Berkeley "liberals" contra free speech

[untermensche]

This one deplorable not being allowed to speak at one institution is about as small a problem as could possibly exist.

Like Jolly Penguin said. You're rewarding violence. It won't stop. It'll get worse. And the people using violence to suppress uncomfortable opinions are never the good guys.

That's hysterical.

In the sense of being the raving of a hysteric.

Nobody was rewarded. Everybody lost.

But in terms of real world problems this was about as small and insignificant as you can get.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You can drown people with water. I once threw a cup of water at a car, it did not drown the driver.

Amazing how absolutes work.

Free speech and the feeling of safety and freedom are incredibly fragile. So easy to fuck up. And human society will always strive toward violence and anarchy. This has to be an ever on-going project. And we have fucked it up in the past. The mechanics are well understood.

I'm a liberal. I hang out in lefty environments. These people say the most extreme and horrendous things all the time, and stand completely unopposed. And they think it makes sense. I've no interest getting pulled into debates around people I just party with. So I keep my mouth shut. So this self censorship is already a reality where I live. I'm feeling it.

And I remember the difference from the 90'ies. A completely different atmosphere. There was also self censorship going on. In some circles one didn't want to come across as too gay friendly. The oppressors were the conservatives. As is traditional. But now the pendulum has swung completely over to the other side. And Trump getting elected is a reaction to this. When it comes to political correctness having gone out of control, Trump does have a point IMHO

 

[LordKiran]

This one deplorable not being allowed to speak at one institution is about as small a problem as could possibly exist.

Like Jolly Penguin said. You're rewarding violence. It won't stop. It'll get worse. And the people using violence to suppress uncomfortable opinions are never the good guys.

There's another word for violence used in the employ of politics. Terrorism. Condoning this gives a free pass to KKK, ISIS and any other mob who picks violence instead of working on their arguments.

You're supporting terrorism and you think that's a good thing. I think it's pretty huge when that's become mainstream. History has taught us that publicly condoned political violence has a predicable outcome. I think this poem is apt:

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

This is the world you are creating. Enjoy

This of course, relies on assumptions that the rioters were trying to shut down or oppose Milo, and that they weren't instead right-leaning agitators trying to discredit the protesters.

Not that I'm saying one or the other is necessarily the truth, but seriously DZ you shouldn't just make assumptions like that.

 

[untermensche]

You can drown people with water. I once threw a cup of water at a car, it did not drown the driver.

Amazing how absolutes work.

Free speech and the feeling of safety and freedom are incredibly fragile. So easy to fuck up. And human society will always strive toward violence and anarchy. This has to be an ever on-going project. And we have fucked it up in the past. The mechanics are well understood.

I'm a liberal. I hang out in lefty environments. These people say the most extreme and horrendous things all the time, and stand completely unopposed. And they think it makes sense. I've no interest getting pulled into debates around people I just party with. So I keep my mouth shut. So this self censorship is already a reality where I live. I'm feeling it.

And I remember the difference from the 90'ies. A completely different atmosphere. There was also self censorship going on. In some circles one didn't want to come across as too gay friendly. The oppressors were the conservatives. As is traditional. But now the pendulum has swung completely over to the other side. And Trump getting elected is a reaction to this. When it comes to political correctness having gone out of control, Trump does have a point IMHO

Utter nonsense.

No pendulum has swung.

The right is just as authoritarian as it always has been.

A few college students do not represent the left in the US.

That is a right-wing alt-fact.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You're completely confused about what happened. Berkeley uninvited him because they feared violence and reprisals.

Berkeley did not invite him, the College Republicans invited him. Violence was already happening, it wasn't a fear of violence. It was violence. That's why the event was cancelled. There is no ban on him speaking again.

 

[untermensche]

You're completely confused about what happened. Berkeley uninvited him because they feared violence and reprisals.

Berkeley did not invite him, the College Republicans invited him. Violence was already happening, it wasn't a fear of violence. It was violence. That's why the event was cancelled. There is no ban on him speaking again.

No ban means no censorship.

Just because a place is unprepared for potential violence, from who knows where, at one time that doesn't mean they can't be better prepared in the future.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Like Jolly Penguin said. You're rewarding violence. It won't stop. It'll get worse. And the people using violence to suppress uncomfortable opinions are never the good guys.

There's another word for violence used in the employ of politics. Terrorism. Condoning this gives a free pass to KKK, ISIS and any other mob who picks violence instead of working on their arguments.

You're supporting terrorism and you think that's a good thing. I think it's pretty huge when that's become mainstream. History has taught us that publicly condoned political violence has a predicable outcome. I think this poem is apt:

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

This is the world you are creating. Enjoy

This of course, relies on assumptions that the rioters were trying to shut down or oppose Milo, and that they weren't instead right-leaning agitators trying to discredit the protesters.

Not that I'm saying one or the other is necessarily the truth, but seriously DZ you shouldn't just make assumptions like that.

It doesn't matter. We lose either way. What matters is that somebody used the threat of violence and succeeded.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It doesn't matter. We lose either way. What matters is that somebody used the threat of violence and succeeded.

But isn't that essentially what Milo does?

 

[untermensche]

It doesn't matter. We lose either way. What matters is that somebody used the threat of violence and succeeded.

Give me a break.

We have people going hungry, people without healthcare.

We have a shrinking middle-class and shrinking opportunity.

We are racing towards environmental catastrophe.

