[RD] Berkeley Riots

[Lexicus]

At UC Davis it was fear of the event becoming violent. Specifically, exactly the same reason was given in both examples, namely that the safety of the event could not be guaranteed.

 

[NovaKart]

It depends on how credible it was that he would actually out closeted trans people or undocumented immigrants, presumably by knowing about their internet identities. The reality-distortion field around him is strong enough that I have no idea whether this is something he credibly threatened, or whether it's something that appeared and got amplified in left-wing social media.

The case at Wisconsin seems to have involved someone who was already in a public dispute against the university and so could be said to already be out. I'm not sure if he's done anything worse.

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?

 

[BvBPL]

This is a frustration with the premise that violence was effective here. While people say violence was effective at preventing harm to the students, it was not effective at preventing as much as potentially delaying it. Yiannopoulos is still free to name the students through alternative means. Were he to do so and the students were harmed as a result then the violence will have been for naught when it comes to defending the students.

 

[metalhead]

Denying him the spectacle likely denies much of his satisfaction in carrying out the "outing." Trolling people over the Internet just doesn't have the same thrill.

 

[Old Hippy]

meanwhile the people who invited him seem to have cruised through the whole episode with there views unchallenged and unchanged
they are more responsible for the resulting violence than anyone, they set up a situation that was obviously going to happen
I mean it was Berkley after all and places like that have traditions to uphold
did they know what would likely happen
I think they probably did

 

[innonimatu]

Okay, then we cannot even argue this point because I think deontological ethics are silly

Consequentialism just shifts what is evaluated deontologicaly.

Take the classic example of deciding whether to let one patient die in order to harvest organs to save two other patients instead of trying and possibly failing to save all three. What the consequentialists who'd deliberately let one die are actually defending is that number of lives is their "deontological" value above all. Instead of the "every life has immeasurable value and cannot be traded for others" dermatological opposite position. They actually both have some kind of "dogma" at the bottom as a rationale.

I'm generally far more inclined towards deontological ethics. But I can see that we all use both throughout our lives, depending on the issues and circumstances.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is a frustration with the premise that violence was effective here. While people say violence was effective at preventing harm to the students, it was not effective at preventing as much as potentially delaying it. Yiannopoulos is still free to name the students through alternative means. Were he to do so and the students were harmed as a result then the violence will have been for naught when it comes to defending the students.

So you are endorsing my idea that the more appropriate response would leave him with his jaw wired shut and his typing apparatti encased in plaster. That's surprising.

 

[stfoskey12]

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.

Wouldn't a better response have been to simply boycott the speech then? I wonder if he's so offensive because he wants attention. If that's the case and no one listens, he'll hopefully stop trying because he knows he won't get a response.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Wouldn't a better response have been to simply boycott the speech then? I wonder if he's so offensive because he wants attention. If that's the case and no one listens, he'll hopefully stop trying because he knows he won't get a response.

He's an editor at Breitbart. He "self covers" his events and gets all the attention that he wants. Whether anyone shows up or not, whether anyone protests or not, he adds another heroic chapter for the Breitbart faithful who follow him. And in order to add to that heroic saga what he really needs isn't the violent protest, it is to continuously one up himself. So expecting that his "oh boy I did an outing in Wisconsin and ruined a life" wasn't going to be repeated, if not expanded, is foolish.

 

[Hygro]

He's an editor at Breitbart. He "self covers" his events and gets all the attention that he wants. Whether anyone shows up or not, whether anyone protests or not, he adds another heroic chapter for the Breitbart faithful who follow him. And in order to add to that heroic saga what he really needs isn't the violent protest, it is to continuously one up himself. So expecting that his "oh boy I did an outing in Wisconsin and ruined a life" wasn't going to be repeated, if not expanded, is foolish.

One of two axes why thrashing a Milo show shuts him down but why thrashing a Spencer guy boosts him up.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm still of the mind that whether you thrash the Spencer guy or not sooner or later guys like him get the boost. For one thing there are plenty of websites just aching to give him a soapbox anyway. There's also another point that can be made using relativity.

From our point of view there will be people saying "oh, the poor Nazi got punched in the face!" and dithering about the moral issues. But from the point of view of the rest of the fascist crowd there is certainly excitement about all the coverage, but in that crowd taking a punch to the face and staggering away simpering is far from a good showing. It gained him no traction with his peer group.

 

[Commodore]

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.

Aw, come now we have state funded university education in the US. All it requires is a few years of giving up your rights, freedoms, and individuality.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Aw, come now we have state funded university education in the US. All it requires is a few years of giving up your rights, freedoms, and individuality.

True but then you paid for it

 

[Kyriakos]

Consequentialism just shifts what is evaluated deontologicaly.

Take the classic example of deciding whether to let one patient die in order to harvest organs to save two other patients instead of trying and possibly failing to save all three. What the consequentialists who'd deliberately let one die are actually defending is that number of lives is their "deontological" value above all. Instead of the "every life has immeasurable value and cannot be traded for others" dermatological opposite position. They actually both have some kind of "dogma" at the bottom as a rationale.

I'm generally far more inclined towards deontological ethics. But I can see that we all use both throughout our lives, depending on the issues and circumstances.

Indeed. Besides, deontological comes from "deon", which translates loosely to "the decent thing". I am somewhat appalled by people who think it is awesome to kill x people so as to save y>x people. Their god is Khorne ^^

 

[Commodore]

True but then you paid for it

Yeah, but not with money...and that's what's important, right?

 

[REDY]

He has now best promotion. If he wanted mock some people he can do it now more effectively.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yeah, but not with money...and that's what's important, right?

Meh...To us Muricans, freedom is important.. I'll bet to those people rioting/protesting etc at Berkeley, XYZ liberal value is important... to Trump voters (alot of them anyway) jobs are important... Although I guess you could define "jobs" as "money" so yeah, I guess money is the most important thing to some folks...

 

[Traitorfish]

So people are actually justifying violent protests to prevent someone from speaking at a university.

Quoting one of those involved in the protests,

A partial list of things people did to try to cancel Milo’s appearance at UC Berkeley before Wednesday:

~particularly following MY’s outing and sexual harassment of a trans student at UW Milwaukee (but also before), we talked with our communities about their thoughts on free speech versus harassment and realized many ppl supported the former but not the latter

~wrote op eds in high-profile news media about the differences between free speech, hate speech, and harassment

~met with many folks targeted by both MY and the Trump administration to hear their concerns and solutions to MY’s talk; many asked for us to begin urging for cancellation
*the above was all in November, immediately following the election of DT and the dramatic spike in hate crimes against the same groups MY targets*

~we developed a large-scale letter writing campaign to faculty and administration urging for the cancellation of MY on the grounds that his speeches have targeted and harassed students and created unsafe campus environments

~worked with members of the community who wanted to draft letters to UCB administration urging for cancellation (particularly trans and poc people)

~once the sale started, we urged friends to buy out all of the tickets so the auditorium would be empty (we later learned that a only fraction of MY tickets were made available for public sale, and that his camp is very familiar with this tactic and just lets more ppl in the day of)
*this was all in December*

~organized a mass call in campaign to the Chancellor and to President Napolitano urging for cancellation

~visited other schools that invited this speaker and saw how many white nationalists use these talks to build their movement and how violent these spaces can be

~faculty wrote a letter to administration urging for cancellation; they were doxxed on Breitbart for signing on and began receiving personal messages meant to silence and intimidate them

~faculty wrote an op ed about MY’s harassment and hate speech; some faculty received death threats for this

~submitted over 50 union grievances stating that the MY talk constitutes a hostile work environment under Article 20 of our contract, which protects against harassment and discrimination

~developed a toolkit that critically examines the history of free speech, pointing to its historical exclusions as well as limits outlined in the constitution, and how MY uses this argument to help build the white nationalist movement and to instruct people how to purge its others; some students who helped write this toolkit were doxxed and began receiving personal messages meant to silence and intimidate

~wrote numerous op eds in our school newspaper, writing for which some students opposed to MY’s visit received very chilling death threats

~consulted lawyers on the matter of free speech vs. harassment so we could better understand the legal framework

~after the near-death shooting of a Milo protester at UW Seattle, we reached out to local and state politicians to convince our administration that this talk was a threat to public safety

~held several large public meetings to discuss and debate the merits of allowing this speaker a platform vs. urging for cancellation on the grounds of certain harassment and likely violence; it was at this point that the Berkeley College Republicans began following some of us in attempts to intimidate us

~actually met several times with UCB administrators and read aloud death threats we’ve received, urging them to protect our right to free speech in the context of threats meant to chill us

~learned that undocumented students would be targeted by MY and that the UCB administration knew this and offered them no protection
*this was all in January*

This is, again, a partial list that only includes things I remember. I’ve seen many op eds shame protesters (esp. black bloc) and say, why didn’t you do x, y, z first? Believe me, if you can think of a tactic, we tried it. Next time someone shames us for not pursuing the polite route of asking nicely for the psychological and physical safety of us and our friends and loved ones to be honored, start reading this long list of things we actually did before Wednesday.

I’m ----ing tired and glad that creeper wasn’t allowed anywhere near a UCB mic.

What we witnessed at Berkeley was the failure of the system to respond to the public, not the failure of the public to adhere to the system.

Somebody once said something about "the language of the unheard".

 

[Farm Boy]

Meh...To us Muricans, freedom is important.. I'll bet to those people rioting/protesting etc at Berkeley, XYZ liberal value is important... to Trump voters (alot of them anyway) jobs are important... Although I guess you could define "jobs" as "money" so yeah, I guess money is the most important thing to some folks...

Work is more than money. If work equals job, and jobs are menial, boring, demeaning while also being compensated at a level that cannot unbuy the menial, boring, and demeaning with the affirmative meaning that work provides... then we've got the problem we seem to have been doing our hardest to grow as fast as is convenient.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Work is more than money. If work equals job, and jobs are menial, boring, demeaning while also being compensated at a level that cannot unbuy the menial, boring, and demeaning with the affirmative meaning that work provides... then we've got the problem we seem to have been doing our hardest to grow as fast as is convenient.

You know that you and I agree that having a job means alot more than having a few coins to give somebody else to subsist... however, there is no shortage of volunteer work available, so at some point, the famous rubber meets the famous road and it does become about the money.

I guess we can qualify it as money-plus... The "plus" being things like opportunity to advance, ability to enjoy life/family/friends, recognition, dignity, ability to do more than just survive, community standing, sense of accomplishment, etc... all of which can probably be lumped together as a level of self respect/esteem...

But you still need to get paid... So saying your reason for rioting/voting/protesting for XYZ is/was "the most important thing to me is jobs" is, on some level, synonymous with saying "the most important thing to me is money."