|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 2, 2017 7:35:32 GMT
As good a place as any, cause Trump didn't cause this, this is the new face of tolerance in America. Fighting words with fire. www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Protesters-storm-Milo-Yiannopoulos-event-at-UC-10901829.php“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley,” Mike Wright of Berkeley College Republicans, the group that invited Yiannopoulos to the campus, said outside the student union building as smoke bombs went off around him. As he spoke, someone threw a glass bottle of red paint at him, and it shattered and splattered on his clothing. “It’s sad,” he said. This is a disgrace on the face of America. So far as I can tell, Donald Trump has not destroyed one piece of private property, or set one fire yet. I hope everyone of the protesters get arrested. This is tolerant America, don't disagree with us, or we'll burn you out, sounds a lot like the south during segregation back in the early part of the 20th century, don't it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 22:25:29 GMT
It isn't good. It's ironic because the left are often talking about freedom of speech, but so many of them are anti-freedom of speech.
|
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Feb 2, 2017 22:42:10 GMT
To be fair to Berkeley they canceled the speech out of safety concerns to both the speaker and those who were coming to listen. MY could have chosen to speak to the crowd outside if he had wanted to. Masked and violent protesters should be called out for what they are, thugs. Their behavior is totally unacceptable.
|
|
|
|
Post by kimalysong on Feb 2, 2017 23:42:23 GMT
I don't agree with violent protests but nor do I think Berkeley needs to let Milo spew his hate. Free speech means he won't be arrested for what he is saying. It doesn't mean Universities have to invite him to spew his garbage. And I should point out the protest started out peacefully and the violent protest came from outside from this group www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/97393870/?client=safari |
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Feb 3, 2017 0:09:10 GMT
As good a place as any, cause Trump didn't cause this, this is the new face of tolerance in America. Fighting words with fire. Kindly cut the crap. You said in the current politics thread that you were posting so that we could see what the other side thinks. I figured that was a lie when you said it. You're here to troll. You drop provocative statements, you fail to respond when challenged on the misinformation they contain and then you move on to the next one. Last week's march was the face of tolerance in America. This is an aberration and don't you dare hold it up as representative of the entire movement. |
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Feb 3, 2017 3:41:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 3, 2017 5:26:40 GMT
To be fair to Berkeley they canceled the speech out of safety concerns to both the speaker and those who were coming to listen. MY could have chosen to speak to the crowd outside if he had wanted to. Masked and violent protesters should be called out for what they are, thugs. Their behavior is totally unacceptable. Yes, 150 people wearing masks and just there to start trouble are thugs. I cant blame UC Berkeley for cancelling the speech. The safety of their students should be paramount. It could easily be right wingers starting the fires, but it really doesn't matter, what matters is they did. and as a result they showed the worst in American culture. |
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 3, 2017 5:33:12 GMT
I don't agree with violent protests but nor do I think Berkeley needs to let Milo spew his hate. Free speech means he won't be arrested for what he is saying. It doesn't mean Universities have to invite him to spew his garbage. And I should point out the protest started out peacefully and the violent protest came from outside from this group www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/97393870/?client=safariSo do you think Berkeley should only allow speakers that you condone? I'm sorry, but if the Ku Klux Klan wanted to show up at the University of Tennessee, they have that right. I have the right to protest them being there. And, if in the UC Berkeley case, if a student goes to the trouble of setting things up, it is just the university doing it's job, by teaching them how to be leaders in their communities. Noone says you have to agree with anything they have to say, but they do have as much right to speak at a University as anyone else does. Just doesn't mean their right. No one has the right to silence someone else. Not Trump, not Hillary, not the Senate or Congress. If we start limiting freedom of speech, we are doomed as a country. |
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 3, 2017 5:38:36 GMT
As good a place as any, cause Trump didn't cause this, this is the new face of tolerance in America. Fighting words with fire. Kindly cut the crap. You said in the current politics thread that you were posting so that we could see what the other side thinks. I figured that was a lie when you said it. You're here to troll. You drop provocative statements, you fail to respond when challenged on the misinformation they contain and then you move on to the next one. Last week's march was the face of tolerance in America. This is an aberration and don't you dare hold it up as representative of the entire movement. This aberration could just be the first of it's kind, time will tell. I did notice you don't seem to have a problem with the protesters at UC Berkeley, just with me posting about it. And I beg of you, please challenge me. Ask me what you want. Seems like ive answered most, probably not all questions. I don't care if you like me, believe me or consider me a troll, I am what I am, a concerned American, aren't you? |
