Berkeley "liberals" contra free speech

[DrZoidberg]

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.

But people become apathetic when goals are obscure or if the goals are unrealistic. OWS suffered from both. They're were clearly both for and against capitalism. But in a very mixed bag and they didn't really agree on much. That breeds frustration which breeds apathy. They just did it wrong. OWS was total bullshit. And that is coming from somebody (me) who totally agrees with the over-arching goal. I think the ever concentrating wealth in the 1% is a problem. Now all they need to do is come up with an idea to solve that problem and I might start to listen. Just being very angry about something does not solve anything.

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.

[---]

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.)

Now you're missing the point. Political protests is a tool. In a democratic society it's a very specific tool. Tools can only fix problems they were designed for. Laws govern democratic states. Unless the goal is to change a very specific law or sets of laws, then get the fuck off the lawn.

If you want to spread vague ideals then there's better ways to do it then smoking weed in tents on public property.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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

The main objection to Yiannopoulos could be that he is obnoxiousness.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Fuck that. Ad-walled.

 

[Potoooooooo]

Who is Milo Yiannopoulos?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Who is Milo Yiannopoulos?

He would only be offended because his passion is black men and not bikers

However if you described one of the LGBT persons in that way there would be claims of homophobia and bias. Yes/No.

 

[DrZoidberg]

He would only be offended because his passion is black men and not bikers

However if you described one of the LGBT persons in that way there would be claims of homophobia and bias. Yes/No.

I reacted to the same. It's like if anybody in any minority would ever dare leave the left liberal camp it's now suddenly kosher for liberals to have a go at them just like any conservative redneck would. I've seen it many times. Always as distressing. Because it shows how much liberal values often are thin thin varnish on top of good ol' racist homophobia. I'm not saying liberals are worse than conservatives. I don't. But there's just so much in the left that is performance. Opinions for show. No shit Trump won. Liberals are strangling themselves with their own pc bullshit.

 

[whichphilosophy]

He would only be offended because his passion is black men and not bikers

However if you described one of the LGBT persons in that way there would be claims of homophobia and bias. Yes/No.

I reacted to the same. It's like if anybody in any minority would ever dare leave the left liberal camp it's now suddenly kosher for liberals to have a go at them just like any conservative redneck would. I've seen it many times. Always as distressing. Because it shows how much liberal values often are thin thin varnish on top of good ol' racist homophobia. I'm not saying liberals are worse than conservatives. I don't. But there's just so much in the left that is performance. Opinions for show. No shit Trump won. Liberals are strangling themselves with their own pc bullshit.

Exactly. Trump has his Loony Tunes and the Democrats has its Loony Tunes. the problem for the Democrats is theirs are more vocal. Madonna talking about how she dreamed about blowing up the White House is just one of the asinine comments that would turn such demonstrations into a farce.

I was checking the Internet. The Muslim Civil rights under Linda Sasour do not appear to have raised a single issue about women's rights in Islamic countries such as Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the treatment of Yazidi women, and force wearing of the veil.

Trumps vile comments are also matched with Linda he made these against an Atheist ex Muslim activist in the USA who makes interesting points, though I only agree with some of what she says.

Certainly such comments are worse than Donald's. I won't repeat them as they are quite bad but can be seen here

https://twitter.com/LaloDagach/status/826989429554368512Sasour's.

 

[untermensche]

Trump has his Loony Tunes and the Democrats has its Loony Tunes. the problem for the Democrats is theirs are more vocal.

Trump supporters are racist ignorant xenophobes. Not Loony Tunes.

And who knows who these violent protestors at Berkley were?

To say they are Democrats, or even on the left, is a wild unsupported guess and shows more about prejudices than evidence.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Trump has his Loony Tunes and the Democrats has its Loony Tunes. the problem for the Democrats is theirs are more vocal.

Trump supporters are racist ignorant xenophobes. Not Loony Tunes.

And who knows who these violent protestors at Berkley were?

To say they are Democrats, or even on the left, is a wild unsupported guess and shows more about prejudices than evidence.

It doesn't matter. What matter is that the university caved in for fear of violence. It doesn't matter where the violence came from. A speech had been booked. And because of fears of violence they cancelled the speaker. It was the fear of violence.

It doesn't matter that it's private property and they can book whoever they want. They had one opinion. Then changed the opinion because they feared violence.

People who change their behaviour because of fear of violence are not free to express themselves.

In a free society anybody in that society are empowered to express themselves. In a not free society they aren't. That should epecially apply to people with impopular beliefs.

 

[untermensche]

Trump supporters are racist ignorant xenophobes. Not Loony Tunes.

And who knows who these violent protestors at Berkley were?

To say they are Democrats, or even on the left, is a wild unsupported guess and shows more about prejudices than evidence.

It doesn't matter. What matter is that the university caved in for fear of violence. It doesn't matter where the violence came from. A speech had been booked. And because of fears of violence they cancelled the speaker. It was the fear of violence.

It doesn't matter that it's private property and they can book whoever they want. They had one opinion. Then changed the opinion because they feared violence.

People who change their behaviour because of fear of violence are not free to express themselves.

In a free society anybody in that society are empowered to express themselves. In a not free society they aren't. That should epecially apply to people with impopular beliefs.

Again, what really matters is when the government shuts down protest violently. As happened all the time with OWS.

What matters very little is that one speaker could not speak at one University. It gained him more than it cost him.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Trump has his Loony Tunes and the Democrats has its Loony Tunes. the problem for the Democrats is theirs are more vocal.

Trump supporters are racist ignorant xenophobes. Not Loony Tunes.

And who knows who these violent protestors at Berkley were?

To say they are Democrats, or even on the left, is a wild unsupported guess and shows more about prejudices than evidence.

The Loony Tunes attached to the Democrats are not necessary Democrats and likewise Republicans. The violent demonstrators are usually Anarchists riding piggy back.

 

[zorq]

Trump supporters are racist ignorant xenophobes. Not Loony Tunes.

And who knows who these violent protestors at Berkley were?

To say they are Democrats, or even on the left, is a wild unsupported guess and shows more about prejudices than evidence.

It doesn't matter. What matter is that the university caved in for fear of violence. It doesn't matter where the violence came from. A speech had been booked. And because of fears of violence they cancelled the speaker. It was the fear of violence.

It doesn't matter that it's private property and they can book whoever they want. They had one opinion. Then changed the opinion because they feared violence.

People who change their behaviour because of fear of violence are not free to express themselves.

In a free society anybody in that society are empowered to express themselves. In a not free society they aren't. That should epecially apply to people with impopular beliefs.

You need to re evaluate your priorities. A good government(or entity of any type) values both the safety
of people AND their freedom.

Suppose you were king and you were given a choice from your enemy. Prevent one person in one place from speaking one time OR let one of your citizens die. Even if you knew that the killer would be caught and face justice, is that one temporary freedom of one person worth the permanent life of the other?

You don't need to answer this hypothetical. Just remember that despite what Ben Franklin had to say on the subject, safety and freedom are both important. And IMO a wise ruler will weigh each and make a compromise.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It doesn't matter. What matter is that the university caved in for fear of violence. It doesn't matter where the violence came from. A speech had been booked. And because of fears of violence they cancelled the speaker. It was the fear of violence.

It doesn't matter that it's private property and they can book whoever they want. They had one opinion. Then changed the opinion because they feared violence.

People who change their behaviour because of fear of violence are not free to express themselves.

In a free society anybody in that society are empowered to express themselves. In a not free society they aren't. That should epecially apply to people with impopular beliefs.

You need to re evaluate your priorities. A good government(or entity of any type) values both the safety
of people AND their freedom.

Suppose you were king and you were given a choice from your enemy. Prevent one person in one place from speaking one time OR let one of your citizens die. Even if you knew that the killer would be caught and face justice, is that one temporary freedom of one person worth the permanent life of the other?

You don't need to answer this hypothetical. Just remember that despite what Ben Franklin had to say on the subject, safety and freedom are both important. And IMO a wise ruler will weigh each and make a compromise.

Ok, then. Why do you think Ben Franklin was wrong?

