“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

caveman1917 said:
I've already explained this to you: being able to objectively determine that an object has a property is not the same as being able to objectively determine the "purpose" of an object. The Earth is round, therefor the purpose of the Earth is to be round?
Click to expand...
When a mob breaks windows, throws rocks and burns cars, the "purpose" is to use fear to motivate decision makers to do what the mob wants .

Because thuggery is so preferable to democracy?
 
Mycroft said:
When a mob breaks windows, throws rocks and burns cars, the "purpose" is to use fear to motivate decision makers to do what the mob wants .

Because thuggery is so preferable to democracy?
Click to expand...

Only when celebrating sports victories. When one is angry about injustice it one is held to a much higher standard than when one is celebrating a sports victory/defeat.

Terrorist organizations like the Sons of Liberty need to be put down hard, any american would agree.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Only when celebrating sports victories. When one is angry about injustice it one is held to a much higher standard than when one is celebrating a sports victory/defeat.
Click to expand...

Whose bias is it that allows sports related thuggery to be tolerated?

Isn't it true that the thugs who start riots after sports events are also related to hard right-wing, racist politics?

ponderingturtle said:
Terrorist organizations like the Sons of Liberty need to be put down hard, any american would agree.
Click to expand...

They didn't ask me, so I didn't get a chance to weigh in. How about the Ku Klux Klan? Should we tolerate cross burnings because we tolerate sports riots?
 
Mycroft said:
They didn't ask me, so I didn't get a chance to weigh in. How about the Ku Klux Klan? Should we tolerate cross burnings because we tolerate sports riots?
Click to expand...

You do tolerate cross burnings. There is no consequence for the KKK to hold a cross burning, unless they do it on someone's lawn as a direct threat.
 
caveman1917 said:
Obviously.



God exists.



You haven't a right to deny that God exists. Or, since you seem to like dramatic use of language, you haven't a right to destroy my belief that God exists.
Click to expand...

I own two cars! And God does exist and you are certainly free to deny that God exists and even to try to destroy my belief that God exists, but if you try to do that by trying to wreck my car, you will go to jail.

Fantastic!
 
uke2se said:
You do tolerate cross burnings. There is no consequence for the KKK to hold a cross burning, unless they do it on someone's lawn as a direct threat.
Click to expand...

Yeah well burning stuff on other people's property is already illegal, as are threats of violence.


But how about cross burning on your own lawn? And not as a threat? Why would that be not tolerated?
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
You do tolerate cross burnings. There is no consequence for the KKK to hold a cross burning, unless they do it on someone's lawn as a direct threat.
Click to expand...
It was the burning on someone's lawn that I was referring to.

If you like violent political protest, what's the plan for if the guys you disagree with have a greater capacity for violence than the guys you agree with? How do you think that should work out?
 
Mycroft said:
It was the burning on someone's lawn that I was referring to.

If you like violent political protest, what's the plan for if the guys you disagree with have a greater capacity for violence than the guys you agree with? How do you think that should work out?
Click to expand...

God's with us. How can we lose?
 
theprestige said:
We also tolerate people smashing up their own cars on their own property, if that's what they want to do.
Click to expand...

Strange, ain't it? On the one hand you have posters claiming that your property isn't your own (it's a belief system!) when someone else wants to smash it with righteous fury, and on the other you have here an implication that you can't even smash your own stuff if, in another context, it could be viewed as a threat of violence.
 
Mycroft said:
It was the burning on someone's lawn that I was referring to.

If you like violent political protest, what's the plan for if the guys you disagree with have a greater capacity for violence than the guys you agree with? How do you think that should work out?
Click to expand...

The answer I usually get is "that won't happen these people have no power and no numbers. They are a dying breed." And on and on, the words white tears get thrown about, then the person just goes on that it is a foregone conclusion that violence will turn out in favor of the "his guys".

Ignoring for a moment the fact this is simply not the case.

It is completly hypocritical. If these people are nothing then by your own "punch up not down" logic you are the bad guy. If they are in such a state that they are out manned and out gunned by people who tend to shun violence and arming themselves, then they really are to be pitied.

But like all sjw logic it is completely flawed. They cannot be so ineffectual that violent conflict is a sure win, yet powerful enough to warrent physical violence just for speaking.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Only when celebrating sports victories. When one is angry about injustice it one is held to a much higher standard than when one is celebrating a sports victory/defeat.

Terrorist organizations like the Sons of Liberty need to be put down hard, any american would agree.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep repeating "sports get away with riots" when I have clearly explained hooliganisim and the great lengths that ate gone to to curb it?

It's a very interesting subject that has many films, documentaries etc. But be warned they will not agree with your current view. I hope that doesn't get me punched as you seem to believe violence is an acceptable response to speech that goes against your world view.
 
Mycroft said:
Whose bias is it that allows sports related thuggery to be tolerated?
Click to expand...

No one cares or seriously condemns much more serious riots than the ones at Berkeley. You will never see colege sports cancled for any thing as unimportant as a riot.
Isn't it true that the thugs who start riots after sports events are also related to hard right-wing, racist politics?
Click to expand...

Not likely. They are likely drunk young men looking for some violent fun just like the Pumpkin Riots. At least that got the pumpkin festival canceled for ever.
 
sadhatter said:
Why do you keep repeating "sports get away with riots" when I have clearly explained hooliganisim and the great lengths that ate gone to to curb it?
Click to expand...

Because no one tries to blame all sports lovers as being equal to hooligans like they do when some hooligans crash a protest. It is almost as if there is a double standard about not holding white people accountable for their riots, unless they are left wing.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Because no one tries to blame all sports lovers as being equal to hooligans like they do when some hooligans crash a protest. It is almost as if there is a double standard about not holding white people accountable for their riots, unless they are left wing.
Click to expand...

The desperate insistence in derailing the discussion by appeal to tu quoque.

Say, ponderingturtle, if we all condemn the rioters in 2014 at the "pumpkin" riot can we please get back to the subject??

I unreservedly condemn the 2014 Pumpkin rioters, the White Sports Lover riots, and all other White people who riot.

Thank goodness that is done, looking forward to you condemning the thugs at Berkeley, because you would not want to be a hypocrite, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom