Status
Not open for further replies.

BvBPL

Pour Decision Maker
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
7,180
Location
At the bar
In 1964, students at Berkeley rioted for their right to free speech.
In 2017, students at Berkeley rioted to stop the speech of others.

The adage once was that those who did not learn from history were doomed to repeat it. Now we find that those who do not learn from history in fact find new, ironic ways to err fifty years later. The days of confronting absurd hate with civil discourse and mutual communication have given way to reflexive violence against people with whom we disagree. Well-meaning activists fighting monsters take upon themselves the mien of their prey while escalating to violent responses.

That boot that is stomping on your face, forever, is owned by you. When you respond to opinions with which you disagree with violence, you help to form the culture of violence and intolerance against which you are railing.

Stop living in a fantasy world about punching Nazis. Start opening dialogues. Stop burning cars to prevent people from speaking. Learn that you can fight fascism through civil discourse and peaceful action. Save your fists and elbows and knees for throwing around in the pit.
 
I don't understand why Berkely was even letting him speak. Milo is not a well-mannered conservative speaker who just happens to disagree with a large swath of the university population. He has used his previous campus speeches to out transgender and undocumented students by throwing their pic and name on screen and basically telling his lap dogs to get em. He ran a harassment campaign on Twitter that included the sharing of hacked nude pictures. He's not participating in civil discourse at all himself. He doesn't deserve a platform.
 
I think you underestimate the level of simmering resentment against ATMs and cars and how it was bound to explode in rampant vandalism at some point. Remember what happened the last time people turned a blind eye to ATMs and cars. That can't be allowed to happen again.
 
Bad idea. Right to free speech is a cornerstone of democracy. Besides, branding people as "nazi" can easily be abused (don't know at all about this case in particular, maybe they are indeed nazis).

What worries me more is the abysmally low level of debate, which leads to such phenomena in the first place. Let alone that US isn't some european-sized country; it is continent-sized and can actually split if this goes on and escalates.

Wait, this is about Milo Yiannopoulos? :rotfl:

He is rather very clearly a troll. Tbh i wouldn't be surprised if he isn't even gay, just uses it as part of his trolling routine :lol:
 
Accepting both your premise that he’s a troll and GoodEnough’s that Berkeley should not have invited him to speak in the first place, the violence in response to his invitation was unacceptable.
 
Accepting both your premise that he’s a troll and GoodEnough’s that Berkeley should not have invited him to speak in the first place, the violence in response to his invitation was unacceptable.

It isn't a "premise," the guy openly claims to be a troll, and proud of it. Just like someone openly claiming to be a troll, or demonstrating that they are, is banned from the forum, Milo Yiannopoulos should be banned from public speaking, if not from the planet.

The violence was misdirected, which is unfortunate, but that's what happens when you make trolls a protected species rather than letting them get their just due.
 
I heard a report that the perpetrators of the violence were mainly from off campus and not students.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/

"The university blamed "150 masked agitators" for the unrest, saying they had come to campus to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest."

"At least six people were injured. Some were attacked by the agitators -- who are a part of an anarchist group known as the "Black Bloc" that has been causing problems in Oakland for years, said Dan Mogulof, UC Berkeley spokesman."

I do think the distinction is important, that it was basically a different fringe group doing the violent protesting, not the students themselves.
 
I do think the distinction is important, that it was basically a different fringe group doing the violent protesting, not the students themselves.
I agree the distinction is important. I also think it serves the university’s interests to paint the bad eggs as non-students.
 
I agree the distinction is important. I also think it serves the university’s interests to paint the bad eggs as non-students.

I also think it is useful to consider the very real possibility that the troll brings his own "bad eggs" along with him. Peaceful protests don't net him near the headlines that a riot will.
 
How do you know there wasn't an attempt at dialogue, at civil discourse, at peaceful action to keep the troll away and keep him from harming students?

There are a lot of assumptions made in the OP, all of which attempt to paint the resisters in a negative light. If Milo's presence presents a legitimate threat to the well-being of trans and undocumented students, then what lengths are reasonable? When dialogue fails, should you just pack it in and give up?
 
How do you know there wasn't an attempt at dialogue, at civil discourse, at peaceful action to keep the troll away and keep him from harming students?
Because people don’t burn cars when they are talking about their concerns like reasonable adults.
If there are concerns about the safety of specific students then the appropriate is to address the security of those students, not to riot.
 
Because people don’t burn cars when they are talking about their concerns like reasonable adults.
If there are concerns about the safety of specific students then the appropriate is to address the security of those students, not to riot.

1- is Milo your idea of a reasonable adult?
2 - since rioting worked, how was it not appropriate?
 
Because people don’t burn cars when they are talking about their concerns like reasonable adults.
If there are concerns about the safety of specific students then the appropriate is to address the security of those students, not to riot.

It's doubtful that the students never voiced their concerns before they started rioting. If you are trying to be a reasonable adult and not making any progress, then what? What if anything short of shutting down the event was not going to address the security of those students?

You can't un-out someone as trans, and sadly being trans puts one at a greatly increased risk of being the target of violent crime. So I'll ask again - since civil discourse failed, what other options did the students have?
 
The violence was misdirected, which is unfortunate, but that's what happens when you make trolls a protected species rather than letting them get their just due.

True. I know that when I get upset or frustrated about something, I tend to just vandalise the nearest bit of property. Totally understandable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom