[RD] Berkeley Riots

[Lexicus]

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.

This is relevant to safe spaces, not to trigger warnings. The entire point of safe spaces is to 'chill' speech that makes people feel unsafe so your argument just doesn't work for me.

Again, what is the cost of trigger warnings? What does it cost anyone to have to see a TW on some content that might trigger people?

I mean, there is a discussion to be had about what you can reasonably expect trigger warnings for, but to argue against the whole concept just seems gratuitously mean to people who benefit from trigger warnings. I have benefited from trigger warnings despite not really being triggered by anything because spaces that use them have taught me about various things that can trigger people, that I didn't know about before I saw the TWs. This helps me to be a nicer person and to have less detrimental effect on the people I come into contact with.

I fail to see what the problem with this is.

 

[metatron]

crosspost

*sigh*

Ok, the argument i was making, that apparently got missed was that 99% of the campus has to be enough of a safe space, for speech of whatever unsafe variety to occur in the other 1%.

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.

Erm...
...not violating said persons fundamental rights (and don't give me your first ammendment nonsense) would be a good enough reason.
...if the unsafe utterance was aimed to be pertinent to the class' topic, the university doing the actual job of a university would also be a good reason.

This is relevant to safe spaces, not to trigger warnings. The entire point of safe spaces is to 'chill' speech that makes people feel unsafe so your argument just doesn't work for me.

Again, what is the cost of trigger warnings? What does it cost anyone to have to see a TW on some content that might trigger people?

I would have thought that was quite clear.
The very justified fear of retribution for any mandated trigger warning ever being missing or incomplete creates a chilling effect that goes to the very heart academic work.

Btw:
For this to matter in the first place, we'd have to have the debate where you demonstrate that trigger warnings work as intended. I am sure you are aware of the contention that the warnings themselves often enough either directly trigger the very persons that would be triggered by the content or further sensitise them so they are easier to be triggered in tghe future.
You may be very fine with this as long as we are talking about political speech you deem hateful. Fair enough.
But i am sure you can see how for say, a rape survivor, such an outcome would not be worthwhile.

 

[Lexicus]

Erm...
...not violating said persons fundamental rights (and don't give me your first ammendment nonsense) would be a good enough reason.
...if the unsafe utterance was aimed to be pertinent to the class' topic, the university doing the actual job of a university would also be a good reason.

I don't recognize your "fundamental right" to hurt others with your speech, so I guess the discussion's over.

The very justified fear of retribution for any mandated trigger warning ever being missing or incomplete creates a chilling effect that goes to the very heart academic work.

No it doesn't.

For this to matter in the first place, we'd have to have the debate where you demonstrate that trigger warnings work as intended. I am sure you are aware of the contention that the warnings themselves often enough either directly trigger the very persons that would be triggered by the content or further sensitise them so they are easier to be triggered in tghe future.

Yes, but controlled exposure to triggering things in the context of, say, a therapy session is very different from running into it randomly out in the world. People do benefit from trigger warnings and to pretend otherwise is silly.

 

[metalhead]

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.

Wait, so it's objectionable that the Mizzou protesters were expressing their opinion that public areas should be free of contrary opinions? Are you asking for their college to be a safe space from you having to hear this opinion, or . . . ?

 

[BvBPL]

Well the violence against Tim Tai was certainly objectionable.

 

[Lexicus]

Well the violence against Tim Tai was certainly objectionable.

Tim Tai was being a jerk, he wouldn't listen when he was repeatedly politely asked to stop sticking a camera in people's faces.
That is the context of the reaction to the media. It wasn't some Stalinist crusade against a free press, it was like get out of our space, you guys are really being annoying.

That said I agree pushing him away was not the right thing to do, and the "get some muscle over here" bit was terrible optics.

 

[metalhead]

Perhaps, but you specifically said that Mizzou protesters expressing their opinions was objectionable. You really can't have this one both ways.

 

[BvBPL]

Tim Tai was being a jerk, he wouldn't listen when he was repeatedly politely asked to stop sticking a camera in people's faces.
That is the context of the reaction to the media. It wasn't some Stalinist crusade against a free press, it was like get out of our space, you guys are really being annoying.

That said I agree pushing him away was not the right thing to do, and the "get some muscle over here" bit was terrible optics.

Sometimes journalism requires getting in people’s faces.

If you want to hid from journalists and the public then go inside. When you are in a public space holding a public protest then you have voluntarily entered into the public’s eye.

Perhaps, but you specifically said that Mizzou protesters expressing their opinions was objectionable. You really can't have this one both ways.

I said that the demands of the protestors that the public areas in which they were protesting be free of contrary opinions were objectionable.
(I assume you were replying to me)

 

[Lexicus]

Sometimes journalism requires getting in people’s faces.

Sure, I agree, if you're talking about people in positions of power. Applying the same standards to protesting college students doesn't seem fair though.

If you want to hid from journalists and the public then go inside. When you are in a public space holding a public protest then you have voluntarily entered into the public’s eye.

True to a degree.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sometimes journalism requires getting in people’s faces.

No, it does not.

If you want to hid from journalists and the public then go inside. When you are in a public space holding a public protest then you have voluntarily entered into the public’s eye.

If you think that a close up from six inches being of "greater journalistic value" is the reason cameras get stuck in people's faces, think again. That is a "journalist" trying to manufacture news by injecting themselves into a story as a victim, nothing more, nothing less. They not only deserve whatever beating they get, but should be fired for their disregard for the principles of journalism.

 

[metatron]

so I guess the discussion's over.

No it doesn't.

People do benefit from trigger warnings and to pretend otherwise is silly.

I heard you the first time. No need to repeat yourself. Not on my account anyway.

You have clearly established that you feel speech shall be evaluated with emotional subjectivity, presumably preferably by people of your worldview and political inclination. Speech deemed unfit shall be discouraged by violence, if necessary by lynching (rather than with the slandering and mobbing trigger warning advocates actually employ).
This obviously would not be disruptive to democratic norms in a country or academic work in a university.
Anybody who disagrees with you on any of the above is obviously uninformed and has to be educated.

We appreciate your sentiment.

 

[metalhead]

I said that the demands of the protestors that the public areas in which they were protesting be free of contrary opinions were objectionable.
(I assume you were replying to me)

You said that the protests themselves were objectionable because of the demands that some of the protesters had made.

I don't generally expect college students to make the most thought out demands for anything. I don't know that I would equate what some protesters demanded with some broad movement to make all public space on college campuses opinion-free. Which is what you seemed to be doing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You said that the protests themselves were objectionable because of the demands that some of the protesters had made.

I don't generally expect college students to make the most thought out demands for anything. I don't know that I would equate what some protesters demanded with some broad movement to make all public space on college campuses opinion-free. Which is what you seemed to be doing.

C'mon man. Misrepresenting events to better support his false narrative is just how he rolls. You trying to limit his freedom of speech?

 

[BvBPL]

You said that the protests themselves were objectionable because of the demands that some of the protesters had made.

It is the viewpoint that the public space in which they were protesting should be free of contrary opinions and the press that was objectionable, not the protest itself.
(Well, that and the way Tai was treated)

Sure, I agree, if you're talking about people in positions of power. Applying the same standards to protesting college students doesn't seem fair though.

Journalism is, in part, about critically examining the actions of those in the public arena. That sort of critical examination can be uncomfortable for its subjects, but that discomfort doesn’t mean we should not continue to support journalism. The Society for Professional Journalism’s code of ethics requires that journalists minimize harm, but not that they should avoid it at all costs.

In the case of the Mizzou protests, I am not certain what harm Tai caused. Attempting to interview people, even assertively, does not seem to be a level of a harm that should deter a journalist. If you disagree, you are welcome to address that. Maybe there's some information that I missed.

