[RD] Berkeley Riots

[Timsup2nothin]

I'd like to see you convincingly argue that showing up to give a pre-arranged talk could count as instigating violence.

Past behavior. At previous talks he has instigated violence. That would be really easy to prove, as he is quite outspokenly proud of it.

 

[aelf]

Again, the violence was by non-student agitators who do this regularly in this area.

Liberals/moderates always expect protesters to be able to control everyone's behaviour. This makes it very easy for them to dismiss any protest that didn't go perfectly.

Maybe people need to learn mind control skills before they're allowed to protest.

 

[NovaKart]

Looks like a lot of people aren't distinguishing between citizens and undocumented people.

Obviously you don't have to be a citizen to go to college in America, otherwise there would be no international students and just because someone is not a citizen doesn't mean he/she is there illegally.

Apparently you can be undocumented and attend college as well. I suppose this surprises a lot of people not from America because you can get by there with a surprising lack of documents although frustratingly you often need proof of address which can be annoying if your name is not on the utilities and you don't often receive mail.

I suppose the controversy over voter ID would also seem strange to non-Americans since many countries take it as a given that you need a few forms of ID. I mean in America many people seem insulted if they're asked to show ID when making a credit card purchase, not sure if that's normally required in Europe.

In the country I live if you're from another country you have to show your residence permit for a lot of things and even when traveling between cities it's a good idea to have it, a big difference with America.

When I was in Greece I had a tough time changing money without providing a hotel address and I needed ID. However in Iraq you can change several hundred dollars at a street vendor without a single document or form and in Turkey it's about the same.

 

[Commodore]

I mean in America many people seem insulted if they're asked to show ID when making a credit card purchase,

I think that has to do with Americans seeing someone asking you for your ID as a sign that they don't see you as a trustworthy person.

 

[NovaKart]

I think that has to do with Americans seeing someone asking you for your ID as a sign that they don't see you as a trustworthy person.

Yeah I realize that, I just think it may be standard in some other places but not sure.

 

[stfoskey12]

I kind of like Richard Muller's (a U.C. Berkeley physicist and professor) take on this. He posted it here: https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-...ey-protests/answer/Richard-Muller-3?srid=CuQT
For those who are too lazy to click the link, here it is in full.

Spoiler long :

When I first arrived on the Berkeley Campus, I went to a talk by a neo-Nazi. It was 1964, three months before the “Free Speech Movement”. I saw the announcement of the upcoming presentation, and I was curious—so I attended. About 250 students showed up. The speaker was introduced (in very neutral terms) and he spoke for about 45 minutes. The audience listened politely.

When he finished, questions were solicited. I noticed a pattern: the students were asking pointed questions, often involving logic or history, and they seemed to confound the speaker. It was almost a student competition: who could ask the most devastating question! The speaker was confused; he almost seemed to stutter; he was embarrassed. He had no good answers. Each succeeding student seemed to be able to ask even better questions that left the neo-Nazi helpless. He came across as an ignorant and utter fool.

I walked out absolutely delighted. I had seen free speech in action! It worked. Possibly everyone in the audience came away feeling as I did. Even supporters of the neo-Nazi must have been appalled at his ineptitude.

A few weeks later, a student was arrested and expelled for engaging in a political presentation at the corner of Bancroft and Telegraph, right at the edge of campus. I and a large number of students felt that the administration was undermining the free speech that we so much appreciated, and that I had seen so beautifully demonstrated at the neo-Nazi talk. Soon afterwards there was a peaceful sit-in at Sproul Hall. I was arrested; I spent the night in the Oakland jail (much more interesting than the Santa Rita camp where most arrestees went). Soon after that I described my experiences to a wonderful student I had just met, and we’ve now been happily married for over 50 years.

