|
Post by kimalysong on Feb 5, 2017 12:34:55 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. Yes Berkeley is a public institution and actually a student organization invited Milo which they are allowed to do by the laws of the institution. But again Milo's talk was only shut down at the last minute for safety concerns not to suppress his free speech. And once again the violence came from outside not from the students of the University. That doesn't mean a University has to lend an invitation for someone like the KKK to speak. And that was the point I was originally replying to.
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Feb 5, 2017 13:25:17 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. As I've said, I tend not to comment on these kinds of rhetorical questions, because I think they're inherently dishonest. However, I'll make an exception for this one. If Trump pulls funding for Berkeley, what happens? Probably nothing, to Berkeley. They're huge, and they have deep pockets and rich alumni. They could weather this. What happens to everybody else? They learn that the President of the United States is willing to destroy you on a whim. The administration at Berkeley didn't do this, the professors didn't do this, the support staff didn't do this, the students didn't even do this. The violence came from an outside group that co-opted a peaceful protest. How do you adapt to such an environment? You avoid even the appearance of anything that could be construed as criticism, lest the hammer come down on you. That's not something that should happen in a democracy.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Feb 7, 2017 22:30:01 GMT
Now, I'm not directly attacking the OP as it may have been an accident, but the following link does attempt to describe what is often meant when certain words are used. For example, in the title, "tolerant protestors": www.vice.com/en_us/article/every-insult-the-right-uses-to-troll-liberals-explainedVice is no bastion of objective reporting, nor do they pretend to be. But, for example, see their definition of "tolerant left" (or "tolerant anything" where "anything" is associated with "left). These are generally American terms, and I certainly see many on the US political debate site wherein I do verbal battle (www.debatepolitics.com currently down for upgrades) Tolerant Left Imagine enormous 128-pt quotation marks around the word tolerant here, and you'll best understand the right's sarcastic usage of this term, reparations for decades of being told THEY were the intolerant ones.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Feb 7, 2017 22:38:49 GMT
Now, my points:
1. Anyone committing violence unjustly against persons or property is not a "protestor," they are in fact a rioter.
2a. X number of rioters does not reflect on Y number of protestors at the protest.
2b. Neither does it reflect on protestors in the same cause in other places.
2c. Nor or does it reflect on all persons one believes share political sympathies with the rioters.
3. Unless you're rioting against the Daleks, you are probably in the wrong.
4. The rioters are hurting their own cause. Criminal and stupid to boot.
5. The University should allow him to speak. I, for example, am ashamed of my alma mater, Brandeis University. Jimmy Carter was allowed to speak after he published his rather inaccurate book regarding the Arab-Jewish relations in Israel and surrounding territories. Alan Dershowitz suggested a debate with Carter. The only way they would allow Dershowitz on campus was if he agreed to speak in a separate building, no debate.
Shame on them. The worst thing one can do is shield oneself from ideas one doesn't like. At least, in my opinion. They must be confronted. There must be struggle - peaceful struggle.
So this Milo should be permitted to speak.
6. What the protestors should really be demanding is no speech from Milo, rather, a debate between Milo and one willing to counter him.
"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?"
I cannot tell what the intent or meaning of this statement is. During the 60s, blacks and those (fewer) whites who protested with them peacefully subjected themselves to the disgusting racial hatred of racists in the south.*
______________ *And let's not get political about left-right with that, unless we are willing to honestly acknowledge the conversion of so-called "Dixiecrats" to Republican supporters. I say this because I smell a fraud. Often in political debate, I have seen it claimed that the current Democrats = the Democrats of the 40s-60s. Namely, racists like a certain politician with the last name of Byrd. This is dishonest and false. There was a very large demographic shift in supporters of each party.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Feb 7, 2017 22:40:42 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. How many and how do you know the number you pick is correct? (Nevermind that the only thing freedom of speech protects you from is government action against you because of the content of your speech. Nobody protects you from lawful protests, whereas criminal law protects you from rioters.). This is what I was talking about the various sub-points to 2, above: the ease with which people revert to group condemnation. Saying "many" instead of "all" does not necessarily save the day.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Feb 7, 2017 22:45:30 GMT
_____ ulyssessarcher said: Feb 2, 2017 2:35:32 GMT -5 ulyssessarcher 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?
