Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Elixir]

Just an aside …
The first (and last) time I ever got tear gassed was ca 1965. It was a protest in Berkeley. There was no violence until it was initiated by Nixon’s thugs.
I know. I was there. I saw it.
If Swiz’s expects me to believe there was some different dynamic at work in this little recent Berkeley protest, he needs to provide evidence to that effect.
Right now the apparent fact is that it’s easy to provoke a group to violence by visiting violence upon them. It’s a time- honored and well proven tactic of Republican authoritarians.

 

[TSwizzle]

Freedom is Slavery.

For the slavers, yes.

After the American civil war, who got reparations? After the Haitian Revolution, who got reparations? Governments are always defending someone's rights and freedoms, but seldom are they defending everyone's rights and freedoms, until or unless they are obliged to.

Why do you side with violent thugs?

Where by "violent thugs", you mean {snip irrelevant screed}

Why do you side with the violent thugs outside Berkeley? Why do you hate free speech?

I've not "sided with" anyone. {snip irrelevances}

So you are condemning the violent thugs who were attacking the TPUSA event and the police at Berkeley. Why was that so difficult for you?

 

[Politesse]

Freedom is Slavery.

For the slavers, yes.

After the American civil war, who got reparations? After the Haitian Revolution, who got reparations? Governments are always defending someone's rights and freedoms, but seldom are they defending everyone's rights and freedoms, until or unless they are obliged to.

Why do you side with violent thugs?

Where by "violent thugs", you mean {snip irrelevant screed}

Why do you side with the violent thugs outside Berkeley? Why do you hate free speech?

I've not "sided with" anyone. {snip irrelevances}

So you are condemning the violent thugs who were attacking the TPUSA event and the police at Berkeley. Why was that so difficult for you?

No, I'm not. The part you snipped is where I explained that to adults not steeped in the Foxosphere, there are mental states other than sycophancy and rage. This is difficult for you to understand, not for me to understand. I am not confused.

Also, the part where you refused point blank to condemn the transatlantic slave trade or support its violent overthrow, which makes your position as a moral authority deeply questionable in my opinion.

 

[TSwizzle]

So you are condemning the violent thugs who were attacking the TPUSA event and the police at Berkeley. Why was that so difficult for you?

No, I'm not. {snip irrelevances)

I didn't think so actually. So why do side with these violent thugs that were attacking the TPUSA attendees and police?

The part you snipped {snip}

is irrelevant (and off topic), that is why it gets snipped.

 

[Politesse]

So you are condemning the violent thugs who were attacking the TPUSA event and the police at Berkeley. Why was that so difficult for you?

No, I'm not. {snip irrelevances)

I didn't think so actually. So why do side with these violent thugs that were attacking the TPUSA attendees and police?

The part you snipped {snip}

is irrelevant (and off topic), that is why it gets snipped.

Not irrelevant enough for you to have posted a response to in the first place. Only irrelevant once your obvious racism was challenged, snd you were affronted enough to be offended but too committed to your position to actually deny.

And again, I have no "side" in the Berkeley situation, nor do I think it makes any sense to choose a side in a situation that doesn't really have clear cut sides unless you're a moron and think that both Turning Point and the entire city of Berkeley are internally homogenous, non-overlapping entities.

 

[TSwizzle]

So you are condemning the violent thugs who were attacking the TPUSA event and the police at Berkeley. Why was that so difficult for you?

No, I'm not. {snip irrelevances)

I didn't think so actually. So why do side with these violent thugs that were attacking the TPUSA attendees and police?

The part you snipped {snip}

is irrelevant (and off topic), that is why it gets snipped.

{snip, usual}

And again, I have no "side" in the Berkeley situation, nor do I think it makes any sense to choose a side in a situation that doesn't really have clear cut sides unless you're a moron and think that both Turning Point and the entire city of Berkeley are internally homogenous, non-overlapping entities.

It is very clear that you are not on the side of free speech.

 

[Politesse]

So you are condemning the violent thugs who were attacking the TPUSA event and the police at Berkeley. Why was that so difficult for you?

No, I'm not. {snip irrelevances)

I didn't think so actually. So why do side with these violent thugs that were attacking the TPUSA attendees and police?

The part you snipped {snip}

is irrelevant (and off topic), that is why it gets snipped.

{snip, usual}

And again, I have no "side" in the Berkeley situation, nor do I think it makes any sense to choose a side in a situation that doesn't really have clear cut sides unless you're a moron and think that both Turning Point and the entire city of Berkeley are internally homogenous, non-overlapping entities.

It is very clear that you are not on the side of free speech.

Then why am I patiently trying to convince you to clearly state your position on African slavery? Please, not only are you fully free to speak, I am openly encouraging you to do so.

 

[TSwizzle]

So you are condemning the violent thugs who were attacking the TPUSA event and the police at Berkeley. Why was that so difficult for you?

No, I'm not. {snip irrelevances)

I didn't think so actually. So why do side with these violent thugs that were attacking the TPUSA attendees and police?

The part you snipped {snip}

is irrelevant (and off topic), that is why it gets snipped.

{snip, usual}

And again, I have no "side" in the Berkeley situation, nor do I think it makes any sense to choose a side in a situation that doesn't really have clear cut sides unless you're a moron and think that both Turning Point and the entire city of Berkeley are internally homogenous, non-overlapping entities.

It is very clear that you are not on the side of free speech.

Then why am I patiently trying to convince you to clearly state your position on African slavery? Please, not only are you fully free to speak, I am openly encouraging you to do so.

Not to demonstrate your love of free speech. Why do you side with the violent thugs at Berkley who attacked TPUSA attendees and police? Would you be so patient with TPUSA folks who wish to discuss things other than topics of your approval? Or would you be cheering from the sidelines as the violent thugs attack TPUSA and police.

 

[Politesse]

Not to demonstrate your love of free speech.

My love of free speech is not something I feel needs to be "demonstrated". But it is something I obviously value.

Why do you side with the violent thugs at Berkley who attacked TPUSA attendees and police?

I don't.

Would you be so patient with TPUSA folks who wish to discuss things other than topics of your approval?

What does patience have to do with it? No, I am not particularly "patient". But if you have some argument to make in favor of theocratic governance, feel free, I'll listen. Patiently or otherwise.

Or would you be cheering from the sidelines as the violent thugs attack TPUSA and police.

No, I wouldn't. And you have a bizarre imagination of what political protests look like, they aren't duels or sporting matches. What "sidelines"?

 

[TSwizzle]

Not to demonstrate your love of free speech.

My love of free speech is not something I feel needs to be "demonstrated". But it is something I obviously value.

For TPUSA it is lee obvious.

Why do you side with the violent thugs at Berkley who attacked TPUSA attendees and police?

I don't.

You don't condemn the violent thugs that attacked the TPUSA and police.

Would you be so patient with TPUSA folks who wish to discuss things other than topics of your approval?

What does patience have to do with it? No, I am not particularly "patient". But if you have some argument to make in favor of theocratic governance, feel free, I'll listen. Patiently or otherwise.

It's not about me, it's about the TPUSA event being attacked by violent thugs.

Or would you be cheering from the sidelines as the violent thugs attack TPUSA and police.

No, I wouldn't. And you have a bizarre imagination of what political protests look like, they aren't duels or sporting matches. What "sidelines"?

Imagination? I don't need to imagine what a protest looks like, I posted video of it. A figure of speech as you well know.

 

[Politesse]

For TPUSA it is lee obvious.

I've never hindered their free speech in any way.

You don't condemn the violent thugs that attacked the TPUSA and police.

Your us or them mentality leads you into some really dumb corners.

 

[TSwizzle]

For TPUSA it is lee obvious.

I've never hindered their free speech in any way.

I never said you did fella. But you are aligned with those who would. Obviously.

You don't condemn the violent thugs that attacked the TPUSA and police.

Your us or them mentality leads you into some really dumb corners.

Of course, like men can be women etc.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

The real question in all of this is why the Berkeley university has a TPUSA club on its campus? If that was not the situation they would never have been able to have their big meeting in the first place, and then there would have been no protest.

 

[Politesse]

The real question in all of this is why the Berkeley campus has a TPUSA club on its campus? If that was not the situation they would never have been able to have their big meeting in the first place, and then there would have been no protest.

Because they are, in fact, the originsl home of the free speech movement in the United States, and still deeply committed to its exercise.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

The real question in all of this is why the Berkeley campus has a TPUSA club on its campus? If that was not the situation they would never have been able to have their big meeting in the first place, and then there would have been no protest.

Because they are, in fact, the originsl home of the free speech movement in the United States, and still deeply committed to its exercise.

That is an obvious answer, but if their principle is free speech then why have an anti-free speech group permitted to be one of their campus clubs?
Here is quote from top of their official site:
Charlie Kirk poured his life into building a movement rooted in faith, freedom, and love of country. He believed America’s future depended on raising up a generation who would NEVER SURRENDER.
Nothing there about supporting free speech.
Also, if Berkeley supports free speech why did they call the police on the protesters?

 

[Politesse]

That is an obvious answer, but if their principle is free speech then why have an anti-free speech group permitted to be one of their campus clubs?

Especially after multiple chaotic incidents like this one, and dozens of their faculty being doxxed and targeted for abuse by the Turning Point national organization. But I know the administration of the university somewhat, and I am not surprised that they would not be willing to tamp down on any such student organization or invitation. Partly because their students are wealthy and prone to suit. Partly because their major donors are mostly "centrist" liberals especially prone to self doubt where the prosecution of conservatives is concerned. And partly because of the aforementioned calcified and falsely mythologized history of the Free Speech movement.

A similar incident occurred in 2017, when noted conservative commentator, author and (of course) pedophile Milo Yannapoulos came to campus to speak. This sparked an even more vigorous anarchist protest, verging on a riot, and more than $100,000 USD of damage to the campus. They will continue to do this, every time. It's funny, because this only applies to national politics and the university's image. When students or faculty or the city protest the university administration itself, they are enthusiastically quashed.