows.

Now, you can go into a "No True Platform" stance, but to the rest of us, that's a platform. He got to peddle his ideas to a much much larger audience. The alt-right community and blogosphere were giggling with excitement.

That you are not aware of this just means that you are ignorant to elements the rest of us are exposed to. How do you think he got invited to the CPAC (before the invitation was rescinded)? It wasn't because they wanted to have a gay Jew on the dais. It's because he was momentarily infamous and would draw some of his alt-right fans.

This is all fairly common knowledge. What's not known yet is just how badly he's now hurt the alt-right. As I said, the conservatives seem to have drawn the line at Jew-Bashing and Boinking Thirteen Year Olds. With the recent punch-richard-spencer-in-the-face it may just be that the alt-right will now go back to representing the lunatic fringe like they should and that sensible conservatives will move to dissociate themselves from him, Spencer and the other bigots who were getting a free pass. We'll have to see.
 
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...

Come on conservatives what ever happened to free speech!

I guess it is that sexism and racism are great but a little minor endorsement of pederasty and it is right out.
 
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...
That depends on the nature of the protest. Peaceful protest does not squelch free speech. Shutting down a speaker using force does.
 
caveman1917 said:
Yes exactly, "violent" merely seems to mean "whatever I don't like" to "non-violence" supporters.
Click to expand...

Why are you pretending that the word violence has always required injury to a living being? That is not how the word has been defined, and your correspondents are not redefining it.

From Merriam Webster, the first definition:

the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy
Click to expand...

Use of the words "damage" and "destroy" clearly are aimed at property and things, not persons or animals.
 
varwoche said:
That depends on the nature of the protest. Peaceful protest does not squelch free speech. Shutting down a speaker using force does.
Click to expand...

And using violence to express your love for pumpkins what does that say? Clearly that white people are crazy about pumpkins. We need to fix white cultures obsession with pumpkins.
 
Argumemnon said:
....what?
Click to expand...

The Keene pumpkin festival in new hampshire. They cops even had armored vehicles to protect it from threats, but when the white students rioted and caused far more damage than this little spat at berkeley it was never used to condemn any grouping. That needs to change.

We really need to go after sports, they will riot for any reason(winning or losing), we need to teach people that sports are not OK because of the violence of the fans.

Or we need to stop trying to generalize from individual riots. But that would be crazy.
 
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...

Why is colleges not giving him a platform to speak on an assault on free speech but CPAC taking away his platform not? It is almost as if there is a double standard. Or that racism, sexism and homophobia is cool but a touch of defending pederasty is way way to far.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Why is colleges not giving him a platform to speak on an assault on free speech but CPAC taking away his platform not? It is almost as if there is a double standard. Or that racism, sexism and homophobia is cool but a touch of defending pederasty is way way to far.
Click to expand...

Surely this isn't that hard to figure out?
 
phiwum said:
Why are you pretending that the word violence has always required injury to a living being? That is not how the word has been defined, and your correspondents are not redefining it.

From Merriam Webster, the first definition:

Use of the words "damage" and "destroy" clearly are aimed at property and things, not persons or animals.
Click to expand...

Also from Merriam-Webster:

: the use of force to harm a person or damage property
Click to expand...

But one can't claim a non-violent moral high ground with this definition. By claiming that police are thugs who kidnap others, a claim of self-defense is implied for using violence against them. Changing definitions is fun!
 
ponderingturtle said:
The Keene pumpkin festival in new hampshire. They cops even had armored vehicles to protect it from threats, but when the white students rioted and caused far more damage than this little spat at berkeley it was never used to condemn any grouping. That needs to change.

We really need to go after sports, they will riot for any reason(winning or losing), we need to teach people that sports are not OK because of the violence of the fans.

Or we need to stop trying to generalize from individual riots. But that would be crazy.
Click to expand...

You realize that where sports consistently end up in riots they do take steps to curb that sub culture right? They are called soccer hooligans they are mostly white and there is a distinct plan to disrupt their culture and the violence thereof.

If you went blinded by the context, you would have done your research before saying that and making yourself look very silly. But you went with your emotions and winded up saying something very silly. A microcosm of how philosophy like yours works really.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Why is colleges not giving him a platform to speak on an assault on free speech but CPAC taking away his platform not? It is almost as if there is a double standard. Or that racism, sexism and homophobia is cool but a touch of defending pederasty is way way to far.
Click to expand...

Or you could look at it in an unbiased way and realize it's money not racisim.

The man sells, he draws crowds based on his personality, he said something directly opposed to his fan base, his earning ability is now significantly reduced.

And btw he resigned he wasn't fired.

You are smarter than this.
 
phiwum said:
Why are you pretending that the word violence has always required injury to a living being? That is not how the word has been defined, and your correspondents are not redefining it.
Click to expand...

Yes that is how the word has been defined. As per wikipedia:
wiki said:
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation"
Click to expand...
or legally:
legalmatch said:
What Are Non-Violent Crimes?
Non-violent crimes are those crimes that do not involve the use of any force or injury to another person. The seriousness of a non-violent crime is usually measured in terms of economic damage or loss to the victim.

Most non-violent crimes involve some sort of property crime such as larceny or theft.

What Are Violent Crimes?
Violent crimes or violent offenses involve the use of force or injury to the body of another person.
Click to expand...

A dictionary definition will not do, especially such a vacuous one.
 
The campus rioting and vandalism had nothing to do with bringing him down. If anything they played right into his narrative.

Fortunately his own words from the past were brought to light and put an end to him.
 
caveman1917 said:
Yes that is how the word has been defined. As per wikipedia:

or legally:


A dictionary definition will not do, especially such a vacuous one.
Click to expand...

I don't think that anyone in this thread is using a legal definition of violence, aside, perhaps, from you. I think that it is commonplace to regard wanton destruction of others' property as a form of violence.

In any case, this is falling into dull semantic arguments. When others say that the riots were violent, they mean the broader definition, and when you say that they were non-violent, you mean the narrower definition.

The question becomes this: when we say that non-violent protests are a fundamental right, do we include destruction of others' property? I think not, and hence we shouldn't defend the actions of those in Berkeley who destroyed others' (or public) property.

Fair enough?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom