[RD] Berkeley Riots

Status
Not open for further replies.
metalhead said:
How do you know it is a "tiny minority?" If people claim to speak for a majority and there isn't a larger opposition to prove otherwise, I don't know why you'd want anyone to assume that the people aren't, in fact, speaking for the majority. People who don't speak up may agree. They may disagree. They may be apathetic. There isn't any reason to simply assume most would have liked to hear her speech. That's pure conjecture on your part and has no basis in reality.
Click to expand...
Well unfortunately history is full of examples of hysterical, violent minorities imposing their own will on others. Doesn't make them right. There's a reason I called them "Bolsheviks": that word means "majority" in Russian, despite the fact that they were a minority faction of the Social-Democratic Party and lost all important votes. But they named their opponents "minority" and through violence and scheming had their way shoved down everybody's throats, with tragic consequences.

If you claim to speak for the majority, the burden of proof is on you. The SJWs don't like to promote debates. They never tried listening to the students who wanted to hear Condi's speech; they never tried to gauge student opinion. No, they decided they speak for all students and through hysteria and threats of disruption shoved their will down everybody's throats.

These people have no regard for free speech, democracy and even peaceful co-existence. They refuse to share the same space with people who don't share their dogmas.

Lexicus said:
Examples or it didn't happen
Click to expand...
Took me about 3 seconds.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol....-Free-speech-is-under-assault-on-campus.html

Debate stopped due to threats and intimidation.

As I side note, Obama agrees with me:

Obama Thinks Students Should Stop Stifling Debate On Campus
 
luiz said:
Took me about 3 seconds.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was kidding, I wanted to see what you'd come up with.
I don't agree with what was done in the link.

I read that Obama thing a while ago, it's weaksauce, he used the same dumb arguments for letting Condi speak, as though a commencement speech was going to be a forum for political debate. Yawn.
 
luiz said:
Well unfortunately history is full of examples of hysterical, violent minorities imposing their own will on others. Doesn't make them right. There's a reason I called them "Bolsheviks": that word means "majority" in Russian, despite the fact that they were a minority faction of the Social-Democratic Party and lost all important votes. But they named their opponents "minority" and through violence and scheming had their way shoved down everybody's throats, with tragic consequences.

If you claim to speak for the majority, the burden of proof is on you. The SJWs don't like to promote debates. They never tried listening to the students who wanted to hear Condi's speech; they never tried to gauge student opinion. No, they decided they speak for all students and through hysteria and threats of disruption shoved their will down everybody's throats.
Click to expand...

You don't even have the facts right.

President Robert Barchi posted a statement Saturday on the school website in response to Rice. "While Rutgers University stands fully behind the invitation to Dr. Rice to be our commencement speaker and receive an honorary degree, we respect her decision not to participate in the upcoming Rutgers University commencement, which she clearly articulated in her statement this morning."

Rice wrote Saturday "I am honored to have served my country. I have defended America's belief in free speech and the exchange of ideas. These values are essential to the health of our democracy. But that is not what is at issue here. As a Professor for thirty years at Stanford University and as its former Provost and Chief academic officer, I understand and embrace the purpose of the commencement ceremony and I am simply unwilling to detract from it in any way."
Click to expand...

Dr. Rice herself said that it was not an issue of free speech, but of not wanting her presence to detract from commencement in any way.

I guess you're going to take her to task, for imposing her will on the student body and depriving them of the opportunity to hear her speak? Or will you not grant her agency over her own decisions? Hint: if you have to resort to talking about SJWs, your opinion is likely not valid.
 
If I was a college dean, or programming director, or whatever, I would try the following. When a controversial speaker came to campus, I would set aside a second auditorium. In that auditorium, I would have a split screen. One screen would be showing the speaker giving his or her lecture. The other screen students could access online to post running commentary, text balloon style, regarding the lecture. Students could argue back, fact-check, hiss, all in real time. It just feels as though protesters respond crudely to the mere presence of the controversial speaker (and the things he or she is known to stand for) rather than respond in detail to the actual arguments that the speaker puts forth, which it seems to me is what college students should be engaging in. Don't know whether students would go in for that kind of thing, but I'd like to see it given a try, as against the present situation where the only forms of protest are to sit through the whole thing and hope you can ask your devastatingly trenchant question during the QnA, or set bonfires in front of the building where the lecture is going on.
 
Last edited:
luiz said:
Well unfortunately history is full of examples of hysterical, violent minorities imposing their own will on others. Doesn't make them right. There's a reason I called them "Bolsheviks": that word means "majority" in Russian, despite the fact that they were a minority faction of the Social-Democratic Party and lost all important votes. But they named their opponents "minority" and through violence and scheming had their way shoved down everybody's throats, with tragic consequences.

If you claim to speak for the majority, the burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...
They're called the "Bolsheviks" because they were the majority-faction within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party at the 1903 and 1907 Congresses. They didn't officially use the name "Bolshevik" until 1918, both factions having expelled the other in Papal fashion and claiming exclusive rights to the name of the RSDLP. "Bolshevik" and "Menshevik" remained as nicknames because the actual differences between the factions was around quite murky questions of party-structure, with neither faction emerging as clearly radical or moderate until after the failed attempts at reconciliation between 1910-12, by which time the names had stuck. If the reconciliations had been successful, "bolshevik" would have been as obscure a label as "otzovist".

More things can be explained by happenstance and bloody-mindedness than by conspiracy, in Russia above all.
 
Sommerswerd said:
So we all agree that Comrade Obama is always right then? Great! That settles that...
Click to expand...
Of course he's right. He's absolutely right. That speech is so right in so many ways.

Obama said:
If you disagree with somebody, bring them in -- (applause) -- and ask them tough questions. Hold their feet to the fire. Make them defend their positions. (Applause.) If somebody has got a bad or offensive idea, prove it wrong. Engage it. Debate it. Stand up for what you believe in. (Applause.) Don't be scared to take somebody on. Don't feel like you got to shut your ears off because you're too fragile and somebody might offend your sensibilities. Go at them if they’re not making any sense. Use your logic and reason and words. And by doing so, you’ll strengthen your own position, and you’ll hone your arguments. And maybe you’ll learn something and realize you don't know everything. And you may have a new understanding not only about what your opponents believe but maybe what you believe. Either way, you win. And more importantly, our democracy wins. (Applause.)
Click to expand...

What's frustrating is that the rioters at Berkeley didn't follow his lead.
 
Clinton spent months trying to make Trump defend the weird and deformed garbage-words that came tumbling from the more Northerly of his two sphincters, and your countrymen made him Sultan anyway. Whether or not Obama is right in principle about the virtues of open debate, his party have not set an inspiring precedent.
 
BvBPL said:
What's frustrating is that the rioters at Berkeley didn't follow his lead.
Click to expand...

Once again, Condi Rice's commencement speech was not going to be a forum for political discussion. So what you've quoted has literally zero relevance to that topic.
 
BvBPL said:
Of course he's right. He's absolutely right. That speech is so right in so many ways. What's frustrating is that the rioters at Berkeley didn't follow his lead.
Click to expand...
Well... Now I guess you have a perspective on how Obama supporters felt about Republicans not following his lead for his entire Presidency, despite the fact that he was absolutely right on so many issues. See, its easy to say, about someone who is saying something you agree with... "That person is clearly right... its a shame people don't listen to him and follow his lead." They aren't following his lead because they don't agree with him. YOU agree with him, so you can follow his lead. But you don't follow his lead, generally speaking, because you usually don't agree with him. Simple. Why are Republicans/conservatives free to ignore and criticize the wise words of the great and learned Obama but the Democrats aren't?