Just because this one guy with bad ideas couldn't talk at one place, the sky is not falling.

What a bunch of insane whiners.

 

[dismal]

I don't see how anyone could read this thread and not come away with the impression "liberals" are totally against anti-speech violence.

The full-throated and unqualified condemnation of the violence and support for Milo's free speech rights on display here shows the finest in "liberal" support for basic free speech, nay, dare I say, human rights.

 

[LordKiran]

This of course, relies on assumptions that the rioters were trying to shut down or oppose Milo, and that they weren't instead right-leaning agitators trying to discredit the protesters.

Not that I'm saying one or the other is necessarily the truth, but seriously DZ you shouldn't just make assumptions like that.

It doesn't matter. We lose either way. What matters is that somebody used the threat of violence and succeeded.

What matters is what we do about it in the future. I'd argue Berkley didn't have any reason to think it would turn violent so you can't exactly fault them for it.

 

[Elixir]

There is no ban on him speaking again.

YET.
Just wait until CA secedes, and invokes a retaliatory ban on all Republicans entering the Country of California without "extreme vetting"!

 

[LordKiran]

There is no ban on him speaking again.

YET.
Just wait until CA secedes, and invokes a retaliatory ban on all Republicans entering the Country of California without "extreme vetting"!

What an obnoxious thought. Rather than entertaining these flights of succession fancy, people's efforts would be better spent fighting the Trump government.

 

[laughing dog]

It is unfortunate that his scheduled speech was cancelled because of violence. But that is not censorship since he can speak and say whatever he pleases in print and the internet and to who interviews him.

The OP equating these anarchists with "liberals" is an example of the alt-snowflake reactions.

BTW, if this speech had been permitted and if there was damage, would everyone agree that the isponsors (i.e. the College Republicans) should be held liable for damages since they had inadequate security?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It is unfortunate that his scheduled speech was cancelled because of violence. But that is not censorship since he can speak and say whatever he pleases in print and the internet and to who interviews him.

The OP equating these anarchists with "liberals" is an example of the alt-snowflake reactions.

BTW, if this speech had been permitted and if there was damage, would everyone agree that the isponsors (i.e. the College Republicans) should be held liable for damages since they had inadequate security?

No, the people who caused the damage should be held liable. This is mainly because they're the ones who did it.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It is unfortunate that his scheduled speech was cancelled because of violence. But that is not censorship since he can speak and say whatever he pleases in print and the internet and to who interviews him.

The OP equating these anarchists with "liberals" is an example of the alt-snowflake reactions.

BTW, if this speech had been permitted and if there was damage, would everyone agree that the isponsors (i.e. the College Republicans) should be held liable for damages since they had inadequate security?

I wouldn't hold them responsible for destruction cause by others.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And I remember the difference from the 90'ies. A completely different atmosphere. There was also self censorship going on. In some circles one didn't want to come across as too gay friendly. The oppressors were the conservatives. As is traditional. But now the pendulum has swung completely over to the other side. And Trump getting elected is a reaction to this. When it comes to political correctness having gone out of control, Trump does have a point IMHO

So true. I recall being called "fag" and "Gaylord" just for speaking in favour of equality for gay people and against bullying. The idea was to pressure me to feel some sort of guilt by association. Now I get the same from some on the left, only now I am called "racist" and "bigot" for wanting to hear out people on the right and treat them fairly.

The caricatures people make of those they oppose (or think they oppose) are totally out of hand, and I see little hope of that changing given the echo chambers so many now have their minds in.

 

[Sarpedon]

We are not making caricatures of these people.

They have done that themselves.

They are loathed, because they have made themselves loathsome.

I am all for freedom of expression. I am also for freedom of association. If someone expresses vile ideas to the point where I don't want to associate with them, they can't say their freedom of expression shields them from this consequence.

And there comes a point when someone is so loathsome society will cease associating with them. Ultimately, this is the limit of freedom of expression.

 

[blastula]

It does address your points.

You made a very bad analogy that has no connection.

I put it in perspective for you.

No. Nobody's right to publish anything was infringed when papers opted not to publish the cartoons either. They simply cowtowed to violence, just as the school did here. And the cartoonists had no right to force the papers to publish the cartoons just as Milo has no right to force the school to not uninvite here.

The main difference is that the cartoons were not already set to be published by the papers before the violence and Milo was set to speak at the university before the violence. So if anything my analogy is underdone, not over reaching.

And the point stands that in both cases the papers and the university were legally entitled to be the cowards and encouragers of violence that they proved themselves to be.

The school didn't kowtow. They did the responsible thing. Violence was occurring hours before the event. It would have been negligent for them to let it go on, unless they could reasonably guarantee everyone's safety.

 

[Elixir]

No. Nobody's right to publish anything was infringed when papers opted not to publish the cartoons either. They simply cowtowed to violence, just as the school did here. And the cartoonists had no right to force the papers to publish the cartoons just as Milo has no right to force the school to not uninvite here.

The main difference is that the cartoons were not already set to be published by the papers before the violence and Milo was set to speak at the university before the violence. So if anything my analogy is underdone, not over reaching.

And the point stands that in both cases the papers and the university were legally entitled to be the cowards and encouragers of violence that they proved themselves to be.

The school didn't kowtow. They did the responsible thing. Violence was occurring hours before the event. It would have been negligent for them to let it go on, unless they could reasonably guarantee everyone's safety.

I wonder how may of those anarchists were on Bannon's payroll...