What happened in Berkeley last night? There was a speech scheduled by a controversial person (some might classify him as a neo-Nazi, but he was nothing compared to the actual neo-Nazi of 1964). Some students had organized a peaceful protest. Too bad; it would have been much better and more effective to attend his speech and hit him with embarrassing questions. A group of about 150 anarchists soon arrived, and, covered with black masks to hide their identities, and using the peaceful protesters as cover, began to attack the building violently. From my home a mile away I could hear much of it. I watched the terrible events on local news and video tweets.

I visited the area this morning. Somehow the image on TV had given an exaggerated image of what happened. Damage to property was minimal, with most having happened on one corner of the Student Union building.

Had the protesters used the 1964 tradition, attend-listen-embarrass, this could not have happened. It was the presence of thousands of innocent students that allowed the anarchists to denigrate free speech and leave the police virtually helpless to stop the violence.

I strongly urge the campus to revert to the old form of free speech, the kind I saw and loved in 1964, attend-listen-embarrass. It is effective and avoids the danger of a small group of extremists leveraging your disagreement with the speaker for their own violent ends.

Of course, the attend-listen-embarrass approach does have a downside too. If you listen to the speaker, he might actually influence the way you think about things. Personally, I love that aspect. Sometimes what I know about a speaker turns out to be wrong or exaggerated, and polite listening actually affects the way I think about the world. I’m never afraid to listen.

 

[NovaKart]

I kind of like Richard Muller's (a U.C. Berkeley physicist and professor) take on this. He posted it here: https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-...ey-protests/answer/Richard-Muller-3?srid=CuQT
For those who are too lazy to click the link, here it is in full.

Spoiler long :

When I first arrived on the Berkeley Campus, I went to a talk by a neo-Nazi. It was 1964, three months before the “Free Speech Movement”. I saw the announcement of the upcoming presentation, and I was curious—so I attended. About 250 students showed up. The speaker was introduced (in very neutral terms) and he spoke for about 45 minutes. The audience listened politely.

When he finished, questions were solicited. I noticed a pattern: the students were asking pointed questions, often involving logic or history, and they seemed to confound the speaker. It was almost a student competition: who could ask the most devastating question! The speaker was confused; he almost seemed to stutter; he was embarrassed. He had no good answers. Each succeeding student seemed to be able to ask even better questions that left the neo-Nazi helpless. He came across as an ignorant and utter fool.

I walked out absolutely delighted. I had seen free speech in action! It worked. Possibly everyone in the audience came away feeling as I did. Even supporters of the neo-Nazi must have been appalled at his ineptitude.

A few weeks later, a student was arrested and expelled for engaging in a political presentation at the corner of Bancroft and Telegraph, right at the edge of campus. I and a large number of students felt that the administration was undermining the free speech that we so much appreciated, and that I had seen so beautifully demonstrated at the neo-Nazi talk. Soon afterwards there was a peaceful sit-in at Sproul Hall. I was arrested; I spent the night in the Oakland jail (much more interesting than the Santa Rita camp where most arrestees went). Soon after that I described my experiences to a wonderful student I had just met, and we’ve now been happily married for over 50 years.

What happened in Berkeley last night? There was a speech scheduled by a controversial person (some might classify him as a neo-Nazi, but he was nothing compared to the actual neo-Nazi of 1964). Some students had organized a peaceful protest. Too bad; it would have been much better and more effective to attend his speech and hit him with embarrassing questions. A group of about 150 anarchists soon arrived, and, covered with black masks to hide their identities, and using the peaceful protesters as cover, began to attack the building violently. From my home a mile away I could hear much of it. I watched the terrible events on local news and video tweets.

I visited the area this morning. Somehow the image on TV had given an exaggerated image of what happened. Damage to property was minimal, with most having happened on one corner of the Student Union building.

Had the protesters used the 1964 tradition, attend-listen-embarrass, this could not have happened. It was the presence of thousands of innocent students that allowed the anarchists to denigrate free speech and leave the police virtually helpless to stop the violence.

I strongly urge the campus to revert to the old form of free speech, the kind I saw and loved in 1964, attend-listen-embarrass. It is effective and avoids the danger of a small group of extremists leveraging your disagreement with the speaker for their own violent ends.

Of course, the attend-listen-embarrass approach does have a downside too. If you listen to the speaker, he might actually influence the way you think about things. Personally, I love that aspect. Sometimes what I know about a speaker turns out to be wrong or exaggerated, and polite listening actually affects the way I think about the world. I’m never afraid to listen.

I mostly agree but it seems like this person is much more media savvy than the neo-Nazi so he may be much more prepared for a question and answer session.

On the other hand, it's possible he's used to a Twitter echo chamber and giving talks with screaming protesters and groups of his supporters arguing and maybe if he had been around back when college students were expected to be adults he would have had a harder time.

 

[CavLancer]

So let me get this right. Leftist Berkeley libruls are rioting to keep a gay guy from speaking? That's breaking the law, toss these anti gay rights bastards in jail.

 

[Vectors]

I think that has to do with Americans seeing someone asking you for your ID as a sign that they don't see you as a trustworthy person.

Indeed, even if you are exactly following Visa and Mastercard policy.

 

[metalhead]

I kind of like Richard Muller's (a U.C. Berkeley physicist and professor) take on this. He posted it here: https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-...ey-protests/answer/Richard-Muller-3?srid=CuQT
For those who are too lazy to click the link, here it is in full.

Spoiler long :

When I first arrived on the Berkeley Campus, I went to a talk by a neo-Nazi. It was 1964, three months before the “Free Speech Movement”. I saw the announcement of the upcoming presentation, and I was curious—so I attended. About 250 students showed up. The speaker was introduced (in very neutral terms) and he spoke for about 45 minutes. The audience listened politely.

When he finished, questions were solicited. I noticed a pattern: the students were asking pointed questions, often involving logic or history, and they seemed to confound the speaker. It was almost a student competition: who could ask the most devastating question! The speaker was confused; he almost seemed to stutter; he was embarrassed. He had no good answers. Each succeeding student seemed to be able to ask even better questions that left the neo-Nazi helpless. He came across as an ignorant and utter fool.

I walked out absolutely delighted. I had seen free speech in action! It worked. Possibly everyone in the audience came away feeling as I did. Even supporters of the neo-Nazi must have been appalled at his ineptitude.

A few weeks later, a student was arrested and expelled for engaging in a political presentation at the corner of Bancroft and Telegraph, right at the edge of campus. I and a large number of students felt that the administration was undermining the free speech that we so much appreciated, and that I had seen so beautifully demonstrated at the neo-Nazi talk. Soon afterwards there was a peaceful sit-in at Sproul Hall. I was arrested; I spent the night in the Oakland jail (much more interesting than the Santa Rita camp where most arrestees went). Soon after that I described my experiences to a wonderful student I had just met, and we’ve now been happily married for over 50 years.

What happened in Berkeley last night? There was a speech scheduled by a controversial person (some might classify him as a neo-Nazi, but he was nothing compared to the actual neo-Nazi of 1964). Some students had organized a peaceful protest. Too bad; it would have been much better and more effective to attend his speech and hit him with embarrassing questions. A group of about 150 anarchists soon arrived, and, covered with black masks to hide their identities, and using the peaceful protesters as cover, began to attack the building violently. From my home a mile away I could hear much of it. I watched the terrible events on local news and video tweets.

I visited the area this morning. Somehow the image on TV had given an exaggerated image of what happened. Damage to property was minimal, with most having happened on one corner of the Student Union building.

Had the protesters used the 1964 tradition, attend-listen-embarrass, this could not have happened. It was the presence of thousands of innocent students that allowed the anarchists to denigrate free speech and leave the police virtually helpless to stop the violence.

I strongly urge the campus to revert to the old form of free speech, the kind I saw and loved in 1964, attend-listen-embarrass. It is effective and avoids the danger of a small group of extremists leveraging your disagreement with the speaker for their own violent ends.

