“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

The_Animus said:
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.
Click to expand...

You know it's almost like it's a direct example of how by acting like ******** and thugs we gave him a situation in which he seemed sympathetic, but when we just let him talk, he'll when we promoted something he said, then his image was damaged.

Actually it is exactly *********** that. But we will still have a fringe group saying that we should just keep throwing bricks through windows.
 
phiwum said:
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.
Click to expand...

You want to talk about a "fundamental right" whilst at the same time explicitly choosing to ignore legal definitions?

Fair enough?
Click to expand...

As in whether I agree? Not at all, I think it should not only be defended but encouraged.
 
sadhatter said:
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.
Click to expand...

The regularity of sports riots shows that liking sports is a fundamental weakness of character. Why else do you see sports fans rioting when a beloved coach is disciplined for aiding child rape. Clearly child rape in that context is not a big deal.

If Milo had just kept it to focusing on coaches doing the initiating into homosexual sex, then republicans would have been fine with it see how they don't take issue with Hastert.

A little pederasty is fine in a sports context.

Clearly CPAC needs to learn to be more tollerant about granting a podium to unpopular opions like they demanded when they suggested that schools canceling his talks because people didn't like his was some grave insult to free speech.

Of course if anything is clear free speech is an enemy of the american people.
 
sadhatter said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes and people really resign to spend more time with their families. You are smarter than this. When people protested against his speaking at campuses regardless of how peaceful it was that was an attack on freedom of speech. Now that he didn't stick to racism, sexism and homophobia he suddenly stops getting a pass on free speech.
 
The_Animus said:
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.
Click to expand...

And campus riots are just a thing that happens. See the pro child rape pen state riots or the pumpkin riots. What political sides can we tar the whole group with those events?

Football fans clearly support child rape.
 
sadhatter said:
But they are not.

They support traditional conservative values, one of those is not pedophilia.

Your being so desperate for a point you are not making sense.
Click to expand...

Yep just the racism and sexism are traditional conservative values. And covering for your guys like Hastert who put what Milo advocated into practice.
 
caveman1917 said:
You want to talk about a "fundamental right" whilst at the same time explicitly choosing to ignore legal definitions?



As in whether I agree? Not at all, I think it should not only be defended but encouraged.
Click to expand...

Yawn, I actually provided an actual legal definition.
 
caveman1917 said:
You want to talk about a "fundamental right" whilst at the same time explicitly choosing to ignore legal definitions?



As in whether I agree? Not at all, I think it should not only be defended but encouraged.
Click to expand...

...are you saying that destruction of property should be encouraged? Can I come over and smash your computer to express my disagreement?
 
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...

Not to mention the destructions of property owned by people having nothng to do Milo. Plese explain why breaking the windows of a shop on Telegraph Avenue is protected free speech.
 
Argumemnon said:
...are you saying that destruction of property should be encouraged? Can I come over and smash your computer to express my disagreement?
Click to expand...

Hell, the shopkeepers whose Property was damaged had NOTHING to do with Milo one way or the other.
 
Argumemnon said:
The question was right after Phiwum's previous paragraph about violence to objects. You're not answering my question.
Click to expand...

The answer to your question is no, you can not come over and smash my computer. As to what the statement referred to:

phiwum said:
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?
Click to expand...

caveman1917 said:
You want to talk about a "fundamental right" whilst at the same time explicitly choosing to ignore legal definitions?



As in whether I agree? Not at all, I think it should not only be defended but encouraged.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Not to mention the destructions of property owned by people having nothng to do Milo. Plese explain why breaking the windows of a shop on Telegraph Avenue is protected free speech.
Click to expand...

Riots are the cost of doing business in a college town. Just ask state college.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom