“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[mgidm86]

Untrue, unfair, and a blatant strawman. I assert outright that the measures they took were likely in preparation for being attacked by the marchers, as Trump supporters are known to be violent towards those with whom they disagree.

Bull.

Well, judging from past protests (like the one this thread is based on) I would say that the anti-Trumpers are far more likely to be violent than the Trump supporters.

Masked anti-Trumpers used pepper spray and carried baseball bats to the Berkeley riot, as well as other events. Some of these people want violence so that they can show everyone how bad Trump supporters are.

If others out there feel the same way you do about violence then it's really not surprising is it?

 

[Thermal]

You wrote "forming a human wall." And then claimed that the Pro-Trump marchers "closed in on them."

Meaning, of course, the "human wall" which they had constructed. That is what we call the "they were coming right for me!" defense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU

Getting a little slippery with the quoting. I wrote 'the protesters claimed they were forming a human wall.' The full quote from varwoche's link:

Counter-protesters said before the march began that they planned to try to stop the march's progress with a "human wall."

They evidently had not done so, as seen in the videos and photos. But even so, is joining hands to form a human wall not a legitimate form of protest? Is a sit-in then also 'asking for it'? More to the point, there were 20-30 counter protesters, and two thousand or so marchers. They could literally walk around a human wall so small, even if it had been formed. By 'closing in', I obviously refer to the violence that the Trump supporters demonstrably instigated: in case you missed it, pro-Trumps attacked the media for the opening move.

 

[Thermal]

Bull.

Well, judging from past protests (like the one this thread is based on) I would say that the anti-Trumpers are far more likely to be violent than the Trump supporters.

Masked anti-Trumpers used pepper spray and carried baseball bats to the Berkeley riot, as well as other events. Some of these people want violence so that they can show everyone how bad Trump supporters are.

I would disagree that the masked crew was specifically anti-Trumpers. From your OP article:

The protest turned violent around 6 p.m. when dozens of masked anarchists, dressed in black and wearing backpacks, emerged from the otherwise peaceful crowd.

Sounds like the actual protesters were peaceful, and the hell-raisers had assimilated into them. From another article covering Berkeley (linked below):

“We had a controlled environment up until the moment when the black bloc arrived,” Bennett said. Black bloc protesters, who dress in all black and keep their faces covered with bandannas, have become a fixture of Bay Area demonstrations in the past decade, particularly in Oakland. They tend to attach themselves to peaceful protests before breaking out to start shattering windows and vandalizing property.

I think the posters here who assume the Berkeley rioters were anti-Milo/Trump have it all wrong. They may be anti-Trump, but they are just as anti-Clinton (a corporatist) They...just...want...to...bust...****...up.

If others out there feel the same way you do about violence then it's really not surprising is it?

The way I feel about violence? You mean how I avoid it, and do not use it against others? Or do you mean how I don't buy into the canned narrative that the poor 'lil Trump supporters are being beaten up on by the bad ol' Left? Don't forget, the Orange County 'scuffle' was reported to have been started by pro-Trumpers attacking the media.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley-20170201-story.html

 

[Jules Galen]

Who gets to decide when specific words mean you're guilty of the other guy punching you out?

If you purposevely contribute to violence through words, the you can not wholly claim self defense.

For example, if some guy where I live walks up to a huge bike and starts bad-mouthing his mother, and then a fight begins where Biker is "shot in self defense", then guy who shot the Biker can't really claim "self defense" and hope to get away with it.

I mean, if you let this kind of baloney slide (i.e, read above), then you set up situations where someone can provoke another attack with the sole purpose of killing them in self defense.

For this reason, I was very upset at the charges that were pressed against George Zimmerman, considering he did everything he could to provoke Trayvon to attack....and then killed Trayvon in "self defense".

 

[Meadmaker]

. But even so, is joining hands to form a human wall not a legitimate form of protest?

Legitimate? What an interesting question. As if some sorts of protest could be legitimate, while others not.

On the other hand, there's the question of legality. Generally, forming a barrier and preventing people from using public space would be illegal. The right to peaceably assemble is guaranteed in the constitution, but by forming a human chain to restrict movement, they've moved beyond peaceable, into the realm of physical force. The Trump supporters themselves would probably need a permit, or they would be, at the very least, required to allow free access to the areas on which they were assembling.