____ ulyssessarcher said: 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.
____
ulyssessarcher said:
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?
_____
1. NOBODY condoned rioters.
2. The "right" of the KKK to march is as against the government.
3. It was called trolling not because you took the uncontroversial position that rioters are bad. It was called trolling because you are blatantly insinuating that the left's opposition to Trump is on some sort of comparable terms with the rioters, that rioters and protestors are of one fungible kind.
I've seen it on all sorts of sites. It is trolling, unless you actually believed that somebody would debate your point that rioters are bad.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Feb 7, 2017 22:47:58 GMT
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. This is what is called "concern trolling". I urge people to look up a few definitions and explanations. He pretends to be concerned about rioters, but the real thrust of the thread is to associate rioters with the rest of the protestors, by extension, those who oppose Trump. But it isn't stated explicitly. Therefore, when challenged, he can say "what, me? I'd never do that. WHY ARE YOU NOT CONDEMNING RIOTERS!!!!!" Ul, you missed The Other Josh's point, which was to put the above more poetically: an individual's failure to condemn a riot in response to a troll-bait thread is not an approval of the riot, and you bloody well know it. Nobody but rioters approves of rioters. That isn't a point of debate that needs to be settled. It is simply true. Hence, you cannot be seriously intending to debate whether or not rioters are bad. The intent must be other. The other is association of the rioters with the protesters, with the greater "left", and indeed with anyone who fails to attack the left based on the rioters.......
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Feb 7, 2017 22:48:27 GMT
I reiterate my suggestion that we have a sub-subforum just for political debate here. Be much better to keep the rest of the place clean of this.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Feb 7, 2017 22:59:51 GMT
And, I might add, what of the moron criminals who took over the federal wildlife information hut for a month or whatever it was?
What about the 100+ people who pointed guns at federal agents in a standoff over collection of fees owed by a "right wing" rancher who'd been squatting on federal property?
Why do those not reflect on the entire right, but some rioters associated (by the speaker) with "the left" do?
Again: trolling thread.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Feb 8, 2017 3:19:07 GMT
John Lennon When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system’s game. The establishment will irritate you - pull your beard, flick your face - to make you fight! Because once they’ve got you violent, then they know how to handle you. The only thing they don’t know how to handle is non-violence and humor.
|
|
|
Post by acousticwolf on Feb 8, 2017 10:15:32 GMT
***** Moderation *****Guys and Gals, we currently have a few threads that are hotbeds of controversy and by their very nature, very emotive. Even though these threads are not about subjects this forum was created for, The Mod Team don't actually want to ban such topics from conversation as discussion is generally a good thing and can help us to understand different issues that affect different cultures and we are looking at the best way to allow them (but also stop them from spreading across the rest of the forum). However, the discussions have to remain polite and cannot descend into name calling, threats, abuse or bad behaviour. The Mod Team are spending far too much of our time having to move/delete posts and look at reported posts because of these threads. If it carries on we will have no choice but to ban the topics and take serious action against members who break the rules ( and those who sail close to breaking them without actually breaking them). Rules of the forum can be found here and before posting I urge everyone to re-read them. Remember, you don't actually have to break them fully to be disciplined and we are looking very closely at what happens in these threads. Remember the rules: Respect your fellow members. Refrain from making inflammatory or defamatory comments (including but not limited to: flaming, taunting, degrading comments, and general disrespect). No offensive posts, links, or images. Please do not post messages, images or links to content that is obscene, vulgar, pornographic, racist or likely to cause offenceHighly contentious discussions will not be allowed on the forum if they are offensive or if they generate too much work for the moderators. If something becomes too heated the thread may be closed, edited or even deleted. Our advice is don't get into arguments, if you feel yourself getting wound-up or in the middle of a heated conversation - walk away. You don't have to get the last word, if you think someone is trolling, report it to us and add the member to your ignore list but don't feed the trolls!This post will be copied into all of the political threads - there will be no more warnings! ***** End Moderation *****
|
|