Those liberal/Democrat kids protesting at Berkeley... they don't have any problem with following Obama's lead. They follow his lead 90% of the time. It's ironic that conservatives/Republicans would bemoan liberal so called SJWs who are lock-step with Obama on almost every issue failing to "follow his lead" on this one thing, while they excuse themselves for opposing literally every position he takes... and even more ironically... criticizing the SJWs for not being open minded enough to step outside their ideological box.

In other words... who is the admirable, free thinking, open minded, bi-partisan here? Obama for championing free speech? Or the Berkeley folks for bucking the party leader/establishment? If its Obama, then if he's so great why do Republicans hate him so much? See the whole praised-be-Obama thing coming from conservatives on this issue is just a lot of hypocritical, self-serving hogwash.
 
Lexicus said:
Once again, Condi Rice's commencement speech was not going to be a forum for political discussion. So what you've quoted has literally zero relevance to that topic.
Click to expand...
The salient point to take away from Obama's speech is that people will do far more good by engaging with those with whom they disagree then rioting about an internet blogger.
 
aelf said:
And do you also agree with the notion that we have to fight violent or racist ideology with reasoned argument only, or by simply ignoring it?
Click to expand...
Well, "reasoned argument" sounds like i was demanding complete courtesy and abiding of all implicit rules of high brow debate.
I don't.

For example, there were plenty of instances where liberal protesters just entered these events (pretending to be attendees) to eventually stage some sort of disruption, you know, showing Yiannopoulos the finger, shouting their (imho rather trite) talking points and generally causing a ruckus.
Thus they interupted the event, made their voice, and their disdain for that matter, heard; they walked out doing these things, they didn't have to be forced to leave (in most cases anyway).
I deem this a valid form of protest, even when it's not entirely void of "verbal violence".
I am sure you can see the difference to the petty violence and physical efforts to prevent the event from taking place, that i outlined before.

Anyway, the significance of the whole matter is in steep decline anyway, seeing how Mr. Yiannopoulos's carreer appears to be virtually over. Courtesy of conservative outrage. Their hangups are more important to them then winning. They do that too, it's not just us. ^^
 
BvBPL said:
The salient point to take away from Obama's speech is that people will do far more good by engaging with those with whom they disagree then rioting about an internet blogger.
Click to expand...

How the hell do you "engage" with a commencement speaker, exactly?

For that matter, how do you engage with a troll like Milo? Engagement requires both parties. People like Milo who are just trying to say and do shocking things for attention aren't trying to engage anyone. That's a big part of the point here - if you're arguing that people should engage, then students are justified in telling the school that they don't believe the school should promote appearances by people who aren't themselves willing to engage.

You want to put all of the onus on one side for engagement. That's not how it works, at all.
 
Last edited:
Actually, imo Cond Rice has been far more of a force for ruin (and actual death) of people, through her role in US politics in W's America, than Milo could ever be. It isn't even close. So imo Rice causing riots would make far more sense than Milo (just a troll, but not a war-criminal).

Much like it is still weird to claim that Trumpster is worse than W, when W actually made the US far more authoritarian/police state-ish AND obliterated a number of other countries (nation building and all that).
 
metalhead said:
How the hell do you "engage" with a commencement speaker, exactly?
Click to expand...

A point I have raised repeatedly, which has been simply ignored by BvBPL and was brushed aside once by luiz.

Kyriakos said:
Much like it is still weird to claim that Trumpster is worse than W, when W actually made the US far more authoritarian/police state-ish AND obliterated a number of other countries (nation building and all that).
Click to expand...

"A number" being....one? Afghanistan was/is a shitshow, but obliterated? No.
 
metalhead said:
How the hell do you "engage" with a commencement speaker, exactly?
Click to expand...
The initial threshold requires that parties commit themselves to nonviolence in their interactions. That’s why we must condemn violence like what occurred at Berkeley, because it bars any possibility of engagement with other parties.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

aelf
Protest is almost always wrong?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
3K
aelf
aelf
Back
Top Bottom