Berkeley "liberals" contra free speech

[Ger1956]

Berkeley where students fought for free speech and leaders in anti-Vietnam protests in the sixties and seventies , now go against everything they fought for...how sad !

 

[Arctish]

Berkeley where students fought for free speech and leaders in anti-Vietnam protests in the sixties and seventies , now go against everything they fought for...how sad !

Elixer already posted this:

Anarchists, NOT Cal students, responsible for violence in UC Berkeley protests

It wasn't Berkeley students or faculty that shut down Yiannopoulis's show. The administration did that, but not to silence him. They did it because the situation was extremely unsafe and they didn't want anyone to get hurt.

The Berkeley folks should not be blamed for what unidentified others did.

 

[LordKiran]

Elixer already posted this:

Anarchists, NOT Cal students, responsible for violence in UC Berkeley protests

It wasn't Berkeley students or faculty that shut down Yiannopoulis's show. The administration did that, but not to silence him. They did it because the situation was extremely unsafe and they didn't want anyone to get hurt.

The Berkeley folks should not be blamed for what unidentified others did.

But then how can people reassure themselves of their predetermined narrative if they don't make aggregious and dishonest assumptions about the situation at hand?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Elixer already posted this:

Anarchists, NOT Cal students, responsible for violence in UC Berkeley protests

It wasn't Berkeley students or faculty that shut down Yiannopoulis's show. The administration did that, but not to silence him. They did it because the situation was extremely unsafe and they didn't want anyone to get hurt.

The Berkeley folks should not be blamed for what unidentified others did.

Unfortunately the Dump the Trump hysteria which opposes any form of speech that even has a taint of disagreement with left wing views created a riot and the police it seems didn't do anything during that time.
I've gone through a load of his speeches on Youtube. From
those alone, I can't see any evidence of racism and there isn't a crime of course for being obnoxious to some and an entertainer to others.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Arctish & Elixir, of course the facts are that the violent rioters were not UC students, but alt-righters, Trump supporters, and even non-DP partisans aren't interested in facts right now. They are interested in alternative facts and using the violence for political purposes to make "the other side" look bad. It's just politics as usual.

I will add that real Nazis who want to kill people actually ought to be stopped from taking control of the govt or hurting people, even if violence is required to do that. I don't think Milo qualifies, nor really do firecrackers qualify as violent...or the kind of violence needed to stop Nazis.

 

[Elixir]

Elixer already posted this:



It wasn't Berkeley students or faculty that shut down Yiannopoulis's show. The administration did that, but not to silence him. They did it because the situation was extremely unsafe and they didn't want anyone to get hurt.

The Berkeley folks should not be blamed for what unidentified others did.

Unfortunately the Dump the Trump hysteria which opposes any form of speech that even has a taint of disagreement with left wing views hired right-wing anarchists created a riot and the police it seems didn't do anything during that time.

... keep having to fix your shit for you.

I've gone through a load of his speeches on Youtube.

I bet. A guy like you could watch them all day and all night, again and again. Isn't that how they got you to believe that silly spaceman story?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Unfortunately the Dump the Trump hysteria which opposes any form of speech that even has a taint of disagreement with left wing views hired right-wing anarchists created a riot and the police it seems didn't do anything during that time.

... keep having to fix your shit for you.

I've gone through a load of his speeches on Youtube.

I bet. A guy like you could watch them all day and all night, again and again. Isn't that how they got you to believe that silly spaceman story?

The Anarchists who are essentially a left wing who chant Dump the Trump. There is a right wing group which was started in the late 1990s in the UK called National-anarchism

So was the Afro American Gent and Lady who got on the stage blowing whistles and shouting at Milo's talk at one University. I can't see anything right wing about them.
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI-84RzYDfY[/YOUTUBE]
There is nothing to suggest that they were BLM. Nor do I think they are rightist Anarchists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unfortunately the Dump the Trump hysteria which opposes any form of speech that even has a taint of disagreement with left wing views hired right-wing anarchists created a riot and the police it seems didn't do anything during that time.

... keep having to fix your shit for you.

I've gone through a load of his speeches on Youtube.

I bet. A guy like you could watch them all day and all night, again and again. Isn't that how they got you to believe that silly spaceman story?

While I agree the Black Bloc isn't Berkley students and I wouldn't be surprised if they are hired by the right wing I don't see that as proven, nor does your link seem to say that, either.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think it's less likely that they're hired by the right ring as some kind of head fake to make the other side look bad and more likely that they're just idiots who don't realize that they're stupidity hurts their own cause.

 

[untermensche]

Berkeley where students fought for free speech and leaders in anti-Vietnam protests in the sixties and seventies , now go against everything they fought for...how sad !

These sweeping and instant condemnations are bizarre.

Some students many years ago protested a US terrorist war.

Today some people, maybe students, protested bad ideas.

No connection.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Berkeley where students fought for free speech and leaders in anti-Vietnam protests in the sixties and seventies , now go against everything they fought for...how sad !

These sweeping and instant condemnations are bizarre.

Some students many years ago protested a US terrorist war.

Today some people, maybe students, protested bad ideas.

No connection.

But it's true. In the 60'ies they had something to fight for. Now we don't. Being angry doesn't solve every problem. It solves some problems but not all. Being angry solved racial segregation. Because it was just a concrete to remove. But being angry and demonstrating against racism is idiotic. It's like being angry about unhappiness or bad fashion. Being angry is not going to solve this. All the PC brigade is succeeding in doing is killing free speech. And that's my holy cow. Free speech is sacred to me.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

But it's true. In the 60'ies they had something to fight for. Now we don't.

What did they have to fight for that is substantially different from today?

 

[untermensche]

These sweeping and instant condemnations are bizarre.

Some students many years ago protested a US terrorist war.

Today some people, maybe students, protested bad ideas.

No connection.

But it's true. In the 60'ies they had something to fight for. Now we don't. Being angry doesn't solve every problem. It solves some problems but not all. Being angry solved racial segregation. Because it was just a concrete to remove. But being angry and demonstrating against racism is idiotic. It's like being angry about unhappiness or bad fashion. Being angry is not going to solve this. All the PC brigade is succeeding in doing is killing free speech. And that's my holy cow. Free speech is sacred to me.

It is a silly thing to protest and if it were me I would not be protesting.

But I do not see this as any great problem we are facing today.

The government preventing people from protesting is a much bigger and real problem.

We saw how OWS protestors were attacked all over the country.

That is a real problem.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But it's true. In the 60'ies they had something to fight for. Now we don't. Being angry doesn't solve every problem. It solves some problems but not all. Being angry solved racial segregation. Because it was just a concrete to remove. But being angry and demonstrating against racism is idiotic. It's like being angry about unhappiness or bad fashion. Being angry is not going to solve this. All the PC brigade is succeeding in doing is killing free speech. And that's my holy cow. Free speech is sacred to me.

It is a silly thing to protest and if it were me I would not be protesting.

But I do not see this as any great problem we are facing today.

The government preventing people from protesting is a much bigger and real problem.

We saw how OWS protestors were attacked all over the country.

That is a real problem.

But Occupy Wall Street is an example of what I mean. What did they want? I mean concretely. What changes in laws did they want? They were furiously tweeting slogans against capitalism and globalisation on their iPhones which they only had in their hands because of capitalism and globalisation. A person demonstrating at OWS while also buying products made in China doesn't get it and clearly isn't against what they say they're against.

Yes, the 1% is a problem. But a hard problem to solve. Because everything is connected. Nothing a bunch of potheads fingering eachother in tents is going to solve. The OWS was a vacuous movement. Just teenage angst without a clear target.

The government ousting them from public spaces, which they were clearly obstructing, is not the government oppressing people. We can't have a society where people can squat on any lawn they fancy without paying for it. Land is valuable. People who have bought expensive properties have every reason to be annoyed. It's not fair just leaving them be. That's why they eventually were ousted. It was no other reason.

 

[Angry Floof]

It is a silly thing to protest and if it were me I would not be protesting.

But I do not see this as any great problem we are facing today.

The government preventing people from protesting is a much bigger and real problem.

We saw how OWS protestors were attacked all over the country.

That is a real problem.

But Occupy Wall Street is an example of what I mean. What did they want? I mean concretely. What changes in laws did they want? They were furiously tweeting slogans against capitalism and globalisation on their iPhones which they only had in their hands because of capitalism and globalisation. A person demonstrating at OWS while also buying products made in China doesn't get it and clearly isn't against what they say they're against.

Yes, the 1% is a problem. But a hard problem to solve. Because everything is connected. Nothing a bunch of potheads fingering eachother in tents is going to solve. The OWS was a vacuous movement. Just teenage angst without a clear target.

The government ousting them from public spaces, which they were clearly obstructing, is not the government oppressing people. We can't have a society where people can squat on any lawn they fancy without paying for it. Land is valuable. People who have bought expensive properties have every reason to be annoyed. It's not fair just leaving them be. That's why they eventually were ousted. It was no other reason.

For fuck's sake. Another one ignoring a world of available information to answer any questions anyone might have about Occupy Wall St, the Women's March, or any other protest movement.

Here's some wiki info on the Goals of the Occupy Wall St movement. You can click the little reference numbers in brackets and it'll take you to the citation, which also has a link to the source that you can check.

Nothing a bunch of potheads fingering eachother in tents is going to solve. The OWS was a vacuous movement. Just teenage angst without a clear target.

Here's a link to get you started. I'll let you do the work of finding out more on your own. https://web.archive.org/web/2013052...l-street-its-not-a-hippie-thing-10272011.html

 

[DrZoidberg]

But Occupy Wall Street is an example of what I mean. What did they want? I mean concretely. What changes in laws did they want? They were furiously tweeting slogans against capitalism and globalisation on their iPhones which they only had in their hands because of capitalism and globalisation. A person demonstrating at OWS while also buying products made in China doesn't get it and clearly isn't against what they say they're against.

Yes, the 1% is a problem. But a hard problem to solve. Because everything is connected. Nothing a bunch of potheads fingering eachother in tents is going to solve. The OWS was a vacuous movement. Just teenage angst without a clear target.

The government ousting them from public spaces, which they were clearly obstructing, is not the government oppressing people. We can't have a society where people can squat on any lawn they fancy without paying for it. Land is valuable. People who have bought expensive properties have every reason to be annoyed. It's not fair just leaving them be. That's why they eventually were ousted. It was no other reason.

For fuck's sake. Another one ignoring a world of available information to answer any questions anyone might have about Occupy Wall St, the Women's March, or any other protest movement.

Here's some wiki info on the Goals of the Occupy Wall St movement. You can click the little reference numbers in brackets and it'll take you to the citation, which also has a link to the source that you can check.

Nothing a bunch of potheads fingering eachother in tents is going to solve. The OWS was a vacuous movement. Just teenage angst without a clear target.

Here's a link to get you started. I'll let you do the work of finding out more on your own. https://web.archive.org/web/2013052...l-street-its-not-a-hippie-thing-10272011.html

Before replying I looked OWS up on Wikipedia just to make sure I wasn't wrong. I wasn't wrong.

OWS was a hippie thing.

Here's how to change the world with protest:

1) Pick one thing. One discrete easily understandable thing. Just one.
2) Pick a concrete legal change to push for that will promote this.
3) Come up with a clever slogan.
4) Continously demonstrate in various ways until it's pushed through.
5) Pick the next thing or the next law.

That's how every successful movement ever has operated. Trump did it this way. He succeeded. Trump's an idiot. What's OWS's excuse?

There's a reason these progressive demonstrations fizzled out in the 80'ies. All the easy ones were taken. Now only the complicated ones are left. You need to be more clever than OWS to succeed.

And finally, Bernie Sanders was basically the OWS candidate. He lost. What more do you need to know? Unless the people are behind something it won't change. The people aren't behind OWS. Obviously. They're behind idiot Trump. They worry more about whether or not their neighbours are wearing turbans than they do that the 1% have amassed all the power. I remember the first Bush election. Bill Mair said it so well "I didn't know the election was a referendum on boys kissing". If you don't have the people on your side then why bother?

 

[Angry Floof]

We do have them. We also suffer from apathy as well as a lack of zeal for social dominance. We do have the majority, and it's taking a fascist GOP's intent to disassemble democracy to motivate us. Things will have to get even tougher for us to be motivated to the religious and conspiracy theorist level.

There is no other group or movement that does not share these weaknesses except ideological zealots. In their minds, everything's desperate, urgent, an outrage, an immediate evil threat. We on the saner side don't see terrorists behind every lamp post because there aren't any.

Peace, decency, intelligence, capacity for self reflection, creativity, and curiosity might be the ideals of a better humanity, but they are not guaranteed to make us the fittest. Fittest doesn't mean that physical strength or "might is right" mentality will succeed as the method of adaptation, but it doesn't mean it won't. Maybe we're devolving. Maybe our current, alien environment is too much of a change for our brains' plasticity and we are collectively regressing to more primal responses. Maybe a sane humanity is a nice idea but we're kidding ourselves if we think our opinions of what humanity will influence the reality of Mother Nature.

Now I'm just rambling, because none of that supports your dismissive and oversimplified comments about OWS anyway.

I also think your view of the US is focused on the negative. Your fight is focused on people who are putting in some effort to help, while praising mongrels who don't play fair. I'm sorry, the majority here may be weak in so many ways, but we are not weak of conscience. If we were amenable to stripping conservatives of their rights and benefits of citizenship as they are doing to so many others right now, sure, we'd be in charge right now. If we valued conformity over intelligence and ideological identity over actual human beings, then yes, we'd be in charge for sure. If we had the stomach to support legal measures that punish and oppress out-groups, then yeah.

It's funny how you attack people of good will for being disorganized and unfocused while hailing what amounts to gorilla behavior. Well, maybe nature would have us revert to that to keep us alive as a species, who knows, but sitting back and casually condemning people who are not seeking to install a world wide theocracy, even as bitter sarcasm, is lame, and it makes you a net negative in dealing with what's going on around the world. (It's not just here, in case you haven't noticed.)

 

[whichphilosophy]

But it's true. In the 60'ies they had something to fight for. Now we don't.

What did they have to fight for that is substantially different from today?

The protests seem to be orchestrated by Anarchists but the demonstrations are against free speech not for free speech.
I watched quite a few of Milo Y's youtube speeches but I can't see anything racist or homophobic. Actually he's more of an entertainer than a politician.

 

[untermensche]

It is a silly thing to protest and if it were me I would not be protesting.

But I do not see this as any great problem we are facing today.

The government preventing people from protesting is a much bigger and real problem.

We saw how OWS protestors were attacked all over the country.

That is a real problem.

But Occupy Wall Street is an example of what I mean. What did they want? I mean concretely. What changes in laws did they want? They were furiously tweeting slogans against capitalism and globalisation on their iPhones which they only had in their hands because of capitalism and globalisation. A person demonstrating at OWS while also buying products made in China doesn't get it and clearly isn't against what they say they're against.

Yes, the 1% is a problem. But a hard problem to solve. Because everything is connected. Nothing a bunch of potheads fingering eachother in tents is going to solve. The OWS was a vacuous movement. Just teenage angst without a clear target.

The government ousting them from public spaces, which they were clearly obstructing, is not the government oppressing people. We can't have a society where people can squat on any lawn they fancy without paying for it. Land is valuable. People who have bought expensive properties have every reason to be annoyed. It's not fair just leaving them be. That's why they eventually were ousted. It was no other reason.

Your ignorance of that movement is no argument.

The salient point is they were violently attacked by the government all over the place.

THAT is a REAL problem.

Unlike this meaningless nonsense at Berkley.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

More on the Black Bloc: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-black-bloc-20170212-story.html