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 3, 2017 5:47:32 GMT
Now, that is a response I can agree with. Very well said. I cant agree with the protests, but I do respect their rights to protest, to try to get to those who are on the line, or try to change some folks minds, and just trying to communicate their side and their beliefs. Peacefully, it is truly a beautiful thing, one of the most beautiful things that free countries are starting to take for granted, still there are lands out there where folks fight for their lives on a daily basis. We enjoy freedoms that some folks never will. And a very small group decided to take advantage of that at UC Berkeley. That group stomped on the peaceful protesters rights as well as the private citizens who had nothing to do with either side. |
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Feb 4, 2017 1:10:44 GMT
I did notice you don't seem to have a problem with the protesters at UC Berkeley, just with me posting about it. You can assume whatever you’d like. Reality doesn't seem to present much of an obstacle towards you reaching the conclusions you want. However, my rule of thumb is not to comment in situations like these. In taking an outlier and presenting it as the norm and asking me to condemn it, you’re offering a distorted picture and I’m not going to buy into that narrative. It’s just a cheap rhetorical trick. Hey, Ulysses, I noticed that you haven’t condemned the Holocaust! Does that mean you support it?! |
|
|
|
Post by kimalysong on Feb 4, 2017 1:24:06 GMT
I don't agree with violent protests but nor do I think Berkeley needs to let Milo spew his hate. Free speech means he won't be arrested for what he is saying. It doesn't mean Universities have to invite him to spew his garbage. And I should point out the protest started out peacefully and the violent protest came from outside from this group www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/97393870/?client=safariSo do you think Berkeley should only allow speakers that you condone? I'm sorry, but if the Ku Klux Klan wanted to show up at the University of Tennessee, they have that right. I have the right to protest them being there. And, if in the UC Berkeley case, if a student goes to the trouble of setting things up, it is just the university doing it's job, by teaching them how to be leaders in their communities. Noone says you have to agree with anything they have to say, but they do have as much right to speak at a University as anyone else does. Just doesn't mean their right. No one has the right to silence someone else. Not Trump, not Hillary, not the Senate or Congress. If we start limiting freedom of speech, we are doomed as a country. No actually they don't have that right. The University can deny them the forum to speak. The KKK can say whatever they want but no institution has to invite them in to speak their piece. That is not how free speech works. Edit: Although I should add Berkeley did not cancel Milo's appearance because of his hate speech but because of safety concerns. |
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 4, 2017 3:02:28 GMT
I did notice you don't seem to have a problem with the protesters at UC Berkeley, just with me posting about it. You can assume whatever you’d like. Reality doesn't seem to present much of an obstacle towards you reaching the conclusions you want. However, my rule of thumb is not to comment in situations like these. In taking an outlier and presenting it as the norm and asking me to condemn it, you’re offering a distorted picture and I’m not going to buy into that narrative. It’s just a cheap rhetorical trick. Hey, Ulysses, I noticed that you haven’t condemned the Holocaust! Does that mean you support it?! A distorted picture? 150 masked people started trouble at UC Berkeley. They wanted to curtail freedom of speech. Yeah, that's real distorted. Looks simplistic to me. But, good try. |
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Feb 4, 2017 3:23:04 GMT
A distorted picture? 150 masked people started trouble at UC Berkeley. They wanted to curtail freedom of speech. Yeah, that's real distorted. Looks simplistic to me. But, good try. Yes. A distorted picture. When there have been hundreds, if not thousands of peaceful protests in the past two weeks, and you hold up one event this up to represent all opposition to the administration, I believe you're being deliberately dishonest. And as kimalysong noted in her earlier link, the violent actions came from an outside group. And I think it's also worth commenting on her other point. Free speech doesn't guarantee anyone a venue. The original protesters were doing exactly what you said you would do if the KKK came to town, expressing peaceful opposition to a viewpoint they find offensive. |
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 4, 2017 3:58:52 GMT
