“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Not advocating anything about using force mind you, but what line did you have in mind there? Blocking access? A sit-in at the Dean's office?

Is the right to free speech also the right to a platform? I don't have a right to an hour broadcast on CNN to present my views.

OK, so the analogy is weak at best, but students feel some ownership to their campus. They have since the first groups started occupying the Dean's office or getting the universities to divest from South Africa.

 

[theprestige]

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

Calling out other Members?

 

[varwoche]

Not advocating anything about using force mind you, but what line did you have in mind there? Blocking access? A sit-in at the Dean's office?

Blocking access is what I had in mind. Offhand, I wouldn't consider a sit-in at the Dean's office as an example of blocking speech with force (but I haven't thought it through much).

Is the right to free speech also the right to a platform? I don't have a right to an hour broadcast on CNN to present my views.

That depends on the platform of course. CNN is not Cal venue is not the public square.

 

[dudalb]

Calling out other Members?

Sort of. IMHO they should have been more cautious about proclaiming an obvious attention whore like Milo as a great spokesman for the conservative movement. To defend Milo's right to speak is one thing, to defend his opinioins or Milo as a person is another.

 

[dudalb]

Blocking access is what I had in mind. Offhand, I wouldn't consider a sit-in at the Dean's office as an example of blocking speech with force (but I haven't thought it through much).

That depends on the platform of course. CNN is not Cal venue is not the public square.

CNN is a private business. What happened in Berkeley is a different story.

 

[mgidm86]

Sort of. IMHO they should have been more cautious about proclaiming an obvious attention whore like Milo as a great spokesman for the conservative movement. To defend Milo's right to speak is one thing, to defend his opinioins or Milo as a person is another.

I'll guess you don't mean me because I don't think he's a great spokesman for anything, and I haven't seen anyone else here say that, though I definitely could have missed it. I actually agree with some things I have heard him say. What people accuse him of saying is another thing.

I'd never heard of him until a bunch of paid rioters made news for him. I didn't really know who he was until I started this thread. What he says has nothing to do with the rioting being right or wrong.

If he's a "racist sexist transphobic bigot" as someone else mentioned above - well that sounds like one persons point of view. It sounds like the typical hysterical hyperbole that has taken over the politics forum. If he really is then I'm sure I would not like him.

 

[marplots]

Sort of. IMHO they should have been more cautious about proclaiming an obvious attention whore like Milo as a great spokesman for the conservative movement. To defend Milo's right to speak is one thing, to defend his opinioins or Milo as a person is another.

Conservatism is a big tent movement. There's always a risk of taking someone in who makes the rest look bad. It's the price you pay for diversity.

 

[phiwum]

Calling out other Members?

Is that a bad thing?

Suppose I was a Milo supporter and then I ran across something he said that I thought was indefensible. Wouldn't a decent person say, "I supported him previously and I stand by that decision, but I cannot support this"?

 

[theprestige]

Is that a bad thing? /QUOTE]

Call out threads are generally frowned upon by the mods.

 

[phiwum]

Is that a bad thing? /QUOTE]

Call out threads are generally frowned upon by the mods.

If you say so. I should think that asking for reactions from others is appropriate, but I am not a mod.

 

[caveman1917]

What? As dudalb mentioned...

Quite the source you got there.

Innocent people who have nothing to do with Milo.

Who exactly? And innocent of what exactly?

Does it matter if the person owns a bike shop or a bookstore or whether a bike or a book was destroyed?

Yes.

 

[caveman1917]

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

Well then, question solved. Milo is "at war" with the protesters so there is no problem shutting him down. He chose to pick the fight so he shouldn't whine about it.

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

There are many differences. For starters there's a difference that my computer is personal property and the university's things which got damaged aren't.

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.

The question you asked isn't comparable either. Probably even less comparable.

 

[caveman1917]

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 not think that the US legal system includes such a "fundamental right". I also do not think anyone should give even the slightest notice to what the legal system says. So the actions at Berkely should be defended and encouraged, and it matters exactly squat what the state thinks about it.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Is that a bad thing?

Call out threads are generally frowned upon by the mods.

I'd say it depends on how you do it. I've started threads to address a person's contentions that were only serving to derail another thread. I can think of two times I've specifically done that, but there may have been others.

First, avoid starting a thread with the intended victim in the thread title "Hey, BAC, come defend your poopy headedness!" is not a good idea.

Second, it should be a legitimate interest in delving into the question and the poster being addressed is only incidental to the topic. I made one for believers in "The Southern Strategy is a False Narrative" as promoted by a well-known more-conservative-by-the-day member.

And those are call-out THREADS. Threads are not posts. What is being discussed here is a "call-out post". And since the "guilty" posts are in this very thread, I believe, they could've simply been quoted with a request to know if those same opinions held forth in light of the interesting developments of the past several days.

In short - not a call out. (Oh, and he's suspended for another 24 hours, yet, so maybe we can keep this mini-debate going while he formulates a TLA worthy response. Subtle plug. Nominate your favorites, folks. The TLA is baaaaaack.)

 

[Belz...]

Well then, question solved. Milo is "at war" with the protesters so there is no problem shutting him down. He chose to pick the fight so he shouldn't whine about it.

How about nuking him? He's "at war", after all, according to you.

Seriously, stop making nonsense arguments.

There are many differences. For starters there's a difference that my computer is personal property and the university's things which got damaged aren't.

Aren't what? Your personal property? Yeah, I'll say. How is that relevant?

You still haven't managed to explain why you think destroying people's property should be encouraged.

 

[phiwum]

I do not think that the US legal system includes such a "fundamental right". I also do not think anyone should give even the slightest notice to what the legal system says. So the actions at Berkely should be defended and encouraged, and it matters exactly squat what the state thinks about it.

You realize, I suppose, that the bit after "So" doesn't actually follow from what you said before.

But your position is clear enough. You encourage people to destroy public and private property because they disagree with an invited speaker. I sure as hell don't agree.

 

[The_Animus]

Quite the source you got there.

Who exactly? And innocent of what exactly?

So you just assume everyone who was injured or had property damaged was a Milo supporter?

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/02/01/berkeley-braces-for-protests-at-yiannopoulos-talk/

Banks that had nothing to do with this were vandalized.

Police who had nothing to do with Milo and were just doing their jobs were injured.

Yes.

Why? Please clarify this and my original question.

 

[varwoche]

CNN is a private business. What happened in Berkeley is a different story.

Well yeah, that's what I wrote.

 

[The_Animus]

Well then, question solved. Milo is "at war" with the protesters so there is no problem shutting him down. He chose to pick the fight so he shouldn't whine about it.

No. Someone speaking about something that sometime else disagrees with is not war. If it were everyone would be at war with everyone else. I guess you're at war with numerous people in this thread so when can we destroy your computer?

There are many differences. For starters there's a difference that my computer is personal property and the university's things which got damaged aren't.

Except personal property was damaged. So when can we break your computer?

I do not think that the US legal system includes such a "fundamental right". I also do not think anyone should give even the slightest notice to what the legal system says. So the actions at Berkely should be defended and encouraged, and it matters exactly squat what the state thinks about it.

You realize, I suppose, that the bit after "So" doesn't actually follow from what you said before.

But your position is clear enough. You encourage people to destroy public and private property because they disagree with an invited speaker. I sure as hell don't agree.

Yep. I don't agree either.

 

[Belz...]

You realize, I suppose, that the bit after "So" doesn't actually follow from what you said before.

But your position is clear enough. You encourage people to destroy public and private property because they disagree with an invited speaker.

Now, now. He only encourages it against people he disagrees with. Not against himself.