I'm sure there is a lot of case law deciding when a group can or cannot get together in public spaces, but my guess is that any action which deliberately blocks either vehicle or foot traffic would be illegal. Any action where such restriction would be an inevitable consequence, i.e. because you are having a horde of marchers in the street and they will block traffic due to the sheer number of people, will require a permit.

Is a sit-in then also 'asking for it'?

Uhhh....yeah. Is this a trick question? Most sit ins are illegal. They are generally conducted on someone else's property. The point of them is generally to do something that forces someone to either take you seriously, possibly giving in to your demands, or arrest you, creating really bad publicity.

 

[caveman1917]

Could you clarify this? It could mean a couple different things (or nothing at all).

If the anti-fascist protesters wouldn't be there, would that stop the fascists from being violent? No. If the fascists wouldn't be there, would that stop the anti-fascists from being violent? Yes. Heck, would that stop the anti-fascists from even showing up in the first place? Yes.

You presenting this as a brawl likely whenever the "two sides meet" ignores that the presence of the other side is only a decisive factor for one side.

Yes, but the expose` was mostly posting the personal information of individuals, exactly the kind of thing the good guys tend not to do.

Apparently there was some comparative propaganda film study which found that US films portrayed the Soviets as the "bad guys" and themselves as the "good guys" whereas Soviet films portrayed Americans as naive and misled by their leaders.

Protesting and demonstrating for ideology is one thing

Which ideology exactly are we talking about here?

and posting the equivalent of online Wanted Posters is another

What equivalent of online wanted posters?

 

[Thermal]

Legitimate? What an interesting question. As if some sorts of protest could be legitimate, while others not.

Of course some could be legitimate and others not. Why does this seem odd? For example, if someone robbed a marijuana dispensary claiming that they were protesting a gasoline tax, I would opine that that was not a legitimate form of protest.

On the other hand, there's the question of legality.

The primary definition of 'legitimate' (linked below) is: according to law; lawful. Isn't it odd that you make such a strong distinction between that and 'legality'?

Generally, forming a barrier and preventing people from using public space would be illegal. The right to peaceably assemble is guaranteed in the constitution, but by forming a human chain to restrict movement, they've moved beyond peaceable, into the realm of physical force. The Trump supporters themselves would probably need a permit, or they would be, at the very least, required to allow free access to the areas on which they were assembling.
I'm sure there is a lot of case law deciding when a group can or cannot get together in public spaces, but my guess is that any action which deliberately blocks either vehicle or foot traffic would be illegal. Any action where such restriction would be an inevitable consequence, i.e. because you are having a horde of marchers in the street and they will block traffic due to the sheer number of people, will require a permit.

In an article linked below, Berkeley students form a human wall to prevent only white students access to a bridge leading to campus, forcing many to hop from rock to rock across a stream to cross. In the included video, you may note that police were on scene throughout. While I am not familiar with Cali law, it would seem that restricting freedom of movement as a form of protest is in perfectly legal...even in this case where it was racially motivated (although the protesters were in fact protesting which floor their groups 'safe space' was on. You can't make this stuff up).

Uhhh....yeah. Is this a trick question? Most sit ins are illegal. They are generally conducted on someone else's property. The point of them is generally to do something that forces someone to either take you seriously, possibly giving in to your demands, or arrest you, creating really bad publicity.

Not a trick question, but I think you missed it's point. TBD said you cannot claim self-defense if you are attacked when you have knowingly exposed yourself to a 'threat'. I disagree with this, and a sit-in serves as a good illustration: just because you engage in protest, it does not give others the right to assault you or negate your ability to claim self-defense against an assault.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/legitimate

http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/26/video-uc-berkeley-protesters-built-a-hum

 

[Thermal]

If the anti-fascist protesters wouldn't be there, would that stop the fascists from being violent? No. If the fascists wouldn't be there, would that stop the anti-fascists from being violent? Yes. Heck, would that stop the anti-fascists from even showing up in the first place? Yes.