Furthermore, I’m uncertain what a superior standard would be for college protests. I do not know what sort of accommodation should be given to college students that would alter the behavior of journalists at college protests. For that matter, I’m not sure if a different standard should apply to Tai himself since he was a student journalist. I welcome your thoughts on the matter.

 

[Lexicus]

Speech deemed unfit shall be discouraged by violence, if necessary by lynching (rather than with the slandering and mobbing trigger warning advocates actually employ).

I said the things I said about Dear Milo because he doxxes people. He was banned from Twitter for directing his mob to make the most despicable insults and threats, including death threats, against people. He is a completely worthless excuse for a human being. Perhaps you think doxxing someone counts as free speech too?

The irony of you claiming that trigger warning advocates employ "mobbing and slandering" in this context is just too delicious to ignore.

Anybody who disagrees with you on any of the above is obviously uninformed and has to be educated.

As I have already indicated, reasonable people can disagree on this kind of stuff. Your "disagreements" appear to be rooted almost entirely in ignorance of what you are "disagreeing" with.

 

[metalhead]

It is the viewpoint that the public space in which they were protesting should be free of contrary opinions and the press that was objectionable, not the protest itself.
(Well, that and the way Tai was treated)

Which makes more sense, but the fact that they made some unreasonable demands isn't of much consequence, is it? Did the university enact a "no opposing viewpoints" policy?

 

[metatron]

As I have already indicated, reasonable people can disagree on this kind of stuff. Your "disagreements" appear to be rooted almost entirely in ignorance of what you are "disagreeing" with.

Let me hazard the speculation that you appear roughly as reasonable (and informed for that matter) to me as i do to you?
Are we done with this nonsense now?

Perhaps you think doxxing someone counts as free speech too?

I'm not, what is called an SJW.
So: no.
We obvious disagree in an appropriate punishment, in that i don't think it's lynching.

I said the things I said about Dear Milo because he doxxes people. He was banned from Twitter for directing his mob to make the most despicable insults and threats, including death threats, against people. He is a completely worthless excuse for a human being. Perhaps you think doxxing someone counts as free speech too?

The irony of you claiming that trigger warning advocates employ "mobbing and slandering" in this context is just too delicious to ignore.

For curiousities sake:
What is it now, exactly? "lead to"? "directed"?
He doxxed her? Computer nerd that he is? Or is that a "lead to" / "directed" thing too?
Normally i wouldn't be this pedantic. But we're lynching someone here after all, so i thought we maybe should get this in the record just right.

Btw: You sure Putin's not involved in this?
Putin's gay hacker army; screwing you over at every turn; you know, just for you being so good and righteous? No? Just checking.

 

[BvBPL]

Which makes more sense, but the fact that they made some unreasonable demands isn't of much consequence, is it?

That doesn't mean it isn't worth talking about, particularly in a thread about principled protesting.

 

[Hygro]

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?

these examples include the tacit agreement of the other side's violence

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I said the things I said about Dear Milo because he doxxes people. He was banned from Twitter for directing his mob to make the most despicable insults and threats, including death threats, against people. He is a completely worthless excuse for a human being. Perhaps you think doxxing someone counts as free speech too?

This keeps being said. Has anyone actually presented any evidence showing where he has ever doxxed or "outed" anyone? I googled this and the only things that come up are the fact that he was allegedly planning to "out" undocumented students at this latest place, but no evidence for that has been presented and he denies it, and then this one trans student at Milwaukee which can't reasonably be called a doxxing or an outing, given that the student had already been in the news months earlier and Milo was specifically talking about that news story. Is there anything else? The twitter thing is just lies too.

And I don't get why there's even this need to lie at all, because there's plenty of stuff that he actually says and does which it would be more than reasonable to object to and get angry about. But lying about it to make it look worse than it is just backfires, because people see you lying and then have no time to even listen to you.