[RD] Berkeley Riots

[Arwon]

Plenty of gay people in the United States do still keep their sexual orientation extremely quiet

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

If everyone though that way gays would still be living in hiding. And blacks would still be quietly giving their seats to white passengers.

... a lot of them are?

 

[metalhead]

I'm sorry but I must say that this logic strikes me as totally wrong. You should not be focusing on helping the [oppressed group] to hide in the ghetto. That just keeps them oppressed. You should help them stand out and be accepted.

And why should transgender people have to hide in fear and be helped in hiding, instead of living openly with it? Why don't those who are "brave" enough to arrange riots over this expend their efforts instead to protect thee people against those who would harass them? Is harassing them legal to start with?

It's not up to you or I or anyone else to tell a trans person that he or she needs to stand out and be accepted. Being openly trans leaves one vulnerable to violence at rates many times higher than what cis people experience. I certainly support trying to make society fully accepting of all gender identities and expressions, but wishing it were so doesn't change the reality. In the mean time, people who feel they are more secure in hiding instead of open ought to be respected and allowed to stay where they feel secure.

 

[Bootstoots]

I'm sorry but I must say that this logic strikes me as totally wrong. You should not be focusing on helping the [oppressed group] to hide in the ghetto. That just keeps them oppressed. You should help them stand out and be accepted.

And why should transgender people have to hide in fear and be helped in hiding, instead of living openly with it? Why don't those who are "brave" enough to arrange riots over this expend their efforts instead to protect thee people against those who would harass them? Is harassing them legal to start with?

The ultimate goal is to get them accepted by society over time, similar to how gay people have become much more accepted, but the reality is that this particular group of people is still under a very large amount of social discrimination, with high rates of crime victimization and general exclusion by their families and communities, especially in conservative areas. Individual transgender people have to make their own decisions about when to come out, and outing them prematurely exposes them to serious physical and psychological risk, which Milo is exploiting as an intimidation tactic.

There isn't really a conflict between making them more visible vs. keeping them hidden - either of these things should be done on a case-by-case basis decided by individual transgender people themselves, with the long-term goal of shifting the equilibrium towards an environment where the risks of coming out are much lower than they are today.

If you haven't read this thread yet, you should - there's a lot to learn there.

I'll also ask, what are undocumented students? People who informally hanging around attending to classes? Or actual students? If actual students, how come a state-sponsored bureaucracy have undocumented students? Something is broken over there, and it won't be only the Trumps of the world thinking so.

You're absolutely right that something is broken here.

During the reign of ReaganBushClintonBush, US immigration policy was steered so as to tacitly encourage illegal immigration of unskilled laborers from Mexico and the rest of Latin America while making it fairly difficult to immigrate legally as guest workers. This flow was especially strong post-NAFTA, as Mexican campesinos were driven off their land after being undercut by subsidized American agriculture and ended up in the US as illegal farm workers, meatpackers, and other such jobs. Illegal immigrants are perfect for the sorts of people who employ them because they can't file pesky complaints about such things as safety, minimum wages, and so on, saving their employers enormous amounts of money on labor costs.

Of course, the sudden, largely illegal arrival of large numbers of people who speak a different language and undercut native workers was kind of annoying for many native working-class people, and the tension built with a substantial time-delay, so that Trump was able to come along and exploit this resentment even though Mexican immigration fell to net zero with the financial crisis in 2008 and never recovered. The Republican elite have been using illegal immigration as a wedge issue, so that not only could they gain working-class votes but that there would be a strong movement to never legalize any of these people. If there is an amnesty, then this compliant underclass of people would suddenly turn into people who could enforce their rights to a minimum wage and labor standards, which would be devastating to the corporate interests that employ them. Much better to play the American working class against a poor underclass, thereby ensuring votes for the politicians and profits to companies that employ illegal immigrants.

Anyway, many of them brought their kids along too, so now there are millions of people who arrived in the US illegally and without proper documentation (hence the term "undocumented") as children, who went to school here and identify more strongly with the US than their native country. They do have some documentation in the form of school transcripts and test scores, which allows them to get into college albeit without federal student aid. But they aren't actually here legally even if they arrived as young children, and there is a threat of deportation if they are found out. Trump campaigned on a platform of deporting all of the ~11-12 million illegal (aka undocumented) immigrants, and exposing them to that risk by publicly naming them is an intimidation tactic that Milo is using against the ones who say things he dislikes.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'll also ask, what are undocumented students? People who informally hanging around attending to classes? Or actual students? If actual students, how come a state-sponsored bureaucracy have undocumented students? Something is broken over there, and it won't be only the Trumps of the world thinking so.

I find it interesting that you ask that question two posts after I dumped this on Kyriakos.

You weren't, just those particular questions were. At this point it is reasonable to suggest that anyone stating opinions on US immigration issues should be well enough versed in them to know that yes, many of our undocumented people have indeed been here since they were little kids. Since you were clearly outspoken in your opinions the lack of knowledge of the issue underlying your questions was remarkable...hence the remark.

Seriously, how can people who are interested enough to have opinions they will argue for not be interested enough to bother knowing the very basics of the situation?

 

[Commodore]

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.

Funny thing about free speech is that your speech isn't required to be civil. He skirts the bounds of what is legal to say, but he hasn't crossed that boundary yet, which means his right to speak must still be protected. And since Berkeley is a public university, that receives federal funding they are obligated to protect his right to free speech as well, no matter how nasty his speech may be.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Funny thing about free speech is that your speech isn't required to be civil. He skirts the bounds of what is legal to say, but he hasn't crossed that boundary yet, which means his right to speak must still be protected. And since Berkeley is a public university, that receives federal funding they are obligated to protect his right to free speech as well, no matter how nasty his speech may be.

They aren't required to give me a stage. Or you, as far as I know. There is absolutely nothing that says they have to book a hall out to anyone who says " I want to speak." That isn't part of "protecting his rights" at all. Just like even if this was a government funded website they would not be required to give you your own page just because you ask for one, nor would they be required to waive any nondiscriminatory rules they might have regarding personal conduct.

 

[Commodore]

They aren't required to give me a stage. Or you, as far as I know. There is absolutely nothing that says they have to book a hall out to anyone who says " I want to speak." That isn't part of "protecting his rights" at all. Just like even if this was a government funded website they would not be required to give you your own page just because you ask for one, nor would they be required to waive any nondiscriminatory rules they might have regarding personal conduct.

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.

EDIT: Also, to those asking why the university even let him speak in the first place: Did you ever consider maybe the university was testing the students' commitment to the concept of free speech? If so, I'd say the students failed the test horribly.

Hell, If I ran a university I'd do things like that just to see if my students can actually practice what they preach.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

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.

Well, they are required to protect him, for sure. But they are entitled to say "wow, booking you was a mistake and keeping you from being set on fire is beyond our ability, so get lost" if that is the only way to keep him safe. Bottom line, they shouldn't book known trolls who are going to try to provoke a crowd for a headline on Breitbart.

 

[bernie14]

I don't think milo is invited to speak by the university, i believe he is invited and paid for by student groups

I don't know if he was going to "out" anyone, or the legality of such, but here are two stories about what happened with a transgendered student at UWM...

we report...you decide......

 

[Kyriakos]

Maybe Milo(n) would defeat those protesters in hand-to-hand combat, if he is anything like the ancient Milon, a celebrated olympics wrestler who was likened to Herakles

I still have to suppose that this Milo maybe isn't even homosexual, but uses it as a routine /trolling (wouldn't surprise me, the way media works)

 

[JollyRoger]

I don't see how they are required to protect him. Can he not hire his own security detail?

 

[sophie]

Well, aren't there any checks on the application, as in verifying said applicant indeed got those grades from the specific secondary education institution? Were the applicants in secondary education in the US? Don't even secondary education institutions at least identify whether legally one is allowed to be there?

It does sound like a somewhat absurd system, when in Europe you can't do anything on a state level (including education) without first and foremost showing documents that you are who and what you claim to be.

Yes, but attending secondary schools ALSO doesn't require verification of citizenship status. Neither anything in the application itself, nor anything associated with the application process would reveal, or is intended to reveal citizenship status.

 

[Commodore]

I don't see how they are required to protect him. Can he not hire his own security detail?

It's taking place on their campus, which makes them liable for anything that might happen to him while on their campus. Kinda like how if someone injures themselves on my property, they can sue me for their medical expenses if it is determined that I did not do everything necessary to make my property safe.

It's called premises liability and I'd think as a lawyer you'd know about that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's taking place on their campus, which makes them liable for anything that might happen to him while on their campus. Kinda like how if someone injures themselves on my property, they can sue me for their medical expenses if it is determined that I did not do everything necessary to make my property safe.

It's called premises liability and I'd think as a lawyer you'd know about that.

Premises liability doesn't cover me if I'm visiting your house and light myself on fire by trying to speed up your barbecue by spitting grain alcohol into it while you are telling me I'm being stupid. Your liability doesn't absolve me from responsibility for doing myself harm. Similarly, the University being responsible for providing adequate security does not offer cover for someone who instigates violence should they become a casualty of that violence.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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

 

[Traitorfish]

The Black Bloc made an ass of themselves, as usual, but my biggest objection to those tactics is that they do so much to allow fair-weather progressives to make a false distinction between angry anarchist rioters on the one hand, and peaceful, law-abiding protesters on the other. This will be attempted anyway, of course, it is always is, but when people start identifying explicitly with the former, with uniforms and everything, it makes that falsehood so much easier to spin, and thus makes it so much easier for fundamentally reactionary law-and-order liberals to co-opt social movements.

In practice, there is no such distinction, and a state which kettles, bludgeons and tear-gases protesters as a matter of course will makes no such distinction. All public protest, all effective public protest, hovers on the borders of legality, as it has always done, because all effective protest represents a disruption of the status quo. Establishment liberals only began to sing the praises of Dr. King when they were quite sure that he was dead.

 

[BvBPL]

He has a history of doing so in campus speeches, and he was rushed out of the event before speaking, so the inference is logical.

Not if you are aware of how effective non-violent demonstrations can be at keeping people like Yiannopoulos from speaking. Non-violence works. We should exhaust non-violent means of action prior to resorting to violence.

Also, the violence has been greatly exaggerated, only 3 injuries were reported to police. Nothing major that anyone can tell. The bank branches will miraculously survive.

Third parties were firebombed.

 

[Vectors]

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

 

[JollyRoger]

It's taking place on their campus, which makes them liable for anything that might happen to him while on their campus. Kinda like how if someone injures themselves on my property, they can sue me for their medical expenses if it is determined that I did not do everything necessary to make my property safe.

It's called premises liability and I'd think as a lawyer you'd know about that.

Sovereign immunity.