the right to assemble. Freedom of assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right or ability of people to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their ideas.[1] The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, a political right and a civil liberty. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assemblyIt's a shame that some folks only want to allow those whom they agree with to have rights. If you disagree with them, then your rights are nonexistent. Yall can wrap it up in any kind of bow you want. But denying anyone a place to assemble peacefully, is something that used to happen a lot in this country before the civil rights movement. Now it just usually happens in other countries, except to conservatives. www.hrw.org/news/2002/04/04/saudi-arabia-right-peaceful-assembly-deniedwww.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/gezi-park-protests-brutal-denial-of-the-right-to-peaceful-assembly-in-turkeykimalysong, unless you are funding an institution, I don't think you have the right to say who should or who shouldn't be allowed to speak. That is just limiting everyone there to your side of any given argument. It's ok to disagree with someone, but if you don't want to let them speak, I guess I better shut up, if I keep it up, many on here will want me banned, and cause the mods grief, because I don't agree with their way of thinking. Would you have a problem if Milo's supporters rented a convention center? Or would you deny them that venue as well? |
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Feb 4, 2017 4:17:59 GMT
So do you think Berkeley should only allow speakers that you condone? I'm sorry, but if the Ku Klux Klan wanted to show up at the University of Tennessee, they have that right. I have the right to protest them being there. And, if in the UC Berkeley case, if a student goes to the trouble of setting things up, it is just the university doing it's job, by teaching them how to be leaders in their communities. Noone says you have to agree with anything they have to say, but they do have as much right to speak at a University as anyone else does. Just doesn't mean their right. No one has the right to silence someone else. Not Trump, not Hillary, not the Senate or Congress. If we start limiting freedom of speech, we are doomed as a country. No actually they don't have that right. The University can deny them the forum to speak. The KKK can say whatever they want but no institution has to invite them in to speak their piece. That is not how free speech works. Edit: Although I should add Berkeley did not cancel Milo's appearance because of his hate speech but because of safety concerns. Oh that part why the event was cancelled has already been duly noted. I also agree Berkley has the right to determine who it wants and doesn't want speaking on its campus. MY has plenty of forums in which to spew his style of bigotry & anger, Berkley officials were under no obligation to host him but his free speech rights have not been curtailed by Berkley. I do think you & Josh point to an important point, a lot of people simply don't understand what free speech & the 1st Amendment truly is. |
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 4, 2017 4:36:51 GMT
Berkeley did not curtail anyone's freedom of speech or freedom of assembly.
The protesters did that.
However, without the violence at UC Berkeley, I might never have discovered who Milo was and what he stood for, his book comes out in March, i'll know him better then. I wonder how many other folks, the protesters influenced?
|
|
|
|
Post by kimalysong on Feb 4, 2017 8:10:13 GMT
Berkeley did not curtail anyone's freedom of speech or freedom of assembly. The protesters did that. However, without the violence at UC Berkeley, I might never have discovered who Milo was and what he stood for, his book comes out in March, i'll know him better then. I wonder how many other folks, the protesters influenced? Um no the protestors have just as much right to say what they want as long as it's done peacefully. This is also free speech And once again the protestors from the university were peaceful. It was an outside group that became violent and no one condones that. And Milo is always in the news for his hateful rhetoric. You not knowing him doesn't change the fact that he already has a huge misguided hateful fanbase. He was banned from Twitter for harassing and getting his followers to harass the ghostbusters star Leslie Jones. And yes part of me thinks they should have just let him speak because not letting him speak gives him more power. But I also understand why the university students wanted to protest his presence and his hateful rhetoric. |
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Feb 4, 2017 12:39:39 GMT
the right to assemble. Freedom of assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right or ability of people to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their ideas.[1] The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, a political right and a civil liberty. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assemblyIt's a shame that some folks only want to allow those whom they agree with to have rights. If you disagree with them, then your rights are nonexistent. I feel your pain, ulyssessarcher. Everyone knows that able-bodied white men have always been a disenfranchised minority in America. Why, conservatives barely even control three branches of the federal government. It's like you're being erased from history. Maybe you could give a speech about it? I hear Berkley has a hole in its schedule. To return to your point, such as it is, it never rises to the level of a free speech issue, because the rights of free speech and assembly are enshrined in the Constitution, which only concerns itself with governmental interference into such matters. ( "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.")The government's not involved in Berkley, so it doesn't apply. |
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 4, 2017 22:27:27 GMT
So since theotherjosh thinks that the government is not involved in Berkeley, I guess that Trump is right and they don't need any government funding, huh? That would work for me, I'm not sure any university needs government funding, not with the private cost associated with attending nowadays. |
|