Of course, the attend-listen-embarrass approach does have a downside too. If you listen to the speaker, he might actually influence the way you think about things. Personally, I love that aspect. Sometimes what I know about a speaker turns out to be wrong or exaggerated, and polite listening actually affects the way I think about the world. I’m never afraid to listen.

This presumes someone like Milo is intending to engage in an intellectually honest way, i.e. is attempting to present a reasoned case for his beliefs and then engage in a give-and-take with the audience and try to persuade to his point of view. The problem with trolls like Milo is they have no interest in engaging this way. That's part of the problem - where the 1964 Nazi was attempting intellectual rigor in his presentation, Milo is not.

Part of the ethos of "free speech" on college campuses is that it be reasoned speech. This is the part I think most people miss - the marketplace of ideas doesn't mean everybody is invited to share whatever ideas they have, regardless of how damaging or poorly thought out they are. It's fine to have dissenting views, it's fine to present differing opinions, but you better be prepared to do what the 1964 Nazi did - present your argument in a reasoned way and then defend it. Inviting an anti-intellectual provocateur for no other reason than to shock and titillate the campus reactionaries is not in keeping with that tradition, at all. The students are absolutely right to stand up against that.

 

[BvBPL]

I kind of like Richard Muller's (a U.C. Berkeley physicist and professor) take on this. He posted it here: https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-...ey-protests/answer/Richard-Muller-3?srid=CuQT
For those who are too lazy to click the link, here it is in full.

Spoiler long :

When I first arrived on the Berkeley Campus, I went to a talk by a neo-Nazi. It was 1964, three months before the “Free Speech Movement”. I saw the announcement of the upcoming presentation, and I was curious—so I attended. About 250 students showed up. The speaker was introduced (in very neutral terms) and he spoke for about 45 minutes. The audience listened politely.

When he finished, questions were solicited. I noticed a pattern: the students were asking pointed questions, often involving logic or history, and they seemed to confound the speaker. It was almost a student competition: who could ask the most devastating question! The speaker was confused; he almost seemed to stutter; he was embarrassed. He had no good answers. Each succeeding student seemed to be able to ask even better questions that left the neo-Nazi helpless. He came across as an ignorant and utter fool.

I walked out absolutely delighted. I had seen free speech in action! It worked. Possibly everyone in the audience came away feeling as I did. Even supporters of the neo-Nazi must have been appalled at his ineptitude.

A few weeks later, a student was arrested and expelled for engaging in a political presentation at the corner of Bancroft and Telegraph, right at the edge of campus. I and a large number of students felt that the administration was undermining the free speech that we so much appreciated, and that I had seen so beautifully demonstrated at the neo-Nazi talk. Soon afterwards there was a peaceful sit-in at Sproul Hall. I was arrested; I spent the night in the Oakland jail (much more interesting than the Santa Rita camp where most arrestees went). Soon after that I described my experiences to a wonderful student I had just met, and we’ve now been happily married for over 50 years.

What happened in Berkeley last night? There was a speech scheduled by a controversial person (some might classify him as a neo-Nazi, but he was nothing compared to the actual neo-Nazi of 1964). Some students had organized a peaceful protest. Too bad; it would have been much better and more effective to attend his speech and hit him with embarrassing questions. A group of about 150 anarchists soon arrived, and, covered with black masks to hide their identities, and using the peaceful protesters as cover, began to attack the building violently. From my home a mile away I could hear much of it. I watched the terrible events on local news and video tweets.

I visited the area this morning. Somehow the image on TV had given an exaggerated image of what happened. Damage to property was minimal, with most having happened on one corner of the Student Union building.

Had the protesters used the 1964 tradition, attend-listen-embarrass, this could not have happened. It was the presence of thousands of innocent students that allowed the anarchists to denigrate free speech and leave the police virtually helpless to stop the violence.

I strongly urge the campus to revert to the old form of free speech, the kind I saw and loved in 1964, attend-listen-embarrass. It is effective and avoids the danger of a small group of extremists leveraging your disagreement with the speaker for their own violent ends.

Of course, the attend-listen-embarrass approach does have a downside too. If you listen to the speaker, he might actually influence the way you think about things. Personally, I love that aspect. Sometimes what I know about a speaker turns out to be wrong or exaggerated, and polite listening actually affects the way I think about the world. I’m never afraid to listen.

An excellent demonstration of one of the myriad of ways in which non-violent tactics can be used to defeat the forces of hate. It is incumbent upon all who are opposed to the spread of hate to not resort to the same villainous violence that is being opposed. The Black Bloc people who soured this demonstration executed a most base perfidy by corrupting a demonstration intended to prevent violence with violence.

 

[Kyriakos]

This presumes someone like Milo is intending to engage in an intellectually honest way, i.e. is attempting to present a reasoned case for his beliefs and then engage in a give-and-take with the audience and try to persuade to his point of view. The problem with trolls like Milo is they have no interest in engaging this way. That's part of the problem - where the 1964 Nazi was attempting intellectual rigor in his presentation, Milo is not.

Part of the ethos of "free speech" on college campuses is that it be reasoned speech. This is the part I think most people miss - the marketplace of ideas doesn't mean everybody is invited to share whatever ideas they have, regardless of how damaging or poorly thought out they are. It's fine to have dissenting views, it's fine to present differing opinions, but you better be prepared to do what the 1964 Nazi did - present your argument in a reasoned way and then defend it. Inviting an anti-intellectual provocateur for no other reason than to shock and titillate the campus reactionaries is not in keeping with that tradition, at all. The students are absolutely right to stand up against that.

^The problem with that is that Milo, while he is a troll, is surely not less "reasoned" than most other speakers who are equally one-sided or trollish AND speak in universities to various degree (some even work there). This is why the issue becomes marketed inevitably as free speech; it cannot be realistically marketed as reasonable speech, cause the 'other side' (SJW etc) isn't reasonable either.

Which is another reason why the solution won't come from even more polarization, and yet that is the only way things are headed.

Basically you have a battle of poor and/or trolling arguments, due to media and race to the bottom, and polarized state. Vowing attacks on one or the other of the two dumb sides won't help with anything at all.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm not a fan of shutting down speeches. I think it's counter-productive, stupid and wrong. Plus the protestors robbed us of the opportunity to endlessly mock Milo for whatever stupid, childish speech he would have given.

 

[Lexicus]

This presumes someone like Milo is intending to engage in an intellectually honest way, i.e. is attempting to present a reasoned case for his beliefs and then engage in a give-and-take with the audience and try to persuade to his point of view. The problem with trolls like Milo is they have no interest in engaging this way. That's part of the problem - where the 1964 Nazi was attempting intellectual rigor in his presentation, Milo is not.

Part of the other problem is that this notion that Nazism spreads through reasoned debate is simply wrong. The idea that Nazism will gain strength when people see Richard Spencer getting punched in the face and think "oh how reasonable he seems" is also just wrong, in my opinion. There is nothing "reasoned" about Nazism from top to bottom. In fact, as what @Lohrenswald posted demonstrated nicely, to some degree the essence of Nazism is the rejection of reason and rational thought.

This is a letter to the editor from a guy who lived through fascism in the '30s and '40s:

Some context:

The previous year a provocation by the organized right in TCD also badly backfired when their invitation to David Irving resulted in hundreds of people blockading and then trying to storm the building where the debate was to take place. Again there was co-operation from campus unions, importantly security refused to cover the event leaving it up to a couple of senior academics to try and enforce discipline on the night. At this point in time we had the confidence to simply ignore them.

Irving was smuggled into the building during the afternoon but ended up trapped within it as people tried to force their way in, windows were broken etc. He was trapped there until the early hours of the morning. A major defeat not only for the right on campus but also for the college authorities. Despite the fact that the organizers of the protest were easy to identify the college dared to take no action against us. Right wing journalist Kevin Myers was apoplectic in his Irish Times column the following day, referring to the students as a "howling mob".

The parallels to what happened at Berkeley are obvious, except that I would argue Irving, despite being a Holocaust-denying Nazi sympathizer, was actually more entitled to a platform (by virtue of good faith) than Milo whose stated goal is simply to offend people.

I agree with Frison, for the record.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm not a fan of shutting down speeches. I think it's counter-productive, stupid and wrong. Plus the protestors robbed us of the opportunity to endlessly mock Milo for whatever stupid, childish speech he would have given.

They also robbed MIlo's supporters of their opportunity to show their support for him by tormenting whoever he designated as targets. I for one can just mock him for being a stupid childish troll without this particular speech, so that is a trade off I am willing to make.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Don't you have to make an application? Surely that involves your grades and from where you graduated to allow for back checks? There is also the issue that (university) education is usually paid for by the state, which uses taxation, which is paid by citizens. Being illegally there is just creating a host of problems.

In what country? In Murica, we generally have to fund most if not all of our own University education either through massive student loans, which must be paid back, or jobs while in school, or parents writing huge checks on our behalf, or the University giving grants from their privately-funded (generally through alumni contribution) endowments, or winning privately funded scholarships, or some combination of these. State funded grants can come into play for many kids, but these only account for a tiny fraction of the bill in most cases.

 

[metalhead]

^The problem with that is that Milo, while he is a troll, is surely not less "reasoned" than most other speakers who are equally one-sided or trollish AND speak in universities to various degree (some even work there). This is why the issue becomes marketed inevitably as free speech; it cannot be realistically marketed as reasonable speech, cause the 'other side' (SJW etc) isn't reasonable either.

Which is another reason why the solution won't come from even more polarization, and yet that is the only way things are headed.

Basically you have a battle of poor and/or trolling arguments, due to media and race to the bottom, and polarized state. Vowing attacks on one or the other of the two dumb sides won't help with anything at all.

Whataboutism is not an argument. Let's focus on the issue at hand. It does not seem like the purpose of an event with Milo is to educate anyone on an "opposing viewpoint." Rather it is to sensationalize reactionary trolling. We're not talking about someone speaking on a street corner, this is an event organized by a student group and put on in a University facility. To the extent someone you might label an "SJW" speaks at a university in such a manner (and what is it with all these parallels between SJWs and Nazis that people keep making?), students would have every right to protest it.

 

[Kyriakos]

Whataboutism is not an argument. Let's focus on the issue at hand. It does not seem like the purpose of an event with Milo is to educate anyone on an "opposing viewpoint." Rather it is to sensationalize reactionary trolling. We're not talking about someone speaking on a street corner, this is an event organized by a student group and put on in a University facility. To the extent someone you might label an "SJW" speaks at a university in such a manner (and what is it with all these parallels between SJWs and Nazis that people keep making?), students would have every right to protest it.

It's not meant as "well the other side does it too", but as a note that the problem is that way too many (and popular) speakers on such issues are borderline moronic and/or trolls, so the Entire debate perpetuates such issues. Ie this isn't a one-off, with Milo being the one problem you have to solve. Others will take his position if he is banned from speaking.

It is like focusing on a person having the flu, or even ebola, when you allow other people with ebola variants in the same room already, and their audience also has ebola, etc.

 

[BvBPL]

Whataboutism is not an argument. Let's focus on the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is the use of violence in protests.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The issue at hand is the use of violence in protests.

Violence is a thing, not an issue. Your issue might be "the existence of this thing is not justified" or that you find this thing distasteful enough to complain about it, but in itself it is a thing, not an issue. Since it is an effective thing for people with particular objectives to use it is very unlikely that it will cease to exist.