 

[untermensche]

Trump supporters are racist ignorant xenophobes. Not Loony Tunes.

And who knows who these violent protestors at Berkley were?

To say they are Democrats, or even on the left, is a wild unsupported guess and shows more about prejudices than evidence.

The Loony Tunes attached to the Democrats are not necessary Democrats and likewise Republicans. The violent demonstrators are usually Anarchists riding piggy back.

They are people who call themselves anarchists.

Who and what they are is not known.

It is clear that all some thug has to do is say they are an anarchist and many condemn the left as if mindless robots born yesterday.

True Anarchists are not likely to be part of a mob, they are highly individualistic.

And most see non-violent resistance as the only hope in today's world where the power of the government over the people is so much greater than it was in 1776. Violent resistance to most Anarchists is seen as counter-productive and merely a way to lose any credibility and give the government license to use violence in response.

Anybody can call themselves an Anarchist or a Muslim. It doesn't mean they represent the group or ideals of the group as a whole at all.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

He would only be offended because his passion is black men and not bikers

However if you described one of the LGBT persons in that way there would be claims of homophobia and bias. Yes/No.

The LGBLT Q lobby needs a better name. The letters keep increasing and looking more and more like a bad sandwich.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It doesn't matter. What matter is that the university caved in for fear of violence. It doesn't matter where the violence came from. A speech had been booked. And because of fears of violence they cancelled the speaker. It was the fear of violence.

It doesn't matter that it's private property and they can book whoever they want. They had one opinion. Then changed the opinion because they feared violence.

People who change their behaviour because of fear of violence are not free to express themselves.

In a free society anybody in that society are empowered to express themselves. In a not free society they aren't. That should epecially apply to people with impopular beliefs.

You need to re evaluate your priorities. A good government(or entity of any type) values both the safety
of people AND their freedom.

Suppose you were king and you were given a choice from your enemy. Prevent one person in one place from speaking one time OR let one of your citizens die. Even if you knew that the killer would be caught and face justice, is that one temporary freedom of one person worth the permanent life of the other?

You don't need to answer this hypothetical. Just remember that despite what Ben Franklin had to say on the subject, safety and freedom are both important. And IMO a wise ruler will weigh each and make a compromise.

There are no issues of allowing speakers who express different views, where no violence was advocated. The only aggression was is from Anarchists and those who censor speech to suppress views different to their own.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

www.chronicle.com/article/An-Internet-Troll-Is-Invited/239170

I just want to be very clear about that, because that’s an important distinction that is getting lost in all this. Just yesterday in Inside Higher Ed there were reports of increased incidences of neo-Nazi posters and fliers on campuses that never had him as a speaker. I mean, clearly this brought things to a head, but I do not think that if we hadn’t had him on campus then we would be free of the same kinds of situations that other campuses are dealing with all over the country.

These groups have been emboldened. I’ve taught a class on stereotypes and prejudice, and those things can be activated without a whole lot of effort. I can send you some studies. What we have is a situation in which election rhetoric ran very high, immigrants were talked about as potential rapists. All those kinds of things have activated a lot of our worst impulses. And we’re going to have to struggle with how to get those back in the box.

 

[untermensche]

The LGBLT Q lobby needs a better name. The letters keep increasing and looking more and more like a bad sandwich.

The name is called human.

But these people are fighting against the idea that they are somehow a lower form. Deprived rights all humans should have.

Deprivation of rights begins when harm is done. Not through consensual non-harmful behavior.

 

[untermensche]

There are no issues of allowing speakers who express different views, where no violence was advocated. The only aggression was from Anarchists and those who oppose the expression of views different to their own.

You should get slapped every time you say that.

True Anarchists don't act like this.

But anybody can call themselves an anarchist.

And you will gladly spread their lie.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Suppose you were king and you were given a choice from your enemy. Prevent one person in one place from speaking one time OR let one of your citizens die. Even if you knew that the killer would be caught and face justice, is that one temporary freedom of one person worth the permanent life of the other?

It isn't about one speech one time. The university has now sent the message that the next time anybody wants a speaker not to speak, violence is the answer. This doesnt prevent further violence. This encourages further violence.