[RD] Berkeley Riots

[OranHarken]

Those are not the rules of the University of California.

The University of California's rules do not supersede Federal Law. California Law does not supersede Federal Law. Secede if you don't like it. You are literally delusional if you don;t understand how the hierarchy works. Federal>State>Municipal>Institutional(the school).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The University of California's rules do not supersede Federal Law. California Law does not supersede Federal Law. Secede if you don't like it. You are literally delusional if you don;t understand how the hierarchy works. Federal>State>Municipal>Institutional(the school).

While arguing with such a nonsensical post is sometimes a hoot, I think I've seen this movie before, so I'm taking a pass.

 

[OranHarken]

While arguing with such a nonsensical post is sometimes a hoot, I think I've seen this movie before, so I'm taking a pass.

The classic Leftist move of attempting to discredit/dismiss something without actually addressing a single element of the statement. This is why your side has lost the general public's sympathy.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

We used to have this regular poster, Civman. Gosh I miss that guy.

 

[Hygro]

The University of California's rules do not supersede Federal Law. California Law does not supersede Federal Law. Secede if you don't like it. You are literally delusional if you don;t understand how the hierarchy works. Federal>State>Municipal>Institutional(the school).

The University of California has no obligation to waste its resources acting as a policing wing of the federal government.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The University of California has no obligation to waste its resources acting as a policing wing of the federal government.

And the federal government is specifically responsible for immigration law...a responsibility that they have no authority to delegate. We've covered both angles of why the post was nonsense. If Civman were here he would start repeating himself.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If Civman were here

Heh heh... I see what you did there, heh heh

 

[Bootstoots]

Moderator Action: As a reminder, this is an RD thread. Keep your responses to each other civil. Also, no public accusations or insinuations that a poster is a DL - take that up with the mods in private by reporting posts or by PM.

 

[BvBPL]

Also, I think your position on non-violence is unrealistic, as you disagree only with violent protests in a real-world context where protests are liable to result in violence.

I disagree with all violence, not just at protests.

 

[Lexicus]

I disagree with all violence, not just at protests.

So you're an anarcho-pacifist along the lines of Leo Tolstoy?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I disagree with all violence, not just at protests.

Since this is absurd on its face I am tempted to just pass it over, but...

ALL violence?

Wouldn't call a cop for anything?

Would vote for a politician planning to disband the military lest they be used?

Would cut off an arm and give it to them rather than make a dog have to bite you?

 

[metatron]

His beef isn't with violence; it's about free speech. He disagrees even with the peaceful protesters. I think you do too.

I do. And emphatically so. For they are not peaceful at all.

The usual "peaceful protest" of a campus event of Mr. Yiannopoulos involves...

..."protesters" outnumbering attendees of the event, sometimes by an order of magnitude...
... efforts to block access to the site...
... precipitous use of petty assault commited against the attendees to that end (poking, shoving, spitting, things of that nature)...
... gratuitous hate speech, that would have to be called sexist and racist in any other context...​

...the proclaimed purpose of all of that being denying politically conservative students (you know, white supremacist groups like, say, campus Republicans) their rights regarding free speech, assembly and political participation.

In short: These protests are about creating a chilling effect for the sake of partisan politics.
That's not "peaceful".
You know, your general disdain for there being young Republicans at all (with which i can certainly sympathise) notwithstanding.

Sure, they can revoke his access to their facilities to speak, but the students have no such authority. If they are going to give him that access, then they have to protect him from anyone who attempts to silence him. That means as long as the university is going to let an extremely controversial figure speak, they are responsible for ensuring that proper security is in place to prevent riots like this.

Two things:
1. This is not about silencing Mr. Yiannopoulos. It's about silencing conservative students.
2. Plenty of Universities tried to pass on the cost for the percieved security risk posed by liberal protests, which faculty often enough directly incited or at least benevolently tolerated onto the conservative student organisations that had invited him by imposing steep "security fees" on them (rather than the organisers of the liberal protests);
this is a fact frequently and whinyly bemoaned by Mr.Y.

Right, I looked at his Wikipedia page and did a Google search expecting all sorts of articles on this to come up but the only thing that did was that one incident with the student in Wisconsin.

If there was a Title IX dispute perhaps this was already public record.

Another website mentioned there were rumors he was going to expose undocumented students but that he denied this.

He could be lying but then if he's prevented from speaking at the college what's stopping him from doing the same thing on the internet if that's his intention?

Well, there's the primary source.
I made you a timed link. You'd have to watch about 20 seconds to witness the fabled "outing":
ClickyThingy

Hot tip:
They're liars.
SJWs. They lie a lot. Duh?!
You're only getting this now?^^

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?

To answer the latter question: Yeah, if you're wrong you maybe should.
Regarding the former: Well, he doesn't.
1. He didn't out said trans student.
2. This revealing undocumented students so far remains largely mythical. I would have thought after 15 pages there'd be evidence?
3. Even if there was: You do get this is a somewhat ridiculous charge in the first place, do you?
Like, i'd be all in favor of you doing general amnesty, for the very reasons pointed out in this thread (i.e. the morally hazardous situation that the US has manouvered itself into, the only morally valid escape remaining being amnesty).
However as things stand, residing in the US illigally, enrolling in the UC system while implicitly conceiling that status and these facts not being made public is not a "right" protected by US law now, is it?
Wait, let me consult your overrated founding document (not that that would constitute sufficient research):

...three fifth of all other persons...
...habeus corpus...
...crazy racist suffragettes banning alcohol...​

Nope, nothing about a right to anonymity while illegally resinding in California and enrolling in the UC system. Well, i suppose it's an act of Congress then...

Well, to be fair, amnesty is hard. You'd need a liberal president, large majorities in congress, a mandate etc.
It's not like you ever had that, now, is it? Oh, you did? Quite recently?
Well, what was the first thing that your liberal president signed into law? It wouldn't happen to be something about privileged, entitled upper middle class white ladies needing some more extra-special privilege, now, would it?

Oh, it was? Well, that's sad.

No, I can think of him as a person whose antics have already caused people to fear for their lives. He was banned from Twitter because his treatment of one of the stars of the Ghostbusters remake led to that person receiving a large number of death threats.

Milo is not just some funny troll, he's a menace. My only regret about this Berkeley thing is that they didn't lynch him.

Moderator Action: Advocating lynching, burning, or otherwise killing specific people is very much not allowed here. Infraction for inappropriate content. - Bootstoots
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Ah. There we have it. The short way from censorship to murder.

Let me show you some illustration on why we don't do "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces":

Spoiler :

Association fallacy, yay!
More artful than yours, though.

 

[Lexicus]

Let me show you some illustration on why we don't do "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces":

Comparison of safe spaces and trigger warnings to Nazi book-burnings is so ridiculously hysterical it's hardly worth responding to. I'll do it anyway though.

The concept of safe spaces is ubiquitous in the human condition. It only became a problem when marginalized people started using it self-consciously to address the problems they face. Safe spaces are not really censorship because free speech doesn't give you the right to a venue or a platform. In fact, safe spaces are essential to allow people to have real free speech without worrying that they will be harassed, attacked, or dehumanized.
Let me give you an example: a labor union can provide a safe space for workers to talk about issues that affect them without fear of ridicule or retaliation from the boss. At a more basic or trivial level it can quickly become exhausting when you are a worker and you lack a safe space and you keep trying to talk about the issues that matter to you and other people keep undercutting the validity of what you're saying.
In a union meeting you have a safe space to talk about things affecting you on the job without having to fear these things, which actually constitute the real threat to free speech. Similarly, safe spaces on universities now function to allow people to talk about issues affecting them without fear of harassment, retaliation, vicious racist/sexist/whatever-ist attacks, or even just having to deal with twenty clueless people challenging you on every little thing.

Meanwhile trigger warnings have nothing whatever to do with censorship and are merely metadata that costs nothing and may prevent people from being psychologically harmed. People who don't like trigger warnings just plain suck.

