“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

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.

That depends on the nature of the protest. Peaceful protest does not squelch free speech. Shutting down a speaker using force does.

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.
I have no idea whatsoever what your point is. I quoted back the conversation for some context, to help you unravel this whimsical gibberish.
 
Not at all.

Oh, but you did. Rather obviously. So if you previously claimed that dictionary definitions cannot be relied on, and you now say you do not rely on legal definitions, what are you using to define your terms? Convenience?
 
Last edited:
So why can't I come over and smash your computer in protest for your opinions on this?

You defended the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, IIRC. So why can't I nuke your house?

After all, this sort of behaviour is to be encouraged.

Coming over and smashing my computer? No that shouldn't be encouraged.

Unless, of course, it doesn't apply when it's your stuff.

When you answer my question about nuking your house with "it doesn't apply when it's my house" I will consider this statement as perhaps worthy of bothering to respond to.
 
Caveman could you clarify what seem to be contradictory positions?

You say that the rioting and vandalism that occurred is to be encouraged, even though it resulted in damage to property of people who weren't involved at all.

But when it's your property you are against it.

I can't imagine you're actually arguing that it's okay to destroy other innocent peoples property but not yours so please clarify.
 
Caveman could you clarify what seem to be contradictory positions?

You say that the rioting and vandalism that occurred is to be encouraged, even though it resulted in damage to property of people who weren't involved at all.

Which people would that be exactly? And what property exactly?
 
Which people would that be exactly? And what property exactly?

What? As dudalb mentioned...

Hell, the shopkeepers whose Property was damaged had NOTHING to do with Milo one way or the other.

Innocent people who have nothing to do with Milo. Does it matter if the person owns a bike shop or a bookstore or whether a bike or a book was destroyed?

Please clarify
 
Last edited:
You defended the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, IIRC. So why can't I nuke your house?

Nice try, but you and I aren't at war.

Coming over and smashing my computer? No that shouldn't be encouraged.

Why not? It's a political protest over your political statements. What's the difference?

When you answer my question about nuking your house with "it doesn't apply when it's my house" I will consider this statement as perhaps worthy of bothering to respond to.

Notice that I didn't do that. I pointed out that the two aren't comparable in the way that the question _I_ asked is. This is just evasion by you.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/19/us/new-hampshire-pumpkin-festival-riot/

Now how do we spin that into an effective political narrative?

White people are just so violent in expressing their love of pumpkins. How do we fix white culture?
I'm not going to follow the link when you won't even explain how it relates to the discussion.

The opaqueness of your posts leaves me with the distinct sense that you're not actually trying to communicate, so I'll bow out now. Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
How does Berkeley rate on the number of riots per decade compared to more sportsly schools? Of course no one cares about the odd football riot. Or Pumpkin or any other acceptable form of rioting.

Working OVERTIME to desperately change the subject.

The riot in Berkeley was intended to shut down free expression and free speech.

The Pumpkin riot (from 2014?) was not.

So bit of a difference there, but y'all just keep pretending that they are similar rather than spectacularly fallacious argument it really is.
 
I'm not going to follow the link when you won't even explain how it relates to the discussion.

The opaqueness of your posts leaves me with the distinct sense that you're not actually trying to communicate, so I'll bow out now. Have a nice day.

It is about people rioting for what the believe in. Here it was to stop a racist sexist transphobic bigot from giving a speech, then it was to celebrate their love of pumpkins. When will white people correct this violent pumpkin love that they have and be held accountable for it?

If this was sports related no one would care, it wouldn't even have been news. It would just be one of those college things. So why does sports get excused constantly for riots and minor disturbances like this get treated as a big deal?

Treat all riots the same.
 
It is about people rioting for what the believe in. Here it was to stop a racist sexist transphobic bigot from giving a speech, then it was to celebrate their love of pumpkins. When will white people correct this violent pumpkin love that they have and be held accountable for it?

If this was sports related no one would care, it wouldn't even have been news. It would just be one of those college things. So why does sports get excused constantly for riots and minor disturbances like this get treated as a big deal?

Treat all riots the same.

Because one is inimical to the core human values of freedom of speech and expression, and the others have nothing to do with that in any way shape or form but are simply a desperate hobby horse designed to obscure the real issue.
 
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.

Sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand you, so let's be explicit.

Do you think protestors have a fundamental right to cause property damage to third parties (or to the public space) in order to get their point across?

Thanks.
 
I do notice that a couple of the big time Milo fans in this thread have become oddly silent over the past few days......
 

Back
Top Bottom