[RD] Berkeley Riots

[BvBPL]

I feel like there is an expectation developing around protest, particularly political/institutional protest whereby the protesters and those sympathetic to the cause feel that protest should be painless, as in there should be no negative consequence whatsoever, and the point is just to "have your voice heard" to persuade change to occur...

I don’t accept your premise that protesters must inconvenience themselves or otherwise place themselves at risk in order to demonstrate the worthiness of their grievances. That’s too much like demanding they be flagellants. Plenty of people can and do conduct heartfelt demonstrations without undertaking any appreciable risk. We should not minimize their voices merely because they did not endure any real risk.

I think protesters should be well-informed of the risks they undertake, the better able to make decisions weighing the risk against other interests. Here, the immigrants who got fired were uninformed of the risk that they may be fired, and that’s a shame.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'm starting to think that the concern trolling of the form "oh well your tactics are hindering your goals by alienating people" really means "your tactics are alienating ME"

Its simpler even than that. It's "Your goals are alienating ME, so your tactics are unacceptable in any form."

 

[Lexicus]

Its simpler even than that. It's "Your goals are alienating ME, so your tactics are unacceptable in any form."

I accept your correction.

 

[luiz]

Ok so I didn't read the whole thread and had no idea who this Milo fellow was before reading the OP (and thank God for that). My question is simple:

-It is claimed that the rioting was necessary to stop the outing of trans and illegal immigrant students. But why did Milo need to make a speech at Berkeley to out them (an extremely vile thing to do, don't get me wrong)? Can't he just post a list from the comfort of his home? Can't he send spam emails to everybody on campus with the list, and so on and so forth?

So I really don't see how this senseless violence really stopped anything. In 2017 you don't need to climb on a pulpit to get your message across. So we're left with senseless violence and an impression that the rioters are not really about protecting anyone.

It would also be easier to believe that these "student protesters" are really only doing it for the protection of their colleagues if it had not become a tradition by the US left to try to stop campus speeches by people they don't approve, like Condoleezza Rice (who had to back away from a speech at Rutgers even though she was not about to out any student...)

 

[Lexicus]

Can't he send spam emails to everybody on campus with the list, and so on and so forth?

Sending emails wouldn't add anything to his mystique/brand.

It would also be easier to believe that these "student protesters" are really only doing it for the protection of their colleagues if it had not become a tradition by the US left to try to stop campus speeches by people they don't approve, like Condoleezza Rice (who had to back away from a speech at Rutgers even though she was not about to out any student...)

That's correct, we stopped Condi from speaking at Rutgers (I was a student there at the time and participated in those efforts) because we didn't want a war criminal to have the honor of speaking at commencement. If you have a problem with this by all means speak more clearly.

 

[luiz]

Sending emails wouldn't add anything to his mystique/brand.

So it's not at all about protecting students, since we've established that the speech is completely irrelevant for the outing. I think we're left with senseless violence.

That's correct, we stopped Condi from speaking at Rutgers (I was a student there at the time and participated in those efforts) because we didn't want a war criminal to have the honor of speaking at commencement. If you have a problem with this by all means speak more clearly.

Of course I have a problem with that. Condi is a war criminal according to you. Many people believe Obama is a war criminal too, for his drone program and assassination of US citizens. Should Obama also be stopped from giving speeches in universities?

Roosevelt, Truman, Churchill, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Bush, Obama... everyone of them could be classified as "war criminal", and indeed they were classified as such by many people. But in a democracy we let them speak, we hear them out and then we form our own opinion. The SJW quest for silencing dissent is not protecting anyone, it is making everyone dumber, just like all witch-hunts.

Personally I would really enjoy having Condi or Obama or Clinton or Bush giving a commencement speech at my Uni, regardless of my big political differences with all of them and strong disagreement with their foreign policy. But then again, I'm not a fascist.

 

[Lexicus]

So it's not at all about protecting students, since we've established that the speech is completely irrelevant for the outing. I think we're left with senseless violence.

Won't someone think of the windows!

Of course I have a problem with that. Condi is a war criminal according to you. Many people believe Obama is a war criminal too, for his drone program and assassination of US citizens.

Roosevelt, Truman, Churchill, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Bush, Obama... everyone of them could be classified as "war criminal", and indeed they were classified as such by many people. But in a democracy we let them speak, we hear them out and then we form our own opinion. The SJW quest for silencing dissent is not protecting anyone, it is making everyone dumber, just like all witch-hunts.

Personally I would really enjoy having Condi or Obama or Clinton or Bush giving a commencement speech at my Uni, regardless of my big political differences with all of them and strong disagreement with their foreign policy. But then again, I'm not a fascist.

Yeah see this is just completely moronic. "In a democracy we let them speak!"
It was a commencement speech, luiz, not a political debate. It has absolutely nothing to do with "dissent". Her commencement speech was not going to be a venue for political discussion, it was going to be a venue for her to spout meaningless platitudes about growing up and graduating school.

It was going to be the university extending her an honor that many students and faculty didn't feel she was worthy of. That's the long and short of it.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Where is this evidence he was going to out some illegal students? As of right now it just looks like a made up rumor as an excuse to justify banning him.

He didn't even 'out' the transgender student, because that student was on the local news giving a voluntary interview is how Milo found out about him (though I could see the argument of what Milo was doing could be considered harrassment).

 

[Sommerswerd]

Of course I have a problem with that. Condi is a war criminal according to you. Many people believe Obama is a war criminal too, for his drone program and assassination of US citizens. Should Obama also be stopped from giving speeches in universities?

Roosevelt, Truman, Churchill, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Bush, Obama... everyone of them could be classified as "war criminal", and indeed they were classified as such by many people. But in a democracy we let them speak, we hear them out and then we form our own opinion. The SJW quest for silencing dissent is not protecting anyone, it is making everyone dumber, just like all witch-hunts.

You're conflating things here. Condi rice was perfectly within her rights to go stand out on the side of Route 1 and exercise her right to free speech all she wanted. She could have easily gone on any news show in the nation to have her voice heard. Heck she could have gotten up on a soap box on the corner of George and Hamilton and spoke as long as she wanted about what ever she wanted to... being disinvited to be a commencement speaker at a graduation is not being "silenced" and it is disingenuous victimization rhetoric... exactly the same thing that conservatives accuse the so-called SJWs of... to claim that Condi, or anyone who is disinvited to speak at a Campus event due to protests... was "silenced"... please...she could have gone on FOX News, they would have let her say whatever she wanted, to a much larger audience.

Claiming that disinviting a commencement speaker is "silencing them" is like saying that changing the list of speakers on the program of your wedding is "silencing them"... its totally erroneous.

 

[luiz]

Won't someone think of the windows!

Students don't have the right to break other people's windows just because they are angry about some totally unrelated event. It's the basis of living in society, you know. People who are incapable of that belong in jail.

Yeah see this is just completely moronic. "In a democracy we let them speak!"
It was a commencement speech, luiz, not a political debate. It has absolutely nothing to do with "dissent". Her commencement speech was not going to be a venue for political discussion, it was going to be a venue for her to spout meaningless platitudes about growing up and graduating school.

It was going to be the university extending her an honor that many students and faculty didn't feel she was worthy of. That's the long and short of it.

I don't care if it's a commencement speech or a happy birthday song. Condi is an accomplished woman both academically and politically, she's not being criminally prosecuted and is a free and prominent citizen of the USA. Her speech would not threaten anyone, other than the sensitive SJW souls who can't stand sharing the same planet with people they disagree with.

Do you think Obama should be stopped from giving commencement speeches? Or does he get a pass, because he's "our" war criminal? Somehow, I doubt the SJW blackshirts would stop an Obama speech.

 

[luiz]

You're conflating things here. Condi rice was perfectly within her rights to go stand out on the side of Route 1 and exercise her right to free speech all she wanted. She could have easily gone on any news show in the nation to have her voice heard. Heck she could have gotten up on a soap box on the corner of George and Hamilton and spoke as long as she wanted about what ever she wanted to... being disinvited to be a commencement speaker at a graduation is not being "silenced" and it is disingenuous victimization rhetoric... exactly the same thing that conservatives accuse the so-called SJWs of... to claim that Condi, or anyone who is disinvited to speak at a Campus event due to protests... was "silenced"... please...she could have gone on FOX News, they would have let her say whatever she wanted, to a much larger audience.

Claiming that disinviting a commencement speaker is "silencing them" is like saying that changing the list of speakers on the program of your wedding is "silencing them"... its totally erroneous.

To use SJW rhetoric, I'm "calling them out" on their fascist, selective censorship. Would they protest Obama or Clinton? Would they prevent them from speaking?

Oh, and let's not pretend that SJWs don't attempt to stop people they disagree with from attending political debates in universities either. They do try to silent dissent, it's their whole modus operandi.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Commencement speech people are pretty much forced to listen to. Most other speeches, including Milo's, people can feel free to simply not attend.

 

[Lexicus]

Do you think Obama should be stopped from giving commencement speeches? Or does he get a pass, because he's "our" war criminal? Somehow, I doubt the SJW blackshirts would stop an Obama speech.

Well, I'd say he gets a "pass" because his war crimes, such as they are, were far less worrisome and damaging than the Iraq War. But I certainly wouldn't complain if students and/or faculty wanted to do the same thing to him that was done to Condi. Because that's what free speech is, ya know, actually about.

I don't care if it's a commencement speech or a happy birthday song. Condi is an accomplished woman both academically and politically, she's not being criminally prosecuted and is a free and prominent citizen of the USA. Her speech would not threaten anyone, other than the sensitive SJW souls who can't stand sharing the same planet with people they disagree with.

So this means she has the right to be invited to speak wherever she likes? I think you are confusing the right to free speech with the right to a venue. Since you called private property the 'basis of civilization' above surely you understand that no individual or institution is morally or legally obligated to allow anyone to use their property as a speaking venue under any circumstances?

Heck she could have gotten up on a soap box on the corner of George and Hamilton and spoke as long as she wanted about what ever she wanted to...

She'd probably want Hamilton and College, hardly anyone would be at George and Hamilton and it's too loud anyway with all the cars

 

[luiz]

Well, I'd say he gets a "pass" because his war crimes, such as they are, were far less worrisome and damaging than the Iraq War. But I certainly wouldn't complain if students and/or faculty wanted to do the same thing to him that was done to Condi. Because that's what free speech is, ya know, actually about.

So indeed he gets a pass because he's "your" war criminal. You are making a totally subjective and arbitrary judgement on what war crimes merit being denied a speech. It is indeed about not sharing the same space with political opponents, and not at all about protesting "war criminals" - a very broad category that can easily include every US President and Secretary of State.

So this means she has the right to be invited to speak wherever she likes? I think you are confusing the right to free speech with the right to a venue. Since you called private property the 'basis of civilization' above surely you understand that no individual or institution is morally or legally obligated to allow anyone to use their property as a speaking venue under any circumstances?

Thing is, she was invited by the institution. Which is quite understandable given how prominent she is and the remarkable career she led. She was stopped from acting on the invitation because of blackshirts who do not tolerate dissent.

This whole "war criminal" thing is just a lousy excuse, as already established. I don't see anyone stopping an Obama or Clinton speech at an Uni. It's about denying venue for people you disagree with. It's about intolerance, narrow-mindedness and stupidity.

 

[Lexicus]

You are making a totally subjective and arbitrary judgement on what war crimes merit being denied a speech.

Yes?

Thing is, she was invited by the institution. Which is quite understandable given how prominent she is and the remarkable career she led. She was stopped from acting on the invitation because of blackshirts who do not tolerate dissent.

This whole "war criminal" thing is just a lousy excuse, as already established. I don't see anyone stopping an Obama or Clinton speech at an Uni. It's about denying venue for people you disagree with. It's about intolerance, narrow-mindedness and stupidity.

As we've already established, a commencement speech is not a political argument so framing this as shutting down dissent is just silliness (and calling me a blackshirt is the kind of grade A over-the-top hysteria I've learned to expect from you ).

 

[metalhead]

Half of the fired workers were interviewed, they said they didn't think they would be fired. Whether that means they thought the risk of being fired was 1% and they took the risk thinking they would likely not be fired, but that there was still a risk; or they thought the risk was 0% and the firing came as a complete shock is not clear.

Either way, I don't see how they've been "tricked," unless someone called them up and told them to join the protest because their boss was OK with it. Judging by the statements of everyone involved, it seems like this whole situation could have been avoided with better communication, but I can understand why, if the employees were determined to join in, they wouldn't necessarily all go to the boss ahead of time and ask for the day off.​

 

[metalhead]

So indeed he gets a pass because he's "your" war criminal. You are making a totally subjective and arbitrary judgement on what war crimes merit being denied a speech. It is indeed about not sharing the same space with political opponents, and not at all about protesting "war criminals" - a very broad category that can easily include every US President and Secretary of State.

Thing is, she was invited by the institution. Which is quite understandable given how prominent she is and the remarkable career she led. She was stopped from acting on the invitation because of blackshirts who do not tolerate dissent.

This whole "war criminal" thing is just a lousy excuse, as already established. I don't see anyone stopping an Obama or Clinton speech at an Uni. It's about denying venue for people you disagree with. It's about intolerance, narrow-mindedness and stupidity.

Commencement speaker confers a measure of honor to the speaker. If students don't feel a particular speaker is worth the honor that they, the students, are bestowing on the speaker on account of her presence at their commencement, I don't know why they shouldn't voice that to the school administration. Whatabouting a hypothetical speech from Obama or Clinton is simply a deflection, and anyways people are allowed to have nuanced opinions as to why those speakers may be worthy of the honor while Condi Rice is not.

What is absolutely intolerable, however, is your insistence that the students simply bend over and take it up the tailpipe from their college administrators for inviting a commencement speaker they don't want.

 

[luiz]

Yes?

Yes, and I don't remember anyone conferring on you or the other SJWs the prerogative to speak for all students, faculty and staff. You're a member of a loud and hysterical minority, but a tiny minority nonetheless.

As we've already established, a commencement speech is not a political argument so framing this as shutting down dissent is just silliness (and calling me a blackshirt is the kind of grade A over-the-top hysteria I've learned to expect from you ).

And as we already established it's not only commencement speeches which are stopped by intolerant blackshirts, but also political debates and round tables. You know it as well as I do and anyway new stories about stopped debates abound on the Internet.

Additionally, who said most students opposed Condi's speech? Was a vote taken? Or did a loud and hysterical minority decide to speak for everyone, Bolshevik-style, and impose their own ban on people they disagree with?

Commencement speaker confers a measure of honor to the speaker. If students don't feel a particular speaker is worth the honor that they, the students, are bestowing on the speaker on account of her presence at their commencement, I don't know why they shouldn't voice that to the school administration. Whatabouting a hypothetical speech from Obama or Clinton is simply a deflection, and anyways people are allowed to have nuanced opinions as to why those speakers may be worthy of the honor while Condi Rice is not.

What is absolutely intolerable, however, is your insistence that the students simply bend over and take it up the tailpipe from their college administrators for inviting a commencement speaker they don't want.

No, what is intolerable is a tiny but loud and sometimes violent group deciding who gets and who doesn't get to speak. Commencement speeches are hardly the only thing stopped by these goons; debates and round-tables have been suspended too.

As I said, claiming to speak for all students is a rather Bolshevik mentality. How do you know most opposed Condi? I would be most would have liked to hear her speech. as with most of these cretinous manifestations, like demanding to tear down Thomas Jefferson statues or whatever, it's a tiny but hysterical minority claiming to speak for everybody. They don't, and it's high time they're reminded of that.

 

[metalhead]

No, what is intolerable is a tiny but loud and sometimes violent group deciding who gets and who doesn't get to speak. Commencement speeches are hardly the only thing stopped by these goons; debates and round-tables have been suspended too.

As I said, claiming to speak for all students is a rather Bolshevik mentality. How do you know most opposed Condi? I would be most would have liked to hear her speech. as with most of these cretinous manifestations, like demanding to tear down Thomas Jefferson statues or whatever, it's a tiny but hysterical minority claiming to speak for everybody. They don't, and it's high time they're reminded of that.

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.

 

[Lexicus]

And as we already established it's not only commencement speeches which are stopped by intolerant blackshirts, but also political debates and round tables. You know it as well as I do and anyway new stories about stopped debates abound on the Internet.

Examples or it didn't happen