 

[metatron]

Comparison of safe spaces and trigger warnings to Nazi book-burnings is so ridiculously hysterical it's hardly worth responding to. I'll do it anyway though.

You are misrepresenting the implicit analogy.

Anyway. Your superfluous explanation of safe spaces failed to demonstrate how the entire rest of the university is not a big enough safe space for the lightly triggered, but that space has to include some room where other people are trying to have a safe space of their own.

And trigger warnings, or rather the enforcement of their usage, very well comes with a cost.

 

[BvBPL]

Let me give you an example: a labor union can provide a safe space for workers to talk about issues that affect them without fear of ridicule or retaliation from the boss. At a more basic or trivial level it can quickly become exhausting when you are a worker and you lack a safe space and you keep trying to talk about the issues that matter to you and other people keep undercutting the validity of what you're saying.
In a union meeting you have a safe space to talk about things affecting you on the job without having to fear these things, which actually constitute the real threat to free speech. Similarly, safe spaces on universities now function to allow people to talk about issues affecting them without fear of harassment, retaliation, vicious racist/sexist/whatever-ist attacks, or even just having to deal with twenty clueless people challenging you on every little thing.

A union hall isn't a public space. The common areas of a university are public spaces. When you say the concept of a safe space is ubiquitous you are correct, but they are generally private spaces. The movement towards limiting speech through safe spaces in public areas is a sea change.

 

[Lexicus]

A union hall isn't a public space. The common areas of a university are public spaces

A union hall is as much a public area as the common area of a university. A university that isn't a safe space for its students is failing miserably, just as a union that is not a safe space for its members is failing miserably.

You are misrepresenting the implicit analogy.

Anyway. Your superfluous explanation of safe spaces failed to demonstrate how the entire rest of the university is not a big enough safe space for the lightly triggered, but that space has to include some room where other people are trying to have a safe space of their own.

And trigger warnings, or rather the enforcement of their usage, very well comes with a cost.

Of course I'm not misrepresenting the analogy. You're just backpedaling now because you have no argument to respond with, probably because you simply don't understand how safe spaces actually function or how to theorize them.

Also, by all means, please explain to me the cost of enforcing the use of trigger warnings. Arguments about the cost of trigger warnings might have made some degree of sense when writing all had to be copied out by hand, but not now.

 

[metalhead]

A union hall isn't a public space. The common areas of a university are public spaces. When you say the concept of a safe space is ubiquitous you are correct, but they are generally private spaces. The movement towards limiting speech through safe spaces in public areas is a sea change.

No it isn't. Supreme Court precedent is quite clear that private groups can use public space for meetings, and exclude non-members from those meetings.

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah, I mean I thought of pointing out that safe spaces tend to be in meetings of on-campus groups that are actually private, but we want the normal functions of the university to be safe spaces as well. I don't see what conceivable benefit is gained by allowing, for example, someone in a class to say things that make other people in the class feel unsafe.

 

[metatron]

Of course I'm not misrepresenting the analogy. You're just backpedaling now because you have no argument to respond with, probably because you simply don't understand how safe spaces actually function or how to theorize them.

I suggest you read post #294 of this thread. Not sure how to otherwise help you here.

Alternatively you could repeat you superfluous explanation yet another time. Maybe it'll work on the third try.

Also, by all means, please explain to me the cost of enforcing the use of trigger warnings. Arguments about the cost of trigger warnings might have made some degree of sense when writing all had to be copied out by hand, but not now.

It has become rather obvious that to safe space/trigger warning advocates the mens rea of "offenders" is irrelevant.
So there is a - correct - perception that honest mistakes or percieved negligence despite best efforts can get one into very real trouble.
Again: A chilling effect.

 

[BvBPL]

A university that isn't a safe space for its students is failing miserably, just as a union that is not a safe space for its members is failing miserably.

It is entirely possible for a university to fulfill its obligations to its students will also allowing common areas to be available for lively and diverse discourse. Where a safe space is a private meeting, that's great. Wonderful even.

What is objectionable are things like Mizzou protests last year where some protesters demanded the public areas in which they were protesting be free of not only contrary opinions but also free of the press.