You presenting this as a brawl likely whenever the "two sides meet" ignores that the presence of the other side is only a decisive factor for one side.

I disagree that those who you call the anti-fascists would stop being violent. I think they would develop a more serious concern with the corporatist Left. Or the apathetic Center. Or the paperboy.

Apparently there was some comparative propaganda film study which found that US films portrayed the Soviets as the "bad guys" and themselves as the "good guys" whereas Soviet films portrayed Americans as naive and misled by their leaders.

...uh...good to know...

Which ideology exactly are we talking about here?

In context, pretty much any.

What equivalent of online wanted posters?

If you forgot, please reread. If you are playing that weird game where you feign having no idea what is being discussed, then nevermind.

 

[caveman1917]

I disagree that those who you call the anti-fascists would stop being violent.

Your disagreement is meaningless. If, on the other hand, you have evidence then feel free to share it.

...uh...good to know...

And hence so much for empty appeals to what purportedly "good guys" would do - if even the official Soviet propaganda machine can beat you on that kind of "argument" then that is quite telling as to its strength.

In context, pretty much any.

In context there is so far only fascism. Feel free to point out these "pretty much any" ideologies for which was purportedly being protested.

If you forgot, please reread.

I didn't forget, I'm calling BS on it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

At least berkeley is better than University of Kentucky. More violence after the poor performance of their team

http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/counties/fayette-county/article140926328.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/kentucky-students-light-stuff-fire-chant-f-k-unc-loss-article-1.3009991

When will colleges crack down on these violent sportspeople?

When will the violence of these sportsers be address and ruthlessly suppressed as it should be?

 

[applecorped]

 

[The Big Dog]

Getting a little slippery with the quoting. I wrote 'the protesters claimed they were forming a human wall.' The full quote from varwoche's link:



They evidently had not done so, as seen in the videos and photos. But even so, is joining hands to form a human wall not a legitimate form of protest? Is a sit-in then also 'asking for it'? More to the point, there were 20-30 counter protesters, and two thousand or so marchers. They could literally walk around a human wall so small, even if it had been formed. By 'closing in', I obviously refer to the violence that the Trump supporters demonstrably instigated: in case you missed it, pro-Trumps attacked the media for the opening move.

Physically stopping a protest by creating a wall is not a legitimate form of protest.

It is a physical confrontation, of course.

 

[Stout]

If the anti-fascist protesters wouldn't be there, would that stop the fascists from being violent? No. If the fascists wouldn't be there, would that stop the anti-fascists from being violent? Yes. Heck, would that stop the anti-fascists from even showing up in the first place? Yes.

You presenting this as a brawl likely whenever the "two sides meet" ignores that the presence of the other side is only a decisive factor for one side.

This reads just plain weird.

Are you trying to say that it's somehow the MAGA marchers fault that antifa terrorists showed up with chemical weapons ? That had the MAGA marchers just stayed home then none of this would have happened ?

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's not how it works at all. See, ya' punch a loud-mouthed right-winger in the mouth and he goes home, and stays home. He quits talking and he doesn't vote. Because he ashamed of being whipped. That's why Liberals punch right-wingers in the mouth.

And it's going to happen more and more as Liberals figure oout that they can not reason with the right-wing hate.

If ya' don't like it...if ya' find it shocking...then, what can I say, It's just the way things are going to happen.

Yeah, there are a lot of derogatory terms the Right uses: Pinko, Libtard, Tree-hugger, bleeding-heart, Moonbat...but those days are coming to a close, with a punch-in-the-mouth.

See, ya' punch a loud-mouthed woman in the mouth and she goes home, and stays home. She quits talking and she doesn't vote. Because she intimidated by being whipped. That's why Men punch women in the mouth.

And it's going to happen more and more as Men figure out that they can not reason with women.

If ya' don't like it...if ya' find it shocking...then, what can I say, It's just the way things are going to happen.

Yeah, there are a lot of derogatory terms women uses: Patriarchal society, male-dominated, mansplaining...but those days are coming to a close, with a punch-in-the-mouth.

Way to argue zealously for conformity through intimidation! You'd have made an excellent inquisitor.

 

[varwoche]

Of course they did, that's what neo-nazis do during and surrounding their rallies. I even provided a fairly in-depth exposé of these particular so-called "Trump supporters" just a couple of posts ago.

BS of a high order. I followed your highly diffuse link. It informed me of precisely nothing as relating to the events in Orange County (or anything else for that matter).

Sharpen your pencil please.

 

[Belz...]

If you purposevely contribute to violence through words, the you can not wholly claim self defense.

The biker example you give is easy, and I've used it myself, but how about more subtle things? How about a situation where someone argues in favour of economic protectionism, and it really, really offends a second person. The first person knew that, and talked about it anyway. Would that purposely contribute to violence if person #2 were to punch person #1?

 

[Thermal]

Your disagreement is meaningless. If, on the other hand, you have evidence then feel free to share it.

Shifting the burden of proof, I see. Ok: I have no reason to think that all those who claim to be anti-fascist have identical goals and motivations, nor do I have any reason to believe that they are solely motivated to action based on marches, nor do I have reason to believe that they act in worldwide unison. Your comments suggest that this is the case. 'Feel free to present your evidence' to support your claim.

And hence so much for empty appeals to what purportedly "good guys" would do - if even the official Soviet propaganda machine can beat you on that kind of "argument" then that is quite telling as to its strength.

Non-sequitur. We are not discussing respective propaganda presentation. We are discussing the purpose of posting personal information of protestors, complete with bios, employment, and pictures. You seem to claim that antifa are maintaining a 'Who's Who' socialite gossip page. Do you have another reason to post the personal information of specific protestors? 'Feel free to present your evidence' of what legitimate service these postings provide.

In context there is so far only fascism. Feel free to point out these "pretty much any" ideologies for which was purportedly being protested.

The context of the comment you replied to was general. Protesting and demonstrating for your political and social beliefs are a cherished right for many of us. Posting detailed personal information about opposition members (not even public leader type figures) serves no reasonable purpose other than to target them. 'Feel free to present evidence' that it serves some legitimate purpose.

I didn't forget, I'm calling BS on it.

No, you said 'What Wanted posters?' when I specifically addressed what I was referring to. Just present your argument bro, stop with the rhetorical pretense of innocence/ignorance.

 

[Thermal]

Physically stopping a protest by creating a wall is not a legitimate form of protest.

It is a physical confrontation, of course.

I'm not so sure. Did you note the link to the Berkeley human wall posted above in post #1767? The police were even on site throughout to make sure there was no violence, which would be odd if the protest method was illegal, as you say.

But all a red herring anyway. The Orange County counter-protestors only claimed that they were going to form a wall to a journalist. They evidently did not, so going back to your original comment: the protestors certainly could claim self-defense, as they had not assaulted the marchers, contrary to your claim.

 

[Thermal]

This reads just plain weird.

Are you trying to say that it's somehow the MAGA marchers fault that antifa terrorists showed up with chemical weapons ? That had the MAGA marchers just stayed home then none of this would have happened ?

I think that caveman1917 is saying that fascists are the raison d'etre for antifas, and the latter would have no reason to exist without the former.

 

[The Big Dog]

How about this:

The counter protesters claimed they were forming a human wall in a legal protest, abt 30 counter-protesters against 2000 marchers. Based on the link, sounds like only a few of the counter-protesters had spray, and used it when the 2000 Trupmeters had closed in on them, possibly with enough menace as to pose a credible threat to the safety of the few opposers. Then the Trumpeters apparently beat one to the ground, kicking and punching him. Sounds like a violent mob attacking some civil counter-protesters (who were prepared for self-defense by bringing spray) to me. Anything in the link to rule out this scenario?

I'm not so sure. Did you note the link to the Berkeley human wall posted above in post #1767? The police were even on site throughout to make sure there was no violence, which would be odd if the protest method was illegal, as you say.

But all a red herring anyway. The Orange County counter-protestors only claimed that they were going to form a wall to a journalist. They evidently did not, so going back to your original comment: the protestors certainly could claim self-defense, as they had not assaulted the marchers, contrary to your claim.

I was simply referring to your hypothetical. Are you now asserting that they did not form a wall? Then why did you say it was a "legal protest"?